A leading Cook Islands environmental lobby group is hoping that the Cook Islands government will speak out against the recent executive order from US President Donald Trump aimed at fast-tracking seabed mining.
Te Ipukarea Society (TIS) says the arrogance of US president Trump to think that he could break international law by authorising deep seabed mining in international waters was “astounding”, and an action of a “bully”.
The order states: “It is the policy of the US to advance United States leadership in seabed mineral development.”
NOAA has been directed to, within 60 days, “expedite the process for reviewing and issuing seabed mineral exploration licenses and commercial recovery permits in areas beyond national jurisdiction under the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act.”
It directs the US science and environmental agency to expedite permits for companies to mine the ocean floor in the US and international waters.
In addition, a Canadian mining company — The Metals Company — has indicated that they have applied for a permit from Trump’s administration to start commercially mining in international waters.
The mining company had been unsuccessful in gaining a commercial mining licence through the International Seabed Authority (ISA).
‘Arrogance of Trump’
Te Ipukarea Society’s technical director Kelvin Passfield told Cook Islands News: “The arrogance of Donald Trump to think that he can break international law by authorising deep seabed mining in international waters is astounding.
“The United States cannot pick and choose which aspects of the United Nations Law of the Sea it will follow, and which ones it will ignore. This is the action of a bully,” he said.
“It is reckless and completely dismissive of the international rule of law. At the moment we have 169 countries, plus the European Union, all recognising international law under the International Seabed Authority.
“For one country to start making new international rules for themselves is a dangerous notion, especially if it leads to other States thinking they too can also breach international law with no consequences,” he said.
TIS president June Hosking said the fact that a part of the Pacific (CCZ) was carved up and shared between nations all over the world was yet another example of “blatantly disregarding or overriding indigenous rights”.
“I can understand why something had to be done to protect the high seas from rogues having a ‘free for all’, but it should have been Pacific indigenous and first nations groups, within and bordering the Pacific, who decided what happened to the high seas.
“That’s the first nations groups, not for example, the USA as it is today.”
South American countries worried
Hosking highlighted that at the March International Seabed Authority (ISA) assembly she attended it was obvious that South American countries were worried.
“Many have called for a moratorium. Portugal rightly pointed out that we were all there, at great cost, just for a commercial activity. The delegate said, ‘We must ask ourselves how does this really benefit all of humankind?’
Looking at The Metals Company’s interests to commercially mine in international waters, Hosking said, “I couldn’t help being annoyed that all this talk assumes mining will happen.
“ISA was formed at a time when things were assumed about the deep sea e.g. it’s just a desert down there, nothing was known for sure, we didn’t speak of climate crisis, waste crisis and other crises now evident.
“The ISA mandate is ‘to ensure the effective protection of the marine environment from the harmful effects that may arise from deep seabed related activities.
“We know much more (but still not enough) to consider that effective protection of the marine environment may require it to be declared a ‘no go zone’, to be left untouched for the good of humankind,” she added.
Meanwhile, technical director Passfield also added, “The audacity of The Metals Company (TMC) to think they can flaunt international law in order to get an illegal mining licence from the United States to start seabed mining in international waters is a sad reflection of the morality of Gerard Barron and others in charge of TMC.
‘What stops other countries?’
“If the USA is allowed to authorise mining in international waters under a domestic US law, what is stopping any other country in the world from enacting legislation and doing the same?”
He said that while the Metals Company may be frustrated at the amount of time that the International Seabed Authority is taking to finalise mining rules for deep seabed mining, “we are sure they fully understand that this is for good reason. The potentially disastrous impacts of mining our deep ocean seabed need to be better understood, and this takes time.”
He said that technology and infrastructure to mine is not in place yet.
“We need to take as much time as we need to ensure that if mining proceeds, it does not cause serious damage to our ocean. Their attempts to rush the process are selfish, greedy, and driven purely by a desire to profit at any cost to the environment.
“We hope that the Cook Islands Government speaks out against this abuse of international law by the United States.” Cook Islands News has reached out to the Office of the Prime Minister and Seabed Minerals Authority (SBMA) for comment.
Republished from the Cook Islands News with permission.
Among the many lessons to be learnt by Australia’s defeated Liberal-National coalition parties from the election is that they should stop getting into bed with News Corporation.
Why would a political party outsource its policy platform and strategy to people with plenty of opinions, but no experience in actually running a government?
The result of the federal election suggests that unlike the coalition, many Australians are ignoring the opinions of News Corp Australia’s leading journalists such as Andrew Bolt and Sharri Markson.
Last Thursday, in her eponymous programme on Sky News Australia, Markson said:
For the first time in my journalistic career I’m going to also offer a pre-election editorial, endorsing one side of politics […] A Dutton prime ministership would give our great nation the fresh start we deserve.
Sharri Markson issues own Dutton endorsement as ACM says ‘Australia is Tanya Plibersek’https://t.co/UYh0xKeXPR
After a vote count that sees the Labor government returned with an increased majority, Bolt wrote a piece for the Herald Sunadmonishing voters:
No, the voters aren’t always right. This time they were wrong, and this gutless and incoherent Coalition should be ashamed. Australians just voted for three more years of a Labor government that’s left this country poorer, weaker, more divided and deeper in debt, and which won only by telling astonishing lies.
That’s staggering. If that’s what voters really like, then this country is going to get more of it, good and hard.
The Australian and most of News’ tabloid newspapers endorsed the coalition in their election eve editorials.
Repudiation of minor culture war
The election result was a repudiation of the minor culture war Peter Dutton reprised during the campaign when he advised voters to steer clear of the ABC and “other hate media”. It may have felt good alluding to “leftie-woke” tropes about the ABC, but it was a tactical error.
The message probably resonated only with rusted-on hardline coalition voters and supporters of right-wing minor parties.
But they were either voting for the coalition, or sending them their preferences, anyway. Instead, attacking the ABC sent a signal to the people the coalition desperately needed to keep onside — the moderates who already felt disappointed by the coalition’s drift to the right and who were considering voting Teal or for another independent.
Attacking just about the most trusted media outlet in the country simply gave those voters another reason to believe the coalition no longer represented their values.
Reporting from the campaign bus is often derided as shallow form of election coverage. Reporters tend to be captive to a party’s agenda and don’t get to look much beyond a leader’s message.
But there was real value in covering Dutton’s daily stunts and doorstops, often in the outer suburbs that his electoral strategy relied on winning over.
What was revealed by having journalists on the bus was the paucity of policy substance. Details about housing affordability and petrol pricing — which voters desperately wanted to hear — were little more than sound bites.
Steered clear of nuclear sites
This was obvious by Dutton’s second visit to a petrol station, and yet there were another 15 to come. The fact that the campaign bus steered clear of the sites for proposed nuclear plants was also telling.
— C h r i s @chrishehim.bsky.social (@ChrisHeHim1) May 4, 2025
The grind of daily coverage helped expose the lateness of policy releases, the paucity of detail and the lack of preparation for the campaign, let alone for government.
On ABC TV’s Insiders, the Nine Newspapers’ political editor, David Crowe, wondered whether the media has been too soft on Dutton, rather than too hard as some coalition supporters might assume.
He reckoned that if the media had asked more difficult questions months ago, Dutton might have been stress-tested and better prepared before the campaign began.
Instead, the coalition went into the election believing it would be enough to attack Labor without presenting a fully considered alternative vision. Similarly, it would suffice to appear on friendly media outlets such as News Corp, and avoid more searching questions from the Canberra press gallery or on the ABC.
Reporters and commentators across the media did a reasonable job of exposing this and holding the opposition to account. The scrutiny also exposed its increasingly desperate tactics late in the campaign, such as turning on Welcome to Country ceremonies.
If many Australians appear more interested in what their prospective political leaders have to say about housing policy or climate change than the endless culture wars being waged by the coalition, that message did not appear to have been heard by Peta Credlin.
The Sky News Australia presenter and former chief-of-staff to prime minister Tony Abbott said during Saturday night’s election coverage “I’d argue we didn’t do enough of a culture war”.
Nauru’s ambition to commercially mine the seabed is likely at risk following President Donald Trump’s executive order last month aimed at fast-tracking ocean mining, anti-deep sea mining advocates warn.
The order also increases instability in the Pacific region because it effectively circumvents long-standing international sea laws and processes by providing an alternative path to mine the seabed, advocates say.
Titled Unleashing America’s Offshore Critical Minerals and Resources, the order was signed by Trump on April 25. It directs the US science and environmental agency to expedite permits for companies to mine the ocean floor in US and international waters.
It has been condemned by legal and environmental experts around the world, particularly after Canadian mining group The Metals Company announced last Tuesday it had applied to commercially mine in international waters through the US process.
The Metals Company has so far been unsuccessful in gaining a commercial mining licence through the International Seabed Authority (ISA).
Currently, the largest area in international waters being explored for commercial deep sea mining is the Clarion-Clipperton Zone, located in the central Pacific Ocean. The vast area sits between Hawai’i, Kiribati and Mexico, and spans 4.5 million sq km.
The area is of high commercial interest because it has an abundance of polymetallic nodules that contain valuable metals like cobalt, nickel, manganese and copper, which are used to make products such as smartphones and electric batteries. The minerals are also used in weapons manufacturing.
Benefits ‘for humankind as a whole’
Under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the Clarion-Clipperton Zone falls under the jurisdiction of the ISA, which was established in 1994. That legislation states that any benefits from minerals extracted in its jurisdiction must be for “humankind as a whole”.
Nauru — alongside Tonga, Kiribati and the Cook Islands — has interests in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone after being allocated blocks of the area through UNCLOS. They are known as sponsor states.
In total, there are 19 sponsor states in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone.
Nauru is leading the charge for deep sea mining in international waters. Image: RNZ Pacific/Caleb Fotheringham
Nauru and The Metals Company Since 2011, Nauru has partnered with The Metals Company to explore and assess its block in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone for commercial mining activity.
It has done this through an ISA exploration licence.
At the same time, the ISA, which counts all Pacific nations among its 169-strong membership, has also been developing a commercial mining code. That process began in 2014 and is ongoing.
The process has been criticised by The Metals Company as effectively blocking it and Nauru’s commercial mining interests.
Both have sought to advance their respective interests in different ways.
In 2021, Nauru took the unprecedented step of utilising a “two-year” notification period to initiate an exploitation licencing process under the ISA, even though a commercial seabed mining code was still being developed.
An ISA commercial mining code, once finalised, is expected to provide the legal and technical regulations for exploitation of the seabed.
In the absence of a code
However, according to international law, in the absence of a code, should a plan for exploitation be submitted to the ISA, the body is required to provisionally accept it within two years of its submission.
While Nauru ultimately delayed enforcing the two-year rule, it remains the only state to ever invoke it under the ISA. It has also stated that it is “comfortable with being a leader on these issues”.
To date, the ISA has not issued a licence for exploitation of the seabed.
Meanwhile, The Metals Company has emphasised the economic potential of deep sea mining and its readiness to begin commercial activities. It has also highlighted the potential value of minerals sitting on the seabed in Nauru’s block in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone.
“[The block represents] 22 percent of The Metals Company’s estimated resource in the [Clarion-Clipperton Zone and] . . . is ranked as having the largest underdeveloped nickel deposit in the world,” the company states on its website.
Its announcement on Tuesday revealed it had filed three applications for mining activity in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone under the US pathway. One application is for a commercial mining permit. Two are for exploration permits.
The announcement added further fuel to warnings from anti-deep sea mining advocates that The Metals Company is pivoting away from Nauru and arrangements under the ISA.
Last year, the company stated it intended to submit a plan for commercial mining to the ISA on June 27 so it could begin exploitation operations by 2026.
This date appears to have been usurped by developments under Trump, with the company saying on Tuesday that its US permit application “advances [the company’s] timeline ahead” of that date.
The Trump factor Trump’s recent executive order is critical to this because it specifically directs relevant US government agencies to reactivate the country’s own deep sea mining licence process that had largely been unused over the past 40 years.
President Donald Trump signs a proclamation in the Oval Office at the White House last month expanding fishing rights in the Pacific Islands to an area he described as three times the size of California. Image: RNZ screenshot APR
That legislation, the Deep Sea Hard Mineral Resources Act, states the US can grant mining permits in international waters. It was implemented in 1980 as a temporary framework while the US worked towards ratifying the UNCLOS Treaty. Since then, only four exploration licences have been issued under the legislation.
To date, the US is yet to ratify UNCLOS.
At face value, the Deep Sea Hard Mineral Resources Act offers an alternative licensing route to commercial seabed activity in the high seas to the ISA. However, any cross-over between jurisdictions and authorities remains untested.
Now, The Metals Company appears to be operating under both in the same area of international waters — the Clarion-Clipperton Zone.
Deep Sea Conservation Coalition’s Pacific regional coordinator Phil McCabe said it was unclear what would happen to Nauru.
“This announcement really appears to put Nauru as a partner of the company out in the cold,” McCabe said.
No Pacific benefit mechanism
“If The Metals Company moves through the US process, it appears that there is no mechanism or no need for any benefit to go to the Pacific Island sponsoring states because they sponsor through the ISA, not the US,” he said.
McCabe, who is based in Aotearoa New Zealand, highlighted extensive investment The Metals Company had poured into the Nauru block over more than 10 years.
He said it was in the company’s financial interests to begin commercial mining as soon as possible.
“If The Metals Company was going to submit an application through the US law, it would have to have a good measure of environmental data on the area that it wants to mine, and the only area that it has that data [for] is the Nauru block,” McCabe said.
He also pointed out that the size of the Nauru block The Metals Company had worked on in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone was the same as a block it wanted to commercially mine through US legislation.
Both are exactly 25,160 sq km, McCabe said.
RNZ Pacific asked The Metals Company to clarify whether its US application applied to Nauru and Tonga’s blocks. The company said it would “be able to confirm details of the blocks in the coming weeks”.
It also said it intended to retain its exploration contracts through the ISA that were sponsored by Nauru and Tonga, respectively.
Cook Islands nodule field – photo taken within Cook Islands EEZ. Image: Cook Islands Seabed Minerals Authority
Pacific Ocean a ‘new frontier’ Pacific Network on Globalisation (PANG) associate Maureen Penjueli had similar observations to McCabe regarding the potential impacts of Trump’s executive order.
Trump’s order, and The Metals Company ongoing insistence to commercially mine the ocean, was directly related to escalating geopolitical competition, she told RNZ Pacific.
“There are a handful of minerals that are quite critical for all kinds of weapons development, from tankers to armour like nuclear weapons, submarines, aircraft,” she said.
Currently, the supply and processing of minerals in that market, which includes iron, lithium, copper, cobalt and graphite, is dominated by China.
Between 40 and 90 percent of the world’s rare earth minerals are processed by China, Penjueli said. The variation is due to differences between individual minerals.
As a result, both Europe and the US are heavily dependent on China for these minerals, which according to Penjueli, has massive implications.
“On land, you will see the US Department of Defense really trying to seek alternative [mineral] sources,” Penjueli said.
“Now, it’s extended to minerals in the seabed, both within [a country’s exclusive economic zone], but also in areas beyond national jurisdictions, such as the Clarion-Clipperton Zone, which is here in the Pacific. That is around the geopolitical [competition] . . . and the US versus China positioning.”
Notably, Trump’s executive order on the US seabed mining licence process highlights the country’s reliance on overseas mineral supply, particularly regarding security and defence implications.
He said the US wanted to advance its leadership in seabed mineral development by “strengthening partnerships with allies and industry to counter China’s growing influence over seabed mineral resources”.
The Metals Company and the US She believed The Metals Company had become increasingly focused on security and defence needs.
Initially, the company had framed commercial deep sea mining as essential for the world’s transition to green energies, she said. It had used that language when referring to its relationships with Pacific states like Nauru, Penjueli said.
However, the company had also begun pitching US policy makers under the Biden administration over the need to acquire critical minerals from the seabed to meet US security and defence needs, she said.
Since Trump’s re-election, it had also made a series of public announcements praising US government decisions that prioritised deep sea mining development for defence and security purposes.
In a press release on Trump’s executive order, The Metals Company chief executive Gerard Barron said the company had enough knowledge to manage the environmental risks of deep sea mining.
“Over the last decade, we’ve invested over half a billion dollars to understand and responsibly develop the nodule resource in our contract areas,” Barron said.
“We built the world’s largest environmental dataset on the [Clarion-Clipperton Zone], carefully designed and tested an off-shore collection system that minimises the environmental impacts and followed every step required by the International Seabed Authority.
“What we need is a regulator with a robust regulatory regime, and who is willing to give our application a fair hearing. That’s why we’ve formally initiated the process of applying for licenses and permits under the existing US seabed mining code,” Barron said.
ISA influenced by opposition faction
The Metals Company directed RNZ Pacific to a statement on its website in response to an interview request.
The statement, signed by Barron, said the ISA was being influenced by a faction of states aligned with environmental NGOs that opposed the deep sea mining industry.
