Category: usa

August 17, 2023

Anger over failure of sirens to go off as wildfire swept through Lāhainā
By Finau Fonua, RNZ Pacific journalist

As recovery and humanitarian efforts ramp up in Hawai’i’s Maui to help evacuees from the town of Lāhainā, there is frustration among many about the response and the failure of emergency sirens to sound off during the disaster.

The most recent update for Hawai’i’s Governor’s Office has the death toll at 110.

“The sirens never went off which is why a lot of people died because if people had heard the sirens, they would of course have run,” said Allin Dudoit, an assistant for the New Life Church in Kahului, which has been assisting survivors with basic supplies, accommodation and counselling.
- LISTEN TO RNZ PACIFIC WAVES: Maui in state of recovery and mourning
- Other Maui wildfire reports
“When they saw the smoke outside, they didn’t think they were in danger because they didn’t hear the sirens,” he added.

“I had a nephew who made it out alive with his sisters, they got burnt a little but they made it out.”

Dudoit told RNZ Pacific that many survivors were still in their homes when the fires struck and that fallen telephone poles prevented cars from getting out.

Maui New Life Church receives donations for Lāhainā evacuees. Image: New Life Maui Pentecostal Church/RNZ Pacific

“People have been telling me they only had seconds to get away, that they didn’t even have time to run down the hallway to grab a family member — that’s how bad it was.

Telephone pole gridlock
“So many telephone posts were down that it caused a gridlock . . . they thought they were getting away, but the fires just came in and swept through the traffic.

“My wife’s uncle didn’t make it, he was in a truck.”

Lāhainā evacuees attended to by Red Cross volunteers. Image: Scott Dalton/American Red Cross/RNZ Pacific

More than 1000 responders — mostly from the US Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) — are in Maui assisting survivors and recovering bodies from Lāhainā.

In the wake of the disaster, Hawai’i’s Governor Josh Green had announced aid, including employment insurance, financial support and housing.

“We have over 500 hotel rooms already up and going,” said Green.

“If you’re displaced from your job, you need to talk to the Department of Labour . . . please do that so you can get benefits and resources right away.

“We have an AirB&B programme that will have a thousand available rooms for people to go to.

Stable housing
“We want everyone to be able to leave the shelters and go into stable housing which is going to take a long time.”

Hawai’i Governor Josh Green addresses Hawai’i National Guard. Image: Office of Hawaii Governor Josh Green/RNZ Pacific

A housing crisis already exists in Hawai’i. Just last month, Green issued an emergency proclamation to expedite the construction of 50,000 new housing units by 2025.

Lāhainā evacuee and single mother Kanani Higbee — now unemployed and homeless as a result of the disaster — told RNZ Pacific she is already considering leaving the state.

“It’s looking like this Native Hawai’ian and her kids will have to move to another state that has jobs and affordable housing because there isn’t enough help on Maui for us,” she said.

“Tourists are going to want to come back to visit and vacation condominiums will not want to house locals (evacuees) anymore, because the owners have high mortgages to pay,” she said.

Kanani Higbee and her family . . . “Tourists are going to want to come back to visit and vacation condominiums will not want to house locals (evacuees) anymore.” Image: Kanani Higbee/RNZ Pacific

“My work at the grocery store said they may place me to work somewhere else, but haven’t yet. I also work at Lāhaināluna High School . . . the principal told us that they aren’t sure when it will reopen.

“My sister-in-law works at a hotel near the fires and they are taking good care of her — they gave her a longer amount of disaster relief pay.

Some helped, others move
“Some people are getting lots of help while others are going to have to move away from Maui from lack of help.”

Among the most active groups helping Lāhainā evacuees have been Maui’s many churches whose congregations have been raising donations and taking in evacuees.

Baptist Church Pastor Matt Brunt said many people were still reported missing and there was a sense of despair among those who had not heard from missing relatives.

“They’re pretty certain that people they haven’t been able to find yet are most likely going to be a part of the count of people who have died,” said Brunt.

“It seems like people have the immediate supplies they need, but housing is definitely is the biggest need now — to get people out of these shelters and find them a place to live.

“There’s a mixed response of how people feel about the response time of the government, but we also see just how many individuals are stepping out and meeting the needs of these people.”

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
August 10, 2023

How the CBP’s “Prevention Through Deterrence” Policy Contributes to Migrant Deaths at the U.S./Mexico Border

“We did believe that geography would be an ally for us. It was our sense that the number of people crossing through the Arizona desert would go down to a trickle once people realized what it’s like.” — U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agency head, Doris Meissner in 2000.

In 1994, United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP) introduced a new policy that they termed “prevention through deterrence.” By blocking popular crossing spots and forcing migrants into the dangerous desert areas and river crossings, the agency believed they could reduce the number of crossing attempts. Since then, the strategy has not worked. But it has led to an increase in the number of migrant deaths.

CBP has clearly prioritized minimizing the number of people processed at the border over the loss of human life. They have the statistics of what the past 28 years of the “prevention through deterrence” policy have resulted in – 2022 was the deadliest year ever recorded for migrants attempting to cross the border, amounting to over 800 deaths. There have been 7,505 official migrant deaths recorded since 1998. More than 2,000 of those deceased are still unidentified.

Effects of CBP Policies and Dangers of Border Patrol

A report found that a migrant who attempted an illegal border crossing in 2012 was eight times more likely to die trying than someone trying to cross in 2003. Despite the United States heavily leading global discussions on human rights, including those of migrants and refugees, their own border with Mexico is now one of the deadliest land borders in the world.

It is probable that the number of migrant deaths is higher than what is officially recorded – estimates also only include remains that have been recovered. In 2021, CBP officially changed how they record the deaths of migrants to only include those that occur in the custody or proximity of a CBP agent, yet another decision by agency leaders that deprioritizes and obscures the effects of their policies on human lives.

By increasing physical barriers along the border, increasing the number of agents on patrol near cities and towns, and integrating new technology into their monitoring, CBP has purposefully pushed migrants away from the safest crossing points. Border Patrol agents working as part of CBP have also expanded the area they patrol to up to 100,000 square miles, pushing migrants further away from populated areas. This decision places more value on reducing the number of people reaching the border and being processed than on the safety of the men, women, and children who are attempting to reach the United States.

Effects of Trump-Era Policies (How Trump Worsened the Border)

Lingering immigration policies from former President Donald Trump, including blocking legal recognition of asylum seekers and increasing deportations, continue to push migrants onto more dangerous routes. Medical experts working along the U.S.-Mexico border have noted that the increased height of the border walls have correlated with an increase in deaths and serious injuries from scaling attempts. For instance, one hospital in San Diego reported five times the intake for injuries resulting from the wall since these Trump-era height increases.

CBP agents often chase migrants through dangerous terrain. Groups of migrants traveling together can become separated, get (severely) injured, while others may become lost. Based on data from the crisis hotline of No More Deaths, an advocacy organization based in Arizona, Border Patrol is more than twice as likely to take part in directly causing a person to go missing by dangerous enforcement tactics than they are to participate in finding a distressed person.”

In June 2022, the death of 51 migrants in San Antonio, Texas drew international attention to the lengths migrants have gone to in order to avoid CBP detection. “Stacks of bodies” were found in the back of an abandoned truck. The victims had been trapped with no air conditioning or water in temperatures that reached 39 degrees Celsius, covered in steak seasoning to mask any sign of human smuggling. The U.S. government claims that they “made the global fight against human trafficking a policy priority,” but it was their own policies which led to the deadliest human trafficking incident in modern U.S. history.

A similar incident in Texas occurred in 2007, when 19 migrants died after they were locked inside a truck. Temperatures inside reached up to 38 degrees Celsius and migrants were reported to have “clawed at the insulation and screamed for help.” In May 2022, one migrant was killed and five were injured after a CBP car chase. In 2012, a 16-year-old boy was killed through a border fence on Mexican territory by a Border Patrol Agent, shot ten times in the back in an act that would be ruled unconstitutional.

Conversely, these incidents allow CBP to justify increases in their budget and rapidly expand their number of personnel. Since 1998, the number of Border Patrol personnel has more than quadrupled from 4,200 to 19,555. CBP and the larger U.S. Homeland Security agency have leveraged the danger that they caused by making the area around the border more dangerous to justify rapidly expanding their resources.

The Trump campaign made border control a centrepiece of his policy plans. His implementation of a “zero-tolerance” policy regarding illegal border crossings directly led to the separation of almost 4,000 minors from their parents, according to the administration of President Joe Biden.

Although Trump’s tough-on-immigration policies shined a national spotlight on the issue, human rights violations at the U.S.-Mexico border have existed for a long time. The “prevention through deterrence” policy has been in effect since the Bill Clinton administration. Furthermore, border security tightened significantly after 9/11. These decisions to make the safest border crossing points heavily patrolled, as well as CBP’s decision to push migrants into more dangerous areas of the harsh desert borderlands, are clearly driving factors in the rising numbers of the dead and missing.

The Biden administration has also increased the CBP budget, although they have reversed some of Trump’s harshest immigration policies and publicly stated that they intend to build a “safe, orderly, and humane immigration system.” However, migrants continue to die in record numbers under Biden’s leadership. Roughly 800 people died during 2022, an increase from 557 people in 2021. Any changes that the Biden administration implemented or proposed are too slow. Every day that the “prevention through deterrence” strategy remains in place, more lives are lost, more families are destroyed, and more people will forever wonder what happened to their loved ones on their journey.

A Two-Headed Snake

Border Patrol would like the public to think of them as not only a security agency, but also as a search and rescue team. CBP has forced migrants into dangerous and deadly situations, including blocking attempts for humanitarian assistance. Officers have been filmed destroying supplies that humanitarian groups left in the desert for migrants.

In 2018, No More Deaths volunteer Scott Warren was arrested by CBP for offering food, shelter, medical attention, and directions toward safety for two migrants. The government considered this to be “felony concealing, harbouring or shielding from detection… in furtherance of illegal presence in the United States.”

In her closing argument, the prosecutor of this case said that “for four days, those illegal aliens were safe from Border Patrol.” Despite the fact that Border Patrol pushes migrants into dangerous areas and often fails to act as a competent search and rescue team, the people who fill the gaps in providing life-saving services are prosecuted.

A report led by the humanitarian organization La Coalición de Derechos Humanos found that in “63% of all distress calls that families and advocates referred to Border Patrol, the agency did not conduct any confirmed search or rescue mobilization whatsoever.” The primary mission of CBP has, and continues to be, the prevention of illegal entries into the United States, yet it maintains a monopoly on search and rescue decisions for missing migrants.

The combination of CBP’s capacity as an immigration enforcement agency and search and rescue team also discourages migrants from seeking help from them, even if they risk death by doing so.

Some migrants also do not know that their 911 calls are passed off to CBP, even when they’re talking to them.

As long as CBP continues a policy of deterrence, migrants will continue to die. As long as CBP is responsible for rescuing migrants from the danger that they put them in, they will remain lost. These migrants risk everything to reach the United States, and it is the country’s sole responsibility to fix a system which shows zero concern for their survival.

Bibliography

Left To Die. rep. No More Deaths & La Coalición de Derechos Humanos. Available at: http://www.thedisappearedreport.org/uploads/8/3/5/1/83515082/left_to_die_-_english.pdf (Accessed: 2022).

Boyce, G.A. (2019) “The neoliberal underpinnings of prevention through deterrence and the United States government’s case against geographer Scott Warren,” Journal of Latin American Geography, 18(3), pp. 192–201. Available at: https://muse.jhu.edu/article/736945

The deaths of 51 people in Texas highlight the perils of migration (2022) The Economist. The Economist Newspaper. Available at: https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2022/06/28/the-deaths-of-51-people-in-texas-highlight-the-perils-of-migration (Accessed: October 20, 2022).

Dunn, T. (2016) Hardline U.S. border policing is a failed approach, NACLA. Available at: https://nacla.org/blog/2016/09/21/hardlinhttps://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2022/06/28/the-deaths-of-51-people-in-texas-highlight-the-perils-of-migratione-us-border-policing-failed-approach (Accessed: October 18, 2022).

Federal Appeals Court confirms Border Patrol Agents can’t kill people across the border with impunity: News & commentary (2022) American Civil Liberties Union. Available at https://www.aclu.org/news/immigrants-rights/federal-appeals-court-confirms-border-patrol (Accessed: October 16, 2022).

Hernández, A.R., Miroff, N. and Sacchetti, M. (2022) 46 migrants found dead in Texas inside sweltering tractor-trailer, The Washington Post. WP Company. Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/06/27/migrants-dead-texas/ (Accessed: October 18, 2022).

“Migrant Smuggling Attempt Results in Death” (2022) CBP.gov [Preprint]. Available at: https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/speeches-and-statements/migrant-smuggling-attempt-results-death-0 (Accessed: October 16, 2022).

Newell, B.C., Gomez, R. and Guajardo, V.E. (2016) “Information seeking, technology use, and vulnerability among migrants at the United States–Mexico border,” The Information Society, 32(3), pp. 176–191. Available at: https://pure.uvt.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/17262311/Information_seeking_technology_use_Newell.pdf

Person and Jason Buch, J.-cesar C. (2022) Two Mexicans charged after death of 51 migrants in sweltering Texas truck, Reuters. Thomson Reuters. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/death-toll-migrants-found-truck-texas-reaches-50-mexico-says-2022-06-28/ (Accessed: October 20, 2022).

