Regional stability and security, and the China Economic and Security Deal were on the agenda today when some Pacific leaders met in Suva, Fiji, a Micronesian head of the Pacific’s regional political body says
Several Pacific Island heads of state, including at least three from the Micronesian states, have arrived in Fiji for two days of meetings called by Fijian Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama.
As chair of the Pacific Islands Forum(PIF), Bainimarama is positioned to call meetings of the Pacific Troika which includes current, incoming and immediate past chairs of the Forum.
This usually takes place ahead of the Pacific Forum Leaders Meeting which this year will take place in July.
The heads of the governments of Palau and the Federated States of Micronesia confirmed the Troika would meet with the Micronesian Presidents’ Summit (MPS) in the second of The Political Dialogue Mechanism, an initiative to allow for open conversation between PIF leaders.
When it last sat last year, the Political Dialogue Mechanism sought to address tensions within the PIF after the Micronesia President’s Summit threatened to pull out its membership of the forum, threatening regional stability for the first time.
The President of Federated States of Micronesia David Panuelo told RNZ Pacific in Suva, that the Micronesian leader’s main agenda was the tension over the way Micronesia was denied what long-standing regional tradition owed them, the seat of Secretary-General of the PIFS.
‘Nothing really being resolved’
“This is exactly why we’re here and talks are ongoing, and nothing is really being resolved but we’re actively discussing this. This is a very good trip for our Micronesian brothers. Meetings are ongoing and today we will continue to discuss how we can get the best in terms of uniting and promoting regionalism,” President Panuelo said.
“We’re all optimistic until, without ruling out any possibilities. I think we are optimistic. Let’s look forward to a successful conclusion of our ongoing meetings.”
Meanwhile, President of Palau Surangel Whipps Jr said the two-day meeting would be the first time since the pandemic that Pacific leaders could meet in person, which made it an “opportunity to invest” in good dialogue.
The Palauan president said Micronesian states had made clear their stance on the SG’s position and hoped the leader’s meeting would “come up with a solution where we can all walk away from it with good understanding and rebuilding of that trust.”
“Well, I’m optimistic because we’re here. And we have the opportunity to sit down and discuss and find the best way forward,” he said
Palau, which like most of the Micronesian states has diplomatic relations with Taiwan instead of China, hopes the Political Dialogue Mechanism would provide the space for Pacific leaders to “really share each other’s concerns and try to find a way forward where we can all be the winners.”
Micronesian states believe the Pacific Islands Forum as a political bloc was built on values of trust and mutual respect which needed rebuilding, implying the fragmentation created by tension over the SG’s position is further threatened by the emergence of China’s plan for its presence in the Pacific.
‘Regaining trust, respect’
“I think what’s most important is regaining that trust and mutual respect among the Micronesians and the rest of the forum. That’s what’s most important. How do we rebuild that? That’s the question and I think that’s what the discussion over the next few days is going to be about,” Whipps Jr said.
Micronesian leaders are concerned over the wording in China’s proposed Pacific Economic Security deal leaked ahead of Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s visit late last month.
“We are friends to everyone and enemies to none but we also lived through World War Two. When we see documents that say, you know, certain countries need to be taken or taken back, it brings us back to the time of where we were all involved in World War Two and we don’t want to relive that,” Whipps Jr said.
“We are peaceful countries and we want to live in peace and harmony. That’s the value of the forum. It’s the Pacific coming together and sharing the same values and I think we all want peace and prosperity in the region.”
Samoan Prime Minister Fiamē Naomi Mataʻafa has also arrived in Fiji for the meeting and the opening of a new Samoan High Commission in Suva.
Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown is also in Fiji and opened a new high commission in the Fijian capital.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
Migrants and overseas Filipinos in Aotearoa New Zealand today called on the governments of both Australia and New Zealand to halt all military and security aid to the Philippines in protest over last month’s “fraudulent” general election.
At simultaneous meetings in Auckland and Wellington, a new broad coalition of social justice and community campaigners endorsed a statement pledging: “Never forget, never again martial law!”
“Bongbong” Marcos Jr, the son of the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos Sr, was elected President in a landslide ballot on May 9 and will take office at the end of this month.
Philippine President-elect Bongbong Marcos Jr wooing voters at a campaign rally in Borongan, Eastern Samar. Image: Rappler/Bongbong FB
His father ruled the Philippines with draconian leadership — including 14 years of martial law — between 1965 and 1986 until he was ousted by a People Power uprising.
Marcos Jr – along with his mother Imelda – has long tried to thwart efforts to recover billions of dollars plundered during his father’s autocratic rule.
“Police and military forces should be investigated for their participation in red-tagging, illegal arrests on trumped up charges, extrajudicial killings, and all forms of human rights abuses,” the statement said.
“We call on the International Criminal Court to pursue investigation and trial of outgoing President Rodrigo Duterte for massive human rights breaches in its drug war and systematic attacks against political activists, human rights advocates and anti-corruption crusaders.”
Call for ‘transparent government’
The statement called for “transparent government” and for all public funds to be accounted for.
“We specifically call for realignment of the national budget in favour of covid aid, public health and social services instead of wasting billions for the National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict (NTF-ELCAC) and other government machineries that aim to suppress critics of its corruption and human rights abuses.”
The statement urged the “dismantling” of NTF-ELCAC.
Philippines Senate candidate Luke Espiritu … technology advances mean martial law by stealth. Image: David Robie/APR
The Supreme Court of the Philippines was called on to “act on the petitions lodged by various persons and groups regarding the disqualification of Ferdinand Marcos Jr to run for office due to his conviction” for tax evasion.
The statement called on the Department of Justice and Supreme Court to provide for immediate and unconditional release of the unjustly jailed Senator Leila de Lima — an outspoken critic of Duterte — “following the recantation of the testimonies of three key witnesses”, and also freedom for more than 700 political prisoners “languishing in jail on trumped-up charges”.
The gathered Filipino community also sought an official Day of Remembrance and Tribute for all the victims of Marcos dictatorship to mark the 50th year commemoration of the declaration of martial law on 21 September 2022.
‘Truth army’ to monitor social media
“We call on all Filipinos to remain vigilant as a truth army, to tirelessly monitor and report social media platforms in serious breach of community standards, and to push for stronger laws in place for disinformation to be punished,” the statement said.
Filipinos in the two cities — Auckland and Wellington — pledged support for the Angat Buhay cause of defending Philippines “history, truth and democracy”.
Outgoing Vice-President and unsuccessful presidential candidate Leni Robredo – the only woman to contest the president’s office last month – on screen at today’s Auckland meeting. Image: David Robie/APR
Speakers included Filipino trade unionist Dennis Maga; Mikee Santos of Migrante Aotearoa; an unsuccessful Filipino Labour candidate in the 2020 NZ elections, Romy Udanga; and speaking by Zoom from Manila, Senate candidate Luke Espiritu, who said the new Marcos regime would be able to achieve virtual “martial law” without declaring it.
“All Marcos needs to do is suppress dissent, and he has all the sophisticated technology available to do this that his father never had,” Espiritu said.
Northland Kakampink coordinator Faye Bañares said the new Angat Buhay NGO should not take over the responsibility of providing for the poor in the community, although the aim is to help them.
“The NGO should push the Philippine government to face their responsibility and be transparent about what they do,” she said.
Many speakers told how shocked they were in the general election over a “massive breakdown of vote counting machines and voter disenfranchisement” and the “incredibly rapid count of COMELEC transparency servers” to award the “unbelievable final tally” of 31 million votes in favour of Ferdinand Marcos Jr as president and Rodrigo Duterte’s daughter Sara as vice-president.
Social media troll farms
Denouncing the social media troll farms, the meeting critics said “all the worst lies, disinformation and red-tagging were committed against [outgoing vice-president] Leni Robredo, opposition candidates and parties who stood up against [Rodrigo] Duterte and the Marcos-Duterte tandem.”
In November 2021, the Philippines and New Zealand agreed to boost maritime security cooperation during the 6th Philippines-New Zealand Foreign Ministry Consultations hosted by the Philippines.
Both sides acknowledged the growing breadth and depth of Philippines-New Zealand bilateral cooperation, particularly in the areas of defence and security, health, trade and investments, development cooperation, people-to-people and cultural engagements.
The Philippines “defending democracy” public meeting in Glenfield, Auckland, today. Image: David Robie/APRFilipinos in the Wellington meeting make their pledge simultaneously with the Auckland group for “history, truth and democracy” in the Philippines. Image: Del Abcede/APRNorthland Kakampink coordinator Fe Bañares speaking at the Auckland meeting. Image: Del Abcede/APR
A flurry of peaceful rallies and protests erupted in West Papua and Indonesia on Friday, June 3.
Papuan People’s Petition (PRP), the National Committee for West Papua (Komite Nasional Papua Barat-KNPB) and civil society groups and youth from West Papua marched in protest of Jakarta’s plan to create more provinces.
Thousands of protesters marched through the major cities and towns in each of West Papua’s seven regions, including Jayapura, Wamena, Paniai, Sorong, Timika/Mimika, Yahukimo, Lanny Jaya, Nabire, and Merauke.
As part of the massive demonstration, protests were organised in Indonesia’s major cities of West Java, Central Jakarta, Jogjakarta, Bandung, Semarang, Surabaya, and Bali.
Demonstrators said Papuans wanted an independence referendum, not new provinces or special autonomy.
3/6/22 Wamena, West Papua
“Papua: freedom!”
“Referendum: yes!”
Thousands of protestors are rejecting Jakarta’s arbitrary plan to create new provinces and Special Autonomy status. They are demanding an independence referendum. pic.twitter.com/QnxBu8egHp
— Veronica Koman 許愛茜 (@VeronicaKoman) June 3, 2022
According to Markus Haluk, one of the key coordinators of the United Liberation Movement for West Papua (ULMWP), almost all Papuans took to the streets to show Jakarta and those who want to wipe out the Papuan people that they do not need special autonomy or new provinces.
[CW: blood]
This student protestor is the embodiment of West Papuan spirit. Indonesian forces beat him bloody but he will not be silenced.
— Veronica Koman 許愛茜 (@VeronicaKoman) June 3, 2022
Above is a text image that captures the spirit of the demonstrators. A young man is shown being beaten on the head and blood running down his face during a demonstration in Jayapura city of Papua on Friday.
The text urges Indonesia’s president Jokowi to be tagged on social media networks and calls for solidarity action.
Numerous protesters were arrested and beaten by Indonesian police during the demonstration.
Security forces brutalised demonstrators in the cities of Sorong, Jayapura, Yahukimo, Merauke, and elsewhere where demonstrations were held.
Hi Prof. Dr. MAHFUD….. where you get 82% people of West Papua supporting your government’s DOB and Otsus Jilid Il?
Even in these pictures can tell you the real fact that 99, 99% of indigenous West Papuans REJECTED your DOB and the Otonomi Jilid Il. pic.twitter.com/e9SS1QTi71
An elderly mother is seen been beaten on the head during the demonstration in Sorong. Tweet: West Papua Sun
People who are beaten and arrested are treated inhumanely and are not followed up with proper care, nor justice, in one of Asia-Pacific’s most heavily militarised areas.
Among those injured in Sorong, these people have been named Aves Susim (25), Sriyani Wanene (30), Mama Rita Tenau (50), Betty Kosamah (22), Agus Edoway (25), Kamat (27), Subi Taplo (23), Amanda Yumte (23), Jack Asmuru (20), and Sonya Korain (22).
Root of the protests in the 1960s
The protests and rallies are not merely random riots, or protests against government corruption or even pay raises. The campaign is part of decades-old protests that have been carried out against what the Papuans consider to be an Indonesian invasion since the 1960s.
The Indonesian government claims West Papua’s fate was sealed with Indonesia after a United Nations-organised 1969 referendum, known as the Pepera or Act of Free Choice, something Papuans consider a sham and an Act of No Choice.
In spite of Indonesia’s claim, the Indonesian invasion of West Papua began in 1963, long before the so-called Act of Free Choice in 1969.
It was well documented that the 1025 Papuan elders who voted for Indonesian occupancy in 1969 were handpicked at gunpoint.
In the six years between 1963 and 1969, Indonesian security forces tortured and beat these elders into submission before the vote in 1969 began.
