Category: Pacific Report

  • ANALYSIS: By Ali Mirin

    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.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Asia Pacific Report

    The State of Palestine has submitted a written plea to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) asking it for an advisory opinion regarding Israel’s obligations not to obstruct humanitarian and development assistance in the territories it occupies, Al Jazeera reports.

    In the submission, Palestinian officials affirmed the responsibility of Israel, as an occupying power, to not obstruct the work of the UN, international organisations, and third states so they can provide essential services, humanitarian aid, and development assistance to the Palestinian people.

    Many states, as well as international groups, have submitted written pleas to the ICJ ahead of oral proceedings set to start next month.

    Last July, the ICJ issued a historic advisory opinion determining Israel’s continued presence in the occupied Palestinian territory is unlawful and should come to an end “as rapidly as possible”.

    Widespread ‘torture’ of Gaza medics in Israeli custody
    In a separate report, the Israeli branch of Physicians for Human Rights accused the Israeli military of detaining more than 250 medical personnel and support staff since the beginning of the war on Gaza in October 2023.

    More than 180 remained in detention without a clear indication of when or if they would be released, the physicians’ report said.

    “Detainees endure physical, psychological and sexual abuse as well as starvation and medical neglect amounting to torture,” the report said, denouncing a “deeply ingrained policy”.

    Healthcare workers were beaten, threatened, and forced to sign documents in Hebrew during their detention, according to the report based on 20 testimonies collected in prison.

    “Medical personnel were primarily questioned about the Israeli hostages, tunnels, hospital structures and Hamas’s activity,” it said.

    “They were rarely asked questions linking them to any criminal activity, nor were they presented with substantive charges.”

    New Zealand protesters calling for the continuation of the Gaza ceasefire and for peace and justice in Palestine in a march along the Auckland waterfront
    New Zealand protesters calling for the continuation of the Gaza ceasefire and for peace and justice in Palestine in a march along the Auckland waterfront today. Image: Asia Pacific Report

    Where does Trump stand on the Gaza ceasefire?
    With phase one of the ceasefire due to end today and negotiations barely started on phase two, serious fears are being raised over  the viability of the ceasefire.

    President Donald Trump took credit for the truce that his Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff helped push across the finish line after a year of negotiations led by the Biden administration, Egypt and Qatar, reports Al Jazeera.

    Advocate Maher Nazzal at today's New Zealand rally for Gaza in Auckland
    Advocate Maher Nazzal at today’s New Zealand rally for Gaza in Auckland . . . he was elected co-leader of the Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa last weekend. Image: Asia Pacific Report

    However, Trump has since sent mixed signals about the deal.

    Earlier last month, he set a firm deadline for Hamas to release all the captives, warning “all hell is going to break out” if it didn’t.

    But he said it was ultimately up to Israel, and the deadline came and went.

    Trump sowed further confusion by proposing that Gaza’s population of about 2.3 million be relocated to other countries and for the US to take over the territory and develop it.

    Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu welcomed the idea, but it was universally rejected by Palestinians and Arab countries, including close US allies. Human rights groups said it could violate international law.

    Trump stood by the plan in a Fox News interview over the weekend but said he was “not forcing it”.


    ‘Finally’ an effort to hold the US accountable, says Al-Haq director
    Palestinian human rights activist Shawan Jabarin has welcomed a plea by the US-based rights group DAWN for the International Criminal Court (ICC) to investigate Joe Biden and senior US officials for aiding Israeli war crimes in Gaza.

    In a video posted by DAWN, Jabarin, director of the Palestinian rights group Al-Haq, said the effort was long overdue.

    “For decades we have called on the international community to hold Israel accountable for its violations of international law, but time and again, the US has used its power and influence to block that accountability, to shield Israel from consequences and to ensure that it can continue its crimes with impunity,” Jabarin said.

    “Now, finally, we see an effort to hold not just Israeli officials accountable but also those who have made these crimes possible: US officials who have armed, financed, and politically defended Israeli atrocities.”

    A father piggybacks his sleepy child during the New Zealand solidarity protest for Palestine in Auckland's Viaduct
    A father piggybacks his sleepy child during the New Zealand solidarity protest for Palestine in Auckland’s Viaduct today. Image: Asia Pacific Report

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Asia Pacific Report

    In the year marking 40 years since the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior by French secret agents and 71 years since the most powerful nuclear weapons tested by the United States, Greenpeace is calling on Washington to comply with demands by the Marshall Islands for nuclear justice.

    “The Marshall Islands bears the deepest scars of a dark legacy — nuclear contamination, forced displacement, and premeditated human experimentation at the hands of the US government,” said Greenpeace spokesperson Shiva Gounden.

    To mark the Marshall Islands’ Remembrance Day today, the Greenpeace flagship Rainbow Warrior is flying the republic’s flag at halfmast in solidarity with those who lost their lives and are suffering ongoing trauma as a result of US nuclear weapons testing in the Pacific.

    On 1 March 1954, the Castle Bravo nuclear bomb was detonated on Bikini Atoll with a blast 1000 times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb.

    On Rongelap Atoll, 150 km away, radioactive fallout rained onto the inhabited island, with children mistaking it as snow.

    The Rainbow Warrior is sailing to the Marshall Islands where a mission led by Greenpeace will conduct independent scientific research across the country, the results of which will eventually be given to the National Nuclear Commission to support the Marshall Islands government’s ongoing legal proceedings with the US and at the UN.

    The voyage also marks 40 years since Greenpeace’s original Rainbow Warrior evacuated the people of Rongelap after toxic nuclear fallout rendered their ancestral land uninhabitable.

    Still enduring fallout
    Marshall Islands communities still endure the physical, economic, and cultural fallout of the nuclear tests — compensation from the US has fallen far short of expectations of the islanders who are yet to receive an apology.

    And the accelerating impacts of the climate crisis threaten further displacement of communities.


    Former Marshall Islands Foreign Minister Tony deBrum’s “nuclear justice” speech as Right Livelihood Award Winner in 2009. Video: Voices Rising

    “To this day, Marshall Islanders continue to grapple with this injustice while standing on the frontlines of the climate crisis — facing yet another wave of displacement and devastation for a catastrophe they did not create,” Gounden said.

    “But the Marshallese people and their government are not just survivors — they are warriors for justice, among the most powerful voices demanding bold action, accountability, and reparations on the global stage.

    “Those who have inflicted unimaginable harm on the Marshallese must be held to account and made to pay for the devastation they caused.

    “Greenpeace stands unwaveringly beside Marshallese communities in their fight for justice. Jimwe im Maron.”

    The Rainbow Warrior crew members hold the Marshall Islands flag
    Rainbow Warrior crew members holding the Marshall Islands flag . . . remembering the anniversary of the devastating Castle Bravo nuclear test – 1000 times more powerful than Hiroshima – on 1 March 1954. Image: Greenpeace International
    Chair of the Marshall Islands National Nuclear Commission Ariana Tibon-Kilma
    Chair of the Marshall Islands National Nuclear Commission Ariana Tibon-Kilma . . . “the trauma of Bravo continues for the remaining survivors and their descendents.” Image: UN Human Rights Council

    Ariana Tibon Kilma, chair of the Marshall Islands National Nuclear Commission, said that the immediate effects of the Bravo bomb on March 1 were “harrowing”.

    “Hours after exposure, many people fell ill — skin peeling off, burning sensation in their eyes, their stomachs were churning in pain. Mothers watched as their children’s hair fell to the ground and blisters devoured their bodies overnight,” she said.

    “Without their consent, the United States government enrolled them as ‘test subjects’ in a top secret medical study on the effects of radiation on human beings — a study that continued for 40 years.

    “Today on Remembrance Day the trauma of Bravo continues for the remaining survivors and their descendents — this is a legacy not only of suffering, loss, and frustration, but also of strength, unity, and unwavering commitment to justice, truth and accountability.”

    The new Rainbow Warrior will arrive in the Marshall Islands early this month.

    Alongside the government of the Marshall Islands, Greenpeace will lead an independent scientific mission into the ongoing impacts of the US weapons testing programme.

    Travelling across the country, Greenpeace will reaffirm its solidarity with the Marshallese people — now facing further harm and displacement from the climate crisis, and the emerging threat of deep sea mining in the Pacific.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • By Khalia Strong of Pacific Media Network

    Tongan community leaders and artists in New Zealand have criticised the Treaty Principles Bill while highlighting the ongoing impact of colonisation in Aotearoa and the Pacific.

    Oral submissions continued this week for the public to voice their view on the controversial proposed bill, which aims to redefine the legal framework of the nation’s founding document, the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi.

    Aotearoa Tongan Response Group member Pakilau Manase Lua echoed words from the Waitangi Day commemorations earlier this month.

    “The Treaty of Waitangi Principles Bill and its champions and enablers represent the spirit of the coloniser,” he said.

    Pakilau said New Zealand’s history included forcible takeovers of Sāmoa, Cook Islands, Niue and Tokelau.

    “The New Zealand government, or the Crown, has shown time and again that it has a pattern of trampling on the mana and sovereignty of indigenous peoples, not just here in Aotearoa, but also in the Pacific region.”

    Poet Karlo Mila spoke as part of a submission by a collective of artists, Mana Moana,

    “Have you ever paused to wonder why we speak English here, half a world away from England? It’s a global history of Christian white supremacy, who, with apostolic authority, ordained the doctrine of discovery to create a new world order,” she said.

    “Yes, this is where the ‘new’ in New Zealand comes from, invasion for advantage and profit, presenting itself as progress, as civilising, as salvation, as enlightenment itself — the greatest gaslighting feat of history.”

    Bill used as political weapon
    She argued that the bill was being used as a political weapon, and government rhetoric was causing division.

    “We watch political parties sow seeds of disunity using disingenuous history, harnessing hate speech and the haka of destiny, scapegoating ‘vulnerable enemies’ . . . Yes, for us, it’s a forest fire out there, and brown bodies are moving political targets, every inflammatory word finding kindling in kindred racists.”

    Pakilau said that because Tonga had never been formally colonised, Tongans had a unique view of the unfolding situation.

    “We know what sovereignty tastes like, we know what it smells like and feels like, especially when it’s trampled on.

    “Ask the American Samoans, who provide more soldiers per capita than any state of America to join the US Army, but are not allowed to vote for the country they are prepared to die for.

    “Ask the mighty 28th Maori Battalion, who field Marshal Erwin Rommel famously said, ‘Give me the Māori Battalion and I will rule the world’, they bled and died for a country that denied them the very rights promised under the Treaty.

    “The Treaty of Waitangi Bill is essentially threatening to do the same thing again, it is re-traumatising Māori and opening old wounds.”

    A vision for the future
    Mila, who also has European and Sāmoan ancestry, said the answer to how to proceed was in the Treaty’s Indigenous text.

    “The answer is Te Tiriti, not separatist exclusion. It’s the fair terms of inclusion, an ancestral strategy for harmony, a covenant of cooperation. It’s how we live ethically on a land that was never ceded.”

    Flags displayed at Waitangi treaty grounds 2024
    Flags displayed at Waitangi treaty grounds 2024. Image: PMN News/Atutahi Potaka-Dewes

    Aotearoa Tongan Response Group chair Anahila Kanongata’a said Tongans were Tangata Tiriti (people of the Treaty), and the bill denigrated the rights of Māori as Tangata Whenua (people of the land).

    “How many times has the Crown breached the Treaty? Too, too many times.

    “What this bill is attempting to do is retrospectively annul those breaches by extinguishing Māori sovereignty or tino rangatiritanga over their own affairs, as promised to them in their Tiriti, the Te Reo Māori text.”

    Kanongata’a called on the Crown to rescind the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill, honour Te Tiriti, and issue a formal apology to Māori, similar to what had been done for the Dawn Raids.

    Hundreds gather at Treaty Grounds for the annual Waitangi Day dawn service
    Hundreds gather at Treaty Grounds for the annual Waitangi Day dawn service. Image: PMN Digital/Joseph Safiti

    “As a former member of Parliament, I am proud of the fact that an apology was made for the way our people were treated during the Dawn Raids.

    “We were directly affected, yes, it was painful and most of our loved ones never got to see or hear the apology, but imagine the pain Māori must feel to be essentially dispossessed, disempowered and effectively disowned of their sovereignty on their own lands.”