Reports, S. (2022) The Border’s Toll: Migrants increasingly die crossing into U.S., Reuters. Thomson Reuters. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-immigration-border-deaths/ (Accessed: October 15, 2022).

Rose, J. and Peñaloza, M. (2022) Migrant deaths at the U.S.-Mexico Border hit a record high, in part due to drownings, NPR. NPR. Available at: https://www.npr.org/2022/09/29/1125638107/migrant-deaths-us-mexico-border-record-drownings#:~:text=More%20than%20560%20migrants%20died,border%20are%20largely%2%200to%20blame (Accessed: October 18, 2022).

Wang, A.B. (2021) Border Patrol agents were filmed dumping water left for migrants. then came a ‘suspicious’ arrest., The Washington Post. WP Company. Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2018/01/23/border-patrol-accused-of-targeting-aid-group-that-filmed-agents-dumping-water-left-for-migrants/ (Accessed: October 20, 2022).
August 3, 2023

Macron warns of ‘new colonialism’ in Pacific, but clings to French territories
ANALYSIS: By Ravindra Singh Prasad

In a historic first visit to an independent Pacific state by a sitting French president, President Emmanuel Macron has denounced a “new imperialism” in the region during a stop in Vanuatu, warning of a threat to the sovereignty of smaller states.

But, earlier, during a two-day stop in France’s colonial outpost, Kanaky New Caledonia, he refused to entertain demands by indigenous Kanak leaders to hold a new referendum on independence.

“There is in the Indo-Pacific and particularly in Oceania a new imperialism appearing, and a power logic that is threatening the sovereignty of several states — the smallest, often the most fragile,” he said in a speech in the Vanuatu capital Port Vila on July 27.
“Our Indo-Pacific strategy is above all to defend through partnerships the independence and sovereignty of all states in the region that are ready to work with us,” he added, conveniently ignoring the fact that France still has “colonies” in the Pacific (Oceania) that they refuse to let go.

Some 1.6 million French citizens live across seven overseas territories (colonies), including New Caledonia, French Polynesia (Tahiti), and the smaller Pacific atolls of Wallis and Futuna.

This gives them an exclusive economic zone spanning nine million sq km.

Macron uses this fact to claim that France is part of the region even though his country is more than 16,000 km from New Caledonia and Tahiti.

An ‘alternative’ offer
As the US and its allies seek to counter China’s growing influence in the region, France offered an “alternative”, claiming they have plans for expanded aid and development to confront natural catastrophes.

The French annexed New Caledonia in 1853, reserving the territory initially as a penal colony.

Indigenous Kanaks have lived in the islands for more than 3000 years, and the French uprooted them from the land and used them as forced labour in new French plantations and construction sites.

Tahiti’s islands were occupied by migrating Polynesians around 500 BC, and in 1832 the French took over the islands. In 1946 it became an overseas territory of the French Republic.

China is gaining influence in the region with its development aid packages designed to address climate change, empowerment of grassroots communities, and promotion of trade, especially in the fisheries sector, under Chinese President Xi Jinping’s new Global Development Initiative.

After neglecting the region for decades, the West has begun to woo the Pacific countries lately, especially after they were alarmed by a defence cooperation deal signed between China and Solomon Islands in April 2022, which the West suspect is a first step towards Beijing establishing a naval base in the Pacific.

In December 2020, there was a similar alarm, especially in Australia, when China offered a $200 million deal to Papua New Guinea to establish a fisheries harbour and a processing factory to supply fisheries products to China’s seafood market, which is the world’s largest.

Hysterical reactions in Australia
It created hysterical reactions in the Australian media and political circles in Canberra, claiming China was planning to build a naval base 200 km from Australia’s shores.

A stream of Western leaders has visited the region since then while publicly claiming to help the small island nations in their development needs, but at the same time, arm-twisting local leaders to sign defence deals for their navies, in particular to gain access to Pacific harbours and military facilities.

While President Macron was on a five-day visit to New Caledonia, Vanuatu and PNG, US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken and Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin were in Tonga and PNG, respectively, negotiating secret military deals.

At the same time, Macron made the comments of a new imperialism in the Pacific.

Defence Secretary Austin was at pains to explain to sceptical journalists in PNG that the US was not seeking a permanent base in the Pacific Islands nation. It has been reported in the PNG media that the US was seeking access to PNG military bases under the pretext of training PNG forces for humanitarian operations in the Pacific.

Papua New Guinea and the US signed a defence cooperation agreement in May that sets a framework for the US to refurbish PNG ports and airports for military and civilian use. The text of the agreement shows that it allows the staging of US forces and equipment in PNG and covers the Lombrum Naval Base, which Australia and US are developing.

There have been protests over this deal in PNG, and the opposition has threatened to challenge some provisions of it legally.

China’s ‘problematic behavior’
Blinken, who was making the first visit to Tonga by a US Secretary of State, was there to open a new US embassy in the capital Nuku’alofa on July 26. At the event, he spoke about China’s “problematic behavior” in the Pacific and warned about “predatory economic activities and also investments” from China, which he claimed was undermining “good governance and promote corruption”.

Tonga is believed to be heavily indebted to China, but Tongan Prime Minister Siaosi Sovaleni later said at a press conference that Tonga had started to pay down its debt this year and had no concerns about its relationship with China.

Pacific leaders have repeatedly emphasised that they would welcome assistance from richer countries to confront the impact of climatic change in the region, but they do not want the region to be militarised and get embroiled in a geopolitical battle between the US and China.

This was stated bluntly by Fiji’s Defence Minister at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore last year. Other Pacific leaders have repeated this at various forums since then.

Though the Western media reports about these visits to the Pacific by Western leaders as attempts to protect a “rules-based order” in the region, many in the Pacific media are sceptical about this argument.

Fiji-based Island Business news magazine, in a report from the New Caledonian capital Noumea, pointed out how Macron ignored Kanaks’ demands for independence instead of promoting a new deal.

President Macron has said in Noumea that “New Caledonia is French because it has chosen to remain French” after three referendums on self-determination there. In a lengthy speech, he has spoken of building a new political status in New Caledonia through a “path of apology and a path of the future”.

Macron’s pledges ring hollow
As IB reported, Macron’s pledges of repentance and partnership rang hollow for many indigenous Kanak and other independence supporters.

In central Noumea, trade unionists and independence supporters rallied, flying the flag of Kanaky and displaying banners criticising the president’s visit, and as IB noted, the speech was “a clear determination to push through reforms that will advantage France’s colonial power in the Pacific”.

Predominantly French, conservative New Caledonian citizens have called for the electoral register to be opened to some 40,000 French citizens who are resident there, and Macron has promised to consider that at a meeting of stakeholders in Paris in September.

Kanaky leaders fiercely oppose it, and they boycotted the third referendum on independence in December 2022, where the “No” vote won on a “landslide” which Macron claims is a verdict in favour of French rule there.

Kanaks boycotted the referendum (which they were favoured to win) because the French government refused to accept a one-year mourning period for covid-19 deaths among the Kanaks.

Kanaky independence movement workers’ union USTKE’s president Andre Forest told IB: “The electorate must remain as is because it affects citizens of this country. It’s this very notion of citizenship that we want to retain.”

Independence activists and negotiator Victor Tutugoro said: “I’m one of many people who were chased from our home. The collective memory of this loss continues to affect how people react, and this profoundly underlies their rejection of changes to the electorate.”

‘Prickly contentious issues’
In an editorial on the eve of Macron’s visit to Papua New Guinea, the PNG Post-Courier newspaper sarcastically asked why “the serene beauty of our part of the globe is coming under intense scrutiny, and everyone wants a piece of Pasifica in their GPS system?”

“Macron is not coming to sip French wine on a deserted island in the middle of the Pacific,” noted the Post-Courier. “France still has colonies in the Pacific which have been prickly contentious issues at the UN, especially on decolonisation of Tahiti and New Caledonia.

“France also used the Pacific for its nuclear testing until the 90s, most prominently at Moruroa, which had angered many Pacific Island nations.”

Noting that the Chinese are subtle and making the Western allies have itchy feet, the Post-Courier argued that these visits were taking the geopolitics of the Pacific to the next level.

“Sooner or later, PNG can expect Air Force One to be hovering around PNG skies,” it said.

China’s Global Times, referring to President Macron’s “new colonialism” comments, said it was “improper and ridiculous” to put China in the same seat as the “hegemonic US”.

“Macron wants to convince regional countries that France is not an outsider but part of the region, as France has overseas territories there,” Cui Hongjian, director of the Department of European Studies at the China Institute of International Studies told Global Times.

“But the validity of France’s status in the region is, in fact, thin, as its territories there were obtained through colonialism, which is difficult for Macron to rationalise.”

“This is why he avoids talking about it further and turns to another method of attacking other countries to help France build a positive image in the region.”

Meanwhile, during his visit to the 7th Melanesia Arts and Cultural Festival in Port Vila, four chiefs from the disputed islands of Matthew and Hunter, about 190 km from New Caledonia, handed over to the French President what they called a “peaceful demand” for independence. IDN-InDepthNews

Ravindra Singh Prasad is a correspondent of InDepth News (IDN), the flagship agency of the International Press Syndicate. This article is republished with permission.
July 29, 2023

Potential AUKUS deal could divide NZ and Pacific, says academic
By Christina Persico, RNZ Pacific

An international relations professor says that if New Zealand joins AUKUS it could impact on its relations with Pacific countries.

AUKUS is a security agreement between Australia, the UK and the US, which will see Australia supplied with nuclear-powered submarines.

That has raised concern in the Pacific, which is under the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, also known as the Treaty of Rarotonga.
- READ MORE: Other AUKUS reports
The topic has come up while US Secretary of State Antony Blinken visited New Zealand.

The visit came after he visited Tonga.

Robert Patman, professor of international relations at the University of Otago, said New Zealand’s views on non-nuclear security are shared by the majority of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) members and also the Pacific Island states.

“Even if New Zealand joined AUKUS in a non-nuclear fashion, technically, it may be seen through the eyes of others as diluting our commitment to that norm,” Professor Patman said.

Sharing defence information
Professor Patman explained that “pillar 1” of AUKUS is about providing nuclear-powered submarines to Australia over two or three decades, and “pillar 2” is to do with sharing information on defence technologies.

“We haven’t closed the door on it, but it’s a considerable risk from New Zealand’s point of view, because a lot of our credibility is having an independent foreign policy.”

Professor Robert Patman . . . the Pacific may not view New Zealand joining AUKUS favourably – if it is to happen in the future. Image: RNZ Pacific

Asked about New Zealand’s potential membership in AUKUS, Blinken said work on pillar 2 was ongoing.

“The door is very much open for New Zealand and other partners to engage as they see appropriate,” he said.

“New Zealand is a deeply trusted partner, obviously a Five Eyes member.

“We’ve long worked together on the most important national security issues.”

New Zealand Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta said the government was exploring pillar 2 of the deal.

Not committed
But she said New Zealand had not committed to anything.

Mahuta said New Zealand had been clear it would not compromise its nuclear-free position, and that was acknowledged by AUKUS members.

Patman said that statement was reassurance for Pacific Island states.

“[New Zealand is] party to the Treaty of Rarotonga,” he said.

“We have to weigh up whether the benefits of being in pillar 2 outweigh possible external perception that we’re eroding our commitment, to being party to an arrangement which is facilitating the transfer of nuclear-powered submarines to Australia.”

He said New Zealand had also been in talks with NATO about getting access to cutting-edge technology, so it was not dependent on AUKUS for that.

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

This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.
July 29, 2023

Potential AUKUS deal could divide NZ and Pacific, says academic
By Christina Persico, RNZ Pacific

An international relations professor says that if New Zealand joins AUKUS it could impact on its relations with Pacific countries.

AUKUS is a security agreement between Australia, the UK and the US, which will see Australia supplied with nuclear-powered submarines.

That has raised concern in the Pacific, which is under the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, also known as the Treaty of Rarotonga.
- READ MORE: Other AUKUS reports
The topic has come up while US Secretary of State Antony Blinken visited New Zealand.

The visit came after he visited Tonga.

Robert Patman, professor of international relations at the University of Otago, said New Zealand’s views on non-nuclear security are shared by the majority of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) members and also the Pacific Island states.

“Even if New Zealand joined AUKUS in a non-nuclear fashion, technically, it may be seen through the eyes of others as diluting our commitment to that norm,” Professor Patman said.

Sharing defence information
Professor Patman explained that “pillar 1” of AUKUS is about providing nuclear-powered submarines to Australia over two or three decades, and “pillar 2” is to do with sharing information on defence technologies.

“We haven’t closed the door on it, but it’s a considerable risk from New Zealand’s point of view, because a lot of our credibility is having an independent foreign policy.”

Professor Robert Patman . . . the Pacific may not view New Zealand joining AUKUS favourably – if it is to happen in the future. Image: RNZ Pacific

Asked about New Zealand’s potential membership in AUKUS, Blinken said work on pillar 2 was ongoing.