Friday’s protesters were not merely protesting against Jakarta’s draconian policy of drawing yet another arbitrary line through Papuan ancestral territory, but also against Indonesia’s illegal occupation.
The Papuans accuse Jakarta of imposing laws, policies, and programmes that affect Papuans living in West Papua, while it is illegally occupying the territory.
Papuans will protest indefinitely until the root cause is addressed. On the other hand, the Indonesian government seems to care little about what the Papuans actually want or think.
Markus Haluk said Indonesia did not view Papuans as human beings equal to that of Indonesians, and this mades them believe that what Papuans want and think, or how Jakarta’s policy may affect Papuans, had no value.
Jakarta, he continued, will do whatever it wants, however, it wishes, and whenever it wishes in regard to West Papua.
In light of this sharp perceptual contrast, the relationship between Papuans and the Indonesian government has almost reached a dead end.
Fatal disconnect
The Lowy Institute, Australia’s leading think-tank, published an article entitled What is at stake with new provinces in West Papua? on 28 April 2022 that identifies some of the most critical terminology regarding this dead-end protracted conflict — one of which is “fatal disconnect”.
The conclusion of the article stated, “On a general level, this means that there is a fatal disconnect between how the Indonesian government view their treatment of the region, and how the people actually affected by such treatment see the arrangement.”
It is this fatal disconnect that has brought these two states — Papua and Indonesia — to a point of no return. Two states are engaged in a relationship that has been disconnected since the very beginning, which has led to so many fatalities.
The author of the article, Eduard Lazarus, a Jakarta-based journalist and editor covering media and social movements, wrote:
That so many indigenous West Papuans expressed their disdain against renewing the Special Autonomy status … is a sign that something has gone horribly wrong.
The tragedy of this irreconcilable relationship is that Jakarta does not reflect on its actions and is willfully ignorant of how its rhetoric and behaviour in dealing with West Papua has caused such human tragedy and devastation spanning generations.
The way that Jakarta’s leaders talk about their “rescue” plans for West Papua displays this fatal disconnect.
KOMPAS.com reported on June 2 that Vice-President Ma’ruf Amin had asked Indonesian security forces to use a “humanist approach” in Papua rather than violence.
Ma’ruf expressed this view also in a virtual speech made at the Declaration of Papua Peace event organised by the Papuan Indigenous Peoples Institute on June 6.
In a press release, Ma’ruf said he had instructed the combined military and police officials to use a humanist approach, prioritise dialogical efforts, and refrain from violence.
Ma’ruf believes that conducive security conditions are essential to Papua’s development, and that the government aims to promote peace and unity in Papua through various policies and regulations.
The Papua Special Autonomy Law, he continued, regulates the transfer of power from provinces to regencies and cities, as well as increasing the percentage of Papua Special Autonomy Funds transferred to 2.25 percent of the National General Allocation Fund.
Additionally, according to the Vice-President, the government is drafting a presidential regulation regarding a Papuan Development Acceleration Master Plan (RIPPP) and establishing the Papuan Special Autonomy Development Acceleration Steering Agency (BP3OKP) directly headed by Ma’ruf himself.
He also underscored the importance of a collaboration between all parties, including indigenous Papuans. Ma’ruf believes that Papua’s development will speed up soon since the traditional leaders and all members of the Indigenous Papuan Council are willing to work together and actively participate in building the Land of Papua.
Indonesia’s new military commander
General Andika Perkasa. Image: File
Recently, Indonesia’s newly appointed Commander of Armed Forces, General Andika Perkasa, proposed a novel, humanistic approach to handling political conflict in West Papua.
Instead of removing armed combatants with gunfire, he has vowed to use “territorial development operations” to resolve the conflict. In these operations, personnel will conduct medical, educational, and infrastructure-building missions to establish a rapport with Papuan communities in an effort to steer them away from the independence movement.
In order to accomplish Perkasa’s plans, the military will have to station a large number of troops in West Papua in addition to the troops currently present.
When listening to these two countries’ top leaders, they appear full of optimism in the words and new plans they describe.
But the reality behind these words is something else entirely. There is, as concluded by Eduard Lazarus, a fatal disconnect between West Papuan and Jakarta’s policymakers, but Jakarta is unable to recognise it.
Jakarta seems to suffer from cognitive dissonance or cognitive disconnect when dealing with West Papua — a lack of harmony between its heart, words, and actions.
Cognitive dissonance is, by definition, a behavioural dysfunction with inconsistency in which the personal beliefs held, what has been said, and what has been done contradict each other.
Vice-chair of Papuan People’s Representative Council Yunus Wonda. Image: File
This contradiction, according to Yunus Wonda, deputy chair of the Papuan People’s Representative Council, occurs when the government changes the law and modifies and amends it as they see fit.
What is written, what is practised, and what is in the heart do not match. Papuans suffer greatly because of this, according to Yunus Wonda.
Mismanagement of a fatalistic nature
Jakarta continues to mismanage West Papua with fatalistic inconsistent policies, which, according to the article, “might already have soured” to an irreparable degree.
The humanist approach now appears to be another code in Indonesia’s gift package, delivered to the Papuans as a Trojan horse.
The words of Indonesia’s Vice-President and the head of its Armed Forces are like a band aid with a different colour trying to cover an old wound that has barely healed.
According to Wonda, the creation of new provinces is like trying to put the smoke out while the fire is still burning.
Jakarta had already tried to bandage those old wounds with the so-called “Special Autonomy” 20 years ago. The Autonomy gift was granted not out of goodwill, but out of fear of Papuan demands for independence.
However, Jakarta ended up making a big mess of it.
The same rhetoric is also seen here in the statement of the Vice-President. Even though the semantic choices and construction themselves seem so appealing, this language does not translate into reality in the field.
This is the problem — something has gone very wrong, and Jakarta isn’t willing to find out what it is. Instead, it keeps imposing its will on West Papua.
Jakarta keeps preaching the gospel of development, prosperity, peace, and security but does not ask what Papuans want.
The 2001 Special Autonomy Law was supposed to allow Papuans to have greater power over their fate, which included 79 articles designed to protect their land and culture.
Furthermore, under this law, one important institution, the Papuan People’s Assembly (Majelis Rakyat Papua-MRP), together with provincial governments and the Papuan People’s Representative Council (Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Papua-DPRP), was given the authority to deal with matters that are most important to them, such as land, population control, cultural identity, and symbols.
Section B of the introduction part of the Special Autonomy law contains the following significant provisions:
That the Papua community is God’s creation and is a part of a civilised people, who hold high human rights, religious values, democracy, law and cultural values in the adat (customary) law community and who have the right to fairly enjoy the results of development.
Three weeks after these words were written into law, popular independence leader Theys H. Eluay was killed by Indonesian special forces (Kopassus). Ryamizard Ryacudu, then-army chief-of-staff, who in 2014 became Jokowi’s first Defence Minister, later called the killers “heroes” (Tempo.co, August 19, 2003).
In 2003, the Megawati Soekarnoputri government divided the province into two, violating a provision of the Special Autonomy Law, which was based on the idea that Papua remains a single territory. As prescribed by law, any division would need to be approved by the Papuan provincial legislature and MRP.
Over the 20 years since the Autonomy gift was granted, Jakarta has violated and undermined any legal and political framework it agreed to or established to engage with Papuans.
Governor Lukas Enembe … not enough resources to run the five new provinces being created in West Papua. Image: West Papua Today
Papuan Indigenous leaders reject Jakarta’s band aid
On May 27, Governor Lukas Enembe of the settler province of Papua, told Reuters there were not enough resources to run new provinces and that Papuans were not properly consulted.
As the governor, direct representative of the central government, Enembe was not even consulted about the creation of new provinces.
Yunus Wonda and Timotius Murid, two Indigenous Papuan leaders entrusted to safeguard the Papuan people and their culture and customary land under two important institutions — the Papuan People’s Assembly (Majelis Rakyat Papua-MRP) and People’s Representative Council (Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Papua-DPRP) — were not consulted about the plans.
Making matters worse, Jakarta stripped them of any powers they had under the previous autonomous status, which set the precedent for Jakarta to amend the previous autonomous status law in 2021.
This amendment enables Jakarta to create new provinces.
The aspirations and wishes of the Papuan people were supposed to be channelled through these two institutions and the provincial government, but Jakarta promptly shut down all avenues that would enable Papuans to have their voices heard.
Governor Enembe faces constant threats, terrorism Governor Enembe has also been terrorised and intimidated by unknown parties over the past couple of years. He said, “I am an elected governor of Indonesia, but I am facing these constant threats and terror. What about my people? They are not safe.”
This is an existential war between the state of Papua and the state of Indonesia. We need to ask not only what is at stake with the new provinces in West Papua, but also, what is at stake in West Papua under Indonesia’s settler-colonial rule?
Four critical existential issues facing West Papua
There are four main components of Papuan culture at stake in West Papua under Indonesia’s settler-colonial rule:
1. Papuan humans
2. Papuan languages
3. Papuan oral cultural knowledge system
4. Papuan ancestral land and ecology
Papua’s identity was supposed to be protected by the Special Autonomy Law 2001.
However, Jakarta has shown no interest or intention in protecting these four existential components. Indonesia continues to amend, create, and pass laws to create more settler-colonial provincial spaces that threaten Papuans.
The end goal isn’t to provide welfare to Papuans or protect them, but to create settlers’ colonial areas so that new settlers — whether it be soldiers, criminal thugs, opportunists, poor improvised Indonesian immigrants, or colonial administrators — can fill those new spaces.
Jakarta is, unfortunately, turning these newly created spaces into new battlegrounds between clans, tribes, highlanders, coastal people, Papua province, West Papua province, families, and friends, as well as between Papuans and immigrants.
Media outlets in Indonesia are manipulating public opinion by portraying one leader as a proponent of Jakarta’s plan and the other as its opponent, further fuelling tension between leaders in Papua.
Yamin Kogoya is a West Papuan academic who has a Master of Applied Anthropology and Participatory Development from the Australian National University and who contributes to Asia Pacific Report. From the Lani tribe in the Papuan Highlands, he is currently living in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Indonesian police have been accused of beating two Papuan students with rattan sticks – severely injuring them — while 20 other students have been injured and the Morning Star flag seized in a crackdown on separate protests yesterday across the two Melanesian provinces of Papua and West Papua.
The protesters were blocked by police during a long march in the provincial capital of Jayapura opposing planned new autonomous regions in Papua.
Papuan human rights activist Younes Douw said almost 3000 students and indigenous Papuans (OAP) took to the streets for the action.
“Around 650 students took to the streets today. Added to by the Papuan community of around 2000 people,” Douw told CNN Indonesia.
Douw said that the actions yesterday were held at several different points in Jayapura such as Yahukimo, Waena and Abepura.
Almost every single gathering point, however, was blockaded by police.
Police blockade
“Like this morning there was a police blockade from Waena on the way to Abepura,” he said.
Douw said that two students were injured because of the repressive actions by police.
The two were named as Jayapura Science and Technology University (USTJ) student David Goo and Cendrawasih University (Unas) student Yebet Tegei.
Both suffered serious head injuries.
“They were beaten using rattan sticks,” Douw said.
Jayapura district police chief Assistant Superintendent Victor Mackbon denied the reports from the students.
“It’s a hoax. So please, if indeed they exist, they [should] report it. But if they don’t exist, that means it’s not true,” Mackbon told CNN Indonesia.
Demonstration banned
The police had earlier banned the demonstration against new autonomous regions being organised by the Papua People’s Petition (PRP).
The Papua Legal Aid Foundation (LBH) said that by last night at least 20 people had been injured as a result of police violence in in breaking up the protests.
“In Sorong, 10 people were injured. In Jayapura, 10 were also injured,” LBH Papua chair Emanuel Gobay told Kompas.com.
“The injuries were a consequence of the repressive approach by police against demonstrators when they broke up the rallies,” he said.
Police also arrested several people during the protests.
“In Nabire, 23 people were arrested then released later in the afternoon.
“Two people were also arrested in Jayapura and released later,” Gobay said.
When this article was published, however, local police were still denying that any protesters had been injured.
Tear gas fired at protesters as police break up a demonstration in Sorong, West Papua. Image: ILN/Kompas
Fires, flag seized in Sorong
In Sorong, police broke up a demonstration against the autonomous regions at the Sorong city Regional House of Representatives (DPRD) office, reports Kompas.com.