    The bill’s architect, Act Party leader David Seymour, sayid the nationwide discussion on Treaty principles was crucial for future generations.

    “In a democracy, the citizens are always ready to decide the future. That’s how it works.”

    Republished from PMN News with permission.

  • By Talaia Mika of the Cook Islands News

    As concerns continue to emerge over China’s “unusual” naval exercises in the Tasman Sea, raising eyebrows from New Zealand and Australia, the Cook Islands government was questioned for an update in Parliament.

    This follows the newly established bilateral relations between the Cook Islands and China through a five-year agreement and Prime Minister Mark Brown’s accusations of the New Zealand media and experts looking down on the Cook Islands.

    A Chinese Navy convoy held two live-fire exercises in the Tasman Sea between Australia and New Zealand on Friday and Saturday, prompting passenger planes to change course mid-flight and pressuring officials in both countries.

    Akaoa MP Robert Heather queried the Prime Minister whether the government had spoken to Chinese embassy officials in New Zealand for a response in this breach of Australian waters?

    “One thing I do know is that just in the recent weeks, New Zealand navy was part of an exercise with the Australians and Americans conducting naval exercises in the South China Sea and perhaps that’s why China decided to exercise naval exercises in the international waters off the coast of Australia,” he said.

    “And I also know that in the last two weeks, the government of Australia and China signed a security treaty between the two countries.

    “However in due course, we may be informed more about these naval exercises that these countries conduct in international waters off each other’s coasts.”

    According to Brown, he had not been briefed by any government whether it’s New Zealand, Australia, or China about these developments.

    Asking for an update
    He added that while the Minister of Foreign Affairs Elikana was currently in the Solomon Islands attending a forum on fisheries together with other ministers of the Pacific Region, he would ask him about whether he could make any inquiries to find out whether the government could be updated or briefed on this issue.

    Meanwhile, New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters said after a meeting with his Chinese counterpart in Beijing, that lack of sufficient warning from China about the live-fire exercises was a “failure” in the New Zealand-China relationship.

    A spokesperson for China’s Ministry of National Defence, Wu Qian explained that China’s actions were entirely in accordance with international law and established practices and would not impact on aviation safety.

    He added that the live-fire training was conducted with repeated safety notices that had been issued in advance.

    Republished with permission from the Cook Islands News.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • By Scott Waide, RNZ Pacific PNG correspondent

    The family of a Papua New Guinea police constable, killed in an ambush last month, has blocked a section of the Highlands Highway in Goroka, Eastern Highlands Province, demanding justice for his death.

    Constable Harry Gorano succumbed to his injuries in intensive care two weeks ago after spending three weeks in a coma.

    He was attacked alongside colleagues in the Southern Highlands in January, during which fellow officer Constable Noel Biape was fatally shot.

    Gorano’s relatives, frustrated by the lack of arrests in the case, staged the roadblock early today, halting traffic on a key transit route.

    They have repeatedly called for authorities to arrest those responsible for the ambush.

    Additional personnel have been deployed to Goroka to assist local officers in managing tensions.

    Forces in neighboring regions have also been placed on standby amid concerns that the protest could spark broader unrest.

    The incident highlights the ongoing risks faced by PNG’s police force.

    Since 2017, more than 20 officers have been killed in the line of duty, with many perpetrators still at large.

    Investigations into Constable Gorano’s death remain ongoing.

    The family of a police constable, killed in an ambush last month, has blocked a section of the Highlands Highway in Goroka.
    Protesters block a section of the Highlands Highway outside Goroka. Image: RNZ Pacific/Lae-Morope Crime Alert via WhatsApp

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

    Family of late constable urges authorities to fast-track investigation

  • The re-election of Donald Trump is proof that the Right’s most powerful weapon is media manipulation, ensuring the public sphere is not engaged in rational debate, reports the Independent Australia.

    COMMENTARY: By Victoria Fielding

    I once heard someone say that when the Left and the Right became polarised — when they divorced from each other — the Left got all the institutions of truth including science, education, justice and democratic government.

    The Right got the institution of manipulation: the media. This statement hit me for six at the time because it seemed so clearly true.

    What was also immediately clear is that there was an obvious reason why the Left sided with the institutions of truth and the Right resorted to manipulation. It is because truth does not suit right-wing arguments.

    The existence of climate change does not suit fossil fuel billionaires. Evidence that wealth does not trickle down does not suit the capitalist class. The idea that diversity, equity and inclusion (yes, I put those words in that order on purpose) is better for everyone, rather than a discriminatory, hateful, destructive, divided unequal world is dangerous for the Right to admit.

    The Right’s embrace of the media institution also makes sense when you consider that the institutions of truth are difficult to buy, whereas billionaires can easily own manipulative media.

    Just ask Elon Musk, who bought Twitter and turned it into a political manipulation machine. Just ask Rupert Murdoch, who is currently engaged in a bitter family war to stop three of his children opposing him and his son Lachlan from using their “news” organisations as a form of political manipulation for right-wing interests.

    Right-wingers also know that truthful institutions only have one way of communicating their truths to the public: via the media. Once the media environment is manipulated, we enter a post-truth world.

    Experts derided as untrustworthy ‘elitists’
    This is the world where billionaire fossil fuel interests undermine climate action. It is where scientists create vaccines to save lives but the manipulated public refuses to take them. Where experts are derided as untrustworthy “elitists”.

    And it is where the whole idea of democratic government in the US has been overthrown to install an autocratic billionaire-enriching oligarchy led by an incompetent fool who calls himself the King.

    Once you recognise this manipulated media environment, you also understand that there is not — and never has been — such as thing as a rational public debate. Those engaged in the institutions of the Left — in science, education, justice and democratic government — seem mostly unwilling to accept this fact.

    Instead, they continue to believe if they just keep telling people the truth and communicating what they see as entirely rational arguments, the public will accept what they have to say.

    I think part of the reason that the Left refuses to accept that public debate is not rational and rather, is a manipulated bin fire of misleading information, including mis/disinformation and propaganda, is because they are not equipped to compete in this reality. What do those on the Left do with “post-truth”?

    They seem to just want to ignore it and hope it goes away.

    A perfect example of this misunderstanding of the post-truth world and the manipulated media environment’s impact on the public is this paper, by political science professors at the Australian National University Ian McAllister and Nicholas Biddle.

    Stunningly absolutist claim
    Their research sought to understand why polling at the start of the 2023 Indigenous Voice to Parliament Referendum showed widespread public support for the Voice but over the course of the campaign, this support dropped to the point where the Voice was defeated with 60 per cent voting “No” and 40 per cent, “Yes”.

    In presenting their study’s findings, the authors make the stunningly absolutist claim that:

    ‘…the public’s exposure to all forms of mass media – as we have measured it here – had no impact on the result’.

    A note is then attached to this finding with the caveat:

    ‘As noted earlier, given the data at hand we are unable to test the possibility that the content of the media being consumed resulted in a reinforcement of existing beliefs and partisanship rather than a conversion.’

    This caveat leaves a gaping hole in the finding by failing to account for how media reinforcing existing beliefs is an important media effect – as argued by Neil Gavin here. Since it was not measured, how can they possibly say there was no effect?

    Furthermore, the very premise of the author’s sweeping statement that media exposure had no impact on the result of the Referendum is based on two naive assumptions:

    • that voters were rational in their deliberations over the Referendum question; and
    • that the information environment voters were presented with was rational.

    Dual assumption of rationality
    This dual assumption of rationality – one that the authors interestingly admit is an assumption – is evidenced in their hypothesis which states:

    ‘Voters who did not follow the campaign in the mass media were more likely to move from a yes to a no vote compared to voters who did follow the campaign in the mass media.’

    This hypothesis, the authors explain, is premised on the assumption ‘that those with less information are more likely to opt for the status quo and cast a no vote’, and therefore that less exposure to media would change a vote from “Yes” to “No”.How the media failed Australia in the Referendum 'campaign'What this hypothesis assumes is that if a voter received more rational information in the media about the Referendum, that information would rationally drive their vote in the “Yes” direction. When their data disproved this hypothesis, the authors used this finding to claim that the media had no effect.

    To understand the reality of what happened in the Referendum debate, the word “rational” needs to be taken out of the equation and the word “manipulated” put in.

    We know, of course, that the Referendum was awash with manipulative information, which all supported the “No” campaign. For example, my study of News Corp’s Voice coverage — Australia’s largest and most influential news organisation — found that News Corp actively campaigned for the “No” proposition in concert with the “No” campaign, presenting content more like a political campaign than traditional journalism and commentary.

    A study by Queensland University of Technology’s Tim Graham analysed how the Voice Referendum was discussed on social media platform, X. Far from a rational debate, Graham identified that the “No” campaign and its supporters engaged in a participatory disinformation propaganda campaign, which became a “truth market” about the Voice.

    The ‘truth market’
    This “truth market” was described as drawing “Yes” campaigners into a debate about the truth of the Voice, sidetracking them from promoting their own cause.

    What such studies showed was that, far from McAllister and Biddle’s assumed rational information environment, the Voice Referendum public debate was awash with manipulation, propaganda, disinformation and fear-mongering.

    The “No” campaign that delivered this manipulation perfectly demonstrates how the Right uses media to undermine institutions of truth, to undermine facts and to undermine the rationality of democratic debates.

    The completely unfounded assumption that the more information a voter received about the Voice, the more likely they would vote “Yes”, reveals a misunderstanding of the reality of a manipulated public debate environment present across all types of media, from mainstream news to social media.

    It also wrongly treats voters like rational deliberative computers by assuming that the more information that goes in, the more they accept that information. This is far from the reality of how mediated communication affects the public.

    The reason the influence of media on individuals and collectives is, in reality, so difficult to measure and should never be bluntly described as having total effect or no effect, is that people are not rational when they consume media, and every individual processes information in their own unique and unconscious ways.

    One person can watch a manipulated piece of communication and accept it wholeheartedly, others can accept part of it and others reject it outright.

    Manipulation unknown
    No one piece of information determines how people vote and not every piece of information people consume does either. That’s the point of a manipulated media environment. People who are being manipulated do not know they are being manipulated.

    Importantly, when you ask individuals how their media consumption impacted on them, they of course do not know. The decisions people make based on the information they have ephemerally consumed — whether from the media, conversations, or a wide range of other information sources, are incredibly complex and irrational.

    Surely the re-election of Donald Trump for a second time, despite all the rational arguments against him, is proof that the manipulated media environment is an incredibly powerful weapon — a weapon the Right, globally, is clearly proficient at wielding.

    It is time those on the Left caught up and at least understood the reality they are working in.

    Dr Victoria Fielding is an Independent Australia columnist. This article was first published by the Independent Australia and is republished with the author’s permission.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • RNZ Pacific

    Prime Minister Mark Brown has survived a motion in the Cook Islands Parliament aimed at ousting his government, the second Pacific Island leader to face a no-confidence vote this week.

    In a vote yesterday afternoon (Tuesday, Cook Islands time), the man who has been at the centre of controversy in the past few weeks, defeated the motion by 13 votes to 9. Two government ministers were absent for the vote.

    The motion was put forward by the opposition MP Teariki Heather, the leader of the Cook Islands United Party.

    Ahead of the vote, Heather acknowledged that Brown had majority support in Parliament.

    However, he said he was moving the motion on principle after recent decisions by Brown, including a proposal to create a Cook Islands passport and shunning New Zealand from deals it made with China, which has divided Cook Islanders.

    “These are the merits that I am presenting before this House. We have the support of our people and those living outside the country, and so it is my challenge. Where do you stand in this House?” Heather said.

    Brown said his country has been so successful in its development in recent years that it graduated to first world status in 2020.

    ‘Engage on equal footing’
    “We need to stand on our own two feet, and we need to engage with our partners on an equal footing,” he said.

    “Economic and financial independence must come first before political independence, and that was what I discussed and made clear when I met with the New Zealand prime minister and deputy prime minister in Wellington in November.”

    Brown said the issues Cook Islanders faced today were not just about passports and agreements but about Cook Islands expressing its self-determination.

    “This is not about consultation. This is about control.”

    “We cannot compete with New Zealand. When their one-sided messaging is so compelling that even our opposition members will be swayed.

    “We never once talked to the New Zealand government about cutting our ties with New Zealand but the message our people received was that we were cutting our ties with New Zealand.

