Te Kuaka, an independent foreign policy advocacy group with a strong focus on the Pacific, has called for urgent changes to the law governing New Zealand’s security agency.
“Pacific countries will be asking legitimate questions about whether . . . spying in the Pacific was happening out of NZ,” it said today.
This follows revelations that a secret foreign spy operation run out of NZ’s Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) for seven years without the knowledge or approval of the government or Parliament.
RNZ News reports today that the former minister responsible for the GCSB, Andrew Little, has admitted that it may never be known whether the foreign spy operation was supporting military action against another country.
New Zealand’s intelligence watchdog the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security revealed its existence on Thursday, noting that the system operated from 2013-2020 and had the potential to be used to support military action against targets.
The operation was used to intercept military communications and identify targets in the GCSB’s area of operation, which centres on the Pacific.
In 2012, the GCSB signed up to the agreement without telling the then director-general and let the system operate without safeguards including adequate training, record-keeping or auditing.
When Little found out about it he supported it being referred to the Inspector-General for investigation.
How the New Zealand Herald, NZ’s largest newspaper, reported the news of the secret spy agency today . . . “buried” on page A7. Image: NZH screenshot APR
Refused to name country
But he refused to say if he believed the covert operation was run by the United States although it was likely to be one of New Zealand’s Five Eyes partners, reports RNZ.
“This should be of major concern to all New Zealanders because we are not in control here”, said Te Kuaka member and constitutional lawyer Fuimaono Dylan Asafo.
“The inquiry reveals that our policies and laws are not fit for purpose, and that they do not cover the operation of foreign agencies within New Zealand.”
It appeared from the inquiry that even GCSB itself had lost track of the system and did not know its full purpose, Te Kuaka said.
It was “rediscovered” following concerns about another partner system hosted by GCSB.
While there have been suggestions the system was established under previously lax legislation, its operation continued through several agency and legislative reviews.
Ultimately, the inquiry found “that the Bureau could not be sure [its operation] was always in accordance with government intelligence requirements, New Zealand law and the provisions of the [Memorandum of Understanding establishing it]”.
‘Unknowingly complicit’
“We do not know what military activities were undertaken using New Zealand’s equipment and base, and this could make us unknowingly complicit in serious breaches of international law”, Fuimaono said.
“The law needs changing to explicitly prohibit what has occurred here.”
AUKUS is a trilateral security pact between Australia, the UK and the US that aims to contain China.
Pillar Two’s objective is to win the next generation arms race being shaped by new autonomous weapons platforms, electronic warfare systems, and hypersonic missiles.
It also involves intelligence sharing with AI-driven targeting systems and nuclear-capable assets.
‘Pacific questions’
“Pacific countries will be asking legitimate questions about whether this revelation indicates that spying in the Pacific was happening out of NZ, without any knowledge of ministers”, said Te Kuaka co-director Marco de Jong.
“New Zealand’s involvement in AUKUS Pillar II could further threaten the trust that we have built with Pacific countries, and others may ask whether involvement in that pact — with closer ties to the US — will increase the risk that our intelligence agencies will become entangled in other countries’ operations, and other people’s wars, without proper oversight.”
Te Kuaka has previously spoken out about concerns over AUKUS Pillar II.
“We understand that there is some sensitivity in this matter, but the security and intelligence agencies should front up to ministers here in a public setting to explain how this was allowed to happen,” De Jong said.
He added that the agencies needed to assure the public that serious military or other operations were not conducted from NZ soil without democratic oversight.”
This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.
The Elders chair Mary Robinson has highlighted the unique leverage that the United States has with Israel and called on the Biden administration to stop giving it military assistance for its assault on the Gaza Strip.
Robinson, the former president of Ireland, conducted an on-camera interview with Irish public broadcaster Raidió Teilifís Éireann just before her country’s Prime Minister, Taoiseach Leo Varadkar, was due to meet US President Joe Biden on Friday at the White House.
“Yes the humanitarian situation is utterly catastrophic and dire, reducing a people to famine, undermining all our values, but the message I want to deliver on behalf of the Elders is a direct message to our Taoiseach Leo Varadkar,” Robinson said.
“We need a ceasefire and we need the opening up of Gaza with every avenue . . . for aid to get in.”
In his meeting with Biden, Varadkar “should not spend too much time on the dire humanitarian situation, and the ships, and the rest of it,” she said.
“He has the opportunity to deliver a political message in a very direct way. The United States can influence Israel by not continuing to provide arms. It has provided a lot of the arms . . . that have been used on the Palestinian people.”
Elders’ Chair Mary Robinson says President Biden should not continue to provide arms to Israel.
“The United States can influence Israel by not continuing to provide arms… The Government of Prime Minister Netanyahu is on the wrong side of history, completely. It’s making the… pic.twitter.com/fN3ptMjktz
More than 31,490 killed
Since Israel declared war in response to the Hamas-led attack on October 7, Israeli forces have killed at least 31,490 people in Gaza — including people seeking food aid — and wounded another 73,439. The assault has also devastated civilian infrastructure, including homes, hospitals, schools, and mosques, and displaced the vast majority of the enclave’s 2.3 million residents.
Israel is also restricting desperately needed humanitarian aid into the Hamas-governed territory, and Palestinians have begun starving to death — which people around the world point to as further proof that the Israeli government is defying an International Court of Justice (ICJ) order to prevent genocidal acts as the South Africa-led case moves forward at The Hague.
The United States gives Israel $3.8 billion in annual military aid, and since October 7, Biden — who faces a genocide complicity case in federal court — has fought for another $14.3 billion while his administration has repeatedly bypassed Congress to arm Israeli forces.
Critics, including some lawmakers, argue that continuing to send weapons to Israel violates US law.
The far-right government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “is on the wrong side of history, completely — is making the United States complicit in reducing a people to famine, making the world complicit,” Robinson told RTÉ. “We’re all watching. It is absolutely horrific what is happening.”
“So Leo Varadkar has access today to President Biden,” she said. “He must use this completely politically at all levels with the speaker of the House, with everyone, to make it clear that Israel depends on the United States for military aid and for money. That’s what will change everything.”
“We need a ceasefire and we need the opening up of Gaza with every avenue . . . for aid to get in, because the situation’s so bad, and we need the political way forward, which is the two-state solution,” she added.
‘Only US can put pressure’
“So we need an Israeli government agreeing to that, and only the United States can put the pressure [on Israel].”
Robinson, who spent five years as the United Nations high commissioner for human rights after her presidency ended in 1997, has been part of the Elders since Nelson Mandela, the late anti-apartheid South African president, announced the group in 2007.
She has made multiple statements during the five-month Israeli assault on Gaza, including calling on Israel to comply with the ICJ’s January ruling and warning Biden the previous month that his “support for Israel’s indiscriminate bombing of Gaza is losing him respect all over the world.”
“The US is increasingly isolated, with allies like Australia, Canada, India, Japan, and Poland switching their votes in the UN General Assembly to support an immediate humanitarian cease-fire,” she said in December.
“The destruction of Gaza is making Israel less safe. President Biden’s continuing support for Israel’s actions is also making the world less safe, the Security Council less effective, and US leadership less respected. It is time to stop the killing.”
Speaking to press at the Oval Office alongside Biden on Friday, Varadkar said that he was “keen to talk about the situation in Gaza,” and noted his view “that we need to have a ceasefire as soon as possible to get food and medicine in” to the besieged territory.
“On Sunday, the taoiseach will also gift Mr Biden a bowl of shamrock as part of an annual tradition to mark St Patrick’s Day,” RTÉ reported. “Mr Varadkar started the trip on Monday, and since then has spoken several times . . . about how he will use the special platform of the St Patrick’s Day visit to press Mr Biden to back a ceasefire in the Gaza, while also thanking the US for leadership in support for Ukraine.”
Jessica Corbett is a senior editor and writer for Common Dreams, an independent progressive nonprofit news service. Republished under a Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0) licence.
The United States’ airdrops of aid into Gaza are a textbook case of cognitive dissonance on the part of the US administration — dropping food while continuing to send Israel bombs with which to pulverise Gaza, reports Al Jazeera’s The Listening Post.
And, says the media watch programme presenter Richard Gizbert, the gulf between what is happening on the ground and the mainstream media’s reportage continues to widen.
Gizbert criticises the airdrops, what he calls the “optics of urgency, the illusions of aid”.
“An absurd spectacle as the US drops aid into Gaza while also arming Israel,” he says.
Gizbert critically examines the Israeli disinformation strategy over atrocities such as the gunning down of at least 116 starving Gazans in the so-called “flour massacre” of 29 February 2024 — first denial, then blame the Palestinians, and finally accept only limited responsibility.
“The US air drops into the Gaza Strip are pure theatre. The US has been supplying thousands of tonnes into the Gaza Strip — but those have been high explosives,” says Mouin Rabbani, co-editor of Jadaliyya.
“And then to claim that somehow it is ameliorated by 38,000 meals ready to eat is quite obscene to put it politely.
“People have compared these scenes to The Hunger Games and for good reason.”
‘Who is the superpower?’
Australian author Antony Loewenstein, author of The Palestine Laboratory, says: “When I saw the US drop food, my first response was really anger; it was horror that this is apparently the best the US can do.
Absurd Aid Air Drops in Gaza. Al Jazeera’s The Listening Post, 9 March 2024
“Who is the superpower here? Is it the US or Israel? There is no place that is safe. There is no place where you can find reliable food, where people can get shelter.
“Gazans are exhausted, angry and scared, and do not buy this argument that the US is suddenly caring about them by airdropping a handful of food.”
“People have compared these scenes to The Hunger Games and for good reason.
Contributors: Laura Albast — Fellow, Institute for Palestine Studies Mohamad Bazzi — Director of NYU’s Kevorkian Center for Near Eastern Studies Antony Loewenstein — Author, The Palestine Laboratory Mouin Rabbani — Co-editor, Jadaliyya
On Our Radar:
Since Israel launched its assault on Gaza, the war has been a delicate subject for Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi. The war has led to censorship of news coverage and suppression of public protest. Meenakshi Ravi reports.
Israel’s cultural annihilation in Gaza The Listening Post has covered Israel’s war on Gaza through the prism of the media, including the unprecedented killing of Palestinian journalists. But there is another level to what is unfolding in Gaza: the genocidal assault on Palestinian history, existence and culture.
Featuring: Jehad Abusalim – Executive director, The Jerusalem Fund
Papua New Guinea and Indonesia have formally ratified a defence agreement a decade after its initial signing.
PNG’s Foreign Minister Justin Tkatchenko and the Indonesian ambassador to the Pacific nation, Andriana Supandy, convened a press briefing in Port Moresby on February 29 to declare the ratification.
The agreement enables an enhancement of military operations between the two countries, with a specific focus on strengthening patrols along the border between Papua New Guinea and Indonesia.
According to Tkatchenko as reported by RNZ Pacific citing Benar News, “The Joint border patrols and different types of defence cooperation between Indonesia and Papua New Guinea of course will be part of the ever-growing security mechanism.”
“It would be wonderful to witness the collaboration between Indonesia and Papua New Guinea, both now and in the future, as they work together side by side. Indonesia is a rising Southeast Asian power that reaches into the South Pacific region and dwarfs Papua New Guinea in population, economic size and military might,” added the minister.
In recent years, Indonesia has been asserting its own regional hegemony in the Pacific amid the rivalries of two superpowers — the United States and China.
Indonesia’s Minister for Foreign Affairs Retno Marsudi reiterated Indonesia’s commitment to bolster collaboration with Pacific nations amid heightened geopolitical tensions in the Indo-Pacific region during the recent 2024 annual press statement held by the minister for foreign affairs at the Asian-African Conference in Bandung.
Diverse Indigenous states
The Pacific Islands are home to diverse sovereign Indigenous states and islands, and also home to two influential regional powers, Australia and New Zealand. This vast diverse region is increasingly becoming a pivotal strategic and political battleground for foreign powers — aiming to win the hearts and minds of the populations and governments in the region.
Numerous visible and hidden agreements, treaties, talks, and partnerships are being established among local, regional, and global stakeholders in the affairs of this vast region.
The Pacific region carries great importance for powerful military and economic entities such as China, the United States and its coalition, and Indonesia. For them, it serves as a crucial area for strategic bases, resource acquisition, food, and commercial routes.
For Indigenous islanders, states, and tribal communities, the primary concern is around the loss of their territories, islands, and other vital cultural aspects, such as languages and traditional wisdom.
The crumbling of Oceania, reminiscent of its past colonisation by various European powers, is now occurring. However, this time it is being orchestrated by foreign entities appointing their own influential local pawns.
With these local pawns in place, foreign monarchs, nobility, warlords, and miscreants are advancing to reshape the region’s fate.
The rejection by the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) to acknowledge the representation of West Papua by the United Liberation for West Papua (ULMWP) as a full member of the regional body in August 2023 highlights the diminishing influence of MSG leaders in decision-making processes concerning issues that are deemed crucial by the Papuan community as part of the “Melanesian family affairs”.
Suspicion over ‘external forces’
This raises suspicion of external forces at play within the Melanesian nations, manipulating their destinies. The question arises, who is orchestrating the fate of the Melanesian nations?
Is it Jakarta, Beijing, Washington, or Canberra?
In a world characterised by instability, safety and security emerges as a crucial prerequisite for fostering a peaceful coexistence, nurturing friendships, and enabling development.
The critical question at hand pertains to the nature of the threats that warrant such protective measures, the identities of both the endangered and the aggressors, and the underlying rationale and mechanisms involved. Whose safety hangs in the balance in this discourse?
And between whom does the spectre of threat loom?
If you are a realist in a world of policymaking, it is perhaps wise not to antagonise the big guy with the big weapon in the room. The Minister of Papua New Guinea may be attempting to underscore the importance of Indonesia in the Pacific region, as indicated by his statements.
If you are West Papuan, it makes little difference whether one leans towards realism or idealism. What truly matters is the survival of West Papuans, in the midst of the significant settler colonial presence of Asian Indonesians in their ancestral homeland.