“The door is very much open for New Zealand and other partners to engage as they see appropriate,” he said.

“New Zealand is a deeply trusted partner, obviously a Five Eyes member.

“We’ve long worked together on the most important national security issues.”

New Zealand Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta said the government was exploring pillar 2 of the deal.

Not committed
But she said New Zealand had not committed to anything.

Mahuta said New Zealand had been clear it would not compromise its nuclear-free position, and that was acknowledged by AUKUS members.

Patman said that statement was reassurance for Pacific Island states.

“[New Zealand is] party to the Treaty of Rarotonga,” he said.

“We have to weigh up whether the benefits of being in pillar 2 outweigh possible external perception that we’re eroding our commitment, to being party to an arrangement which is facilitating the transfer of nuclear-powered submarines to Australia.”

He said New Zealand had also been in talks with NATO about getting access to cutting-edge technology, so it was not dependent on AUKUS for that.

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

This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.
July 26, 2023

PNG plans 21-gun salute for Macron in historic visit to an independent Pacific state
PNG Post-Courier

French President Emmanuel Macron jets into Port Moresby late tomorrow for his historic visit to Papua New Guinea and will be met by Prime Minister James Marape with a 21-gun salute and other ceremonies.

Marape yesterday expressed profound enthusiasm for the upcoming visit of President Macron — currently in New Caledonia — considering it a significant milestone in the nation’s global engagement.

President Macron’s visit marks the first time a French president has visited an independent country in the Pacific, showcasing Papua New Guinea’s growing connectivity with the world, Marape said.
- READ MORE: Macron in New Caledonia to bolster France’s Indo-Pacific strategy
- Other French Pacific reports
“This historic visit by President Macron exemplifies the profound connectivity that Papua New Guinea, under my leadership, is forging with the international community,” he said.

“In today’s interconnected virtual realm of commerce, real-time trade, and foreign relations, the visit by the esteemed French president bodes exceedingly well for PNG.

“We eagerly anticipate strengthening our ties with this influential G7 economy.”

This meeting follows a previous encounter between President Macron and Prime Minister Marape earlier this year in Gabon, Central Africa, during the “One-Forest” Summit.

Bilateral cooperation
The forthcoming visit further cements the amicable relations between the two leaders and enhances bilateral cooperation.

In recent months, the Prime Minister has had fruitful discussions with several world leaders, demonstrating PNG’s growing prominence on the global stage.

A one-day state visit of Indonesia’s President, Joko Widodo, resulted in tangible benefits, including the establishment of direct flights between Port Moresby and Bali.

Discussions with the President of the Republic of Korea, Yoon Suk Yeol, during the Korea-Pacific Islands Summit, fostered constructive engagements and cooperation between the nations.

Papua New Guinea also hosted leaders such as Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and New Zealand Prime Minister Chris Hipkins, further strengthening ties and fostering positive developments.

Leaders of all Pacific countries were also present for the visit of Prime Minister Modi.

Critical issues
Reflecting on these milestones, Marape expressed his commitment to advancing bilateral relations and addressing critical issues of mutual concern with visiting dignitaries.

He hailed the visit of Australian Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, earlier this year, which marked a turning point in the relationship between Papua New Guinea and Australia after 47 years of independence.

“In anticipation of President Macron’s visit, Papua New Guinea stands ready to engage in productive dialogues and explore new avenues of cooperation with France.

“The visit bears the potential to further elevate PNG’s global presence and unlock new opportunities for mutual growth and prosperity,” Marape said.

President Macron will also be visiting Vanuatu and Fiji.

Republished with permission.

French President Emmanuel Macron pays a tribute at the customary Senate in New Caledonia yesterday. Image: @EmmanuelMacron

This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.
July 25, 2023

Every U.S. city testing guaranteed basic income
By Chase DiBenedetto

See original post here.

The promise of Universal Basic Income (UBI) remains an attractive concept to many, even as the U.S. economy fluctuates, COVID-19 public health declarations are lifted, and the threat of a national recession ebbs through the news cycle. Cities across the country continue announcing new free cash programs for residents , and early adopters have concluded and published the results of multi-year pilot programs.

UBI is actually an old concept, bolstered by numerous historic examples showing the practice’s positive economic effects. The idea is very simple: Long-term cash payments provide a basic safety net for everyone. Payments come with absolutely no conditions attached, as often as once a month. In the 21st century, the more local programs we launch, the more it seems to work.

The idea gained widespread and urgent relevance in 2020, as millions of households coped with the financial impact of the pandemic. In response, many cities chose to test guaranteed income programs — similar in principle to UBI, but offered to a select portion of a city’s population instead of all residents.

These groups are either randomly selected, or chosen based on location, wealth, or even career, like the guaranteed income programs for artists in San Francisco and Long Beach, California.

Mayors for a Guaranteed Income, founded in 2020 by former Stockton, California, Mayor Michael Tubbs, advocates for guaranteed income programs across the country. By the end of 2022, there were more than 100 mayors involved in the organization’s work, and a few dozen had already launched pilot programs, with even more planning guaranteed income initiatives. Early member cities could apply for up to $500,000 in funding for their own pilot programs, initially funded by a $15-million donation from former Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey.

The movement for guaranteed income is growing, initiated in public consciousness by previous demands for financial safety nets during the pandemic. Momentum has been facilitated in part by groups like the grassroots nonprofit Income Movement, which consults with city governments and organizes global public marches pushing for basic income, and the Economic Security Project, another nonprofit that advocates for a guaranteed income.

Nationwide, nonprofits also are throwing themselves into the mix. Miracle Messages, a nonprofit providing social support services for people experiencing homelessness, hosts its own version of a UBI pilot for unhoused people across the nation. Called the Miracle Money program, it provides $500 per month in direct cash transfers to participants.

And in February, Mayors for a Guaranteed Income launched Counties for a Guaranteed Income, which supports elected county officials in the broader movement for a stable income floor for all Americans.

State, not just city, governments are also slowly rising to the calls for guaranteed income. In 2021, California announced a statewide guaranteed income project, signed off on by Gov. Gavin Newsom, with a budget of $35 million for the next five years. Could it be one step closer to UBI?

Here’s a list of guaranteed income programs in the U.S., from the completed to the recently announced.

Alabama

Birmingham (Embrace Mothers)

Birmingham announced a guaranteed income research pilot — intended specifically to help single women raising children — in October 2021, and officially launched the program in February 2022.

Eligible participants were described as “female-identifying heads of family caring for at least one child under the age of 18,” according to the program application, and were randomly selected by the program’s research partner, Abt Associates. The first group of 110 people began receiving $375 per month for a year in March 2022.

The program also included a control group of 132 people who will not receive monthly income, but will be paid for their participation in pilot surveys. It was supported by a $500,000 grant from Mayors for a Guaranteed Income as well as additional funding from the city of Birmingham.

Arizona

Phoenix

In September 2021, the Phoenix City Council approved a $12-million cash assistance program to help low-income families.

The program provided 1,000 families a $1,000 monthly stipend for one year. Households must have been at or below 80 percent of the Area Median Income ($63,200 for a family of four, according to the city). Selected families were either living in U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development communities, using federally funded housing choice vouchers for Section 8 properties, or participating in the city’s Emergency Rental Assistance program funded by coronavirus relief money, the Phoenix New Times reported.

Funds came from the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), with help from the Partnership for Economic Innovation, and the first payments (sent via prepaid debit cards) were distributed in February 2022.

California

Compton (Compton Pledge)

The Compton Pledge program, announced in October 2020, provided monthly cash payments (between $300 and $600) to more than 800 families in the city of Compton for two years. The participating families were primarily “irregularly or informally employed residents, immigrants of varied legal status, and the formerly incarcerated,” according to a city statement.

Participants also were provided access to free banking services provided by Compton Pledge. As of April 14, 2021, the program had already distributed $1 million to 1,770 residents.

The last payments were distributed in 2023, making up a total of $9.3 million given directly to 800 participating families.

Los Angeles (Basic Income Guaranteed: LA Economic Assistance Pilot)

Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti announced a $24-million guaranteed income program for LA residents in April 2021. The city government said it would reallocate $6 million cut from the LAPD budget towards the initiative. The Basic Income Guaranteed: LA Economic Assistance Pilot (better known by its acronym, BIG LEAP) provided 3,200 individuals under the poverty line with $1,000 per month for a year — much more than its original 2,000-resident goal.

To be eligible, applicants had to be pregnant or parents of dependent children, have an income at or below the federal poverty line, and be affected by COVID-19. The first payments were disbursed in January 2022, and the program officially ended in April 2023.

Los Angeles County

Los Angeles County has unveiled multiple other guaranteed income programs. In July 2021, the county announced it would be sending $1,204 per month to 150 residents between the ages of 18 and 24 years old. Those selected were already receiving general relief benefits for low-income residents.

A second direct cash program, BREATHE, unveiled in May 2021, ended its open application period in September 2022 and selected 1,000 residents to participate in a $1,000-per-month direct cash program. Support from the program will extend for three years. It’s supported by government funds, as well as philanthropic organizations like the Conrad N. Hilton Foundation, the James Irvine Foundation, and the Kresge Foundation.

Long Beach

In July 2021, Long Beach announced its guaranteed income pilot program to help residents of the city’s 90813 ZIP code. According to the Long Beach mayor’s office, this is the “highest concentrated area of family poverty in Long Beach and has a median household income 25 percent lower than any other ZIP code in the city.”

The program will give 250 families a $500 stipend for one year. Priority will be given to single-parent households, mainly single mothers, with incomes below the poverty line. In February 2022, the city launched a request for proposals to implement the proposed pilot, and in May 2022, it signed a contract with the nonprofit Fund for Guaranteed Income. The first payments were issued in May 2023.

Marin County

Inspired by the success of the neighboring Oakland and Stockton pilot programs, Marin County announced plans for its own pilot program in March 2021. The program would give $1,000 to 125 women of color who are raising at least one child under the age of 18.

The proposed $3-million initiative was supported by a nonprofit philanthropic group, the Marin Community Foundation, and a $400,000 grant from the Marin County Board of Supervisors. According to the foundation, the pilot’s first round of recipients focuses on those facing “the greatest aggregate of challenges: low income, young children, and facing the daily travails and insults of overt and covert racial discrimination.”

Eligible mothers were to be chosen from a pool of more than 4,000 individuals who already receive funding from the foundation.

Mountain View (Elevate Mountain View)

The city of Mountain View’s guaranteed income pilot program was presented in its exploratory phase in September 2021 and launched officially in September 2022.

It will provide direct cash payments of $500 per month to 166 randomly selected low-income families for two years. Eligible participants must make 30 percent below the area’s average median income. The first payments were distributed in December 2022.

Oakland (Oakland Resilient Families)

Oakland’s guaranteed income project was unveiled in March 2021 and provided hundreds of low-income families with $500 monthly payments during an 18-month project period. Households with the greatest income disparities, as defined by the Oakland Equity Index, were given priority in the application process. To qualify, families must have had a child under the age of 18. Eligible participants were randomly selected.

The program is entirely funded by private donors and had raised $6.75 million as of the announcement. Oakland representatives said at the time that “at least 80 percent” of those funds would be distributed over the 18 months.

In February 2022, the program announced it would be extending its first phase after receiving a $1-million grant from an anonymous donor, providing 300 families with $500 a month for an additional six months. The citywide second phase was launched in January 2022 for another 300 residents and will end in June 2023.

Santa Clara County

In July 2020, Santa Clara County launched the first guaranteed income program in the country that specifically helps young adults transitioning out of the foster care system. The pilot, which had a $900,000 budget, gave 72 former foster care youth $1,000 a month for one year.

Inspired by the success of the pilot program, Sen. Dave Cortese introduced the Universal Basic Income for Transition Age Foster Youth Act in 2021, which, had it been passed, would have given $1,000 a month to approximately 2,500 youth aging out of a state foster care program. The bill was tabled, but Cortese introduced a second version detailing the California Success, Opportunity, and Academic Resilience (SOAR) Guaranteed Income Program, which would provide guaranteed income to high school seniors experiencing homelessness. In April 2022, the bill passed a vote in the Senate Education Committee.

San Diego and National City (San Diego for Every Child)

The San Diego for Every Child program was created by San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria and National City Mayor Alejandra Sotelo-Solis to address childhood poverty in San Diego. The guaranteed income pilot was announced in November 2021 and is managed in partnership with the Jewish Family Service of San Diego.

The pilot provides $500 a month for 24 months to 150 families, all of which have a child who is 12 years old or under. Only families living in select ZIP codes were eligible for the program: 92114 (Encanto), 92139 (Paradise Hills), 91950 (National City), and 92173 (San Ysidro). The pilot distributed its first monthly payments in March 2022.

San Francisco

The San Francisco area has debuted several free money programs.