Earlier, the demonstrators had asked DPRD Speaker Petronela Kambuaya to meet with them but there was no response.
The demonstrators then became angry and set fire to tyres on the DPRD grounds and police fired teargas into the rally.
Sorong district police operations division head Police Commander Moch Nur Makmur said that the action taken was following procedure.
“We had already appealed to the korlap [protest field coordinator], saying that if there were fires we would break up [the rally], but they (the protesters) started it all so we took firm action and broke it up,” said commander Makmur.
Police also seized a Morning Star independence flag during the protest. The flag was grabbed when the demonstrators were holding a long march from the Remu traffic lights to the Sorong DPRD.
Makmur said that when police saw somebody carrying the Morning Star flag, they seized it.
“The flag was removed immediately, officers were quick to seize the flag,” he said.
Victims of terrorism have been trying to hold banks accountable for laundering terrorist money, but the US government doesn’t want that to happen. Attorney Chris Paulos joins Mike Papantonio to explain what’s happening. Click here to find out more about terrorism lawsuits. Transcript: *This transcript was generated by a third-party transcription software company, so please excuse […]
America’s Lawyer E07: The massive sex abuse scandal from the Southern Baptist Convention has already disappeared from the headlines, but the victims aren’t giving up their fight for justice. We’ll bring you the details. Democrats are worried that Biden can’t handle a re-election fight, and a small faction is hoping to recruit a new face […]
ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.
For nearly a decade, U.S. officials watched with alarm as a shadowy network of Russian mercenaries connected to the Kremlin wreaked havoc in Africa, the Middle East and most recently Ukraine.
A number of them now say they wish the U.S. government had done more.
President Vladimir Putin has increasingly relied on the Wagner Group as a private and unaccountable army that enables Russia to pursue its foreign policy objectives at low cost and without the political backlash that can come from foreign military intervention, U.S. officials and national security experts said.
In recent years, governments in the Middle East and Africa hired the fighters to crush insurgencies, protect natural resources and provide security — committing grave human rights abuses in the process, according to U.S. officials and international watchdogs.
In Syria, Wagner fighters were filmed gleefully beating a Syrian army deserter with a sledgehammer before cutting off his head. In the Central African Republic, United Nations investigators received reports that the mercenaries raped, tortured and murdered civilians. In Libya, Wagner allegedly booby-trapped civilian homes with explosives attached to toilet seats and teddy bears. Last month, German intelligence officials linked Wagner mercenaries to indiscriminate killings in Ukraine.
The U.S. was slow to respond to the danger, and it now finds itself struggling to restrain the use of the mercenaries across the globe, according to interviews with more than 15 current and former diplomatic, military and intelligence officials. Unilateral sanctions have done little to deter the group. Diplomacy has stumbled.
“There was no unified or systematic U.S. policy toward the group,” said Tibor Nagy, who served the State Department for nearly three decades, most recently as the assistant secretary of state for African affairs until 2021.
Tibor Nagy
(Eduardo Soteras/AFP via Getty Images)
The Kremlin officially denies any connection with the activities of Russian mercenaries abroad, and much about Wagner’s structure and leadership remains unclear. But experts say that Wagner’s top officers have participated in meetings between foreign leaders and top Russian officials. They also say the Russian air force has transported Wagner fighters to launch the group’s international missions.
Wagner has spread around the world, particularly in Africa, because it presents an enticing package to leaders of embattled nations, experts said. It offers to quash terrorism and rebel threats with brutal military crackdowns, while rallying public support for their government clients through disinformation campaigns.
U.S. officials said they have felt underequipped in trying to curtail the mercenaries’ incursions, in part because American diplomacy in Africa has been gradually stripped of resources over the past three decades. Some also said the U.S. was slow to appreciate the severity of the Wagner threat before it became a formidable weapon in the Kremlin’s arsenal.
In Africa, American efforts to persuade governments not to work with Wagner have generally been late and ineffectual, the officials said. U.S. diplomats have been surprised when Wagner arrives in a faltering country, leaving them scrambling to counter the group’s influence with limited tools and incentives.
During the Cold War, America’s policy of containing the spread of Soviet communism led to a substantial investment in courting African leaders, offering developmental aid, university exchange programs, even concerts. But when the Berlin Wall fell, so too did the U.S. government’s interest in the African continent, the officials told ProPublica. Embassy staffs shrank; programs shriveled.
“America’s soft power is unbeatable, but it needs to be deployed,” Nagy told ProPublica. “The quiver is empty.”
Nagy and other current and former high-level State Department officials said embassies in Africa tend to employ few public diplomacy officers, with barebones staff that must juggle everything from routine visa issues to terrorist threats.
“That doesn’t leave a lot of time for a thin staff to develop the expertise or the relationships necessary to have or pursue a robust engagement strategy,” one senior State Department official said about efforts to steer foreign officials away from Wagner. “The ability of a fairly junior diplomatic officer to build a relationship with the Cabinet member who’s going to be making the decision — that is just not realistic in most cases.”
The State Department declined to comment. The Pentagon and the Kremlin did not respond to questions for this story.
The most visible U.S. effort to keep Wagner out of a specific country transpired in Mali, where the mercenaries arrived last December to fight jihadists rampaging in the north. Malian President Assimi Goïta had recently come to power in the latest of a series of coups that prompted international sanctions.
Before Wagner landed, Gen. Stephen Townsend, the head of the U.S. military’s Africa Command, traveled to Mali to meet with Goïta. “I explained that I thought it was a bad idea to invite Wagner,” Townsend told Congress in March. “Wagner obeys no rules. They won’t follow the direction of the government.”
But the entreaties from Townsend and other U.S. officials were unsuccessful. Former diplomats say the effort was part of a troubling pattern where American officials parachute into complex situations equipped with little more than talking points. Africa Command declined to comment.
The Americans were telling the Malians not to work with the Wagner group but offering no meaningful alternatives, said J. Peter Pham, who served as the first-ever U.S. special envoy to the Sahel region until last year and maintains close contact with Malian and other African officials.
“You either have concrete programs of assistance, or you have personal relationships and diplomatic capital built up over the years that you can call upon,” Pham said. “Many American officials, often of middling rank, are often dispatched with neither.”
In March, the French newspaper Le Monde reported that Wagner mercenaries had participated in the torture of civilians, including by electrocution, while working with Malian soldiers. Last month, Human Rights Watch issued a detailed report accusing Russian fighters of participating in a massacre of roughly 300 civilians during a military operation. The killing began at a crowded cattle market on March 27 and continued for several days. In a statement, State Department spokesman Ned Price said, “We are concerned that many reports suggest that the perpetrators were unaccountable forces from the Kremlin-backed Wagner Group.”
The Malian government has said that the Russians are helping their military as formal instructors, and that their army killed 203 “terrorists” and arrested 51 more during the operation. The Malian Embassy in the U.S. did not respond to requests for comment.
The Wagner group first attracted public notice in 2014, during the Russian invasion of eastern Ukraine. Its mercenaries fought alongside Russian federation forces, attacking Ukrainian forces in the still-contested Donbas region.
Gary Motsek, then a U.S. deputy assistant secretary of defense, was alarmed by the emergence of what seemed to be a new breed of Russian mercenary.
For years, the Pentagon had been aware of Russian military contractors disregarding international law, Motsek said in an interview with ProPublica. But the contractors had mostly been consigned to securing oil tankers and other Russian assets. Now the Wagner Group was in combat, like a private army.
“Looking at the growth of the Wagner Group, it was clearly a missed opportunity” from roughly 2008 to 2010, Motsek said. “We should have made it a priority.”
At the time, Motsek led a Pentagon office that helped create international standards for private military contractors. He said the office focused on voluntary compliance and companies active in American warzones. When the Russians chose not to sign on to the standards, he was not aware of any effort to rein them in.
“It was probably my fault, more than anyone else, because I was the only one working on this on an almost daily basis,” Motsek told ProPublica. “We never went and said, ‘Let’s control these guys.’ I didn’t have the mandate to do that. And I guess I didn’t have the vision.”
American officials say Wagner operates through a web of shell companies controlled by the Russian oligarch Yevgeny Prigozhin, a food industry magnate with close ties to Putin, sardonically referred to as “Putin’s Chef.” Prigozhin has vehemently denied his involvement in the group, supposedly named after the German composer — a favorite of one of the mercenaries’ alleged commanders. Efforts to reach Prigozhin were not successful.
Yevgeny Prigozhin
(Mikhail Svetlov/Getty Images)
The U.S. sanctioned Prigozhin in 2016 and the Wagner Group in 2017 in response to their role in the Ukrainian conflict. Prigozhin was subsequently indicted for his alleged involvement in meddling with the 2016 U.S. presidential election through the troll farm known as the Internet Research Agency.
Experts say the Wagner Group appears to be paid in proceeds from natural resources like oil, gold and diamonds in countries where they are fighting. The Kremlin has used them as a cheap alternative to Russian armed forces.
“Russia has opened up military operations in two continents, for the first time since the 1980s,” said Sean McFate, a professor at the National Defense University. “The tip of the spear is the Wagner Group.”
In 2015, Russia sent its military to fight in the Syrian civil war on behalf of the dictator Bashar al-Assad. It was the Kremlin’s first armed intervention outside former Soviet territories since the end of the Cold War. Soon, Russian Federation forces and fighters from Wagner and other mercenary groups helped tilt the war in Assad’s favor.
On Feb. 7, 2018, Wagner mercenaries and Syrian soldiers carried out an assault on a U.S. special forces outpost near the town of Khasham, hammering the American position with artillery rounds as the Russians and Syrians advanced. Americans responded with airstrikes in a four-hour battle, killing an estimated 200 combatants. No Americans died.
Joseph Votel, a retired four-star general, was then the head of U.S. Central Command. In an interview, he told ProPublica that he believes the assault was financially motivated, and that Wagner sought control of an oil field near an ongoing U.S.-led counterterror operation.
But Votel said U.S. commanders regarded the fight as an isolated incident rather than a significant development in souring relations between the two nations.
“I didn’t particularly dwell on it,” Votel said. “I wasn’t pressed on it. What happened, happened.”
Joseph Siegle, director of research at the Africa Center for Strategic Studies, said Russian military successes in the Syrian conflict represented an “inflection point for Russia.”
“They saw how quickly they could gain influence in a region where they’d had relatively little influence,” Siegle said.
In 2019, Wagner began to fight in the Libyan civil war, supporting a campaign by the warlord Khalifa Haftar to overthrow the country’s internationally recognized government. Haftar had appeared to be faltering, but, together, Wagner and rebel fighters launched a new offensive that brought their combined forces to the outskirts of Tripoli.
At the top levels of American foreign policy agencies, alarm bells were beginning to sound.
“We were watching it change the course of the war,” David Schenker, then assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs, said in an interview with ProPublica. “This was the beachhead. Wagner was the landing party.” Haftar’s attempt to retake Tripoli ultimately stalled after Turkey intervened on the opposing side. But if Haftar had succeeded, Schenker worried, Russia could have been rewarded with “a base on NATO’s southern flank.”
Schenker said he believed the most immediate potential countermeasure was to push the European Union to impose sanctions on Wagner and crack down on its finances. But he said many of his colleagues in the U.S. government and in Europe didn’t view that as realistic.
“I really pressed hard for a designation from the E.U. What’s complicated is that Russia routinely goes and assassinates dissidents in foreign countries,” he said. “People weren’t interested in angering Putin. Putin for these guys is like Voldemort.”
The E.U. did not impose sanctions on Wagner until December 2021.
In response to questions for this story, E.U. spokesperson Nabila Massrali said the E.U. aggressively sanctioned Russia in response to the invasion of Ukraine and sanctioned Wagner “to take tangible action against those threatening international peace and security and breaching international law,” noting that all sanctions require unanimity among member countries.
As the Ukrainian conflict drags on and the Kremlin becomes further isolated from the global economy, experts say that Wagner is likely to play an increasingly important role in Russian foreign policy. The Wagner Group’s expansion could help Russia evade the impact of sanctions, entice governments to support it in the U.N. General Assembly and secure strategic positions in its fight against the NATO alliance.
Economically, Russia pales in comparison to superpowers like China and the United States. But in the Wagner group, officials said, Russia has found a cheap and novel foreign policy tool that America has yet to find a way to address. Client governments appear to absorb most of the cost.