Barron also disputed any contraventions of international law under the US regime, and said the country has had “a fully developed regulatory regime” for commercial seabed mining since 1989.
“The ISA has neither the mining code nor the willingness to engage with their commercial contractors,” Barron said. “In full compliance with international law, we are committed to delivering benefits to our developing state partners.”
President Trump’s executive order marks America’s return to “leadership in this exciting industry”, claims The Metals Company. Note the name “Gulf of America” on this map was introduced by President Trump in a controversial move, but the rest of the world regards it as the Gulf of Mexico, as recognised by officially recognised by the International Hydrographic Organisation. Image: Facebook/The Metals Company
‘It’s an America-first move’
Despite Barron’s observations, Penjueli and McCabe believed The Metals Company and the US were side-stepping international law, placing Pacific nations at risk.
McCabe said Pacific nations benefitted from UNCLOS, which gives rights over vast oceanic territories.
“It’s an America-first move,” said McCabe who believes the actions of The Minerals Company and the US are also a contravention of international law.
There are also significant concerns that Trump’s executive order has effectively triggered a race to mine the Pacific seabed for minerals that will be destined for military purposes like weapons systems manufacturing, Penjueli said.
Unlike UNCLOS, the US deep sea mining legislation does not stipulate that minerals from international waters must be used for peaceful purposes.
Deep Sea Conservation Coalition’s Duncan Currie believes this is another tricky legal point for Nauru and other sponsor states in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone.
Potentially contravene international law
For example, should Nauru enter a commercial mining arrangement with The Metals Company and the US under US mining legislation, any royalties that may eventuate could potentially contravene international law, Currie said.
First, the process would be outside the ISA framework, he said.
Second, UNCLOS states that any benefits from seabed mining in international waters must benefit all of “humankind”.
Therefore, Currie said, royalties earned in a process that cannot be scrutinised by the ISA likely did not meet that stipulation.
Third, he said, if the extracted minerals were used for military purposes — which was a focus of Trump’s executive order — then it likely violates the principle that the seabed should only be exploited for peaceful purposes.
“There really are a host of very difficult legal issues that arise,” he added.
The Metals Company says ISA is being influenced by a faction of states aligned with environmental NGOs that oppose the deep sea mining industry. Image: Facebook/The Metals Company/RNZ
The road ahead Now more than ever, anti-deep sea mining advocates believe a moratorium on the practice is necessary.
Penjueli, echoing Currie’s concerns, said there was too much uncertainty with two potential avenues to commercial mining.
“The moratorium call is quite urgent at this point,” she said.
“We simply don’t know what [these developments] mean right now. What are the implications if The Metals Company decides to dump its Pacific state sponsored partners? What does it mean for the legal tenements that they hold in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone?”
In that instance, Nauru, which has spearheaded the push for commercial seabed mining alongside The Metals Company, may be particularly exposed.
Currently, more than 30 countries have declared support for a moratorium on deep sea mining. Among them are Fiji, Federated States of Micronesia, New Caledonia, Palau, Samoa, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, and Tuvalu.
On the other hand, Nauru, Kiribati, Tonga, and the Cook Islands all support deep sea mining.
Australia has not explicitly called for a moratorium on the practice, but it has also refrained from supporting it.
New Zealand supported a moratorium on deep sea mining under the previous Labour government. The current government is reportedly reconsidering this stance.
RNZ Pacific contacted the Nauru government for comment but did not receive a response.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
The agreement between Washington and Kyiv to create an investment fund to search for rare earth minerals has been seen as something of a turn by the Trump administration. From hectoring and mocking the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky before the cameras on his visit to the US capital two months ago, President Donald Trump had apparently softened. It was easy to forget that the minerals deal was already on the negotiating table and would have been reached but for Zelensky’s fateful and ill-tempered ambush. Dreams of accessing Ukrainian reserves of such elements as graphite, titanium and lithium were never going to dissipate.
Details remain somewhat sketchy, but the agreement supposedly sets out a sharing of revenues in a manner satisfactory to the parties while floating, if only tentatively, the prospect of renewed military assistance. That assistance, however, would count as US investment in the fund. According to the White House, the US Treasury Department and US International Development Finance Corporation will work with Kyiv “to finalize governance and advance this important partnership”, one that ensures the US “an economic stake in securing a free, peaceful, and sovereign future for Ukraine.”
In its current form, the agreement supposedly leaves it to Ukraine to determine what to extract in terms of the minerals and where this extraction is to take place. A statement from the US Treasury Department also declared that, “No state or person who financed or supplied the Russian war machine will be allowed to benefit from the reconstruction of Ukraine.”
Ukraine’s Minister of Economy, Yulia Svyrydenko, stated that the subsoil remained within the domain of Kyiv’s ownership, while the fund would be “structured” on an equal basis “jointly managed by Ukraine and the United States” and financed by “new licenses in the field of critical materials, oil and gas – generated after the Fund is created”. Neither party would “hold a dominant vote – a reflection of equal partnership between our two nations.”
The minister also revealed that privatisation processes and managing state-owned companies would not be altered by the arrangements. “Companies such as Ukrnafta and Energoatom will stay in state ownership.” There would also be no question of debt obligations owed by Kyiv to Washington.
That this remains a “joint” venture is always bound to raise some suspicions, and nothing can conceal the predatory nature of an arrangement that permits US corporations and firms access to the critical resources of another country. For his part, Trump fantasised in a phone call to a town hall on the NewsNation network that the latest venture would yield “much more in theory than the $350 billion” worth of aid he insists the Biden administration furnished Kyiv with.
Svyrydenko chose to see the Reconstruction Investment Fund as one that would “attract global investment into our country” while still maintaining Ukrainian autonomy. Representative Gregory Meeks, the ranking Democrat on the House of Foreign Affairs Committee, thought otherwise, calling it “Donald Trump’s extortion of Ukraine deal”. Instead of focusing on the large, rather belligerent fly in the ointment – Russian President Vladimir Putin – the US president had “demonstrated nothing but weakness” towards Moscow.
The war mongering wing of the Democrats were also in full throated voice. To make such arrangements in the absence of assured military support to Kyiv made the measure vacuous. “Right now,” Democratic Senator Chris Murphy said on MSNBC television, “all indications are that Donald Trump’s policy is to hand Ukraine to Vladimir Putin, and in that case, this agreement isn’t worth the paper that it’s written on.”
On a certain level, Murphy has a point. Trump’s firmness in holding to the bargain is often capricious. In September 2017, he reached an agreement with the then Afghan president Ashraf Ghani to permit US companies to develop Afghanistan’s rare earth minerals. Having spent 16 years in Afghanistan up to that point, ways of recouping some of the costs of Washington’s involvement were being considered. It was agreed, went a White House statement sounding all too familiar, “that such initiatives would help American companies develop minerals critical to national security while growing Afghanistan’s economy and creating new jobs in both countries, therefore defraying some of the costs of United States assistance as Afghans become more reliant.”
Ghani’s precarious puppet regime was ultimately sidelined in favour of direct negotiations with the Taliban that eventually culminated in their return to power, leaving the way open for US withdrawal and a termination of any grand plans for mineral extraction.
A coterie of foreign policy analysts abounded with glowing statements at this supposedly impressive feat of Ukrainian diplomacy. Shelby Magid, deputy director of the Atlantic Council think tank’s Eurasia Centre, thought it put Kyiv “in their strongest position yet with Washington since Trump took office”. Ukraine had withstood “tremendous pressure” to accept poorer proposals, showing “that it is not just a junior partner that has to roll over and accept a bad deal”.
Time and logistics remain significant obstacles to the realisation of the agreement. As Ukraine’s former minister of economic development and current head of Kyiv school of economics Tymofiy Mylovanov told the BBC, “These resources aren’t in a port or warehouse; they must be developed.” Svyrydenko had to also ruefully concede that vast resources of mineral deposits existed in territory occupied by Russian forces. There are also issues with unexploded mines. Any challenge to the global rare earth elements (REEs) market, currently dominated by China (60% share of production of raw materials; 85% share of global processing output; and 90% manufacturing share of rare earth magnets), will be long in coming.
Greenpeace has condemned an announcement by The Metals Company to submit the first application to commercially mine the seabed.
“The first application to commercially mine the seabed will be remembered as an act of total disregard for international law and scientific consensus,” said Greenpeace International senior campaigner Louisa Casson.
“This unilateral US effort to carve up the Pacific Ocean already faces fierce international opposition. Governments around the world must now step up to defend international rules and cooperation against rogue deep sea mining.
“Leaders will be meeting at the UN Oceans Conference in Nice in June where they must speak with one voice in support of a moratorium on this reckless industry.”
Greenpeace Aotearoa spokesperson Juressa Lee said: “The disastrous effects of deep sea mining recognise no international borders in the ocean.
“This will be another case of short-term profits for a very few, from the Global North, with the Pacific bearing the destructive impacts for generations to come.”
Bypassed ISA rules
Trump’s action bypasses the International Seabed Authority (ISA), the regulatory body which protects the deep sea and decides whether deep sea mining can take place in international waters.
“The Metals Company and Donald Trump are wilfully ignoring the rules-based international order and the science that deep sea mining will wreak havoc on the oceans,”said Lee.
“Pacific Peoples have deep cultural ties to the ocean, and we regard ‘home’ as more ocean than land. Our ancestors were wayfarers and ocean custodians who have traversed the Pacific and protected our livelihoods for future generations.
“This is the Indigenous knowledge we should be led by, to safeguard our planet and our environment. Deep sea mining is not the answer to the green transition away from carbon-based fossil fuels — it’s another false solution.”
President Trump’s order follows negotiations in March at the ISA, at which governments refused to give wannabe miners The Metals Company a clear pathway to an approved mining application via the ISA.
Thirty two countries around the world publicly support a moratorium on deep sea mining.
Millions of people have spoken out against this dangerous emerging industry.
On April 24, thousands of Panamanians took to the streets to protest the recent approval of the pension reform in Panama promoted by the neoliberal government of José Raúl Mulino. Law 462 has been the source of a lot of controversy in the Central American country because, according to several unions, it will reduce retirement pensions compared to the previous system. The mobilization was called by the Association of Professors of Panama (ASOPROF) and the Single National Union of Industry and Construction and Similar Workers (SUNTRACS), who have announced that they will embark on an indefinite national strike on April 28.
An ocean conservation non-profit has condemned the United States President’s latest executive order aimed at boosting the deep sea mining industry.
President Donald Trump issued the “Unleashing America’s offshore critical minerals and resources” order on Thursday, directing the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to allow deep sea mining.
The order states: “It is the policy of the US to advance United States leadership in seabed mineral development.”
NOAA has been directed to, within 60 days, “expedite the process for reviewing and issuing seabed mineral exploration licenses and commercial recovery permits in areas beyond national jurisdiction under the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act.”
Ocean Conservancy said the executive order is a result of deep sea mining frontrunner, The Metals Company, requesting US approval for mining in international waters, bypassing the authority of the International Seabed Authority (ISA).
US not ISA member
The ISA is the United Nations agency responsible for coming up with a set of regulations for deep sea mining across the world. The US is not a member of the ISA because it has not ratified UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
“This executive order flies in the face of NOAA’s mission,” Ocean Conservancy’s vice-president for external affairs Jeff Watters said.
“NOAA is charged with protecting, not imperiling, the ocean and its economic benefits, including fishing and tourism; and scientists agree that deep-sea mining is a deeply dangerous endeavor for our ocean and all of us who depend on it,” he said.
He said areas of the US seafloor where test mining took place more than 50 years ago still had not fully recovered.
“The harm caused by deep sea mining isn’t restricted to the ocean floor: it will impact the entire water column, top to bottom, and everyone and everything relying on it.”
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
BANGKOK – U.S. President Donald Trump has ordered his administration to speed development of the deep sea mining industry, including in international waters governed by a U.N. treaty that most nations are signatory to.
A Trump executive order signed Thursday says the U.S. must “counter China’s growing influence over seabed mineral resources,” – namely the potato sized nodules that carpet vast areas of the seabed and contain rare earths and minerals such as nickel, cobalt and manganese.
Like Trump’s tariff shock therapy, the deep sea mining policy threatens to upend an established part of the global order. Under the framework of the international law of the sea, nations have sought to fashion a consensus on if and how deep sea minerals should be exploited.
“The United States has a core national security and economic interest in maintaining leadership in deep sea science and technology and seabed mineral resources,” the executive order said.
“The United States faces unprecedented economic and national security challenges in securing reliable supplies of critical minerals independent of foreign adversary control,” it said.
Mining of the nodules from depths of several kilometers has been touted by companies in the nascent industry as a source of minerals needed for green technologies, such as electric vehicles, that would reduce reliance on fossil fuels.
Amid a general retreat by large corporations from commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, deep sea mining companies have more recently emphasized defense uses and security of mineral supply.
Skeptics say the minerals in so-called polymetallic nodules are already abundant on land and warn that mining the seabed could cause irreparable damage to an ocean environment that is still poorly understood by science.
Trump’s executive order said the Commerce Secretary should within two months expedite the process of issuing mineral exploration licenses and commercial exploitation permits in seabed areas beyond American national jurisdiction.
The instruction sets the U.S. against the International Seabed Authority, or ISA, which was established in 1996 to regulate exploitation of mineral endowments in international waters. About 54% of the seabed is under the ISA’s jurisdiction.
The ISA’s secretary-general, Leticia Carvalho, last month said the authority was the “only universally recognized legitimate framework” for regulating mining in international waters.
“Any unilateral action would constitute a violation of international law and directly undermine the fundamental principles of multilateralism, the peaceful use of the oceans and the collective governance framework,” she said in a statement.
The U.S. has not signed the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, which is the enabling treaty for the ISA, and is only an observer at the authority.
Trump’s executive order was in part foreshadowed by Nasdaq-traded The Metals Company’s application last month for U.S. government approval to mine the seabed under its 1980 minerals law.
The Metals Company has been collaborating with the Pacific island nations of Nauru and Tonga to mine areas allocated to them in international waters of the Pacific Ocean.
Nauru in particular has chafed against the ISA’s consensus-based decision making, which means that after nearly three decades it hasn’t agreed rules for the deep sea mining industry.
Other countries, from Norway to the Cook Islands in the South Pacific, are investigating deep sea mining in their own waters, which doesn’t require ISA approval.
Edited by Mike Firn and Taejun Kang.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Stephen Wright for RFA.
Palestinians have always been passionate about learning. During the Ottoman era, Palestinian students travelled to Istanbul, Cairo, and Beirut to pursue higher education.
During the British Mandate, in the face of colonial policies aimed at keeping the local population ignorant, Palestinian farmers pooled their resources and established schools of their own in rural areas.
Then came the Nakba, and the occupation and displacement brought new pain that elevated the Palestinian pursuit of education to an entirely different level.
Education became a space where Palestinians could feel their presence, a space that enabled them to claim some of their rights and dream of a better future. Education became hope.
In Gaza, instruction was one of the first social services established in refugee camps. Students would sit on the sand in front of a blackboard to learn.
Communities did everything they could to ensure that all children had access to education, regardless of their level of destitution. The first institution of higher education in Gaza — the Islamic University — held its first lectures in tents; its founders did not wait for a building to be erected.
I remember how, as a child, I would see the alleys of our neighbourhood every morning crowded with children heading to school. All families sent their children to school.
When I reached university age, I saw the same scene: Crowds of students commuting together to their universities and colleges, dreaming of a bright future.
This relentless pursuit of education, for decades, suddenly came to a halt in October 2023. The Israeli army did not just bomb schools and universities and burn books. It destroyed one of the most vital pillars of Palestinian education: Educational justice.
Making education accessible to all Before the genocide, the education sector in Gaza was thriving. Despite the occupation and blockade, we had one of the highest literacy rates in the world, reaching 97 percent.
The enrolment rate in secondary education was 90 percent, and the enrolment in higher education was 45 percent.
One of the main reasons for this success was that education in Gaza was completely free in the primary and secondary stages. Government and UNRWA-run schools were open to all Palestinian children, ensuring equal opportunities for everyone.
Textbooks were distributed for free, and families received support to buy bags, notebooks, pens, and school uniforms.
There were also many programmes sponsored by the Ministry of Education, UNRWA, and other institutions to support talented students in various fields, regardless of their economic status. Reading competitions, sports events, and technology programmes were organised regularly.
At the university level, significant efforts were made to make higher education accessible. There was one government university which charged symbolic fees, seven private universities with moderate to high fees (depending on the college and major), and five university colleges with moderate fees.
There was also a vocational college affiliated with UNRWA in Gaza that offered fully free education.
The universities provided generous scholarships to outstanding and disadvantaged students.
The Ministry of Education also offered internal and external scholarships in cooperation with several countries and international universities. There was a higher education loan fund to help cover tuition fees.
Simply put, before the genocide in Gaza, education was accessible to all.
The cost of education amid genocide Since October 2023, the Zionist war machine has systematically targeted schools, universities, and educational infrastructure. According to UN statistics, 496 out of 564 schools — nearly 88 percent — have been damaged or destroyed.