    “We have been discussing the comprehensive partnership with New Zealand for months. But the messaging that got out is that we have not consulted.

    ‘We are not a child’
    “We are a partner in the relationship with New Zealand. We are not a child.”

    He said the motion of no confidence had been built on misinformation to the extent that the mover of the motion has stated publicly that he was moving this motion in support of New Zealand.

    “The influence of New Zealand in this motion of no confidence should be of concern to all Cook Islands who value . . . who value our country.

    “My job is not to fly the New Zealand flag. My job is to fly my own country’s flag.”

    Last week, hundreds of Cook Islanders opposing Brown’s political decisions rallied in Avarua, demanding that he step down for damaging the relationship between Aotearoa and Cook Islands.

    The Cook Islands is a self-governing state in free association with New Zealand. It is part of the Realm of New Zealand, sharing the same Head of State.

    This year, the island marks its 60th year of self-governance.

    According to Cook Islands 2021 Census, its population is less than 15,000.

    New Zealand remains the largest home to the Cook Islands community, with over 80,000 Cook Islands Māori, while about 28,000 live in Australia.

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

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Asia Pacific Report

    An independent Jewish body has condemned the move by Australia’s 39 universities to endorse a “dangerous and politicised” definition of antisemitism which threatens academic freedom.

    The Jewish Council of Australia, a diverse coalition of Jewish academics, lawyers, writers and teachers, said in a statement that the move would have a “chilling effect” on legitimate criticism of Israel, and risked institutionalising anti-Palestinian racism.

    The council also criticised the fact that the universities had done so “without meaningful consultation” with Palestinian groups or diverse Jewish groups which were critical of Israel.

    The definition was developed by the Group of Eight (Go8) universities and adopted by Universities Australia.

    “By categorising Palestinian political expression as inherently antisemitic, it will be unworkable and unenforceable, and stifle critical political debate, which is at the heart of any democratic society,” the Jewish Council of Australia said.

    “The definition dangerously conflates Jewish identities with support for the state of Israel and the political ideology of Zionism.”

    The council statement said that it highlighted two key concerns:

    Mischaracterisation of criticism of Israel
    The definition states: “Criticism of Israel can be antisemitic when it is grounded in harmful tropes, stereotypes or assumptions and when it calls for the elimination of the State of Israel or all Jews or when it holds Jewish individuals or communities responsible for Israel’s actions.”

    The definition’s inclusion of “calls for the elimination of the State of Israel” would mean, for instance, that calls for a single binational democratic state, where Palestinians and Israelis had equal rights, could be labelled antisemitic.

    Moreover, the wording around “harmful tropes” was dangerously vague, failing to distinguish between tropes about Jewish people, which were antisemitic, and criticism of the state of Israel, which was not, the statement said.

    Misrepresentation of Zionism as core to Jewish identity
    The definition states that for most Jewish people “Zionism is a core part of their Jewish identity”.

    The council said it was deeply concerned that by adopting this definition, universities would be taking and promoting a view that a national political ideology was a core part of Judaism.

    “This is not only inaccurate, but is also dangerous,” said the statement.

    “Zionism is a political ideology of Jewish nationalism, not an intrinsic part of Jewish identity.

    “There is a long history of Jewish opposition to Zionism, from the beginning of its emergence in the late-19th century, to the present day. Many, if not the majority, of people who hold Zionist views today are not Jewish.”

    In contrast to Zionism and the state of Israel, said the council, Jewish identities traced back more than 3000 years and spanned different cultures and traditions.

    Jewish identities were a rightly protected category under all racial discrimination laws, whereas political ideologies such as Zionism and support for Israel were not, the council said.

    Growing numbers of dissenting Jews
    “While many Jewish people identify as Zionist, many do not. There are a growing number of Jewish people worldwide, including in Australia, who disagree with the actions of the state of Israel and do not support Zionism.

    “Australian polling in this area is not definitive, but some polls suggest that 30 percent of Australian Jews do not identify as Zionists.

    “A recent Canadian poll found half of Canadian Jews do not identify as Zionist. In the United States, more and more Jewish people are turning away from Zionist beliefs and support for the state of Israel.”

    Sarah Schwartz, a human rights lawyer and the Jewish Council of Australia’s executive officer, said: “It degrades the very real fight against antisemitism for it to be weaponised to silence legitimate criticism of the Israeli state and Palestinian political expressions.

    “It also risks fomenting division between communities and institutionalising anti-Palestinian racism.”

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • A rally on the steps of the Victorian Parliament under the banner of Jews for a Free Palestine was arranged for Sunday, February 9. At 11:11pm on the eve of that rally, Mark Leibler —a  lawyer who claims to have a high profile and speak on behalf of Jews by the totally unelected organisation AIJAC — put out a tweet on X (and paid for an advertisement of the same posting) as follows:

    COMMENTARY: By Jeffrey Loewenstein

    As someone Jewish, the son of Holocaust survivors and members of whose family were murdered by the Nazis, it is hard to know whether to characterise Mark Leibler’s tweet as offensive, appalling, contemptuous, insulting or a disgusting, shameful and grievous introduction of the Holocaust, and those who were murdered by the Nazis, into his tweet — or all of the foregoing!

    Leibler’s tweet is most likely a breach of recently passed legislation in Australia, both federally and in various state Parliaments, making hateful words and actions, and doxxing, criminal offences. It will be “interesting” to see how the police deal with the complaint taken up with the police alleging Leibler’s breach of the legislation.

    In the end, Leibler’s attempted intimidation of those who might have been thinking of going to the rally failed — miserably!

    There are many Jews who abhor what Israel is doing in Gaza (and the West Bank) but feel intimidated by the Leiblers of this world who accuse them of being antisemitic for speaking out against Israel’s actions and not those rusted-on 100 percent supporters of Israel who blindly and uncritically support whatever Israel does, however egregious.

    Leibler, and others like him, who label Jews as antisemites because they dare speak out about Israel’s actions, certainly need to be called out.

    As a lawyer, Leibler knows that actions have consequences. A group of concerned Jews (this writer included) are in the process of lodging a complaint about Leibler’s tweet with the Commonwealth Human Rights Commission.

    Separately from that, this week will see full-page adverts in both the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age — signed by hundreds of Jews — bearing the heading:

    “Australia must reject Trump’s call for the removal of Palestinians from Gaza. Jewish Australians say NO to ethnic cleansing.”

    Jeffrey Loewenstein, LLB, was a member of the Victorian Bar and a one-time chair of the Anti-Defamation Commission and member of the Jewish Community Council of Victoria. This article was first published by Pearls & Irritations public policy journal and is republished here with permission.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • RNZ Pacific

    The Papua New Guinea government wants to have everyone on their National Identity (NID) card system by the country’s 50th anniversary on 16 September 2025.

    While the government has been struggling to set up the NID programme for more than 10 years, in January the Prime Minister, James Marape, announced they aimed to have 100 percent of Papua New Guineans signed up by September 16.

    However, an academic with the University of PNG, working in conjunction with the Australian National University, Andrew Anton Mako, said there was no chance the government could achieve this goal.

    Anton Mako spoke with RNZ Pacific senior journalist Don Wiseman:

    ANDREW ANTON MAKO: The NID programme was established in November 2014, so it’s 10 years now. I wouldn’t know the mechanics of the delay, why it has taken this long for the project to not deliver on the outcomes, but I can say a lot of money has been invested into the programme.

    By the end of this year, the national government would have spent about 500 million kina (over NZ$211 million). That’s a lot of money to be spent on a particular project, and then it would have only registered about 30 to 40 percent of the total population. So there’s a serious issue there. The project has failed to deliver.

    DON WISEMAN: Come back to that in a moment. But why does the government think that a national ID card is so important?

    AAM: It’s got some usefulness to achieve. If it was well established and well implemented, it would address a number of issues. For example, on doing business and a form of identity that will help people to do business, to apply for jobs in Papua New Guinea or elsewhere, and all that. I believe it has got merit towards it, but I think just that it has not been implemented properly.

    DW: Does the population like the idea?

    AAM: I think generally when it started, people were on board. But when it got delayed, you see a lot of people venting frustration on the NID Facebook page. I think [it’s] popularity has actually fallen over the years.

    DW: It’s money that could go into a whole lot of other, perhaps, more important things?

    AAM: Exactly, there’s pressing issues for the country, in terms of law and order, health and education. Those important sectors have actually fallen over the years. So that 500 million kina would have been better spent.

    DW: So now the government wants the entire country within this system by September 16, and they’re not going to get anywhere near it. They must have realised they wouldn’t get anywhere near it when the Prime Minister made that statement. Surely?

    AAM: It’s not possible. The numbers do not add up. They’ve spent more than 460 million kina over the last 10 years or so, and they’ve only registered 36 percent of the total — 3.3 million people. And then of the 3.3 million people, they’ve only issued an ID card to about 30 to 40 perCent of them . . .

    DW: 30 to 40 percent of those who have already signed up. So it’s what, 10 percent of the country?

    AAM: That’s right, about 1.2 million people have been issued an ID card, including a duplicate card. It is not possible to register the entire country, the rest of the country, in just six, seven or eight months.

    DW: It’s not the first time that the government has come out with what is effectively like a wish list without fully backing it, financially?

    AAM: That’s right. The ambitions that the government and the Prime Minister, their intentions are good, but there is no effective strategy how to get there.

    The resources that are needed to be allocated. It’s just not possible to realise the the end results. For example, the Prime Minister and his government promised that by this year, we would stop importing rice. That was a promise that was made in 2019, so the thing is that the government has not clearly laid out a plan as to how the country will realise that outcome by this year.

    If you are going to promise something, then you have to deliver on it. You have to deliver on the ambitions. Then you have to set up a proper game plan and proper indicators and things like this.

    I think that’s the issue, that you have promised something [and] you must deliver. But you must chart out a proper pathway to deliver that.

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

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Israel has now banned another European Union parliamentarian from entering the country, reports Al Jazeera.

    The government gave no reasons why Lynn Boylan, who chairs the European Parliament EU-Palestine delegation, was denied entry.

    “This utter contempt from Israel is the result of the international community failing to hold them to account,” Boylan, an Irish MP in Brussels, said in a statement.

    “Israel is a rogue state, and this disgraceful move shows the level of utter disregard that they have for international law.

    “Europe must now hold Israel to account.”

    Boylan said she had planned to meet with Palestinian Authority officials, representatives of civil society organisations, and people living under Israeli occupation.

    She is a member of the Sinn Fein party in Ireland, which has been among the most vocal countries in criticising the Israeli government over its treatment of Palestinians.

    France’s Hassan also refused
    Earlier, EU lawmaker Rima Hassan was also refused entry at Ben-Gurion airport and ordered to return to Europe.

    “Hassan, who is expected to land from Brussels in the coming hour, consistently works to promote boycotts against Israel in addition to numerous public statements both on social media and in media interviews,” said Israeli Interior Minister Moshe Arbel’s office.

    Hassan is a French national of Palestinian origin known for her support of the Palestinian cause and for speaking out against Israel’s war on Gaza.

    Kaja Kallas, the EU foreign policy chief, outlined a range of worries about the situation in war-battered Gaza and the occupied West Bank.

    “We have constantly called on all parties, including Israel, to respect international humanitarian law,” she said, adding that Europe “cannot hide our concern when it comes to the West Bank”.

    ICC raps Merz over warrants
    Meanwhile, the International Criminal Court (ICC) has declared that states cannot unilaterally “determine soundness” of its rulings

    Earlier, it was reported that Germany’s election winner Friedrich Merz was saying he planned to invite Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to visit the country — despite an ICC war crimes warrant issued for his arrest, which Merz claimed did not apply.

    The ICC responded by saying states had a legal obligation to enforce its decisions, and any concerns they may have should be addressed with the court in a timely and efficient manner.

    “It is not for states to unilaterally determine the soundness of the court’s legal decisions,” said the ICC in a statement.

    Israel rejects the jurisdiction of the court and denies war crimes were committed during its devastating war on Gaza.

    Germans feel a special responsibility towards Israel because of the legacy of the Holocaust, and Merz has made clear he is a strong ally. But Germany also has a strong tradition of support for international justice for war crimes.