“The Russians don’t have a blank checkbook,” said Nagy, the former top U.S. diplomat for Africa. “They are playing a fairly weak hand extremely, extremely well.”
ProPublica will continue to report on the Wagner group and the power struggle between the U.S. and Russia as it plays out around the globe. We are especially interested in relationships between Western companies and Russian mercenaries.
If you know about these issues, please contact reporters Joaquin Sapien at joaquin.sapien@propublica.org or Joshua Kaplan at joshua.kaplan@propublica.org. We take your privacy seriously and will contact you if we wish to publish any part of your story.
A Pacific journalist believes the Kiribati government has been coerced by Beijing to accommodate China’s foreign minister’s visit.
Kiribati authorities have confirmed that Wang Yi would briefly stopover to meet President Taneti Maamau as part of his Pacific-wide tour.
Journalist Rimon Rimon said the government had been “very secretive” and “people are frustrated and angry” after only learning about the trip via a Facebook post.
Rimon said Kiribati was grappling with a covid-19 outbreak and with the borders closed it was a change in practice by the government to oblige Beijing’s request.
“I think there has been some kind of pressure from Beijing. Only last night I had confirmation from a source from Beijing that before they travelled Kiribati was finally on the list,” he said.
“So, I finally understood that there had been some pressures and our government has submitted to those pressures.”
Rimon said a deal with Kiribati had more significance for China, as Beijing had already demonstrated its willingness to develop Kiribati’s northernmost island, Kanton Island, which has strategic military potential.
Kiribati government ‘reluctant’
“And I think China is pursuing that. I think our government is quite reluctant on something military-wise, based on the narrative that the government has been saying throughout the years.
“But I have no doubt this is, this is the number one thing on China’s agenda. How our government will respond to that or accommodate that. I have no idea of that,” he said.
President Taneti Maamau of Kiribati … Kanton Island “the number one thing on China’s agenda,” says journalist. Image: Rick Bajornas/UN
The Kiribati government said the high-level state visit was an important milestone for Kiribati-China relations, as it would strengthen and promote partnership and cooperation between the two countries after the resumption of diplomatic ties in 2019.
Meanwhile, Foreign Minister Wang Yi is due to visit Vanuatu next Wednesday as part of his tour.
The Chinese Embassy in Port Vila has confirmed the arrival date for bilateral talks with the government of Vanuatu.
The embassy said Wang’s visit in Vanuatu had nothing to do with security issues. Instead, it said, he would discuss five memorandums of understanding as well as other business.
The embassy said the discussion points would be on tangible benefits that China could bring to the people of Vanuatu.
As well as Port Vila, Wang is due to visit Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Tonga, and Kiribati. He is currently in Solomon Islands.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
The Media Association of Solomon Islands (MASI) has urged its members to boycott a media conference for a visiting Chinese delegation in protest over “ridiculous” restrictions.
China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi leads the high-level delegation which arrives in Solomon Islands today.
Wang is expected to sign a host of new agreements, including the security pact that has sparked anger in the United States, Australia and New Zealand.
MASI president Georgina Kekea said it was disappointed that the media were only allowed limited access to the visit.
Kekea said Solomon Islands was a democratic country and when media freedom was dictated on someone else’s terms, it impeded the country’s democratic principles.
“The Chinese delegation’s visit is an important and historical one for our country and our members play an important role in making sure it provides the right information and awareness on the importance of the visit to our people,” she said.
She said only two questions could be asked, one from a local journalist directed to the Solomon Islands foreign affairs minister, and one from Chinese media, directed to their foreign affairs minister.
“How ridiculous is that? If we want to interview our foreign affairs minister, we can just do it without the event,” she said.
‘What’s the purpose?’
“What is the purpose of hosting such an event for the press when they are only allowed one question and directed to their foreign minister only?”
Kekea said even the discriminatory manner in which journalists were selected to cover the event did not bode well with the association.
China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi … Pacific influencing travel includes Fiji, Kiribati, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga and Vanuatu. Image: MFA/Chinese govt
“MASI thrives on professional journalism and sees no reason for journalists to be discriminated against based on who they represent. Giving credentials to selected journalists is a sign of favouritism,” she said.
“Journalists should be allowed to do their job without fear or favour.”
She said the reason given that the arrangements were done that way because of covid-19 protocols did not stack up.
“We have community transmission, people are crowded in buses, shops, markets, banks and so forth, so this is a very lame excuse,” she said.
Kekea said press freedom is enshrined as a fundamental element in the Solomons’ constitution.
‘MASI defending democracy’
“Same as the prime minister has defended democracy in Parliament after the November riots, MASI is also defending democracy in this space,” Kekea said.
She added that the boycott was not to disrespect the government or its bilateral partners in any way, but to showcase the media’s disagreement in this matter.
Solomons Islands opposition leader Mathew Wale has again raised concerns at the secrecy surrounding links with Beijing.
Wale said only a few top aides know what is in the agreements, and that there’s no justification for the secrecy.
“Solomon Islands is a democratic country, owned by the people and they are entitled to know what is being transacted in their name,” he said.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi is to visit Kiribati on Friday for four hours as part of a Pacific tour to strengthen security ties in the region.
It is the first top level bilateral meeting between the two countries since Kiribati switched allegiance to China from Taiwan in 2019.
Concern is mounting over a potential security deal following the PRC’s recent controversial agreement with Solomon Islands which allows it to have military presence in the island nation if requested.
Speaking to 1News, Kiribati Opposition leader Tessie Eria Lambourne said she was “gravely concerned” about any potential security arrangement as she believed it would involve the militarisation of one of its atolls, Kanton Island, and Chinese control over the area.
“Our rich marine territory in the Phoenix Islands Protected Area (PIPA) will be under China’s control for sure,” she said.
The area is valuable for its geo-strategic location, including proximity to United States military installations, along with its rich fisheries resources.
Last year, 1News revealed how the Kiribati government was ditching PIPA, a marine reserve and World Heritage site to open up to commercial fishing in a move believed to have been driven by Beijing.
China funding feasibility study
China is also funding a feasibility study to upgrade the runway and causeway on Kanton Island which has raised alarm in the US and Australia.
Friday’s bilateral meeting which is expected to include discussions about the Kanton Island development was announced late on Tuesday.
A Facebook post from President Taneti Maamau’s office said the high-level state visit was “an important milestone for Kiribati-Chinese relations, as it will strengthen and promote partnership and cooperation between our two countries”.
An exemption is being made for the delegation as Kiribati borders remain closed as a covid-19 safety measure.
While the group will undergo PCR testing when they arrive at the airport, Lambourne said the visit demonstrated the influence the superpower had there.
“Since the lockdown there have been exemptions extended to Chinese nationals who have been coming in and going out of our country without restrictions while our seafarers and other nationals had to wait more than three years to be repatriated,” she said.
“Our democratic system, in fact our very sovereignty , is under attack and we need support to ensure our survival as a democratic nation.”
Delegation arriving in Honiara tonight
The Chinese delegation is expected to arrive in Solomon Islands tonight and meet with the government on Thursday. The group will also be visiting Fiji on Sunday and Monday and Papua New Guinea next week.
Speaking to media from New York today, Jacinda Ardern said it was no surprise Yi was set to visit a number of Pacific countries.
Asked if it was a concern, Ardern said: “We’re very firm that yes of course we want collaboration in areas where we have shared concerns.
“Issues like climate mitigation and adaptation, we want quality investment and infrastructure in our region.
“We don’t want militarisation, we don’t want an escalation of tension, we want peace and stability so we will remain firm on those values.”
Forty-two hunger strikers are part of group of 89 Sri Lankans whose boat was intercepted in Indian Ocean by UK military
Dozens of Sri Lankan Tamil refugees who have been detained for more than seven months in a military base on an overseas territory claimed by Britain have gone on hunger strike in despair at their plight.
The 42 hunger strikers are part of a group of 89 Sri Lankans, including 20 children, whose boat was intercepted and escorted to Diego Garcia in the middle of the Indian Ocean by the British military after running into distress while apparently headed to Canada from India in October.
Nothing justifies the killing of Al Jazeera journalist Shireen Abu Akleh and the wounding of her colleague Ali al-Samoudi during an Israeli raid on Jenin in the Occupied West Bank. Nothing.
I believe the renowned reporter died at the hands of Israeli armed forces and that she was deliberately targeted because she was a journalist, easily identified by the word PRESS on the flak jacket and helmet that did not protect her from the shot that killed her. Her wounded colleague was identically dressed.
I am left in no doubt about the culpability of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) on a number of grounds.
Several eyewitnesses, including an Agence France-Presse photographer and another Al Jazeera staffer, were adamant that there was no shooting from Palestinians near the scene of the killing. Shatha Hanaysha, the Al Jazeera journalist who had been standing next to Abu Akleh against a high wall when firing broke out, stated they were deliberately targeted by Israeli troops.
Israeli spokesmen who initially laid the blame on Palestinian militants became more equivocal in the face of the eyewitness accounts, although they would go no further than saying she could have been accidentally shot from an armoured vehicle by an Israeli soldier.
That is about as close to an admission of guilt as the IDF is likely to get.
However, perhaps the strongest evidence of IDF culpability is the fact that the killing of Abu Akleh is part of a pattern of targeting journalists. Reporters Without Borders — which has called for an independent international investigation of the death that it says is a violation of international conventions that protect journalists — says two Palestinian journalists were killed by Israeli snipers in 2018 and since then more than 140 journalists have been the victims of violations by the Israeli security forces.
30 journalists killed since 2000
By its tally, at least 30 journalists have been killed since 2000.
Of course, those deaths are but one consequence of the IDF’s disproportionate response — in terms of the number of victims — to actions by Palestinian militants over the occupation of the West Bank. Since the present Israeli government took office last year, 76 Palestinians have died at the hands of Israeli forces.
There has been condemnation of such deaths, particularly when they include a number of children. So the reaction to the killing of Shireen Abu Akleh was sadly predictable. In other circumstances the outcry would dissipate and Israeli forces would continue to carry out their government’s wishes.
However, three things may make the condemnation louder, longer and more effective.
First was the fact that, although she was born in Jerusalem, she was a United States citizen. This could well explain the US Administration’s statement condemning the killing and its willingness to back a similarly reproachful UN Security Council resolution.
The second factor was that, although a Palestinian, Abu Akleh was not a Muslim. She was raised in a Christian Catholic family. It may not be a particularly becoming trait but the ability of the West to identify with a victim affects the way in which it reacts.
However, it is the third factor that may have the most telling effect on the long-term consequences of her death. I am referring to the desecration of her funeral by baton-wielding armed Israeli police.
Pallbearers assaulted by police
The journalist’s coffin was carried in procession from an East Jerusalem hospital to the Cathedral of the Annunciation of the Virgin in the Christian Quarter of the Old City where a service was held before burial in a cemetery on the Mount of Olives. However, shortly after the pallbearers left the hospital the procession — waving Palestinian flags and chanting — was assaulted by police.
It is the third factor that may have the most telling effect on the long-term consequences of Palestinian journalist Shireen Abu Akleh’s death … the desecration of her funeral by baton-wielding armed Israeli police. Image: Al Jazeera screenshot APR
Mourners were hit with batons, stun grenades were detonated, and a phalanx of armed police in riot gear advanced on the coffin. The procession scattered in disarray and, as the pallbearers tried to avoid the police action, the coffin tilted almost vertical and was in danger of falling to the road.
At that point, an Al Jazeera journalist providing commentary on live coverage of the funeral said an an anguished voice: “Oh my God. Such disrespect for the dead, for those mourning the dead. How is that a security threat? How is that disorderly? Why does it require this kind of reaction, this level of violence on the part of the Israelis?”
Why did the police act as they did? Apparently because it is illegal to display the Palestinian flag and chant Palestinian slogans. Even after Abu Akleh’s coffin was transferred to a vehicle, police ran alongside to tear Palestinian flag from the windows.
The message was clear: There was no contrition on the part of Israeli authorities for the death of the Al Jazeera journalist. The justification for the police action was pathetic. There were lame excuses that stones had been thrown at them. In other words, it was business as usual.
That may not be the way the world sees it. Nor, indeed, the way it may be seen by many ordinary Israelis who would have been affronted by the indignity shown to the remains of a widely respected woman who died doing her job.
‘Time for some accountability?’