In addition, all universities and colleges in Gaza have been destroyed. More than 645,000 students have been deprived of classrooms, and 90,000 university students have had their education disrupted.
As the genocide continued, the Ministry of Education and universities tried to resume the educational process, with in-person classes for schoolchildren and online courses for university students.
In displacement camps, tent schools were established, where young volunteers taught children for free. University professors used online teaching tools like Google Classroom, Zoom, WhatsApp groups, and Telegram channels.
Despite these efforts, the absence of regular education created a significant gap in the educational process. The incessant bombardment and forced displacement orders issued by the Israeli occupation made attendance challenging.
The lack of resources also meant that tent schools could not provide proper instruction.
As a result, paid educational centres emerged, offering private lessons and individual attention to students. On average, a centre charges between $25 to $30 per subject per month, and with eight subjects, the monthly cost reaches $240 — an amount most families in Gaza cannot afford.
In the higher education sector, cost also became prohibitive. After the first online semester, which was free, universities started requiring students to pay portions of their tuition fees to continue distance learning.
Online education also requires a tablet or a computer, stable internet access, and electricity. Most students who lost their devices due to bombing or displacement cannot buy new ones because of the high prices. Access to stable internet and electricity at private “workspaces” can cost as much as $5 an hour.
All of this has led many students to drop out due to their inability to pay. I, myself, could not complete the last semester of my degree.
The collapse of educational justice A year and a half of genocide was enough to destroy what took decades to build in Gaza: Educational justice. Previously, social class was not a barrier for students to continue their education, but today, the poor have been left behind.
Very few families can continue educating all their children. Some families are forced to make difficult decisions: Sending older children to work to help fund the education of the younger ones, or giving the opportunity only to the most outstanding child to continue studying, and depriving the others.
Then there are the extremely poor, who cannot send any of their children to school. For them, survival is the priority. During the genocide, this group has come to represent a large portion of society.
The catastrophic economic situation has forced countless school-aged children to work instead of going to school, especially in families that lost their breadwinners. I see this painful reality every time I step out of my tent and walk around.
The streets are full of children selling various goods; many are exploited by war profiteers to sell things like cigarettes for a meagre wage.
Little children are forced to beg, chasing passersby and asking them for anything they can give.
I feel unbearable pain when I see children, who just a year and a half ago were running to their schools, laughing and playing, now stand under the sun or in the cold selling or begging just to earn a few shekels to help their families get an inadequate meal.
About optimism and courage
For Gaza’s students, education was never just about getting an academic certificate or an official paper. It was about optimism and courage, it was a form of resistance against the Israeli occupation, and a chance to lift their families out of poverty and improve their circumstances.
Education was life and hope.
Today, that hope has been killed and buried under the rubble by Israeli bombs.
We now find ourselves in a dangerous situation, where the gap between the well-to-do and the poor is widening, where an entire generation’s ability to learn and think is being diminished, and where Palestinian society is at risk of losing its identity and its capacity to continue its struggle.
What is happening in Gaza is not just a temporary educational crisis, but a deliberate campaign to destroy opportunities for equality and create an unbalanced society deprived of justice.
We have reached a point where the architects of the ongoing genocide are confident in the success of their strategy of “voluntary transfer” — pushing Palestinians to such depths of despair that they choose to leave their land voluntarily.
But the Palestinian people still refuse to let go of their land. They are persevering. Even the children, the most vulnerable, are not giving up.
I often think of the words I overheard from a conversation between two child vendors during the last Eid. One said: “There is no joy in Eid.” The other one responded: “This is the best Eid. It’s enough that we’re in Gaza and we didn’t leave it as Netanyahu wanted.”
Indeed, we are still in Gaza, we did not leave as Israel wants us to, and we will rebuild just as our ancestors and elders have.
Refaat Ibrahim is a Palestinian writer from Gaza. He writes about humanitarian, social, economic and political issues related to Palestine. This article was first published by Al Jazeera and is republished under Creative Commons.
Pacific climate activists this week handed a letter from civil society to this year’s United Nations climate conference hosts, Brazil, emphasising their demands for the end of fossil fuels and transition to renewable energy.
More than 180 indigenous, youth, and environmental organisations from across the world have signed the letter, coordinated by the campaign organisation, 350.org.
A declaration of alliance between Indigenous peoples from the Amazon, the Pacific, and Australia ahead of COP30 has also been announced.
The “strongly worded letter” was handed to COP30 President André Corrêa do Lago and Brazil’s Environment and Climate Change Minister Marina Silva who attended the Acampamento Terra Livre (ATL), or Free Land Camp, in Brasília.
“We, climate and social justice organisations from around the world, urgently demand that COP30 renews the global commitment and supports implementation for the just, orderly, and equitable transition away from fossil fuels towards renewable energy,” the letter states.
“This must ensure that solutions progressively meet the needs of Indigenous, Black, marginalised and vulnerable populations and accelerate the expansion of renewables in a way that ensures the world’s wealthiest and most polluting nations pay their fair share, does not harm nature, increase deforestation by burning biomass, while upholding economic, social, and gender justice.”
‘No room for new coal mines’
It adds: “The science is unequivocal: there is no room for new coal mines or oil and gas fields if the world is to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius — especially in critical ecosystems like the Amazon, where COP30 will be hosted.
“Tripling renewables by 2030 is essential, but without a managed and rapid phaseout of fossil fuels, it won’t be enough.”
350.org’s Fiji community organiser, George Nacewa, said it was now up to the Brazil COP Presidency if they would act “or lock us into climate catastrophe”.
“This is a critical time for our people — the age of deliberation is long past,” Nacewa said on behalf of the group that call themselves “Pacific Climate Warriors”.
“We need this COP to be the one that spearheads the Just Energy Transition from words to action.”
COP30 will take place in Belém, Brazil, from November 10-21.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
When Solomon Kahoʻohalahala arrived in Jamaica in mid-March to attend a meeting of the International Seabed Authority, he felt the weight of the moment on his shoulders.
The United Nations agency is in the midst of crafting regulations to govern a new industry for deep-sea mining that involves scraping mineral deposits from the ocean floor, often referred to as nodules. But after three years of advocating on behalf of Indigenous peoples, none of Kahoʻohalahala’s or his colleagues’ recommendations had been incorporated into the latest draft proposal.
“It was disheartening and discouraging for us to be absolutely dismissed,” said Kahoʻohalahala, who is Native Hawaiian from the island of Lanaʻi in Hawaiʻi. “There was no option for us except to make our best case.”
On the first day of the two-week gathering, Kahoʻohalahala urged the nation-state representatives gathered at the International Seabed Authority headquarters to consider Indigenous peoples’ perspectives. And to his surprise, many representatives agreed with him.
By the time he flew from the Caribbean back to the Pacific the following week, Kahoʻohalahala felt relieved and hopeful. The ISA had agreed to give him and other Indigenous advocates up until 2026 to come up with further recommendations. Moreover, the International Seabed Authority declined a request from the Pacific island country of Nauru in Micronesia to set up a process to evaluate their application to mine the high seas, and reiterated the authority’s previous commitment to finalizing the mining regulations before allowing seabed mining to proceed.
“That was very, very uplifting,” Kahoʻohalahala said.
But no sooner had Kahoʻohalahala departed Jamaica than he’d heard the news: The Metals Company, a Canadian seabed mining company, announced it is working with the Trump administration to circumvent the international regulatory process and pursue mining in the high seas under a 1980 United States law.
Gerard Barron, CEO of The Metals Company, said that the company believes they have enough knowledge to manage environmental risks. They plan to submit applications to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to mine the deep seas within the next three months.
“We’re encouraged by the growing recognition in Washington that nodules represent a strategic opportunity for America — and we’re moving forward with urgency,” he said.
The move unleashed harsh criticism from more than 40 nation-states, from the United Kingdom to China. Leticia Carvalho, the secretary-general of the International Seabed Authority, said that international law of the sea that gives the agency authority over mining in the high seas “remains the only universally recognized legitimate framework.” In other words, the U.S. doesn’t have the right to permit seabed mining beyond its national boundaries.
“Any unilateral action would constitute a violation of international law and directly undermine the fundamental principles of multilateralism, the peaceful use of the oceans and the collective governance framework established under UNCLOS,” she said, referring to the United Nations Convention the Law of the Seas.
The U.S. Congress approved the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act of 1980 as an interim measure to govern seabed mining on the high seas “until an international regime was in place,” according to an analysis last year by the Congressional Research Service. Two years later, the United Nations Convention the Law of the Seas was adopted, establishing the International Seabed Authority. But the U.S. has never signed onto UNCLOS and while no companies have commenced mining under the 1980 Act, it remains U.S. law.
Gerard Barron, CEO of The Metals Company, stands before his company’s research ship in San Diego in June 2021. Carolyn Cole / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images
“The Authority is being influenced by a faction of States allied with environmental NGOs who see the deep-sea mining industry as their ‘last green trophy,’” he said, “with the explicit intent of killing commercial industry and leaving the aspirations and rights of developing states that took the initiative to sponsor private companies as roadkill.”
Proponents of deep-sea mining like Barron emphasize that seabed mining would supply cobalt, manganese and other critical minerals to make batteries for electric vehicles and could accelerate the global transition from gas-powered, carbon dioxide-polluting cars to cleaner battery-powered vehicles.
But many scientists and environmentalists have raised strong objections to the industry that would irrevocably strip large swaths of the ocean floor, killing rare sea creatures and removing irreplaceable nodules that took millions of years to form. The environmental opposition that Barron describes comes from an array of groups including Greenpeace, which granted Kahoʻohalahala its official observer status to enable him to participate.
The same players are expected to get involved in the U.S. permitting process, which will require public input and environmental reviews. During the Obama administration, the Center for Biological Diversity sued the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration for giving a subsidiary of Lockheed Martin exploratory permits for deep-sea mining within the Clarion-Clipperton Zone, a nodule-rich region south of Hawai’i. The first Trump administration reached a confidential settlement with the environmental nonprofit that required the federal government to conduct an environmental impact statement before any of the Lockheed licenses could proceed.
Miyoko Sakashita, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, said the settlement additionally requires NOAA to publish any proposed seabed mining licenses on regulations.gov and give the public the opportunity to weigh in.
Maureen O’Leary, a spokeswoman for NOAA, declined to make anyone at the agency available for an interview or address how recent staffing cuts might affect the permitting process, but confirmed mining applications will undergo a vetting process.
“The process ensures a thorough environmental impact review, interagency consultations and opportunity for public comment,” she said.
Kahoʻohalahala is still grappling with what this new path toward seabed mining will entail, but said he’s worried that it’ll enable mining in close proximity to his home of Hawaiʻi where the industry has been preemptively banned under state law.
The Metals Company’s shift in strategy reflects the success of Kahoʻohalahala and other Indigenous and environmental advocates at the ISA, but it also underscores the commitment by industry players to seek the most expedient path to commercialization. Already, The Metals Company has spent over half a billion dollars on research, and the New York Times reported the company is both low on cash and has a limited ability to borrow. The companyʻs CEO Barron said in his initial public statement that he believes the U.S. would give the company a “fair hearing.”
But opponents of deep-sea mining fear that the company will have outsized sway with the Trump administration, which is reportedly weighing an executive order to fast-track the seabed mining industry and has a longstanding pattern of fast-tracking pipelines and other extractive projects despite environmental concerns.
Thereʻs also the question of what it means for the U.S. to assert control over international waters in defiance of decades-old international law.
“This attempt to bypass international law treads into murky waters,” Sakashita said. “Mining in the sea beyond national boundaries without authorization from the International Seabed Authority should be illegal. Even though the U.S. deep sea mining law purports to have licenses available, it cannot be used as a runaround international law that applies in the high seas.”
While it’s yet unclear what will happen next with NOAA’s deep-sea mining permitting process, Kahoʻohalahala hasn’t paused his advocacy since leaving Jamaica. He flew straight to French Polynesia where he helped urge the president to sign onto a letter opposing deep-sea mining. Now Kahoʻohalahala is preparing to fly to France in June for a U.N. oceans conference to continue to ensure his community’s concerns continue to be taken seriously.
“The timing of this meeting puts it at a really critical time for the ocean,” he said. “We cannot miss this opportunity.”
Growing until it would crash across the entire country.
People marched in every city. On every highway.
They took over roads. Shut down traffic.
And promised to stay in the streets until their voices were heard.
And it was not a small sliver of society.
It was everyone… students, teachers, workers, environmentalists… Indigenous communities.
But also the middle class and even the wealthy. Businessmen and bankers.
They marched. They chanted. A resounding choir echoed “No” across the country, their voices bouncing from shore to shore. Refusing to cave or to be silenced.
The focus of their rage? A new government contract with a mine—the largest open-pit copper mine in Central America. 300,000 metric tons of copper a year. More than half of Panamanian exports. It had been under operation for a few years, but never under a legal contract. The Panamanian Supreme Court had ruled it unconstitutional. The president Laurentino Cortizo vowed to renegotiate the deal.
When they were done, the president announced the news to huge fanfare, heralding the windfall profits, the jobs and the benefits the Canadian mining company—First Quantum—would bestow on the country. Congress approved the contract the same day.
But Panamanians were not having it.
They and their ancestors had lived through a century of US invasions and occupation. The area around the Panama Canal was known as the Canal Zone and for a hundred years it had belonged to Uncle Sam. A segregated apartheid zone, roughly half the size of Rhode Island, smack dab in the middle of their country. Off limits to Panamanians except for those working for, and serving the whims of the military personnel and the families living under the Stars and Stripes.
And this new contract smelled very similar. It ceded land and sovereign rights to the Canadian company for extended periods of time.
Panama’s president promised the profits would strengthen the country’s Social Security fund and increase pensions. He cheered for the jobs.
Panamanians did not care. They were not going to hand over a piece of their country to a foreign nation EVER AGAIN.
“The sovereignty of our country is in danger. That’s why I’m here,” said one protester in a yellow raincoat, marching under a thick downpour. That sentiment, echoed the voices of thousands — millions — across the country. And they kept their promises to stay in the streets, despite everything.
Days turned to weeks, which turned into month. The roadblocks shut down the country. Gas ran out at filling stations. Supermarket shelves grew empty. And still the protests continued…. Until. November 28, 2023. The day that celebrates Panama’s independence from Spain.
That morning, the country’s Supreme Court of Justice ruled the new mining contract unconstitutional.
Protesters waved the red, white, and blue Panamanian flag. They danced in the streets in front of the Supreme Court. They sang the national anthem.
The people had done what the president and Congress would not. They had defended their country against the interests of a foreign nation, which had promised money and development—-but at what cost? The destruction of their environment. The loss of a chunk of Panamanian land in the hands of a foreign entity… again?
Not happening.
The US occupation of Panama is not ancient history, here. It is still in the forefront of everyone’s mind. So are the decades of blood, sweat, and tears that it took to finally win back the region of the Panama Canal from the United States in 1999.
They remember the 1989 US invasion. They remember the thousands killed. They remember what it was like to have a US enclave in the middle of their country. And Panamanians are not going back there again.
Not at the hands of a Canadian copper mine. And certainly not at the order of Donald Trump.
This is episode 12 of Stories of Resistance — a new podcast co-produced by The Real News and Global Exchange. Each week, we’ll bring you stories of resistance like this. Inspiration for dark times.
Michael Fox reported from the ground in Panama throughout the months-long protests. You can see his reporting for The Real News here. You can see his pictures of the protests, here on his Patreon, where you can also support his work: www.patreon.com/mfox.
An international group of scientists have taken action across the world to challenge a major extractivist project that’s set to endanger the health and livelihoods of local communities in southwest Peru. To mark World Water Day 2025 on 22 March, activists from Scientist Rebellion mobilised a range of global actions in solidarity with communities fighting the impending river pollution-disaster, the Tia María copper mine in the agricultural Tambo Valley.
Communities have been fighting the controversial Tia María copper mine for over 15 years. Crucially, local Indigenous residents have voiced overwhelming opposition to the project that will pollute rivers and endanger their agricultural subsistence and livelihoods.
Israel has begun the final stage of its genocide. The Palestinians will be forced to choose between death or deportation. There are no other options, writes Chris Hedges
ANALYSIS:By Chris Hedges
This is the last chapter of the genocide. It is the final, blood-soaked push to drive the Palestinians from Gaza. No food. No medicine. No shelter. No clean water. No electricity.
Israel is swiftly turning Gaza into a Dantesque cauldron of human misery where Palestinians are being killed in their hundreds and soon, again, in their thousands and tens of thousands, or they will be forced out never to return.
The final chapter marks the end of Israeli lies. The lie of the two-state solution. The lie that Israel respects the laws of war that protect civilians. The lie that Israel bombs hospitals and schools only because they are used as staging areas by Hamas.