The Abundant Birth Project is a pilot program led by Expecting Justice, an initiative to address preterm births and maternal health, and Mayor London Breed. The program provides “unconditional cash supplements to Black and Pacific Islander mothers as a strategy to reduce preterm birth and improve economic outcomes,” the organization explains. Recipients will get $1,000 per month for 12 months. They must be pregnant and have an annual income of less than $100,000. Initial payments were given out in June 2022, and enrollment for the first 150 recipients was completed in December 2022. The Abundant Birth Project website indicates the program will relaunch this year, with applications anticipated to reopen in summer 2023.

The South San Francisco guaranteed income program was announced and launched in 2021 to support undocumented or formerly incarcerated residents of the South San Francisco area, as well as provide relief during COVID-19. The program set out to distribute $500 a month for one year to 160 households who also receive case management services from the city. The first payments to select recipients were given out in December 2021.

In November 2022, the city announced it would be expanding even more guaranteed income programs thanks to a grant from the California Department of Social Services:
- Expecting Justice (Heluna Health DBA Public Health Foundation Enterprises, Inc.): A $5,000,000 grant to provide 425 pregnant individuals who are disproportionately impacted by perinatal health disparities with $600 to $1,000 per month for 12 months.
- Inland Southern California United Way: A $5,000,000 grant to provide 500 pregnant individuals and 150 former foster youth with $600 per month for 18 months.
- iFoster, Inc.: A $4,763,010 grant to provide 300 former foster youth with $750 per month for 18 months.
- Los Angeles Section National Council of Jewish Women, Inc.: A grant of $3,681,949 to provide 150 pregnant individuals who have diabetes with $1,000 per month for 18 months.
- San Francisco Human Services Agency: A $3,300,000 grant to provide 150 former foster youth with $1,200 per month for 18 months.
- McKinleyville Community Collaborative: A $2,354,841 grant to provide 150 pregnant individuals with $1,000 per month for 18 months.
- Ventura County Human Services Agency: A $1,500,000 grant to provide 150 youth former foster youth with $1,000 per month for 18 months.
Sonoma County (Pathway to Income Equity)

The Sonoma County Pathway to Income Equity program was officially launched in September 2022 by the Sonoma County Guaranteed Basic Income Coalition and First 5 Sonoma County.

It provides 305 county residents with $500 a month for 24 months, and eligibility is based on income, residency, and the household’s reported impact from COVID-19. The funds are provided by the county, city of Healdsburg, city of Petaluma, and city of Santa Rosa, along with American Rescue Plan Act funds. The program is in partnership with the Fund for Guaranteed Income, and all payments are distributed as “COVID disaster relief.”

Stockton (Stockton Economic Empowerment Demonstration)

Announced in February 2019 by then-Mayor (and Mayors for a Guaranteed Income founder) Michael Tubbs, the Stockton Economic Empowerment Demonstration (SEED) is a completed pilot program that provided 125 residents with $500 monthly payouts over 24 months. The residents were chosen randomly from neighborhoods at or below Stockton’s median household income. It was funded entirely by $3 million in donations.

The results of the pilot program were released in March 2021. According to SEED, the guaranteed income resulted in higher rates of full-time employment. It also positively impacted the mental health of recipients. Participants reported being less anxious and depressed and “saw improvements in emotional health, fatigue levels, and overall well-being.”

Colorado

Colorado’s network of guaranteed income programs has expanded significantly in the last few years, including several initiatives out of the Women’s Foundation of Colorado, The Colorado Trust, and the Thriving Providers Project, an organization that helps distribute direct cash payments to home-based caregivers, among other nonprofits.

Denver (Denver Basic Income Project)

On the city level, the Denver Basic Income Project is a nonprofit initiative originally announced in collaboration with Mayors for a Guaranteed Income and the University of Denver’s Center for Housing and Homeless Research. It was specifically founded to help the city’s homeless population.

The program’s initial $5.5-million budget was funded entirely through private donations and philanthropic support. It staggered varying payments over the course of one year: 260 people received $1,000 a month, another 260 received an initial $6,500 payment followed by $500 every month, and a third group of 300 participants received $50 every month.

In September 2022, the city of Denver announced a $2-million pledge and its participation in the project’s latest endeavor: providing $12,000 over the span of a year to a select group of people experiencing homelessness. The pilot will benefit 140 individuals and households and operate similarly to the earlier tests. One participant group will receive $6,500 upfront and $500 a month for the next 11 months. Another group will receive $1,000 per month for a year.

Florida

Gainesville (Just Income GNV)

In 2022, in collaboration with Mayors for a Guaranteed Income and local nonprofit Community Spring, the city of Gainesville launched the Just Income GNV guaranteed income pilot to help Florida’s formerly incarcerated population upon re-entry.

The program refers to this population as “justice-impacted.” To be eligible, applicants had to be a resident of Alachua County and have been recently released from a Florida state or federal prison, or a Florida county jail (with a felony conviction), or have begun their felony parole in the county. Each of the 115 randomly selected participants received $1,000 in the first month, followed by $600 a month for 11 months. The first payments were distributed in March 2022, and the pilot officially concluded in February 2023.

Georgia

Atlanta (Income Mobility Program for Atlanta Community Transformation & In Her Hands)

In March 2021, Atlanta’s Old Fourth Ward Economic Security Task Force announced the beginnings of a pilot program in partnership with the Economic Security Project.

In December 2021, the Atlanta mayor’s office formally announced an Income Mobility Program for Atlanta Community Transformation (I.M.P.A.C.T.) fund in collaboration with Mayors for a Guaranteed Income and the Urban League of Greater Atlanta. The fund provided 300 Atlanta residents with $500 per month over a 12-month pilot period — an initial group of 25 participants began receiving payments in January 2022, with the rest receiving funds in June 2022. The recipients were all at least 18 years old and living below 200 percent of the federal poverty line ($53,000 for a household of four, the program explained).

Announced in early 2022, In Her Hands is a guaranteed income pilot program overseen by the Georgia Resilience and Opportunity Fund, which will provide $850 per month to 650 Black women living in three communities in Georgia, over the course of two years. The first cohort of recipients will be based in Atlanta’s Old Fourth Ward, while the second two groups will be based in Southwest Georgia’s Clay-Randolph-Terrell county cluster and the City of College Park.

Illinois

Chicago (Chicago Resilient Communities)

Chicago City Alderman Gilbert Villega announced his city’s proposed guaranteed income program in April 2021. The original proposal’s $30-million price tag came from the city’s $1.9 billion in American Rescue Plan funds.

The City of Chicago Department of Family and Support Services later debuted the Chicago Resilient Communities pilot program in collaboration with the nonprofit GiveDirectly. The pilot provided 5,000 eligible recipients with $500 a month for one year. To qualify, recipients must have been 18 years or older, below 250 percent of the federal poverty level, and have experienced economic hardship because of COVID-19. All 5,000 participants were selected as of August 2022, and payments started soon after.

In December 2022, the program reopened applications, thanks to a $14.68-million city grant. Applications will remain open until all relief payments have gone out, or by December 2023.

Cook County (Cook County Promise)

The Cook County Promise pilot program, announced in September 2022, will distribute $42 million to Cook County (Chicago-area) residents, making it the country’s largest guaranteed income pilot program yet.

The program is funded by the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) and partnered with GiveDirectly, AidKit, and several other community organizations dedicated to servicing hard-to-reach populations. It will provide 3,250 low-income families with $500 monthly cash payments for 24 months. First payments began in December 2022 and will continue through December 2024.

Evanston

The city of Evanston partnered with Northwestern University to launch its first guaranteed income pilot program, announced in August 2022.

It plans to provide 150 families with a $500 per month stipend, loaded onto a prepaid debit card, for one year. Eligible participants include low-income residents 18 to 24 years old or adults 62 years old and older, as well as undocumented community members. The pilot is funded by both the city and the university, as well as $700,000 in American Rescue Plan funds. The first payments went out in December 2022.

Indiana

Gary (Guaranteed Income Validation Effort)

The Guaranteed Income Validation Effort (GIVE) was completed in June 2022 and provided $500 a month to 121 low-income residents over the span of one year. To be eligible, participants had to make less than $35,000 annually. Alongside financial support, the first test group received financial literacy classes from local Centier Bank and admissions counseling from Indiana University Northwest.

The program was supported by a $500,000 grant from Mayors for a Guaranteed Income. After running out of funds in November 2021, the Gary City Council allocated $400,000 of American Rescue Act funds to cover the pilot’s remaining six months. GIVE will continue supporting its participants with a series of financial literacy courses.

Louisiana

New Orleans

In December 2021, New Orleans Mayor LaToya Cantrell unveiled the city’s first guaranteed income pilot to help “opportunity youth” (defined as young people who have graduated high school but are disconnected from work or school) afford basic needs. After receiving a $500,000 grant from Mayors for a Guaranteed Income, the program was announced to the public in May 2022. It was the first in the coalition to specifically address youth needs.

The pilot serves young people between the ages of 16 and 24 who are not in school or currently working. The 125 chosen recipients are from a variety of backgrounds and represent marginalized segments of the New Orleans community, including those in the juvenile justice system, pregnant people and new parents, unhoused youth, and immigrants. They will receive $350 per month for 10 months, and the first disbursements have already been issued.

Shreveport

The city of Shreveport also partnered with Mayors for a Guaranteed Income and launched its guaranteed income program pilot in February 2022 with the support of the city, Caddo Parish, and United Way of Northwest Louisiana.

The program provided 110 residents with $660 per month for one year. They had to be a single parent (married or unmarried) with an income below 120 percent of the federal poverty level. The first payments were distributed in March 2022.

Maryland

Baltimore (Baltimore Young Families Success Fund)

Announced in early 2022, Baltimore’s Young Families Success Fund (BYFSF) provides 200 parents or guardians between the ages of 18 and 24 with $1,000 per month over 24 months. Participants must also have incomes at or below 300 percent of the federal poverty level. The program is intended to “provide financial relief for their families and stabilize their households,” according to the mayor’s office.

After opening applications in May 2022, the program officially selected participants and began processing initial monthly payments in August 2022. It’s funded by $4.8 million in American Rescue Plan Act funds, the Mayor’s Office of Children and Family Success, and private donors.

Massachusetts

Chelsea (Direct Assistance Stipend Program & Chelsea Eats)

In response to the economic impact of COVID-19, the city of Chelsea announced a relief program for more than 2,000 low-income residents who reported struggling with food insecurity. The program was supported by both Mayors for a Guaranteed Income and the Shah Family Foundation, which randomly chose its recipients from a pool of more than 3,000 applicants. In 2021, the program supported 2,040 families who received between $200 and $400 a month, according to Mayors for a Guaranteed Income.

In 2020, the city also hosted its Chelsea Eats program to address financial and food insecurity. Approximately 2,000 households were given direct cash cards to use to purchase food. The cards were replenished with funds on a monthly basis for six months.

Cambridge (Cambridge Recurring Income for Success and Empowerment)

The Cambridge Recurring Income for Success and Empowerment (RISE) pilot program was announced in April 2021 and officially launched in September 2022. The program’s direct aim is to support single caretaker households and families below 200 percent of the federal poverty line.

Cambridge RISE Pilot provided $500 monthly payments to 130 households that earned less than 80 percent of the area’s median income and residents who are single (unmarried) caregivers with at least one child under the age of 18. Early funding for the program came through a $500,000 grant from Mayors for a Guaranteed Income, as well as the Center of Guaranteed Income Research at the University of Pennsylvania.

In 2023, the RISE program became the first non-lottery guaranteed income program in the country. Applications for the program reopened in June, allowing every resident with a dependent under 21, living at or below 250 percent of the federal poverty level, to access $500 a month for 18 months.

Lynn & Roxbury (Family Health Project)

The Family Health Project supports new mothers with a guaranteed income during their children’s first three years. The program provides new moms with $400 a month for 36 months, as well as social service support from partnered agencies. The first cohort of 15 families started receiving payments in May 2021.

Another group of 15 families from the town of Roxbury were also selected to participate in a second direct giving pilot program, in partnership with Whittier Street Health Center.

Recipients must be referred to the program by a federally qualified community health center in partnership with the project. It’s entirely funded by philanthropic donations.

Newton (Economic Stability/Mobility Initiative)

The Economic Stability/ Mobility Initiative is a partnership between the city of Newton and Economic Mobility Pathways (EMPath), a Boston-based anti-poverty nonprofit. Announced in February 2023, the program will support 50 families with $250 per month in cash assistance over the course of two years. EMPath will provide personalized, one-on-one economic mobility coaching to all participants.

Priority goes to low-income Newton families who are at or below 50 percent of the area median income, have children under 18 years old (or are pregnant), and who are interested in working and increasing their income, the city explained.

Michigan

Ann Arbor

Announced in June, the city of Ann Arbor will partner with the University of Michigan to launch its guaranteed income pilot program, a entrepreneur-based direct cash initiative that will give 100 families and individuals roughly $528 per month for two years. The city says it will focus aid on low- and moderate-income households with individuals engaged in some form of entrepreneurship, including home-based businesses.

The city has launched an online portal where those interested in the program can sign up for future updates.

Minnesota

Minneapolis

In partnership with Mayors for a Guaranteed Income, Minneapolis launched its pilot program in early 2022.

