Long live the king and long may he reign, so goes the traditional proclamation. In Tonga, King Tupou VI has shown he has every intention of doing that.
After a tumultuous and tense year of the chess board of politics, the monarch appears to have won, with ordinary citizens and democratic rule taking a backward step.
With the swearing in of Tonga’s new cabinet, including the appointment of his son Crown Prince Tupouto’a ‘Ulukalaka from outside Parliament to the defence and foreign affairs portfolios, the king has triumphed.
It’s almost 12 months since the king withdrew “confidence and consent” in then prime minister Siaosi Sovaleni, as armed forces minister, along with Fekita ‘Utoikamanu, the country’s first female foreign affairs minister. The move appeared to overstep the reduced royal powers outlined in the country’s 2010 constitution.
No details for the withdrawal of confidence and consent were disclosed. Noticeably neither Sovaleni or ‘Ulukalaka are aristocrats and the roles of foreign affairs and defense have traditionally been held by a male noble or members of the royal family.
Last February, Tupou VI acted against Sovaleni while he was overseas, seeking medical treatment. His cabinet responded by rejecting the king’s position, issuing a legal opinion from Tonga’s attorney general stating it was “contrary” to the constitution.
One thing seemed to be clear, that Tupou VI was reasserting his role in the affairs of state in a way not seen since the constitutional reform in 2010.
King has his way
A year later, and the king has had his way. Solaveni stood down as prime minister on Christmas Eve as he faced a no confidence motion in Parliament. It would likely have passed with the support of a bloc of noble MPs, appointed by the king, allied with opposition members.
Now Tonga faces an uncertain nine months with newly elected Prime Minister ‘Aisake Eke at the reins until elections in November. The 65-year-old was formally appointed by Tupou VI as Tonga’s 19th prime minister at the Nuku’alofa Palace, after he was elected by Parliament in December.
The much awaited announcement of who would be in cabinet was delayed several times, with the process of getting the king to approve each minister taking much longer than usual or expected.
The prime minister has the power to recommend up to four people outside parliament to his ministry, and he did, including the crown prince. He also recommended two women — ‘Ana ‘Akau’ola as Minister of Health and Sinaitakala Tu’itahi as Minister of Internal Affairs — the most ever in cabinet.
Tonga in 2010 amended its constitution to remove many of the monarch’s powers and allowed elections after more than 150 years of absolute rule. The move to greater democracy occurred with the cooperation of the then monarch George V.
The nation of about 107,000 people is the only Pacific island nation with an Indigenous monarch.
Previously, the monarch had almost absolute power with the right to appoint the prime minister, cabinet ministers and members of parliament, except nine MPs elected as the peoples’ representatives.
King retains some powers
Under the new constitution, cabinet ministers are appointed or removed by the king on the prime minister’s recommendation, or a vote of no confidence in Parliament. But the king — defined as a sacred person in Tonga’s constitution — retained some powers including veto over government legislation and the right to appoint about a third of Parliament’s members, who are nobles.
Another major constitutional change was to increase the number of elected people’s representatives from nine to 17, while the number of noble representatives remained at nine. This meant that if the people’s representatives could stand together on any issue, they could form a majority and dominate the 26-seat chamber.
But that has not often been the case in the past 15 years, with the people’s representatives at odds with each other. As a result the nobles have held the balance of power, as in the recent standoff in Parliament over the proposed vote of no confidence that led to the eventual resignation of Sovaleni.
The group of MPs that came together to eventually force his exit were not united by a political vision, and were not so much “pro-Eke” as “anti-Sovaleni.”
Seven of the nine nobles voting against then former prime minister Sovaleni in December was a clear sign of the involvement of the king in this latest political turmoil. The nobles almost always act in Parliament according to what they understand as “the wish of His Majesty.”
“I hope there will be a time when we’ll work together,” he said pointedly, acknowledging the noble representatives.
‘There’s still enslavement’
“I thought this land had been granted freedom, but there’s still enslavement,” Sovaleni continued through tears. He added that he was quitting “for the good of the country and moving Tonga forward.”
Sovaleni suggested that the people’s representatives should see this as an opportunity to collaborate. “If the nobles can pull themselves together, I don’t know why can’t we overcome our differences,” he said.
Eke after his election travelled to New Zealand for an audience with the king, but the king decided to take his time. What used to be a prompt and routine formality to swear in the government and cabinet was delayed. And a month later the king now has what he sought in February last year.
The late George V declared that the 2010 reform was to make Tonga “more democratic”. Despite these changes, Tonga’s taste of democracy under his brother has, in the past 15 years, been a bitter-sweet journey that started with good intentions, but has now turned from bad to ugly.
Tongan-born Kalafi Moala has been a journalist and author for 35 years, establishing the country’s first independent newspaper, Taimi ‘o Tonga, writing on the country’s social, cultural and political history, and campaigning for media freedom at home and in the Pacific region. This article was first published by BenarNews and is republished with permission.
We were polarised by the United States last week, but in the same way that a windscreen wiper distracts you from the rain, our Pacific news cycle and local coconut wireless became dominated by a whirlwind of speculation after New Zealand’s Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters announced a review of New Zealand’s aid to Kiribati.
This followed what was perceived as a snub by our President Taneti Maamau.
The New Zealand media, in its typical fashion, seized the opportunity to patronise Kiribati, and the familiar whispers about Chinese influence began to circulate.
Amidst this media manufactured drama, I found myself reflecting on “that” recent experience which offered stark contrast to the geopolitical noise.
We had the privilege of attending the ordination of a Catholic Priest in Onotoa, where the true spirit of Kiribati was exemplified in the splendour of simplicity. Despite limited resources, the island community, representing various faiths, came together to celebrate this sacred event with unparalleled joy, hilariousness and hospitality from silent hands that blessed you with love.
Hands that built thatched huts for us to sleep in, wove mats, cooked food, made pillows and hung bananas in maneabas to provide for guests from all over Kiribati and Nauru. Our President, himself a Protestant, had prioritised and actively participated, embodying by example, the unity and peace that Bishop Simon Mani so eloquently spoke of.
We laughed, we cried, and we felt the spirit of our loving God.
Spirit of harmony
That spirit of harmony and hope we carried from recent experiences felt shaken overnight by news of New Zealand’s potential aid withdrawal. Social media in Kiribati erupted with questions and concerns, fuelled by an article claiming that New Zealand was halting aid due to President Maamau “snubbing” of Deputy Prime Minister Peters.
Importantly: President Maamau would never in a millennium intentionally “snub” New Zealand or any foreign minister. The reality is far more nuanced.
At the end of 2024, President Maamau announced to his Cabinet Ministers that he would delegate international bilateral engagements to Vice-President Dr Teuea Toatu or other Ministers and Ambassadors appropriately. Thereby enabling him to focus intently on domestic matters, including the workplan for our national necessities outlined in the KV20 vision and 149 deliverables of his party manifesto.
NZ’s Foreign Minister Winston Peters . . . his spat with Kiribati described as a “storm in a teacup”. Image: RNZ/Reece Baker
While the Vice-President was prepared to receive the New Zealand delegation, it seems Minister Peters was insistent on meeting with the President himself, leading to the cancellation of his trip.
This insistence on bypassing established protocol is not only unusual but also, well let’s just say it with as much love as possible: It’s disrespectful to Kiribati’s sovereignty.
It is also worth noting that the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia recently visited Kiribati and engaged with the Vice-President and Cabinet Ministers without any such reluctance.
New Zealand’s subsequent announcement of an aid review, including a potential threat to the $2 million funded RSE scheme, has understandably caused serious anxiety in Kiribati.
Devastating impact
The potential loss of funding for critical sectors like health, education, fisheries, economic development and climate resilience would of course have a devastating impact on our people.
After committing $102 million between 2021-2024 these are major threats to public health where $20 million was invested in initiatives like rebuilding the Betio Hospital, training doctors, building clinics, NCD strategic planning and more, $10 million in education, $4 million in developing the fisheries sector, it’s an expansive and highly impactful list of critical support for capacity strengthening to our country.
While New Zealand has every right to review its aid programme to Kiribati or any developing country, it is crucial that these kinds of decisions are based on genuine development processes and not used as a tool for political pressure.
Linking Pacific aid to access to political leaders sets a questionable precedent and undermines the principles of partnership, mutual respect and “mana” that underpins the inextricably linked relationships between Pacific nations.
The reference to potential impacts on I-Kiribati workers in New Zealand under the RSE scheme is particularly concerning. These hardworking individuals contribute significantly to the New Zealand economy in a mutually beneficial arrangement.
We deserve to be treated with fairness and respect, not weaponised to cut at the heart of what drives our political motivations — providing for our people, who are providing for our children.
Despite this unfortunate situation, I believe that dialogue and understanding along with truth and love will prevail.
Greater humility needed
In the spirit of the “effectiveness, inclusiveness, resilience, and sustainability” that upholds New Zealand’s own development principles, we should all revisit this issue with greater humility and a commitment to resolving such misunderstandings.
As a New Zealand-born, Australian/Tuvaluan, I-Kiribati politician representing the largest constituency in Kiribati, I have zero pride or ego and will never be too proud to beg for the needs of the people I serve, who placed their faith in a government that would put them first.
We would love to host Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters and a New Zealand government delegation in Kiribati, and we are indescribably grateful for the kinds of support provided since we gained independence in 1979. Our history stretches back even further than that, when New Zealand’s agricultural industry was nourished by phosphate from Banaba, and we continue to treasure the intertwined links between our nations.
Let us prioritise cooperation and mutual respect over ego and political posturing. Let’s drink fresh coconuts and eat raw fish together and talk about how we can change the world by changing ourselves first.
The “tea party” of Pacific partnership must continue to strengthen, and deepen, ESPECIALLY when challenged to overcome misunderstandings. It should always be one where Pacific voices are heard and respected lovingly, while we work towards a collective vision of health, peace and prosperity for all.
But if development diplomacy ever fails, we’ll remember that I-Kiribati people are some of the most determined and resilient on this planet. Our ancestors navigated to these “isolated isles of the Pacific” surrounded by 3.5 million km of ocean and found “Tungaru” which means “a place of JOY”.
We arrived in this world with nothing, and we’ll leave it with nothing, and we get to live our whole lives not feeling sorry for ourselves in this island paradise of ours, this place of joy, where we are wealthy in ways that money cannot buy.
We will survive
Ruth Maryanne Cross Kwansing was elected an independent member of Parliament in Kiribati in 2024. She later joined the Tobwaan Kiribati Party.
In a fervent appeal to the global community, Prime Minister James Marape of Papua New Guinea has called on US President Donald Trump to “rethink” his decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement and current global climate initiatives.
Marape’s plea came during the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting held in Davos, Switzerland, on 23 January 2025.
Expressing deep concern for the impacts of climate change on Papua New Guinea and other vulnerable Pacific Island nations, Marape highlighted the dire consequences these nations face due to rising sea levels and increasingly severe weather patterns.
“The effects of climate change are not just theoretical for us; they have real, devastating impacts on our fragile economies and our way of life,” he said.
The Prime Minister emphasised that while it was within President Trump’s prerogative to prioritise American interests, withdrawing the United States — the second-largest emitter of carbon dioxide– from the Paris Agreement without implementing measures to curtail coal power production was “totally irresponsible”, Marape said.
“As a leader of a major forest and ocean nation in the Pacific region, I urge President Trump to reconsider his decision.”
He went on to point out the contradiction in the US stance.
US not closing coal plants
“The United States is not shutting down any of its coal power plants yet has chosen to withdraw from critical climate efforts. This is fundamentally irresponsible.
“The science regarding our warming planet is clear — it does not lie,” he said.
Marape further articulated that as the “Leader of the Free World,” Trump had a moral obligation to engage with global climate issues.
PNG Prime Minister James Marape’s plea to President Trump. Video: PNGTV
“It is morally wrong for President Trump to disregard the pressing challenges of climate change.