West Papuan refugee camp
Two years ago, PNG’s minister stated the profound existential sentiments experienced by the West Papuans in 2022 while visiting a West Papuan refugee community in Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea.
During the visit, the minister addressed the West Papuan refugees with the following words:
“The line on the map in middle of the island (New Guinea) is the product of colonial impact. These West Papuans are part of our family, part of our members and part of Papua New Guinea. They are not strangers.
“We are separated only by imaginary lines, which is why I am here. I did not come here to fight, to yell, to scream, to dictate, but to reach a common understanding — to respect the law of Papua New Guinea and the sovereignty of Indonesia.”
These types of ambiguous and opaque messages and rhetoric not only instil fake hope among the West Papuans, but also produce despair among displaced Papuans on their own soil.
The seemingly paradoxical language coupled with the significant recent security agreement with the entity — Indonesia — that has been oppressing the West Papuans under the pretext of sovereignty, signifies one ominous prospect:
Is PNG endorsing a “death decree” for the Indonesian security apparatus to hunt Papuans along the border and mountainous region of West Papua and Papua New Guinea?
Security for West Papua Currently, the situation in West Papua is deteriorating steadily. Thousands of Indonesian military personnel have been deployed to various regions in West Papua, especially in the areas afflicted by conflict, such as Nduga, Yahukimo, Maybrat, Intan Jaya, Puncak, Puncak Jaya, Star Mountain, and along the border separating Papua New Guinea from West Papua.
On the 27 February 2024, Indonesian military personnel captured two teenage students and fatally shot a Papuan civilian in the Yahukimo district. They alleged that the deceased individual was affiliated with the West Papua National Liberation Army (TPNB), although this assertion has yet to be verified by the TPNPB.
Such incidents are tragically a common occurrence throughout West Papua, as the Indonesian military continue to target and wrongfully accuse innocent West Papuans in conflict-ridden regions of being associated with the TPNPB.
Two West Papuan students who were arrested on the banks of Braza River in Yahukimo . . . under the watch of two Indonesian military with heavy SS2 guns standing behind them. Image: Kompas.com
These deplorable acts transpired just prior to the ratification of a border operation agreement between the governments of the Papua New Guinea and Indonesia.
As the security agreement was being finalised, the Indonesian government announced a new military campaign in the highlands of West Papua. This operation, is named as “Habema” — meaning “must succeed to the maximum” — and was initiated in Jakarta on the 29 February 2024.
Agus Subiyanto, the Indonesian military command and police command stated during the announcement:
“My approach for Papua involves smart power, a blend of soft power, hard power, and military diplomacy. Establishing the Habema operational command is a key step in ensuring maximum success.”
Indonesian military commander General Agus Subiyanto (left) with National Police chief Listyo Sigit Prabowo (centre) and Defence Minister Prabowo Subianto while checking defence equipment at the TNI headquarters in Jakarta last Wednesday. Prabowo (right) is expected to become President after his decisive victory in the elections last week. Image: Antara News.
The looming military operation in West Papua and its border regions, employing advanced smart weapon technology poised a profound danger for Papuans.
A looming humanitarian crisis in West Papua, PNG, broader Melanesia and the Pacific region is inevitable, as unmanned aerial drones discern targets indiscriminately, wreak havoc in homes, and villages of the Papuan communities.
The Indonesian security forces have increasingly employed such sophisticated technology in conflict zones since 2019, including regions like Intan Jaya, Yahukimo, Maybrat, Pegunungan Bintang, and other volatile regions in West Papua.
Consequently, villages have been razed to the ground, compelling inhabitants to flee to the jungle in search of sanctuary — an exodus that continues unabated as they remain displaced from their homes indefinitely.
On 5 April 2018, the Indonesian government announced a military operation known as Damai Cartenz, which remains active in conflict-ridden regions, such as Yahukimo, Pegunungan Bintang, Nduga, and Intan Jaya.
The Habema security initiative will further threaten Papuans residing in the conflict zones, particularly in the vicinity of the border shared by Papua New Guinea and West Papua.
There are already hundreds of people from the Star Mountains who have fled across to Tumolbil, in the Yapsie sub-district of the PNG province of West Sepik, situated on the border. They fled to PNG because of Indonesia’s military operation (RNZ 2021).
According to RNZ News, individuals fleeing military actions conducted by the Indonesian government, including helicopter raids that caused significant harm to approximately 14 villages, have left behind foot tracks.
The speaker explained that Papua New Guineans occasionally cross over to the Indonesian side, typically seeking improved access to basic services.
The PNG government has been placing refugees from West Papua in border camps, the biggest one being at East Awin in the Western Province for many decades, with assistance from the UN High Commissioner for Refugees.
How should PNG, UN respond? The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples 2007, article 36, states that “Indigenous peoples, in particular those divided by international borders, have the right to maintain and develop contacts, relations and cooperation with their own members as well as other peoples across borders”.
Over the past six years, regional and international organisations, such as the Melanesian Spearheads groups (MSG), Pacific islands Forum (PIF), Africa, Caribbean and Pacific states (ACP), the UN’s human rights commissioner as well as dozens of countries and individual parliaments, lawyers, academics, and politicians have been asking the Indonesian government to allow the UN’s human rights commissioner to visit West Papua.
However, to date, no response has been received from the Indonesian government.
What does this security deal mean for West Papuans? This is not just a simple security arrangement between Jakarta and Port Moresby to address border conflicts, but rather an issue of utmost importance for the people of Papua.
It concerns the sovereignty of a nation — West Papua — that has been unjustly seized by Indonesia, while the international community watched in silence, witnessing the unfurling and unparalleled destruction of human lives and the ecological system.
There is one noble thing the foreign minister of PNG and his government can do: ask why Jakarta is not responding to the request for a UN visit made by the international community, rather than endorsing an ‘illegal security pact’ with the illegal Indonesia colonial occupier over his supposed “family members separated only by imaginary lines”.
Ali Mirin is a West Papuan from the Kimyal tribe of the highlands that share a border with the Star Mountain region of Papua New Guinea. He graduated last year with a Master of Arts in International Relations from Flinders University in Adelaide, South Australia.
About 5000 protesters calling for an immediate ceasefire and an end to Israeli’s genocidal war on Gaza took today part in a rally in Auckland’s Te Komititanga Square and a march up Queen Street in the business heart of New Zealand’s largest city.
This was one of a series of protests across more than 25 cities and towns across Aotearoa New Zealand in one of the biggest demonstrations since the war began last October.
Many passionate Palestinian and indigenous Māori speakers and a Filipino activist condemned the Israeli settler colonial project over the destruction caused in the occupation of Palestinian lands and the massive loss of civilian lives in the war.
The most rousing cheers greeted Green Party MP Chlöe Swarbrick who condemned the killing of “more than 30,000 innocent civilian lives” — most of them women and children with International Women’s Day being celebrated yesterday.
“The powers that be want you to think it is complicated . . .,” she said. “it’s not. Here’s why.
“We should all be able to agree that killing children is wrong.
“We should all be able to agree that indiscriminate killing of Palestinian civilians who have been made refugees in their own land is wrong,” she said and was greeted with strong applause.
“Everybody in power who disagrees with that is wrong.”
‘Stop the genocide’
Chants of shame followed that echoing the scores of placards and banners in the crowd declaring such slogans as “Stop the genocide”, “From Gaza to Paekākāriki, this govt doesn’t care about tamariki. Free Palestine”, “Women for a free Palestine”, “Unlearn lies about Palestine”, “Food not bombs for the tamariki of Gaza”, “From the river to the sea . . . aways was, always will be. Ceasefire now.”
Green MP Chlöe Swarbrick (third from left) addressing the crowd . . . “killing children is wrong.” Image: David Robie/APR
Three young girls being wheeled in a pram held a placard saying “Yemen, Yemen, make us proud, turn another ship around”, in reference to a protest against the New Zealand government joining a small US-led group of nations taking reprisals against Yemen.
The Yemeni Houthis are blockading the Red Sea in solidarity with Palestine to prevent ships linked to Israel, UK or the US from getting through the narrow waterway. They say they are taking this action under the Genocide Convention.
Swarbrick vowed that the Green Party — along with Te Māori Pati — the only political party represented at the rally, would pressure the conservative coalition government to press globally for an immediate ceasefire, condemnation of Israeli atrocities, restoration of funding to the Palestine refugee relief agency UNRWA, and expulsion of the Israeli ambassador.
Meanwhile, as protests took place around the country, national chair John Minto of the Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA) declared on social media from Christchurch that “[Prime Minister] Christopher Luxon and [Foreign Minister] Winston Peters can’t find the energy to tweet for an end to Israel’s genocidal starvation of Palestinians in Gaza”.
He added that Israel continued to turn away humanitarian convoys of desperately needed aid from northern Gaza.
“But PM Christopher Luxon has been silent while FM Winston Peters has been indolent.”
Palestine will be free” . . . three friends show their solidarity for occupied Palestine. Image: David Robie/APR
Three more children have died of malnutrition and dehydration at Gaza City’s al-Shifa Hospital, according to health officials, taking the total confirmed toll from starvation to 23.
The US military has denied responsibility for an airdrop of humanitarian aid that Gaza officials say killed five people and injured several others when parachutes failed to open while Israeli forces again opened fire on aid seekers in northern Gaza.
President Joe Biden’s plan of a temporary port for maritime delivery of aid has been widely condemned by UN officials and other critics as an “election year ploy”.
Dr Rami Khouri, of the American University of Beirut, said the plan was “a ruse most of the world can see through”. It could give Israel even tighter control over what gets into the Gaza Strip in the future while completing “the ethnic cleansing of Palestine”.
“All children are precious” . . . a child and her mother declare their priorities at the protest. Image: David Robie/APR
Protesters stop US lecturer Wellington Scoop reports that students and activist groups at Victoria University of Wellington yesterday protested against a lecture by the US Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, Dr Bonnie Jenkins.
Dr Jenkins is a senior official in charge of AUKUS implementation, a military alliance currently between Australia, UK and USA.
About 150 people, mostly students from groups including Justice for Palestine, Student Justice for Palestine-Pōneke (SJP), Stop AUKUS and Peace Action Wellington rallied outside the university venue in Pipitea to protest against further collaborations with the US.
A peaceful protest was undertaken inside the lecture hall at the same time.
An activist began by calling for “a moment of silence for all the Palestinians killed by the US-funded genocide in Gaza”.
He then condemned the weapons that the US was sending to Gaza, before eventually being ejected from the lecture theatre.
Shortly after, another activist stood up and said “Karetao o te Kāwana kakīwhero!” (“Puppets of this redneck government”) and quoted from the women’s Super Rugby Aupiki team Hurricanes Poua’s revamped haka: “Mai te awa ki te moana (From the river to the sea), free free Palestine!”
“You don’t have to be a Muslim to support Palestine – just be human” . . . says this protester on the eve of Ramadan. Image: David Robie/APR
Video on ‘imperialism’
Dr Jenkins was ushered away for the second time. Subsequently a couple of activists took to speaking and playing a video about how AUKUS represented US imperialism.
When organisers later came in to announce that Dr Jenkins would not be continuing with her lecture, chants of “Free, free Palestine!” filled the room.
“For five months, Aotearoa has been calling for our government to do more to stop the genocide in Gaza. And for years, we have been calling our governments to stand against Israel’s occupation of Palestine,” said Samira Zaiton, a Justice for Palestine organiser.
“We are now at the juncture of tightening relations with settler colonies who will only destroy more lives, more homes and more lands and waters. We want no part in this. We want no part in AUKUS.”
Dr Jenkins’ lecture was organised by Victoria University’s Centre for Strategic Studies, to address “security challenges in the 21st century”.
Valerie Morse, an organiser with Peace Action Wellington, said: “Experts on foreign policy and regional diplomacy have done careful research on the disastrous consequences of involving ourselves with AUKUS.
“Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa is not a nuclear testing ground and sacrifice zone for US wars.”
“When silence is betrayal” . . . motorcycle look at today’s rally. Image: David Robie/APRThe Israeli military’s “murder machine” . . . “there’s no good reason for bombing children”. Image: David Robie/APR
This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.
Now in its 18th year, the Secretary of State’s IWOC Award recognizes women from around the globe who have demonstrated exceptional courage, strength, and leadership in advocating for peace, justice, human rights, gender equity and equality, and the empowerment of women and girls, in all their diversity – often at great personal risk and sacrifice. The 2024 awardees and many earlier laureates can be found via the Digest link above.
USAID Administrator Samantha Power had the following to say: It has always taken bravery and stubbornness to stand up for human rights. But today the threats that human rights activists and defenders face – from threats to their families to legal retribution to imprisonment and outright violence at the hands of those who would prefer to see them silenced – those threats are grave, and sadly they are growing. In 2022, more than 400 human rights defenders were murdered, the highest number ever recorded in a single year. I am in awe of the women we are honouring today for their courage.
They refuse to back down because of a shared conviction captured by Fatima Corazon, one of the women we are recognizing today. As she puts it, courage, even in the face of danger and fear is the driving force to achieve positive change. The women we are honoring live this conviction every minute of every day. They have been unjustly imprisoned, they have been driven from their homes or trapped inside their homes, they have seen their families and their colleagues attacked, or they have received death threats and been assaulted themselves.
But they do not relent. They go on fighting, they fight for the rights of political prisoners, they organize movements to bring services to marginalized communities, they publish articles, they host rallies, and they call out injustice wherever they can. Even in the most dangerous places against all odds, they are continuing their work demonstrating incredible, inspiring courage and putting their lives on the line to defend human rights.
Benafsha Yaqoobi has dedicated her life to defending the rights of women and girls in Afghanistan. A former attorney and member of the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission, she has helped women escape violence and visually impaired children attend school. Today, she continues to fight for the future of Afghanistan – one that respects human rights and human dignity.
Born in Isla Luis Vargas Torres, one of the most violent enclaves within Esmeraldas, Ecuador, Fátima Corozo has put her life on the line to draw hundreds of young people away from rising gang violence and help them get the education and job opportunities they need to build the futures they want for themselves.