The program is supported by federal relief funds and is in partnership with the Royal Credit Union, which is offering financial services to unbanked participants. The first cohort will provide 200 residents with $500 per month for 24 months. To be eligible, individuals must be 18 years or older, have an income below 50 percent of the city’s average median income, and be impacted financially by the pandemic. They must also be residents of a select group of ZIP codes: 55403, 55404, 55405, 55407, 55411, 55412, 55413, 55430, or 55454. Applications have closed.

St. Paul (People’s Prosperity Guaranteed Income Pilot & CollegeBound Boost)

St. Paul’s pilot program began in October 2020 and gave 150 families $500 per month for a period of up to 18 months. The program was funded by the city’s grant under the federal CARES Act, the Minnesota Department of Human Services, and by private donors, making it the first of the Mayors for Guaranteed Income network to leverage public dollars, the organization says.

Recipients were chosen from those already enrolled in the CollegeBound Saint Paul program, a city-wide initiative to provide St. Paul children born after January 1, 2020, with college savings accounts.

In June 2022, the city announced the CollegeBound Boost program, expanding on the guaranteed income and college savings initiative. It will provide 333 low-income families enrolled in the CollegeBound Saint Paul program with $500 each month for two years, as well as deposits of $1,000 each for their children’s CollegeBound Saint Paul college savings accounts.

Mississippi

Jackson (Magnolia Mother’s Trust)

The Magnolia program was launched by Springboard to Opportunities in 2018. This pilot was the first in the U.S. to offer monthly payments specifically to low-income African American mothers. After the success of its first cohort in 2018, the program launched its second cohort in March 2020, which gave $1,000 a month to 110 mothers for one year. In March 2021, Magnolia Mother’s Trust unveiled its third group of participants, which added another 100 new mothers who will receive $1,000 monthly payments. The program continued with its fourth group of participants in May 2022, with payments ending in April 2023.

New Jersey

Newark (Newark Equity)

In 2019, Newark’s Guaranteed Income Task Force partnered with the Economic Security Project and the Jain Family Institute, a nonprofit research group supporting guaranteed income projects, to build a proposal for the city’s first pilot program.

In February 2021, the city formally adopted a resolution supporting the task force’s recommendations, and in May 2021, Newark Mayor Ras Baraka announced it would move forward with a two-year pilot program providing $6,000 annually to 400 residents. Eligible residents must have an income that falls 200 percent below the federal poverty income level. One group will receive payments bi-weekly, another will be paid on a monthly basis, and the third will receive two annual payouts. The first 30 participants started receiving payments in early 2021. By fall 2021, all 400 Newark residents had started receiving bi-weekly payments of $250 and semi-annual payments of $3,000, which will continue for 24 months.

Paterson

Paterson’s guaranteed income pilot program was announced in March 2021, and is also supported by Mayors for a Guaranteed Income.

The pilot ran for one year and gave $400 to 110 residents, regardless of employment status, the city clarified. Eligibility was based on income: Applicants must have been making less than $30,000 annually for individuals, while family income was capped at $88,000. The first group of recipients were chosen in May 2021 through a lottery system, and began receiving payments in July 2021. The program ended in June 2022.

New Mexico

Santa Fe (Santa Fe LEAP)

Another Mayors for a Guaranteed Income partner, the Santa Fe Learn, Earn, Achieve Program (LEAP) received a $500,000 grant to launch the city’s first guaranteed income pilot program in June 2021.

The program provided 100 parents who are enrolled in Santa Fe Community College (and make less than 200 percent of the federal poverty level) with $400 per month for 12 months. Participants began receiving payments in October 2021.

New York

Hudson (HudsonUp)

Mutual aid community center The Spark of Hudson and nonprofit advocacy group Humanity Forward joined together with Hudson Mayor Kamal Johnson to launch the city’s first basic income pilot in 2020. The HudsonUp program was supported by two $300,000 grants from Spark of Hudson and Humanity Forward.

The ongoing program provides 20 residents with $500 every month for five years; it’s one of the longest guaranteed income pilot programs in the country. Eligible recipients had to be 18 years or older and make less than the city’s median annual income of $35,153. The third cohort of recipients was announced in March 2022 and selected in September 2022.

Ithaca (Ithaca Guaranteed Income)

Ithaca announced its pilot program in late 2021, and the Human Services Coalition of Tompkins County officially launched it in 2022. The pilot is in collaboration with Mayors for a Guaranteed Income and is privately funded.

The program provides $450 a month to 110 individuals who are “unpaid primary caregivers to children and aging or disabled adults,” Mayors for a Guaranteed Income explained. To be eligible, participants must be Ithaca residents and have an income at or below 80 percent of the average median income. The first payments were issued in June 2022.

New York City (The Bridge Project)

Founded in 2021, The Bridge Project is a guaranteed income program that supports new mothers across New York City — it was the first guaranteed income project in NYC. The first phase of The Bridge Project provided either $250 or $500 every two weeks to 100 low-income mothers living in the neighborhoods of Washington Heights, Inwood, and Central Harlem.

The project expanded in 2022, ushering in a second phase that provided 500 mothers with $1,000 a month for 18 months, followed by $500 a month for another 18 months. In 2023, the Bridge Project became a permanent financial program, and is expected to offer assistance to mothers in Rochester, New York, as well.

It’s funded and implemented by the Monarch Foundation and is partnered with Harlem Children’s Zone, Children’s Aid, El Nido de Esperanza, and the Northern Manhattan Improvement Corporation.

Rochester

The city of Rochester announced its very first guaranteed income program pilot in June, which will provide $500 a month to 351 low-income households for one year.

To be eligible, applicants must be 18 years of age or older, have lived in a qualified census track in the City of Rochester for at least one year, and have a household income at or below 185 percent of the Federal Poverty Level (annual income at or below $55,500 for a family of four).

The first group of recipients will be selected by the end of July, followed by a second group at the end of September. Recipients will also receive financial counseling during the pilot. Applications for the new program opened on June 22.

Ulster County (Project Resilience)

Ulster County’s guaranteed income project, Project Resilience, was the first county-wide initiative to test a monthly universal basic income.

Project Resilience was developed in partnership with the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for Guaranteed Income, Community Foundations of the Hudson Valley, and Ulster Savings Bank. It was funded entirely by community donations and provided 100 households with $500 a month for one year, with no eligibility constraints. Participants were chosen in March 2021, and the first payments were issued in May 2021. In June 2022, the county announced it was extending the program through September, and its final findings will be published in 2023.

North Carolina

Durham (Excel)

An initiative from local nonprofit Step Up Durham, the Excel guaranteed income pilot program provided financial assistance to formerly incarcerated residents. It was announced in 2021, with the first participants chosen in 2022.

The program distributed $600 per month to 109 formerly incarcerated individuals over a period of one year in partnership with the Center for Guaranteed Income in Pennsylvania, which randomly selected the participants. Funding comes from the city and a grant from Mayors for a Guaranteed Income. The first payments were distributed in March 2022, and in March 2023, Durham Mayor Pro Tem Mark-Anthony Middleton proposed allocating $1 million in the city’s budget to continue the pilot’s work.

Pennsylvania

Philadelphia (PHLHousing+ and Philly Joy Bank)

Philadelphia launched its first attempt at a guaranteed income pilot in 2022, a collaboration between the City of Philadelphia, Philadelphia Housing and Development Commission (PHDC), and the University of Pennsylvania. The program offers 300 renter households with a direct cash payment on a prepaid debit card every month for two and half years, intended to cover a portion of the household’s housing costs. Amounts vary per individual, based on monetary gaps between the housing costs they can afford (30 percent of the household’s income) and their total housing costs, PHDC explained.

Participants were randomly selected from the Philadelphia Housing Authority’s Housing Choice Voucher and public housing waitlist. Funding comes from both public and philanthropic sources, including the Neighborhood Preservation Initiative bond proceeds, Housing Trust Fund, PHFA, William Penn Foundation, Spring Point Partners LLC, and the Stoneleigh Foundation.

The city has also announced a guaranteed income pilot set to launch in 2024, known as the Philly Joy Bank. The pilot will provide $1,000 a month in direct cash assistance to 250 pregnant individuals in an aim to reduce racial disparities in infant mortality. Participants must have an annual household income under $100,000 for a family of four.

It is overseen by the Philadelphia Department of Public Health, and updates will be posted on the PhillyCAN website.

Rhode Island

Providence

Providence’s guaranteed income research project was launched in July 2021 with the help of Mayors for a Guaranteed Income.

The city partnered with nonprofits Amos House and Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island, and the Center for Guaranteed Income Research (CGIR) selected the initial round of recipients. It was set to provide $500 a month to the 110 chosen Providence residents for 12 months. To be eligible, individuals must have had an income at or less than 200 percent of the federal poverty line. Payments began in November 2021, and the program was extended for an additional six months using relief funds from the Providence Rescue Plan.

South Carolina

Columbia (Columbia Life Improvement Monetary Boost)

The CLIMB program was announced by Mayor Stephen Benjamin in December 2020 and was designed specifically to help Black fathers. It was in collaboration with the community resource group Midlands Fatherhood Coalition. Participants were randomly selected from a group of almost 900 people already connected with Midlands Fatherhood Coalition.

It provided 100 residents with $500 monthly payments for 12 months and was funded by both private donors and support from Mayors for a Guaranteed Income. The first payments were issued in September 2021, and it officially ended in August 2022.

Texas

Austin

After announcing its proposed guaranteed income pilot in May 2022, Austin became the first Texas city to test a direct cash assistance program fully funded by taxpayer funds — the city’s initiative is designed to help low-income residents and families at risk of losing their homes.

The program provides $1,000 to 135 households over the span of a year, supported by $1 million in city funding and a donation from health equity nonprofit St. David’s Foundation. The pilot is run by the California nonprofit UpTogether, with the first payments issued in September 2022. Later that year, the city passed a resolution to replicate the $1.1-million project, which will end in August 2023.

Harris County (Uplift Harris)

Officially unveiled in June, Harris County’s first guaranteed income pilot will provide 1,500 low-income residents $500 a month of guaranteed income for up to 18 months. The households must be living below 200 percent of the federal poverty line (or approximately $40,000 for a family of four).

The funds come from the federal American Rescue Plan Act, as part of a $20.5-million program operated by the Harris County Public Health Department, county officials explained. The program is expected to begin this fall.

San Antonio

San Antonio launched a guaranteed income pilot at the end of 2020, after tabling an earlier version of the program at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. The city’s mayor Ron Nirenberg joined the Mayors for a Guaranteed Income coalition in 2021.

The program supported 1,000 low-income families with $400 every financial quarter for two years, following an initial cash investment of $1,908 in December 2020. In partnership with UpTogether, the $5-million program was supported by federal relief funds from the city of San Antonio and various nonprofits. The program ended in January 2023.

Virginia

Alexandria (ARISE)

The city of Alexandria introduced its guaranteed income pilot program, also referred to as Alexandria’s Recurring Income for Success and Equity (ARISE), in July 2021.

The pilot provides $500 a month to 170 Alexandria households over a period of two years. Eligible participants must make at or below 50 percent of the city’s area median income. It’s supported by $3 million in American Rescue Plan funds, and is collaborating with research partner Apt Associates. Applications for the first group of recipients opened in 2022, and the first payments were issued in February 2023.

Richmond (Richmond Resilience Initiative)

When introduced in 2020 amid COVID-19 concerns, Richmond’s guaranteed income program set out to give 18 families $500 monthly payments for two years. Recipients were chosen from people who used the city’s Office of Community Wealth Building, part of a city anti-poverty commission. All had children and were employed, but didn’t qualify for traditional public benefits.

The pilot was supported by the nonprofit Robins Foundation and money from the federal CARES Act. As another member of Mayors for a Guaranteed Income, Richmond received a $500,000 grant in December 2020 to expand the Richmond Resilience Initiative and offer money to more families. A second cohort of 46 families began receiving payments in June 2022.

Washington

Tacoma (Growing Resilience in Tacoma)

The GRIT pilot program, announced in 2020, provided around 100 families with $500 monthly payments for one year. Eligible recipients are referred to as “ALICE” families, which stands for “Asset-Limited, Income-Constrained, and Employed.” While most of the individuals were employed and above the federal poverty limit, the program aimed to assist them with struggles in paying for basic needs like food, housing, healthcare, and childcare. The program also prioritized people of color and single heads of household.

The city’s first pilot run was funded by a $500,000 grant from former Twitter head Jack Dorsey and a $100,000 grant from Mayors for a Guaranteed Income, with disbursements given out in December 2021. It has gained additional funding every year since, and will continue to give out direct cash until at least 2024.

The post Every U.S. city testing guaranteed basic income appeared first on Basic Income Today.

This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.
July 25, 2023

Macron in New Caledonia to bolster France’s Indo-Pacific strategy
By Eleisha Foon, journalist

France has deployed Rafale jet fighters during a military ceremony in New Caledonia, marking President Emmanuel Macron’s first official day in the Pacific.

Macron arrived in Noumea overnight on a visit aimed at bolstering his Indo-Pacific strategy and reaffirming France’s role in the region.