    Amnesty slams ‘shameful silence’
    Amnesty International and 162 other civil society organisations and trade unions have signed a joint letter calling on the EU to ban trade and business with Israel’s settlements in occupied Palestinian territory.

    “Despite EU consensus about the settlements’ illegality and their link to serious abuses, the EU continues to trade and allow business with them,” the letter said.

    This contributes to “the serious and systemic human rights and other international law abuses underpinning the settlement enterprise”, it added.

    The International Court of Justice (ICJ) in July issued a landmark advisory opinion affirming that states must not recognise, aid or assist the unlawful situation arising from Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory.

     

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • By Christina Persico, RNZ Pacific bulletin editor

    Samoan Prime Minister Fiame Naomi Mata’afa has survived a vote of no confidence after weeks of political turmoil.

    In a vote today, she defeated the motion by 34 votes in favour and 15 against.

    The motion was prompted by a split in the ruling FAST Party, which saw Fiame leading a minority government.

    But in a shock move today, FAST members voted alongside Fiame’s faction to register a resounding defeat against Opposition Leader Tuilaepa Sailele Malielegaoi’s motion.

    The Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, Papalii Lio Masipua, had granted the opposition’s formal request for a vote of no confidence against Fiame on Friday.

    Tuilaepa, who is also the head of the Human Rights Protection Party (HRPP), confirmed that the Speaker approved the motion in writing and allowed five members from the opposition bench to speak on it.

    According to Samoa’s constitutional requirements, the MP who commands the majority of MPs should be elected as Prime Minister or continue as Prime Minister.

    ‘Another desperate attempt’
    However, the Samoan government stated Tuilaepa’s move was “another desperate attempt to stir political drama” ahead of the no-confidence vote.

    Political upheaval hit Samoa just three days into 2025 when the chair of the ruling FAST party and Samoa’s Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries La’auli Leuatea Schmidt confirmed he was facing criminal charges.

    Left to right: FAST Party chairman Laauli Leuatea Schmidt, Prime Ministers Fiame, Fiame Naomi Mata'afa, opposition leader Tuilaepa Sa'ilele Malielegaoi.
    FAST Party chair Laauli Leuatea Schmidt (left to right), Prime Minister Fiame Naomi Mata’afa, and Opposition Leader Tuilaepa Sa’ilele Malielegaoi. Image: RNZ Pacific/123RF/Samoa Government/FAST Party

    On January 10, Mata’afa removed La’auli’s ministerial portfolio and subsequently removed three of her Cabinet ministers.

    But La’auli remained chair of the FAST Party, and went on to announce the removal of the prime minister and five Cabinet ministers from the ruling party.

    This decision was reportedly challenged by the removed members.

    Fiame then removed 13 of her associate ministers.

    Laauli acknowledged the challenge of holding a vote of no confidence, but refrained from disclosing the party’s position, stating they would wait until Tuesday.

    First female prime minister
    Fiame is Samoa’s first female prime minister. She had heritage — her father, Fiame Mata’afa Faumuina Mulinu’u, was the country’s first prime minister.

    She took office following the April 2021 election, but that devolved into political crisis.

    The caretaker HRPP government locked the doors to Parliament in an attempt to stop the then prime minister-elect from being sworn into office following her FAST Party’s one-seat election win.

    Two governments claimed a mandate to rule, and the United Nations urged the party leaders to find a solution through discussion.

    The Court of Appeal ruled that the country had a new government after it judged the impromptu swearing-in by the newcomer FAST party on May 24 was legitimate under the doctrine of necessity.

    It took until July for the incumbent, Tuilaepa Sailele Malielegaoi, to concede.

    Fiame went to school and university in Wellington, New Zealand, but her studies were interrupted in 1977 when she returned to Samoa to help with court cases around the succession of her father’s titles following his death in 1975.

    In 1985, she was elected as MP for Lotofaga, the same seat held by her father and then her mother after his death.

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

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • OBITUARY: By Heather Devere

    Maata Wharehoka (Ngāti Tahinga, Ngāti Koata, Ngāti Apakura, Ngāti Toa, Ngāti Kuia. 1950-2025

    Maata Wharehoka has been described as the Parihaka Matriarch, Parihaka leader and arts advocate, “champion of Kahu Whakatere Tupapaku, the tikanga Māori practices, expert in marae arts, raranga (weaving) and karanga”, renowned weaver who revived traditional Māori methods of death and burial, “driving force behind Parihaka’s focus to be a self-sufficient community”, Kaitiaki (or guardian) of Te Niho marae for nearly 30 years.

    And I want to add Peace Advocate and Activist. She died aged 74.

    At Te Ao o Rongomaraeroa, the National Centre of Peace and Conflict Studies (NCPCS) at Otago University, Ōtepoti Dunedin, we were fortunate that Maata brought her knowledge and her exceptional presence to help us learn some of the lessons from Parihaka about peaceful resistance, non-violent communication, conflict resolution, consultation, hospitality, humility and mana.

    One of her first talks was entitled “Why do I wear feathers in my hair and scribbles on my face?” and she explained to us the significance of the raukura or albatross feathers that signify peace to the people of Parihaka.

    She used the moko (tattoos) on her mouth, chin and from her ears to her cheeks to teach us the importance of listening first, before you speak.

    Maata taught us the use of the beat of the poi to signify the sound of the horses hooves when the pacifist settlement at Parihaka was invaded by the British militia in 1881.

    The poi and waiata have served as a “hidden-in-plain-sight” performative image by the people of Parihaka that represents consistent resistance to the oppression.

    Maata had been shocked when she first came to the peace centre that we were only able to sing (badly) what she called a “nursery school” waiata. So she gifted a unique waiata to NCPACS to help with our transition to being a more bicultural centre, now named Te Ao o Rongomaraeroa.

    Maukaroko ki te whenua,
    Whakaaro pai ki te tangata katoa
    Arohanui ki te aoraki
    Koa, koa, koa ki te aoraki,
    Pono, whakapono
    Ki te ao nei
    Ko rongo, no rongo, na rongo
    Me rongo, me rongo, me rongo

    Translation:
    Peace to the land
    Be thoughtful to all
    Great love to the universe
    Joy, joy, joy to the universe
    Truth, truth to the world
    It is Rongo, from Rongo, by Rongo
    Peace, peace, peace.

    Maata also hosted a number of students from TAOR/NCPACS at Parihaka for both PhD fieldwork and practicum experience, building a link between them and Parihaka that extends to the next generation.

    She named her expertise “deathing and birthing” as she taught Māori traditions of preparation for dying and for welcoming the new born. One of the students learnt from Maata about the process where the person who is dying is closely involved in the preparations, including the weaving of the waka kahutere (coffin) from harakeke (flax) for a natural burial.

    Maata herself was very much part of the preparations for her own death and would have advised and assisted those who wove her waka kahutere with much love and expertise.

    For me, Maata became one of my very best friends. Her generosity, sense of humour, high energy and kindness quite overwhelmed me. We also became close through working and writing together, with Kelli Te Maihāroa (from Waitaha — the South Island iwi with a long peace history) and Maui Solomon (who upholds the Moriori peace tradition).

    We collaborated on a series of articles and chapters, and our joint work was presented both locally and at international conferences.

    On my many visits to Parihaka I was also warmly welcomed by the Wharehoka family and was able to meet Maata’s mokopuna, all growing up with Māori as their first language and steeped in Māori knowledge and tikanga.

    Maata is an irreplaceable person, a true wahine toa, exuberant, outgoing, funny, clever, fiece, talented, indomitable. Maata, we will miss you terribly, but will continue to be guided by your wisdom and ongoing presence in our hearts and our lives.

    In the words of Kelli Te Maihāroa “She was an amazing wahine toa, who loved sharing her gifts with the world. Moe Mai Rā e te māreikura o Te Niho Parihaka.’

    Dr Heather Devere is chair of Asia Pacific Media Network and former director of research of Te Ao o Rongomaraeroa.

    Publications:
    Kelli Te Maihāroa, Heather Devere, Maui Solomon and Maata Wharehoka (2022). Exploring Indigenous Peace Traditions Collaboratively. In Te Maihāroa, Ligaliga and Devere (Eds). Decolonising Peace and Conflict Studies through Indigenous Research. Palgrave Macmillan.

    Heather Devere, Kelli Te Maihāroa, Maui Solomon and Maata Wharehoka (2020). Concepts of Friendship and Decolonising Cross-Cultural Peace Research in Aotearoa New Zealand. AMITY: The Journal of Friendship Studies, 6(1), 53-87 doi:10.5518/AMITY/31.

    Heather Devere, Kelli Te Maihāroa, Maui Solomon and Maata Wharehoka (2019). Tides of Endurance: Indigenous Peace Traditions of Aotearoa New Zealand. Ab-Original: Journal of Indigenous Studies and First National and First Peoples, 3(1), 24-47.

    Heather Devere, Kelli Te Maihāroa, Maata Wharehoka and Maui Solomon (2017). Regeneration of Indigenous Peace Traditions in Aotearoa New Zealand. In Heather Devere, Kelli Te Maihaora and John Synott (eds.), Peacebuilding and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Experiences and Strategies for the 21st Century. Cham, Springer.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • By Patrick Decloitre, RNZ Pacific correspondent French Pacific desk

    French Minister for Overseas Manuel Valls’ first two days in New Caledonia have been marred by several clashes with local pro-France, anti-independence movements, who feared he would side with their pro-independence opponents.

    However, he remained confident that all stakeholders would eventually come and sit together at the table for negotiations.

    Valls arrived in the French Pacific territory on Saturday with a necessary resumption of crucial political talks regarding New Caledonia’s political future high on his agenda, nine months after the deadly May 2024 civil unrest.

    His visit comes as tensions have risen in the past few days against a backdrop of verbal escalations and rhetoric, the pro-France camp opposing independence stressing that three referendums had resulted in three rejections of independence in 2018, 2020, and 2021.

    But the third referendum in December 2021 was boycotted by a large part of the pro-independence, mainly Kanak community, and they have since disputed the validity of its result (even though it was deemed valid in court rulings).

    On Saturday, the first day of his visit to the Greater Nouméa city of Mont-Dore, during a ceremony paying homage to a French gendarme who was killed at the height of the riots last year, Valls and one of the main pro-France leaders, French MP Nicolas Metzdorf, had a heated and public argument.

    ‘First Nation’ controversy
    Metzdorf, who was flanked by Sonia Backès, another major pro-France local leader, said Valls had “insulted” the pro-France camp because he had mentioned the indigenous Kanak people as being the “first people” in New Caledonia — equivalent to the notion of “First Nation” people.

    Hours before, Valls had just met New Caledonia’s Custom Senate (a traditional gathering of Kanak chiefs) and told them that “nothing can happen in New Caledonia without a profound respect towards [for] the Melanesian people, the Kanak people, and the first people”.

    Nicolas Metzdorf, Manuel Valls and Sonia Backès (L to R) during a public and filmed heated argument on Saturday 22 February 2025 in the city of Mont-Dore – PHOTO NC la 1ère
    French Minister for Overseas Manuel Valls (second from left) meets pro-France supporters as he arrives in New Caledonia on Saturday as French High Commissioner Louis Le Franc looks on. Image: NC la 1ère

    Metzdorf told Valls in an exchange that was filmed on the road and later aired on public broadcaster NC la 1ère: “When you say there are first people, you don’t respect us! Your statements are insulting.”

    “If there are first peoples, it means there are second peoples and that some are more important than others.”

    To which Valls replied: “When you are toying with these kinds of concepts, you are making a mistake.”

    Every word counts
    The 1998 Nouméa Accord’s preamble is largely devoted to the recognition of New Caledonia’s indigenous community (autochtone/indigenous).

    On several occasions, Valls faced large groups of pro-France supporters with French tricolour flags and banners (some in the Spanish language, a reference to Valls’s Spanish double heritage), asking him to “respect their democratic (referendum) choice”.

    Some were also chanting slogans in Spanish (“No pasaran”), or with a Spanish accent.

    “I’m asking for just one thing: for respect towards citizens and those representing the government,” an irate Valls told the crowd.

    Questions have since been raised from local organisations and members of the general public as to why and how an estimated 500 pro-France supporters had been allowed to gather while the French High Commissioner still maintains a ban on all public gatherings and demonstrations in Nouméa and its greater area.