Martha Beatriz Roque Cabello was the only woman amongst 75 people imprisoned during the black spring, Cuba’s crackdown on dissidents two decades ago, Martha was jailed for her activism. After her release, she continued to fight for the rights of political prisoners documenting fraudulent court hearings and supporting activists and their families. Unfortunately, as the Secretary relayed, the Cuban government is preventing Ms. Roque Cabello from leaving the country. So she is not here to accept the award, but let us give her a heartfelt round of applause.
As a result of Fariba Balouch’s outspoken activism for the rights of women and systematically oppressed ethnic minorities in Iran’s poorest province of Sistan and Baluchestan, Iranian authorities have threatened her life. And after she escaped to London, they detained her son and brother in a further attempt to intimidate her. Yet, Ms. Balouch believes the only way forward is resistance, and she continues to advocate for marginalized communities in Iran refusing to be silenced.
The International Court of Justice (ICC) has held its last day of hearings examining the legality of Israel’s decades-long occupation of Palestinian lands.
Fifty two countries and three international organisations have addressed the court in the hearings that ended on Monday.
Most called for Israel’s occupation to be declared illegal and for it to end, with some calling for reparations to be paid by Israel to the state of Palestine.
Only the representatives of the United States, United Kingdom and Fiji claimed the occupation was legal while non-government organisations and opposition politicians in Fiji condemned their country’s surprise position.
Marwan Bishara, Al Jazeera’s senior political analyst and a Middle East expert, said the final legal arguments had “demolished the shameless defences” of Israel’s illegal occupation.
“Ireland, Algeria and South Africa . . . projected their own experience, their own narrative, their own history, their own struggle with [colonial] occupation, and their own experience with liberation as well,” he said.
“Hence it was both instructive, if you will, not I mean liberating, not depressing.
ICJ hearing: Final Israeli occupation arguments. Video: Al Jazeera
“I want to say it was instructive that they did share with us that but then we had this disingenuous, selective, mind boggling, if not, you know, mind insulting presentations by the United States and the United Kingdom that I think set everyone back.
“You know they were trampling over international law, expropriating international law, confiscating international legality in order to fit their own little geopolitical calculus on behalf of their little client Israel.
“So it was a bit shameful, it was a bit shameless to be honest and that’s why today we’ve heard from the Arab League and the [Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC)], legal opinions that were basically set or apparently revised in order to counter the arguments of the UK and the US and in that way I thought it was brilliant and it was entertaining almost.”
The African Union lawyers argued that “occuopatiion” and “self-determination” could not exist in the same place at the same time.
This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.
Following the High Court of Australia’s landmark ruling against indefinite detention of illegal migrants, reversing its 2004 decision, Shaharyaar Shahardar explores the vital role the judiciary must play in scrutinising immigration laws globally, ensuring adherence to human rights despite populist pressures.
On 9 November 2023, the High Court of Australia delivered a landmark judgement ruling against the indefinite detention of illegal migrants, some of whom have remained in prison for years. The decision overturned an earlier verdict passed in 2004 which justified the indefinite detention as long as the government intended to remove illegal immigrants as soon as reasonably practicable. On one hand, the Australian judiciary attempts to establish a jurisprudence taking into account the misery of migrants. Whereas, some countries have introduced even more stringent laws favouring such indefinite detentions which are violative of their international human rights obligations.
Background of the NZYQ case
The case of NZYQ v. Minister for Immigration and Anr. centred on a stateless Rohingya refugee, identified as “NZYQ” (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), who faced the prospect of life detention. Born in Myanmar, he arrived in Australia by boat as a teenager in 2012. Since 1992, Australia has implemented a policy of mandatory detention for all illegal immigrants arriving by boat. In 2013, the government intensified this policy, requiring the transfer of boat arrivals to offshore detention or turning back the boats to their country of departure. Although the Plaintiff had initially been granted a temporary visa, it was revoked in 2015 following his conviction for a criminal offence, leading to imprisonment. Upon completing his sentence in 2018, he was transferred to immigration detention. The Australian government rejected his visa application, citing he had committed a “serious crime and was a danger to the community.” As an ethnic Rohingya, the Plaintiff was denied citizenship under Myanmar’s 1982 Citizenship Law. Despite Australia’s efforts to secure resettlement in six other countries, all proposals were rejected.
Consequently, NZYQ contested his detention before the Australian High Court. The Australian government in their written submissions opposed overturning the 2004 judgment of Al-Kateb v. Godwin which affirmed the legality of indefinite detention for illegal migrants. While acknowledging the challenge of resettling the Plaintiff, the government argued that the refusal of a third country to accept him did not necessarily preclude future possibilities. However, the court appeared to endorse the plaintiff’s averments which asserted that “there was no real likelihood or prospect of him being removed from Australia in the reasonably foreseeable future.” Following the Court’s order, the plaintiff has been released from detention. Moreover, the Ministry of Immigration has announced that other impacted individuals will be released and any visas granted to those individuals will be subject to appropriate conditions.
The High Court verdict: a step in the right direction?
Indefinite detention has been the fate of hundreds of thousands of illegal migrants across the world. Despite this large number, there has been little discussion on this topic. The Australian government had placed hundreds of non-citizens in immigration detention for years. The decision will now serve as a pathway for their release from prolonged detention. Furthermore, other countries have introduced even more stringent laws favouring such indefinite detentions which violate their human rights obligations.
United Kingdom
In the United Kingdom, for example, the parliament recently enacted a legislation which removes access to asylum in the UK for anyone who arrives undocumented. It creates sweeping new detention powers, with limited judicial oversight. These new powers are not time-limited. However, according to the UK government, it will be in line with their other existing immigration detention powers wherein detention will be limited to a reasonable time. But what would constitute a reasonable time has been left to the whim of the executive which leaves it prone to being misused and abused.
United States
In 2018, the US Supreme Court in Jennings v. Rodriguez,upheld the statutory authority of the Department of Homeland Security to detain illegal immigrants indefinitely during the pendency of removal proceedings. Later in 2022, the court in Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinezheld that immigrants detained in the US are not entitled to bond hearing which meant that thousands of individuals with open immigration cases could be detained indefinitely. The Court however failed to make efforts to delve into the constitutional permissibility of such detention. Critics would argue that such constitutionality was already dealt with in Demore v. Kimback in 2003 but the Court did not decide whether there are any constitutional limits to the duration of this detention. The US Supreme Court has constantly shied away from addressing the durationof such detentions.
India
Similarly, in India, the government has undertaken repressive measures to crack down against illegal immigrants across the country. In 2019, the government started constructing what is touted as Asia’s largest detention centre in Goalpara, located 150 kilometres west of Guwahati in Assam. According to a 2021 press release from the Ministry of Home Affairs, “detention and deportation of illegal migrants after nationality verification is a continuous process.” A critical inquiry raises a serious question concerning individuals who lack any recognised nationality. A notable example is the situation of ethnic Rohingyas, who have been systematically denied citizenship under the Myanmar Citizenship Law. The question then becomes: what is the fate of such stateless individuals?
Conclusion
Under international human rights law, immigration detention should be an exceptional measure of last resort, not a punishment. The laws that empower the government to indefinitely detain individuals, especially concerning countries like the UK, US, and India violate their international human rights obligations which they have undertaken conventions like UDHR, ICCPR, and UNCAT among others. Often, governmental actions tend to align with populist sentiments and electoral considerations. However, it is imperative that the constitutional courts of these countries proactively scrutinise the legality and constitutionality of such legislation and actions. The responsibility squarely rests on the judiciary to exercise robust oversight over the exercise of public authority, in consonance with the fundamental tenets of constitutionalism.
All articles posted on this blog give the views of the author(s), and not the position of LSE Human Rights, the Department of Sociology, nor of the London School of Economics and Political Science.
Papua New Guinea and Australia created another piece of history yesterday when James Marape became the first international leader to address the Australian Federal Parliament since 2020.
In a speech laden with heartfelt gratitude and sentimental recollections of the shared history of both nations, the PNG Prime Minister thanked Australia for all it had done for his country – from giving it independence, to sending missionaries and public servants to help develop the country, to fighting together with Papua New Guineans during World War II, to all the current economic and other assistance.
Marape had said before leaving for Canberra that he would not be asking Australia for any help.
“Historic moment” . . . Today’s front page coverage in the PNG Post-Courier. Image: PC screenshot APR
He repeated that in his address yesterday — even though he really shouldn’t have, for help from Australia has, is, and will be constant going into the future.
But he did appeal to the Australians not to forget Papua New Guinea during its current, ongoing challenges.
“Today, I carry the humble and deep, deep gratitude of my people, the thousand tribes. On behalf of my people, I thank Australia for everything you have done and continue to do for us,” Marape said.
“I appreciate all governments of Australia which have assisted our governments since 1975.
‘Crucial role in develoment’
“Thank you for continuing to support us throughout the life of our nationhood. Your assistance in education, health, infrastructure development in ports, roads and telecommunications continue to a play a crucial role in our development as a country.
“I appreciate, also, all Australian investors, who, to date, comprise the biggest pool of investors in Papua New Guinea.
“We realise our success as a nation will be the ultimate payoff for the work put in by many Australians.
“Thus, I commit my generation of Papua New Guineans to augmenting the sanctity of our democracy and progressing our economy.
“We pledge to work hard to ensure that PNG emerges as an economically self-sustaining nation so that we too help keep our region safe, secure and prosperous for our two people and those in our Indo-Pacific family.”
Marape’s address comes during a period of constant domestic and external challenges.
He is facing a potential vote of no confidence on his leadership this month and his government is also dealing with competition for influence from world powers, including China, USA, India, Indonesia, France and Australia.
Australia’s ‘real friend’
But he assured Australia that Papua New Guinea is its “real friend”.
This is despite revelations last week that his government was in talks with China over a potential security deal, a revelation that has worried Australia and the United States.
“In a world of many relations with other nations, nothing will come in between our two nations because we are family and through tears, blood, pain and sacrifice plus our eternal past our nations are constructed today,” he promised.
“These have all been our challenges. But as I visit with you in Australia today, I ask of you please, do not give up hope on Papua New Guinea.
“We have always bounced back from low moments and we will continue to grow,” Marape said.
About 500 protesters marched through the heart of Auckland’s tourist suburb of Devonport today to the Royal New Zealand Navy base, accusing the government of backing genocide in the Middle East.
Demanding a “ceasefire now” in Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza that has killed almost 27,000 Palestinians — mostly women and children — so far, the protesters called on the New Zealand government to scrap its support for the US-led Red Sea maritime security operation against Yemen’s Houthis.
Speakers contrasted New Zealand’s “proud independent foreign policy” and nuclear-free years under former Labour prime ministers Norman Kirk and David Lange with the “gutless” approach of current Prime Minister Christopher Luxon.
Among many placards condemning the New Zealand government’s stance, one read: “We need a leader not a follower — grow some balls Luxon”. Others declared “It is shameful for NZ troops to aid genocide”, “Hands off Yemen” and “Blood on your hands”.
Led by the foreign affairs activist group Te Kūaka NZA and Palestinian Youth Aotearoa, the march was organised in reaction to Luxon’s announcement last week that New Zealand would deploy six NZ Defence Force officers to the Middle East in support of the US-led attacks on Yemen.
“We are appalled our government is dragging New Zealand into a new war in the Middle East instead of supporting diplomatic efforts to achieve a ceasefire in Gaza,” Te Kūaka spokesperson Dr Arama Rata said.
Police guard at the entrance to Auckland’s Devonport Naval Base today. Image: David Robie/APR
‘Unpopular, dangerous move’
“This is an unpopular, undemocratic, and dangerous move, taken without a parliamentary mandate, or authorisation from the United Nations Security Council, which could further inflame regional tensions.”
Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA) secretary Neil Scott branded the New Zealand stance as preferring “trade over humanity!”
A child carrying a “blood on your hands” placard today protesting over the childrens’ deaths in the Gaza Strip. Image: David Robie/APR
He said that in South Africa’s case before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) the ruling indicated “plausible genocide” by Israel in its war on Gaza and that state was now on trial with an order to comply with six emergency measures and report back to The Hague within one month.
“This is something that has been obvious to all of us for months based on Israel’s actions on the ground in Gaza and Israeli politicians’ stated intent,” Scott said.
“Yet [our] government refuses to call for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire. It refuses to take any action to oppose that genocide.”
Referring to the Houthis (as Ansarallah are known in the West) and their blockade of the Red Sea, Scott said: “Ships and containers heading to Israel — no other ships to be impacted.
“They [Houthis] state that they are carrying out an obligation to oppose genocide under Article 1 of the Genocide Convention. They will end their blockade when Israel ends the genocide.
The lines are drawn . . . the “ceasefire now” and “hands off Yemen” protest at Devonport Naval Base today. Image: David Robie/APR
‘Oppose Israeli genocide’
“This is something every country in the world is meant to do. Oppose Israeli genocide — that includes Aotearoa.
“So what does Prime Minister Luxon, Minister of Foreign Affairs [Winston] Peters and Minister of Defence [Judith] Collins do? They decide to send our sailors to the Red Sea to defend ships — getting our Navy to be complicit in defending Israeli genocide.”
His comments were greeted with loud cries of “Shame”.
Scott declared that the protesters were calling on the government to “acknowledge New Zealand’s obligations” under Article 1 of the Genocide Convention; expel the Israeli ambassador until the genocide ends, and to “immediately rescind the order to send our sailors” to join the US forces “defending Israeli genocide”.
The protesters also called on New Zealand’s Defence Force chief Air Marshal Kevin Short and Navy chief Rear Admiral David Proctor to stand by the legal obligations of the Genocide Convention to oppose Israeli genocide.
Pointing to the HMNZS Philomel base as Navy officers and a police guard looked on, Green Party MP Steve Abel referenced New Zealand’s “proud episode 50 years ago” when the late Prime Minister Norman Kirk dispatched the frigate HMNZS Otago (and later the Canterbury) to Moruroa atoll in 1973 to protest against French nuclear tests.