Yaakov Katz, the editor of the Jerusalem Post, an English-language Israeli newspaper, said on Twitter: “What’s happening at Abu Akleh’s funeral is terrible. This is a failure on all fronts.” In a later message he asked: “Is it not time for some accountability?”
The targeting of journalists aims to intimidate and to prevent them from bearing witness, particularly where authorities have something to hide. That is why, for example, we have seen seven journalists killed in Ukraine, 12 of their colleagues injured by gunfire, and multiple reports of clearly identified journalists coming under fire from Russian forces.
One might have thought the international community — and in particular Israel’s close friend the United States — would have put significant pressure on Tel Aviv to cease such intimidation a year ago after Israeli aircraft bombed the Gaza City building that was home to various media organisations including Al Jazeera and the US wire service Associated Press.
Israel claimed, without any evidence and contrary to AP’s own knowledge, that the building was being used by Hamas, the Palestinian nationalist organisation.
Associated Press chief executive Gary Pruitt said after that attack that “the world will know less about what is happening in Gaza because of what happened today”. Aidan White, founder of the Ethical Journalism Network described the bombing as a “catastrophic attempt to shut down media, to silence criticism, and worst of all, to create a cloak of secrecy”.
That, no doubt, was what Tel Aviv intended.
Yet there were no recriminations sufficient to change the course Tel Aviv was on. As the killing of Shireen Abu Akleh so tragically illustrates, Israel has continued its policy of intimidation and violence against journalists.
Sooner or later, it will come to realise that such actions diminish a government in the eyes of the world. The death of Abu Akleh and the indignity shown to her remains have added significantly to the damage to its reputation.
Dr Gavin Ellis holds a PhD in political studies. He is a media consultant and researcher. A former editor-in-chief of The New Zealand Herald, he has a background in journalism and communications — covering both editorial and management roles — that spans more than half a century. Dr Ellis publishes a website called Knightly Views where this commentary was first published and it is republished by Asia Pacific Report with permission.
The targeting of journalists aims to intimidate and to prevent them from bearing witness, particularly where authorities have something to hide … One of the images of slain journalist Shireen Abu Akleh shown in a “guerilla-projection” by a pro-Palestinian group at Te Papa yesterday to mark the 74th anniversary of the Nakba, the forced expulsion of Palestinians from their homeland in 1948. Image: Stuff screenshot APR
The Kanak people will not accept France’s attempt to “recolonise” New Caledonia, a pro-independence delegate has told the United Nations.
Addressing a UN Decolonisation Committee seminar on the Pacific in Saint Lucia, Dimitri Qenegei said since 2020 the French President, Emmanuel Macron, and his Overseas Minister Sebastien Lecornu had been taking unilateral decisions.
Qenegei said the signatories to the 1998 Noumea Accord stopped having their annual meetings in 2019 and the date for the referendum on independence last year was set without the consent of the Kanak people.
Paris decided to go ahead with the third and last referendum last December under the Noumea Accord despite pleas by the pro-independence camp to delay the vote because of the impact of the covid-19 pandemic on the Kanak people.
France insisted that the timetable for the vote had to be upheld.
Amid a boycott by the pro-independence camp, fewer than half of the voters took part in the referendum but of those who did vote more than 96 percent were in favour of staying with France.
Qenegei said Macron declared after the referendum that New Caledonia showed it wanted to stay French although it was known that 90 percent of Kanaks wanted independence.
Claims of manipulation and lies To therefore proclaim that New Caledonia chose to stay French was not legitimate, he said, adding that it was a “manipulation and a lie” by France and the heirs of the colonial system.
He said France, as the administrative power, had reorientated its policies to the methods of bygone centuries to hold on to its non-autonomous territories.
Qenegei said France had reneged on its undertaking given in 1998 to accompany New Caledonia to its decolonisation.
He pointed out that in case of three rejections of independence in the referenda under the Noumea Accord, the political parties needed to be convened to discuss the situation.
Qenegei said nowhere did it say that in a case of three “no” votes, New Caledonia remained French.
He said on the international stage, France had been losing influence, which prompted President Macron in 2018 to work towards an Indo-Pacific axis from Paris to Noumea that included India and Australia.
However, he said France suffered a first humiliation when Australia backed out of a multi-billion dollar contract for French submarines.
New Caledonia becoming independent would be another blow to the military axis aimed at containing China, he said.
Parallel drawn with China Qenegei drew a parallel between China and France, saying France decried the possibility of Chinese troops in Solomon Islands as imperialism while France had placed troops in New Caledonia to “contain the Kanaks”.
While France criticised China’s lending policies, Qenegei said France regarded its loans to New Caledonia, given with interest to be paid, as something different.
Qenegei said the recent French policies were nothing but a return to the source of colonisation.
He warned that France’s intention to open up the electoral rolls to French people who arrived after 1998 was the ultimate weapon to drown the Kanak people and recolonise New Caledonia.
The Kanaks would be made to disappear and that would not be accepted but inevitably lead to conflict.
Qenegei said his outline was not a threat a but a call for help to bring the administrative power to its senses.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
The Kanak people won’t accept France’s attempt to recolonise New Caledonia, a pro-independence delegate has told the United Nations. https://t.co/UBRq27EyTi
On May 2, 2022, a statement was made by Mali’s military spokesperson Colonel Abdoulaye Maïga on the country’s national television, where he said that Mali was ending the defense accords it had with France, effectively making the presence of French troops in Mali illegal. The statement was written by the military leadership of the country, which has been in power since May 2021.
Colonel Maïga said that there were three reasons why Mali’s military had taken this dramatic decision. The first was that they were reacting to France’s “unilateral attitude,” reflected in the way France’s military operated in Mali and in the June 2021 decision by French President Emmanuel Macron to withdraw French forces from the country “without consulting Mali.”
A massive military parade in North Korea has been identified as a COVID-19 super-spreader event, after several servicemen who marched in it tested positive for the virus, sources in the country told RFA.
Held on April 25 to commemorate the guerilla operation that started 90 years ago and grew into the country’s military, the parade brought together about 20,000 soldiers. At the time, North Korea was still claiming that it was 100% “virus free.” This week, Pyongyang finally confirmed its first cases of COVID-19 and at least one death from the disease.
The country’s leader, Kim Jong Un, has since declared a “maximum emergency epidemic prevention system” is in effect.
Several soldiers stationed as border guards in the border city of Sinuiju, which lies across the Yalu River from China, began exhibiting symptoms of COVID-19 at the beginning of this month, a border security official in the northwestern province of North Pyongan told RFA’s Korean Service on condition of anonymity for security reasons.
“They had high fevers and acute respiratory symptoms … and after testing by the health authorities, it was confirmed that they were infected with the Omicron variant,” the source said.
“Most of the ones who tested positive are officers and soldiers who took part in the military parade … on April 25. The health authorities reported the incident to the national emergency quarantine command, who in turn sent it in as a No. 1 report,” he said, referring to communications of the highest level, sent across the desk Kim Jong Un.
The revelation that the border guards could have contracted the virus at the parade and may have spread it to others upon their return led authorities in North Pyongan to declare a state of emergency.
“As a result, the border area has been further sealed up and traffic between the border guard units has been suspended,” the source said.
“Soldiers in each battalion, company and platoon cannot enter or exit the barracks, and movement restrictions are in place to prevent even a single solder from joining or leaving a unit. They are even prohibiting private conversations between soldiers within the same unit,” he said.
Another border security official, in nearby Uiju county, told RFA that soldiers there have been ordered to wear gas masks to prevent the virus from spreading.
“No one is allowed to go outside the unit barracks except the soldiers on duty in outposts who work in shifts,” said the second source, who requested anonymity to speak freely.
“The number of confirmed cases among the border guard soldiers stationed in Uiju County has been increasing since early this month,” he said. “Most of the sick soldiers took part in the military parade to commemorate the 90th anniversary of the founding of the Korean People’s Revolutionary Army in Pyongyang on April 25th.”
If the soldiers indeed caught the virus during the parade, then it could have spread to all branches of the military in every part of the country, the second source said.
“The military parade mobilized a large number of personnel. Not only the border guards, but also officers and soldiers selected from the army and marines, navy, and air force across the country participated. Therefore, it should be considered that the coronavirus has spread to every military base everywhere,” the second source said.
“The authorities quickly … started up the maximum emergency quarantine system nationwide and began locking everything down,” he said. “But it is already too late.”
Sources told RFA that people are angry an event purely for propaganda purposes may be the source widespread illness.
According to a North Korean state media report on Friday, there are currently 187,800 people in quarantine in North Korea, and six people have died after showing COVID-19 symptoms. One of the dead was confirmed to be infected by the omicron variant of COVID-19.
Translated by Leejin J. Chung. Written in English by Eugene Whong.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Hyemin Son.
Plans to double Japan’s defence budget to around £86bn may mark the final winding down of the country’s anti-militarist posture. But the move will only make the world more dangerous, according to one Japanese foreign policy expert. University of East Anglia scholar Ra Mason also said that the US is driving the shift.
Writing in The Conversation, Mason said that the defence hike reflected those in European countries and signalled a bonanza for arms firms.
Imperial ambitions?
Mason said the change:
had been prompted by the conflict in Ukraine, but also reflected growing regional pressure from China, North Korea and Russia.
However, the pressure to militarise is not necessarily home grown. As Mason wrote:
The US has been pressuring Japan for some time to increase its defence spending to share the security bill in the Asia-Pacific region.
Japan’s post-war constitution still bans particular kinds of militarist behaviour, including the possession or development of nuclear weapons. However, in recent years defence reforms have still gone ahead under different governments. Article 9 of the constitution was created to prevent Japan becoming a military power again. Article 9 reads:
Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.
In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.
Recent polls suggest that while many Japanese people oppose abandoning it, a clear majority of elected politicians back reform.
Other experts also point to the gradual move away from a pacifist-type foreign policy over many years. Japan deployed troops to Iraq and Afghanistan (albeit in support roles) and it’s navy sank a North Korean ship in 2001. And, as the Council on Foreign Relations has pointed out:
Pressure from Washington has only increased since the 9/11 attacks.
US influence
Mason argued that US relations have been key to the change:
In the current era, relations with Washington have been paramount. But with America seemingly overstretched and in decline, Tokyo’s move to strengthen its military and deepen the alliance poses questions about Japan’s security identity.
There is an increasing danger for Japan of:
entrapment into American proxy wars and increasing economic involvement in the US “military-industrial complex”, the system by which the defence sector encourages arms spending and war.
Big-money reforms
Mason added that the current push for a more militarist Japan would allow big profits for defence firms. Much as we have seen in the West since the war in Ukraine began:
Mason also argued that Japan’s ministers are using goodwill over Ukraine to fuel militarism at home. Japan has taken refugees, and large donations have been made to help those affected by the war. But, he warns, that goodwill should not be used to ramp up Japanese militarism in the region.
Japan’s involvement in international politics since WW2 has been very different to other former imperial powers. It would be a tragedy if that shifted to a more aggressive foreign policy, but this seems to be occurring despite public pride in Japan’s role in the world. There will be few winners from a re-militarised Japan, least of all the Japanese people.
The absolute impunity which the Aotearoa New Zealand government has given to Israel’s racist apartheid regime over many decades and the cowering of the Aotearoa New Zealand media in the face of threats of false smears of anti-semitism from the racist pro-Israel lobby are key factors in the daily murder and mayhem conducted by Israeli troops in Palestine.
This veteran journalist has been the “voice of the voiceless” as she has fearlessly reported for Al Jazeera on Israel’s military occupation of Palestine over many decades.
Her fearlessness is in sharp contrast to local media reporting on Israel/Palestine which includes multiple, repeated inaccuracies which reinforce Israel’s “justifications” for its brutality.
Most New Zealanders do not even know that Israel runs a military occupation over the entire area of historic Palestine.
With rare exceptions, our media simply provide a safe portal for Israeli propaganda.
Israel’s unbridled brutality
Meanwhile, our Ministry of Foreign Affairs, if they say anything at all about Israel’s occupation or unbridled brutality are much more likely to criticise Palestinians than they are to criticise Israel.
If they spoke out about the Russian invasion of Ukraine like they do with the situation in the Middle East, they would be blaming Ukrainians for “provocations against Russian troops” and asking Ukrainians to exercise “maximum restraint” in the face of Russian brutality.