He must articulate how he intends to address this critical issue,” he added, stressing that effective global leaders had a responsibility not only to their own nations but also to the planet as a whole.
In a bid to advocate for small island nations that are bearing the brunt of climate impacts, PM Marape announced plans to bring this issue to the upcoming Pacific Islands Forum (PIF).
He hopes to unify the voices of PIF member countries in a collective statement regarding the US withdrawal from climate negotiations.
US revived Pacific relations
“The United States has recently revitalised its relations with the Pacific. It is discouraging to see it retreating from climate discussions that significantly affect our region’s efforts to mitigate climate change,” he said.
Prime Minister Marape reminded the international community that while larger nations might have the capacity to withstand extreme weather events such as typhoons, wildfires, and tornadoes, smaller nations like Papua New Guinea could not endure such impacts.
“For us, every storm and rising tide represents a potential crisis. Big nations can afford to navigate these challenges, but for us, the stakes are incredibly high,” he said.
Marape’s appeal underscores the urgent need for collaborative and sustained global action to combat climate change, particularly for nations like Papua New Guinea, which are disproportionately affected by environmental change.
16 Just Stop Oil supporters are appealing their draconian sentences at the Court of Appeal today and tomorrow. The mass appeal concerns 16 political prisoners with combined sentences of 41 years handed down between July and September 2024. They are known as the Lord Walney 16. On Thursday, the second day of the hearing, at noon, the campaign group Defend Our Juries will stage a lawful and…
Implementation of Israel’s ban on the UN Palestinian relief agency UNRWA will be disastrous, the aid agency’s chief has told the Security Council, saying Israel’s actions jeopardise “any prospect of peace”.
The ban is set to come into force tomorrow after months of an intensified Israeli campaign against UNRWA, which it has claimed supports terrorism without providing evidence.
“In two days, our operations in the occupied Palestinian territory will be crippled,” UNRWA Commissioner-General Philippe Lazzarini told the 15-member Security Council.
UNRWA chief Philippe Lazzarini . . . “In two days, our operations in the occupied Palestinian territory will be crippled.” Image: UN
“Full implementation of the Knesset legislation will be disastrous.”
Lazzarini also slammed Israel’s “propaganda” campaign against UNRWA, which has seen Tel Aviv invest in billboards in major cities and Google Ads.
“The absurdity of anti-UNRWA propaganda does not diminish the threat it poses to our staff, especially those in the occupied West Bank and in Gaza — where 273of our colleagues have been killed,” he said.
Seven European nations jointly condemn Israel
Seven European Union countries — Belgium, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, Norway, Slovenia, and Spain — have told the UN Security Council they “deeply deplore” Israel’s decision to shut down UNRWA’s operations in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem.
In a joint statement, they condemned Israel’s withdrawal from its 1967 agreement with UNRWA and any efforts to obstruct its UN-mandated work.
The group also called for the suspension of Israeli laws banning the agency, arguing they violate international law and the UN Charter.
The “non-suspenders” – – in #UNSC meeting on #UNRWA:
We deeply deplore the adoption by the Israeli Knesset of legislation aimed at abolishing UNRWA’s activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
UNRWA remains more essential than ever. https://t.co/Ihp5pmdf3zpic.twitter.com/SSBiaYlZAT
However, Israel vowed at the UN to push ahead with the controversial ban.
“UNRWA must cease its operations and evacuate all premises it operates in Jerusalem, including the properties located in Maalot Dafna and Kafr Aqab,” Israel’s UN Ambassador Danny Danon told the council.
“Israel will terminate all collaboration, communication and contact with UNRWA or anyone acting on its behalf,” he said.
UNRWA said operations in the Gaza Strip and West Bank will also suffer. It provides aid, health and education services to millions in the Palestinian territories and neighbouring Arab countries of Syria, Lebanon and Jordan.
‘Irresponsible’ UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and the Security Council have described UNRWA as the backbone of the humanitarian aid response in Gaza, which has been decimated by 15 months of Israel’s war on the enclave.
The United States, under new President Donald Trump, supports what it called Israel’s “sovereign right” to close UNRWA’s offices in occupied east Jerusalem, acting US Ambassador to the UN Dorothy Shea told the Security Council.
Under Trump predecessor Joe Biden, the United States provided military support for Israel’s war, but urged Israel to pause implementation of the law against UNRWA.
“UNRWA exaggerating the effects of the laws and suggesting that they will force the entire humanitarian response to halt is irresponsible and dangerous,” Shea said.
“What is needed is a nuanced discussion about how we can ensure that there is no interruption in the delivery of humanitarian aid and essential services,” she said.
“UNRWA is not and never has been the only option for providing humanitarian assistance in Gaza,” she said.
Other agencies working in Gaza and the West Bank include the children’s organisation UNICEF, the World Food Programme, the World Health Organization and the UN Development Programme.
Who fills the gap? But the UN has repeatedly said there is no alternative to UNRWA and that it would be Israel’s responsibility to replace its services. Israel, whose creation in 1948 was preceded by the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their homeland during the Nakba, rejected that it was responsible for replacing UNRWA’s services.
“Since October 2023, we have delivered two-thirds of all food assistance, provided shelter to over a million displaced persons and vaccinated a quarter of a million children against polio,” Lazzarini told the Security Council.
“Since the ceasefire began, UNRWA has brought in 60 percent of the food entering Gaza, reaching more than half a million people. We conduct some 17,000 medical consultations every day,” he said.
Israel has long been critical of UNRWA, claiming that the agency’s staff took part in the October 7, 2023, Hamas-led attack on Israel. The UN has said nine UNRWA staff may have been involved and were fired.
The UN has vowed to investigate all accusations and repeatedly asked Israel for evidence, which it says has not been provided.
Lazzarini also said today that UNRWA had been the target of a “fierce disinformation campaign” to “portray the agency as a terrorist organisation”.
Last Friday afternoon, Kara Sternquist, a trans woman in custody at a federal women’s prison in Fort Worth, Texas, was taken from her unit. A guard told Sternquist that she had an unexpected psychiatric appointment in the chapel.
“She was lied to,” said Deviant Ollam, a friend who speaks with her regularly by phone. “Once she was away from everyone else, they took her.”
According to Ollam, Sternquist told him that she is one of almost a dozen trans women who have been taken from the general population at FMC Carswell and moved into an administrative segregation unit that is typically used for inmates on suicide watch. (The Intercept has been unable to reach Sternquist directly, and an official at FMC Carswell declined to answer questions when reached by phone on Monday.)
The women were told they would be moved to a men’s prison, Ollam said, under President Donald Trump’s anti-trans executive order, which directs the Bureau of Prisons to ensure “that males are not detained in women’s prisons” and that inmates don’t receive gender-affirming health care using federal funds. On Monday, Trump issued another bigoted order barring trans people from military service, which was quickly challenged in federal court.
Trans women who are forced to live in men’s prison facilities face disproportionate risk of sexual assault and violence, as the Bureau of Prisons’ manual on trans inmates, issued in 2022, acknowledges.
On Tuesday afternoon, a warden unexpectedly told Sternquist she could return to her unit for now, Ollam told The Intercept. “She’s still very worried but optimistic,” Ollam said after he got off the phone with her.
Sternquist’s four-day ordeal and ongoing uncertainty about where she will serve the rest of her sentence reflects the precarious position of hundreds of trans people in federal prisons, who are being targeted by Trump and his hard-right allies.
“The worst part for her is not knowing what will happen next,” said Allegra Glashausser, Sternquist’s attorney. “She doesn’t know whether she will be held with men. She doesn’t know if she will receive her hormones as scheduled. Everything is uncertain. I am exceptionally worried for Kara’s physical safety and her mental health.”
“Trans people in custody, and trans women, in particular, are bearing the brunt of the immediate harms of this executive order,” said Shayna Medley, a litigation attorney at Advocates for Trans Equality.
This is not Sternquist’s first experience facing a dangerous housing assignment in federal prison.
In 2022, after she was arrested on firearms charges and for possession of fraudulent government badges, Sternquist was initially put into the men’s unit at the notorious MDC Brooklyn facility, even though her passport and driver’s license reflect that she is female.
It took two court orders and the threat of sanctions from a federal judge for the Bureau of Prisons to transfer Sternquist to women’s housing at MDC Brooklyn. “The DOJ and BOP proceed under the misapprehension that court orders are advisory,” wrote Magistrate Judge Sanket Bulsara in a September 2022 order. “Such contumacious conduct risks a contempt sanction.”
In another order, in November 2022, a judge directed the Bureau of Prisons to change Sternquist’s gender marker in prison databases to female. “To fail to do so would only continue to cause the mis-gendering problems that Defendant has faced while in custody,” U.S. District Court Judge Dora Irizarry wrote.
In August 2024, after Sternquist pleaded guilty to the firearms count, Irizarry sentenced her to a prison term of 60 months. The judge’s sentencing order specifically recommended that Sternquist be assigned to FMC Carswell “or another women’s medical facility” and that the Bureau of Prisons “provide gender-affirming and other medical care.”
“It’s moving heaven and earth to get them on the right unit,” Ollam said of the process, even under the Biden administration’s rules, for getting trans inmates placed into the appropriate facility. “If they are moved, they will very likely be lost forever.”
Ollam, who posts video updates about Sternquist’s case and condition, told The Intercept that Sternquist does not know when she will be transferred, but she fears it could happen at any moment. In the meantime, prison officials have started addressing Sternquist and the other trans women by male pronouns, according to Ollam. “When the staff come in, they address them as ‘gentlemen,’” Ollam said.
The Bureau of Prisons did not respond to inquiries about the trans women held at FMC Carswell or plans to transfer them. But another inmate at the facility, Ángel Espinosa-Villegas, who is transmasculine, closely mirrored Ollam’s account in messages sent to friends.
“I don’t know what else to do except sound the alarms.”
On Friday, guards “took the trans women out of every unit,” Espinosa-Villegas wrote in one message that day, which was shared with The Intercept. “You should have seen the evil looks of triumph as they escorted the trans women crying out of here.”
Espinosa-Villegas also wrote about fears among transmasculine inmates that “we’re next on Trump’s list.”
“Now there’s talk about us transmascs getting sent to [administrative segregation] until ‘Trump finds a place for us,’” Espinosa-Villegas wrote. “There’s officers saying that shit. They’ve refused to give me my [testosterone] shots every time I go and ask for them.”
“God watching the trans women get hauled away was evil,” Espinosa-Villegas wrote in another message. “I don’t know what else to do except sound the alarms.”
On Sunday, another trans woman in federal custody — identified in court records by a pseudonym, Maria Moe — filed the first lawsuit challenging the executive order.
“Maria Moe has lived as a woman and has taken hormones continuously since she was a teenager,” reads a complaint filed in federal court in Massachusetts. “During her term of incarceration, she has always been treated as a woman by federal correctional officials and her peers. She has never been housed in a men’s facility and has never stopped taking hormones.”
But last week, like Sternquist and others at FMC Carswell, Moe was removed from the general population of a women’s facility, according to legal filings, which redacted the name of the specific prison. The day after Trump signed the executive order, Moe was confined to the “Special Housing Unit” and “has not been permitted to have contact with others for at least four days.”
Moe’s lawyers argue that the executive order’s provisions about inmate housing violates the Eight Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, among other provisions of the Constitution and federal law, as does the prohibition on providing hormone therapy and other care.
“Transferring Maria Moe to a men’s prison will pose a substantial risk of serious harm, including an extremely high risk of violence and sexual assault from other incarcerated people and BOP staff,” reads her complaint.
Although Moe’s case was quickly sealed, Ollam said he, Sternquist, and the other trans women at FMC Carswell are watching closely, in hopes that the judge overseeing Moe’s challenge might block the executive order nationwide. Last week, a federal judge temporarily blocked another of Trump’s orders regarding birthright citizenship.
“The girls just want their message to be: silence equals death,” Ollam said.