He also highlighted Prime Minister David Lange’s championing of nuclear-free New Zealand and the nuclear-free Pacific Rarotonga Treaty “a decade later” in the 1980s.
Abel called for a return to the “courageous” independent foreign policies that New Zealanders had fought for in the past.
Today’s Devonport naval base protest followed a series of demonstrations and a social gathering in Cornwall Park over the holiday weekend in the wake of the “first step” success against impunity by South Africa’s legal team at The Hague last Friday. Other solidarity protests have taken place at some 17 locations across New Zealand.
Rallying cries near the entrance to the Devonport Naval Base today. Image: David Robie/APR“Grow some balls Luxon” placard in the protest today at the Devonport Naval Base. Image: David Robie/APRGreen Party MP Steve Abel . . . contrasted the Luxon government’s weak stance over the Middle East with the “proud” days of the Royal NZ Navy in protesting against French nuclear testing.
“In Gaza, we have nearly two million people of the 2.3 million residents completely dependent on UNRWA for their daily shelter, food, and survival.”
Sharp said what was happening now in Gaza was a man-made famine.
“This loss of funding comes at a time where UNRWA is a lifeline for millions of people,” he said.
Sharp said they were urging the countries that had cut funding to reverse those decisions.
He said the allegations of staff from UNRWA being involved in the October 7 attacks came as a shock.
“United Nations employees must remain neutral, independent, and impartial,” he said.
UNRWA is ‘humanitarian’
“UNRWA is a humanitarian agency — we don’t have a police force, we don’t have an intelligence service or a criminal justice capacity, so we have no authority to monitor what our staff do outside their work.
“But, we also don’t work in a vacuum, our staff are drawn from a population which is under ongoing occupation and we are aware of the neutrality risks that this poses,” Sharp said.
New Zealand’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade said it would review its contribution for the UNRWA, which is under fire after 12 of its staff allegedly took part in the Hamas attack on Israel on October 7.
The ministry said in a statement that this country had been providing UNRWA with $1 million a year in funding.
“As we always do prior to releasing funds, we will assess the situation again prior to that payment being made,” the statement said.
At least nine countries, including top donors the US and Germany, had paused funding after allegations by Israel about 12 staff who had since been dismissed.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
“In Gaza, we have nearly two million people of the 2.3 million residents completely dependent on UNRWA for their daily shelter, food, and survival.”
Sharp said what was happening now in Gaza was a man-made famine.
“This loss of funding comes at a time where UNRWA is a lifeline for millions of people,” he said.
Sharp said they were urging the countries that had cut funding to reverse those decisions.
He said the allegations of staff from UNRWA being involved in the October 7 attacks came as a shock.
“United Nations employees must remain neutral, independent, and impartial,” he said.
UNRWA is ‘humanitarian’
“UNRWA is a humanitarian agency — we don’t have a police force, we don’t have an intelligence service or a criminal justice capacity, so we have no authority to monitor what our staff do outside their work.
“But, we also don’t work in a vacuum, our staff are drawn from a population which is under ongoing occupation and we are aware of the neutrality risks that this poses,” Sharp said.
New Zealand’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade said it would review its contribution for the UNRWA, which is under fire after 12 of its staff allegedly took part in the Hamas attack on Israel on October 7.
The ministry said in a statement that this country had been providing UNRWA with $1 million a year in funding.
“As we always do prior to releasing funds, we will assess the situation again prior to that payment being made,” the statement said.
At least nine countries, including top donors the US and Germany, had paused funding after allegations by Israel about 12 staff who had since been dismissed.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
Agnes Callamard, the secretary general of Amnesty International, has called the funding cuts to the UN’s Palestinian humanitarian relief agency a “heartless decision” by some of the world’s richest countries “to punish the most vulnerable population on earth because of the alleged crimes of 12 people”.
In a post on X, formerly Twitter, she added: “Right after the ICJ [International Court of Justice] ruling finding risk of genocide. Sickening.”
While nine Western nations, including the US, rushed to suspend UNRWA’s funding after allegations that members from the agency participated in the October 7 attack, the same countries have failed to formally revise their ties to Israel despite mounting reports of genocidal abuse by Israeli forces.
Sickening heartless decision of the richest countries in the world to punish the most vulnerable population on earth because of the alleged crimes of 12 people. Right after the ICJ ruling finding risk of genocide. Sickening. https://t.co/ARrPqUdyHA
The Director-General of the World Health Organisation, Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, said that “cutting off funding” to UNRWA at what he called a “critical moment” would only “hurt the people of Gaza who desperately need support”.
The Palestinian Ministry of Foreign Affairs highlighted the plight of some 1.9 million displaced Palestinians in Gaza with the main UN agency delivering humanitarian aid losing its major financial backing.
“Scenes of forcibly displaced people are a disgrace to humanity,” it said in a statement.
“Over half a million Palestinians in Khan Younis were instructed by the occupying forces to evacuate their homes, including hospitals and health centres, in a cruel expansion and deepening of forced displacement from southern regions.”
UNRWA employs about 30,000 people and provides humanitarian aid, education, health and social services to 5.9 eligible Palestinian refugees living in Gaza, the occupied West Bank, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria.
The UNRWA donors funding breakdown in 2022. Graphic: Al Jazeera
The UN agency received almost US$1.2 billion in pledged in 2020, with the US being the biggest donor providing $343.9 million. The fifth-largest donor, Norway, provided $34.2 million and is continuing is funding in spite of the action by the US and its allies.
Hani Mahmoud, reporting for Al Jazeera from Rafah, southern Gaza, said the entire city of Khan Younis continued to be pounded by Israeli bombardment.
“Thousands of people have been ordered to evacuate and are going through security checkpoints with facial recognition technology,” he said.
“Women and children are separated from the men. A large number of people have been detained and dehumanised during the process.
Video showed people “trying to flee the horror” on different routes away from the bombing they were targeted by tank and artillery shells and small-arms fire, and also Israeli attack drones that hovered low over the city.
There were reports of many people killed.
“Intense fighting is now taking place in the southeastern part of Khan Younis at the edges of Rafah city,” he said.
The documented heart-wrenching scenes of forced #displacement, under the occupation’s aggression, unfold a tragedy for thousands of Palestinian refugees. This includes women, children, the elderly, individuals with special needs, and the sick, forced to flee from central areas of… pic.twitter.com/SkGqRPSqKz
Meanwhile, a “Return to Gaza Conference” in Jerusalem — attended by Israeli cabinet ministers and members of the parliamentary Knesset — has laid out a plan for the re-establishment of 15 Israeli settlements and the addition of six new ones, on where recently destroyed Palestinian communities stood.
An Israeli humanitarian lawyer, Itay Epshtain, said the fact that Israeli officials would convene a high level meeting to plan what he called an act of aggression — the acquisition of occupied territory and its colonisation — was an early indication of intent to breach the provisional measures ordered by the International Court of Justice last Friday.
That #Israeli officials would convene a high level meeting to plan an act of aggression – the acquisition of occupied territory and its colonization – is an early indication of intent to breach the provisional measures order by the @CIJ_ICJ.
Former New Zealand prime minister Helen Clark has joined a chorus of global development and political figures defending the United Nations “lifeline” for more than two million Palestinians in the besieged Gaza Strip enclave.
Declaring New Zealand should stick to its three-year funding agreement with the UN relief agency for Palestinians (UNRWA), Clark joined the pleas by the agency chief executive Philippe Lazzarini — who condemned the US action to suspend funding as “collective punishment” — and Secretary-General António Guterres.
New Zealand is due to fund the agency $1 million this year.
Protesters at an Auckland solidarity rally for Palestine demanding an immediate unconditional ceasefire also condemned the countries suspending UNRWA funding amid reports of serious flooding of Gaza refugee camps.
Suspension of funding by 9 countries to @UNRWA amounts to further collective punishment of besieged #Gaza population. #UNRWA is largest UN humanitarian & development service provider there. Staff accused of crimes have been dismissed. Do donors want relief operation to collapse? https://t.co/xU5jAfqm7T
Other political leaders to voice concerns as eight countries joined the US in announcing they were suspending their funding for UNRWA include Scotland’s First Minister Humza Yousaf and former leader of the UK Labour Party Jeremy Corbyn.
Two countries — Ireland and Norway — declared they they would continue funding the agency and Lazzarini said: “It is shocking to see a suspension of funds to the agency in reaction to allegations against a small group of staff.”
Cuts one day after ICJ ruling
The cuts to funding were announced by the US a day after the International Court of Justice (ICJ) had ordered Israel to take steps to prevent genocidal acts and to punish those who committed such acts in its war on Gaza, and to immediately facilitate aid to the victims of the war.
Israel had alleged that about a dozen of the agency’s 13,000 employees had been involved in the deadly Hamas raid on southern Israel on October 7.
UNRWA is the primary humanitarian agency in #Gaza, with over 2 million people depending on it for their sheer survival.
93% of displaced families in southern governorates of#Gaza have reported inadequate food consumption.
The eight other countries that have joined the US in suspending funding are Australia, Britain, Canada, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Switzerland and Finland.
“Serious as allegations around a tiny percentage of now former UNRWA staff may be, this isn’t the time to suspend funding to UN’s largest relief and development agency in Gaza,” said Clark, who is also the former head of the UN Development Programme (UNDP), in a post on social media.
Secretary-General Guterres said in a statement that the UN had taken “swift actions” following the “serious allegations” against UNRWA staff members, terminating most of the suspects and activating an investigation.
A watermelon banner at the Auckland rally today . . . a symbol of justice for the Palestinian people. Image: David Robie/APR
“Of the 12 people implicated, nine were immediately identified and terminated by the Commissioner General of UNRWA Philippe Lazzarini, one is confirmed dead, and the identity of the two others is being clarified,” he said.
“Any UN employee involved in acts of terror will be held accountable, including through criminal prosecution.
‘Ready to cooperate’
“The secretariat is ready to cooperate with a competent authority able to prosecute the individuals in line with the secretariat’s normal procedures for such cooperation.
“Meanwhile, 2 million civilians in Gaza depend on critical aid from UNRWA for daily survival, but UNRWA’s current funding will not allow it to meet all requirements to support them in February.”
The day after @ICJ concluded that Israel is plausibly committing Genocide in Gaza, some states decided to defund UNRWA, collectively punishing millions of Palestinians at the most critical time, and most likely violating their obligations under the Genocide Convention. https://t.co/fl32DrDeFs
— Francesca Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur oPt (@FranceskAlbs) January 27, 2024
Francesca Albanese, the UN special rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories, said that states cutting funding to UNRWA could be “violating their obligations under the Genocide Convention”.
“The day after the International Court of Justice (ICJ) concluded that Israel is plausibly committing genocide in Gaza, some states decided to defund UNRWA,” Albanese said in a post on social media.
Albanese also described the decision taken by several UNWRA donors as “collectively punishing millions of Palestinians at the most critical time”.
Noting the irony, lawyer and social media content producer Rosy Pirani said in a post on Instagram: “The US stopped funding UNHRA over an unverified claim that some of its employees may have been involved in 10/7, but continues to fund Israel despite actual evidence [before the ICJ] that it is committing genocide.”
Footage showed people in the crowded facility being treated on blood-smeared floors as frantic loved ones shouted and jostled. Cats scavenged on a mound of medical waste.
Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson at the Auckland rally today . . . she vowed that her party would challenge the government over its Yemen action without parliamentary debate. Image: David Robie/APRThe stunning carved waharoa (entranceway) in Auckland’s Aotea Square today . . . Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson paid tribute to artist, journalist and activist Selwyn Muru (Te Aupōuri), who died last week, as the creator of this archway. Image: David Robie/APRA group of Jews Against Genocide protesters at the Auckland rally today . . . among the growing numbers of Jewish protesters who are declaring “not in our name” about Israel’s war on Gaza. Image: David Robie/APR
The International Court of Justice rejected Israel’s request to dismiss the genocide case brought against it by South Africa yesterday, ruling by a massive majority that the case shall proceed and instructing Israel to refrain from killing and harming Palestinians in the interim.
Imperial media are aggressively emphasising the absence of a ceasefire order in their headlines and many Israel apologists are framing that absence as a victory for their favorite ethnostate.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu . . . “The charge of genocide levelled against Israel is not only false, it’s outrageous.” Image: AJ screenshot APR
But such performative chest-thumping is severely undercut by the way high-level Israeli officials are currently accusing the ICJ of antisemitism and saying Israel should ignore its rulings.
“The international court of justice went above and beyond when it granted South Africa’s antisemitic request to discuss the claim of genocide in Gaza, and now refuses to reject the petition outright,” complained Israeli defense minister Yoav Gallant in response to the ruling.
Israeli officials accuse international court of justice of antisemitic bias https://t.co/QoUltAdHgG
“The decision of the antisemitic court in The Hague proves what was already known: This court does not seek justice, but rather the persecution of Jewish people,” said Israeli national security minister Itamar Ben Gvir.
Ben Gvir also tweeted “Hague Schmague” immediately after the ruling was issued, which will probably go down in history as the most Israeli tweet of all time.
Everyone’s arguing about whether or not the ICJ’s ruling is helpful, and I don’t know enough one way or the other to be sure either way, but from where things stand right now it does seem unlikely to me that managers of the Israeli war machine would be getting this freaked out and whipping out their tired old “antisemitism” song and dance if there wasn’t something of substance to it.
The genocide case against Israel. Video: Al Jazeera
International lawyer Francis Boyle, who won provisional measures against Yugoslavia at the ICJ in 1993, said the following of the ruling:
“This is a massive, overwhelming legal victory for the Republic of South Africa against Israel on behalf of the Palestinians. The UN General Assembly now can suspend Israel from participation in its activities as it did for South Africa and Yugoslavia.
“It can admit Palestine as a full member. And — especially since the International Criminal Court has been a farce — it can establish a tribunal to prosecute the highest level officials of the Israeli government, both civilian and military.”
So take that for whatever that’s worth to you. In any case the butchery in Gaza still urgently needs to be ended, and only time will tell whether Friday’s development had any major effect on the outcome of this horror.