It’s hypocrisy on a grand scale.
We call out human rights abuses to a US agenda. We condemn Russia and China but look the other way with Israeli or Indonesian brutality (as in West Papua).
None of this has changed under the current minister Nanaia Mahuta who has been silent for more than 18 months on the Palestinian struggle.
Silence is never an option when it comes to human rights. It is the position of cowards.
Until Israel is called out for its racist apartheid policies and the consequences which flow from that, it will continue to murder with impunity.
We have yet again asked the minister to speak out and demand an independent investigation and accountability for Shireen Abu Akleh’s assassination.
John Minto is a political activist and commentator, and spokesperson for Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa. This article was first published by The Daily Blog and is republished with the author’s permission.
Papua New Guinea’s policemen and women around the country have been ordered to arrest and charge anyone in possession of illegal firearms — which carries life imprisonment under the amended law — from the May 19 deadline.
Police Commissioner David Manning, who is also the Registrar of Firearms, said that the directives were now being enforced.
Manning is urging all police officers around the country to enforce the law and implement the Firearms Amendment Act 2022 that was tabled and supported by all members of the 10th National Parliament recently.
“I gave a two-week amnesty period for people to come forward and surrender their firearms to the nearest police station,” he said.
“I am now appealing to anyone who has any information about the existence of any such illegal firearms to please come forward and assist your police force to remove these individuals and firearms from our communities.”
Papua New Guinea faces a general election starting in late July and security is an issue.
Miriam Zarrigais a PNG Post-Courier reporter. Republished with permission.
Finland will apply to join NATO, the country’s leadership has announced. Sweden is expected to follow suit. Both nations have historically been neutral, but the Russian war in Ukraine has shifted attitudes. In Finland, according to some figures, support for NATO membership shot up to 76% after the Russian invasion.
On Thursday morning, Finnish president Sauli Niinistö said he had spoken with Ukraine’s Volodyymr Zelenskyy about the application:
I spoke with President @ZelenskyyUa and reiterated Finland's firm support for Ukraine. I informed him of Finland's steps towards NATO membership and he expressed his full support for it. pic.twitter.com/AubTdsDq9I
Boris Johnson has been a central figure in the decision. On Wednesday, he pledged the UK would respond with force if Finland was attacked. This effectively makes Finland a NATO member already:
The security declaration I signed with President @Niinisto in Finland today is an enduring assurance between our two nations.
An assurance that brings us even closer together as we face the challenges of today, the threats of tomorrow, side-by-side.
NATO’s Article 5 ties allies into responding militarily if partners are attacked:
The principle of collective defence is at the very heart of NATO’s founding treaty. It remains a unique and enduring principle that binds its members together, committing them to protect each other and setting a spirit of solidarity within the Alliance.
Militarisation
Others have questioned whether the move would increase the likelihood of war:
Boris Johnson & his Govt will go down in British history as a self-serving corrupt & destructive failure for the British people. If he’s encouraging Sweden & Finland to join NATO be warned his motivation is to increase British arms contracts & perpetual war, not security or peace
Another social media user suggested that if Donald Trump were to be re-elected in the US, he might leave NATO, leaving the countries unprotected anyway:
Strongly in favor of this but I also worry about the consequences if Trump wins in 2024 and leaves Nato – Finland and Sweden could well end up antagozing Russia and not having a Nato security guarantee – the worst of a worlds. https://t.co/7ZLf06gzgk
This is significant because Sweden has been a neutral country since the 1800s. As such, joining a military alliance would be a serious change in the balance of European politics.
However, as one Twitter user pointed out, Russia’s Vladimir Putin is likely to cite the new applications as evidence of NATO expansion:
Russia will be angry. But they cannot really be surprised, and in any case will militarise or not regardless of the decision. In a way, a nice rhetorical win for Putin as he can keep claiming NATO expansionism etc
Sweden and Finland have the right to apply for NATO membership. With the Russian invasion of Ukraine, it is understandable that such a move would have public support. However, it is also true that Europe is becoming increasingly militarised as what looks like a new Iron Curtain hardens across the continent.
Papua Legal Aid Foundation (LBH) director Emanuel Gobay says a participant of a demonstration in Jayapura opposing the creation of new autonomous regions (DOB) in Papua is in a critical condition after being shot by a rubber bullet allegedly fired by a police officer.
Earlier, police forcibly broke up a demonstration opposing new autonomous regions in Papua.
“Yes [the critical injury] was at an action in Waena,” said Gobay when contacted by CNN Indonesia.
Although Gobay said he did not know the exact chronology of events leading up to the shooting, he confirmed that the victim was taking part in an action in front of Mega Waena department store in Jayapura.
“So right when they arrived in front of Mega Waena [the protest] was forcibly broken up, it was at this time that police used rubber bullets and the like. When a rubber bullet was fired it hit one of the protesters,” he said.
According to Gobay, the victim was immediately taken to a Mimika boarding house for treatment by students. He did not have any further information on the victim’s condition.
Gobay added that aside from the person shot by a rubber bullet, another participant suffered injuries after being assaulted by police.
Kicked in the chest
He said the victim was kicked in the chest by a police officer.
“This person ended up unconscious, then they were picked up and taken to the boarding house. Earlier I managed to meet with them, they complained that their chest still hurt because of being kicked. There were several others who were injured,” said Gobay.
Demonstrations against the creation of new autonomous regions and Special Autonomy (Otsus) in several parts of Jayapura were forcibly broken up by police on Tuesday.
One incident, in which police forcibly broke up a peaceful action using a water cannon, was recorded on video and shared on Twitter by Papuan People’s Petition (PRP) spokesperson Jeffry Wenda.
At least seven people were arrested by police during the action, including Wenda, West Papua National Committee (KNPB) spokesperson Ones Suhuniap and Omizon Balingga.
Police have yet to provide detailed information on the person shot by the rubber bullet.
So far they have only announced that they sized a number of pieces of evidence in the form of sharp weapons and materials with the banned Morning Star independence flag motif on them, which were confiscated during a sweep of demonstrators in the Sentani area of Jayapura regency.
Al Jazeera Media Network has condemned the “blatant murder” of journalist Shireen Abu Akleh that violates “international laws and norms”. Video: Al Jazeera
COMMENTARY:By Mazin Qumsiyeh
It is so hard for me to write today — too many tears. The US-supported Israeli occupation forces’ crimes continue daily but some days are harder than others.
Shireen Abu Akleh, wearing a blue helmet and vest with “PRESS” written over it has been assassinated by Israeli occupation forces.
All journalists on the scene explained how Israeli snipers simply targeted journalists. The first three bullets were a miss, then a hit on one male journalist (in the back). Then when Shireen shouted that he was hit, she was killed with a bullet beneath the ear.
Shireen was also a US citizen (she was a Bethlehemite Christian who lived in Jerusalem). But that is no protection.
Rachel Corrie was run over by an Israeli military bulldozer and killed intentionally in Rafah two decades ago and the killers were rewarded. Both killings happened as the world was distracted by other conflicts (Iraq and now Ukraine).
The US government cares nothing about its own citizens because politicians are under the thumb of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Thousands of others were killed and the murderers still roam free and are funded by US taxpayers.
War crimes and crimes against humanity continue daily here. The US government is a partner in crime (just note how the US Ambassador simply hoped for an investigation — why not send the FBI to investigate the murder of countless US citizens). The events and the reaction in Western corporate (“mainstream”) media and Western governments makes us so mad.
Palestinian-American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh … “If you are not outraged to act, you are not human.” Image: AJ screenshot APR
Same day murder of teenager
If you are not outraged to act, you are not human. In the same day today the apartheid forces murdered 15-year-old Thaer Alyazouri as he was returning from school.
As we pointed out before, Palestine remains the fulcrum and the litmus test and it exposes hypocrisy and collusion.
It is actually the achilles heel for Western propaganda. Like with South Africa under apartheid, Western leaders’ empty rhetoric of human rights and democracy is exposed by their direct support for apartheid and murder.
May this intentional murder of a journalist finally be the straw that breaks the back of hypocrisy, Zionism and imperialism.
Millions of people mourn this brave journalist murdered by a fascist racist regime. Millions will rededicate themselves to challenge Western hypocrisy and US-supported Israeli crimes against humanity.
The Nakba atrocities
My 90-year-old mother born before the Nakba told me about the atrocities done since 1948 and before by the terrorist Zionist militias in their quest to colonise Palestine. From the first terrorist attack (and yes, Zionists were first to use terrorism like bombing markets or hijacking airplanes) to the 33 massacres during the 1948-1950 ethnic cleansing of Palestine (Tantura, Deir Yassin etc).
We will not forget nor forgive. Justice is key to peace here and justice begins with ending the nightmare called Zionism and prosecuting its leaders and collaborators and funders in real fair trials.
Only then will Jews, Christians, Muslims, and all others flourish in this land of Palestine. Palestine will then retun to be a multiethnic, multicultural, and multireligious society instead of a racist apartheid state of Israel.
It is inevitable but we can accelerate it with our actions.
We honour Shireen, Rachel and more than 110,000 martyrs by acting as they did: telling truth, challenging evil deeds, working for justice (which is a prerequisite for peace).
Professor Mazin Qumsiyeh teaches and does research at Bethlehem and Birzeit Universities. He previously served on the faculties of the University of Tennessee, Duke, and Yale Universities. He and his wife returned to Palestine in 2008, starting a number of institutions and projects such as a clinical genetics laboratory that serves cancer and other patients. Qumsiyeh has been harassed and arrested for non-violent actions but also received a number of awards for these same actions.
Amnesty International Indonesia executive director Usman Hamid is asking the government to halt the planned gold mine at Wabu Block in Intan Jaya regency until there is agreement from the Papua indigenous people in the area.
“We have asked that the planned mine be halted until the state obtains agreement from the Papuan indigenous people,” said Hamid in a press release received by Suara Papua.
From the results of its research, Amnesty said that one of the largest gold reserves identified in Indonesia was located in an area considered to be a hot spot for a series of violent acts by Indonesian security forces against local civilians.
Hamid explained that Papuan indigenous people reported that violence was often committed by security forces along with restrictions on personal and public life such as restrictions of movement and even the use of electronic devices.
“Amnesty International Indonesia is quite relived by the attitude of the Papua governor who has officially asked the central government, in particular the ESDM [Energy and Mineral Resources] Ministry to temporarily hold the planned mining bearing in mind the security situation in Intan Jaya which is not favourable,” he said.
Most of the area, which is inhabited by the Moni (Migani) tribe, is still covered with forest.
According to official estimates, the Wabu Block contains 8.1 million tonnes of gold, making it the fifth largest gold reserve known to exist in Indonesia.
Relieved after meeting
Hamid also said he was relieved after meeting with Coordinating Minister for Security, Politics and Legal Affairs (Menkopolhukam) Mahfud MD in Jakarta.
“We also feel relieved after meeting with the Menkopolhukam who explained that the plan was still being discussed between ministries and would not be implemented for some time”, said Hamid.
Amnesty is concerned over the potential impact of mining in the Wabu Block on human rights, added to by the risk of conflict in the Intan Jaya regency.
“So this special concern is obstacles to holding adequate and meaningful consultation with the Papuan indigenous people who will be impacted upon in order to obtain agreement on initial basic information without coercion in relation to mining in the Wabu Block”, said Hamid.
Amnesty added, “We very much hope that the central government and the Papua provincial government will work together to ensure that the planned mine really does provide sufficient information, consultation and agreement obtained from the Papuan indigenous communities”.
Based on existing data, the Indonesian government has increased the number of security forces in Intan Jaya significantly. Currently there are around 17 security posts in Sugapa district (the Intan Jaya regional capital) when in October 2019 there were only two posts.
This increase has also been accompanied by extrajudicial killings, raids and assaults by military and police, which have created a general climate of violence, intimidation and fear.
A Papuan protest over the Wabu Block plans. Image: AI
Restrictions on lives
Based on reports received by Amnesty, said Hamid, indigenous Papuans in Intan Jaya faced restrictions on their daily activities and many had had to leave their communities in order to find safety in other cities or the forests.
Hamid hopes that the government will pay attention to reports released by human rights organisations in Papua.
“The government must pay attention to human rights reports which are conducted by human rights organisations such as ELSHAM [the Institute for Human Rights Studies and Advocacy] Papua,” he said, bearing in mind the recent situation in which there had been an escalation in conflict.