    “We voted three times no. No means no,” some supporters told the visiting minister, asking him not to “let them down”.

    “You shouldn’t believe what you’ve been told. Why wouldn’t you remain French?”, Valls told protesters.

    “I think the minister must state very clearly that he respects those three referendums and then we’ll find a solution on that basis,” said Backès.

    However, both Metzdorf and Backès reaffirmed that they would take part in “negotiations” scheduled to take place this week.

    “We are ready to make compromises”, said Backès.

    Valls carried on schedule
    Minister Valls travelled to Northern parts and outer islands of New Caledonia to pay homage to the victims during previous insurrections in New Caledonia, including French gendarmes and Kanak militants who died on Ouvéa Island (Loyalty group) in the cave massacre in 1988.

    During those trips, he also repeatedly advocated for rebuilding New Caledonia and for every stakeholder to “reconcile memories” and sit at the negotiation table “without hatred”.

    Valls believes ‘everyone will be at the table’
    In an interview with local public broadcaster NC la 1ère yesterday, the French minister said he was confident “everyone will be at the table”.

    The first plenary meeting is to be held this afternoon.

    It will be devoted to agreeing on a “method”.

    “I believe everyone will be there,” he said.

    “All groups, political, economic, social, all New Caledonians, I’m convinced, are a majority who wish to keep a strong link within France,” he said.

    He also reiterated that following New Caledonia’s Matignon (1988) and Nouméa (1998) peace accords, the French Pacific territory’s envisaged future was to follow a path to “full sovereignty”.

    “The Nouméa Accord is the foundation. Undeniably, there have been three referendums. And then there was May 13.

    “There is a before and and after [the riots]. My responsibility is to find a way. We have the opportunity of these negotiations, let’s be careful of the words we use,” he said, asking every stakeholder for “restraint”.

    “I’ve also seen some pro-independence leaders say that [their] people’s sacrifice and death were necessary to access independence. And this, also, is not on.”

    Valls also said the highly sensitive issue of “unfreezing” New Caledonia’s special voters’ roll for local elections (a reform attempt that triggered the May 2024 riots) was “possible”, but it will be part of a wider, comprehensive agreement on the French Pacific entity’s political future.

    A mix of ‘fear and hatred’
    Apart from the planned political negotiations, Valls also intends to devote significant time to New Caledonia’s dire economic situation, in post-riot circumstances that have not only caused 14 dead, but also several hundred job losses and total damage estimated at some 2.2 billion euros (NZ$4 billion).

    A first, much-expected economic announcement also came yesterday: Valls said the State-funded unemployment benefits (which were supposed to cease in the coming days) woud now be extended until June 30.

    For the hundreds of businesses which were destroyed last year, he said a return to confidence was essential and a prerequisite to any political deal . . .  And vice-versa.

    “If there’s no political agreement, there won’t be any economic investment.

    “This may cause the return of fresh unrest, a form of civil war. I have heard those words coming back, just like I’ve heard the words racism, hatred . . . I can feel hope and at the same time a fear of violence.

    “I feel all the ferments of a confrontation,” he said.

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

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • PNG Post-Courier

    Prime Minister James Marape has issued a strong appeal to all young men and boys in Papua New Guinea — stop abusing girls, mothers, and sisters.

    He made the plea yesterday before flying to Australia, emphasising the importance of respecting women and children in society.

    Marape urged young men to take their issues to him instead of resorting to violence against women and children.

    Marape also called for the nation to rise in consciousness to preserve the values and achievements of their fathers and mothers who fought for independence 50 years ago.

    “We want to give a special recognition to the fathers and mothers of our country, a generation and people of our country to be proud to be here today,” he said.

    He expressed his pain at seeing the continued cycle of abuse and disrespect towards women and children in the country.

    Marape’s message was clear: violence and abuse towards women and children would not be tolerated, and the nation must come together to ensure the safety and well-being of all its citizens.

    ‘Don’t do it to our sisters’
    “These are not two things that we want to take on. For every young boy out there, if you have an issue in society, I don’t mind you taking it upon me. But please don’t do it to the girls in the neighbourhood,” he said.

    “Don’t do it to our sisters in the neighbourhood. Don’t do it to our mothers and aunties in the neighbourhood.

    “In a time when our nation is facing a 50th anniversary, I call for our nation to rise in a consciousness to preserve what our fathers and mothers did 50 years ago.

    “Lawlessness, disrespect for each other, especially women and children amongst us. This is something that I speak at great lengths and speak from the depth of my heart.

    “It pains me to see girls, women, and children continue to face a vicious cycle of abuse and total abhorrence, abuse of children, rape,” he said.

    “I just thought these are important activities coming up. I want to conclude by asking our country through the media.

    “We are in another state of our 50th anniversary year.

    ‘Let us take responsibility’
    “We have many challenges in our country. But all of us, we take responsibility of our country. As government, we are trying our absolute best.

    “Citizens, public servants, private sector, all of us have responsibility to our country. Unless you have another country to go and live in, if property is your country in the first instance, I call out to all citizens, take responsibility in your corner of property.

    “Privacy alone cannot be able to do everything that you expect it to do.

    “I’m not omnipotent. I’m not omniscient. I’m not omnipresent.

    “I’m but only one person coordinating at the top level. Call for every citizen of our country.

    “As we face our 49th year and as we welcome our 50th of September 16,) we call this on every one of us.”

    Republished from the PNG Post-Courier with permission.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • By Gizem Nisa Cebi

    The BBC has removed its documentary Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone from iPlayer after it was revealed that its teenage narrator is the son of a Hamas official.

    The broadcaster stated that it was conducting “further due diligence” following mounting scrutiny.

    The film, which aired on BBC Two last Monday, follows 13-year-old Abdullah Al-Yazouri as he describes life in Gaza.

    However, it later emerged that his father, Ayman Al-Yazouri, serves as the Hamas Deputy Minister of Agriculture in Gaza.

    In a statement yesterday, the BBC defended the documentary’s value but acknowledged concerns.

    “There have been continuing questions raised about the programme, and in light of these, we are conducting further due diligence with the production company,” the statement said.

    The revelation sparked a backlash from figures including Friday Night Dinner actress Tracy-Ann Oberman, literary agent Neil Blair, and former BBC One boss Danny Cohen, who called it “a shocking failure by the BBC and a major crisis for its reputation”.

    On Thursday, the BBC admitted that it had not disclosed the family connection but insisted it followed compliance procedures. It has since added a disclaimer acknowledging Abdullah’s ties to Hamas.

    UK’s Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy said that she would discuss the issue with the BBC, particularly regarding its vetting process.

    However, the International Centre of Justice for Palestinians urged the broadcaster to “stand firm against attempts to prevent firsthand accounts of life in Gaza from reaching audiences”.

    Others also defended the importance of the documentary made last year before the sheer scale of devastation by the Israeli military forces was exposed — and many months before the ceasefire came into force on January 19.

    How to watch the Gaza documentary
    How to watch the Gaza documentary. Image: Double Down News screenshot/X

    ‘This documentary humanised Palestinian children’
    Chris Doyle, director of the Council for Arab-British Understanding (CAABU), criticised the BBC’s decision.

    “It’s very regrettable that this documentary has been pulled following pressure from anti-Palestinian activists who have largely shown no sympathy for persons in Gaza suffering from massive bombardment, starvation, and disease,” Middle East Eye quoted him as saying.

    Doyle also praised the film’s impact, saying, “This documentary humanised Palestinian children in Gaza and gave valuable insights into life in this horrific war zone.”

    Journalist Richard Sanders, who has produced multiple documentaries on Gaza, called the controversy a “huge test” for the BBC and condemned its response as a “cowardly decision”.

    Earlier this week, 45 Jewish journalists and media figures, including former BBC governor Ruth Deech, urged the broadcaster to pull the film, calling Ayman Al-Yazouri a “terrorist leader”.

    The controversy underscores wider tensions over media coverage of the Israel-Gaza war, with critics accusing the BBC of a vetting failure, while others argue the documentary sheds crucial light on Palestinian children’s suffering.

    Pacific Media Watch comments: The BBC has long been accused of an Israeli-bias in its coverage of Palestinian affairs, especially the 15-month genocidal war on Gaza, and this documentary is one of the rare programmes that has restored some balance.

    Another teenager who appears in the Gaza documentary
    Another teenager who appears in the Gaza documentary . . . she has o global online following for her social media videos on cooking and life amid the genocide. Image: BBC screenshot APR

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Pacific Media Watch

    One of the leading Middle East’s leading political and media analysts, Marwan Bishara, has accused President Donald Trump of applying a doctrine of ‘strategic coercion” and “economic blackmail” in his approach to the Gaza ceasefire.

    Bishara, senior political analyst of the Doha-based Al Jazeera global television network, was responding to the news that Trump has apparently backed off his plan for expelling more than 2 million Palestinians from their Gaza homeland and to redevelop it as the “Riviera of the Middle East”.

    He has now been describing it as a “recommendation” that would not be enforced.

    “The idea that Trump starts with [about taking over Gaza] is mad. But there is a method to the madness,” Bishara said.

    “The method to the madness, you can see it in the context of Trump’s doctrine, if you will – and that is strategic coercion and economic blackmail.

    “In fact, he started his administration by inviting [Israeli Prime Minister] Netanyahu to Washington, blessing him with all kinds of support . . .  and blackmailing Egypt and Jordan into accepting two million refugees, or else — and then asking them to come up with something else.”

    Bishara said he expected the Trump doctrine to be applied elsewhere in the world, such as with his efforts to end the war in Ukraine.

    ‘This kind of strategic coercion of Arab countries on behalf of the United States and Israel, and economic blackmail — I think we’re going to see it as part of the Trump doctrine throughout the world.


    President Trump’s walkback on his “Riviera” plan for Gaza. Video: Al Jazeera

    ‘Surprised’ over opposition
    The US president had said in a radio interview with Fox News that he was “a little bit surprised” that Jordan and Egypt had voiced opposition to his plan to “take over” Gaza and displace Palestinians.

    “I’ll tell you, the way to do it is my plan — I think that’s the plan that really works,” Trump said.

    “But I’m not forcing it, I’m just going to sit back and recommend it.

    “And then the US would own the site, there’d be no Hamas, and there’d be development and you’d start all over again with a clean plate.”

    A former Egyptian deputy foreign affairs minister to the European Union, Gamal Bayoumi, said the “informal” meeting in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, of the leaders of several Arab countries to discuss an Egyptian counterproposal had led to the softening of Trump’s stance.

    Speaking from Cairo, Bayoumi said Trump had appeared “inexperienced concerning international law” and the Middle East, saying the US president’s plan “has no logic . . . to ask the Palestinians to leave their own country.”

    The Riyadh meeting has ended with the leaders rejecting Trump’s plan and the Arab League will meet in Cairo, Egypt, on March 4 to discuss the counterproposal in more detail.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • By Patrick Decloitre, RNZ Pacific correspondent French Pacific desk

    As French Minister for Overseas Manuel Valls lands in New Caledonia tomorrow to pursue talks on its political future, the situation on the ground has again gained tension over the past few days.

    The local political spectrum is deeply divided between the two main opposing camps, the pro-independence and those wanting New Caledonia to remain part of France.

    The rift has already culminated in May 2024 with rioting resulting in 14 deaths, several hundreds injured, thousands of job losses due to the destruction, burning and looting of businesses, and a material cost of over 2 billion euros (NZ$3.7 billion).

    Valls hosted talks in Paris with every party represented in New Caledonia’s Congress on February 4-9.

    Those talks, held in “bilateral” mode, led to his decision to travel to Nouméa and attempt to bring everyone to the same negotiating table.

    It is all about finding an agreement that would allow an exit from the Nouméa Accord and to draw a fresh roadmap for New Caledonia’s political future.

    However, in the face of radically different and opposing views, the challenge is huge.

    The two main blocs, even though they acknowledged the Paris talks may have been helpful, still hold very clear-cut and antagonistic positions.

    Each camp seems to have their own interpretation of the 1998 Nouméa Accord, which has until now defined a roadmap for further autonomy and a gradual transfer of powers.

    The main bloc within the pro-independence side, Union Calédonienne (UC), which since last year de facto controls the wider FLNKS (Kanak Socialist National Liberation Front), has been repeatedly placing as its target a new “Kanaky Agreement” to be signed by 24 September 2025 and, from that date, a five-year “transition period” to attain full independence from France.