But what I wouldn’t have given to be a fly on the wall at the meetings they were having at the US State Department on Friday.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has ruled against Israel and determined that South Africa successfully argued that Israel’s conduct plausibly could constitute genocide. The court has imposed several injunctions against Israel and reminds Israel that its rulings are binding, according to international law.
In its order, the court fell short of South Africa’s request for a ceasefire, but this ruling, however, is overwhelmingly in favour of South Africa’s case and will likely increase international pressure for a ceasefire as a result.
On the question of whether Israel’s war in Gaza is genocide, that will still take more time, but today’s news will have significant political repercussions. Here are a few thoughts.
This is a devastating blow to Israel’s global standing. To put it in context, Israel has worked ferociously for the last two decades to defeat the BDS movement — Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions — not because it will have a significant economic impact on Israel, but because of how it could delegitimiSe Israel internationally.
However, the ruling of the ICJ that Israel is plausibly engaged in genocide is far more devastating to Israel’s legitimacy than anything BDS could have achieved.
Just as much as Israel’s political system has been increasingly — and publicly — associated with apartheid in the past few years, Israel will now be similarly associated with the charge of genocide.
As a result, those countries that have supported Israel and its military campaign in Gaza, such as the US under President Biden, will be associated with that charge, too.
Significant implications for US
The implications for the United States are significant. First because the court does not have the ability to implement its ruling.
Instead, the matter will go to the UN Security Council, where the Biden administration will once again face the choice of protecting Israel politically by casting a veto, and by that, further isolate the United States, or allowing the Security Council to act and pay a domestic political cost for “not standing by Israel.”
I have deleted my previous posts on the ICJ ruling to ensure accurate representation of their decision.
Having read and listened to expert analysis of the ruling, it remains the case that the New Zealand government, a signatory to the Genocide Convention, now has a clear duty… pic.twitter.com/GOulkTJ4Kv
So far, the Biden administration has refused to say if it will respect ICJ’s decision. Of course, in previous cases in front of the ICJ, such as Myanmar, Ukraine and Syria, the US and Western states stressed that ICJ provisional measures are binding and must be fully implemented.
The double standards of US foreign policy will hit a new low if, in this case, Biden not only argues against the ICJ, but actively acts to prevent and block the implementation of its ruling.
It is perhaps not surprising that senior Biden administration officials have largely ceased using the term “rules-based order” since October 7.
It also raises questions about how Biden’s policy of bear-hugging Israel may have contributed to Israel’s conduct.
Biden could have offered more measured support and pushed back hard against Israeli excesses — and by that, prevented Israel from engaging in actions that could potentially fall under the category of genocide. But he didn’t.
Unconditional support, zero criticism
Instead, Biden offered unconditional support combined with zero public criticism of Israel’s conduct and only limited push-back behind the scenes. A different American approach could have shaped Israel’s war efforts in a manner that arguably would not have been preliminarily ruled by the ICJ as plausibly meeting the standards of genocide.
This shows that America undermines its own interest as well as that of its partners when it offers them blank checks and complete and unquestionable protection. The absence of checks and balances that such protection offers fuels reckless behavior all around.
As such, Biden’s unconditional support may have undermined Israel, in the final analysis.
This ruling may also boost those arguing that all states that are party to the Genocide Convention have a positive obligation to prevent genocide. The Houthis, for instance, have justified their attacks against ships heading to Israeli ports in the Red Sea, citing this positive obligation.
What legal implications will the court’s ruling have as a result on the US and UK’s military action against the Houthis?
The implications for Europe will also be considerable. The US is rather accustomed to and comfortable with setting aside international law and ignoring international institutions. Europe is not.
International law and institutions play a much more central role in European security thinking. The decision will continue to split Europe. But the fact that some key EU states will reject the ICJ’s ruling will profoundly contradict and undermine Europe’s broader security paradigm.
Moderated war conduct
One final point: The mere existence of South Africa’s application to the ICJ appears to have moderated Israel’s war conduct.
Any plans to ethnically cleanse Gaza and send its residents to third countries appear to have been somewhat paused, presumably because of how such actions would boost South Africa’s application.
If so, it shows that the court, in an era where the force of international law is increasingly questioned, has had a greater impact in terms of deterring unlawful Israeli actions than anything the Biden administration has done.
Trita Parsi is the co-founder and executive vice-president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. First published at Responsible Statecraft.
This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.
Although the International Court of Justice (ICJ) did not directly issue an order for a ceasefire in Gaza, says a leading Israeli Palestinan legal scholar who believes the measures ordered will require require Israel to dramatically reduce its military operations.
If it fails to do so with a ruling that it must report back to the ICJ in one month, it risks reaffirming its status as a “rogue state”.
University of London reader in public law Dr Nimer Sultany said it was a “momentous decision” by the court that was likely to start the “political dynamics to end Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza”.
Legal scholar Dr Nimer Sultany . . . the ICJ ruling “indirectly and effectively call[s] for a drastic scaling-down of the Israeli military campaign.” Image: Wikipedia“There should not be an Israeli exception to the prevention of genocide,” he wrote on X, formerly Twitter.
“Courts will be reluctant to order any kind of measures that will not be enforced because this shows the weakness of the court,” Dr Sultany told Al Jazeera, explaining why the ICJ chose not to issue a direct ceasefire order.
Instead, he said, “they indirectly and effectively call for a drastic scaling-down of the Israeli military campaign.”
Using the example of the court’s order for Israel to allow more humanitarian aid into Gaza, Dr Sultany said that there was no way Israel could comply if it continued to prosecute the war in its current form.
‘A rogue state’
“If Israel dismisses this ruling by the ICJ in the same way it dismissed the opening of an investigation by the [International Criminal Court] a couple of years ago and the same way it dismissed the Human Rights Watch and Amnesty [international] reports on apartheid, it will reaffirm its position as a rogue state,” Dr Sultany said.
Dr Sultany is the author of two books about the plight of Palestinians living in Israel.
Reporting from Washington, Al Jazeera’s White House correspondent Patty Culhane said the ICJ ruling was going to give more credibility to those critics, especially those in Biden’s base, who were saying “this has to stop”.
“So what happens next? If it goes to the UN Security Council, we know the US has used its veto power several times to stop any calls for a ceasefire.
“This is a much different thing. They would be seen as hypocrites for voting down a court that calls for additional aid, steps to protect civilians, all things the US says it has been pushing Israel to do.
“They’ve tried to be dismissive of the case, calling it meritless, counterproductive, and completely without any basis in fact.
“But they can’t go after the court, because in past cases, when the court ruled against Russia in Ukraine, the statement from the State Department [has been]: “The court, which plays a vital role in the peaceful settlement of disputes under the UN charter”.
Culhane said that if the issue went to the UN Security Council, “it is going to be a very, very big thing if the Biden administration steps in and protects Israel. That is going to be noticed by his base.”
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has ordered Israel to take steps to prevent acts of genocide in South Africa’s case over the war on the Gaza Strip.
But it stopped short of ordering a ceasefire in what is being seen as a historical ruling on emergency measures requested by the South African government which analysts say will put pressure on Tel Aviv and its Western backers.
The ICJ, also known as the World Court, ordered Israel to take measures to prevent and punish direct incitement of genocide, and also to take immediate, effective measures to enable provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance in the besieged enclave.
Hailing the emergency measures, South African Minister of International Relations Dr Naledi Pandor said outside the court in The Hague that Israel would have to halt fighting in Gaza if it wanted to adhere to the orders of the United Nations’ top court.
“How else is it going to comply with the ruling?” she asked, adding that it was up to the global community to ensure the measures were applied to “stop the suffering of the Palestinian people”.
“How do you provide aid and water without a ceasefire?” Dr Pandor said.
“If you read the order, by implication a ceasefire must happen.”
In South Africa, government officials welcomed the ruling.
“It’s a watershed judgment for all those who want to see peace in Palestine,” Fikile Mbalula, secretary-general of the ruling African National Congress party, told reporters.
Palestinian human rights attorney @dianabuttu reacts to the ICJ ruling on Gaza: “This court has overwhelmingly decided in favor of South Africa, has overwhelmingly determined that there is plausible risk of genocide, and it becomes imperative upon the world community to now act.” pic.twitter.com/eXQuyIBlbA
Years to decide
The ICJ judges have not ruled on the merits of the genocide allegations, which may take years to decide. However, they ruled that South Africa had presented a “plausible case” with its genocide allegations that led to the emergency measures.
Since October 7 when Hamas launched a deadly raid on Israel, Tel Aviv’s military campaign has killed at least 26,083 people and wounded 64,487 others, according to officials in Gaza. Thousands more are missing under the rubble, most of them presumed dead.
Al Jazeera’s senior analyst Marwan Bishara told the network that “Israel is on trial for genocide”, saying that the provisional ruling would cause a seismic split between the Global North and South depending on which side people aligned, even if the ICJ had not called for an immediate ceasefire.
He said Israel’s major backer, the United States, which had vetoed three UN Security Council resolutions seeking a ceasefire in recent months, now needed to “look in the mirror”.
“The UK, Germany and other countries who supported Israel in the past three months unconditionally also need to look in the mirror and reconsider their decision because the World Court has taken up the case of genocide against Israel for its actions in the past three months,” Bishara said.
The principle outcome was that the ICJ would take on the case and had put Israel “on notice” and demand that the state carry out a number of steps.
“I think that legally and morally sends a strong message to Israel and its backers that they need to cease and desist — even if the court did not spell it out.”
International Court of Justice preliminary ruling: “Israel’s actions in Gaza may constitute genocide.” pic.twitter.com/ArtpoFbZ3M
Plausible case of genocide
Thomas Macmanus, director of international state crime initiative at Queen Mary University of London, stressed that the court had said there “is a plausible case of genocide in Gaza”.
“So, we now have a serious risk of genocide,” he said, noting that the law stipulated that once there is “a serious risk”, then states needed to do “everything they can to stop enabling that genocide and to start taking all action in their capacity to prevent it”.
Riyadh al-Maliki, Palestinian Minister of Foreign Affairs, issued a statement welcoming the ICJ’s provisional measures “in light of the incontrovertible evidence presented to the court about the unfolding genocide”.
“The ICJ ruling is an important reminder that no state is above the law or beyond the reach of justice. It breaks Israel’s entrenched culture of criminality and impunity, which has characterised its decades-long occupation, dispossession, persecution, and apartheid in Palestine.”
Far-right Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir mocked the ICJ after the court ended its reading.
“Hague shmague,” the minister wrote on X, formerly Twitter, in the first comments by an Israeli official.
All of those genocidal statements including that of Palestinians being human animals. Well here they are being quoted again to the world by Judge Donoghue at the ICJ. #ICJGazaGenocidepic.twitter.com/RmBQRBInU3
New Zealand’s defence minister has defended a decision to send six NZ Defence Force staff to the Middle East to help “take out” Houthis fighters as they are “essentially holding the world to ransom”.
On Tuesday, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, Foreign Minister Winston Peters and Defence Minister Judith Collins confirmed the plan at the first Cabinet meeting for the year.
The deployment, which could run until the end of July, will support the military efforts led by the United States to protect commercial and merchant vessels.
The Houthis attacks are disrupting supply lines, and forcing ships to voyage thousands of kilometres further around Africa in protest against the Israeli war on Gaza.
‘Firmly on side of Western backers of Israel’
A security analyst also said the US-requested deployment could be interpreted as New Zealand “planting its flag firmly on the side of the Western backers of Israel”.
Speaking to RNZ Morning Report, Defence Minister Judith Collins denied it showed New Zealand being in support of Israel over the war on Gaza.
She said it was a “very difficult situation”, but not what the deployment was about.
“It’s about the ability to get our goods to market . . . we’re talking about unarmed merchant vessels moving through the Red Sea no longer able to do so without being attacked.”
Collins said New Zealand had been involved in the Middle East for a “very long time” and it needed to assist where possible to remain a good international partner and to make sure military targets were “taken out”.
Houthis had been given a number of serious warnings, Collins said, and its actions were “outrageous”.
“They are essentially holding the world to ransom.”
NZ would not allow ‘pirates’
New Zealand was part of the world community and would not stand by and allow “pirates to take over our ships or anyone’s ships”.
Collins said she was not expecting there to be any extension or expansion of the deployment which would end on July 31.
The opposition Labour Party is condemning the coalition government’s deployment of Defence Force troops to the Middle East, saying it has “shades of Iraq”.
Labour foreign affairs spokesperson David Parker made clear his party’s opposition to the deployment.
“We don’t think we should become embroiled in that conflict . . . which is part of a longer term civil war in Yemen and we think that New Zealand should stay out of this, there’s no UN resolution in favour of it . . . we don’t think we should get involved in a conflict in the Middle East.”
‘Deeply disturbing’, say Greens
The Green Party’s co-leaders have also expressed their unhappiness with the deployment, describing it as “deeply disturbing”.
In a statement, Marama Davidson and James Shaw said they were “horrified at this government’s decision to further inflame tensions in the Middle East”.
“The international community has an obligation to protect peace and human rights. Right now, what we are witnessing in the Middle East is a regional power play between different state and non-state groups. This decision is only likely to inflame tensions.”
Davidson and Shaw indicated they would call for an urgent debate on the deployment when Parliament resumes next week.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
“How dare we have a conversation about trade when there are children right now being treated without anaesthetic?”
British journalist Myriam Francois on the Houthis blockade of shipments in the Red sea amid Israel’s war on Gaza. pic.twitter.com/Yg9RV2ek4p
A group of foreign policy critics alarmed at the Aotearoa New Zealand government’s “undemocratic decision” to step up support for US-led strikes against Yemen have warned against “inflaming” the Red Sea maritime crisis.
They have urgently called for an immediate and permanent ceasefire in Gaza as they say the Israeli war that has killed more than 25,000 Palestinians is the root cause of the crisis.
The foreign policy group, Te Kuaka, said in a statement that the government’s decision to deploy a six-member NZ Defence Force team to the Middle East was “deeply alarming”.
The government announcement came this afternoon at a post-Cabinet media conference.