Earlier, the central government was urged to halt the prolonged conflict in Intan Jaya by the Intan Jaya Papua Traditional Community Rights Advocacy Team (Tivamaipa) in Jakarta.
During an audience with the House of Representatives (DPR), Tivamaipa revealed that the armed conflict in Intan Jaya over the last three years began with the deployment of TNI (Indonesian military) troops which were allegedly tasked with providing security for planned investments in the Wabu Block by Mining and Industry Indonesia (Mind Id) through the company PT Aneka Tambang (Antam).
According to Tivamaipa, on October 5, 2020 Intan Jaya traditional communities declared their opposition to planned exploration in the Wabu Block.
Four demands
In order to avoid a prolonged conflict, the Tivamaipa made four demands:
That the DPR leadership and the leaders of the DPR’s Commission I conduct an evaluation of government policies on handling conflicts in Papua and West Papua provinces involving the Coordinating Minister for Security, Politics and Legal Affairs, the Defense Minister, the Minister for Energy and Mineral Resources (ESDM), the Minister for State Owned Enterprises (BUMN), the TNI commander and the Indonesian police chief.
That the Commission I leadership invite the Papua and West Papua provisional governments, the Papua Regional House of Representatives (DPRP), the Papua People’s Council (MRP), the Papua and West Papua regional police chiefs, the Cenderawasih XVII and Kasuari XVIII regional military commanders, the regional governments of Intan Jaya, the Bintang Highlands, Puncak, Nduga, Yahukimo and Maybrat along with community representatives to attend a joint meeting.
It urged the central government to withdraw all non-organic TNI and police security forces which have been sent to Intan Jaya regency.
That the central and regional government must repatriate internally displaced people from Intan Jaya and return them to their home villages and prioritise security and peace in Intan Jaya by providing social services which are properly organised and sustainable.
The institutional integration of sports with the military has reproduced authoritarian sports cultures, writes Janaka Biyanwila. Popular protests demanding regime change are also about demilitarising the state.
About 100 Papua New Guinea security personnel have arrived in Porgera, Enga Province, amid the fighting that saw 17 dead, 100 families displaced and homes destroyed over the weekend.
The arrival of the PNG Defence Force (PNGDF) in Porgera on late Sunday evening has eased the tension inside the mining township.
On Sunday about 5pm, more than 15 ten-seater vehicles with PNGDF soldiers arrived in Mt Hagen, Western Highlands, to be deployed to Porgera.
The contingent arrived late in Porgera with only a few war cries heard around the township.
Police Commissioner David Manning said: “A significant number of police and military personnel will be on the ground to address the issue at Porgera”.
When asked if armoured vehicles may be deployed to Porgera, Manning said: “The vehicles will not be deployed for this incident, an assessment of the situation on the ground is requiring a quicker response and that is the option I took.”
Mobile Squad 5 arrives
Mobile Squad 5 has arrived in Porgera to assist PNGDF with provincial police commander Chief Inspector Epenes Nili.
Police in Enga are seeking assistance from the Enga provincial government.
“The provincial government will be assisting with logistics and other necessary assistance,” Chief Inspector Nili said.
“Mobile Squad 5 arrived in Wabag late yesterday afternoon.
“They got organised last night and departed to Porgera at 4am.”
He said the situation had cooled down.
Miriam Zarriga is a PNG Post-Courier reporter. Republished with permission.
Seventeen people have been killed, hundreds of families made homeless, dozens of houses razed and government services ground to a halt in Enga Province’s Porgera district in Papua New Guinea as warring clans took up arms against each other.
Calls for government help went unanswered at the weekend.
Police in Porgera said the number of deaths had shot up to 17 as fighting continued.
The sounds of gunfire could be heard as all government assets, including the Porgera mine staff, remained locked in their homes and behind gates.
An employee of the mine said the sounds of gunfire could be heard on Sunday evening with war cries echoing through the town centre of Paiam.
The fresh violence — which got worse following the withdrawal of security personnel to the provincial capital Wabag to prepare for election duties — ended a fragile, two-month peace truce between the warring Nomali and Aiyala clans of Paiam in Porgera.
The sitting MP of Lagaip-Porgera, Tomait Kapili, said the ongoing feud between two clans also meant the planned reopening of the world class Porgera mine was “slim” and “may not happen within the timeframe wanted by the government”.
Disappointed with ‘inaction’
Enga Governor Sir Peter Ipatas was disappointed with the inaction by the PNG Defence Force and police hierarchy.
“I have been asking for security forces for the last three weeks,” a frustrated Sir Peter said.
He confirmed with the Post-Courier that Prime Minister James Marape had been informed of the situation in Porgera.
Today’s PNG Post-Courier front page … “Porgera burns” banner headline.
Police Commissioner David Manning said that the violence erupted after a man from the Nomali clan was chopped on his hand by a man from Aiyala.
Last Tuesday, a security guard was attacked and slashed. He died of his injuries in front of the shop he was protecting.
The killing of the guard saw a confrontation flare up, which led to police firing several shots to deter the two clans.
In retaliation, the Nomali clan chopped the hand of a man from Aiyala on Friday morning.
Outnumbered by tribal fighters
“A fight broke out, with Mobile Squad 11 who were on mine operation in Porgera taking command of the township but were outnumbered by tribal fighters who were in possession of high powered firearms,” Manning said.
“The two clans have destroyed properties.”
On Saturday, battle lines were drawn as the two warring clans faced off in the streets of the Paiam.
Continuous gunshots could be heard as both clans continue a feud that escalated to the burning of several homes belonging to settlers around the mining town.
The confrontation continued with the withdrawal of police units back to Wabag to await further orders to be deployed into other provinces of the Highlands region.
The withdrawal led to a fierce confrontation between the two clans that saw more than 50 people injured, homes destroyed and the Paiam town centre coming to a standstill.
Local police could only stand by and watch the removal of property from homes as the two clans ruled the streets of the township.
Awaiting deployment orders
Police Mobile Squad 5 was supposed to be in Enga. However, it is understood the unit had yet to receive its deployment orders.
According to a source, new PNG Defence Force soldiers had been tasked to go into Enga, but this had been delayed given that the national government did not settle outstanding debts for service providers and troops.
Porgera remains without any security support, with reports that local police — who are grossly outnumbered and without support — are exhausted and could not do much.
Sources in Paiam also indicated that the Paiam district hospital was still operating but staff are scared because of the lack of security. They were only taking in emergency cases.
A medical officer said casualties from the tribal conflict were not taken to the hospital due to security fears.
He said the hospital had not been targeted by the clans but buildings around the hospital grounds had been razed to the ground.
In developments late Sunday afternoon, more than 15 ten-seater vehicles with PNGDF personnel had arrived for deployment to Porgera.
Miriam Zarrigais a PNG Post-Courier reporter. Republished with permission.
Opposition National Federation Party leader Professor Biman Prasad has questioned the motive of the FijiFirst government to continuously highlight the 1987 coup during the girmit celebrations while refusing to mention the devastation brought about by the 2000 and 2006 coups on Fijians.
He highlighted this issue during a rally in Tadevo, Navua, on Saturday.
“They are talking about 1987 coup which happened 35 years ago, but they never mention anything about the 2000 and 2006 coup,” Professor Prasad said.
“They are talking about the 1987 coup because they want to stoke fear in the minds of people, especially on the Fijians of Indian descent voters.
Professor Prasad said the government should also apologise to the family of the late Professor Brij Lal for banning him from the country of his birth and who died at his home in Brisbane, Australia, last year.
“Every government minister and every government member in the FijiFirst party, if they have any shame left in every girmit function that they organise, they should apologise to the family of late Professor Lal and to all the descendants of the girmitya in this country on how they brutally banned him from Fiji.”
He said it was hypocritical for the Minister for Education, Heritage and Arts Premila Kumar and other senior government officials to be parading and giving speeches about the struggles of Fijians of India descent, yet forget the extremely shameful act of banning the historian who had written everything on girmit about Fijians of Indian descent.
“It’s obvious they are using the situation to campaign for the next general elections by highlighting what happened in 1987 and forgetting what happened in 2000 how people were terrorised, forgetting who was a RFMF commander at that time, forgetting the 2006 coup, how many people including women were brutally treated by those were in power at that time,” he said.
Professor Prasad said the girmitya would be “turning in their graves looking at how the shameless government used this occasion for a political gimmick”.
Questions sent to Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama remained unanswered when this edition went to press.
Arieta Vakasukawaqais a Fiji Times reporter. Republished with permission.
Former political prisoner Cristina Bawagan still has the dress she wore the day she was arrested, tortured and sexually abused by soldiers during the late Philippines dictator Ferdinand Marcos’s brutal era of martial law.
Bawagan fears the horrors of Marcos’s rule would be diminished if his namesake son wins the presidency in Monday’s election, a victory that would cap a three-decade political fightback for a family driven out in a 1986 “people power” uprising.
Also known as “Bongbong”, Marcos Jr has benefited from what some political analysts describe as a decades-long public relations effort to alter perceptions of his family, accused of living lavishly at the helm of one of Asia’s most notorious kleptocracies.
As Philippine president, Marcos could control hunt for his family’s wealth
Rivals of the family say the presidential run is an attempt to rewrite history, and change a narrative of corruption and authoritarianism associated with his father’s era.
“This election is not just a fight for elected positions. It is also a fight against disinformation, fake news, and historical revisionism,” Vice-President Leni Robredo, Marcos’s main rival in the presidential race, told supporters in March.
TSEK.PH, a fact-checking initiative for the May 9 vote, reported that it had debunked scores of martial law-related disinformation it said was used to rehabilitate, erase or burnish the discreditable record of Marcos Sr.
No reply to questions
Marcos Jr.’s camp did not reply to written requests for comment on Bawagan’s story.
Marcos Jr., who last week called his late father a “political genius”, has previously denied claims of spreading misinformation and his spokesperson has said Marcos does not engage in negative campaigning.
Bawagan, 67, said martial law victims like her needed to share their stories to counter the portrayal of the elder Marcos’s regime as a peaceful, golden age for the Southeast Asian country.
“It is very important they see primary evidence that it really happened,” said Bawagan while showing the printed dress which had a tear below the neckline where her torturer passed a blade across her chest and fondled her breasts.
The elder Marcos ruled for two decades from 1965, almost half of it under martial law.
During that time, 70,000 people were imprisoned, 34,000 were tortured, and 3240 were killed, according to figures from Amnesty International — figures which Marcos Jr. questioned in a January interview.
Bawagan, an activist, was arrested on 27 May 1981 by soldiers in the province of Nueva Ecija for alleged subversion and brought to a “safehouse” where she was beaten as they tried to extract a confession from her.
“I would receive slaps on my face every time they were not satisfied with my answers and that was all the time,” Bawagan said. “They hit strongly at my thighs and clapped my ears. They tore my duster (dress) and fondled my breasts.”
“The hardest thing was when they put an object in my vagina. That was the worst part of it and all throughout I was screaming. No one seemed to hear,” said Bawagan, a mother of two.
‘No arrests’ In a conversation with Marcos Jr. that appeared on YouTube in 2018, Juan Ponce Enrile, who served as the late dictator’s defence minister, said not one person was arrested for their political and religious views, or for criticising the elder Marcos.
However, more than 11,000 victims of state brutality during Martial Law later received reparations using millions from Marcos’s Swiss bank deposits, part of the billions the family siphoned off from the country’s coffers that were recovered by the Philippine government.
Among them was Felix Dalisay, who was detained for 17 months from August 1973 after he was beaten and tortured by soldiers trying to force him to inform on other activists, causing him to suffer hearing loss.
“They kicked me even before I boarded the military jeep so I fell and hit my face on the ground,” Dalisay said, showing a scar on his right eye as he recounted the day he was arrested.
When they reached the military headquarters, Dalisay said he was brought to an interrogation room, where soldiers repeatedly clapped his ears, kicked and hit him, sometimes with a butt of a rifle, during questioning.
“They started by inserting bullets used in a .45 calibre gun between my fingers and they would squeeze my hand. That really hurt. If they were not satisfied with my answers, they would hit me,” Dalisay pointing to different parts of his body.
The return of a Marcos to the country’s seat of power is unthinkable for Dalisay, who turned 70 this month.