The historic five-day trip includes a visit to Vanuatu and Papua New Guinea. It is the first time a French president has visited independent Pacific Islands, according to French officials.
- LISTEN TO RNZ PACIFIC WAVES: French President begins tour of the Pacific
- Other Kanaky New Caledonia decolonisation reports
A big focus will be asserting France’s role in what Macron has called a “balancing force” between the United States and China.

France assumes sovereignty for three Pacific territories: New Caledonia, French Polynesia and Wallis and Futuna.

However, not everyone was happy about the presidential visit.

New Caledonia was politically divided and seeking a way forward after three referendums on independence.

Referendum boycott
The outcome of all three polls was a “no” to independence but the result of the third vote, which was boycotted by Kanaks, was disputed.

Rallies were expected during the French President’s visit.

Local committees of the main pro-independence party the Caledonian Union have called for “peaceful” but determined rallies.

Their presence will be felt particularly when Macron heads north today to the east coast town of Thio, as well as when he gathers the New Caledonian community together tomorrow afternoon for a speech, where he is expected to make a major announcement.

About 40 percent of the population are indigenous Kanak, most of whom support independence. Pro-independence parties, which have been in power since 2017, want full sovereignty by 2025.

Macron is expected to meet with all sides in Noumea this week.

A large delegation has joined Macron on his visit, including Foreign Minister Catherine Colonna and Defence Minister Sébastien Lecornu.

Foreign minister in Suva
Colonna will also travel to Suva, Fiji today, the first visit of a French foreign affairs minister to the country.

She will meet with the Fijian Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka and the Pacific Islands Forum Deputy Secretary General Filimon Manoni.

The move was to “strengthen its commitment in the region”, French officials have said.

Meetings have also been set with Papua New Guinea Prime Minister James Marape when the delegation travels there on Friday.

France has investments in PNG to develop its gas resources under French-owned multinational oil and gas company TotalEnergies.

Vanuatu chiefs appeal
Emmanuel Macron will be in Port Vila on Wednesday.

Vanuatu’s Malvatumauri National Council of Chiefs want Prime Minister Ishmael Kalsakau to let President Macron know that the Mathew and Hunter Islands belong to Vanuatu and are not part of New Caledonia.

Tanna chief Jean Pierre Tom said ni-Vanuatu people were expecting his visit to be a “game changer and not a re-enforcement of colonial rule”.

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

En vol vers la Nouvelle-Calédonie, accueilli par nos Rafale qui viennent confirmer que la France est une puissance de l’Indo-Pacifique ! pic.twitter.com/yj8r1PHOMi

— Emmanuel Macron (@EmmanuelMacron) July 24, 2023

This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.
July 18, 2023

French President Macron to make historic visit to PNG, Vanuatu
RNZ Pacific

French President Emmanuel Macron will make a first official visit to Papua New Guinea next Friday as part of a short Pacific trip.

AFP news agency reports that Macron’s trip will start in New Caledonia before he travels to Vanuatu and Port Moresby.

A French official told the news agency the trip was “historic” because no French president had ever visited non-French islands in the region.
- READ MORE: Other French Indo-Pacific policy reports
President Emmanuel Macron in Noumea on an earlier visit to New Caledonia … “recommitting” France to the Pacific region. Image: Crikey

Macron will use those two stops to outline his Indo-Pacific strategy, aimed at “recommitting” France to the region, the official said.

PNG Prime Minister James Marape said he would meet one-on-one with Macron, and the itinerary for the visit also included a courtesy call on Governor-General Sir Bob Dadae and the signing of various agreements.

Marape emphasised the significance of Macron’s visit in strengthening bilateral relations between France and Papua New Guinea.

“Under my leadership, France and PNG have been actively enhancing our bilateral relationship, along with other nations,” he said on his website.

“I appreciate President Macron’s commitment, as demonstrated by his decision to visit PNG and engage in discussions on matters of mutual interest between our countries.”

Final LNG decision
Macron’s visit comes on the eve of the final investment decision (FID) by French super-major TotalEnergies on the Papua LNG Project.

TotalEnergies is also involved in downstream processing of natural resources such as forests.

“In the midst of the evolving geopolitical landscape in the region, Papua New Guinea serves as ‘neutral ground,’ and I will urge France to consider PNG’s strategic position amid the changing regional dynamics,” Marape added.

“The visit of President Macron to PNG will further solidify the growing cooperation and shared goals between our two nations, particularly in the areas of forest conservation, French investments in PNG such as TotalEnergies, mobilising resources to support small Pacific Island countries and communities, and other relevant matters.”

Macron last year relaunched France’s Indo-Pacific approach in the aftermath of a bitter row over a cancelled submarine contract with Australia, casting France as a balancing power in a region dominated by the tussle between China and the United States.

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

This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.
June 30, 2023

Congressmen angry that Bikini islanders’ nuclear trust fund may have been ‘squandered’
By Giff Johnson, Editor, Marshall Islands Journal and RNZ Pacific correspondent

Following widespread media coverage of the collapse of what was a more than US$70 million trust fund for Bikini islanders displaced by American nuclear weapons testing, the United States Congress has demanded answers from the Interior Department about the status of the trust fund.

Four leading members of the US Congress put the Interior Department on notice last Friday that Congress is focused on accountability of Interior’s decision to discontinue oversight of the Bikini Resettlement Trust Fund.

In their three-page letter, the chairmen and the ranking members of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the House Committee on Natural Resources — which both have oversight on US funding to the Marshall Islands — wrote to Interior Secretary Deb Haaland with questions about what has happened to the Bikinians’ trust fund.
- READ MORE: Other Bikini Islander reports
It was initially capitalised by the US Congress in 1982 and again in 1988 for a total investment of just under US$110m.

Protests in Majuro
The Congressional letter is the first official US action on the Bikini Resettlement Trust Fund and follows several demonstrations in Majuro over the past six weeks by members of the Bikini community angered by the current lack of money to support their community.

The letter notes that on November 16, 2017, Interior accepted Kili/Bikini/Ejit Mayor Anderson Jibas and the local council’s request for a “rescript” or change in the system of oversight of the Resettlement Trust Fund.

As of September 30, 2016, the fund had $71 million in it, the last audit available of the fund.

“Since then (2017), local officials have purportedly depleted the fund,” the four Senate and House leaders wrote to Haaland.

“Indeed, media reports suggest that the fund may have been squandered in ways that not only lack transparency and accountability, but also lack fidelity to the fund’s original intent.

“If true, that is a major breach of public trust not only for the people of Bikini Atoll, for whom the fund was established, but also for the American taxpayers whose dollars established and endowed the fund.”

They refer to multiple media reports about the demise of the Resettlement Trust Fund, including in the Marshall Islands Journal, The New York Times, Marianas Variety and Honolulu Civil Beat.

No audits since 2016
The Resettlement Trust Fund was audited annually since inception in the 1980s. But there have been no audits released since 2016 during the tenure of current Mayor Jibas.

The lack of funds in the Resettlement Trust Fund only became evident in January when the local government was unable to pay workers and provide other benefits routinely provided for the displaced islanders.

Since January, no salaries or quarterly nuclear compensation payments have been made, leaving Bikinians largely destitute and now facing dozens of collection lawsuits from local banks due to delinquent loan payments.

Bikini women load their belongings onto a waiting US Navy vessel in March 1946 as they prepare to depart to Rongerik, an uninhabited atoll where they spent two years. Image: US Navy Archives

‘Fund is in jeopardy’
The letter from Energy Chairman Senator Joe Manchin and ranking member Senator John Barrasso, and Natural Resources Chair Bruce Westerman and ranking member Raul Grijalva says American lawmakers “have a duty to oversee the management of taxpayer dollars appropriated for the resettlement and rehabilitation of Bikini Atoll”.

The letter also repeatedly makes the point that the money in the trust fund was only to rehabilitate and resettle Bikini Atoll, with projects on Kili or Ejit islands limited to only $2 million per year, subject to the Interior Secretary’s prior approval.

“Regrettably, the continued viability of the fund to serve its express purpose now appears to be in jeopardy,” the US elected leaders said.

The US leaders are demanding that Haaland explain why the Interior Department walked away from its long-standing oversight role with the trust fund in late 2017.

Specifically they want to know if the Office of the Solicitor approved the decision by then-Assistant Secretary Doug Domenech to accept the KBE Local Government’s rescript “as a valid amendment to the 1988 amended resettlement trust fund agreement.’

They also suggest Interior’s 2017 decision has ramifications for US legal liability.

Key questions
“Does the department believe that the 2017 rescript supersedes the 1988 amended resettlement trust fund agreement in its entirety?” they ask.

“If so, does the department disclaim that Congress’s 1988 appropriation to the fund fully satisfied the obligation of the United States to provide funds to assist in the resettlement and rehabilitation of Bikini Atoll by the people of Bikini Atoll?

“And does that waive any rights or reopen any potential legal liabilities for nuclear claims that were previously settled?”

They also want to know if KBE Local Government provided a copy of its annual budget, as promised, since 2017.

The letter winds up wanting to know what Interior is “doing to ensure that trust funds related to the Marshall Islands are managed transparently and accountably moving forward?”

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

The Baker underwater nuclear weapons test at Bikini Atoll in 1946. Dozens of World War II vessels were used as targets for this weapons test, and now lie on the atoll’s lagoon floor. Image: US Navy Archives
May 28, 2023

India launches ‘celebration of future’ climate research centre at USP
By Joeli Bili in Suva

A partnership forged between the Indian government and the University of the South Pacific (USP) will see the establishment of a new Fiji-based centre for climate change, coastal and ocean management in the region.

The Sustainable Coastal and Ocean Research Institute (SCORI) at USP’s Suva campus was launched on May 22 by India’s High Commissioner to Fiji, Palaniswamy Subramanyan Karthigeyan, who described the initiative as a “celebration of the future”.

“This is a meeting of the best minds from both sides in the scientific, technology world and possibly being on the frontline of climate action,” Karthigeyan said.
- READ MORE: Other Pacific climate reports
He added that the institute would have India’s unstinted support and the way forward was going to be more critical.

“Unfortunately, due to the [covid] pandemic, we have lost quite a bit of time in taking this initiative forward and we have the momentum to make sure that this is not lost sight of and we make it a benchmark project not just for the region but the entire world,” he said.

“The onus of responsibility is on all of us to make sure that we do justice to that. The best way to do that is to make it a benchmark project in the shortest possible time, and to make it a sustainable model of excellence.”

Karthigeyan echoed similar sentiments made earlier in the day by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi at the 3rd India-Pacific Islands Cooperation (FIPIC) Summit in Papua New Guinea.

Focused on Global South problems
Modi focused on the problems faced by the Global South, including the issues of climate change, natural disasters, hunger, poverty, and various health-related challenges among others.

“I am glad to hear that the Sustainable Coastal and Ocean Research Institute has been established at the University of the South Pacific in Fiji. This institute connects India’s experiences in sustainable development with the vision of Pacific Island countries,” he told the summit.

“In addition to research and development, it will be valuable in addressing the challenges of climate change. I am pleased that SCORI is dedicated to the well-being, progress, and prosperity of citizens from 14 countries,” Modi added, drawing attention to India’s desire to partner the region in tackling issues that regional countries have placed priority on.

Prime Minister Modi said Pacific Island countries were not Small Island States, but rather, “large ocean countries”. He noted it was this vast ocean that connected India with the Pacific region.

“The Indian philosophy has always viewed the world as one family. Climate change, natural disasters, hunger, poverty, and various health-related challenges were already prevalent.

“Now, new issues are emerging. Barriers are arising in the supply chains of food, fuel, fertiliser, and pharmaceuticals,” Modi said.

India, he said, stood with its Pacific Island friends during challenging times, whether it was vaccines or essential medicines, wheat or sugar.

‘Unwavering’ support for SCORI
USP’s vice-chancellor and president, Professor Pal Ahluwalia, said the “unwavering support” and endorsement of SCORI by PM Modi and the Fiji government underscored the significance of the institute in advancing climate change and oceans management in our region.

USP’s vice-chancellor Professor Pal Ahluwalia . . . “We embark on a new chapter of cooperation between India, Fiji, and the University of the South Pacific.” Image: Twitter/APR

“With the establishment of SCORI, we embark on a new chapter of cooperation between India, Fiji, and the University of the South Pacific,” he said.

“This institute will serve as a hub for the exchange of knowledge, ideas, and cutting-edge technologies, ensuring that our work in climate change and oceans management remains at the forefront of global research.”

Through the collaboration of esteemed scholars from India and Fiji, Professor Ahluwalia said the university aimed to publish ground-breaking research and set new agendas in the field of coastal and ocean studies.

“This institute will greatly enhance our research activities and capacity building, contributing to the sustainability of the Pacific Ocean and aligning with the Blue Pacific 2050 Strategy launched by our Pacific leaders,” he said.

USP deputy vice-chancellor and vice-president (education) Professor Jito Vanualailai said that SCORI would serve as a hub for research and development to meet the needs of Pacific Island countries.

“SCORI will spearhead research and development initiatives that address pressing issues in the region,” he said.

“Together, we strive to develop policies for sustainable management and protection of marine and coastal ecosystems while effectively tackling coastal hazards and vulnerabilities stemming from global warming, ocean acidification and climate change.”