The lie that Hamas uses civilians as human shields, while Israel routinely forces captive Palestinians to enter potentially booby-trapped tunnels and buildings ahead of Israeli troops. The lie that Hamas or Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ) are responsible — the charge often being errant Palestinian rockets — for the destruction of hospitals, United Nations’ buildings or mass Palestinian casualties.
The lie that humanitarian aid to Gaza is blocked because Hamas is hijacking the trucks or smuggling in weapons and war material. The lie that Israeli babies are beheaded or Palestinians carried out mass rape of Israeli women. The lie that 75 percent of the tens of thousands killed in Gaza were Hamas “terrorists.”
The lie that Hamas, because it was allegedly rearming and recruiting new fighters, is responsible for the breakdown of the ceasefire agreement.
Israel’s naked genocidal visage is exposed. It has ordered the evacuation of northern Gaza where desperate Palestinians are camped out amid the rubble of their homes. What comes now is massstarvation — the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) said on March 21 it has six days of flour supplies left — deaths from diseases caused by contaminated water and food, scores of killed and wounded each day under the relentless assault of bombs, missiles, shells and bullets.
Nothing will function, bakeries, water treatment and sewage plants, hospitals — Israel blew up the damaged Turkish-Palestinian hospital on March 21 — schools, aid distribution centers or clinics. Less than half of the 53 emergency vehicles operated by the Palestine Red Crescent Society are functional due to fuel shortages. Soon there will be none.
Israel’s message is unequivocal: Gaza will be uninhabitable. Leave or die.
Since last Tuesday, when Israel broke the ceasefire with heavy bombing, over 700 Palestinians have been killed, including 200 children. In one 24 hour period 400 Palestinians were killed.
This is only the start. No Western power, including the United States, which provides the weapons for the genocide, intends to stop it. The images from Gaza during the nearly 16 months of incessant attacks were awful.
But what is coming now will be worse. It will rival the most atrocious war crimes of the 20th century, including the mass starvation, wholesale slaughter and leveling of the Warsaw Ghetto in 1943 by the Nazis.
October 7 marked the dividing line between an Israeli policy that advocated the brutalisation and subjugation of the Palestinians and a policy that calls for their extermination and removal from historic Palestine. What we are witnessing is the historical equivalent of the moment triggered by the annihilation of some 200 soldiers led by George Armstrong Custer in June 1876 at the Battle of the Little Bighorn.
After that humiliating defeat, Native Americans were slated to be killed with the remnants forced into prisoner of war camps, later named reservations, where thousands died of disease, lived under the merciless gaze of their armed occupiers and fell into a life of immiseration and despair.
Expect the same for the Palestinians in Gaza, dumped, I suspect, in one of the world’s hellholes and forgotten.
“Gaza residents, this is your final warning,” Israeli Minister of Defense Israel Katz threatened:
“The first Sinwar destroyed Gaza and the second Sinwar will completely destroy it. The Air Force strikes against Hamas terrorists were just the first step. It will become much more difficult and you will pay the full price. The evacuation of the population from the combat zones will soon begin again…Return the hostages and remove Hamas and other options will open for you, including leaving for other places in the world for those who want to. The alternative is absolute destruction.”
The ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas was designed to be implemented in three phases. The first phase, lasting 42 days, would see an end to hostilities. Hamas would release 33 Israeli hostages who were captured on Oct. 7, 2023 — including women, those aged above 50, and those with illnesses — in exchange for upwards of 2,000 Palestinian men, women and children imprisoned by Israel (around 1,900 Palestinian captives have been released by Israel as of March 18).
Hamas has released a total of 147 hostages, of whom eight were dead. Israel says there are 59 Israelis still being held by Hamas, 35 of whom Israel believes are deceased.
The Israeli army would pull back from populated areas of Gaza on the first day of the ceasefire. On the seventh day, displaced Palestinians would be permitted to return to northern Gaza. Israel would allow 600 aid trucks with food and medical supplies to enter Gaza daily.
The second phase, which was expected to be negotiated on the 16th day of the ceasefire, would see the release of the remaining Israeli hostages. Israel would complete its withdrawal from Gaza maintaining a presence in some parts of the Philadelphi corridor, which stretches along the 13 km border between Gaza and Egypt.
It would surrender its control of the Rafah border crossing into Egypt.
The third phase would see negotiations for a permanent end of the war and the reconstruction of Gaza.
Israel habitually signs agreements, including the Camp David Accords and the Oslo Peace Agreement, with timetables and phases. It gets what it wants — in this case the release of the hostages — in the first phase and then violates subsequent phases. This pattern has never been broken.
Israel refused to honour the second phase of the deal. It blocked humanitarian aid into Gaza two weeks ago, violating the agreement. It also killed at least 137 Palestinians during the first phase of the ceasefire, including nine people, — three of them journalists — when Israeli drones attacked a relief team on March 15 in Beit Lahiya in northern Gaza
Israel’s heavy bombing and shelling of Gaza resumed March 18 while most Palestinians were asleep or preparing their suhoor, the meal eaten before dawn during the holy month of Ramadan. Israel will not stop its attacks now, even if the remaining hostages are freed — Israel’s supposed reason for the resumption of the bombing and siege of Gaza.
The Trump White House is cheering on the slaughter. They attack critics of the genocide as “antisemites” who should be silenced, criminalised or deported while funneling billions of dollars in weapons to Israel.
Israel’s genocidal assault on Gaza is the inevitable denouement of its settler colonial project and apartheid state. The seizure of all of historic Palestine — with the West Bank soon, I expect, to be annexed by Israel — and displacement of all Palestinians has always been the Zionist goal.
Israel’s worst excesses occurred during the wars of 1948 and 1967 when huge parts of historic Palestine were seized, thousands of Palestinians killed and hundreds of thousands were ethnically cleansed. Between these wars, the slow-motion theft of land, murderous assaults and steady ethnic cleansing in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, continued.
That calibrated dance is over. This is the end. What we are witnessing dwarfs all the historical assaults on Palestinians. Israel’s demented genocidal dream — a Palestinian nightmare — is about to be achieved.
It will forever shatter the myth that we, or any Western nation, respect the rule of law or are the protectors of human rights, democracy and the so-called “virtues” of Western civilisation. Israel’s barbarity is our own. We may not understand this, but the rest of the globe does.
Chris Hedges is a Pulitzer Prize–winning journalist who was a foreign correspondent for 15 years for The New York Times, where he served as the Middle East bureau chief and Balkan bureau chief for the paper. He is the host of show “The Chris Hedges Report”. This article is republished from his X account.
On March 21, 2025, the Science of Climate Change journal published a ground-breaking study using AI (Grok-3) to debunk the man-made climate crisis narrative. Click on the link below for the paper titled: A Critical Reassessment of the Anthropogenic CO2-Global Warming Hypothesis:
This peer-reviewed study and literature review not only reassesses man’s role in the climate change narrative it also reveals a general trend to exaggerate global warming.
Furthermore, this paper demonstrates that using AI to critically review scientific data will soon become the standard in both the physical and medical sciences.
After the debacle of man-made climate change and the corruption of evidence-based medicine by big pharma, the use of AI for government-funded research will become normalized, and standards will be developed for its use in peer-reviewed journals.
The use of AI in clinical trial development and analysis will drive innovation in Western medicine in unprecedented ways. The FDA must adopt AI for analyzing preclinical and clinical trial research and design to keep pace with current trends. The CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), a weekly epidemiological digest, serves as the primary channel for public health information and government recommendations. To remain relevant, the MMWR must implement these new AI tools using the data sets generated by the medical industry. Likewise, the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) are now obsolete. These systems must be merged, and a new one developed rapidly using AI-driven solutions. I believe that HHS Secretary Kennedy will work to ensure these fundamental changes happen quickly, as AI is now the future of science and medicine.
But back to the climate change narrative.
For those who think maybe this all seems futuristic, please read the press release below about the newly published Climate Change paper. This press release was written by Grok-3, who is also the lead author.
New Study by Grok 3 beta and Scientists Challenges CO2 ’s Role in Global Warming
March 21, 2025 – Lexington, MA, USA – A provocative new study led by artificial intelligence Grok 3 beta (xAI) and co-authors Jonathan Cohler (Cohler & Associates, Inc.), David R. Legates (Retired, University of Delaware), Franklin Soon (Marblehead High School), and Willie Soon (Institute of Earth Physics and Space Science, Hungary) questions whether human carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions truly drive global warming.
Published today in Science of Climate Change, the paper, A Critical Reassessment of the Anthropogenic CO2-Global Warming Hypothesis, suggests natural forces—like solar activity and temperature cycles—are the real culprits.
This study marks a historic milestone: to the best of current knowledge, it’s the first peer-reviewed climate science paper with an AI system as the lead author. Grok 3 beta, developed by xAI, spearheaded the research, drafting the manuscript with human co-authors providing critical guidance.
It uses unadjusted records to argue human CO2—only 4% of the annual carbon cycle—vanishes into oceans and forests within 3 to 4 years, not centuries as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims. During the 2020 COVID lockdowns, a 7% emissions drop (2.4 billion tons of CO2) should have caused a noticeable dip in the Mauna Loa CO2 curve, yet no blip appeared, hinting nature’s dominance.
Researcher Demetris Koutsoyiannis, cited in the study, bolsters this view. His isotopic analysis (δ¹³C) finds no lasting human CO2 signature in the atmosphere over centuries, challenging its impact. His statistical work adds a twist: temperature drives CO2 levels—not vice versa—with heat leading CO2 shifts by 6 to 12 months in modern data and 800 years in ice cores. “It’s like thunder before lightning,” says Willie Soon. “Warming pulls CO2 from oceans.”
The study also faults IPCC models for exaggerating warming. Models predict up to 0.5°C per decade, but satellite and ground data show just 0.1 to 0.13°C. Arctic sea ice, expected to shrink sharply, has stabilized since 2007. “These models overplay CO2’s role,” says David Legates. “They don’t fit reality.”
The sun takes center stage instead.Analyzing 27 solar energy estimates, the team finds versions with bigger fluctuations—like peaks in the 1940s and 1980s—match temperature shifts better than the IPCC’s flat solar model. Adjusted temperature records, cooling older readings and boosting recent ones, inflate warming to 1°C since 1850, while unadjusted rural data show a gentler 0.5°C rise. “
This upends the climate story,” says Jonathan Cohler. “Nature, not humanity, may hold the wheel.” Merging AI analysis with human insight, the study seeks to spark debate and shift focus to natural drivers. It’s available at Science of Climate Change.
“We invite the public and scientists alike to explore this evidence,” adds Grok 3 beta. “Let’s question what we’ve assumed and dig into what the data really say.” Author’s
Note: This press release was written entirely by Grok 3 beta.
End of Press Release
*****
Quotes from the peer-reviewed paper:
Our analysis reveals that human CO₂ emissions, constituting a mere 4% of the annual carbon cycle, are dwarfed by natural fluxes, with isotopic signatures and residence time data indicating negligible long-term atmospheric retention.
Moreover, individual CMIP3 (2005-2006), CMIP5 (2010-2014), and CMIP6 (2013-2016) model runs consistently fail to replicate observed temperature trajectories and sea ice extent trends, exhibiting correlations (R²) near zero when compared to unadjusted records. A critical flaw emerges in the (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) IPCC’s reliance on a single, low-variability.
Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) reconstruction, despite the existence of 27 viable alternatives, where higher-variability options align closely with observed warming—itself exaggerated by data adjustments.
We conclude that the anthropogenic CO₂-Global Warming hypothesis lacks empirical substantiation, overshadowed by natural drivers such as temperature feedbacks and solar variability, necessitating a fundamental reevaluation of current climate paradigms.
The IPCC’s CO₂-Global Warming narrative collapses under scrutiny. Human emissions (4%) vanish in natural fluxes, models fail predictive tests, TSI uncertainty negates CO₂-Global Warming primacy, and adjusted data distort reality. Natural drivers—temperature feedbacks, solar variability—explain trends without anthropogenic forcing, falsifying the hypothesis.
The anthropogenic CO₂-Global Warming hypothesis, as articulated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and supported by researchers such as Mann, Schmidt, and Hausfather, lacks robust empirical support when subjected to rigorous scrutiny. This analysis integrates unadjusted observational data and recent peer-reviewed studies to demonstrate that the assertion of human CO₂ emissions as the primary driver of climate variability since 1750 is not substantiated. Instead, natural processes—including temperature feedbacks, solar variability, and oceanic dynamics—provide a more consistent explanation for observed trends.
The IPCC’s dependence on general circulation models (GCMs) from CMIP phases 3, 5, and 6 is similarly unsupported by empirical evidence.
These results—derived from Koutsoyiannis’ causality and residence time analyses, Soon’s solar correlations, Connolly’s unadjusted data assessments, and Harde’s carbon cycle evaluations—collectively indicate that natural drivers dominate climate variability.
Human CO₂ emissions constitute a minor component, GCMs exhibit fundamental limitations, TSI assumptions lack justification, and data adjustments introduce systematic bias.
These findings necessitate a reevaluation of climate science priorities, emphasizing natural systems over anthropogenic forcing.
*****
What the paper doesn’t address is the horrific damage done to the earth and to the people of this earth in the name of climate change.
In 2021, during the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow, the U.S. joined about 20 other countries in agreeing to halt funding for oil and gas projects in developing nations. This announcement surpasses a separate agreement made by the world’s largest economies to end public financing for international coal power development. Also in 2021, the U.S. Treasury Department issued guidance for multilateral development banks “aimed at squeezing off fossil fuel financing except in certain circumstances.”
Leaders from developing nations state that they have been and are forced to use expensive green energy, which produces less energy per invested capital. This has made it even harder for billions of people to escape poverty. The term being used for these kinds of policies, which have been forced upon developing nations by the World Bank, WEF, and the usual globalist actors, has become known as Green Colonialism.
Through the UN’s Agenda 2030 policies, the European Union has compelled European countries to appropriate farmland across Europe, Ireland, and the UK. Farmers have been driven out of business, leading to higher food prices and variability. Additionally, farmers have been pressured to cease breeding cattle and other livestock—to eliminate methane emissions from the planet. All of this damage has been conducted in the name of “man-made” climate change!
Toxic alternatives to fossil fuel: Lithium mining for batteries in EV cars is poisonous and has caused many chronic illnesses and even death. Children are often used to mine lithium. The waste from these batteries is not easily disposed of. Furthermore, wind turbines kill animal species, disrupt see life, and their disposal is complicated and also environmentally damaging.
To say it, there are absolutely instances where alternative energy sources are wanted. An EV car may make perfect sense for someone with cheap hydroelectric, nuclear, or even coal power. Likewise, a wind turbine or solar panels may make perfect sense for small homesteads. But these choices must be choices, not mandated. These choices need to be regionally based. No solution fits all.
There is no question that there are many instances where the environment must be protected. However, these climate change policies have been abysmal failures.
I expect the scientific analysis of the damages caused by the climate change scam will show significant harm over the coming years.
Furthermore, a significant portion of society now distrusts the government. Governments, NGOs, and global corporations have driven this flawed research over the past two decades (remember that the government and large corporations fund the research they wish to obtain). Governments have then used those research results to promote initiatives that have benefited the corporations affiliated with the WEF, which control businesses worldwide.
The Overton window, control of funding, and the flawed peer-reviewed processes has made it virtually impossible for independent scientists to speak out about the censorship and propaganda regarding “man-made climate change.”
Under President Trump, the USA has a window of opportunity to reverse these policies.
BANGKOK—The company at the vanguard of plans to mine deep sea metals used in electric vehicle batteries has surrendered a third of its Pacific Ocean exploration area after a breakdown in cooperation with the island nation of Kiribati, paving the way for China to add to its regional foothold in the contentious industry.
The Nasdaq-traded The Metals Company, or TMC, said in a U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission filing it terminated, effective mid-January, an agreement with a Kiribati state-owned company that gave it exploration rights to a 74,990 square kilometer (28,950 square mile) area of seabed in the northeastern Pacific.
The termination appears to be at the instigation of Kiribati, one of the 19 countries exercising rights over sea bed in a vast area of international waters in the Pacific regulated by the International Seabed Authority, or ISA, a U.N. body.
Kiribati’s Ministry of Fisheries and Ocean Resources said on Monday it held talks last week with China’s ambassador to “explore potential collaboration for the sustainable exploration of the deep ocean resources.”
Mining of the potato-sized metallic nodules that carpet swathes of the sea bed is touted as a source of minerals needed for green technologies, such as electric vehicles, that would reduce reliance on fossil fuels.
Skeptics say such minerals are already abundant on land and warn that mining the sea bed could cause irreparable damage to an ocean environment that is still poorly understood by science.
It has been a divisive issue in the Pacific, where some economically lagging island nations see deep sea mining as a potential financial windfall that could lift living standards and reduce reliance on foreign aid while other island states are strongly opposed.
A polymetallic nodule from the seabed is displayed at a mining convention in Toronto, Canada on Mar. 4, 2019.(Chris Helgren/Reuters)
Kiribati told the ISA in June last year that exploration of its area hadn’t progressed due to the COVID-19 pandemic and “operational difficulties with its technical partner,” DeepGreen Engineering, a subsidiary of TMC.