What will happen to Australia — and New Zealand — once the superpower that has been followed into endless battles, the United States, finally unravels?
With President Donald Trump now into his second week in the White House, horrific fires have continued to rage across Los Angeles and the details of Elon Musk’s allegedly dodgy Twitter takeover began to emerge, the world sits anxiously by.
The consequences of a second Trump term will reverberate globally, not only among Western nations. But given the deeply entrenched Americanisation of much of the Western world, this is about how it will navigate the after-shocks once the United States finally unravels — for unravel it surely will.
Leading with chaos Now that the world’s biggest superpower and war machine has a deranged criminal at the helm — for a second time — none of us know the lengths to which Trump (and his puppet masters) will go as his fingers brush dangerously close to the nuclear codes. Will he be more emboldened?
The signs are certainly there.
President Donald Trump 2.0 . . . will his cruelty towards migrants and refugees escalate, matched only by his fuelling of racial division? Image: ABC News screenshot IA
So far, Trump — who had already led the insurrection of a democratically elected government — has threatened to exit the nuclear arms pact with Russia, talked up a trade war with China and declared “all hell will break out” in the Middle East if Hamas hadn’t returned the Israeli hostages.
Will his cruelty towards migrants and refugees escalate, matched only by his fuelling of racial division?
This, too, appears to be already happening.
Trump’s rants leading up to his inauguration last week had been a steady stream of crazed declarations, each one more unhinged than the last.
Denial of catastrophic climate consequences
And will Trump be in even further denial over the catastrophic consequences of climate change than during his last term? Even as Los Angeles grapples with a still climbing death toll of 25 lives lost, 12,000 homes, businesses and other structures destroyed and 16,425 hectares (about the size of Washington DC) wiped out so far in the latest climactic disaster?
The fires are, of course, symptomatic of the many years of criminal negligence on global warming. But since Trump instead accused California officials of “prioritising environmental policies over public safety” while his buddy and head of government “efficiency”, Musk blamed black firefighters for the fires, it would appear so.
Will the madman, for surely he is one, also gift even greater protections to oligarchs like Musk?
“…pave the way for my Administration to dismantle government bureaucracy, slash excess regulations, cut wasteful expenditures and restructure Federal agencies”.
So, this too is already happening.
All of these actions will combine to create a scenario of destruction that will see the implosion of the US as we know it, though the details are yet to emerge.
The flawed AUKUS pact sinking quickly . . . Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese with outgoing President Joe Biden, will Australia have the mettle to be bigger than Trump. Image: Independent Australia
What happens Down Under?
US allies — like Australia — have already been thoroughly indoctrinated by American pop culture in order to complement the many army bases they house and the defence agreements they have signed.
Though Trump hasn’t shown any interest in making it a 52nd state, Australia has been tucked up in bed with the United States since the Cold War. Our foreign policy has hinged on this alliance, which also significantly affects Australia’s trade and economy, not to mention our entire cultural identity, mired as it is in US-style fast food dependence and reality TV. Would you like Vegemite McShaker Fries with that?
So what will happen to Australia once the superpower we have followed into endless battles finally breaks down?
‘Trump has promised chaos and chaos is what he’ll deliver.’
His rise to power will embolden the rabid Far-Right in the US but will this be mirrored here? And will Australia follow the US example and this year elect our very own (admittedly scaled down) version of Trump, personified by none other than the Trump-loving Peter Dutton?
If any of his wild announcements are to be believed, between building walls and evicting even US nationals he doesn’t like, while simultaneously making Canadians US citizens, Trump will be extremely busy.
There will be little time even to consider Australia, let alone come to our rescue should we ever need the might of the US war machine — no matter whether it is an Albanese or sycophantic Dutton leadership.
It is a given, however, that we would be required to honour all defence agreements should our ally demand it.
It would be great if, as psychologists urge us to do when children act up, our leaders could simply ignore and refuse to engage with him, but it remains to be seen whether Australia will have the mettle to be bigger than Trump.
Republished from the Independent Australia with permission.
Ali Abunimah is executive director of important pro-Palestinian media outlet The Electronic Intifada. And Switzerland is facing demands for “an apology and reparations” after its highly controversial political decision to detain him over the weekend. Activists in Switzerland had invited Abunimah to speak at an event on 25 January. But “three plainclothes police officers violently arrested” him…
A letter organised by the British Palestinian Committee, the largest umbrella organisation of Palestinian groups in this country, has expressed grave concern at Met policing of a pro-Palestine march on Saturday 18 January, which resulted in 77 arrests and charges under the Public Order being brought against organisers. The letter to the home secretary Yvette Cooper joins calls for an…
Climate protester Gaie Delap has been told that she must serve a further 20 days in prison for being “unlawfully at large” – just as 25 leading charities call on the Labour government to release her. Gaie’s additional 20 days is accounted for by the days that followed Serco/EMS’s report of 28 November on their failure to fit an appropriate tag on her wrist, and her eventual return to prison…
On Friday 24 January, a Palestine Action political prisoner was released from HMP Dovegate after spending almost a month on remand. It was over a Christmas Day action at UAV Engines – a company directly complicit in Israel’s genocide in Gaza. Bryn Higgs, from Ullapool, was arrested on 25 December 2024 alongside four others following an action which destroyed the walls at the premises of UAV…
Among his first official acts on returning to the White House, President Donald Trump issued an executive order “restoring freedom of speech and ending federal censorship”.
An RSF statement strongly refutes Trump’s “distorted vision of free speech, which is inherently detrimental to press freedom”.
Trump has long been one of social media’s most prevalent spreaders of false information, and his executive order, “Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship,” is the latest in a series of victories for the propagators of disinformation online.
Bowing to pressure from Trump, Mark Zuckerberg, whose Meta platforms are already hostile to journalism, did away with fact-checking on Facebook, which the tech mogul falsely equated to censorship while throwing fact-checking journalists under the bus.
Trump ally Elon Musk also dismantled the meagre trust and safety safeguards in place when he took over Twitter and proceeded to arbitrarily ban journalists who were critical of him from the site.
‘Free speech’ isn’t ‘free of facts’
“Free speech doesn’t mean public discourse has to be free of facts. Donald Trump and his Big Tech cronies like Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg are dismantling what few guardrails the internet had to protect the integrity of information,” said RSF’s USA executive director Clayton Weimers.
“We cannot ignore the irony of Trump appointing himself the chief crusader for ‘free speech’ while he continues to personally attack press freedom — a pillar of the First Amendment — and has vowed to weaponise the federal government against expression he doesn’t like.
“If Trump means what he says in his own executive order, he could start by dropping his lawsuits against news organisations.”
Trump should immediately drop both lawsuits and refrain from launching others while in office.
After a campaign where he attacked the press on a daily basis, Trump has continued to berate the media and dismissed its legitimacy to critique him.
During a press conference the day after he took office, Trump reproached NBC reporter Peter Alexander for questions about Trump’s blanket pardons of the January 6th riot participants, saying, “Just look at the numbers on the election.
“We won this election in a landslide, because the American public is tired of people like you that are just one-sided, horrible people, in terms of crime.”
An incoherent press freedom policy The executive order also flies in the face of his violent rhetoric against journalists.
The order asserts that during the Biden administration, “the Federal government infringed on the constitutionally protected speech rights of American citizens across the United States in a manner that advanced the government’s preferred narrative about significant matters of public debate.”
It goes on to state, “It is the policy of the United States to ensure that no Federal Government officer, employee, or agent engages in or facilitates any conduct that would unconstitutionally abridge the free speech of any American citizen.”
This stated policy, laudable in a vacuum, even if made redundant by the First Amendment, is rendered meaningless by Trump’s explicit threats to weaponise the government against the media, which have recently included threats to revoke broadcast licenses in political retaliation, investigate news organizations that criticise him, and jail journalists who refuse to expose confidential sources.
Instead, the policy appears designed to amplify disinformation, which benefits a President of the United States who has proven willing to spread disinformation that furthered his political interests on matters small and large.
“If Trump is serious about his stated commitment to free speech, RSF suggests he begin by ensuring his own actions serve to protect the free press, rather than censoring or punishing media outlets,” the watchdog said.
“The United States has seen a steady decline in its press freedom ranking in RSF’s World Press Freedom Index over the past decade to a current ranking of 55th out of 180 countries, with presidents from both parties presiding over this backslide.
“While Trump is not entirely responsible for the present situation, his frequent attacks on the news media have no doubt contributed to the decline in trust in the media, which has been driven partly by partisan attitudes towards journalism.
“Trump’s violent rhetoric can also contribute to real-life violence — assaults on journalists nearly doubled in 2024, when his campaign was at its apex, compared to 2023.”
Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation has misled the Australian Parliament and is liable to prosecution — not that government will lift a finger to enforce the law, reports Michael West Media.
SPECIAL REPORT:By Michael West
Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation has misled the Australian Parliament. In a submission to the Senate, the company claimed, “Foxtel also pays millions of dollars in income tax, GST and payroll tax, unlike many of our large international digital competitors”.
However, an MWM investigation into the financial affairs of Foxtel has shown Foxtel was paying zero income tax when it told the Senate it was paying “millions”. The penalty for lying to the Senate is potential imprisonment, although “contempt of Parliament” laws are never enforced.
The investigation found that NXE, the entity that controls Foxtel, paid no income tax in any of the five years from 2019 to 2023. During this time it generated $14 billion of total income.
The total tax payable across this period is $0. The average total income is $2.8 billion per year.
Foxtel Submission to the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee Inquiry into The Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (2021 Measures No.1) Bill. Image: MWM screenshot
Why did News Corporation mislead the Parliament? The plausible answers are in its Foxtel Submission to the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee Inquiry into The Broadcasting Legislation Amendment.
In May 2021 — which is also where the transgression occurred — the media executives for the American tycoon were lobbying a Parliamentary committee to change the laws in their favour.
By this time, Netflix had leap-frogged Foxtel Pay TV subscriptions in Australia and Foxtel was complaining it had to spend too much money on producing local Australian content under the laws of the time. Also that Netflix paid almost no tax.
Big-league tax dodger
They were correct in this. Netflix, which is a big-league tax dodger itself, was by then making bucketloads of money in Australia but with zero local content requirements.
Making television drama and so forth is expensive. It is far cheaper to pipe foreign content through your channels online. As Netflix does.
The misleading of Parliament by corporations is rife, and contempt laws need to be enforced, as demonstrated routinely by the PwC inquiry last year. Corporations and their representatives routinely lie in their pursuit of corporate objectives.
If democracy is to function better, the information provided to Parliament needs to be clarified, beyond doubt, as reliable. Former senator Rex Patrick has made the point in these pages.
Even in this short statement to the committee of inquiry (published above), there are other misleading statements. Like many companies defending their failure to pay adequate income tax, Foxtel claims that it “paid millions” in GST and payroll tax.
Companies don’t “pay” GST or payroll tax. They collect these taxes on behalf of governments.
Little regard for laws
Further to the contempt of Parliament, so little regard for the laws of Australia is shown by corporations that the local American boss of a small gas fracking company, Tamboran Resources, controlled by a US oil billionaire, didn’t even bother turning up to give evidence when asked.
This despite being rewarded with millions in public grant money.
Politicians need to muscle up, as Greens Senator Nick McKim did when grilling former Woolies boss Brad Banducci for prevaricating over providing evidence to the supermarket inquiry.
Michael West established Michael West Media in 2016 to focus on journalism of high public interest, particularly the rising power of corporations over democracy. West was formerly a journalist and editor with Fairfax newspapers, a columnist for News Corp and even, once, a stockbroker. This article was first published by Michael West Media and is reopublished with permission.
When Alexei arrived at the U.S.-Mexico border last June, he expected he’d have to wait a few weeks — maybe a month at most — while immigration officials determined whether he was eligible to enter the U.S.
Under the Refugee Act of 1980, people fleeing persecution on “account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion” can apply for asylum when they reach the U.S. This status grants them protection from deportation and an eventual pathway to citizenship.