    Within the pro-independence camp, more moderate parties, such as PALIKA (Kanak Liberation Party) and UPM (Progressist Union in Melanesia), have distanced themselves from a UC-dominated FLNKS, and are favourable to some kind of “independence in association with France”.

    On the pro-France side, the two main components, the Les Loyalistes and the Rassemblement-LR, have shown a united front. One of their main arguments is based on the fact that in 2018, 2020 and 2021, three successive referenda on self-determination have resulted in three votes, each of those producing a majority rejecting independence.

    However, the third and latest poll in December 2021 was boycotted by most of the pro-independence voters.

    The pro-independence parties have since challenged the 2021 poll result, even though it has been ruled by the courts as valid.

    Pro-France parties are also advocating for a change in the political system to give each of New Caledonia’s three provinces more powers, a move they described as an “internal federalism” but that critics have decried, saying this amounted to a kind of apartheid.

    Talks required since 2022
    The bipartisan talks became necessary after the three referendums were held.

    The Nouméa Accord stipulated that in the event that three consecutive referendums rejected independence, then all political stakeholders should “meet and examine the situation”.

    There have been earlier attempts to bring about those talks, but some components of the pro-independence movement, notably the UC, have consistently declined.

    Under a previous government, French Minister for Home Affairs and Overseas territories Gérald Darmanin, after half a dozen inconclusive trips to New Caledonia, tried to push some of the most urgent parts of the political agreement through a constitutional reform process, especially on a change to New Caledonia’s list of eligible registered voters at local elections.

    This was supposed to allow citizens who have resided in New Caledonia for at least ten uninterrupted years to finally cast their votes. Until now, the electoral roll has been “frozen” since 2009 — only those residing before 1998 had the right to vote.

    Pro-independence parties protested, saying this was a way of “diluting” the indigenous Kanak votes.

    The protest — in the name of “Kanak existential identity” — gained momentum and on 13 May 2024 erupted into riots.

    Now the sensitive electoral roll issue is back on the agenda, only it will no longer be tackled separately, but will be part of a wider and comprehensive scope of talks regarding New Caledonia’s political future.

    Heavy schedule for Valls
    On Thursday, Valls unveiled his programme for what is scheduled to be a six-day stay in New Caledonia from 22-26 February 2025.

    During this time, he will spend a significant amount of time in the capital Nouméa, holding talks with political parties, economic stakeholders and representatives of the civil society and law and order agencies.

    He will also travel to rural parts of New Caledonia.

    In the capital, two solid days have been earmarked for “negotiations” at the Congress, with the aim of finding the best way to achieve a political agreement, if all parties agree to meet and talk.

    On Tuesday, February 25, Valls also intends to pay homage and lay wreaths on independence leader Jean-Marie Tjibaou and anti-independence leader Jacques Lafleur’s graves.

    They were the leaders of FLNKS and (pro-France) RPCR, who eventually signed the Matignon Accords in 1998 and shook hands after half a decade of quasi civil war, during the previous civil unrest in the second half of the 1980s.

    Valls was then a young member of French Prime Minister Michel Rocard (Socialist) who enabled the Matignon agreement.

    On several occasions, over the past few days, Valls has stressed the grave situation New Caledonia has been facing since the riots, the “devastated” economy and the need to restore a bipartisan dialogue.

    He told public broadcaster NC La Première that since the unrest started had France had provided financial support to sustain New Caledonia’s economy.

    ‘Fractures and deep wounds within New Caledonia’s society’
    “But blood has been shed . . . there have been deaths, injuries, there are fractures and deep wounds within New Caledonia’s society,” Valls said.

    “And to get out of this, dialogue is needed, to find a compromise . . . to prevent violence from coming back. I still believe those (opposing) positions are reconcilable, even though they’re quite far apart,” he said.

    “I’m very much aware of the difficulties . . . but we have to find an agreement, a compromise.”

    One clear indication that during his visit to New Caledonia the French minister will be walking on shaky ground came a few days ago.

    When, speaking to French national daily Le Monde, he recalled the Nouméa Accord included a wide range of possible perspectives from “a shared sovereignty” to a “full sovereignty”, there was an immediate outcry from the pro-French parties, who steadfastly brandished the three recent referendums opposing independence and urging the minister to respect those “democratic” results.

    “Respecting the Nouméa Accord means respecting the choice of New Caledonians”, said Les Loyalistes-Le Rassemblement-LR in a media release.

    “Shared sovereignty is the current situation. It’s all in the Nouméa Accord, which itself is enshrined in the French Constitution”, Valls replied.

    Over the past six months, several notions have emerged in terms of a political future for New Caledonia.

    It all comes down to wording: from independence-association (Cook Islands style), to outright “independence” or “shared sovereignty” (as suggested by French Senate President Gérard Larcher during his visit in October 2024).

    A former justice minister under Socialist President François Hollande, Jean-Jacques Urvoas, well-versed in New Caledonian affairs, suggested an innovative wording which, he believed, could bring about some form of consensus — the term “associated state”, could be slightly modified into “associated country” (“country” being one of the ways to describe New Caledonia, also described as a sui generis entity under French Law).

    Urvoas said this would make the notion more palatable.

    Pro-France meetings indoors
    On Wednesday evening, in an indoor multi-purpose hall in Nouméa, an estimated 2000 sympathisers of pro-France Rassemblement and Loyalists gathered to hear and support their leaders who had come to explain what was discussed in Paris and reiterate the pro-France bloc’s position.

    “We told [Valls] the ‘bilaterals’ are over. Now we want plenary discussions or nothing,” pro-France Virginie Ruffenach told the crowd.

    “We will tell him: Manuel, your full sovereignty is No Pasaran! (in Spanish ‘Will not pass’, a reference to Valls’s Spanish heritage),” said Nicolas Metzdorf, who is also one of the two New Caledonian MPs in the French National Assembly, speaking to supporters brandishing blue, white and red French flags.

    Metzdorf said he hoped that supporters would show up during the minister’s visit with the same flags “to remind him of three “no” votes in the three referenda.

    A ban on all open-air public meetings is still in force in Nouméa and its greater area.

    The two-flag driving licence declared illegal.
    The two-flag driving licence declared illegal. Image: New Caledonia govt

    Double flags banned on driving licences
    Adding to the current tensions, an announcement also came earlier this week regarding a court ruling on another highly sensitive issue — the flag.

    The ruling came in an appeal case from the Paris Administrative Court.

    It overturned a ruling made in 2023 by the former New Caledonian (pro-independence) territorial government to add the Kanak flag to the local driving licence, next to the French flag.

    In its February 14 ruling, the Appeal Court stated that the Kanak flag could not be used on such official documents because “it is not the official flag” of New Caledonia.

    The court once again referred to the Nouméa Accord, which said the Kanak flag, even though it was often used alongside the French flag, had not been formally endorsed as New Caledonia’s “identity symbol”.

    The tribunal also urged the new government to make the necessary changes and to re-circulate the former one-flag version “without delay”.

    Meanwhile, the government is bearing the cost of a fine of 100, 000 French Pacific francs (about US$875) a day, which currently totals over US$43,000 since January 1.

    The “identity symbols”, as defined by the Nouméa Accord, also include a motto (the wording ‘Terre de Parole, Terre de Partage’ — Land of Words, Land of Sharing’ was chosen) and even a national anthem.

    But despite several attempts since 1998, no agreement has yet been reached on a common flag.

    This week, hours after the court ruling, an image is being circulated on social media declaring: “If this flags disturbs you, I’ll help you pack your suitcase” (“Si ce drapeau te dérange, je t’aide à faire tes valises”).

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

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • RNZ Pacific

    Fijian Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka’s announcement this week that the island nation will open a diplomatic mission in Jerusalem has been labelled “an act of aggression” by Palestine.

    On Tuesday, the Fiji government revealed that Cabinet had decided to locate its consulate in Jerusalem, which remains at the centre of the Palestine-Israel decades-long conflict.

    According to an overwhelming United Nations General Assembly Resolution ES‑10/19 on 21 December 2017 (128-9), Israel’s claim to Jerusalem as capital of Israel is “null and void”.

    Previous UN Security Council resolutions demarcated Jerusalem as the capital of the future state of Palestine.

    The Fijian government said in a statement: “Necessary risk assessments will be undertaken by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Defence, in consultation with relevant agencies, prior to and during the establishment process.”

    Fiji and Israel established diplomatic relations in 1970 and have partnerships in security and peacekeeping, agriculture, and climate change.

    In a Facebook post on Wednesday, Rabuka said he “received a phone call from my friend Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, expressing his gratitude for Fiji’s decision to open a diplomatic mission in Jerusalem.”

    “Even though very brief, we reaffirmed our commitment to strengthening Fiji-Israel ties,” he said.

    “I also took the opportunity to express my deepest condolences for the tragic events of October 7, 2023, when Hamas attacked innocent lives in Israel.

    Palestine’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs condemned Rabuka’s decision and is demanding the Fijian government “immediately reverse this provocative decision.”

    ‘Violating international law’
    “With this decision, Fiji becomes the seventh country to violate international law and UN resolutions regarding the city’s legal and political status and the rights of the Palestinian people,” it said in a statement.

    The seven countries include Papua New Guinea.

    “This decision is an act of aggression against the Palestinian people and their rights.

    “It places Fiji on the wrong side of history, harms the chances of achieving peace based on the two-state solution, and represents unacceptable support for the occupation and its crimes.”

    The statement added that Fiji’s move “blatantly defies UN resolutions at a time when the occupying power is escalating its attacks against Palestinians across all of the Palestinian Territory, attempting to displace them from their homeland.”

    The ministry said that it would continue to take political, diplomatic, and legal action against countries that opened or moved their embassies to Jerusalem.

    “It will work to hold them accountable for their unjustified actions against the Palestinian people and their rights.”

    In September 2024, Fiji was one of seven Pacific Island nations that voted against a United Nations resolution to end Israel’s occupation of Palestine.

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

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Pacific Media Watch

    A New Zealand-based community education provider, Dark Times Academy, has had a US Embassy grant to deliver a course teaching Pacific Islands journalists about disinformation terminated after the new Trump administration took office.

    The new US administration requested a list of course participants and to review the programme material amid controversy over a “freeze” on federal aid policies.

    The course presentation team refused and the contract was terminated by “mutual agreement” — but the eight-week Pacific workshop is going ahead anyway from next week.

    Dark Times Academy's Mandy Henk
    Dark Times Academy’s co-founder Mandy Henk . . . “A Bit Sus”, an evidence-based peer-reviewed series of classes on disinfiormation for Pacific media. Image: Newsroom

    “As far as I can tell, the current foreign policy priorities of the US government seem to involve terrorising the people of Gaza, annexing Canada, invading Greenland, and bullying Panama,” said Dark Times Academy co-founder Mandy Henk.

    “We felt confident that a review of our materials would not find them to be aligned with those priorities.”

    The course, called “A Bit Sus”, is an evidence-based peer-reviewed series of classes that teach key professions the skills needed to identify and counter disinformation and misinformation in their particular field.

    The classes focus on “prebunking”, lateral reading, and how technology, including generative AI, influences disinformation.

    Awarded competitive funds
    Dark Times Academy was originally awarded the funds to run the programme through a public competitive grant offered by the US Embassy in New Zealand in 2023 under the previous US administration.

    The US Embassy grant was focused on strengthening the capacity of Pacific media to identify and counter disinformation. While funded by the US, the course was to be a completely independent programme overseen by Dark Times Academy and its academic consultants.

    Co-founder Henk was preparing to deliver the education programme to a group of Pacific Island journalists and media professionals, but received a request from the US Embassy in New Zealand to review the course materials to “ensure they are in line with US foreign policy priorities”.

    Henk said she and the other course presenters refused to allow US government officials to review the course material for this purpose.

    She said the US Embassy had also requested a “list of registered participants for the online classes,” which Dark Times Academy also declined to provide as compliance would have violated the New Zealand Privacy Act 2020.

    Henk said the refusal to provide the course materials for review led immediately to further discussions with the US Embassy in New Zealand that ultimately resulted in the termination of the grant “by mutual agreement”.

    However, she said Dark Times Academy would still go ahead with running the course for the Pacific Island journalists who had signed up so far, starting on February 26.