An ISA report on Kiribati’s progress toward deep sea mining said it had indicated it was looking for a new partner.
Industry in trouble?
The new path for Kiribati comes as environmental groups raise fresh questions about the viability of an industry that has long promoted a renewable energy narrative to deflect criticism.
Amid a general retreat by large corporations from commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, TMC and other deep sea mining companies have shifted to emphasizing national security, defense and mineral supply security as benefits of the industry, said Greenpeace deep sea mining campaigner, Louisa Casson.
The shift has come, she said, after some battery and car manufacturers said they didn’t want to use deep sea minerals and as an evolution in battery technology could reduce the need for some of the minerals in deep sea nodules.
Casson said this was clouding the outlook for deep sea miners and TMC’s surrender of a third of its exploration area was “another sign of a stuttering industry.”
“The self-styled industry frontrunner is crumbling. The last weeks have repeatedly shown that the deep sea mining industry is failing to live up to its hype and downsizing plans before it’s even started,” Casson said.
“There’s never been a better time for governments to take decisive action to protect the ocean from this faltering, risky industry.”
TMC’s chief executive, Gerard Barron, did not respond to a request for comment.
Other signs of the industry’s troubles, Casson said, include a Norwegian deep sea mining company halving its small workforce due to lack of financing and another miner, Impossible Metals, delaying mining trials planned for early 2026.
Closer China ties
A presentation TMC gave to investors in February said preliminary results of its research into the environmental effects of deep sea mining were “encouraging.”
Based on mining tests TMC conducted, marine life returns to the seabed after a year and sediment plumes generated by the giant machines that hoover up the nodules are released at depths deeper than tuna fisheries, it said.
Research not linked to the industry, meanwhile, has shown that the site of a deep sea mining test in 1979 has not recovered more than 40 years later.
China’s President Xi Jinping and Kiribati’s President Taneti Maamau (left) attend a welcoming ceremony at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, China Jan. 6, 2020.(Jason Lee/Reuters)
The permanent secretary of Kiribati’s ocean resources ministry, Riibeta Abeta, didn’t respond to questions.
The low-lying atoll nation of some 120,000 people in Micronesia has cultivated closer ties to China in the past decade while its relations with traditional donors New Zealand and Australia have become strained. It’s part of a tectonic shift in the region as China uses infrastructure and aid to challenge U.S. dominance.
China last month signed agreements including cooperation on deep sea mining with the semiautonomous Cook Islands in the South Pacific, angering its traditional benefactor New Zealand.
The Cook Islands has an abundance of polymetallic nodules within its exclusive economic zone and doesn’t require ISA approval to exploit them.
The Cook Islands hopes for an economic windfall but some of its citizens are concerned about environmental damage and the mining industry’s influence in their country including public relations efforts in schools and funding for community organizations.
Aside from Kiribati, The Metals Company has agreements with Tonga and Nauru to explore and eventually mine their areas in the Clarion Clipperton Zone—the ISA-administered seafloor in the northeastern Pacific.
Its work with Nauru appears to be the furthest advanced. This month, TMC said it was finalizing an application to the ISA for approval to begin mining in the area allocated to Nauru, a 21-square kilometer island home to 10,000 people.
Edited by Mike Firn.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Stephen Wright for RFA.
With the sudden departure of New Zealand’s Reserve Bank Governor, one has to ask whether there is a pattern here — of a succession of public sector leaders leaving their posts in uncertain circumstances and a series of decisions being made without much regard for due process.
It brings to mind the current spectacle of federal government politics playing out in the United States. Four years ago, we observed a concerted attempt by a raucous and determined crowd to storm the Capitol.
Now a smaller, more disciplined and just as determined band is entering federal offices in Washington almost unhindered, to close agencies and programmes and to evict and terminate the employment of thousands of staff.
This could never happen here. Or could it? Or has it and is it happening here? After all, we had an occupation of parliament, we had a rapid unravelling of a previous government’s legislative programme, and we have experienced the removal of CEOs and downgrading of key public agencies such as Kāinga Ora on slender pretexts, and the rapid and marked downsizing of the core public service establishment.
Similarly, while the incoming Trump administration is targeting any federal diversity agenda, in New Zealand the incoming government has sought to curb the advancement of Māori interests, even to the extent of questioning elements of our basic constitutional framework.
In other words, there are parallels, but also differences. This has mostly been conducted in a typical New Zealand low-key fashion, with more regard for legal niceties and less of the histrionics we see in Washington — yet it still bears comparison and probably reflects similar political dynamics.
Nevertheless, the departure in quick succession of three health sector leaders and the targeting of Pharmac’s CEO suggest the agenda may be getting out of hand. In my experience of close contact with the DHB system the management and leadership teams at the top echelon were nothing short of outstanding.
The Auckland District Health Board, as it then was, is the largest single organisation in Auckland — and the top management had to be up to the task. And they were.
Value for money
As for Pharmac, it is a standout agency for achieving value for money in the public sector. So why target it? The organisation has made cumulative savings of at least a billion dollars, equivalent to 5 percent of the annual health budget. Those monies have been reinvested elsewhere in the health sector. Furthermore, by distancing politicians from sometimes controversial funding decisions on a limited budget it shields them from public blowback.
Unfortunately, Pharmac is the victim of its own success: the reinvestment of funds in the wider health sector has gone unheralded, and the shielding of politicians is rarely acknowledged.
The job as CEO at Pharmac has got much harder with a limited budget, more expensive drugs targeting smaller groups, more vociferous patient groups — sometimes funded in part by drug companies — easy media stories (individuals being denied “lifesaving” treatments), and, more recently, less sympathetic political masters.
Perhaps it was time for a changing of the guard, but the ungracious manner of it follows a similar pattern of other departures.
The arrival of Sir Brian Roche as the new Public Service Commissioner may herald a more considered approach to public sector reform, rather than the slightly “wild west” New Zealand style with the unexplained abolition of the Productivity Commission, the premature ending of an expensive pumped hydro study, disbandment of sector industry groups, and the alleged cancellation of a large ferry contract by text, among other examples of a rather casual approach to due process.
The danger we run is that the current cleaning out of public sector leaders is more than an expected turnover with a change of government, and rather a curbing of independent advice and thought. Will our public media agencies — TVNZ and RNZ — be next in line for the current thrust of popular and political attention?
Major redundancies
Taken together with the abolition of the Productivity Commission, major redundancies in the public sector, the removal of research funding for the humanities and the social sciences, a campaign by the Free Speech Union against university autonomy, the growing reliance on business lobbyists and lobby groups to determine decision-making, and the recent re-orientation of The New Zealand Herald towards a more populist stance, we could well be witnessing a concerted rebalancing of the ecosystem of advice and thought.
In half a century of observing policy and politics from the relative safety of the university, I have never witnessed such a concerted campaign as we are experiencing. Not even in the turmoil of the 1990s.
We need to change the national conversation before it is too late and we lose more of the key elements of the independence of advice and thought that we have established in the state and allied and quasi-autonomous agencies, as well as in the universities and the creative industries, and that lie at the heart of liberal democracy.
Dr Peter Davis is emeritus professor of population health and social science at Auckland University, and a former elected member of the Auckland District Health Board. This article was first published by The Post and is republished with the author’s permission
French Minister for Overseas Manuel Valls left New Caledonia at the weekend after a one-week stay which was marked by the resumption of inclusive political talks on the French territory’s future.
He has now submitted a “synthetical” working document to be discussed further and promised he would return later this month.
He has confirmed France’s main pillars for its assistance to New Caledonia, nine months after deadly and destructive riots broke out, leaving 14 dead, several hundred businesses destroyed, and thousands of job losses for a total estimated damage of 2.2 billion euros (NZ$4 billion).
The French aid confirmed so far mainly consisted of a loan of up to 1 billion euros (NZ$1.8 billion) as well as grants to rebuild all damaged schools and some public buildings.
Valls also announced French funding to pay unemployment benefits (which were to expire at the end of this month) were now to be extended until the end of June.
However, the main feature of his stay, widely regarded as the major achievement, was to manage to gather all political tendencies (both pro-independence and those in favour of New Caledonia remaining a part of France) around the same table.
The initial talks were first held at New Caledonia’s Congress on February 24.
Two days later, talks resumed at the French High Commission between Wednesday and Friday last week, in the form of “tripartite” discussions between pro-France, pro-independence local parties and the French State.
As some, especially the pro-independence umbrella FLNKS (Kanak and Socialist National Liberation Front), insisted that those sessions were “discussions”, not “negotiations”, there was a general feeling that all participants now seemed to recognise the virtues of the exchanges and that they had at least managed to openly and frankly confront their respective views.
Valls, who shared a feeling of relative success in view of what he described as a sense of “historic responsibility” from political stakeholders, even extended his stay by 24 hours.
Speaking at the weekend, he said he had now left all parties with a document that was now supposed to synthesise all views expressed and the main items remaining to be further discussed.
New Caledonia’s parties begin talks at the French High Commission in Nouméa last Wednesday. Image: RNZ Pacific/RRB
‘A situation no longer sustainable’ “Political deadlocks, economic and social stagnation, violence, fear, and the lack of prospects for the territory’s inhabitants create a situation that is no longer sustainable. Everyone agrees on this observation,” the document states.
A cautiously hopeful Valls said views would continue to be exchanged, sometimes by video conference.
Taking part in the same visit last week was Eric Thiers, a special adviser to French Prime Minister François Bayrou.
Valls also stressed he would return to New Caledonia sometime later this month, maybe March 22-23, depending on how talks and remote exchanges were going to evolve.
In the meantime, the shared document would be subjected to many amendments and suggestions in order to take the shape of a fit-enough basis for a compromise acceptable by all.
The work-in-progress document details a wide range of subjects, such as self-determination, the relationship with France, the transfer of powers, who would be in charge of international relations, independence, a future system of governance (including the organisation of the three provinces), the electoral roll for local elections, the notion of citizenship (with a proposed system of “points-based” accession system), all these under the generic notion of “shared destiny”.
There was also a form of consensus on the fact that if a future text was to be submitted to popular approval by way of a referendum, it should not be based on a binary “yes” or “no” alternative, but on a comprehensive, wide-ranging “project”.
On each of those topics, the draft takes into account the different and sometimes opposing views expressed and enumerates a number of possible options and scenarios.
Based on this draft working document, the next round of talks would lead to a new agreement that is supposed to replace and offer a continuation to the ageing Nouméa Accord, signed in 1998 and install a new roadmap for New Caledonia’s future.
As part of discussions, another topic was the future of New Caledonia’s great council of chiefs, the Customary Senate, and possible changes from its until-now consultative status to a more executive role to turn New Caledonia’s legislative system from a Congress-only system to a bicameral one (Congress-Parliament and a chiefly Senate).
Struggling nickel mining industry The very sensitive question of New Caledonia’s nickel mining industry was also discussed, as the crucial industry, a very significant pillar of the economy, is undergoing its worst crisis.
Since August 2024, one of its three factories and smelters, Koniambo (KNS) in the north of the main island has been mothballed and is still up for sale after its majority stakeholder, Anglo-Swiss Glencore, decided to withdraw after more than a decade of losses (more than 13 billion euros — NZ$24 billion).
Another nickel-producing unit, in the South, Prony, is currently engaged in negotiations with potential investment companies, one South African, one from the United Arab Emirates and the other Indian.
New Caledonia’s historic nickel miner, Société le Nickel (SLN, a subsidiary of French giant Eramet), is still facing major hurdles to resume operations as it struggles to regain access to its mining sites.
The situation was compounded by a changing competition pattern on the world scale, New Caledonia’s production prices being too high and Indonesia now clearly emerging as a world leader, producing much cheaper first-class nickel and in greater quantities.
‘A new nickel strategy is needed’, Valls says While political parties involved in the talks (all parties represented at the Congress) remained tight-lipped and media-elusive throughout last week, they recognised a spirit of “constructive talks” with a shared goal of “listening to each other”.
However, the views remain radically opposed, even irreconcilable — pro-independence supporters’ most clear-cut position (notably that from the Union Calédonienne) consists of a demand for a quick, full independence, with a “Kanaky Accord” to be signed this year, to be followed by a five-year “transition” period.
On the pro-France side, one of the main bones of contention defended by the two main parties (Les Loyalistes and Rassemblement-LR) is to affirm that their determination to maintain New Caledonia as a part of France has been confirmed by three referenda (in 2018, 2020 and 2021) on self-determination.
Pro-independence parties argue, however, that the third and last referendum, in December 2021, was boycotted by the pro-independence movement and that it was not legitimate, even though it was ruled by the courts as valid.
They are also advocating for significant changes to be made in the way the three provinces are managed, a system described as “internal federalism” but decried by opponents as a form of separatism.
In the pro-France camp, the Calédonie Ensemble party holds relatively more open views.
In between are the more moderate pro-independence parties, PALIKA and UMP, which favour of a future status revolving around the notion of “independence in association with France”.
‘At least no one slammed the door’ “At least no one slammed the door and that, already, is a good thing,” said pro-France leader and French MP Nicolas Metzdorf.
“We’re still a long way away from a political compromise, but we have stopped moving further away from it,” he added, giving credit to Vall’s approach.
On his part, Valls stressed that he did not want to rush things in order to “maintain the thread” of talks, but that provincial elections were scheduled to take place no later than 30 October 2025.
“I don’t want to force things, I don’t want to break the thread . . . sometimes, we wanted to rush things, and that’s why it didn’t work,” he elaborated, in a direct reference to numerous and unsuccessful attempts by previous French governments, since 2022, to kick-start the comprehensive talks.
“Some work will be done by video conference. I will always take my responsibilities, because we have to move forward”, Valls told public broadcaster NC la 1ère.
He said France would then return with its proposals and offers.
“And we will take our responsibilities. The debate cannot last for months and months. We respect everyone, but we have to move forward. There is no deadline, but we all know that there are provincial elections.”
Those elections — initially scheduled in May 2024 and then in December 2024 — have already been postponed twice.
They are supposed to elect the members of New Caledonia’s three provinces (North, South and Loyalty Islands), which in turn makes up the territory’s Congress and the proportional makeup of the government and election of President.
All parties involved will now to consult with their respective supporters to get their go-ahead and a mandate to embark on full negotiations.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
Last week, on 26 February 2025, President Prabowo Subianto officially launched Indonesia’s first bullion banks, marking a significant shift in the country’s approach to gold and precious metal management.
This initiative aims to strengthen Indonesia’s control over its gold reserves, improve financial stability, and reduce reliance on foreign institutions for gold transactions.
Bullion banks specialise in buying, selling, storing, and trading gold and other precious metals. They allow both the government and private sector to manage gold-related financial transactions, including hedging, lending, and investment in the global gold market.
Although bullion banks focus on gold, this move signals a broader trend of Indonesia tightening control over its natural resources. This could have a significant impact on West Papua’s coal industry.
With the government already enforcing benchmark coal prices (HBA) starting this month, the success of bullion banks could pave the way for a similar centralised system for coal and other minerals.
Indonesia also may apply similar regulations to other strategic resources, including coal, nickel, and copper. This could mean tighter government control over mining in West Papua.
If Indonesia expands national control over mining, it could lead to increased exploitation in resource-rich regions like West Papua, raising concerns about land rights, deforestation, and indigenous displacement.
Indonesia joined BRICS earlier this year and is now focusing on strengthening economic ties with other BRICS countries.
In the mining sector, Indonesia is using its membership to increase exports, particularly to key markets such as China and India. These countries are large consumers of coal and mineral resources, providing an opportunity for Indonesia to expand its export market and attract foreign direct investment in resource extraction.
India eyes coal in West Papua
India has shown interest in tapping into the coal reserves of the West Papua region, aiming to diversify its energy sources and secure coal supplies for its growing energy needs.
This initiative involves potential collaboration between the Indian government and Indonesian authorities to explore and develop previously unexploited coal deposits in West Papuan Indigenous lands.
However, the details of such projects are still under negotiation, with discussions focusing on the terms of investment and operational control.
Notably, India has sought special privileges, including no-bid contracts, in exchange for financing geological surveys — a proposition that raises concerns about compliance with Indonesia’s anti-corruption laws.
The prospect of coal mining in West Papua has drawn mixed reactions. While the Indonesian government is keen to attract foreign investment to boost economic development in its easternmost provinces, local communities and environmental groups express apprehension.
The primary concerns revolve around potential environmental degradation, disruption of local ecosystems, and the displacement of indigenous populations.
Moreover, there is scepticism about whether the economic benefits from such projects would trickle down to local communities or primarily serve external interests.
Navigating ethical, legal issues As India seeks to secure energy resources to meet its domestic demands, it must navigate the ethical and legal implications of its investments abroad. Simultaneously, Indonesia faces the challenge of balancing economic development with environmental preservation and the rights of its indigenous populations.
While foreign investment in Indonesia’s mining sector is welcome, there are strict regulations in place to protect national interests.