‘Remarkable individuals’
USP’s director of research, Professor Sushil Kumar, said the project was a reality due to the integral role played by some “remarkable individuals and organisations”.

Professor Kumar thanked the governments of Fiji and India for their support to foster collaboration and partnership under SCORI.

He said apart from the Ministry of Earth Sciences, Indian government, several Institutes such as the National Center for Coastal Research are part of the collaborations.

The center will have a dedicated focus on areas of common interests such as coastal vulnerability, coastal erosion and coastal protection, monitoring and mapping of marine biodiversity, ocean observation systems, sea water quality monitoring and capacity building.

SCORI will be funded and maintained by the Indian government for five years until it is handed over to USP.

Joeli Bili is a final-year student journalist at the University of the South Pacific’s Suva campus. He is a senior reporter for Wansolwara, USP Journalism’s training newspaper and online publication. This article is republished through a partnership between Asia Pacific Report and IDN-InDepthNews and Wansolwara.

This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.
May 22, 2023

Memories of war haunt ‘slippery slope’ to a militarised Pacific
ANALYSIS: By Barbara Dreaver in Port Moresby

When I was growing up in Kiribati, then known as the Gilbert Islands, New Zealand divers came to safely detonate unexploded munitions from World War II.

Decades on from when US Marines fought and won the Battle of Tarawa against Japan, war was still very much a part of everyday life.

Our school bell was a bombshell. We’d find bullet casings.
In fact, my grandmother’s leg was badly injured when she lit a fire on the beach, and an unexploded ordnance went off. There are Japanese bunkers and US machine gun mounts along the Betio shoreline, and bones are still being found — even today.

Stories are told . . . so many people died . . . these things are not forgotten.

That’s why the security and defence pacts being drawn up around the Pacific are worrying much of the region, as the US and Australia partner up to counter China’s growing influence.

You only have to read Australia’s Defence Strategic Review 2023 to see they are preparing for conflict.

The battle is climate change which is impacting their everyday life. The bigger powers will most certainly go through the motions of at least hearing their voices.

— Barbara Dreaver

Secret pact changed landscape
While in the last few years we have seen China put big money into the Pacific, it was primarily about diplomatic weight and ensuring Taiwan wasn’t recognised. But the secret security pact with the Solomon Islands changed the landscape dramatically.

There was a point where it stopped being about just aid and influence — and openly started to become much more serious.

Since then, the escalation has been rapid as the US and Australia have amped up their activities — and other state actors have as well.

In some cases, lobbying and negotiating have been covertly aggressive. Many Pacific countries are concerned about the militarisation of the region — and whether we like it or not, that’s where it’s headed.

Tuvalu’s Foreign Minister Simon Kofe said he understands why his country, which sits between Hawai’i and Australia, is of strategic interest to the superpowers.

Worried about militarisation, he admits they are coming under pressure from all sides — not just China but the West as well.

“In World War II, the war came to the Pacific even though we played no part at all in the conflict, and we became victims of a war that was not of our making,” he said.

Important Pacific doesn’t forget
“So it’s important for the Pacific not to forget that experience now we are seeing things that are happening in this part of the world, and it’s best we are prepared for that situation.”

Academic Dr Anna Powles, a long-time Pacific specialist, said she was very concerned at the situation, which was a “slippery slope” to militarisation.

She said Pacific capitals were being flooded with officials from around the region and from further afield who want to engage.

Pacific priorities are being undermined, and there is a growing disconnect in the region between national interest and the interest of the political elites.

Today in Papua New Guinea, we see first-hand how we are on the cusp of change.

They include big meetings spearheaded by the US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, another one by India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi and a defence deal that will allow US military access through ports and airports. In exchange, the US is providing an extra US$45 million (NZ$72 million) in funding a raft of initiatives, some of which include battling the effects of climate change.

Equipment boost
The PNG Defence Force is also getting an equipment boost, and there’s a focus on combatting law and order issues — which domestically is a big challenge — and protecting communities, particularly women, from violence.

There is much in these initiatives that the PNG government and the people here will find attractive. It may well be the balance between PNG’s national interest and US ambitions is met — it will be interesting to see if other Pacific leaders agree.

Because some Pacific leaders are happy to be courted and enjoy being at the centre of global attention (and we know who you are), others are determined to do the best for their people. The fight for them is not geopolitical, and it’s on the land they live on.

The battle is climate change which is impacting their everyday life. The bigger powers will most certainly go through the motions of at least hearing their voices.

What that will translate to remains to be seen.

Barbara Dreaver is TV1’s Pacific correspondent and is in Papua New Guinea with the New Zealand delegation. Republished with permission.

This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.
May 22, 2023

UPNG student protesters call for ‘transparency’ over US defence pact
By Stella Martin and Rose Amos in Port Moresby

Thousands of students at the University of Papua New Guinea staged a protest at the Waigani campus Forum Square today against the US-PNG Defence Cooperation Agreement that is scheduled for signing this afternoon.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken is already in the country to sign the defence pact and also the Ship Rider Agreement with PNG.

The students claimed that the agreements between PNG and the United States concerned national security and their content must be made known for public scrutiny and transparency before signing takes place.
However, Prime Minister James Marape had earlier insisted that the agreements to be signed were transparent.

Marape added that not all agreements signed should be presented to Parliament earlier.

He said the country’s State Solicitor, who represents PNG’s legal checks and balances, had been involved “every step of the way” and had given clearance over the laws of this country.

Marape said that as soon as it is stable for transparency the country would be privy to those agreements and they would be tabled in Parliament.

‘Almost there for signing’
“I just wish to assure everyone, that Parliament will be privy to what we are about to sign and at the moment our Foreign Affairs team has been leading the negotiations. We are at the stage where we are almost there for signing,” he said.

“I want to give assurance to our country, it is nothing to be sceptical about,” said Marape.

Marape further elaborated that similar agreements and cooperation had been reached with other countries and that PNG could reach out to other bilateral partners with similar agreements as stipulated in the Constitution.

Also, the country’s foreign policy was: “Friends to all and enemies to none”.

The US and PNG already had a Status of Forces Agreement, or SOFA.

A SOFA is an agreement between a host country and a foreign nation stationing military forces in that country.

SOFAs are often included, along with other types of military agreements, as part of a comprehensive security arrangement.

Corporations allowed
Marape briefly stated that the SOFA agreement did allow US defence corporations and others to be involved in PNG.

PNG was just elevating this specific one with the USA.

Deputy Prime Minister John Rosso also clarified that once the agreement was agreed by the National Executive Council (NEC) and signed off by the Prime Minister and Defence Minister it would be brought before Parliament and debated before it became law.

On behalf of the government, Finance Minister Rainbo Paita adressed the protesting students at the UPNG Forum Square and received the petition presented by the Student Representative Council president Luther Kising.

Other tertiary institution’s student bodies, such as the University of Goroka and the University of Technology at Lae, have also protested against the defence cooperation agreement.

Meanwhile, there was a high presence of police reinforcements at the entrance to UPNG preventing the protest from escalating further.

Stella Martin and Rose Amos are NBC reporters. Republished with permission.

UPNG protesters at the Forum Square today. Image: NBC News

This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.
May 21, 2023

Pacific leaders arrive in Port Moresby ahead of Modi and Blinken PNG visit
By Lydia Lewis, RNZ Pacific journalist

Pacific leaders are starting to trickle into Papua New Guinea for two high level meetings and a number of side talks.

The leaders are set to meet with India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi and a high-level US delegation in Port Moresby tomorrow.

PNG Prime Minister James Marape told local media on Thursday that President Joe Biden had called to apologise for his absence due to the need to return to Washington for meetings with Congressional leaders to raise its debt ceiling issue and avoid a default.
- READ MORE: Biden apologises to PNG, Blinken being sent for Pacific dialogue
- Other reports on the US defence pact
“He conveyed his sincerest apologies that he cannot make it into our country,” Marape said.

“I did place the invitation to him [that] at the next earliest available time, please come and visit us here.”

Biden has confirmed that US Secretary of State Antony Blinken will arrive on Monday to meet with PNG for a bilateral meeting and engage in a separate meeting with the Pacific Islands Forum leaders.

Biden also invited Marape and other Pacific leaders to Washington later this year for the second US summit with the Pacific Islands Forum.

“He did invite again the Pacific Island leaders to go back for a progressive continuation of the meeting that we have initially held last September in Washington,” Marape said.

Fiji’s Rabuka already in PNG
Fiji Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka has already arrived in Papua New Guinea.

He was greeted by acting Deputy Prime Minister John Rosso.

“After being welcomed by young traditional Motu Koitabu dancers, PM Rabuka made a courtesy visit to Government House and met with Governor-General Grand Chief Sir Bob Dadae,” Rosso said in a statement.

He has since been hosted by Marape for dinner at the State Function Room at Parliament House.

“PM Rabuka will be joined by other Pacific Island leaders, including New Zealand PM Chris Hipkins, who will travel into PNG this weekend,” Rosso said.

The traditional presentation of kamunaga or whale’s tooth was accorded to Governor-General Dadae to convey Fiji’s respect and appreciation for the historical and traditional ties shared between our two countries and moreso to further advance regional cooperation. pic.twitter.com/vbFOCrmTLk

— Sitiveni Rabuka (@slrabuka) May 19, 2023

The leaders will be in Port Moresby for the third Forum for India-Pacific Islands Cooperation (FIPIC).

According to Marape, 14 of the 18 Pacific Islands Forum member leaders, including New Zealand’s Prime Minister Chris Hipkins, are expected to be in attendance.

Marape calls for calm
Marape said a Defence Cooperation Agreement that is being mulled over in anticipation of an upcoming bilateral meeting with the US was consistent with the country’s “constitutional provisions”.

The cabinet is aware of the agreement, “cabinet has not concluded on this. It is awaiting cabinet conclusion,” he said.

He has called for people to trust in the process as he believes it would have a positive impact on the country.

“Another agreement called a 505 agreement, separate agreement, allows for us to have a working partnership with the US, US Navy and the US Coast Guard.

“With the US Coast Guard, it now gives us an opportune time to access not just on maritime access, but satellite access to illegal fishing, drug traffickers, illegal loggers, all those illegal transportations and activities that happens on high sea,” Marape added.

Meanwhile, PNG’s National Executive Council has confirmed that the public holiday announced for Monday for the National Capital District still stands despite Biden cancelling his attendance.

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

Fiji PM Sitiveni Rabuka arrives in PNG and is greeted by a guard of honour. Image: PNG govt/RNZ Pacific

This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.
March 28, 2023

Aukus ‘going against’ Pacific nuclear free treaty – Cook Islands leader
RNZ Pacific

Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown has joined a growing list of Pacific leaders to object to the US$250 billion nuclear submarine deal between Australia, United Kingdom and the United States (Aukus).

The Aukus project, which will allow Australia to acquire up to eight nuclear-powered submarines, has been widely condemned by proponents of nuclear non-proliferation.

It has also fuelled concerns that the submarine pact, viewed as an arrangement to combat China, will heighten geopolitical tensions and disturb the peace and security of the region, which is a notion that Canberra has rejected.

READ MORE: Other Aukus project reports

Brown, who is the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) chair, told Cook Islands News he was concerned about the Aukus deal because it is “going against” the Pacific’s principal nuclear non-proliferation agreement.

“We’ve all abided by the Treaty of Rarotonga, signed in 1985, which was about reducing the proliferation of nuclear weapons and nuclear vessels,” he told the newspaper.

The Treaty of Rarotonga has more than a dozen countries signed up to it, including Australia and New Zealand.
US President Joe Biden (right) meets with Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese (left) during the AUKUS summit at Naval Base Point Loma in San Diego California on 13 March 2023. Image: RNZ Pacific/Jim Watson/AFP

“But it is what it is,” he said of the tripartite arrangement.

‘Escalation of tension’
“We’ve already seen it will lead to an escalation of tension, and we’re not happy with that as a region.”

Other regional leaders who have publicly expressed concerns about the deal include Solomon Islands PM Manasseh Sogavare, Tuvalu’s Foreign Minister Simon Kofe and Vanuatu’s Climate Change Minister Ralph Regenvanu.

With Cook Islands set to host this year’s PIF meeting in October, Brown has hinted that the “conflicting” nuclear submarine deal is expected to be a big part of the agenda.

“The name Pacific means ‘peace’, so to have this increase of naval nuclear vessels coming through the region is in direct contrast with that,” he said.

“I think there will be opportunities where we will individually and collectively as a forum voice our concern about the increase in nuclear vessels.”

Brown said “a good result” at the leaders gathering “would be the larger countries respecting the wishes of Pacific countries.”

“Many are in opposition of nuclear weapons and nuclear vessels,” he said.

“The whole intention of the Treaty of Rarotonga was to try to de-escalate what were at the time Cold War tensions between the major superpowers.”

“This Aukus arrangement seems to be going against it,” he added.

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

This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.
March 22, 2023

Pacific needs to sit up and pay close attention to AUKUS, says Dame Meg Taylor
By Koroi Hawkins, RNZ Pacific editor, and Caleb Fotheringham, RNZ Pacific journalist

A Pacific elder and former secretary-general of the Pacific Islands Forum says Pacific leaders need to sit up and pay closer attention to AUKUS and the Indo-Pacific strategy and China’s response to them.