As Alexei told an officer in an interview, he had good reason to flee his native Russia: The 27-year-old artist from Moscow had put out music with antiwar lyrics after Russia invaded Ukraine. He watched other musicians face threats of prison time and accusations of being “foreign agents” over their activism, and he began to fear for his life.
But after being told he passed that interview, and waiting three weeks in the Imperial Regional Detention Facility near the town of Calexico, California, Alexei was handed a piece of paper by a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer stating that he would not be released. He would have to argue his case for asylum from detention, because he was considered a threat to national security.
In the last seven months of the Biden administration, immigration officials detained thousands of asylum-seekers like Alexei, who is using a pseudonym to protect his identity because he fears repercussions for his immigration status in the U.S. Many of these immigrants were detained because they came from countries that were once part of the Soviet Union, asylum-seekers and their attorneys told The Intercept. Attorneys representing immigrants from Russia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, or several other countries in Central Asia that have significant numbers of Russian speakers have also told The Intercept that their clients have been forced to wait in detention centers until their asylum claims could be heard before a judge. Reporting from other outlets has unearthed memos that appear to back up this policy.
This is a departure from previous policy, when most asylum-seekers were granted parole, which releases them into the country to stay with family or friends until they can appear in court to argue their case for asylum. Detention has typically been reserved for people deemed to pose a threat to national security or a flight risk — labels now applied to the majority of Russians and other asylum-seekers from post-Soviet countries, The Intercept found.
It could be a preview of what’s to come under the new administration, when detention is likely to be applied much more broadly; one of President Donald Trump’s first executive orders this week directed immigration officials to grant parole only for “urgent humanitarian reasons or a significant public benefit” from the asylum-seeker being present in the U.S. Trump has also suspended new asylum applications until what he’s called an “invasion at the southern border has ceased,” although the cases of those who already managed to apply before he took office will still have to make their way through the courts.
Alexei ended up spending five months in detention, first in California — where he said about half of his center was of Russian-speaking origin — and then in Texas. His wife, who traveled with him, was held in a different detention center in California and then moved to Louisiana; they were only able to have three 10-minute phone calls during the entire time they were detained. And although both of them won their immigration cases and were able to enter the U.S. after being granted asylum, the psychological stress and uncertainty of their detention continues to weigh on Alexei.
“They did not explain the reason for [labeling] you a security threat, they simply [labeled] absolutely everyone,” Alexei said over the phone a few weeks after his release in mid-November, from a temporary home near Chicago where he’s staying with relatives. “Because of this, all of us Russians lived with the hope that if not today, then tomorrow, this ban would be lifted.”
Harsher treatment of asylum-seekers began in June of last year, asylum-seekers and attorneys told The Intercept. That’s around the same time that the Washington Examiner published a leaked memo, which instructed Border Patrol officers in the San Diego sector to automatically place citizens of six countries — Russia, Georgia, Moldova, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan — into expedited removal proceedings. U.S. Customs and Border Protection did not respond to questions from The Intercept asking to confirm the authenticity of the memo.
Being placed in expedited removal allows people from these countries to be deported without an asylum hearing unless they claim that they fear returning to their home countries and pass a “credible fear interview.” Asylum-seekers who pass this interview are also more likely to be detained, as they are banned from posting bond, which would allow them to put up a sum of money as a guarantee that they would show up for their asylum hearings.
The Department of Homeland Security did not respond to a request for comment on the allegations that asylum-seekers from post-Soviet countries were being targeted for detention or expedited removal based on their national origin.
No publicly available data exists to show the rate at which different nationalities are detained after applying for asylum. But data provided by the Department of Homeland Security to comply with a congressional request show that last year, immigration officials denied parole requests for 18 percent of asylum-seekers from Uzbekistan who applied through CBP One, an app that immigrants were required to use to apply for asylum from May 2023 until the end of the Biden administration (Trump canceled the use of CBP One on his first day in office). This was the highest rate of any of the nationalities listed; the average denial rate for all nationalities was just over 4 percent. Russian, Afghan, Chinese, and Iranian nationals also had higher-than-average detention rates.
This new detention regime comes as migration from Russia, Central Asia, and the Caucasus reaches an all-time high. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and subsequent military mobilization sent young men fleeing and left fewer options for Central Asians, who frequently migrated to Russia to find employment. Ethnic minorities, including Central Asians with Russian passports, are also disproportionately being sent by Russia to the front lines of war. With legal options such as the green card lottery limited, more people have decided to try and reach U.S. soil to apply for asylum through the border with Mexico. Border Patrol agents recorded 3,200 encounters with Uzbeks at the southern border in 2022, up from less than 700 in 2021; more than 23,000 Russian nationals were apprehended that same year.
The rise in migration from these countries coincided with an increase in immigration attempts overall, as CBP encounters with migrants at the Mexican border peaked in December 2023. Though they have since fallen drastically, border security became a flashpoint in the presidential election. Claims that these immigrants would take jobs and commit crimes have gone hand in hand with long-standing fears of terrorists infiltrating the southern border. This came to a head last fall, when the White House announced that the FBI was working to track down more than a dozen Uzbek immigrants who entered with the help of a smuggler believed to have “ties to ISIS.”
Though none of them were accused of having any affiliations with extremist groups themselves, NBC News reported in June that DHS had arrested over 150 immigrants “from Central Asia and elsewhere” who crossed into the U.S. in the past three years through an “ISIS-affiliated human smuggling network.” These reports were seized on by conservative members of Congress and right-wing organizations like the Federation for American Immigration Reform to urge the government to crack down on Central Asian immigrants in the U.S. by raising fears that they could be terrorists. CBP officials began detaining asylum-seekers who “fit the profile associated with individuals who were facilitated by this network,” a national security spokesperson told CNN.
“There [was] political pressure on the Biden administration to tighten up immigration enforcement for specific regions — to demonstrate that they’re taking threats [to national security] seriously,” said Maksim Fuchs, an attorney based in New York who works with Russian and Central Asian clients.
Abadir Barre, an immigration lawyer based in New York, said DHS left notes on his detained Central Asian clients’ cases saying that they were a national security risk “by virtue of their travel to the United States via a migration pathway that has connections to individuals with a nexus to foreign terrorist organizations.” Barre says this likely meant the Uzbek smuggler that was accused of having ties to ISIS.
For immigrants from Uzbekistan and other Central Asian countries, though, paying smugglers to get them to the U.S. was often the only way to claim asylum; getting an appointment through the CBP One app meant waiting in Mexico for months, and language barriers made it difficult to use. People “are not even aware of these smugglers’ connections,” Fuchs said, and many of them are scammed or otherwise taken advantage of in the process.
“None of them were proven to be a national security risk. It’s a big bogeyman.”
But arriving with the help of this smuggler still gave immigration officials an excuse to detain people, Barre said. He started visiting his clients in detention centers like the Winn Correctional Center in Louisiana and noticed that up to a third of the people detained there were Uzbek. That’s when he began to believe asylum-seekers from this region were being targeted for detention.
“None of them were proven to be a national security risk,” Barre said. “It’s a big bogeyman. They’re misusing national security, but it’s really Muslims and Uzbeks.”
An immigrant from Uzbekistan shows his passport while being taken into custody by U.S. Border Patrol agents at the border on Dec. 7, 2021, in Yuma, Ariz.Photo: John Moore/Getty Images
Scrutiny of Central Asians by the media and law enforcement has mounted in the U.S. in recent years since the 2015 arrest of three Uzbeks living in Brooklyn for allegedly attempting to join ISIS, and the 2017 killing of eight people on a Manhattan bike path by an Uzbekistan citizen who professed allegiance to the Islamic State group. These cases sparked a media firestorm, and Uzbeks living in New York were subjected to surveillance by local police and federal officials, reminiscent of the widely documented system of New York City Police Department spying on Muslim communities that took off in the wake of 9/11. Fear of Central Asian extremists has been exacerbated by reports that in June, ICE agents arrested eight citizens of Tajikistan for “suspected ties to the Islamic State,” according to The Associated Press.
These reports have created “overblown fears of terrorism when it comes to ISIS,” said Steve Swerdlow, a human rights lawyer who specializes in Central Asia. Though not all asylum claims are legitimate and scrutiny is warranted, he cautioned that painting asylum-seekers from certain countries with a “broad brush” puts those who legitimately fear returning back to their home countries at significant risk.
Many asylum-seekers from Uzbekistan are in fact fleeing religious persecution from a repressive government that fears extremism just as much, if not more, as the U.S., and could be jailed or tortured if they are deported, especially once tarred with American officials’ suspicions that they could have links to terrorism. “When I see planeloads of people being sent to Uzbekistan, I have to ask, have U.S. officials really examined the risk?” Swerdlow said.
The detention of Russians is more puzzling and also more recent. Russia’s full-scale invasion of the country began in February 2022. Russian asylum-seekers have only reported receiving parole denials en masse in the last seven months, according to Julia Nikolaev, an immigration attorney based in San Francisco who works mainly with Russian-speaking clients. In May, she started noticing that those who secured an appointment through CBP One and presented themselves in front of an immigration officer were ending up in detention, where previously they would have been released.
“Their parole requests were being denied for no specific reason,” Nikolaev said. “100 percent of people with Russian passports were ending up in detention — including women, which never happened before.”
She has now worked with about 35 clients, including Alexei, who have been detained, and had to turn down requests from dozens more. Even if they win their asylum cases from detention, government attorneys can immediately appeal, allowing them to continue detaining applicants for another 30 days at minimum. In informal conversations, those attorneys told her that “there is some internal directive that bans the release of Russians and a few other post-Soviet Union countries,” Nikolaev said.
In interviews with The Intercept, multiple Russian asylum-seekers who were detained starting in May 2024 said that ICE officers received word on June 14 that detainees with passports from Russia and several Central Asian countries would not be released on parole. One man, who is still in detention in Washington, said officials told him at the time it was “an email of some kind” that changed the policy.
Although The Intercept was not able to confirm the existence of this email, DHS had previously indicated its shift in policy. In November 2023, a month after the first reports of an ISIS-affiliated smuggler bringing Uzbeks into the U.S. were made public, DHS announced that Uzbek nationals caught trying to enter the United States via Mexico illegally would be detained rather than released on parole, Uzbek media reported.
The detentions have led asylum-seekers to increasingly speak out against their confinement. In December, Albert Khamitov, who fled Russia due to his opposition to President Vladimir Putin and status as a member of the LGBTQ+ community, began a second hunger strike after spending seven months in detention, during which he won his asylum case but continued to be detained after an appeal from the government. In a video recording that spread through Russian-language social media channels such as Telegram, Khamitov alleged that detention officers called him and other Russians “terrorists” and appealed to Yulia Navalnaya, the wife of the late opposition leader Alexei Navalny, to intervene.
It’s not clear whether it’s legal to apply a blanket detention policy to people from a certain nationality, or to target them for expedited removal. “A lot of deference is usually given by courts to detention decisions,” said Jon Bauer, a professor at the University of Connecticut School of Law who directs the school’s Asylum and Human Rights Clinic. He pointed out that a 2009 ICE directive instructs officers to strongly consider releasing asylum-seekers who pass a credible fear interview, but that this directive has been violated in the past.
Discrimination in the asylum process is also not without precedent. In 1990, the federal government agreed to settle a lawsuit filed by a coalition of religious, legal assistance, and human rights organizations, who claimed that immigration officials were systematically discriminating against asylum-seekers from Guatemala and El Salvador. And in 2003, the attorney general directed judges to uphold the detention of Haitian asylum-seekers who arrived in the U.S. by boat, claiming that releasing them would pose a national security risk.
Keeping people in detention while they await their hearings negatively impacts their chances of receiving asylum, said Ingrid Eagly, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles who published a paper analyzing data on asylum decisions earlier this year. It can be more difficult to access legal counsel, especially if detainees are moved to faraway centers in states like Louisiana, as well as to gather evidence to present in their defense.