Group co-director Dr Arama Rata said: “New Zealand’s involvement in the Red Sea will just inflame regional instability and cause more civilian deaths without addressing the root cause of the Houthi actions, which is ending the genocide in Gaza.”
Dr Rata said it was deeply alarming that this decision was made without a Parliamentary mandate, particularly given the incredibly high stakes of the crisis.
“There has been no explicit authorisation of military action in self defence against Yemen by the UN Security Council either,” she said.
‘Frightening precedent’
“This sets a frightening precedent for how foreign policy decisions are made.
“There are huge risks to not just the Middle East, but New Zealand directly, when we take the side of the US and the UK, nations that have a long history of oppressive intervention in the Global South.”
Co-director Dr Marco de Jong said: “We know that public opinion and a Parliamentary mandate would have swayed any foreign policy decisions in the direction of calling for an immediate and permanent ceasefire in Gaza.
Thousands took to Queen Street in the heart of Auckland for the 15th consecutive week to protest over the war and to call for a ceasefire and an end to genocide. One of the Palestinian speakers addressing the crowd reminded them millions of citizen protesters were demonstrating all over the world.
The protesters condemned Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters for failing to call for an immediate and permanent ceasefire in Gaza.
At today’s, post-cabinet media conference Luxon claimed the Houthi attacks were hurting New Zealand exporters.
Global trade
“Nearly 15 percent of global trade goes through the Red Sea, and the Houthi attacks are driving costs higher for New Zealanders and causing delays to shipments,” Luxon said.
However, Dr de Jong said: “By pre-empting these criticisms [such as by critics and protesters] in its own announcement, the government is wrongly suggesting that our intervention in the Middle East will not be viewed in the context of genocide in Gaza and highlighting NZ’s previous involvement in US-led misadventures — which have been similarly deadly and destructive.”
Dr Rata added: “We need to have an honest reflection about our positioning alongside the US and the UK.
“Instead of colluding with these colonial powers, we should be standing with countries like Brazil and South Africa, which are challenging old colonial regimes, and represent the majority of the international community.”
For two months now, the United States and other Western countries backing Israel have been talking about “the day after” in Gaza. They have rejected Israeli assertions that the Israeli army will remain in control of the Strip and pointed to the Palestinian Authority (PA) as their preferred political actor to take over governance once the war is over.
In so doing, the US and its allies have paid little regard to what the Palestinian people want. The current leadership of the PA lost the last democratic elections held in the occupied Palestinian territory in 2006 to Hamas and since then, it has steadily lost popularity.
In a recent public opinion poll by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PSR), some 90 percent of respondents were in favour of the resignation of PA President Mahmoud Abbas, and 60 percent called for the dismantling of the PA itself.
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas . . . low public trust in the PA, but there is a reason why the US insists on supporting its takeover of Gaza. Image: Al Jazeera
Washington is undoubtedly aware of the low public trust in the PA, but there is a reason why it insists on supporting its takeover of Gaza: its leadership has been a reliable partner for decades in maintaining a status quo in the interests of Israel.
The US would like that arrangement to continue, so its backing for the PA may be accompanied by an attempt to revamp it in order to solve its legitimacy problem. But even if this effort succeeds, it is unlikely the new iteration of the PA would be sustainable.
A reliable partner Perhaps one of the main factors that has convinced the US that the PA is a “good choice” for post-war governance in Gaza is its anti-Hamas stance and willingness to conduct security coordination with Israel.
Since the Israel’s war on Gaza began on October 7, the PA and its leadership have not issued an official statement offering explicit political support for the Palestinian resistance. Their rhetoric has predominantly focused on condemning and disapproving of attacks on civilians on both sides, while also rejecting the expulsion of Palestinians from their homeland.
In a political address on the ninth day of the war, Abbas criticised Hamas, asserting that their actions did not represent the Palestinian people. He emphasised that the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) is the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people and underscored the importance of peaceful resistance as the only legitimate means to oppose Israeli occupation.
This statement was later retracted by his office.
In December, Hussein al-Sheikh, a PA official and secretary-general of the executive committee of the PLO, also criticised Hamas in an interview with Reuters. He suggested its armed resistance “method and approach” has failed and led to many casualties among the civilian population.
The stance of the PA is consistent with its own narrow political and economic interests which have come at the expense of the Palestinian national cause. It has systematically and brutally stamped out any opposition and any support for other factions, including Hamas, in order to maintain its rule over West Bank cities while Israel continues with its brutal occupation and dispossession of the Palestinian people.
In Israel’s war on Gaza in 2008–2009, the PA leadership hoped to regain administrative control of Gaza with assistance from Israel. During that conflict, the PA prohibited any activities in the West Bank in support of Gaza and threatened to arrest participants.
I, myself, faced harassment and the threat of arrest for attempting to join a demonstration against the war. Similar positions were adopted by the PA, albeit with less aggressive measures, in subsequent Israeli assaults on Gaza, as its leadership came to recognise that Hamas was unlikely to relinquish its control over the Strip.
Since October 7, the PA has taken a bolder stance, marked by more aggressive actions. Its security forces have suppressed demonstrations and marches held in support of Gaza, resorting to shooting live ammunition at participants. Additionally, the PA has recently detained individuals expressing support for the Palestinian resistance.
While cracking down on Palestinian protests, the PA has done nothing to protect its people from attacks by Israeli settlers on Palestinian communities, which have resulted in deaths, injuries and the displacement of hundreds of people in the occupied West Bank.
Additionally, the Israeli army has intensified its raids in the PA-administered areas, leading to the arrest of thousands and the killing of hundreds of Palestinians, with no reaction from the PA.
The PA’s inability to offer basic protection has added to the deterioration of its legitimacy among Palestinians. Furthermore, by taking a stance against the Palestinian resistance and aligning itself with Israel and the US, the PA is only further undermining its own legitimacy.
Palestine Authority – PA 1.0
Washington is aware of the growing unpopularity of the PA and its leadership among Palestinians but it is not giving up on it because it seems to believe that that can be fixed. That is because the US has tried to revamp the authority before as it has always faced problems with legitimacy due to the way it was set up.
As a governing institution, the PA was established to bring an end to the first Intifada.
Conceived under the interim peace agreements in Oslo, it was envisioned as an administrative body to oversee civil affairs for Palestinians in the occupied Gaza Strip and certain parts of the West Bank, excluding occupied East Jerusalem.
It effectively took on a role as an Israeli security contractor in exchange for certain benefits related to administering Palestinian population centres. The PA faithfully fulfilled its mandate, carrying out routine arrests and surveillance of Palestinian individuals, whether they were involved in actions against Israel or were activists opposing its corrupt practices.
Thus, Israel strategically benefitted from the establishment of the PA, but the same cannot be said for the Palestinian people, as they continued to experience the ravages of a military occupation.
Expected independent state
“Despite this, the PA under Yasser Arafat — or what we can call PA 1.0 — leveraged patronage and corruption to maintain some level of support. Notably, Arafat viewed the Oslo process as an interim measure, expecting a fully independent Palestinian state by 2000.
He pragmatically engaged in security collaboration with Israel, hoping to build trust and ultimately achieve peaceful coexistence. In 1996, responding to ongoing Palestinian resistance, he even declared a “war on terror” and convened a security summit in Sharm el-Sheikh, involving Israel, Egypt and the US.
In 2000, the civil and security arrangements overseen by the PA became increasingly fragile and eventually collapsed, triggering the eruption of the second Intifada. This uprising was a response to Israel’s policies of settlement expansion, its firm refusal to accept any form of Palestinian sovereignty between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean, and broader social and economic grievances.
In 2002, the Bush administration conceived the idea of refurbishing the PA as part of the Road map for peace. While Arafat’s leadership was perceived as a hindering factor, he had already collaborated with the US by implementing structural reforms, including the creation of a prime minister’s position.
Seeking to reshape the Palestinian leadership, the US engaged with potential alternative leaders, including Mahmoud Abbas, who eventually assumed the presidency of the PA in 2005 after the suspicious death of Arafat.
The PA took its first blow when Hamas won the elections in 2006 and was able to form a government. The US and EU rejected the results, boycotted the government and suspended financial assistance to the PA, while Israel halted the transfer of tax revenues.
Meanwhile, the PA security apparatus leadership refused to deal with the Hamas government and continued their work as usual, claiming they reported to the PA president’s office.
For several months, Hamas struggled to maintain its PA government, while Abbas and his supporters made significant efforts to isolate it.
In 2007, Hamas took over the PA security apparatus in the Gaza Strip and assumed control of all PA institutions. Abbas declared Hamas an unwanted entity in the West Bank and ordered the expulsion of the Hamas government and the imprisonment of many Hamas operatives.
After splitting the PA into two entities, one in the Gaza Strip and another in the West Bank, Abbas, along with allies Mohammed Dahlan and Salam Fayyad, led efforts to restructure the PA in the West Bank with full support from the US and the EU.
Restructuring PA 2.0
Under what we can call PA 2.0, two major restructuring efforts took place. First, it consolidated the Palestinian security apparatus under a united command. Led by US Army General Keith Dayton, the revamping of the Palestinian security forces aimed at deepening their partnership with the Israeli state and army.
Additionally, it sought to cultivate a vested interest among PA personnel in maintaining the role of the PA. Second, the restructuring of the PA consolidated its budget, placing all its resources under the Ministry of Finance.
This restructuring did not result in a “better” PA. It remained a dysfunctional entity, which mismanaged resources and service provision, leading to a severe deterioration in living standards for the majority of Palestinians.
Its leadership enjoyed certain privileges due to its security coordination with Israel and engaged in widespread corruption practices that have raised concerns even among PA supporters.
Meanwhile, Israel’s settlement enterprises continued expanding without limits and the violence employed by the Israeli army and settlers against ordinary Palestinians only worsened.
Restructuring PA 3.0? The lack of support for the PA leadership and its dysfunction have raised concerns about whether it can play a role in the upcoming post-Gaza war arrangements that the US administration is trying to put together.
That is why Washington has signalled it will seek to revamp the PA once again — into PA 3.0 — with the aim of addressing the needs of various parties. The US administration and its allies seek an authority that can provide security to Israel and engage in a peace process without altering the status quo.
Since the start of the war, several US envoys have visited Ramallah carrying the same message: that the PA needs to be revamped. In December US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan met with Abbas and al-Sheikh (the PLO secretary-general) urging them to “bring new blood” into the government. Al-Sheikh is considered a possible successor to Abbas, who could be part of these efforts to restructure the PA.
However, after more than 100 days since the start of the Israeli war on Gaza, it looks like Washington does not have a concrete plan and only has some general ideas which the PA has declared a readiness to discuss. More importantly, the US vision does not seem to take into account the will of the Palestinian people.
The Palestinian public clearly demands a leadership that can head a democratic, national entity capable of fulfilling the Palestinian national aspirations, including creating an independent state and realising the Palestinians’ right of return to their homelands.
Revamping the PA implies intensifying cooperation with Israel and providing Israeli settlers with more security, which effectively means more insecurity and dispossession for the Palestinians.
As a result, the Palestinian people will continue to perceive the PA as illegitimate and public anger, upheaval and resistance will continue to grow.
In this sense, the US vision for revamping the PA would fail because it would not address the core issues of Israeli occupation and apartheid, which successive American administrations have systematically and purposefully ignored.
Samer Jaber is a political activist and PhD researcher specialising in political economy at Royal Holloway, University of London. He is also a fellow with the Council for At-Risk Academics (CARA). He focuses on the Arab world and the Middle East region. This article was first published by Al Jazeera.
Meet Joey Siu, a Human Rights Foundation (HRF) Freedom Fellow and Hong Kong activist based in Washington, D.C. Siu played a vital role in Hong Kong’s 2019 pro-democracy protests, co-founding a student advocacy coalition and organizing city-wide demonstrations. After fleeing Hong Kong in 2020, Siu served as an advisor to the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China and a policy advisor to Hong Kong Watch. Siu is currently an Asia Pacific coordinator for the World Liberty Congress, an advisor to the Athenai Institute, and oversees the Hong Kong program at the National Democratic Institute.
In exile, Siu remains a dedicated advocate for Hong Kongers, Tibetans, Uyghurs, and other communities oppressed by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Learn more about her activism in the exclusive interview below.
Q: Tell us a little bit about yourself and your current projects.
A: I am a human rights activist from Hong Kong (HK). Back in 2019, when the pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong first started, I was one of the student leaders who led many of the on-campus activities and city-wide protests and demonstrations. In 2019, I also co-founded a student coalition with other student activists in HK to solidify international advocacy efforts for HK. I was forced to flee HK in late 2020 and settled in Washington, D.C. Since then, my efforts have been focused on international advocacy for HK’s democratic freedoms overseas.
I am establishing a regional activist network for women advocates to connect, amplify, and empower one another and to elevate women leaders in this space. Beyond that, I am very active in the HK diaspora community and working to foster cross-movement solidarity with other communities under the repression of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
Q: How do you feel about the bounty HK authorities placed on your head?
A: On Dec. 13, I woke up to the news that HK authorities issued an arrest warrant and a $1 million HK bounty on me. Ever since I fled, I knew this could happen given the Chinese and HK authorities’ efforts to silence dissent, not just from those in HK but from those in exile. But this bounty is like a death certification — I can really never go back. I was overwhelmed by the news and the actions I’ve had to take to step up my personal security.
I — and the 12 others with bounties on their heads — saw this coming. They issued the bounty to threaten us, to deter us from continuing our advocacy, to scare us, and to really intimidate us. But that will not work on me. I will not stop; I will continue my advocacy until I can return to HK.
Q: What tactics does the Chinese regime employ to suppress activists like yourself?
A: The overseas communities have lobbied for international attention on China and HK and all of the human rights atrocities committed by the CCP. That is why the CCP is trying so hard to silence us.
Over the past few years, the CCP and the HK authorities have stepped up their transnational repression. We’ve witnessed a wide variety of tactics employed by the CCP, from holding our loved ones back home as hostages to infiltrating our communities, setting up secret police stations all across the world, including in the United States, to coercing different stakeholders and industries to spy on their behalf.