In particular, foreign mining companies must sell at least 51 percent of their shares to Indonesian stakeholders within 10 years of starting production. This policy is designed to ensure that Indonesia retains greater control over its natural resources, while still allowing international investors to participate in the growth of the industry.
India is reportedly interested in mining coal in West Papua to diversify its fuel sources.
Indonesia’s energy ministry is hoping for economic benefits and a potential boost to the local steel industry. But environmentalists and social activists are sounding the alarm about the potential negative impacts of new mining operations.
During project discussions, India has shown an interest in securing special privileges, such as no-bid contracts, which could conflict with Indonesia’s anti-corruption laws.
Implications for West Papua
Indonesia, a country with a population of nearly 300 million, aims to industrialise. By joining BRICS (primarily Brasil, Russia, India, and China), it hopes to unlock new growth opportunities.
However, this path to industrialisation comes at a significant cost. It will continue to profoundly affect people’s lives and lead to environmental degradation, destroying wildlife and natural habitats.
These challenges echo the changes that began with the Industrial Revolution in England, where coal-powered advances drastically reshaped human life and the natural world.
West Papua has experienced a significant decline in its indigenous population due to Indonesia’s transmigration policy. This policy involves relocating large numbers of Muslim Indonesians to areas where Christian Papuans are the majority.
These newcomers settle on vast tracts of indigenous Papuan land. Military operations also continue.
One of the major problems resulting from these developments is the spread of torture, abuse, disease, and death, which, if not addressed soon, will reduce the Papuans to numbers too small to fight and reclaim their land.
Mining of any kind in West Papua is closely linked to, and in fact, is the main cause of, the dire situation in West Papua.
Large-scale exploitation
Since the late 1900s, the area’s rich coal and mineral resources have attracted both foreign and local investors. Large international companies, particularly from Western countries, have partnered with the Indonesian government in large-scale mining operations.
While the exploitation of West Papua’s resources has boosted Indonesia’s economy, it has also caused significant environmental damage and disruption to indigenous Papuan communities.
Mining has damaged local ecosystems, polluted water sources and reduced biodiversity. Indigenous Papuans have been displaced from their ancestral lands, leading to economic hardship and cultural erosion.
Although the government has tried to promote sustainable mining practices, the benefits have largely bypassed local communities. Most of the revenue from mining goes to Jakarta and large corporations, with minimal reinvestment in local infrastructure, health and education.
For more than 63 years, West Papua has faced exploitation and abuse similar to that which occurred when British law considered Australia to be terra nullius — “land that belongs to no one.” This legal fiction allowed the British to disregard the existence of indigenous people as the rightful owners and custodians of the land.
Similarly, West Papua has been treated as if it were empty, with indigenous communities portrayed in degrading ways to justify taking their land and clearing it for settlers.
Indonesia’s collective view of West Papua as a wild, uninhabited frontier has allowed settlers and colonial authorities to freely exploit the region’s rich resources.
Plundering with impunity
This is why almost anyone hungry for West Papua’s riches goes there and plunders with impunity. They cut down millions of trees, mine minerals, hunt rare animals and collect precious resources such as gold.
These activities are carried out under the control of the military or by bribing and intimidating local landowners.
The Indonesian government’s decision to grant mining licences to universities and religious groups will add more headaches for Papuans. It simply means that more entities have been given licences to exploit its resources — driving West Papuans toward extinction and destroying their ancestral homeland.
An example is the PT Megapura Prima Industri, an Indonesian coal mining company operating in Sorong on the western tip of West Papua. According to the local news media Jubi, the company has already violated rules and regulations designed to protect local Papuans and the environment.
Allowing India to enter West Papua, will have unprecedented and disastrous consequences for West Papua, including environmental degradation, displacement of indigenous communities, and human rights abuses.
As the BRICS nations continue to expand their economic footprint, Indonesia’s evolving mining landscape is likely to become a focal point of international investment discourse in the coming years.
Natural resources ultimate target
This means that West Papua’s vast natural resources will be the ultimate target and will continue to be a geopolitical pawn between superpowers, while indigenous Papuans remain marginalised and excluded from decision-making processes in their own land.
Regardless of policy changes on resource extraction, human rights, education, health, or any other facet, “Indonesia cannot and will not save West Papua” because “Indonesia’s presence in the sovereign territory of West Papua is the primary cause of the genocide of Papuans and the destruction of their homeland”.
As long as West Papua remains Indonesia’s frontier settler colony, backed by an intensive military presence, the entire Indonesian enterprise in West Papua effectively condemns both the Papuan people and their fragile ecosystem to a catastrophic fate, one that can only be avoided through a process of decolonisation and self-determination.
Restoring West Papua’s sovereignty, arbitrarily taken by Indonesia, is the best solution so that indigenous Papuans can engage with their world on their own terms, using the rich resources they have, and determining their own future and development pathway.
Ali Mirin is a West Papuan academic and writer from the Kimyal tribe of the highlands bordering the Star mountain region of Papua New Guinea. He lives in Australia and contributes articles to Asia Pacific Report.
This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.
Last week, on 26 February 2025, President Prabowo Subianto officially launched Indonesia’s first bullion banks, marking a significant shift in the country’s approach to gold and precious metal management.
This initiative aims to strengthen Indonesia’s control over its gold reserves, improve financial stability, and reduce reliance on foreign institutions for gold transactions.
Bullion banks specialise in buying, selling, storing, and trading gold and other precious metals. They allow both the government and private sector to manage gold-related financial transactions, including hedging, lending, and investment in the global gold market.
Although bullion banks focus on gold, this move signals a broader trend of Indonesia tightening control over its natural resources. This could have a significant impact on West Papua’s coal industry.
With the government already enforcing benchmark coal prices (HBA) starting this month, the success of bullion banks could pave the way for a similar centralised system for coal and other minerals.
Indonesia also may apply similar regulations to other strategic resources, including coal, nickel, and copper. This could mean tighter government control over mining in West Papua.
If Indonesia expands national control over mining, it could lead to increased exploitation in resource-rich regions like West Papua, raising concerns about land rights, deforestation, and indigenous displacement.
Indonesia joined BRICS earlier this year and is now focusing on strengthening economic ties with other BRICS countries.
In the mining sector, Indonesia is using its membership to increase exports, particularly to key markets such as China and India. These countries are large consumers of coal and mineral resources, providing an opportunity for Indonesia to expand its export market and attract foreign direct investment in resource extraction.
India eyes coal in West Papua
India has shown interest in tapping into the coal reserves of the West Papua region, aiming to diversify its energy sources and secure coal supplies for its growing energy needs.
This initiative involves potential collaboration between the Indian government and Indonesian authorities to explore and develop previously unexploited coal deposits in West Papuan Indigenous lands.
However, the details of such projects are still under negotiation, with discussions focusing on the terms of investment and operational control.
Notably, India has sought special privileges, including no-bid contracts, in exchange for financing geological surveys — a proposition that raises concerns about compliance with Indonesia’s anti-corruption laws.
The prospect of coal mining in West Papua has drawn mixed reactions. While the Indonesian government is keen to attract foreign investment to boost economic development in its easternmost provinces, local communities and environmental groups express apprehension.
The primary concerns revolve around potential environmental degradation, disruption of local ecosystems, and the displacement of indigenous populations.
Moreover, there is scepticism about whether the economic benefits from such projects would trickle down to local communities or primarily serve external interests.
Navigating ethical, legal issues As India seeks to secure energy resources to meet its domestic demands, it must navigate the ethical and legal implications of its investments abroad. Simultaneously, Indonesia faces the challenge of balancing economic development with environmental preservation and the rights of its indigenous populations.
While foreign investment in Indonesia’s mining sector is welcome, there are strict regulations in place to protect national interests.
In particular, foreign mining companies must sell at least 51 percent of their shares to Indonesian stakeholders within 10 years of starting production. This policy is designed to ensure that Indonesia retains greater control over its natural resources, while still allowing international investors to participate in the growth of the industry.
India is reportedly interested in mining coal in West Papua to diversify its fuel sources.
Indonesia’s energy ministry is hoping for economic benefits and a potential boost to the local steel industry. But environmentalists and social activists are sounding the alarm about the potential negative impacts of new mining operations.
During project discussions, India has shown an interest in securing special privileges, such as no-bid contracts, which could conflict with Indonesia’s anti-corruption laws.
Implications for West Papua
Indonesia, a country with a population of nearly 300 million, aims to industrialise. By joining BRICS (primarily Brasil, Russia, India, and China), it hopes to unlock new growth opportunities.
However, this path to industrialisation comes at a significant cost. It will continue to profoundly affect people’s lives and lead to environmental degradation, destroying wildlife and natural habitats.
These challenges echo the changes that began with the Industrial Revolution in England, where coal-powered advances drastically reshaped human life and the natural world.
West Papua has experienced a significant decline in its indigenous population due to Indonesia’s transmigration policy. This policy involves relocating large numbers of Muslim Indonesians to areas where Christian Papuans are the majority.
These newcomers settle on vast tracts of indigenous Papuan land. Military operations also continue.
One of the major problems resulting from these developments is the spread of torture, abuse, disease, and death, which, if not addressed soon, will reduce the Papuans to numbers too small to fight and reclaim their land.
Mining of any kind in West Papua is closely linked to, and in fact, is the main cause of, the dire situation in West Papua.
Large-scale exploitation
Since the late 1900s, the area’s rich coal and mineral resources have attracted both foreign and local investors. Large international companies, particularly from Western countries, have partnered with the Indonesian government in large-scale mining operations.
While the exploitation of West Papua’s resources has boosted Indonesia’s economy, it has also caused significant environmental damage and disruption to indigenous Papuan communities.
Mining has damaged local ecosystems, polluted water sources and reduced biodiversity. Indigenous Papuans have been displaced from their ancestral lands, leading to economic hardship and cultural erosion.
Although the government has tried to promote sustainable mining practices, the benefits have largely bypassed local communities. Most of the revenue from mining goes to Jakarta and large corporations, with minimal reinvestment in local infrastructure, health and education.
For more than 63 years, West Papua has faced exploitation and abuse similar to that which occurred when British law considered Australia to be terra nullius — “land that belongs to no one.” This legal fiction allowed the British to disregard the existence of indigenous people as the rightful owners and custodians of the land.
Similarly, West Papua has been treated as if it were empty, with indigenous communities portrayed in degrading ways to justify taking their land and clearing it for settlers.
Indonesia’s collective view of West Papua as a wild, uninhabited frontier has allowed settlers and colonial authorities to freely exploit the region’s rich resources.
Plundering with impunity
This is why almost anyone hungry for West Papua’s riches goes there and plunders with impunity. They cut down millions of trees, mine minerals, hunt rare animals and collect precious resources such as gold.
These activities are carried out under the control of the military or by bribing and intimidating local landowners.
The Indonesian government’s decision to grant mining licences to universities and religious groups will add more headaches for Papuans. It simply means that more entities have been given licences to exploit its resources — driving West Papuans toward extinction and destroying their ancestral homeland.
An example is the PT Megapura Prima Industri, an Indonesian coal mining company operating in Sorong on the western tip of West Papua. According to the local news media Jubi, the company has already violated rules and regulations designed to protect local Papuans and the environment.
Allowing India to enter West Papua, will have unprecedented and disastrous consequences for West Papua, including environmental degradation, displacement of indigenous communities, and human rights abuses.
As the BRICS nations continue to expand their economic footprint, Indonesia’s evolving mining landscape is likely to become a focal point of international investment discourse in the coming years.
Natural resources ultimate target
This means that West Papua’s vast natural resources will be the ultimate target and will continue to be a geopolitical pawn between superpowers, while indigenous Papuans remain marginalised and excluded from decision-making processes in their own land.
Regardless of policy changes on resource extraction, human rights, education, health, or any other facet, “Indonesia cannot and will not save West Papua” because “Indonesia’s presence in the sovereign territory of West Papua is the primary cause of the genocide of Papuans and the destruction of their homeland”.
As long as West Papua remains Indonesia’s frontier settler colony, backed by an intensive military presence, the entire Indonesian enterprise in West Papua effectively condemns both the Papuan people and their fragile ecosystem to a catastrophic fate, one that can only be avoided through a process of decolonisation and self-determination.
Restoring West Papua’s sovereignty, arbitrarily taken by Indonesia, is the best solution so that indigenous Papuans can engage with their world on their own terms, using the rich resources they have, and determining their own future and development pathway.
Ali Mirin is a West Papuan academic and writer from the Kimyal tribe of the highlands bordering the Star mountain region of Papua New Guinea. He lives in Australia and contributes articles to Asia Pacific Report.
This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.
In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the advance of Rwanda-backed M23 insurgents, who have already taken two key cities in the mineral-rich eastern part of the country, is triggering panic. Reports of the surge describe widespread looting, killings, attacks on aid and mass displacement. Thousands of people have fled to neighboring Burundi over the last few days as the U.N.
Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown hopes to have “an opportunity to talk” with the New Zealand government to “heal some of the rift”.
Brown returned to Avarua on Sunday afternoon (Cook Islands Time) following his week-long state visit to China, where he signed a “comprehensive strategic partnership” to boost its relationship with Beijing.
Prior to signing the deal, he said that there was “no need for New Zealand to sit in the room with us” after the New Zealand Foreign Affairs Minister raised concerns about the agreement.
Responding to reporters for the first time since signing the China deal, he said: “I haven’t met the New Zealand government as yet but I’m hoping that in the coming weeks we will have an opportunity to talk with them.
“Because they will be able to share in this document that we’ve signed and for themselves see where there are areas that they have concerns with.
“But I’m confident that there will be no areas of concern. And this is something that will benefit Cook Islanders and the Cook Islands people.”
He said the agreement with Beijing would be made public “very shortly”.
“I’m sure once the New Zealand government has a look at it there will be nothing for them to be concerned about.”
Not concerned over consequences
Brown said he was not concerned by any consequences the New Zealand government may impose.
The Cook Islands leader is returning to a motion of no confidence filed against his government and protests against his leadership.
“I’m confident that my statements in Parliament, and my returning comments that I will make to our people, will overcome some of the concerns that have been raised and the speculation that has been rife, particularly throughout the New Zealand media, about the purpose of this trip to China and the contents of our action plan that we’ve signed with China.”
The New Zealand government wanted to see the agreement prior to Brown going to China, which did not happen.
A spokesperson for New Zealand’s Foreign Minister Winston Peters said Brown had a requirement to share the contents of the agreement and anything else he signed under the 2001 Joint Centenary Declaration.
‘Healing some of the rift’ Brown said the difference in opinion provides an opportunity for the two governments to get together and “heal some of the rift”.
“We maintain that our relationship with New Zealand remains strong and we remain open to having conversations with the New Zealand government on issues of concern.
“They’ve raised their concerns around security in the Pacific. We’ve raised our concerns around our priorities, which is economic development for our people.”
Brown has previously said New Zealand did not consult the Cook Islands on its comprehensive strategic partnership with China in 2014, which they should have done if the Cook Islands had a requirement to do so.
He hoped people would read New Zealand’s deal along with his and show him “where the differences are that causes concern”.
Meanwhile, the leader of Cook Islands United Party, Teariki Heather, said Cook Islanders were sitting nervously with a question mark waiting for the agreement to be made public.
Cook Islands United Party leader Teariki Heather stands by one of his trucks he is preparing to take on the planned protest. Image: Caleb Fotheringham/RNZ Pacific
“That’s the problem we have now, we haven’t been disclosed or told of anything about what has been signed,” he said.
“Yes we hear about the marine seabed minerals exploration, talk about infrastructure, exchange of students and all that, but we haven’t seen what’s been signed.”
However, Heather said he was not worried about what was signed but more about the damage that it could have created with New Zealand.
Heather is responsible for filing the motion of no confidence against the Prime Minister and his cabinet.
The opposition only makes up eight seats of 24 in the Cook Islands Parliament and the motion is about showing support to New Zealand, not about toppling the government.
“It’s not about the numbers for this one, but purposely to show New Zealand, this is how far we will go if the vote of no confidence is not sort of accepted by both of the majority members, at least we’ve given the support of New Zealand.”
Heather has also been the leader for a planned planned today local time (Tuesday NZ).
“Protesters will be bringing their New Zealand passports as a badge of support for Aotearoa,” he said.
“Our relationship [with New Zealand] — we want to keep that.”
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.
Former New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark maintains that Cook Islands, a realm of New Zealand, should have consulted Wellington before signing a “partnership” deal with China.
“[Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown] seems to have signed behind the backs of his own people as well as of New Zealand,” Clark told RNZ Pacific.
Brown said the deal with China complements, not replaces, the relationship with New Zealand.
The contents of the deal have not yet been made public.
“The Cook Islands public need to see the agreement — does it open the way to Chinese entry to deep sea mining in pristine Cook Islands waters with huge potential for environmental damage?” Clark asked.
“Does it open the way to unsustainable borrowing? What are the governance safeguards? Why has the prime minister damaged the relationship with New Zealand by acting in this clandestine way?”