Immigration officials are sometimes forced to make decisions based on how much capacity they have to detain people, said Jennifer Ibañez Whitlock, an attorney and member of the American Immigration Lawyers Association. A pandemic-era rule allowing CBP to immediately deport people who crossed illegally without processing their asylum claims expired in May 2023, leading to an influx of migrants at the southern border. “CBP has to triage,” Ibañez Whitlock said, which can mean prioritizing the detention of certain nationalities. Asylum-seekers from “hard to remove countries” that don’t often accept deportation flights from the U.S., which included the six countries listed in the leaked CBP memo from June, might end up in detention over others that can be easily removed.
Barre, though, believes DHS’s actions are against the law. In March, he filed a class-action lawsuit representing 35 asylum-seekers from Uzbekistan who were held in detention while they waited for their asylum cases to be decided — including several who were arrested by ICE after already being released on parole to await their hearings. In it, he alleged that the government was violating his clients’ right to due process purely based on their nationality and religion; shortly after he filed the suit, ICE started releasing his clients from detention, and the case was dismissed in August. Barre then filed two other lawsuits on behalf of Russian asylum-seekers, one of which is still moving forward with 276 plaintiffs. He hopes that aside from securing the release of his clients, he can gain more information on the specifics of DHS’s decision to target certain nationalities through the legal discovery process.
The Trump administration is now planning to detain immigrants who are awaiting decisions in their immigration cases rather than releasing them to live with sponsors, a move that could overwhelm detention centers and prisons; ICE is planning to more than double its detention capacity in preparation, the Washington Post reported. It’s unclear what this means for asylum-seekers from Russia and Central Asia who have already been pushing to be released from detention for months. But even if they win their cases and are granted asylum, one of the goals of the detention system is to deter others from coming to the U.S. in the first place, Bauer said. And in that, immigration officials may be succeeding.
“People who went through persecution in their own country, they believe that the U.S. is a country that upholds the law and protects human rights,” Nikolaev said. “They flee here believing in the U.S. But I had many clients who are sitting in detention tell me, ‘Why did I come here? What I ran from, I see it here.’”
A co-founder of a national Palestinian solidarity network in Aotearoa New Zealand today praised the “heroic” resilience and sacrifice of the people of Gaza in the face of Israel’s ruthless attempt to destroy the besieged enclave of more than 2 million people.
Speaking at the first solidarity rally in Auckland Tāmaki Makaurau since the fragile ceasefire came into force last Sunday, Janfrie Wakim of the Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA) also paid tribute to New Zealand protesters who have supported the Palestine cause for the 68th week.
“Thank you all for coming to this rally — the first since 7 October 2023 when no bombs are dropping on Gaza,” she declared.
“The ceasefire in Gaza is fragile but let’s celebrate the success of the resistance, the resilience, and the fortitude — the sumud [steadfastness] — of the heroic Palestinian people.
“Israel has failed. It has not achieved its aims — in the longest war [15 weeks] in its history — even with $40 billion in aid from the United States. It has failed to depopulate the north of Gaza, it has a crumbling economy, and 1 million Israelis [out if 9 million] have left already.”
Wakim said that the resistance and success in defeating Israel’s “deadly objectives” had come at a “terrible cost”.
“We mourn those with families here and in Gaza and now in the West Bank who made the ultimate sacrifice with their lives — 47,000 people killed, 18,000 of them children, thousands unaccounted for in the rubble and over 100,000 injured.
Grieving for journalists, humanitarian workers
“We grieve for but salute the journalists and the humanitarian workers who have been murdered serving humanity.”
Janfrie Wakim speaking at today’s Palestine rally in Tamaki Makaurau. Video: APR
She said the genocide had been enabled by the wealthiest countries in the world and the Western media — “including our own with few exceptions”.
“Without its lies, its deflections, its failure to report the agonising reality of Palestinians suffering, Israel would not have been able to commit its atrocities,” Wakim said.
“And now while we celebrate the ceasefire there’s been an escalation on the West Bank — air strikes, drones, snipers, ethnic cleansing in Jenin with homes and infrastructure being demolished.
“Checkpoints have doubled to over 900 — sealing off communities. And still the Palestinians resist.
“And we must too. Solidarity. Unity of purpose is all important. Bury egos. Let humanity triumph.”
Palestinian liberation advocate Janfrie Wakim . . . “Without its lies, its deflections, its failure to report the agonising reality of Palestinians suffering, Israel could not have been able to commit its atrocities.” Image: David Robie/APR
90-year-old supporter
During her short speech, Wakim introduced to the crowd the first Palestinian she had met in New Zealand, Ghazi Dassouki, who is now aged 90.
She met him at a Continuing Education seminar at the University of Auckland in 1986 that addressed the topic of “The Palestine Question”. It shocked the establishment of the time with Zionist complaints and intimidation of staff which prevented any similar academic event until 2006.
Wakim called for justice for the Palestinians.
“Freedom from occupation. Liberation from apartheid. And peace at last after 76 years of subjugation and oppression by Israel and its allies,” she said
She called on supporters to listen to what was being suggested for local action — “do what suits your situation and energy. Our task is to persist, as Howard Zinn put it”.
“When we organise with one another, when we get involved, when we stand up and speak out together, we can create a power no government can suppress,” she said.
“We don’t have to engage in grand, heroic actions to participate in the process of change. Small acts, when multiplied by millions of people, can transform the world.”
Introduced to the Auckland protest crowd today . . . Ghazi Dassouki, who is now aged 90.
As a symbol for peace and justice in Palestine, slices of water melon and dates were handed out to the crowd.
Calls to block NZ visits by IDF soldiers
Among many nationwide rallies across Aotearoa New Zealand this weekend, were many calls for the government to suspend entry to the country from soldiers in the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF).
“New Zealand should not be providing rest and recreation for Israeli soldiers fresh from the genocide in Gaza,” said PSNA national chair John Minto.
“We wouldn’t allow Russian soldiers to come here for rest and recreation from the invasion of Ukraine so why would we accept soldiers from the genocidal, apartheid state of Israel?”
As well as the working holiday visa, since 2019 Israelis have been able to enter New Zealand for three months without needing a visa at all.
This visa-waiver is used by Israeli soldiers for “rest and recreation” from the genocide in Gaza.
Minto stressed that IDF soldiers had killed at least 47,000 Palestinians — 70 percent of them women and children.
“All these red flags for genocide have been visible for months but the government is still giving the green light to those involved in war crimes to enter New Zealand,” Minto said.
Last month, PSNA again wrote to the government asking for the suspension of travel to New Zealand for all Israeli soldiers and reservists.
Meanwhile, 200 Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails have been set free under the terms of the Gaza ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas. Seventy of them will be deported to countries in the region, reports Al Jazeera.
Masses of people have congregated in Ramallah, celebrating the return of the released Palestinian prisoners.
A huge crowd waved Palestinian flags, shouted slogans and captured the joyful scene with their phones and live footage shows.
The release came after Palestinian fighters earlier handed over four female Israeli soldiers who had been held in Gaza to the International Red Cross in Palestine Square.
The smiling and waving soldiers appeared to be in good health and were in high spirits.
Brussels, January 24, 2025–European Union officials and foreign ministers must seize the opportunity provided by the Gaza ceasefire at January 27’s Foreign Affairs Council meeting to ensure that a free press can prevail, the Committee to Protect Journalists said Friday.
CPJ urges the EU to call for independent investigations into the deliberate targeting of journalists during the 15-month war in Gaza, for international journalists to be granted independent access to the territory, and for Israel to reform laws that restrict press freedom.
“The EU cannot continue to turn a blind eye to strong evidence of crimes of international law and the decimation of a generation of Palestinian journalists,” said Tom Gibson, CPJ’s EU representative. “If accountability, justice, and access demands cannot be met, EU leaders must call for a suspension of the EU-Israel Association Agreement.”
The agreement sets out the EU’s legal and institutional framework for political dialogue and economic cooperation with Israel, including respect for human rights as an essential element.
The Israel-Gaza war has taken an unprecedented toll on journalists since October 7, 2023, with at least 167 journalists and media workers killed, overwhelmingly in Gaza. It has been the deadliest period for journalists since CPJ began gathering data in 1992.
According to CPJ’s investigations, at least 11 journalists and two media workers were directly targeted by Israeli forces; the deliberate targeting of civilians is a war crime under international law.
CPJ has documented multiple other abuses in Gaza, the West Bank, Israel, and Lebanon, that require investigation, including assaults, threats, and allegations of torture during the war. Israel was the world’s second-worst jailer of journalists in CPJ’s latest annual prison census, with 43 Palestinian journalists in Israeli custody on December 1, 2024.
At least 10 journalists are being held indefinitely without charge in the West Bank. The EU should join the repeated calls by U.N. special mandate holders for Israel to end this practice, which the U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has repeatedly found unlawful.
Throughout the war, Israel has obstructed and punished media coverage and banned international reporters from Gaza, except for on rare trips with the military. Israel must revoke its censorship laws, including one used to ban Al Jazeera and retaliatory directives against domestic media. Israeli, Egyptian, and Palestinian authorities must immediately allow unconditional access for all journalists to enter and operate in Gaza.
The European Union must be true to its values and support these demands.
It was a cold day in Washington, DC, on Tuesday when Donald Trump was sworn in for his second stint as President of the United States of America.
On account of freezing temperatures, the inauguration ceremony was moved indoors to the Capitol Rotunda, and the weather became a primary focus of much pre-inauguration media commentary.
The Reuters news agency reported that this was “one of the coldest inauguration days the US has experienced in the past few decades”, while also providing other crucial ceremony updates such as that “Mike Tyson snacked on a banana in the overflow room”.
I, myself, watched the event on my computer in the southern Mexican state of Oaxaca, where it is precisely the opposite of cold and where I have spent the past several days battling the scorpion population that has taken up residence in my house.
By the end of Trump’s swearing-in, however, I was undecided as to what was less pleasant: killing scorpions or watching the next episode of American dystopia unfold.
I tuned in at 11am, meaning I had a full hour before Trump took centre stage; for much of this time, the audience in the rotunda was treated to musical selections befitting a carousel or a circus.
The frigid weather outside was, meanwhile, at least probably good practice for life on Mars, a territory Trump would soon claim for the United States during his inaugural speech: “And we will pursue our manifest destiny into the stars, launching American astronauts to plant the Stars and Stripes on the planet Mars.”
Not the only territorial conquest
This, to be sure, was not the only territorial conquest Trump promised. He also reiterated his determination to rename the Gulf of Mexico as the “Gulf of America” as well as to seize control of the Panama Canal because “American ships are being severely overcharged and not treated fairly in any way, shape, or form”.
President Donald Trump . . . “We will pursue our manifest destiny into the stars, launching American astronauts to plant the Stars and Stripes on the planet Mars.”. Image: The Conversation
But the Mars comments earned a maniacal grin from one person in the audience: the gazillionaire Tesla CEO Elon Musk, known for such ideas as that the “next really big thing is to build a self-sustaining city on Mars and bring the animals and creatures of Earth there”.
Musk was one of various representatives of the earthly super-elite who — unlike poor Mike Tyson — made the cut for a spot in the rotunda. Also present were Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, and Shou Zi Chew, the CEO of TikTok.
As Al Jazeera noted the day prior to the inauguration, Apple CEO Tim Cook reportedly donated $1 million to the ceremony, while “Google, Amazon, Microsoft and Meta have said they would donate $1 million, along with Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI, who donated $1 million”.
As of January 8, Trump’s inauguration fund had already racked up a record $170 million.
Anyway, what better way to “Make America Great Again” than by supercharging the plutocracy?
Declaring at the start of his speech that “the golden age of America begins right now”, Trump went on to express numerous other hallucinations, including that “national unity is now returning to America”. Never mind that the tyranny of an astronomically wealthy minority is not exactly, um, unifying.