These tactics have not been used just against Chinese and Hong Kongers but also against Uyghurs and Tibetans. And we’ve seen other authoritarian regimes copying the CCP’s tactics, including Russia, Iran, and Belarus. In fact, these regimes are working hand-in-hand to silence dissent overseas.
Q: Should democracies be paying more attention?
A: I want to stress that the impact of transnational repression extends beyond the activists. Beyond spying on dissidents overseas, tactics include economic coercion, brainwashing, and education through Confucius institutes in American universities and colleges. Those tactics impact every individual living in a democracy.
Democracies all across the world should pay attention to this and take concrete steps to combat transnational repression on their soil and in other democracies. Securing the safety and security of dissidents like me is an essential step to allowing us to have the freedom to continue speaking up and to continue confronting authoritarianism.
Q: How has the Freedom Fellowship supported you in your work?
A: The Fellowship allowed me to meet activists from communities I otherwise would not have been in touch with as actively or frequently. In my cohort, I met activists from Bolivia, Cuba, Myanmar, Morocco, Egypt, and more. I got to talk with them and learn the tactics they’ve used to overcome challenges and unite their communities. Fostering relationships and strategizing on campaigns together was the most valuable experience for me.
Building that cross-community solidarity is essential. We see dictators working together and it is of the utmost importance that we, human rights activists, are working together. Democratic backsliding is not an issue faced by one community alone; it is an issue faced by all communities under oppression.
Q: What have you recently been doing? What do you hope to achieve in 2024?
A: After the news about the HK bounty broke, I had several meetings with US congressional offices. I met with the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Chairman Mike Gallagher of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, and Sen. Jennifer Sullivan. Hopefully, these meetings will lead to legislation to combat transnational repression, but we require a coordinated and bipartisan effort in Congress. I hope to see something like the Transnational Repression Policy Act advanced and adopted in this Congress.
With the ongoing reports of the bounty on me and other activists, Jimmy Lai’s case, and the upcoming sentencing of the 47 activists in HK, we can hopefully take advantage of the momentum. We can push the US government and other democracies to take action.
Additionally, during the 2023 Freedom Fellowship retreat, I came up with the idea of the regional women’s network. In the upcoming months, I want to turn this idea into something concrete—start inviting people to be founding members and board members, start the registration process, and establish a financial foundation and fundraising plan.
The Biden administration has officially re-designated Ansarallah – the dominant force in Yemen also known as the Houthis – as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist entity.
The White House claims the designation is an appropriate response to the group’s attacks on US military vessels and commercial ships in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden, saying those attacks “fit the textbook definition of terrorism”.
Ansarallah claims its actions “adhere to the provisions of Article 1 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide,” since it is only enforcing a blockade geared toward ceasing the ongoing Israeli destruction of Gaza.
One of the most heinous acts committed by the Trump administration was its designation of Ansarallah as a Foreign Terrorist Organisation (FTO) and as Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGT), both of which imposed sanctions that critics warned would plunge Yemen’s aid-dependent population into even greater levels of starvation than they were already experiencing by restricting the aid that would be allowed in.
One of the Biden administration’s only decent foreign policy decisions has been the reversal of that sadistic move, and now that reversal is being partially rolled back, though thankfully only with the SDGT listing and not the more deadly and consequential FTO designation.
In a new article for Antiwar about this latest development, Dave Decamp explains that as much as the Biden White House goes to great lengths insisting that it’s going to issue exemptions to ensure that its sanctions don’t harm the already struggling Yemeni people,
“history has shown that sanctions scare away international companies and banks from doing business with the targeted nations or entities and cause shortages of medicine, food, and other basic goods.”
DeCamp also notes that US and British airstrikes on Yemen have already forced some aid groups to suspend services to the country.
Still trying to recover
So the US empire is going to be imposing sanctions on a nation that is still trying to recover from the devastation caused by the US-backed Saudi blockade that contributed to hundreds of thousands of deaths between 2015 and 2022. All in response to the de facto government of that very same country imposing its own blockade with the goal of preventing a genocide.
That’s right: when Yemen sets up a blockade to try and stop an active genocide, that’s terrorism, but when the US empire imposes a blockade to secure its geostrategic interests in the Middle East, why that’s just the rules-based international order in action.
Today, in response to these continuing threats and attacks, the United States announced the designation of Ansarallah, also known as the Houthis, as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist – Jake Sullivan, U.S. National Security Advisorhttps://t.co/D5d8MylujKpic.twitter.com/pSFUzCR7qk
It just says so much about how the US empire sees itself that it can impose blockades and starvation sanctions at will upon nations like Yemen, Venezuela, Cuba, Iran, Syria and North Korea for refusing to bow to its dictates, but when Yemen imposes a blockade for infinitely more worthy and noble reasons it gets branded an act of terrorism.
The managers of the globe-spanning empire loosely centralised around Washington literally believe the world is theirs to rule as they will, and that anyone who opposes its rulings is an outlaw.
Based on power
“What this shows us is that the “rules-based international order” the US and its allies claim to uphold is not based on rules at all; it’s based on power, which is the ability to control and impose your will on other people.
The “rules” apply only to the enemies of the empire because they are not rules at all: they are narratives used to justify efforts to bend the global population to its will.
We are ruled by murderous tyrants. By nuclear-armed thugs who would rather starve civilians to protect the continuation of an active genocide than allow peace to get a word in edgewise.
Our world can never know health as long as these monsters remain in charge.
In the podcast, Amnesty International’s Tatyana Movshevich discovers the story behind the declaration and meets brave activists from Chile, the USA, Nepal, Ireland and Ghana, all of whom have been fighting for the rights of marginalized people — and risking their lives in the process.
“Every day, human rights defenders are risking their lives, sometimes at a significant personal cost. They experience violence and discrimination simply for defending the rights of others,” said Tatyana Movshevich, Amnesty International’s Campaigner.
“For this podcast I have interviewed five incredible human rights defenders and it was inspiring to hear about their work, but also distressing to realise the enormous dangers they are facing. During our interview, Anas Aremeyaw Anas, a journalist from Ghana, told me a chilling story of how his investigation into killings linked to ritual magic in Malawi had gone terribly wrong. And it was not the only time when Anas found himself in mortal danger because of his human rights work. Far from it.”
Every day, human rights defenders are risking their lives, sometimes at a significant personal cost.Tatyana Movshevich, Amnesty International’s Campaigner
Others featured in the podcast include Lorena Donaire, a water defender from Chile whose life was turned upside down as she was tackling the catastrophic results of a mega-drought; Monica Simpson, a queer activist and artist from the USA and Durga Sob, a Dalit woman and Nepalese feminist activist, who have both been confronting long-ignored issues of racism and caste-based discrimination; and Sean Binder, a migrant rights defender from Ireland whose freedom was compromised while he was volunteering on an idyllic Greek island. [see lso: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2021/11/17/greeces-mistaken-deterrence-migrants-and-aid-workers-facing-heavy-prison-sentences/]
International experts that took part in the series include Mary Lawlor, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of Human Rights Defenders, and Hina Jilani, women rights activist and co-founder of Pakistan’s first all-women law firm.
For weeks Yemen’s Houthi forces have been greatly inconveniencing commercial shipping with their blockade, with reports last month saying Israel’s Eilat Port has seen an 85 percent drop in activity since the attacks began.
This entirely bloodless inconvenience was all it took for Washington to attack Yemen, the war-ravaged nation in which the US and its allies have spent recent years helping Saudi Arabia murder hundreds of thousands of people with its own maritime blockades.
The Biden administration’s dramatic escalation toward yet another horrific war in the Middle East has been hotly criticised by lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, who argue that the attacks were illicit because they took place without congressional approval.
This impotent congressional whining will never go anywhere, since, as Glenn Greenwald has observed, the US Congress never actually does anything to hold presidents to account for carrying out acts of war without their approval.
But there are some worthwhile ideas going around.
After the second round of strikes, a Democratic representative from Georgia named Hank Johnson tweeted the following:
“I have what some may consider a dumb idea, but here it is: stop the bombing of Gaza, then the attacks on commercial shipping will end. Why not try that approach?”
By golly, that’s just crazy enough to work. In fact, anti-interventionists have been screaming it at the top of their lungs since the standoff with Yemen began.
All the way back in mid-October Responsible Statecraft’s Trita Parsi was already writing urgently about the need for a ceasefire in Gaza to prevent it from exploding into a wider war in the region, a position Parsi has continued pushing ever since.
“Huge Miscalculation”: Biden’s Refusal to Push for Gaza Ceasefire Could Drag U.S. into Middle East War https://t.co/eJuzswi2BJ
As we discussed previously, Israel’s US-backed assault on Gaza is threatening to bleed over into conflicts with the Houthis in Yemen, with Hezbollah in Lebanon, with Iran-aligned militias in Iraq and Syria, and even potentially with Iran itself – any of which could easily see the US and its allies committing themselves to a full-scale war.
Peace in Gaza takes these completely unnecessary gambles off the table.
And it is absolutely within Washington’s power to force a ceasefire in Gaza. Biden could end all this with one phone call, as US presidents have done in the past. As Parsi wrote for The Nation earlier this month:
“In 1982, President Ronald Reagan was ‘disgusted’ by Israeli bombardment of Lebanon. He stopped the transfer of cluster munitions to Israel and told Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin in a phone call that ‘this is a holocaust.’ Reagan demanded that Israel withdraw its troops from Lebanon. Begin caved. Twenty minutes after their phone call, Begin ordered a halt on attacks.
“Indeed, it is absurd to claim that Biden has no leverage, particularly given the massive amounts of arms he has shipped to Israel. In fact, Israeli officials openly admit it. ‘All of our missiles, the ammunition, the precision-guided bombs, all the airplanes and bombs, it’s all from the US,’ retired Israeli Maj. Gen. Yitzhak Brick conceded in November of last year. ‘The minute they turn off the tap, you can’t keep fighting. You have no capability.… Everyone understands that we can’t fight this war without the United States. Period.’ ”
In the end, you get peace by pursuing peace. That’s how it happens. You don’t get it by pursuing impossible imaginary ideals like the total elimination of Hamas while butchering tens of thousands of innocent Palestinians.
You don’t get it by trying to bludgeon the Middle East into passively accepting an active genocide. You get it by negotiation, de-escalation, diplomacy and detente.
The path to peace is right there. The door’s not locked. It’s not even closed. The fact that they don’t take it tells you what these imperialist bastards are really interested in.
The UK, US and Canada are announcing a sweeping package of sanctions targeting individuals linked to human rights abuses around the world, ahead of the 75th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on 10 December.
UK targets forced labour operations in Southeast Asia, and government-linked officials in Belarus, Haiti, Iran, and Syria complicit in repressing individual freedoms.
The first set targets 9 individuals and 5 entities for their involvement in trafficking people in Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar, forcing them to work for online ‘scam farms’ which enable large-scale fraud. Victims are promised well-paid jobs but are subject to torture or other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment…
The second is aimed at a number of individuals linked to the governments, judiciaries and prosecuting authorities of Belarus, Haiti, Iran, and Syria, for their involvement in the repression of citizens solely for exercising fundamental freedoms in those countries.
Included in the USA sanctions are two Afghanistan government ministers accused of repressing women and girls, by restricting access to secondary education; two Iranian intelligence officers who the Treasury says plot violence against Iranian regime opponents beyond the nation’s borders and two Chinese officials accused of torturing Uyghur ethnic minorities in the Xinjiang region of China.
Green Party co-leader James Shaw has compared the language of New Zealand First leader Winston Peters to former US president Donald Trump, saying it may be emboldening violence against candidates in Aotearoa NZ’s election campaign.
Te Pāti Māori candidate Hana-Rāwhiti Maipi-Clarke, whose home was ram raided and invaded, put the blame on what she called race-baiting from right-wing parties.
Peters told Newshub Nation that notion was wrong, and accused Te Pāti Māori of being a racist party.
New Zealand First leader Winston Peters . . . believes candidates faced worse times during the Rogernomics privatisation period of the 1980s. Image: RNZ/Samuel Rillstone
But Shaw — who himself was assaulted in 2019 — suggested Peters could be empowering and emboldening extremists.
“It makes me really angry. Because political leaders, through the things we say create an air of permissiveness for that kind of extreme language and now physical violence to take place and it’s not too dissimilar to what we saw in the United States under Donald Trump,” he said.
“Half of the argument about Trump was whether he personally intervened to make those things happen and at one level it doesn’t matter, he created an atmosphere where these extremists felt empowered and emboldened to kind of enact their kind of crazy, racist, misogynist fantasies.
Lead to physical violence
“And that did lead to physical violence there and it’s leading to physical violence here too.”
However, Shaw told RNZ he was not surprised given the “misogynist and racist rhetoric”, which he said had been at least in part been given permission by political parties in this election campaign.
Green Party co-leader James Shaw and Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer . . . calling out “misogynist and racist rhetoric” in the election campaign. Image: RNZ News/Cole Eastham-Farrelly/Samuel Rillstone
“[It] has created a situation where that kind of online hate and violent language is only one or two steps from actual acts of physical violence and now you’re starting to see those manifest. It is really worrying.
“I think all of us have a responsibility to try and create an atmosphere for democracy to take place, which is respectful, where people can have different opinions and for that to be okay.
“And I think that at the moment we’re seeing a rise in this kind of culture or language which is imported from overseas, that is not just unhelpful but downright dangerous.”
Te Pāti Māori said the break-in at Maipi-Clarke’s house was yet another example of political extremism in New Zealand.
Co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer said some right-wing politicians were emboldening racist behaviour and needed to take responsibility.
‘Harmful inciting’
“We have seen a harmful inciting, a very harmful emboldening of extremism, this is an example of that.
“We’ve had it with our billboards – they’ve been so destroyed that we haven’t been able to afford to replace a lot of them now. It’s just been disgusting, the extent of racism.”
This year’s election had brought some of the worst abuse Te Pāti Māori had ever experienced, she said.