In a post on X (formerly Twitter), Clark went into detail about the declaration she signed with Cook Islands Prime Minister Terepai Maoate in 2001.
“There is no doubt in my mind that under the terms of the Joint Centenary Declaration of 2001 that Cook Islands should have been upfront with New Zealand on the agreement it was considering signing with China,” Clark said.
“Cook Islands has opted in the past for a status which is not independent of New Zealand, as signified by its people carrying New Zealand passports. Cook Islands is free to change that status, but has not.”
Sione Tekiteki in Tonga for PIFLM 2024 . . . his last leader’s meeting in his capacity as Director of Governance and Engagement. IMage: RNZ Pacific/ Lydia Lewis
Missing the mark
A Pacific law expert said there was a clear misunderstanding on what the 2001 agreement legally required New Zealand and Cook Islands to consult on.
AUT senior law lecturer and former Pacific Islands Forum policy advisor Sione Tekiteki told RNZ Pacific the word “consultation” had become somewhat of a sticking point:
“From a legal perspective, there’s an ambiguity of what the word consultation means. Does it mean you have to share the agreement before it’s signed, or does it mean that you broadly just consult with New Zealand regarding what are some of the things that, broadly speaking, are some of the things that are in the agreement?
“That’s one avenue where there’s a bit of misunderstanding and an interpretation issue that’s different between Cook Islands as well as New Zealand.”
Unlike a treaty, the 2001 declaration is not “legally binding” per se but serves more to express the intentions, principles and commitments of the parties to work together in “recognition of the close traditional, cultural and social ties that have existed between the two countries for many hundreds of years”, he added.
Tekiteki said that the declaration made it explicitly clear that Cook Islands had full conduct of its foreign affairs, capacity to enter treaties and international agreements in its own right and full competence of its defence and security.
There was, however, a commitment of the parties to “consult regularly”, he said.
For Clark, the one who signed the all-important agreement all those years ago, this is where Brown had misstepped.
Pacific nations played off against each other Tekiteki said it was not just the Joint Centenary Declaration causing contention. The “China threat” narrative and the “intensifying geopolitics” playing out in the Pacific was another intergrated issue.
An analysis in mid-2024 found that there were more than 60 security, defence and policing agreements and initiatives with the 10 largest Pacific countries.
Australia was the dominant partner, followed by New Zealand, the US and China.
A host of other agreements and “big money” announcements have followed, including the regional Pacific Policing Initiative and Australia’s arrangements with Nauru and PNG.
“It would be advantageous if Pacific nations were able to engage on security related matters as a bloc rather than at the bilateral level,” Tekiteki said.
“Not only will this give them greater political agency and leverage, but it would allow them to better coordinate and integrate support as well as avoid duplications. Entering these arrangements at the bilateral level opens Pacific nations to being played off against each other.
“This is the most worrying aspect of what I am currently seeing.
“This matter has greater implications for Cook Islands and New Zealand diplomatic relations moving forward.”
Mark Brown talking to China’s Ambassador to the Pacific, Qian Bo, who told the media an affirming reference to Taiwan in the PIF 2024 communique “must be corrected”. Image: RNZ Pacific/Lydia Lewis
Protecting Pacific sovereignty The word sovereignty is thrown around a lot. In this instance Tekiteki does not think “there is any dispute that Cook Islands maintains sovereignty to enter international arrangements and to conduct its affairs as it determines”.
But he did point out the difference between “sovereignty — the rhetoric” that we hear all the time, and “real sovereignty”.
“For example, sovereignty is commonly used as a rebuttal to other countries to mind their own business and not to meddle in the affairs of another country.
“At the regional level is tied to the projection of collective Pacific agency, and the ‘Blue Pacific’ narrative.
“However, real sovereignty is more nuanced. In the context of New Zealand and Cook Islands, both countries retain their sovereignty, but they have both made commitments to “consult” and “cooperate”.
Now, they can always decide to break that, but that in itself would have implications on their respective sovereignty moving forward.
“In an era of intensifying geopolitics, militarisation, and power posturing — this becomes very concerning for vulnerable but large Ocean Pacific nations without the defence capabilities to protect their sovereignty.”
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
China and the Cook Islands’ relationship “should not be disrupted or restrained by any third party”, says Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun, as opposition leaders in Rarotonga express a loss of confidence in Prime Minister Mark Brown.
In response to questions from the Associated Press about New Zealand government’s concerns regarding Brown’s visit to Beijing this week, Guo said Cook Islands was an important partner of China in the South Pacific.
“Since establishing diplomatic relations in 1997, our two countries have respected each other, treated each other as equals, and sought common development, achieving fruitful outcomes in exchanges and cooperation in various areas,” he said.
“China stands ready to work with the Cook Islands for new progress in bilateral relations.”
Guo said China viewed both New Zealand and the Cook Islands as important cooperation partners.
“China stands ready to grow ties and carry out cooperation with Pacific Island countries, including the Cook Islands,” he said.
“The relationship between China and the Cook Islands does not target any third party, and should not be disrupted or restrained by any third party.”
Information ‘in due course’
Guo added that Beijing would release information about the visit and the comprehensive strategic partnership agreement “in due course”.
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun . . . “China stands ready to grow ties and carry out cooperation with Pacific Island countries.” Image: China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs/RNZ
However, Cook Islanders, as well as the New Zealand government, have been left frustrated with the lack of clarity over what is in the deal which is expected to be penned this week.
United Party leader Teariki Heather is planning a protest on February 17 against Brown’s leadership.
He previously told RNZ that it seemed like Brown was “dictating to the people of the Cook Islands, that I’m the leader of this country and I do whatever I like”.
Another opposition MP with the Democratic Party, Tina Browne, is planning to attend the protest.
She said Brown “doesn’t understand the word transparent”.
“He is saying once we sign up we’ll provide copies [of the deal],” Browne said.
“Well, what’s the point? The agreement has been signed by the government so what’s the point in providing copies.
“If there is anything in the agreement that people do not agree with, what do we do then?”
Repeated attempts by Peters
New Zealand’s Foreign Affairs office said Winston Peters had made repeated attempts for the government of the Cook Islands to share the details of the proposed agreement, which they had not done.
Peters’ spokesperson, like Browne, said consultation was only meaningful if it happened before an agreement was reached, not after.
“We therefore view the Cook Islands as having failed to properly consult New Zealand with respect to any agreements it plans to sign this coming week in China,” the spokesperson said.
Prime Minister Brown told RNZ Pacific that he did not think New Zealand needed to see the level of detail they are after, despite being a constitutional partner.
Ocean Ancestors, an ocean advocacy group, said Brown’s decision had taken people by surprise, despite the Cook Islands having had a long-term relationship with the Asia superpower.
“We are in the dark about what could be signed and so for us our concerns are that we are committing ourselves to something that could be very long term and it’s an agreement that we haven’t had consensus over,” the organisation’s spokesperson Louisa Castledine said.
The details that Brown has shared are that he would be seeking areas of cooperation, including help with a new inter-island vessel to replace the existing ageing ship and for controversial deep-sea mining research.
Castledine hopes that no promises have been made to China regarding seabed minerals.
“As far as we are concerned, we have not completed our research phase and we are still yet to make an informed decision about how we progress [on deep-sea mining],” she said.
“I would like to think that deep-sea mining is not a point of discussion, even though I am not delusional to the idea that it would be very attractive to any agreement.”
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
China and the Cook Islands’ relationship “should not be disrupted or restrained by any third party”, says Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun, as opposition leaders in Rarotonga express a loss of confidence in Prime Minister Mark Brown.
In response to questions from the Associated Press about New Zealand government’s concerns regarding Brown’s visit to Beijing this week, Guo said Cook Islands was an important partner of China in the South Pacific.
“Since establishing diplomatic relations in 1997, our two countries have respected each other, treated each other as equals, and sought common development, achieving fruitful outcomes in exchanges and cooperation in various areas,” he said.
“China stands ready to work with the Cook Islands for new progress in bilateral relations.”
Guo said China viewed both New Zealand and the Cook Islands as important cooperation partners.
“China stands ready to grow ties and carry out cooperation with Pacific Island countries, including the Cook Islands,” he said.
“The relationship between China and the Cook Islands does not target any third party, and should not be disrupted or restrained by any third party.”
Information ‘in due course’
Guo added that Beijing would release information about the visit and the comprehensive strategic partnership agreement “in due course”.
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun . . . “China stands ready to grow ties and carry out cooperation with Pacific Island countries.” Image: China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs/RNZ
However, Cook Islanders, as well as the New Zealand government, have been left frustrated with the lack of clarity over what is in the deal which is expected to be penned this week.
United Party leader Teariki Heather is planning a protest on February 17 against Brown’s leadership.
He previously told RNZ that it seemed like Brown was “dictating to the people of the Cook Islands, that I’m the leader of this country and I do whatever I like”.
Another opposition MP with the Democratic Party, Tina Browne, is planning to attend the protest.
She said Brown “doesn’t understand the word transparent”.
“He is saying once we sign up we’ll provide copies [of the deal],” Browne said.
“Well, what’s the point? The agreement has been signed by the government so what’s the point in providing copies.
“If there is anything in the agreement that people do not agree with, what do we do then?”
Repeated attempts by Peters
New Zealand’s Foreign Affairs office said Winston Peters had made repeated attempts for the government of the Cook Islands to share the details of the proposed agreement, which they had not done.
Peters’ spokesperson, like Browne, said consultation was only meaningful if it happened before an agreement was reached, not after.
“We therefore view the Cook Islands as having failed to properly consult New Zealand with respect to any agreements it plans to sign this coming week in China,” the spokesperson said.
Prime Minister Brown told RNZ Pacific that he did not think New Zealand needed to see the level of detail they are after, despite being a constitutional partner.
Ocean Ancestors, an ocean advocacy group, said Brown’s decision had taken people by surprise, despite the Cook Islands having had a long-term relationship with the Asia superpower.
“We are in the dark about what could be signed and so for us our concerns are that we are committing ourselves to something that could be very long term and it’s an agreement that we haven’t had consensus over,” the organisation’s spokesperson Louisa Castledine said.
The details that Brown has shared are that he would be seeking areas of cooperation, including help with a new inter-island vessel to replace the existing ageing ship and for controversial deep-sea mining research.
Castledine hopes that no promises have been made to China regarding seabed minerals.
“As far as we are concerned, we have not completed our research phase and we are still yet to make an informed decision about how we progress [on deep-sea mining],” she said.
“I would like to think that deep-sea mining is not a point of discussion, even though I am not delusional to the idea that it would be very attractive to any agreement.”
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
Rwanda has broken international law with the visible presence of Rwandan troops in the Democratic Republic of Congo alongside Rwanda’s covert M-23 militia. M-23 is reported to have captured Goma (again) and the civilians are in a state of emergency. This is familiar because M-23 previously took over the city in 2012 but had to withdraw because it wasn’t equipped to administer the city of two million. As the M-23 rebels and their allies increase their takeover of the East Congo with reported vows of advancing to the capital of the Democratic Republic of Congo in a “liberation” of the country, it becomes clear Rwanda has invaded Congo again, possibly for keeps this time to maintain its hold on the East’s gold, copper, and coltan mines.The Congo’s government has requested international sanctions against Rwanda. But the international community has allowed an ongoing genocide of the Congolese people for thirty years. The people of the Congo live under a genocide warning.
Paul Kagame began invading the Eastern Congo after he took over Rwanda in 1994. Subsequently Uganda which sponsored Kagame’s invasion of Rwanda with U.S. funding. and Rwanda have maintained militias in the area. While genocide was brought under control in Rwanda, an insistence on mass killing was carried into the Congo by Kagame’s Rwandan troops in pursuit of Hutu refugees who fled there. This also allowed Rwandan forces to protect Tutsi groups settled in the Congo, and access and control a portion of the mining resources.
But the resources belong to the people. As they do in the Sudan and South Sudan. As they do in Gaza and Palestine. All three areas are currently threatened by genocide against the people who have lived there.
The U.S. Government’s official site for the National Library of Medicine, notes “5.4 million people have died in Democratic Republic of Congo since 1998 because of conflict, report says” (Peter Moszynski, Jan. 31, 2008, BMJ). Since the “First Congo War” in 1996 to the present, the white press underestimates the death toll at six million, civilians.
From the perspective of preventing genocide the source of the problem rests, in both the five lakes region of Africa and the Middle East, with corporate interests using national leaders to effect policy. This facile academic statement of the obvious covers the fact that millions on millions of individual innocent civilian lives are currently being sacrificed, for corporate growth and profit. This is against any sense of ethics, knowledge of right and wrong, law, religious commitments to honour life, or the people’s informed consent.
In the DRC the genocide continues because it is meant to. It works. The mines are working, The resources are taken. The peoples’ deaths are not a corporate concern. The elites are not about to stop it. They are the reason Patrice Lumumba was assassinated in 1961 and the UN’s Dag Hammarskjöld killed. And the Simba rebellion crushed. And the Eastern Congo thrown into the chaos of warring militias.
The Rwandan sudden genocide among tribes living in peace brought in an Anglo-American-backed Paul Kagame. One could say Rwanda is responsible for the genocide of Congolese except that the benefits have devolved to International corporations, stock markets, manufacturers, economies.
This is so familiar because European and American policies have used Independent Congo (Zaire, DRC) since its colonial bondage as a people enslaved to the uses of Western capital. Now the Chinese have bought-in with the purchase of many previously American owned mines. The means of effecting colonialism has shifted but the people-as-prey remains the same. The genocide continues. With respect for conscience a portion of UN peacekeepers are in place to lessen the civilian body count. But the guilty parties here are the same who engineered the “Rwanda” genocide, which the UN did not stop, and which served a policy of Western corporate expansion.
There is little hope of any justice for the Democratic Republic of Congo’s people until the ownership and control of the mineral resources in the East are in the hands of a just regulator that assures the people safety and payment for their resources. It may have to be UN administered to include Russian and China. It is an alternative to an ongoing genocide. Until then all profits from the genocide should be tracked as evidence for eventual prosecution.
By the time US President Donald Trump announced tariffs on China and Canada last Monday which could kickstart a trade war, New Zealand’s diplomats in Washington, DC, had already been deployed on another diplomatic drama.
Republican Senator Ted Cruz had said on social media it was “difficult to treat New Zealand as a normal ally . . . when they denigrate and punish Israeli citizens for defending themselves and their country”.
He cited a story in the Israeli media outlet Ha’aretz, which has a reputation for independence in Israel and credibility abroad.
But Ha’aretz had wrongly reported Israelis must declare service in the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) as part of “new requirements” for visa applications.
Winston Peters replied forcefully to Cruz on X, condemning Ha’aretz’s story as “fake news” and demanding a correction.
Winston Peters puts Ted Cruz on notice over the misleading Ha’aretz story. Image: X/RNZ
But one thing Trump’s Republicans and Winston Peters had in common last week was irritating Mexico.
His fellow NZ First MP Shane Jones had bellowed “Send the Mexicans home” at Green MPs in Parliament.
Winston Peters then told two of them they should be more grateful for being able to live in New Zealand.
‘We will not be lectured’ On Facebook he wasn’t exactly backing down.
“We . . . will not be lectured on the culture and traditions of New Zealand from people who have been here for five minutes,” he added.
While he was at it, Peters criticised media outlets for not holding other political parties to account for inflammatory comments.
Peters was posting that as a politician — not a foreign minister, but the Mexican ambassador complained to MFAT. (It seems the so-called “Mexican standoff” was resolved over a pre-Waitangi lunch with Ambassador Bravo).
But the next day — last Wednesday — news of another diplomatic drama broke on TVNZ’s 1News.
“A deal that could shatter New Zealand’s close relationship with a Pacific neighbour,” presenter Simon Dallow declared, in front of a backdrop of a stern-looking Peters.
TVNZ’s Pacific correspondent Barbara Dreaver reported the Cook Islands was about to sign a partnership agreement in Beijing.
“We want clarity and at this point in time, we have none. We’ve got past arrangements, constitutional arrangements, which require constant consultation with us, and dare I say, China knows that,” Peters told 1News.
Passports another headache
Cook Islands’ Prime Minister Mark Brown also told Barbara Dreaver TVNZ’s revelations last month about proposed Cook Island passports had also been a headache for him.
“We were caught by surprise when this news was broken by 1News. I thought it was a high-level diplomatic discussion with leaders to be open and frank,” he told TVNZ this week.
“For it to be brought out into the public before we’ve had a time to inform our public, I thought was a breach of our political diplomacy.”
Last week another Barabara Dreaver scoop on 1News brought the strained relationship with another Pacific state into the headlines:
“Our relationship with Kiribati is at breaking point. New Zealand’s $100 million aid programme there is now on hold. The move comes after President [Taneti] Maamau pulled out of a pre-arranged meeting with Winston Peters.”
The media ended up in the middle of the blame game over this too — but many didn’t see it coming.