Luckily on Planet Trump, reality is whatever he says it is. And Trump says that “sunlight is pouring over the entire world”.
‘Historic executive orders’
In his speech, Trump announced a “series of historic executive orders” that according to him, will jumpstart the “complete restoration of America and the revolution of common sense”.
Among these executive orders was the declaration of “a national emergency at our southern border”, paving the way for the deportation of “millions and millions of criminal aliens” and entailing the deployment of the US military “to repel the disastrous invasion of our country”.
Under Trump’s command, the US “will also be designating the cartels as foreign terrorist organisations”. Then there’s the new “official policy of the United States government that there are only two genders, male and female”.
And of course, the more emergencies, the better: “[T]oday I will also declare a national energy emergency. We will drill, baby, drill.”
Recoiling at the very thought of environmentalism, Trump proclaimed: “We will be a rich nation again, and it is that liquid gold under our feet that will help to do it.”
And if we happen to destroy Earth in the process, well, there’s always Mars.
As usual, the continuous invocation of God during the inauguration ceremony made a fine mockery of the ostensible separation of church and state in the US, and Trump revealed the reason he had survived a July assassination attempt in the state of Pennsylvania: “I was saved by God to make America great again.”
Overlap with Martin Luther King Jr Day
Last but not least, Trump took advantage of the overlap of his inauguration with Martin Luther King Jr Day, celebrated annually in the US on the third Monday of January, to pledge that “we will make his dream come true” — which would probably be easier if Trump himself weren’t a bona fide racist.
Indeed, Trump’s notion that “our power will stop all wars and bring a new spirit of unity to a world that has been angry, violent and totally unpredictable” would seem to be distinctly at odds with King’s assessment of the US as the “greatest purveyor of violence in the world”.
None of this is to imply that the Democrats have not done their part in terms of purveying global violence or upholding plutocracy, perpetuating brutal inequality, terrorising refuge seekers, and so on.
But Tuesday’s inaugural charade was an exercise in nihilism — and, as I return to my scorpions and Trump goes about making dystopia great again, I think I’ll take Mars over the “golden age of America” any day.
Belén Fernández is the author of Inside Siglo XXI: Locked Up in Mexico’s Largest Immigration Detention Center (OR Books, 2022), Checkpoint Zipolite: Quarantine in a Small Place (OR Books, 2021), and Martyrs Never Die: Travels through South Lebanon (Warscapes, 2016). She writes for numerous publications and this article was first published by Al Jazeera.
The Al Jazeera Network has condemned the arrest of its occupied West Bank correspondent by Palestinian security services as a bid by the Israeli occupation to “block media coverage” of the military attack on Jenin.
Israeli soldiers have killed at least 12 Palestinians in the three-day military assault that has rendered the refugee camp “nearly uninhabitable” and forced displacement of more than 2000 people. Qatar’s Foreign Ministry said the Jenin operation was a “flagrant violation of international humanitarian law and human rights”.
Al Jazeera said in a broadcast statement that the arrest of its occupied West Bank correspondent Muhammad al-Atrash by the Palestinian Authority (PA) could only be explained as “an attempt to block the media coverage of the occupation’s attack in Jenin”.
We’re following with concern the arrest of journalist Mohammed Al-Atrash by the Palestinian security forces in connection with his work at Al Jazeera and call for his immediate release./1 pic.twitter.com/M2ZcEoWqJl
“The arbitrary actions of the Palestinian Authority are unfortunately identical to the occupation’s targeting of the Al Jazeera Network,” it said.
“We value the positions and voices that stand in solidarity and defend colleague Muhammad al-Atrash and the freedom of the press.”
The network said the journalist was brought before a court in Hebron after being arrested yesterday while covering the events in Jenin “simply for doing his professional duty as a journalist”.
“We confirm that these practices will not hinder our ongoing professional coverage of the facts unfolding in the West Bank,” Al Jazeera’s statement added.
The Israeli occupation has been targeting Al Jazeera for months in an attempt to gag its reporting.
Calling for al-Atrash’s immediate release, the al-Haq organisation (Protecting and Promoting Human Rights & the Rule of Law in the Occupied Palestinian Territory) said in a statement: “Freedom of opinion and expression cannot be guaranteed without ensuring freedom of the press.”
Rage over AJ ban
Earlier this month journalists expressed outrage and confusion about the PA’s decision to shut down the Al Jazeera office in the occupied West Bank after the Israeli government had earlier banned the Al Jazeera broadcasting network’s operation within Israel.
“Shutting down a major outlet like Al Jazeera is a crime against journalism,” said freelance journalist Ikhlas al-Qarnawi.
He said a December 26 press statement by the Israeli army attempted to “justify a war crime”.
“It unabashedly admitted that the military incinerated five Palestinian journalists in a clearly marked press vehicle outside al-Awda Hospital in the Nuseirat refugee camp, central Gaza Strip,” Kuttab said in an op-ed article.
Many Western publications had quoted the Israeli army statement as if it was an objective position and “not propaganda whitewashing a war crime”, he wrote.
“They failed to clarify to their audiences that attacking journalists, including journalists who may be accused of promoting ‘propaganda’, is a war crime — all journalists are protected under international humanitarian law, regardless of whether armies like their reporting or not.”
Israel not only refuses to recognise any Palestinian media worker as being protected, but it also bars foreign journalists from entering Gaza.
“It has been truly disturbing that the international media has done little to protest this ban,” wrote Kuttab.
“Except for one petition signed by 60 media outlets over the summer, the international media has not followed up consistently on such demands over 15 months.”
Three men prosecuted for taking part in a peaceful protest at arms manufacturer General Dynamics were found not guilty of all charges at Brighton Law Courts on Wednesday 22 January. Laurie Holden, 72, Clem McCulloch, 33, and Thomas Delves, 25 – collectively known as the #Hastings3 – were arrested for aggravated trespass on 29 February 2024 during an early morning protest at one of the firm’s two…
Over two days on 29 and 30 January, the Court of Appeal will review the jail sentences imposed on 16 supporters of Just Stop Oil between July and September 2024: the Lord Walney 16. The sentences include the five-year prison sentence imposed on Roger Hallam, co-founder of Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil, for taking part in a Zoom call to plan a protest against new oil and gas licences…
President Donald Trump throws pens after signing executive orders following the Presidential Parade at Capital One Arena on Monday January 20, 2025 in Washington, DC. Weather has moved Monday’s inauguraton indoors. Photo: Matt McClain/The Washington Post via Getty Images
President Donald Trump’s flurry of executive orders, signed on his first day back in the White House, are riddled with illegal and unconstitutional demands. The order aimed at eradicating trans and gender-nonconforming people is no exception, and bears the added honor of spouting unscientific nonsense.
It is a bizarre, wide-ranging document, premised on a pseudoscientific definition of binary sex classification that would be impossible to implement to the letter in everyday life. The order would not stand up to scientific scrutiny or sound legal challenge, but it’s not designed to. It is, like most of Trump’s illegal executive orders, a political speech act intended to sow fear, give license to discrimination, and make life for marginalized communities materially harder.
The text is worth interrogating, however, insofar as it reveals the Trump administration’s brute-force approach to pushing trans people out of public life, couched in unambiguously pro-natalist rhetoric and the risible claim that it is “defending women.”
In the current preferred lexicon of anti-trans campaigners, long desperate to point to something immutable in science to ground their delusional rejection of trans existence, the executive order says, “It is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female. These sexes are not changeable and are grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality.” And that “‘Sex’ is not a synonym for and does not include the concept of ‘gender identity.’”
The order then defines “female” and “male” as follows:
“‘Female’ means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell. … ‘Male’ means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the small reproductive cell.”
Observers were swift to note that by adding “at conception,” the order bundles in a notion of fetal personhood — a nod to the fact that attacks on gender nonconformity are part and parcel of a pro-natalist agenda, which requires attacks on all reproductive freedoms. It is no accident that the definitions of “female” and “male” are centered solely on reproductive function. The definition is also senseless; at conception, embryos are not sexually differentiated. And at conception, fetuses are also not producing reproductive cells, or gametes, large or small.
But the definition need not make scientific or practical sense to appease gender conformity fanatics. Since this language has now made its way into Trump’s executive order, it’s worth stressing the profound intellectual weakness of such a definition.
Anti-trans ideologues have glommed onto the language of gametes because their previous reliance on chromosomes — XX and XY — didn’t do the anti-trans rhetorical work they wanted. There were too many examples outside the chromosomal binary, like intersex variations, to contend with. Gametes seemed to do the trick for those transphobes who demand that sex be understood as immutable — something of the body that cannot be changed — and more strictly binary. Secondary sex characteristics like breasts, body hair, hormone levels, and shape of genitalia are not so clearly split between all those assigned female and male at birth. Crucially, these are also sex traits that trans people can indeed obtain.
Transphobes thus treat gametes, or reproductive cells, as some sort of definitional gotcha. It is not.
Firstly, not everyone produces reproductive cells. There are many cis women who do not produce large reproductive cells, or ova. When this is pointed out, the typical transphobe response is that these women are atypical, and that these women would produce ova were it not for some sort of dysfunction.
This makes it clear that the anti-trans claim to biological reality must appeal to a fictional biological world, in which all bodies develop in precisely predetermined ways — and those ways are designed toward reproduction. It’s an inherently conservative, indeed religious, view of bodily function and predestiny. In the actual world, though, this gamete definition would discount a good number of people the transphobes themselves would classify as “women” or “female.” Anti-trans bigots have always had a clear vision of who they would like to exclude from the category of womanhood, but this distinction was never based on observing which bodies do or do not produce large reproductive cells.
It’s telling that anti-trans campaigners must continue to find new language to cling to, to push an exclusionary binary, when science fails to draw the clean line between men and women that they wish it did.
It gets worse still, philosophically, for the transphobes. When they reduce the meaning of the word “woman” to “female” — defined by gametes — they must admit that, in the real world, they can’t be sure that they’re using it correctly. Under their terms, any time they use the word “woman,” they could wrongly be applying it to someone who does not produce ova — someone they claim, if we follow their definition, should be excluded from womanhood.
This definition of “woman” could also have only been available after Karl Ernst von Baer discovered mammalian ovum in 1827. Before that, according to anti-trans logic, it was only by guessing that the word “female” could have been correctly used. Since we can’t tell whether someone’s body makes large gametes, except in medical circumstances, recognizing someone as a “large reproductive cell producer” cannot be the definition of “woman.” This is simply not how science or language work. And for those of us who are not obsessed with the stupid game of finding an ideally trans-exclusionary, cis-inclusionary definition of “woman,” none of this is a problem at all. We can continue collectively using our words as makes sense to do so — like referring to trans women as women.
When it comes to the government, we can be sure that federal agencies will not, on receiving Trump’s executive order, initiate a thorough system of gamete checks. If implemented, the order will function like all discriminatory policy: People will be targeted if perceived to fall outside a standard, which is set by white, cis heteronormativity. The definition in the executive order could, however, give further license to the Republican drive toward the surveillance, harassment, and, in some cases, invasive sex-testing of those perceived to fall outside the norms of the gender binary — a perception heavily informed by racist conceptions of femininity, as we have seen in the arena of professional athletics, and vile efforts to exclude (almost always Black) cis women deemed too masculine.
In recent years, laws proposed by Republicans in Ohio, Kansas, New Jersey, among other U.S. states to ban trans girls from sports, opened the door to genital testing requirements on girls whose assigned sex at birth has been questioned. While such testing policies have for now been held at bay, their proposal alone speaks to the lengths — mandated sexual abuse — that these genital-obsessed gender fascists are willing to go to.
Trump’s executive order makes no specific calls for sex testing. Rather it treats its nonsensical, gamete-based definition as if it is an observable given of common sense reality — which, again, it is not.