New Zealand First leader Winston Peters claimed of Maipi-Clarke’s incident that “it couldn’t have been a home invasion” and he would answer more questions about the case when he knew all the facts.
“As for the first one [alleged assault on Labour’s Angela Roberts], violence of that sort is just not acceptable, full stop.”
He believed the time for candidates was worse was during the Rogernomics period of the 1980s.
“With respect, I can recall during the period of Rogernomics, there was a full scale fight going on inside the Labour Party convention.”
Labour leader Chris Hipkins in Mount Eden today . . . assaulting candidates or threatening their safety “shows total contempt for the very principle of democracy”. Image: RNZ/Giles Dexter
Minorities persecuted
Labour Party leader Chris Hipkins — who has vowed to call out racism — said a number of parties were deliberately trying to persecute minorities and it was reprehensible.
Assaulting candidates or threatening their safety “shows total contempt for the very principle of democracy”, he said.
He had made it clear to all Labour’s candidates that if they thought their physical safety might be at risk, they should not do that activity, Hipkins said.
“I think there has been more racism and misogyny in this election than we’ve seen in previous elections.”
Hipkins said he had respect for women and Māori who put themselves forward in elected office, but they should never have to put up with the level of abuse that they have had to in this campaign.
National Party leader Christopher Luxon told reporters his party had referred several incidents to the police too.
Luxon said he condemned threats and violence on political candidates, or their family and property, as well as all forms of racism.
Number of serious incidents
“It’s entirely wrong. We’ve had a number of serious incidents that we’ve referred to the police as well, over the course of this campaign.
“I think it’s important for all New Zealanders to understand that politicians are putting themselves forward, you may disagree with their politics, you may disagree with their policies, but we can disagree without being disagreeable in this country.”
He would not detail the complaints his party had made to police.
He said political leaders had a responsibility not to fearmonger during the campaign.
“Running fearmongering campaigns and negative campaigns just amps it up, and I think actually what we need to do is actually everyone needs to respect each other. We have differences of opinion about how to take the country forward, we are unique in New Zealand in that we can maintain our political civility, we don’t need to go down the pathway we’ve seen in other countries.
“It’s just about leadership, right, it’s about a leader modelling out the behaviour and treating people that they expect to treated.”
Asked if National had a hand in being responsible for fearmongering, he said it did not, and their campaign was positive and focused on what mattered most to New Zealanders.
Worry over online abuse
Shaw was worried for his candidates, having seen the online abuse they were subjected to.
“It’s vile, it is really extreme and it is stronger now than it has been in previous election campaigns and like I said I don’t think it takes much for a particularly unhinged individual from whacking their keyboard to whacking a person.”
But it was worse for female candidates and Māori, he said.
“Not just a little bit, not just an increment, but orders in magnitude, from what I’ve seen my colleagues be exposed to. It is just unhinged.”
There has been increased police participation in this campaign, Shaw said.
“Parliamentary security have got new protocols that we are observing. We have changed, for example, the way we campaign, the way we do public meetings, or when we’re out and about, we’re observing new security protocols that we haven’t had in previous years.”
Hipkins said where there might be additional risk, they have worked with Parliamentary Service on a cross-party basis to ensure there was additional support available for some MPs.
All parties have an interest in ensuring the election campaign was conducted safely, he said.
What has happened? This week, Te Pāti Māori candidate Hana-Rāwhiti Maipi-Clarke’s home was ram raided and invaded, with a threatening note left.
Police said they were investigating the burglary of a Huntly home, which was reported to them on Monday.
Te Pāti Māori candidate Hana-Rāwhiti Maipi-Clarke . . . her home was ram raided and invaded and she blames what she called race-baiting from right-wing parties. Image: 1News screenshot/APR
Te Pāti Māori issued a statement saying it was the third incident to take place at Maipi-Clarke’s home this week.
Also this week, Labour candidate for Taranaki-King Country Angela Roberts said she had laid a complaint with the police about being assaulted at an election debate in Inglewood.
Hipkins said he had great respect for Roberts, and he told her she could take any time off if she needed to, but she has chosen not to.
“She’s an incredibly staunch and energetic campaigner and I know it knocked the wind out of her sails a little bit, but I know that she’s bouncing back.”
On Thursday, Labour candidate for Northland Willow-Jean Prime told reporters she has faced the “worst comments and vitriol” in the seven campaigns she has been through – two in local government and five in central government.
“I was being shouted down every time I went to answer a question by supporters of other candidates primarily, there were not many of the general public in there,” she said of a Taxpayers Union debate in Kerikeri.
“Whenever I said a te reo Māori word, like puku, for full tummies, lunches in schools, I was shouted at.
“When I said Aotearoa, the crowd responded ‘It’s New Zealand!’. When I said rangatahi, ‘stop speaking that lanugage!’ that is racism coming from the audience, that’s not disagreeing with the gains I’m explaining that we’ve made in government.”
She said she noticed that type of “dog-whistling” in other candidate debates, but not whilst out and about with the general public.
“What is really worrying is that they feel so emboldened to be able to come out and say this stuff publicly, they don’t care that other people that might be in the audience, that might be listening or the impact that has on us as candidates.”
The New Zealand general election is on October 14, but early voting begins on October 2.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
Three human rights defenders (from Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), the Philippines and Ukraine) will visit New York and Washington, D.C. as part of an advocacy tour after being awarded the prestigious Front Line Defenders Award for Human Rights Defenders at Risk. [see: https://www.trueheroesfilms.org/thedigest/awards/2E90A0F4-6DFE-497B-8C08-56F4E831B47D]
Apart from engaging in high-level advocacy meetings with U.S. lawmakers and the State Department, the human rights defenders will speak at the Columbia Law School Human Rights Institute, participate in Climate Week NYC and take part in the Global Citizen Festival in New York, among other events.
“From defending environmental rights to supporting civil society during armed conflict, to fighting for the right to education, these courageous human rights defenders represent some of the most at-risk communities of activists around the world today,” said Ana Cutter Patel, U.S. Representative at Front Line Defenders. “We hope this advocacy tour will bring them much-needed additional support and recognition, to energize them in their struggle to ensure human rights are respected in their respective countries.”
The Palestinian Authority has called the opening of Papua New Guinea’s Israeli embassy in Jerusalem an “aggression” and a “violation” of international law.
In a statement, Palestine’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates termed the embassy opening as “an aggression against the Palestinian people and their rights” and “a blatant violation of international law and United Nations resolutions”.
On Tuesday, PNG Prime Minister James Marape inaugurated the embassy in West Jerusalem, becoming only the fifth country to set up a diplomatic mission in the city.
In 2018, the US moved its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem in a move that was followed by Honduras, Guatemala and Kosovo.
The Palestinian ministry said it would use all political, diplomatic and legal means to “pursue these countries over their unjustified aggression against the Palestinian people and their rights.”
The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and Jordan have also condemned the move.
Religion behind the move According to the Times of Israel, Marape was explicit that the opening of the embassy was down to religious motivations.
The country opened its embassy “because of our shared heritage, acknowledging the creator God, the Yahweh God of Israel, the Yahweh God of Isaac and Abraham,” the newspaper quoted Marape as saying.
“You have been the great custodian of the moral values that were passed for humanity,” Marape told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who attended the ceremony opening.
“Many nations choose not to open their embassies in Jerusalem but we made the conscious choice. This has been the universal capital of the nation and people of Israel.
For us to call ourselves Christians, paying respect to God will not be complete without recognising that Jerusalem is the universal capital of the people and nation of Israel.”
Marape also asked Israel to open an embassy in Port Moresby, and offered to provide the land for the mission.
Papua New Guinea dedicates its Embassy in Jerusalem. . . . Prime Minister James Marape (left) and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Image: Facebook.com/Israeli Prime Minister/RNZ Pacific
The last USAID office in the region was closed over 25 years ago.
The haste with which the US re-established these offices with its Administrator, Dr Samantha Power — a former Harvard professor, flying from the US to officiate in the ceremonies in Suva and in Port Moresby in PNG on August 15 has also got some sceptics in the region questioning its motives.
Addressing Pacific youth at a ceremony at the University of the South Pacific, also attended by the Pacific Island Forum’s Secretary-General Henry Puna — a former prime minister of Cook Islands — Power said USAID was setting up an office in the Pacific to help them to directly “listen, learn, and better understand” the challenges that Pacific Island countries were facing.
“Our new mission here in Fiji and our office in Papua New Guinea — are not going to come in and impose our ideas or our solutions for the shared challenges that we face” she told an audience of students and academics from the region.
USP is one of only two regional universities in the world largely funded by regional countries. She described the two missions as “reinvigorated (US) commitment to the Pacific Islands”.
At a number of times during her 20-minute speech, Power emphasised that USAID only gave grants and they did not give loans.
“As we increase our investments here in the Pacific, I want to be very clear — and this is subject to some misunderstanding — so please, I hope I am very clear,” she said.
Not forcing nations
“The United States is not forcing nations to choose between partnering with the United States and partnering with other nations to meet their development goals.
“That said, we do want you to have a choice. It’s not a choice that we will make for you, but we want you to have options.
“We want Pacific Island nations to have more options to work with partners whose values and vision for the future align with your own.”
Although Dr Power did not mention China in her speech, this could be interpreted as a reference to the Chinese presence in the Pacific and the “rules-based order” the US and its allies claim to promote in the region.
She immediately added to the above comments by pointing out that USAID only gives grants.
“We are very interested in economic independence, and independence of choice and not saddling future generations with attachments and debts that will later have to be paid,” she said.
“And we will engage with you openly, transparently, with respect for individual dignity and the benefits of inclusive governance, the benefits of being held accountable by your citizens, and we will join you in seeking to combat corrupt dealings that can enrich elites often at the expense of everyday citizens.”
Training farmers in new techniques
Another area where they would allocate funding would be training farmers in new techniques to grapple with changing weather patterns and encroaching salt water.
She also announced the launch of a new initiative, a Blue Carbon Assessment, to quantify the true value of the marine carbon sinks across the Blue Pacific continent.
Referring to Dr Power’s comments about reinvigorating the US’s commitment to the region, Maureen Penjueli, coordinator of the Pacific Network on Globalisation (PANG), told IDN that this was a way to frame the US as a partner of choice by allowing the islanders to determine what is a priority in terms of their development.
“The US is not the only development partner that is suggesting this,” she added, “Australia’s recent Development Policy attempts to frame themselves is no different.”
Referring to US ally Australia’s aid policies, she pointed out that for decades there has been accusation of tied aid, “boomerang aid” by many of our development partners — or how aid is an extension of foreign policy and therefore it is by its nature extractive — an iron fist in a velvet glove”.
“But its other implication is to subtly suggest that the US and its allies’ goals are unlike what China does, which is to ‘extract concessions’ through this relationship either through ensuring that Chinese companies get the contracts, Chinese labour is recruited (as well as) many other forms of accusation of Chinese engagement in the region,” Penjueli said.
During an interaction with the local media after her speech, a local television reporter told Dr Power that critics had been quick to say that the US was ramping up support in the greater Indo-Pacific region because it believed that American dominance was at risk.
“How do you respond to such an observation? And why should Pacific leaders choose US diplomatic support over Chinese support?”, the reporter asked.
“Lots of experience around the world is the recognition that governance and human rights, and economic development go hand in hand,” Dr Power replied.
“You can have economic development without human rights, but it’s almost impossible to have inclusive economic development that reaches broad segments of the population.
“So, we really believe that a development model that values transparency, that ensures that private sector investment is conducted in a manner that benefits broad swaths of the population rather than like a couple of government officials who take a bribe or pay a bribe.”
Grants at a time of a different model Dr Power also added that USAID gave grants at a time when others were pushing a very different model, “which is much more about concentrating both political and economic power, which tends to stifle the voices of citizens to hold their leaders accountable, allows officials to do what they believe is right, but without checks and balances”.
USAID is representing the reopening of the two offices as a follow up to President Biden’s meeting with the Pacific leaders in Washington DC last year.
Its Manila-based deputy assistant director of USAID, Betty Chung, has told Radio New Zealand that currently there are just two staffers in Fiji but by the end of the year, they hope to have eight to 10 there, building up to about 30.
Also the USAID budget for the Pacific has tripled in the past three years.
In a joint press conference in Port Moresby, PNG Prime Minister James Marape has welcomed USAID’s renewed commitments to the region and said that Power’s presence completes what is President Biden’s 3D strategy — diplomacy, defence, and development — in the focus to revamp the US presence in PNG and the Pacific.
He also referred to recent defence agreements signed with the US but said that it should not be a one-way relationship on how they relate to the US. He asked Power and UNAID to assist PNG in preserving their forest resources.
Pacific people need to watch
Pointing out that PNG is home to one-third of the world’s forests and 67 percent of global biodiversity, Marape said that he had asked Dr Power to take the message back to the US and particularly to Congress “who sometimes offer resistance to support to emerging nations” — to help PNG to preserve its forest resources to offset the US “huge carbon footprint”.
Referring to Dr Power’s undertaking that she came to the Pacific to listen, Penjueli said that people in the Pacific needed to watch how USAID could translate this listening exercise into grant-making and in which areas and how they do it.
“For Pacific Island governments, I do believe that they are in a better place, this gives them more options to consider if they (foreign donors) support their own development needs particularly in the current context of a climate emergency, post-pandemic debt stress economies and an ongoing Ukraine war.”
Dr Kalinga Seneviratne is a Sri Lanka-born journalist, broadcaster and international communications specialist. He is currently a consultant to the journalism programme at the University of the South Pacific. He is also the former head of research at the Asian Media Information and Communication Center (AMIC) in Singapore and the Asia-Pacific editor of InDepth News (IDN), the flagship agency of the non-profit International Press Syndicate. This article is republished under content sharing agreement between Asia Pacific Report and IDN.
Dr Samantha Power (pink in the centre with garland) with University of the South Pacific students at the Laucala campus in Suva, Fiji. Image: Kalinga Seneviratne/IDN
(@DrAyeshaOmar) 
(@GoodVibePolitik) 