“Our blood is boiling at that thought,” said Dalisay.
“Marcos Sr declared martial law then they will say nobody was arrested, and tortured? We are here speaking while we are still alive.”
The United States would “respond” if China takes steps to establish a permanent military presence in the Solomon Islands, says a US official said, noting the “potential regional security implications” of a newly signed pact between the two countries.
“We outlined clear areas of concern with respect to the purpose and scope of the agreement,” Daniel Kritenbrink, assistant secretary of the State Department’s Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, said at a press briefing yesterday following his trip to Honiara, where he led a US delegation last week.
US officials met with Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare and his cabinet following separate announcements by China and the Solomon Islands that the controversial Security Cooperation Agreement has been signed.
US diplomat Daniel Kritenbrink … “I’m not going to speculate on what [our goal] may or may not involve.” Image: SI govt“We outlined that of course we have respect for the Solomon Islands’ sovereignty, but we also wanted to let them know that if steps were taken to establish a de facto permanent military presence, power-projection capabilities or a military installation, then we would have significant concerns and we would very naturally respond to those concerns,” Kritenbrink said.
However, the State Department official did not provide a clear answer when asked to explain how exactly the US would respond.
“I’m not going to speculate on what that may or may not involve, but I think our goal was to be very clear in that regard,” Kritenbrink said.
“I’m not in a position to talk about what the United States may or may not do in such a situation.”
US still worried
Despite Sogavare’s repeated assurance that the pact was intended only for domestic implementation, Kritenbrink said the US is worried about the “potential regional security implications of the agreement, not just for ourselves, but for allies and partners across the region.”
Kritenbrink said what troubled the US was “the complete lack of transparency” behind the pact.
“What precisely are the motivations behind the agreement? What exactly are China’s objectives and the like?
“I think they’re completely unclear because this agreement has not been scrutinised or reviewed or subject to any kind of consultation or approval process by anyone else,” Kritenbrink said.
He linked the Solomons-China agreement to Beijing’s relentless bid to expand the People’s Liberation Army’s footprint in the region.
“I think it’s important in this context to keep in mind that we do know that [China] is seeking to establish a more robust overseas logistics and basing infrastructure that would allow the PLA to project and sustain military power at greater distances,” Kritenbrink said.
He added that the US “would follow developments closely in consultation with regional partners.”
Opening US embassy plans
Kritenbrink was accompanied by Kurt Campbell, Indo-Pacific coordinator for the National Security Council; Lt. Gen. Steve Sklenka,deputy commander of the Indo-Pacific Command; and Craig Hart, USAID’s acting senior deputy assistant administrator for Asia.
During the visit, the US delegation announced Washington’s intention to expedite the process of opening a US embassy in Honiara, strengthen the ties between the US and the Solomon Islands.
“Our purpose in going to the Solomons was to explain to our friends there our approach to the region and the steps we’re taking to step up our engagement across the Pacific Islands, the specific programmes and activities that are ongoing in the Solomons and that we expect to expand and accelerate in the months ahead,” Kritenbrink said.
“We reiterated our commitment to enhancing our partnership with the Solomon Islands, including expediting the opening of the US embassy there, advancing cooperation on addressing unexploded ordnance, and increasing maritime domain awareness, as well as expanding cooperation on climate change, health, people-to-people ties, and other issues as well,” he added.
Mar-Vic Caguranganis chief editor and publisher of the Pacific Island Times. Republished with permission.
If you’re as confused as most people by the exact circumstances surrounding the continuing presence in Fiji of the Russian super yacht Amadea, join the club. Here’s our modest attempt to cut through the fog.
Twelve days ago — on April 14 — the CJ Patel Fiji Sun newspaper trumpeted an exclusive with Police Commissioner Sitiveni Qilihio, reporting that the Amadea had been seized. It had not. In fact, it still hasn’t been formally seized.
What happened last week is that the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) obtained a restraining order from the High Court to prevent the Amadea from leaving Fiji. Until that order was granted, there was every possibility in the intervening period of the vessel leaving.
In fact, lawyers for the owners were arguing that there was no legal justification to detain the Amadea any longer after they had reportedly paid an amount in fines for customs infringements.
It was only when the High Court granted the restraining order that leaving was no longer a legal option.
Indeed, all along there has been a suspicion that the vessel might try to make a run for it. It has a significant armoury and the security forces would have already factored in their ability to prevent a determined attempt to leave.
This application was lodged by the Office of the DPP on a warrant issued by the United States government. The papers are from Washington DC and passed through the Attorney-General’s Office before carriage of the matter was given to the DPP under the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act.
A second case Now there is a second case that has been brought before the High Court for the Amadea to be seized. Yes, taken from the owners altogether in line with the American-led sanctions that have been imposed on the nautical playthings and other toys of Russian oligarchs and Vladimir Putin’s cronies the world over.
The Amadea at the Fijian port of Lautoka reported as “seized” 12 days ago … Russian super yacht’s fate still to be decided. Image: Fiji Sun screenshot APR
The High Court will hand down its judgment next Tuesday (May 3), which is expected to be in Washington’s favour.
And sometime after that, the Amadea will presumably become the property of the US government and sail off into the sunset under the command of Uncle Sam in the direction of the US.
It has been an astonishing saga. The original, mostly European crew, had orders to sail from the Mexican port of Mazanillo across the entire Pacific to the Russian port of Vladivosok via Lautoka, where the Amadea has been refuelled and resupplied.
Their services have evidently been terminated and an entirely Russian crew has been on standby to take over when it finally gets permission to sail. Alas for them, their journey to Fiji will have been in vain.
Russian oligarch Suleiman Kerimov … still doubt about the vessel’s true ownership. Image: Wikipedia
Incredibly, there is still doubt about the vessel’s true ownership. The whole world has been told that it belongs to the Russian oligarch, Suleiman Kerimov, but there is still evidently no conclusive proof — the vessel’s ownership evidently buried in a labyrinth of multiple shelf companies in places like the British Virgin Islands and the Cayman Islands.
For the purposes of the High Court case in Suva, the owner is officially stated as being Millemarin Investment Limited. Is it Suleiman Kerimov?
No evidence about Kerimov
Millemarin Investment’s local lawyer, Feizal Hannif, told the court there was no evidence that it is. He said the vessel’s beneficial owner was in fact one Eduard Khudaynatov. But counsel for the DPP, Jayneeta Prasad, argued that the ownership of the vessel was not an issue. It was subject to a US warrant and the ownership issue was for the American courts to decide.
So fortunately unravelling all of this is not Fiji’s problem. But what was Police Commissioner Sitiveni Qiliho doing 12 days ago telling the Fiji Sun that the Amadea had been seized when we won’t know that for certain until next Tuesday, nearly three weeks after the Sun “scoop”?
And is there going to be any attempt to set the official record straight?
Australian-Fijian journalist Graham Davis publishes the blog Grubsheet Feejee on Fiji affairs. Republished with permission.
A spectre is haunting the Pacific. It is focused on Solomon Islands today, but has eyes everywhere and might pounce anywhere next.
No, I’m not talking about China. I am talking about us.
More specifically, I’m talking about a particular type of Western security pundit, who hypes danger and itches for confrontation. And I am talking about the way our politicians behave when they strive to win votes by stoking fear of the world outside our borders.
The saga of China’s “military base” in Solomon Islands demonstrates how unhelpful such behaviour is, both to our own interests, and to the people of the Pacific.
If you had the good fortune of missing the last few weeks, here’s what happened.
In late March, journalists revealed that China and Solomon Islands had signed a policing agreement. Someone from within the Solomon Islands government also leaked a broader draft security agreement with China.
Ship visits and stopover
Solomons can ask China to provide police and military assistance. If, and only if, the Solomon Islands government of the day consents, China can “make ship visits to, carry out logistical replenishment in, and have stopover and transition in Solomon Islands, and relevant forces of China can be used to protect the safety of Chinese personnel and major projects in Solomon Islands.”
Permanent bases are not mentioned.
This, however, didn’t stop antipodean pundits from racing to hype the threat of a Chinese base. To be fair, few went as far as David Llewellyn-Smith, who demanded that Australia preemptively invade Solomons.
He was an outlier (although it didn’t stop him from being uncritically quoted in the Courier-Mail). But all spoke of a base as a near certainty.
Then politicians piled on. Penny Wong, who normally displays an impressive understanding of aid and the Pacific, decried the agreement as the “worst failure of Australian foreign policy in the Pacific since the end of World War II”.
Peter Dutton warned that Australia could now expect “the Chinese to do all they can”. (Although he added optimistically they were unlikely to do so before the election.)
Barnaby Joyce fretted about Solomons becoming a, “little Cuba off our coast”. (Solomons is more than 1500km from Australia; Cuba is about 200km from the US.)
Australian agreement similar
Amidst the racket, much was lost. Australia has its own security agreement with Solomon Islands. It’s more carefully worded, but it affords Australia similar powers to China.
And China already has a security agreement with Fiji. Indeed, there was real talk of a base when that agreement was signed, but no base materialised, and the agreement has had no effect on regional security.
And as Scott Morrison pointed out, Manasseh Sogavare, the Solomon Islands Prime Minister, has explicitly ruled out a Chinese base.
True, Sogavare is a political maneuverer who can’t be taken at his word. But a Chinese base in Solomons serves neither his interest, nor that of the Chinese.
It doesn’t serve Sogavare’s interests because it won’t give him what he wants — a stronger hold on power. Seen as the embodiment of a corrupt elite, he’s unpopular in Honiara. His election brought riots.
As did his standoff with Malaitan Premier Daniel Suidani. So he wants Chinese police training and maybe military assistance in times of instability. But a base won’t help.
Solomons is a Sinophobic country and the obvious presence of a base will increase Sogavare’s unpopularity. It would also jeopardise the security support he gets from Australia, as well as Australian aid. (By my best estimate, based on Chinese promises, which are likely to be overstatements, Australia gave more than 2.5 times as much aid to Solomons in 2019, the most recent year with data.)
Base isn’t in China’s interest
I’m not defending Sogavare. I’d rather Chinese police weren’t helping him. But a base isn’t in his interest. And he’s no fool.
A base isn’t in China’s interests either. I don’t like China’s repressive political leaders. But their military ambitions are limited to places they view as part of China. What they’ve done, or want to do, in Tibet, Xinjiang, Hong Kong and Taiwan is odious.
But Australia isn’t next on their list. Outside of their immediate sphere of influence they want trade. They need trade, and the wealth it brings, to sustain the political settlement that keeps them prosperous and in power. Any war that saw China menace Australia from Solomon Islands would bring ruinous sanctions in its wake. (US bases in Guam and Okinawa would be a headache too, I’d imagine.)
The broader security agreement is helpful to China: it gives them the ability to protect Chinese nationals and Chinese business interests if riots break out.
But they don’t need a base for that. A base would be costly, hard to establish in a country with little available land, and quite possibly useless next time the Solomons government changes.
I’m not a supporter of the security agreement. But it’s not a base. And it’s not a catastrophe.
Our behaving like it’s a catastrophe is harmful though.
Harmful to Australia and NZ
It’s harmful to countries like Australia and New Zealand, because the main advantage we have over China in the Pacific is soft power. Thanks to anti-Chinese racism and a healthy wariness of China’s authoritarian government, most people in Pacific countries, including political elites, are more hesitant in dealing with China than with us.
Sure, money talks, and China can procure influence, but we are a little better liked. And that helps. Yet we lose this advantage every time we talk of invading Pacific countries, or call the region our “backyard”, or roughly twist the arms of Pacific politicians.
The Pacific is not some rogue part of Tasmania. It’s an ocean of independent countries. That means diplomacy is needed, and temper tantrums are unhelpful.
Worse still, our propensity to view the Pacific as a geostrategic chessboard has consequences for the region’s people. Geopolitical aid is too-often transactional and poorly focused on what people need. It is less likely to promote development.
There’s an alternative: to choose realism over hype in our collective commentary. And to earn soft power by being a respectful and reliable partner. It’s not always easy. But it’s not impossible. Yet it has completely escaped us in the shambles of the last few weeks.
Dr Terence Wood is a research fellow at the Development Policy Centre, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University. His research focuses on political governance in Western Melanesia, and Australian and New Zealand aid. Republished with permission.
will officially announce its intention to seek 
will follow within days.
_(10219480453).jpg){kind=link}