What the order more explicitly demands is that federal agencies commit to the work of trans exclusion wherever possible. The order directs the secretaries of State and Homeland Security to prevent trans people from selecting their gender on official government documents such as visas and passports — the page on the State Department website where people could apply to make those changes has already been taken down. Since 2021, individuals have also been able to select “X” as a nonbinary gender maker on their passports; it is unclear what Trump’s order will mean for those passport holders. The intent, though, is clear: to make trans people feel afraid to move freely in the world.
The order also tasks the incoming attorney general and secretary of Homeland Security to bar trans people from government-funded single-sex facilities that align with their gender — so trans women would be moved into mens’ prisons and shelters, for example. This would put trans people in immediate and severe physical danger. Trump also directed the federal Bureau of Prisons to end funding for gender-affirming care for trans people in federal prisons, which could lead to trans people being forced to medically detransition. The order also states that federal funds will be removed from institutions found to “promote gender ideology” — a direct threat to schools and universities that rely on federal funds.
In a gesture to the order’s unconstitutionality, Trump also ordered the incoming attorney general to “issue guidance to agencies to correct the misapplication of the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020) to sex-based distinctions in agency activities.” In Bostock, the Supreme Court rightly ruled that federal laws prohibiting sex-based discrimination applied to the prohibition of LGBTQ+ discrimination. Bostock made clear that discrimination on the basis of gender identity counted as sex-based discrimination. The executive order appears to recognize that its demands run counter to Bostock, as will no doubt arise in court challenges. Unfortunately, the far-right Supreme Court has already shown itself potentially willing to skirt around or even contradict its own Bostock ruling, for example, when it comes to siding with Republican attacks on trans health care.
It takes a huge amount of work, violence, and coercion to enforce gender conformity.
We can point out the inherent falsehood and nonsense at the executive order’s core — and it’s necessary to do so, given the purchase anti-trans voices maintain on establishment liberal discourse. The American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal, and other LGBTQ+ advocacy groups have promised to challenge the executive order in the courts. But LGBTQ+ and reproductive freedoms — which, as the right understands, are indelibly connected — will not be defended by proving transphobes wrong. The point of the right’s extensive attacks on trans existence is to make trans people’s access to public life as unpleasant and difficult as possible. Our task, then, is to show unwavering solidarity with and material support for trans and gender-nonconforming adults and children. As the enormous Republican effort to legislate against and police trans people makes clear, it takes a huge amount of work, violence, and coercion to enforce gender conformity — it is our job to make that effort harder at every turn.
“There is no clear way to be ready for a world where those in power wish for your demise,” wrote the ACLU’s Chase Strangio, the first trans attorney to argue a case in the Supreme Court. “But we have no choice but to be ready to fight and we will — in court, in legislatures, in our local communities.”
Fiji’s Deputy Prime Minister Biman Prasad has told an international conference in Bangkok that some of the most severely debt-stressed countries are the island states of the Pacific.
Dr Prasad, who is also a former economic professor, said the harshest impacts of global economic re-engineering are being felt by the poorest communities across this region.
He told the conference last month that the adaptation challenges arising from runaway climate change were the steepest across the atoll states of the Pacific — Kiribati, Tuvalu and Marshall Islands.
Dr Prasad said at no time, outside of war, had economies had to face a 30 to 70 percent contraction as a consequence of a single cyclone, but Fiji, Vanuatu and Tonga had faced such a situation within this decade.
He said the world must secure the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
“There is no Plan B. The two options before the world are to either secure the goals, or face extreme chaos,” he said.
“There is nothing in the middle. Not this time.”
Extreme chaos risk
Prasad said there will be extreme chaos if the world went ahead and used the same international financial architecture it had had in place for years.
“And if we continue with the same complex processes to actually access any grant funding which is now available, then we cannot address the issue of this financing gap, as well as climate finance — both for mitigation and adaptation that is badly needed by small vulnerable economies.”
More and more Pacific states would approach a state of existential crisis unless development funding was sorted, he said.
Dr Prasad said many planned projects in the region should already be in place.
“We don’t have time on our hands plus the delay in accessing financing, particularly climate resilient infrastructure and for adaptation — then the situation for these countries is going to get worse and worse.”
He wants to “decolonise” aid, giving the developing countries more control over the aid dollars.
More direct donor aid
This would involve more donor nations providing aid directly into the recipient nation’s budgets.
Dr Prasad, who is also the Fiji Finance Minister, has welcomed the budget funding lead taken by Australia and New Zealand, and said Fiji’s experience with Canberra’s putting aid into the Budget had been a great help for his government.
“It allows us, not only the flexibility, but also it allows us to access funding and building our Budget, building our national development planned strategy, and built in with our own locally designed, and locally led strategies.”
He said the new Pacific Resilience Facility, to be set up in Tonga, is one way that this process of decolonising aid could be achieved.
Prasad said the region had welcomed the pledges made so far to support this new facility.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
A Just Stop Oil supporter has been arrested on suspicion of planning to organise and/or attend a protest at a UK airport last year. In the latest episode of the ongoing farce that is the UK state – something Alan Ayckbourn would struggle to parody – Joe was nicked in some bizarre pre-crime maneuver by the police.
Just Stop Oil: nicked by the UK pre-crime division
Just Stop Oil shared a clip of Joe’s arrest on X. In it, he said:
It’s been alleged that I’ve been involved in plots of protests at airports about a year ago, and now the police have turned up at my door unannounced, told me they’re going to bash the door down, and are currently going through my room.
BREAKING: MET POLICE RAID JUST STOP OIL SUPPORTER'S HOME
Joe was arrested this morning for allegedly thinking about taking nonviolent action at airports last year.
At this point, it is unclear just what protest, if any, Joe was involved in.
As the Canarydocumented across 2024, Just Stop Oil joined around 21 groups across 12 countries. They staged a range of interventions at 19 international airports across the summer last year, causing serious disruption and having a global impact.
For example, in August six supporters of Just Stop Oil nonviolently blocked the departure gates at Heathrow Airport, causing delays:
Dozens of people were arrested. One of those nicked at Heathrow was Di Bligh who was formerly CEO of Reading Borough Council. She said:
Climate breakdown is endangering all we love. Starvation already threatens those who have done the least to cause this mess. Billions will be on the move as they try to find land they can cultivate, water to drink- any safe place.
Electric cars and windfarms won’t do it: governments must act together before we reach more tipping points into chaos than we can prevent. We need our political leaders to act now, by working with other nations to establish a legally binding treaty to stop the extraction and burning of oil, gas and coal by 2030.
However, Joe did not actively take part in a protest – yet cops have nicked him, anyway. Thanks to the government, though, police are allowed to do this – and already have.
Not the first time
As the Canary previously reported, in August 2024 police arrested four Just Stop Oil supporters near Manchester airport on suspicion of conspiring to cause a public nuisance. That is, they were planning to non-violently disrupt Manchester Airport. Police said it was because Just Stop Oil’s actions “would have brought significant delays”.
As you may well remember, this was at the same time police lost control of parts of the UK to far-right race riots.
Yet cops see fit to arrest Just Stop Oil supporters around the notion of pre-crime. And now, Joe is yet another victim of this authoritarian mindset that’s now infesting the UK. We have of course been here before. My late father, a prominent member of the UK Communist Party in the 1950s and 60s, would always recount stories of their meetings where the chair would, during the introduction, give:
A special welcome to our friends at the back.
The friends were, of course, Special Branch – and as the Spycops saga shows the state has always infiltrated anyone who it deems is or could in the future be a threat to it.
However, this pre-emptive action by cops is hitting another level of repression.
Just Stop Oil: martyrs for us all?
As Joe summed up:
Six police officers turned up for an alleged potential protest over a year ago… You can decide whether that’s a good use of resources.
Any rational, decent person would say ‘no’. But despite the planet burning, non-human animals becoming extinct, and marginalised people being further abused and repressed around the world – apparently it’s some kid with a hi-vis and orange leaflets that’s the problem.
A senior coroner in Kent has found that three men who were killed trying to cross the Channel were unlawfully killed. Mohamed Lamine Toure, Moussa Kouyae, and a third unnamed person were killed when a rubber dinghy holding 39 people “literally fell apart at the seams.”
The Guardian reported that:
The survivors were brought to shore in Dover after a UK fishing boat crew came across the sinking dinghy and rescued them, with help from the RNLI, air ambulance and UK Border Force.
The Guardian also reported that investigating police officer, DI Ross Gurden, said that each of the people on the dinghy were there:
of their own free will.
A disgrace in the Channel – and after
The officer’s comments are a disgrace. Before even examining any further facts of the case, we know that a number of desperate people got into a dilapidated dinghy in an attempt to cross the Channel. Why would someone do that? What must they be running from that is worse than risking an awful death at sea?
Gurden’s comments went unremarked in the Guardian report, a banal comment on the horror of sea crossings. They show a lack of empathy, but it’s a lack of empathy writ large across borders.
Ibrahima Bah, who piloted the boat, was sentenced to just under ten years detention “for manslaughter and facilitating illegal entry to the UK.” A fourth person, Hejratullah Ahmadi, also died but he was not included in the coroner’s inquest because he was part of the criminal trial of Bah. However, the Independent did note that:
Bah was also a migrant but he piloted the boat in lieu of payment to the people smugglers.
There must be some consideration of how and why Ibrahima had to be on that boat. Last month, a Free Ibrahima campaign statement read:
We are devastated at the Court of Appeal outcome which leaves Ibrahima imprisoned as a scapegoat for border policies which continue to cause people to die in the Channel. We will keep fighting for Ibrahima and others as they are criminalised for seeking safety and a better life in the UK.
The criminalisation of Ibrahima is typical of a broken and rotting system that punishes people trying to survive, and ignores the criminals in governments and border forces who view people dying in the sea as disposable non-humans.
A broken and rotting migrant system
Gurden’s remark that the people on the boat chose to be there call to mind poet Warsan Shire’s poem Home, and particularly the concluding stanza:
no one leaves home until home is a sweaty voice in your ear
saying-
leave,
run away from me now
i don’t know what i’ve become
but i know that anywhere
is safer than here
Imagine, how hard you would have to run to risk drowning in a freezing cold body of water, knowing that if you somehow survive the plastic boat you’re crammed into with other desperate people, you’ll face border patrol, police officers, and a government who’ll make you pay through the nose for daring to survive on its shores. Imagine that, whether you live or die, you know that the people you encounter along your last ditch journey will claim you had a ‘choice.’
Is something really a choice if there is no other option?
If you stay, you’ll die.
If you go, you’ll die.
If you die, your memory will be left with the cold words of an officer who insists that you made a ‘choice’ with your “free will.”
And, the media that reports on your death, if you are even to be named, won’t bother to correct that officer’s callousness, because there are so many of you that have found a grave in the sea.
Before Donald Trump’s inauguration, advocates were already worried about how aid would be distributed to Los Angeles wildfire victims. Recovery money has long favored the white and wealthy.
On Monday, one of Trump’s first moves could make the problem worse. One of his flurry of executive orders eliminated the “equity action plans” government agencies had created as a first step toward reversing the long-term inequities in welfare distribution.
Among those agencies was a top purveyor of disaster assistance: the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Advocates worry that the recent moves could slow progress toward correcting decades of uneven aid distribution.
“You could throw a pin to any state on the map and see a disaster where there was an inequitable distribution of resources,” said Noah Patton, the disaster recovery manager at the National Low Income Housing Coalition. “The message right now to FEMA personnel is there’s nothing wrong continuing with business as usual.”
The wildfires that ripped through Los Angeles destroyed the houses of the rich and famous, but also swaths of the historic Black community of Altadena.
With Republicans in Congress threatening to attach conditions to aid for California, getting aid could become trickier for everyone — but history has shown that the white and well-connected are better at working the system.
Trump’s new order will help maintain that unequal status quo.
Trump’s Order
One of Trump’s first moves on Inauguration Day was to issue an executive order aimed at “ending radical and wasteful government DEI programs and preferencing,” in the words of the White House, referring to diversity, equity, and inclusion.