    Continuing the programme
    “The Dark Times Academy team fully intends to continue to bring the ‘A Bit Sus’ programme and other classes to the Pacific region and New Zealand, even without the support of the US government,” Henk said.

    “As noted when we first announced this course, the Pacific Islands have experienced accelerated growth in digital connectivity over the past few years thanks to new submarine cable networks and satellite technology.

    “Alongside this, the region has also seen a surge in harmful rumours and disinformation that is increasingly disrupting the ability to share accurate and truthful information across Pacific communities.

    “This course will help participants from the media recognise common tactics used by disinformation agents and support them to deploy proven educational and communications techniques.

    “By taking a skills-based approach to countering disinformation, our programme can help to spread the techniques needed to mitigate the risks posed by digital technologies,” Henk said.

    Especially valuable for journalists
    Dark Times Academy co-founder Byron Clark said the course would be especially valuable for journalists in the Pacific region given the recent shifts in global politics and the current state of the planet.

    Dark Times Academy co-founder and author Byron C Clark
    Dark Times Academy co-founder and author Byron Clark . . . “We saw the devastating impacts of disinformation in the Pacific region during the measles outbreak in Samoa.” Image: APR

    “We saw the devastating impacts of disinformation in the Pacific region during the measles outbreak in Samoa, for example,” said Clark, author of the best-selling book Fear: New Zealand’s Underworld of Hostile Extremists.

    “With Pacific Island states bearing the brunt of climate change, as well as being caught between a geopolitical stoush between China and the West, a course like this one is timely.”

    Henk said the “A Bit Sus” programme used a “high-touch teaching model” that combined the current best evidence on how to counter disinformation with a “learner-focused pedagogy that combines discussion, activities, and a project”.

    Past classes led to the creation of the New Zealand version of the “Euphorigen Investigation” escape room, a board game, and a card game.

    These materials remain in use across New Zealand schools and community learning centres.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • By Anish Chand in Suva

    Palestine has strongly condemned Fiji’s decision to open a Fiji embassy in Jerusalem, calling it a violation of international law and relevant United Nations resolutions.

    The Palestinian Foreign Ministry and the Hamas resistance group that governs the besieged enclave of Gaza issued separate statements, urging the Fiji government to reverse its decision.

    According to the Palestinian Foreign Ministry, the Fijian decision is “an act of aggression against the Palestinian people and their inalienable rights”.

    The Palestinian group Hamas said in a statement that the decision was “a blatant assault on the rights of our Palestinian people to their land and a clear violation of international law and UN resolutions, which recognise Jerusalem as occupied Palestinian territory”.

    Fiji will become the seventh country to have an embassy in Jerusalem after the US, Guatemala, Honduras, Kosovo, Papua New Guinea, and Paraguay.

    Republished from The Fiji Times with permission.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • By Caleb Fotheringham, RNZ Pacific journalist, in Avarua, Rarotonga

    More than 400 people have taken to the streets to protest against Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown’s recent decisions, which have led to a diplomatic spat with New Zealand.

    The protest, led by Opposition MP and Cook Islands United Party leader Teariki Heather, has taken place outside the Cook Islands Parliament in Avarua — a day after Brown returned from China.

    Protesters have come out with placards, stating: “Stay connected with New Zealand.”


    The protest in Avarua today.    Video: RNZ

    Some government ministers have been standing outside Parliament, including Foreign Minister Tingika Elikana.

    Heather said he was present at the rally to how how much Cook Islanders cared about the relationship with New Zealand and valued the New Zealand passport.

    He has apologised to the New Zealand government on behalf of the Cook Islands government.

    Leader of the opposition and Democratic Party leader Tina Browne said she wanted the local passport to be off the table “forever and ever”.

    “We have no problem with our government going and seeking assistance,” she said.

    “We do have a problem when it is risking our sovereignty, risking our relationship with New Zealand.”

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

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Asia Pacific Report

    Two Palestinian resistance groups have condemned “the brutal assault” on prisoners at Ofer Prison, saying it was “barbaric criminal behaviour that reflects the fascist and terrorist nature of” Israel.

    In the joint statement, Hamas and Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ) called the attack a “miserable attempt” by Israel “to restore its shattered prestige”, reports Al Jazeera.

    They called on the world to expose “these inhuman crimes against the prisoners”, which “blatantly violate all international conventions and norms”.

    The statement called on the international community to intervene to protect the “prisoners, stop criminal violations against them, document them and work to hold the criminal occupation leaders accountable”.

    The statement came after Palestinian authorities said Israeli forces had raided a section of Ofer Prison, west of Ramallah in the occupied West Bank, and assaulted detainees.

    “Prisoners were beaten and sprayed with gas,” the Palestinian Prisoners Media Office said.

    Persistent serious allegations of torture and abuse of Palestinian prisoners — many who have not been charged or are held on administrative detention — and beatings right up until the release of detainees under the ceasefire have been made over all six exchange events so far.

    Medical director severely tortured
    Last week, lawyers representing Kamal Adwan Hospital’s medical director Dr Hussam Abu Safiya met him for the first time since he was detained by Israeli forces in north Gaza last December 27.

    He told them he was severely tortured with electric shocks and was being denied needed medication.


    Lawyer spells out torture allegations over Israeli detention of doctor.  Video: Al Jazeera

    Samir Al-Mana’ama, a lawyer with the Al Mazan Center for Human Rights, described his brutal torture in a failed attempt to “extract a confession” from him in an interview with Al Jazeera.

    Al-Mana’ama said Dr Abu Safiya suffered from “an enlarged heart muscle and from high blood pressure” and was beaten up and refused treatment for the heart condition.

    Transferred to Ofter Prison on January 9, he was held in solitary confinement for 25 days and interrogated nonstop by the Israeli army, Israeli intelligence and police, the lawyer added.

    There was “no legal justification” for Abu Safia’s arrest and no evidence against him, the lawyer said.

    Since the interview, Israeli authorities said he was being held under an “unlawful combatant” law — despite his status as a civilian doctor — stripping him of any rights as a detainee.

    Al Jazeera’s Nour Odeh, reporting from Amman in Jordan, said the doctor was one of hundreds of medical workers taken from Gaza by Israeli forces to the notorious Sde Teiman detention camp and other Israeli military prisons.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • By Caleb Fotheringham, RNZ Pacific journalist in Avarua, Rarotonga

    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.”

    1News Pacific correspondent Barbara Dreaver was at the airport but was not allowed into the room where the press conference was held.

    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's preparing to take on the protest.
    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.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Asia Pacific Report

    Two independent Jewish Voices groups in Aotearoa New Zealand have written an open letter to the government condemning the Zionist “colonisation” project leading to genocide and criticising the role of the NZ Jewish Council for its “unelected” and “uncritical support” for Israel.

    The groups, Alternative Jewish Voices and Dayenu: New Zealand Jews Against Occupation, have also criticised a scheduled meeting this week between Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and other ministers and the NZJC.

    “The NZJC is an extremist voice. Their politics are harmful, and their actions jeopardise the good standing of Jews in Aotearoa,” the open letter said.

    ALTERNATIVE JEWISH VOICES AND DAYENU

    “We protest in the strongest terms that Israel’s advocates are being given Prime Ministerial access.”

    The alternative voices also appealed to be consulted along with representatives of the Muslim and Palestinian communities “who have lost the most to racism in recent years”.

    “Hear us out before you act,” the open letter said.

    The full letter (dated 16 February 2025):

    We are Jewish New Zealanders, members of Alternative Jewish Voices and Dayenu: New Zealand Jews Against Occupation. We understand that your office has scheduled a meeting this week with the NZ Jewish Council (NZJC) and additional ministers. We object in the strongest terms. The NZJC is unelected coterie, forever uncritically aligned with Israel. That is not the Jewish community.

    We have documented in depth that the NZJC is not representative. They are not elected. Their constitution outlines a regional structure for indirect democracy, but much of that structure does not seem to exist.

    They are not accountable to the community. Their president has broadcast her intention to “disempower as much as possible” Jews like Alternative Jewish Voices (AJV) members who “raise their voices”.

    Several of us attended the Wellington Regional Jewish Council’s last community meeting, in 2021. The meeting roundly disavowed the Jewish Council’s tone and their relentless focus on Israel.

    Indeed, the NZJC’s constitution does not even mention Israel or Zionism. The Wellington Regional Jewish Council dissolved itself after that meeting, acknowledging that they have no community mandate. They haven’t been heard from since. So much for regional representation.

    Through public and private channels, members of the Jewish community have repeatedly asked the NZJC to embrace some positive, rights-based vision of the future.

    Instead, through Israel’s 15-month “plausible genocide” in Gaza, the NZJC’s militarism has only become more overt. Juliet Moses was to share a platform with IDF’s head of infantry doctrine Yaron Simsolo at an Auckland event in March, until Jewish objections drove Simsolo’s session offsite.

    This is not solely an issue for the Jewish community. For years, we have protested that the Jewish Council’s related Community Security Group shares politically slanted information about New Zealanders with Israel’s embassy.

    They interpret objections to Israel’s occupation as a security threat to the New Zealand Jewish community, and they share their views of individual Palestinian, Muslim and other New Zealanders with a regime accused of genocide against Palestinians. This creates particular risk for Palestinian New Zealanders, should they ever travel to Israel or the Occupied Palestinian Territories to visit family and whānau.

    Let us say this clearly: there is nothing essentially Jewish about Zionism. Zionism is a project of colonisation, erasure, apartheid, ethnic cleansing — finally, of genocide. Institutions that wrap their nationalism in our Jewishness are shielding the brutality that we witness daily.

    In this country, the NZJC has been a leading voice in the campaign to confuse Jewish with Zionist, enabling decades of oppression in our names.

    The NZJC does not serve, represent or account to the Jewish community. How many Jewish New Zealanders would choose a representative who, like NZJC president Juliet Moses, retweets defences of Elon Musk’s Nazi salute?

    A Juliet Moses retweeting of the defence of a "Nazi salute" by US billionaire Elon Musk
    A Juliet Moses retweeting of the defence of a “Nazi salute” by US billionaire Elon Musk who is unelected head of the controversial US Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Image: Screenshot Alternative Voices

    The NZJC is an extremist voice. Their politics are harmful, and their actions jeopardise the good standing of Jews in Aotearoa. We protest in the strongest terms that Israel’s advocates are being given Prime Ministerial access.

    It’s not hard to guess what the NZJC will be asking for: some special “antisemitism regime” that uses our Jewish identity to shield Israel from the directives of the International Court of Justice (ICJ). They will be asking to divorce the Jewish community from our shared mahi of antiracism and our human rights framework. They will be seeking some exceptional status, suppressing principled protest for Palestinian rights and the criminal accountability of Israeli leaders.

    That conversation should not take place without representation from the Muslim and Palestinian communities. They are the New Zealanders whose voices are being silenced, and frankly they are the communities who have lost the most to racism in recent years.

    Prime Minister, any meeting with the NZJC ought to be recorded in the ministerial diaries as a session with Israel’s ambassadors. And damn it, they will be doing it in our name. We are also the New Zealand Jewish community, and we are so tired of being used this way.

    We would like to join your meeting with the NZJC, bringing Jewish diversity into the room. If you will not open this meeting to the real breadth of the Jewish community, then we wish to schedule a second meeting which includes Muslim and Palestinian representation.

    We work closely with the Muslim and Palestinian communities in Aotearoa, modelling the change that we would like to see in the Middle East.

    Hear us out before you act.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • COMMENTARY: By Paul G Buchanan

    Here is a scenario, but first a broad brush-painted historical parallel.

    Hitler and the Nazis could well have accomplished everything that they wanted to do within German borders, including exterminating Jews, so long as they confined their ambitious to Germany itself. After all, the world pretty much sat and watched as the Nazi pogroms unfolded in the late 1930s.

    But Hitler never intended to confine himself to Germany and decided to attack his neighbours simultaneously, on multiple fronts East, West, North and South.

    This came against the advice of his generals, who believed that his imperialistic war-mongering should happen sequentially and that Germany should not fight the USSR until it had conquered Europe first, replenished with pillaged resources, and then reorganised its forces for the move East. They also advised that Germany should also avoid tangling with the US, which had pro-Nazi sympathisers in high places (like Charles Lindbergh) and was leaning towards neutrality in spite of FDR’s support for the UK.