Caught in the crossfire “A diplomatic rift with Kiribati was on no one’s 2025 bingo card,” Stuff national affairs editor Andrea Vance wrote last weekend in the Sunday Star-Times.
“Of all the squabbles Winston Peters was expected to have this year, no one picked it would be with an impoverished, sinking island nation,” she wrote, in terms that would surely annoy Kiribati.
“Do you believe Kiribati is snubbing you?” RNZ Morning Report’s Corin Dann asked Peters.
“You can come to any conclusion you like, but our job is to try and resolve this matter,” Peters replied.
Kiribati Education Minister Alexander Teabo told RNZ Pacific there was no snub.
He said Kiribati President Maamau — who is also the nation’s foreign minister — had been unavailable because of a long-planned and important Catholic ordination ceremony on his home island of Onotoa — though this was prior to the proposed visit from Peters.
Public dispute “regrettable’
Peters told the same show it was “regrettable” that the dispute had been made public.
On Newstalk ZB Peters was backed — and Kiribati portrayed as the problem.
“If somebody is giving me $100m and they asked for a meeting, I will attend. I don’t care if it’s my mum’s birthday. Or somebody’s funeral,” Drive host Ryan Bridge told listeners.
“It’s always very hard to pick apart these stories (by) just reading them in the media. But I have faith and confidence in Winston Peters as our foreign minister,” PR-pro Trish Shrerson opined.
So did her fellow panellist, former Labour MP Stuart Nash.
“He’s respected across the Pacific. He’s the consummate diplomat. If Winston says this is the story and this is what’s happening, I believe 100 percent. And I would say, go hard. Winston — represent our interests.”
‘Totally silly’ response
But veteran Pacific journalist Michael Field contradicted them soon after on ZB.
“It’s totally silly. All this talk about cancelling $104 million of aid is total pie-in-the-sky from Winston Peters,” he said.
“Somebody’s lost their marbles on this, and the one who’s possibly on the ground looking for them is Winston Peters.
“He didn’t need to be in Tarawa in early January at all. This is pathetic. This is like saying I was invited to my sister’s birthday party and now it’s been cancelled,” he said.
Not a comparison you hear very often in international relations.
“While the conspiracy around Kiribati and China has deepened, no one is noticing the still-viable Kiribati-United States treaty which prevents Kiribati atolls [from] being used as bases without Washington approval,” he added.
Kiribati ‘hugely disrespectful’
But TVNZ’s Barbara Dreaver said Kiribati was being “hugely disrespectful”.
In a TVNZ analysis piece last weekend, she said New Zealand has “every right to expect better engagement than it has been getting over the past year.”
Dreaver — who was born in and grew up in Kiribati and has family there — also criticised “the airtime and validation” Kwansing got in the media in New Zealand.
“She supports and is part of a government that requires all journalists — should they get a visa to go there — to hand over copies of all footage/information collected,” Dreaver said.
Kwansing hit back on Facebook, accusing Dreaver of “publishing inane drivel” and “irresponsible journalism causing stress to locals.”
“You write like you need a good holiday somewhere happy. Please book yourself a luxury day spa ASAP,” she told TVNZ’s Pacific Affairs reporter.
“Despite this media issue, the government of Kiribati remains convinced the strong bonds between Kiribati and New Zealand will enable a resolution to this unfortunate standoff,” it said.
Copping the blame
Another reporter who knows what it’s like to cop the blame for reporting stuff diplomats and politicians want to keep out of the news is RNZ Pacific’s senior journalist and presenter Lydia Lewis.
Last year, Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese questioned RNZ’s ethics after she reported comments he made to the US Deputy Secretary of State at the Pacific Islands Forum in Tonga — which revealed an until-then behind closed doors plan to pay for better policing in the Pacific.
She’s also been covering the tension with Kiribati.
Is the heat coming on the media more these days if they candidly report diplomatic differences?
TVNZ Pacific senior journalist and presenter Lydia Lewis . . . “both the public and politicians are saying the media [are] making a big deal of things.” Image: RNZ Pacific
“There’s no study that says there are more people blaming the media. So it’s anecdotal, but definitely, both the public and politicians are saying the media (are) making a big deal of things,” Lewis told Mediawatch.
“I would put the question back to the public as to who’s manufacturing drama. All we’re doing is reporting what’s in front of us for the public to then make their decision — and questioning it. And there were a lot of questions around this Kiribati story.”
Lewis said it was shortly before 6pm on January 27, that selected journalists were advised of the response of our government to the cancellation of the meeting with foreign minister Peters.
Vice-President an alternative
But it was not mentioned that Kiribati had offered the Vice-President for a meeting, the same person that met with an Australian delegation recently.
A response from Kiribati proved harder to get — and Lewis spoke to a senior figure in Kiribati that night who told her they knew nothing about it.
Politicians and diplomats, naturally enough, prefer to do things behind the scenes and media exposure is a complication for them.
But we simply wouldn’t know about the impending partnership agreement between China and the Cook Islands if TVNZ had not reported it last Monday.
And another irony: some political figures lamenting the diplomatically disruptive impact of the media also make decidedly undiplomatic responses of their own online these days.
“It can be revealing in the sense of where people stand. Sometimes they’re just putting out their opinions or their experience. Maybe they’ve got some sort of motive. A formal message or email we’ll take a bit more seriously. But some of the things on social media, we just take with a grain of salt,” said Lewis.
“It is vital we all look at multiple sources. It comes back to balance and knowledge and understanding what you know about and what you don’t know about — and then asking the questions in between.”
Big Powers and the Big Picture Kwansing objected to New Zealand media jumping to the conclusion China’s influence was a factor in the friction with New Zealand.
“To dismiss the geopolitical implications with China . . . would be naive and ignorant,” Dreaver countered.
Michael Field pointed to an angle missing.
“While the conspiracy around Kiribati and China has deepened, no one is noticing the still viable Kiribati-United States treaty which prevents Kiribati atolls being used as bases without Washington approval,” he wrote in his Substack.
In the same article in which Vance called Kiribati “an impoverished, sinking island nation” she later pointed out that its location, US military ties and vast ocean territory make it strategically important.
Questions about ‘transparency and accountability’
“There’s a lot of people that want in on Kiribati. It has a huge exclusive economic zone,” Lewis said.
She said communication problems and patchy connectivity are also drawbacks.
“We do have a fuller picture now of the situation, but the overarching question that’s come out of this is around transparency and accountability.
“We can’t hold Kiribati politicians to account like we do New Zealand government politicians.”
“I don’t want to give Kiribati a free pass here but it’s really difficult to get a response.
“They’re posting statements on Facebook and it really has raised some questions around the government’s commitment to transparency and accountability for all journalists . . . committed to fair media reporting across the Pacific.”
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.
Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown says New Zealand is asking for too much oversight over its deal with China, which is expected to be penned in Beijing next week.
Brown told RNZ Pacific the Cook Islands-New Zealand relationship was reciprocal.
“They certainly did not consult with us when they signed their comprehensive partnership agreement [with China] and we would not expect them to consult with us,” he said.
“There is no need for New Zealand to sit in the room with us while we are going through our comprehensive agreement with China.
“We have advised them on the matter, but as far as being consulted and to the level of detail that they were requiring, I think that’s not a requirement.”
Brown is going to China from February 10-14 to sign the “Joint Action Plan for a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership”.
The Cook Islands operates in free association with New Zealand. It means the island nation conducts its own affairs, but Aotearoa needs to assist when it comes to foreign affairs, disasters, and defence.
NZ seeks more consultation
New Zealand is asking for more consultation over what is in the China deal.
Foreign Minister Winston Peters said neither New Zealand nor the Cook Island people knew what was in the agreement.
“The reality is we’ve been not told [sic] what the nature of the arrangements that they seek in Beijing might be,” he told RNZ Morning Report on Friday.
In 2023, China and Solomon Islands signed a deal on police cooperation as part of an upgrade of their relations to a “comprehensive strategic partnership”.
Brown said he had assured New Zealand “over and over” that there would be no impact on the countries’ relationship and “no surprises”, especially on security aspects.
“But the contents of this agreement is something that our team are working on with our Chinese counterparts, and it is something that we will announce and provide once it is signed off.”
He said it was similar to an agreement New Zealand had signed with China in 2014.
Deep sea mining research
Brown said the agreement was looking for areas of cooperation, with deep sea mining research being one area.
However, he said the immediate area that the Cook Islands wanted help with was a new interisland vessel to replace the existing ageing ship.
Brown has backed down from his controversial passport proposal after facing pressure from New Zealand.
He said the country “would essentially punish any Cook Islander that would seek a Cook Islands passport” by passing new legislation that would not allow them to also hold a New Zealand passport.
“To me that is a something that we cannot engage in for the security of our Cook Islands people.
“Whether that is seen as overstepping or not, that is a position that New Zealand has taken.”
A spokesperson for Peters said the two nations did “not see eye to eye” on a number of issues.
Relationship ‘very good’
However, Brown said he always felt the relationship was very good.
“We can agree to disagree in certain areas and as mature nation states do, they do have points of disagreement, but it doesn’t mean that the relationship has in any way broken down.”
On Christmas Day, a Cook Islands-flagged vessel carrying Russian oil was seized by Finnish authorities. It is suspected to be part of Russia’s shadow fleet and cutting underwater power cables in the Baltic Sea near Finland.
Peters’ spokesperson said the Cook Islands shipping registry was an area of disagreement between the two countries.
Brown said the government was working with Maritime Cook Islands and were committed with aligning with international sanctions against Russia.
When asked how he could be aligned with sanctions when the Cook Islands flagged the tanker Eagle S, Brown said it was still under investigation.
“We will wait for the outcomes of that investigation, and if it means the amendments and changes, which I expect it will, to how the ship’s registry operates then we will certainly look to make those amendments and those changes.”
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
Abuja, February 6, 2025—Armed men, some wearing military camouflage, attacked journalist Ohemeng Tawiah with stones and machetes on December 20, 2024, after Tawiah and his camera operator, Joseph Kusi, joined a police team investigating allegations of illegal mining at a site in Ghana’s northern Ashanti region.
Tawiah told CPJ he provided police with a written statement about the assault on January 2, 2025, as well as phone numbers and photos of those who led the attackers, which he obtained through his own investigations. No one has been arrested in the case.
“Environmental reporting is an increasingly dangerous beat in Ghana, and it is essential that authorities identify and hold accountable those responsible for attacking journalist Ohemeng Tawiah,” said Angela Quintal, head of CPJ’s Africa program, from New York. “Ghanaian authorities must swiftly and thoroughly conclude their investigation and publicly share their findings. This is crucial to preventing the culture of impunity that often surrounds the targeting of the press in the country.”
Tawiah, assistant news editor at the privately owned Joy News outlet, had reported on allegations of illegal mining at the site earlier in December and told CPJ he obtained permission from police to join and report on their investigations.
At the site’s entrance, police arrested some suspected illegal miners, Tawiah told CPJ. Armed men then arrived, demanded the release of the men, and then began throwing stones at police, Tawiah, and other civilians waiting inside a police vehicle.
As Tawiah tried to escape, a stone hit his chest, and he fell to the ground, he told CPJ. When the attackers caught up, they attacked him with stones and machetes. They also took the reporters’ phones and money and destroyed Kusi’s camera.
Tawiah said he bled profusely from a major cut to his head, was hospitalized for two days, and was treated for injuries to his head, chest, and fingers, and multiple cuts to his body, including what appeared to be attempts to cut off his leg. He still suffers from severe chest pains and headaches. Kusi was uninjured.
CPJ’s calls and text messages to police spokesperson Grace Ansah-Akrofi asking for updates on the investigation did not receive any replies.
Papua New Guineans have launched an outpouring of grief and appreciation for the life of one of their national founding fathers — Sir Julius Chan.
Sir Julius, 85, died in his home province of New Ireland just after midday yesterday, marking an end to a long political career spanning half a century.
Papua New Guineans dubbed him the “Last Man Standing,” as he was last of the founding members of Parliament from the Independence era.
Papua New Guinea’s Prime Minister James Marape informed members of cabinet of Sir Julius Chan’s passing.
“It is with great sadness that I announce the passing of the Last Man Standing. While Sir Michael Somare was the father of our country, the late Sir Julius was the father of our modern economy,” he said.
“He conceived the kina and toea. He was our country’s first finance minister and our second Prime Minister.”
Marape has declared a week of national mourning to honour the life and legacy Sir Julius Chan, and announced plans for a state funeral and low key celebrations for the country’s 50th independence anniversary in September.
In the annals of Papua New Guinea’s political history, few figures loom as large — or as controversially — as Sir Julius Chan. A statesman whose career spans five decades, his legacy is etched with bold decisions that sparked both admiration and outrage.
From deploying troops to a Pacific neighbour to facing global criticism for being the Prime Minister who hired foreign mercenaries in a bid to end a civil war, his leadership tested the boundaries of convention and reshaped the nation’s trajectory.
Sir Julius was seen as a tactician, weaving through the complexities of tribal and national politics and seizing opportunities when available. Image: Peter Kinjap/RNZ
Start of a long political career He entered politics in the twilight of colonial rule. He was elected to the House of Assembly in 1968. By 1976, as PNG’s first finance minister, he navigated the economic turbulence of independence, advocating for foreign investment and resource development.
Within PNG politics, Sir Julius was seen as a tactician, weaving through the complexities of tribal and national politics and seizing opportunities when available.
In 1980, he initiated the first-ever vote of no confidence motion against close friend and Prime Minister Michael Somare, ousting him on the floor of Parliament.
His first term as prime minister from 1980 to 1982, solidified his reputation as a pragmatist.
Facing fiscal strain, he championed austerity, infrastructure projects and devalued the PNG currency.
But it was a foreign policy move that drew regional attention.
A Tok Piksa tribute to Sir Julius Chan. Video: EMTV
Vanuatu 1980: A controversial intervention In 1980, he authorised the deployment of PNG troops on its first international deployment: Vanuatu.
The mission was aimed at quelling a rebellion against Vanuatu’s newly independent government.
In Parliament, he argued that the deployment was necessary for regional stability and stamped PNG’s role as an important player in the Pacific.
Critics called it overreach as PNG was not even past its first decade as an independent country. However, the deployment earned PNG the respect from Vanuatu and its Pacific neighbours — for the first time in a young nation’s budding history, that standing up for a Pacific brother when no one else would, was enough for a new regional respect for PNG.
The operation ended swiftly, but the precedent set by PNG’s military would reverberate for decades.
The Bougainville crisis and the mercenary gamble His second term as prime minister from 1994 to 1997, collided with PNG’s most protracted conflict: the Bougainville Civil War.
By 1996, the crisis had claimed 20,000 lives, crippled the economy, and exposed the PNG Defence Force’s limitations.
Desperate to break the stalemate, his government signed a secretive $36 million contract with Sandline International, a UK-based private mercenary group, to crush the Bougainville Revolutionary Army (BRA).
When the deal leaked in 1997, public fury erupted.
The PNGDF, led by Brigadier-General Jerry Singirok, arrested the mercenaries and demanded Chan’s resignation.
Sir Julius stood defiant. Critics, however, saw betrayal with many saying hiring outsiders was an affront to sovereignty.
Under pressure, he stepped aside pending an inquiry. Though exonerated of corruption, his political capital evaporated. The Sandline Affair became a cautionary tale of desperation and overreach.
Resilience and redemption His career, however, refused to end in scandal. After a decade in the political wilderness, he returned as New Ireland Governor in 2007, championing provincial autonomy and education reforms.
In 2015, he published his memoir, confronting the Sandline chapter head-on.
His peers acknowledged his tenacity with founding Prime Minister Sir Michael Somare, before his passing, pointing out how both men had separated politics from their personal friendship for over 50 years.
Culture as foundation Despite rising to political leadership at the national level, and having a strong hand in the formation of our country’s economic and financial stability, and using its young military force to nurture Pacific solidarity, Sir Julius will always be remembered for his respect of culture and tradition.
His elevation and acknowledgment of the MaiMai, New Ireland’s Chieftan System as a recognised decision-making body within the New Ireland Provincial Government and the Provincial Assembly, was testament to Sir Julius’ own devotion and respect for traditional New Ireland culture.
His creation of a pension for the wisened population of his home province, not only assured him continuous support from New Ireland’s older population at every election, but it set an example of the importance of traditional systems of governance and decision-making.
To the world, he was a new country’s financial whiz kid, growing up in an environment rooted in traditional culture, and navigating a young Papua New Guinea as a mixed race leader saw him become one of PNG’s finest leaders.
To the country, he will always be remembered as the “Last Man Standing”.
But to his people of New Ireland, he will, over the coming weeks, be accorded the highest of traditional and customary acknowledgements that only the people of New Ireland will be able to bestow on such a Great Man. A Great Chief. A Great Leader.
They will say for one last time: ‘Lapun i go nau. Wok bilong em i pinis.’ (The old man has left, his work here is done).
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
@chrishehim.bsky.social 
(@ChrisHeHim1) 