For months on the campaign trail, Trump took aim at diversity programs as a supposed hot bed of “anti-white” racism. Much of the discourse centered on the U.S. military, especially after Trump’s selection of DEI critic Pete Hegseth to run the Defense Department.
The move was one among many reversals to Biden administration policies. To mixed effect, President Joe Biden seeded diversity, equity, and inclusion programs in at least 24 other federal agencies, including those that dole out disaster aid funds such as FEMA and the Small Business Administration, under the auspices of “equity action plans.”
In some cases, the plans were not much more than bulletpoints listing agency aspirations. FEMA’s plan, for instance, included items calling for better communication with people who lack English proficiency; for making it easier for those who live in mobile homes to “self-certify” that they are the owners; and for increasing aid for low-income disaster survivors to receive help for expenses such as transportation and child care.
Patton said FEMA’s plan was a baby step, but an important one.
“FEMA planned out its areas of focus based on these internal documents that, while they themselves don’t create new reforms or change policy, they’re seen as guiding documents for future policy reform work inside the agency,” he said.
No more: Trump’s executive order Monday calls on agencies to “terminate, to the maximum extent allowed by law,” their equity plans.
Disaster After Disaster
The idea that America’s generals have gone woke might be so fuzzy that it’s hard to debunk, but the notion that American disaster aid disproportionately helps white people and the well-to-do is supported in reams of academic literature.
“Consistently, the finding is often that lower income or minority residents just tended to have worse outcomes after these disasters,” said Steve Billings, a professor at the University of Colorado-Boulder who studied the distribution of housing aid after Hurricane Harvey in Houston.
One study based on a sample of 3,400 households found that recurring disasters increased the racial wealth gap over time. White residents of hard-hit counties increased their wealth by $126,000 versus Black, Latino, and Asian residents. Those groups lost an average of $27,000, $29,000, and $10,000, respectively.
Authors Junia Howell and James Elliott concluded that “how federal assistance is currently administered seems to be exacerbating rather than ameliorating wealth inequalities that unfold after costly natural hazards.”
Another study conducted by news organizations found that the state-administered, federally funded program to help homeowners in Louisiana rebuild after Hurricane Katrina systematically shortchanged the poor, to the point where they received $18,000 less on average than they would have if they were helped at the same rate as the rich.
Billings’s study of Hurricane Harvey found that low-income neighborhoods that were outside of floodplains — and thus generally were not required to obtain flood insurance — had bankruptcies soar by 20 percent. FEMA and Small Business Administration aid were both handed out regressively.
“The people that were in the floodplains in wealthier neighborhoods tended to, if anything, be just as well off as before the hurricane,” Billings said.
Experts say that some the inequities stem from agency practices and others are baked into the process by congressional design.
FEMA, for instance, often issues an initial denial for aid that must be appealed, a process that is harder for working-class people to navigate.
“They don’t necessarily have the time to sit down and figure all this stuff out,” said Patton. “They’re trying to find alternative employment or trying to just survive.”
The agency also requires title documents for residents to show that they own disaster-damaged homes, a requirement that can be daunting for residents of Puerto Rico, where informal titles are common, or for heir’s property, a type of ownership that is more common among Black people.
Then there are inequities tied to congressional mandates. FEMA and the Small Business Administration, which is responsible for many home-rebuilding loans, are mandated to be on the lookout for fraud; critics say they have sometimes been keener to observe that mandate than to help disaster victims.
Meanwhile, many of the biggest funds allocated by Congress are available only to homeowners. And even the homeowners looking for SBA loans must meet creditworthiness requirements — and credit scores come with huge racial disparities.
Some Strings Attached
Congress is only beginning to tackle the topic of how to help California rebuild with long-term aid, a politically fraught question that often becomes enmeshed in partisan politics.
Yet Republicans, though they often blanch at sending disaster without offsets to the federal budget elsewhere, have rarely attempted to apply political conditions to big aid packages. That could be changing.
In the wake of the California wildfires, Trump repeatedly criticized the state’s Democratic leadership. And House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., has suggested imposing policy conditions on aid to the state.
Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, told the Intercept last week FEMA funding has been critical in helping Maui rebuild after devastating wildfires there in 2023.
“I hope that we will continue to fund FEMA, because trying to tie natural disaster relief to whether or not a state voted for Trump is a horrible discussion for anybody to be having,” she said. “So I just would like the federal government to equitably support people who are going through horrible times.”
SPECIAL REPORT:By Lagipoiva Cherelle Jackson and Lilomaiava Maina Vai
The Speaker of the House, Papali’i Li’o Taeu Masipau, decisively addressed a letter from FAST, which informed him of the removal of Fiame along with Deputy Prime Minister Tuala Tevaga Ponifasio, Leatinu’u Wayne Fong, Olo Fiti Vaai, Faualo Harry Schuster, and Toeolesulusulu Cedric Schuster from the party.
The letter also referenced a lack of confidence in Fiame’s leadership and alleged discussions between the Government and the opposition. Papali’i rejected all claims, emphasising that decisions about parliamentary seats must align with the Constitution.
“I have received a letter from the FAST Party concerning the removal of some of their members from the party. The letter raised questions about their parliamentary seats. Let it be clear: neither the Speaker of the House nor Parliament can, at this stage, make a decision that would result in the vacating of these seats in Parliament. The process must align with the rule of law,” the Speaker stated.
The Electoral Act 2019 of Samoa outlines provisions regarding changing party allegiance by Members of Parliament (MPs). These rules are designed to maintain political stability and ensure that MPs adhere to the party alignment under which they were elected.
Fiame and the affected MPs have not declared their exit from FAST or joined another party, ensuring their seats remain legally secure, as affirmed by the Speaker.
In response to FAST attempts to remove her, Fiame dismissed 13 Associate Ministers. They had aligned themselves with La’auli Leuatea Polataivao Fosi Schmidt, the FAST Party chairman and former Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, in an attempt to oust her from the party.
Three ministers removed
Fiame had earlier removed three Cabinet Ministers — Mulipola Anarosa Ale-Molio’o (Women, Community, and Social Development), Toelupe Poumulinuku Onesemo (Communication and Information Technology), and Leota Laki Sio (Commerce, Industry, and Labour).
The Speaker also dismissed references in the FAST letter to alleged discussions between the government and the opposition, citing a lack of verification.
“Legal avenues outside Parliament are available for these matters to be pursued,” he added.
Opposition leader Tuilaepa Sa’ilele Malielegaoi, Fiame’s predecessor, confirmed in Parliament that he had met with Fiame but clarified that the discussions focused solely on parliamentary matters and the smooth operation of the government.
In her Parliamentary address, Fiame acknowledged the challenges within the FAST Party. “As Prime Minister, I must acknowledge that the primary cause of this issue stems from the charges against La’auli, the former Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries,” she said.
Fiame removed La’auli from his Cabinet role after he refused to step down following charges filed by the Samoa Police Service. The resulting fallout led to internal dissent within FAST, tit-for-tat removals of Ministers and Associate Ministers, and attempts to oust Fiame from the party and her role as Prime Minister.
Emphasising the importance of adhering to constitutional principles and due process, Fiame further stated in her Parliamentary address, “These challenges are not unprecedented. In 1982, similar divisions within the HRPP led to multiple changes in leadership before the government stabilised.”
‘Rift in alignment of canoes’
Regarding divisions in the FAST party, she said in Samoan: “Ua va le fogava’a.” Translated: there is a rift in the alignment of the canoes.
Despite this she reaffirmed her commitment to her role: “My Cabinet and I remain committed to fulfilling our duties as outlined in the law.”
She apologised to the nation for the disruptions caused by the unrest and called for mutual respect and adherence to the rule of law.
“My leadership defers to the rule of law to conduct my work. The rule of law is the umbrella that protects all Samoans under equal treatment under the law,” Fiame added.
In an unexpected move, opposition leader Tuilaepa expressed full support for Fiame’s leadership.
“Myself and our party — the only thing that we will do is to follow what I have said in the past on 26th July in 2021. I said: ‘Fiame, here is our government, lead the country. We put faith in you and 500 percent support.’”
Tuilaepa’s endorsement, along with the Speaker’s firm stance on upholding the rule of law, has been widely viewed as a stabilising factor during a turbulent time for Samoa’s government.
Filllng the gaps
To fill the gaps left by the dismissed Ministers, four new Cabinet members were sworn in earlier in the week. They are: Faleomavaega Titimaea Tafua (Commerce, Industry, and Labour), Laga’aia Ti’aitu’au Tufuga (Women, Community, and Social Development), Mau’u Siaosi Pu’epu’emai (Communications and Information Technology), and Niu’ava Eti Malolo (Agriculture and Fisheries).
The session marked the conclusion of a 20-day period of political unrest, social media harassment, attacks on press freedom and significant cabinet restructuring. With less than a year remaining in her term, Fiame faces the dual challenge of managing internal divisions within FAST while steering the government toward stability.
The Speaker’s decisive handling of the FAST letter, combined with the opposition leader’s support, has reaffirmed the rule of law as the cornerstone of Samoa’s democracy. While challenges remain, the Government now has a clearer path to focus on its legislative agenda and governance responsibilities.
Samoa faces high stakes, with more twists, turns, and potential crises likely to unfold in the months leading up to the elections. The political landscape remains fragile, and the nation’s stability hangs in the balance.
A steadfast commitment to the rule of law will be crucial as the country navigates this turbulent period.
Adding to the tension is the role of the Samoan diaspora, who amplified the political divide from abroad, fueling the ongoing discord. As the election approaches, only time will reveal how these dynamics will shape Samoa’s political future.
Lagipoiva Cherelle Jackson is a Samoan journalist with over 20 years of experience reporting on the Pacific Islands. She is founding editor-in-chief of The New Atoll, a digital commentary magazine focusing on Pacific island geopolitics. Lilomaiava Maina Vai is the local host of Radio Samoa and editor of Nofoilo Samoa. Republished from the Devpolicy Blog with permission.
Celebration time. Some Palestinian prisoners have been released. A mother reunited with her daughter. A young mother reunited with her babies.
Still in prison are people who never received a fair trial, people that independent inquirers say are wrongly imprisoned. Still in prison kids who cursed soldiers who walked into their villages wielding guns.
Still imprisoned far too many Palestinians who threw stones against bullets. Still imprisoned thousands of Palestinian hostages.
Many of us never knew how many hostages had been stolen, hauled into jails by Israel before 7 October 2023. We only heard the one-sided story of that day. The day when an offence force on a border was taken by surprise and when it panicked and blasted and bombed.
When that army guarding the occupation did more to lose lives than save lives.
Many never knew and perhaps never will know how many of the Palestinians who were kidnapped before and after that day had been beaten and tortured, including with the torture of rape.
We do know many have been murdered. We do know that some released from prison died soon after. We do not know how many more Palestinians will be taken hostage and imprisoned behind the prison no reporter is allowed to photograph.
Israelis boast over prison crime
The only clue to what happens inside is that Israelis have boasted this crime on national television. The clue is that Israeli soldiers have been tried for raping their own colleagues.
Make no mistake, this is a mean misogynist mercantile army. No sensible rational caring person would wish to serve in it.
No mother on any side of this conflict should lose her child. No father should bury his daughter or son. No grandparent should grieve over the loss of a life that should outlive them.
The crimes need to be exposed. All of them. Our media filters the truth. It does not provide a fair or full story. If you want that switch for pity’s sake go to Al Jazeera English.
The Palestinian people were forced to flee their homes in Gaza. Those who were never responsible for any crime were bombed out of their homes, they fled as their families were murdered, burned to death, shot by snipers. They fled while soldiers mocked their dead children.
They return home to ashes. If we want peace we must face the truths that create conflict. We are all connected in peace and war and peace.
Peace is the strongest greeting. It sears the heart and soars the soul.
It can only be achieved when we recognise and stop the anguish that causes oppression.
Saige England is a freelance journalist and author living in the Aotearoa New Zealand city of Ōtautahi.