    Hitler ignored the advice and attacked in every direction, got bogged down in the Soviet winter, drew in the US in by attacking US shipping ferrying supplies to the UK, and wound up stretching his forces in North Africa, the entire Eastern front into Ukraine and the North Mediterranean states, the Scandinavian Peninsula and the UK itself.

    In other words, he bit off too much in one chew and wound up paying the price for his over-reach.

    Hitler did what he did because he could, thanks in part to the 1933 Enabling Law that superseded all other German laws and allowed him carte blanche to pursue his delusions. That proved to be his undoing because his ambition was not matched by his strategic acumen and resources when confronted by an armed alliance of adversaries.

    A version of this in US?
    A version of this may be what is unfolding in the US. Using the cover of broad Executive Powers, Musk, Trump and their minions are throwing everything at the kitchen wall in order to see what sticks.

    They are breaking domestic and international norms and conventions pursuant to the neo-reactionary “disruptor” and “chaos” theories propelling the US techno-authoritarian Right. They want to dismantle the US federal State, including the systems of checks and balances embodied in the three branches of government, subordinating all policy to the dictates of an uber-powerful Executive Branch.

    In this view the Legislature and Judiciary serve as rubber stamp legitimating devices for Executive rule. Many of those in the Musk-lead DOGE teams are subscribers to this ideology.

    At the same time the new oligarchs want to re-make the International order as well as interfere in the domestic politics of other liberal democracies. Musk openly campaigns for the German far-Right AfD in this year’s elections, he and Trump both celebrate neo-fascists like Viktor Urban in Hungry and Javier Milei in Argentina.

    Trump utters delusional desires to “make” Canada the 51st State, forcibly regain control of the Panama Canal, annex Greenland, turn Gaza into a breach resort complex and eliminate international institutions like the World Trade Organisation and even NATO if it does not do what he says.

    He imposes sanctions on the International Criminal Court, slaps sanctions on South Africa for land take-overs and because it took a case of genocide against Israel in the ICC, doubles down on his support for Netanyahu’s ethnic cleansing campaign against Palestinians and is poised to sell-out Ukraine by using the threat of an aid cut-off to force the Ukrainians to cede sovereignty to Russia over all of their territory east of the Donbas River (and Crimea).

    He even unilaterally renames the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America in a teenaged display of symbolic posturing that ignores the fact that renaming the Gulf has no standing in international law and “America” is a term that refers to the North, Central and South land masses of the Western Hemisphere — i.e., it is not exclusive to or propriety of the United States.

    Dismantling the globalised trade system
    Trump wants to dismantle the globalised system of trade by using tariffs as a weapon as well as leverage, “punishing” nations for non-trade as well as trade issues because of their perceived dependence on the US market. This is evident in the tariffs (briefly) imposed on Canada, Mexico and Colombia over issues of immigration and re-patriation of US deportees.

    In other words, Trump 2.0 is about redoing the World Order in his preferred image, doing everything more or less at once. It is as if Trump, Musk and their Project 2025 foot soldiers believe in a reinterpreted version of “shock and awe:” the audacity and speed of the multipronged attack on everything will cause opponents to be paralysed by the move and therefore will be unable to resist it.

    That includes extending cultural wars by taking over the Kennedy Center for the Arts (a global institution) because he does not like the type of “culture” (read: African American) that is presented there and he wants to replace the Center’s repertoire with more “appropriate” (read: Anglo-Saxon) offerings. The assault on the liberal institutional order (at home and abroad), in other words, is holistic and universal in nature.

    Trump’s advisers are even talking about ignoring court orders barring some of their actions, setting up a constitutional crisis scenario that they believe they will win in the current Supreme Court.

    I am sure that Musk/Trump can get away with a fair few of these disruptions, but I am not certain that they can get away with all of them. They may have more success on the domestic rather than the international front given the power dynamics in each arena. In any event they do not seem to have thought much about the ripple effect responses to their moves, specifically the blowback that might ensue.

    This is where the Nazi analogy applies. It could be that Musk and Trump have also bitten more than they can chew. They may have Project 2025 as their road map, but even maps do not always get the weather right, or accurately predict the mood of locals encountered along the way to wherever one proposes to go. That could well be–and it is my hope that it is–the cause of their undoing.

    Overreach, egos, hubris and the unexpected detours around and obstacles presented by foreign and domestic actors just might upset their best laid plans.

    Dotage is on daily public display
    That brings up another possibility. Trump’s remarks in recent weeks are descending into senescence and caducity. His dotage is on daily public display. Only his medications have changed. He is more subdued than during the campaign but no less mad. He leaves the ranting and raving to Musk, who only truly listens to the fairies in his ear.

    But it is possible that there are ghost whisperers in Trump’s ear as well (Stephen Miller, perhaps), who deliberately plant preposterous ideas in his feeble head and egg him on to pursue them. In the measure that he does so and begins to approach the red-line of obvious derangement, then perhaps the stage is being set from within by Musk and other oligarchs for a 25th Amendment move to unseat him in favour of JD Vance, a far more dangerous member of the techbro puppet masters’ cabal.

    Remember that most of Trump’s cabinet are billionaires and millionaires and only Cabinet can invoke the 25th Amendment.

    Vance has incentive to support this play because Trump (foolishly, IMO) has publicly stated that he does not see Vance as his successor and may even run for a third term. That is not want the techbro overlords wanted to hear, so they may have to move against Trump sooner rather than later if they want to impose their oligarchical vision on the US and world.

    An impeachment would be futile given Congress’s make-up and Trump’s two-time wins over his Congressional opponents. A third try is a non-starter and would take too long anyway. Short of death (that has been suggested) the 25th Amendment is the only way to remove him.

    It is at that point that I hope that things will start to unravel for them. It is hard to say what the MAGA-dominated Congress will do if laws are flouted on a wholesale basis and constituents begin to complain about the negative impact of DOGE cost-cutting on federal programmes. But one thing is certain, chaos begets chaos (because chaos is not synonymous with techbro libertarians’ dreams of anarchy) and disruption for disruption’s sake may not result in an improved socio-economic and political order.

    Those are some of the “unknown unknowns” that the neo-con Donald Rumsfeld used to talk about.

    In other words, vamos a ver–we shall see.

    Dr Paul G Buchanan is the director of 36th-Parallel Assessments, a geopolitical and strategic analysis consultancy. This article is republished from Kiwipolitico with the permission of the author.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • By Lydia Lewis, RNZ Pacific presenter/Bulletin 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.
    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.

    Brown has argued that New Zealand does not need to be consulted with to the level they want, something Foreign Minister Winston Peters disagrees with.

    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 talks to China's Ambassador to the Pacific Qian Bo,
    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.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • COMMENTARY: By Saige England

    Mediawatch on RNZ today strongly criticised Stuff and YouTube among other media for using Israeli propaganda’s “Outbrain” service.

    Outbrain is a company founded by the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) military and its technology can be tracked back to a wealthy entrepreneur, which in this case could be a euphemism for a megalomaniac.

    He uses the metaphor of a “dome”, likening it to the dome used in warfare.

    Outbrain, which publishes content on New Zealand media, picks up what’s out there and converts and distorts it to support Israel. It twists, it turns, it deceives the reader.

    Presenter Colin Peacock of RNZ’s Mediawatch programme today advised NZ media to ditch the propaganda service.

    Outbrain uses the media in the following way. The content user such as Stuff pays Outbrain and Outbrain pays the user, like Stuff.

    “Both parties make money when users click on the content,” said Peacock.

    ‘Digital Iron Dome’
    The content on the Stuff website came via “Digital Iron Dome” named after the State of Genociders’ actual defence system. It is run by a tech entrepreneur quoted on Mediawatch:

    “Just like a physical iron dome that scans the open air and watches for any missiles . . . the digital iron dome knows how to scan the internet. We know how to buy media. Pro-Israeli videos and articles and images inside the very same articles going against Israel,” says the developer of the propaganda “dome” machine.

    Peacock said the developer had stated that the digital dome delivered “pro-Jewish”* messages to more than 100 million people worldwide on platforms like Al Jazeera, CNN — and last weekend on Stuff NZ — and said this information went undetected as pro-Israel material, ensuring it reached, according to the entrepreneur: “The right audience without interference.”

    According to Wikipedia, Outbrain was founded by Yaron Galai and Ori Lahav, officers in the Israeli Navy. Galai sold his company Quigo to AOL in 2007 for $363 million. Lahav worked at an online shopping company acquired by eBay in 2005.

    The company is headquartered in New York with global offices in London, San Francisco, Chicago, Washington DC, Cologne, Gurugram, Paris, Ljubljana, Munich, Milan, Madrid, Tokyo, São Paulo, Netanya, Singapore, and Sydney.

    Peacock pointed out that other advocacy organisations had already been buying and posting content, there was nothing new about this with New Zealand news media.

    But — and this is important — the Media Council ruled in 2017 that Outbrain content was the publisher’s responsibility: that the news media in NZ were responsible for promoted links that were offered to their readers.

    “Back then publishers at Stuff and the Herald said they would do more to oversee the content, with Stuff stating it is paid promoted content,” said Peacock, in his role as the media watchdog.

    Still ‘big money business’
    “But this is also still a big money business and the outfits using these tools are getting much bigger exposure from their arrangements with news publishers such as Stuff,” he said.

    He pointed out that the recently appointed Outbrain boss for Australia New Zealand and Singapore, Chris Oxley, had described Outbrain as “a leader in digital media connecting advertisers with premium audiences in contextually relevant environments”.

    The watchdog Mediawatch said that news organisations should drop Outbrain.

    “Media environments where news and neutrality are important aren’t really relevant environments for political propaganda that’s propagated by online opportunists who know how to make money out of it and also to raise funds while they are at it, ” said Peacock.

    “These services like Outbrain are sometimes called ‘recommendation engines’ but our recommendation to news media is don’t use them for the sake of the trust of the people you say you want to earn and keep: the readers,” said Peacock.

    Saige England is a journalist and author, and member of the Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA).

    * Being “pro-Jewish” should not be equated with being pro-genocide nor should antisemitism be levelled at Jews who are against this genocide. The propaganda from Outbrain does a disservice to Palestinians and also to those Jewish people who support all human rights — the right of Palestinians to life and the right to live on their land.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • By Caleb Fotheringham, RNZ Pacific journalist

    Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown says the deal with China “complements, not replaces” the relationship with New Zealand after signing it yesterday.

    Brown said “The Action Plan for Comprehensive Strategic Partnership (CSP) 2025-2030” provides a structured framework for engagement between the Cook Islands and China.

    “Our relationship and engagement with China complements, not replaces, our long-standing relationships with New Zealand and our various other bilateral, regional and multilateral partners — in the same way that China, New Zealand and all other states cultivate relations with a wide range of partners,” Brown said in a statement.

    The statement said the agreement would be made available “in the coming days” on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Immigration online platforms.

    Brown said his government continued to make strategic decisions in the best long-term interests of the country.

    He said China had been “steadfast in its support” for the past 28 years.

    “It has been respectful of Cook Islands sovereignty and supportive of our sustained and concerted efforts to secure economic resilience for our people amidst our various vulnerabilities and the many global challenges of our time including climate change and access to development finance.”

    Priority areas
    The statement said priority areas of the agreement include trade and investment, tourism, ocean science, aquaculture, agriculture, infrastructure including transport, climate resilience, disaster preparedness, creative industries, technology and innovation, education and scholarships, and people-to-people exchanges.

    At the signing was China’s Premier Li Qiang and the minister of Natural Resources Guan Zhi’ou.

    On the Cook Islands side, was Prime Minister Mark Brown and Associate Minister of Foreign Affairs and Immigration Tukaka Ama.

    Meanwhile, a spokesperson for New Zealand Minister for Foreign Affairs Winston Peters released a statement earlier on Saturday, saying New Zealand would consider the agreements closely, in light of New Zealand and the Cook Islands’ mutual constitutional responsibilities.

    “We know that the content of these agreements will be of keen interest to the people of the Cook Islands,” the statement said.

    “We note that Prime Minister Mark Brown has publicly committed to publishing the text of the agreements that he agrees in China.

    “We are unable to respond until Prime Minister Brown releases them upon his return to the Cook Islands.”

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

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.