Speaking from Port Moresby in Papua New Guinea, Dame Meg Taylor said Pacific leaders were being sidelined in major geopolitical decisions affecting their region and they need to start raising their voices for the sake of their citizens.

“The issue here is that we should have paid much more attention to the Indo-Pacific strategy as it emerged,” she said.
- LISTEN TO RNZ PACIFIC WAVES: Dame Meg Taylor on AUKUS
“And we were not ever consulted by the countries that are party to that, including some of our own members of the Pacific Island Forum. Then the emergence of AUKUS — Pacific countries were never consulted on this either,” she said.

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese (left), US President Joe Biden (centre) and British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak hold a press conference during the AUKUS summit at Naval Base Point Loma in San Diego California on 13 March 2023. Image: RNZ Pacific/AFP

Last week in San Diego, the leaders of the United States, the UK and Australia — President Joe Biden, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese respectively — formally announced the AUKUS deal.

It will see the Australian government spending nearly $US250 billion over the next three decades to acquire a fleet of US nuclear submarines with UK tech components — the majority of which will be built in Adelaide — as part of the defence and security pact.

Its implementation will make Australia one of only seven countries in the world to have nuclear-powered submarines alongside China, France, India, Russia, the UK, and the US.

“We believe in a world that protects freedom and respects human rights, the rule of law, the independence of sovereign states, and the rules-based international order,” the leaders said in a joint statement.

“The steps we are announcing today will help us to advance these mutually beneficial objectives in the decades to come,” they said.

Following the announcement, China’s foreign ministry spokesperson Wang Wengbin said by going ahead with the pact the US, UK and Australia disregarded the concerns of the international community and have gone further down “the wrong path”.

“We’ve repeatedly said that the establishment of the so-called AUKUS security partnership between the US, the UK and Australia to promote cooperation on nuclear submarines and other cutting-edge military technologies, is a typical Cold War mentality,” Wang said.

“It will only exacerbate the arms race, undermine the international nuclear non-proliferation regime, and hurt regional peace and stability,” he said.

The 2022 Indo-Pacific Strategy is the United States’ programme to ” advance our common vision for an Indo-Pacific region that is free and open, connected, prosperous, secure, and resilient.”

Fiji Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka . . . Albanese assured him the nuclear submarine deal would not undermine the Treaty of Rarotonga. Image: Fiji Parliament

The Rarotonga Treaty
On his return from San Diego, Australia’s Albanese stopped over in Suva where he met his Fijian counterpart Sitiveni Rabuka.

After the meeting, Rabuka told reporters he supported AUKUS and that Albanese had assured him the nuclear submarine deal would not undermine the Treaty of Rarotonga — to which Australia is a party — that declares the South Pacific a nuclear weapon free zone.

But an Australian academic said Pacific countries cannot take Canberra at face value when it comes to AUKUS and its committment to the Rarotonga Treaty.

Dr Matthew Fitzpatrick, a professor in international history at Flinders University in South Australia, said Pacific leaders need to hold Australia accountable to the treaty.

“Australia and New Zealand have always differed on what that treaty extends to in the sense that for New Zealand, that means more or less that you haven’t had US vessels with nuclear arms [or nuclear powered] permitted into the ports of New Zealand, whereas in Australia, those vessels more or less have been welcomed,” he said.

Professor Fitzpatrick said Australia had declared that it did not breach it, or it did not breach any of those treaty commitments, but the proof of the pudding would be in the eating.

“I think it’s something that certainly nations around the Pacific should be very careful and very cautious in taking at face value, what Australia says on those treaty requirements and should ensure that they’re rigorously enforced,” Professor Fitzpatrick said.

Parties to the Rarotonga Treaty include Australia, Cook Islands, Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, New Zealand, Niue, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu.

Notably absent are three north Pacific countries who have compacts of free association with the United States — Palau, Marshall Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia.

Dame Meg Taylor said Sitiveni Rabuka’s signal of support for AUKUS by no means reflected the positions of other leaders in the region.

“I think the concern for us is that we in the Pacific, particularly those of us who are signatories to the Treaty of Rarotonga, have always been committed to the fact that we wanted a place to live where there was no proliferation of nuclear weapons.

“The debate, I think that will emerge within the Pacific is ‘are nuclear submarines weapons’?”

Self-fulfilling prophecy
Meanwhile, a geopolitical analyst, Geoffrey Miller who writes for political website Democracy Project, said the deal could become a “self-fulfilling prophecy” for conflict.

“Indo-Pacific countries all around the region are re-arming and spending more on their militaries,” Miller said.

Japan approved its biggest military buildup since the Second World War last year and Dr Miller said New Zealand was reviewing its defence policy which would likely lead to more spending.

“I worry that the AUKUS deal will only make things worse,” he said.

“The more of these kinds of power projections, and the less dialogue we have, the more likely it is that we are ultimately going to bring about this conflict that we’re all trying to avoid.

“I think we do need to think about de-escalation even more and let’s not talk ourselves into World War III.”

Miller said tensions had grown since Russia invaded Ukraine and analysts had changed their view on how likely China was to invade Taiwain.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
March 14, 2023

The Reality of Reproductive Rights of Women: A Comparative Study of India and the U.S.A

Introduction

“It is impossible to think about the welfare of the world unless the condition of women is improved. It is impossible for a bird to fly on only one wing.” ~ Swami Vivekanand.

Nearly three-quarters of a century later, the silence around unsafe abortions, maternal deaths, use of contraceptives and reproductive rights still deafens independent India.

Broadly, reproductive rights refer to an individual’s ability to choose whether or not to procreate and to maintain reproductive health. This includes the right to start a family, terminate a pregnancy, use contraception, and obtain reproductive health care. The trajectory of women’s emancipation in India has veritably been dynamic. Tracing it right from their participation in nationalist movements, to being forced into the domiciliary domain and to their recent revival as super-women, women in our country have seen it all.

The judiciary has been the flag bearer for securing and furthering reproductive rights here and now. Nevertheless, women’s sexual and reproductive rights in the country still hang in the realm of obliviousness. Despite women successfully marching towards closing gender gaps, the griming realities of maternal health and abortion-related fatalities have weighed heavily against all the progress made.

The griming reality

Despite India being the forerunner in the world to come up with infrastructural and policy measures ensuring safe abortion and contraception, women continue to encounter obstacles in exercising their reproductive rights, including poor health services and dismissal of decision-making authority. It is a problem that encompasses reproductive rights, sexual health, family planning, and maternal health.

Women are often made to face the weight of administrative delays. In one such example, a woman was prevented from having an abortion after 20 weeks, despite having requested one at 17 weeks.

Furthermore, inconsistent judgements add to the general lack of clarity surrounding the conditions in which a woman may legitimately terminate her pregnancy. While a Supreme Court decision in 2019 enabled a woman from Mumbai to terminate her pregnancy at 24 weeks due to a foetal anomaly that would jeopardise her life, previous rulings have penalised women who seek abortions after the 20-week mark, even where medically proven problems existed. Like in early 2017, the apex court decided against a lady whose foetus had a down syndrome-diagnosed abortion at 26 weeks. She was forced to deliver the baby with severe brain disorders, all credit to India’s archaic abortion law.

Additionally, discriminatory precepts like spousal consent being an informal but imperative condition to obtain reproductive health services implicitly or explicitly sabotage women’s reproductive autonomy. Legal protection of reproductive rights as human rights is essential for gender parity and gender equity.

Judiciary to the rescue

Despite these inconsistencies, the Supreme Court has made paramount strides in India regarding the reproductive rights of women. Each country, however, has its restriction and exceptions when it comes to abortion rights.

While abortion has been a contention in America for decades, many states, particularly those led by conservatives, have recently expressed interest in or initiated legislation to limit abortion drastically. Recent newsworthy events include the US Supreme Court’s draught decision in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case. The historic rulings in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) and Roe v. Wade (1973) which protected women’s right to abortion, are reversed in the draught opinion. The apex court of the United States in a significant ruling in 1973, two years after India legalised abortion, recognised for the first time that the constitutional right to privacy is not so shallow that it does not even grant women the autonomy to decide the termination of her pregnancy.

On the other hand, the Indian judiciary gave true sense to the societal needs in the landmark K.S. Puttaswamy judgment which bestowed upon an individual the sense and privilege of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. It also reaffirmed the decision in Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration, which held that reproductive rights include a woman’s right to carry a pregnancy to term, give birth, and raise children; and that these rights are part of a woman’s right to privacy, dignity, and bodily integrity. In Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, the apex court has also extended the meaning of personal liberty by decriminalising adultery and homosexuality.

The reproductive rights are directly affected by these decisions. The right to safe abortion is an essential component of women’s right to bodily integrity, life, and self-determination, and it must be guarded.

Conclusion and way forward

We must not paint the Indian legislative and judiciary as perfect, despite their consistently supporting abortion rights from a liberal standpoint. The old legislation on abortion rights was exemplary but the new one was overdue as it broadened its scope to encompass single women and adjusted the abortion threshold considering recent medical breakthroughs. In addition, the USA recognised the right to privacy in 1891 whereas India recognised it in 2017 bringing the right to abortion under its wide ambit. While it may be said that these developments are late, it is undeniable that India is on the correct path despite the setbacks. On the other hand, the established good norms in the USA have been shaken with the recent trends on the judicial front which is concerning for the developed society of the nation.

The governments in both the nations should focus on providing access to licit and safe abortion, which are integral to sexual and reproductive parity and public health issues. The legal systems must consider these rights as a fundamental part of the laws it enacts, the policies it inserts place and the programs it engenders. The responsibility additionally lies with civil society and development actors to raise these issues for public debate and demands.

As mentioned earlier, the legal protections outlined in the judgements serve as a powerful call to defend and uphold women’s reproductive rights, defined as both reproductive health and autonomy, including for marginalised communities in future litigation.

This post was originally published on LSE Human Rights.
January 3, 2023

Iran out of UN Commission on the Status of Women

Members of the United Nations voted to remove Iran from the Commission on the Status of Women, a body overseen by the Economic and Social Council. | Pool photo by Eduardo Munoz

On 14 December 2022 Politico reported on another setback for Iran in the diplomatic area: A U.S.-led effort to push Iran off a United Nations panel that promotes women’s rights succeeded on Wednesday, the latest move in a broader Western campaign to punish Iran for its crackdown on widespread protests.

The resolution to oust Iran from the Commission on the Status of Women passed with 29 votes in favor and eight against. Yet of the 54 countries eligible to vote, at least 16 abstained — a sign of the wariness about setting a precedent of the U.S. dictating who’s deserving of U.N. panel memberships. Some countries had also questioned why Iran was singled out when other past and present panel members have spotty records on women’s rights.

Iran received vocal support from coiuntries such as Russia and China, some of which noted that there were no formal procedures to push Iran off the commission. Abstainers included countries such as India, the Solomon Islands and Indonesia. Many did not make public statements during the debate.

The vote was held by the U.N.’s Economic and Social Council, which oversees the women’s rights commission. The commission was established in 1946, and its past activities include laying the groundwork for a landmark treaty that has served as an international bill of rights for women. It also urges countries to update their legal frameworks to provide equal rights for women.

Wednesday’s vote followed a campaign by women’s rights activists, including many in the Iranian diaspora, to get Iran off the commission as it has tried to suppress protests. Hundreds have been killed in the crackdown. Iran also has begun executing protesters as part of its attempt to end the demonstrations, which have often been led by young people and women.

See also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2022/11/23/un-human-rights-council-holds-special-session-on-iran-on-24-november/

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/12/14/u-n-member-states-vote-to-oust-iran-from-womens-rights-panel-00073886

This post was originally published on Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards.
December 9, 2022

US basketball star Griner back home after Russia prisoner swap

American basketball star Brittney Griner arrived in the United States on 9 December after being released from a Russian prison in exchange for an arms dealer known as the “Merchant of Death.” Griner, who was arrested in Russia in February on drug charges, was seen by an Agence France-Presse (AFP) reporter walking across a runway after her plane landed in San Antonio, Texas.

White House national security spokesman John Kirby told NBC that Griner was in:

very good spirits when she got off the plane and appeared to be obviously in good health.

Kirby went on to say that Griner will now be taken to a nearby military facility to make sure she has:

all the access she needs to health care workers just to make sure that she is OK.

Griner was exchanged in Abu Dhabi on Thursday for Viktor Bout, a Russian national who was serving a 25-year sentence in a US prison. In footage released by Russian state media, Griner – shorn of her distinctive dreadlocks – and a relaxed looking Bout crossed paths on the airport tarmac and headed towards the planes that would take them home.

Putin says ‘compromises’ found

Griner, a two-time Olympic gold medalist and Women’s National Basketball Association (WNBA) champion, was arrested at a Moscow airport against a backdrop of soaring tensions over Ukraine. She was accused of possessing vape cartridges with a small quantity of cannabis oil, and was sentenced in August to nine years in prison. Bout, who was accused of arming rebels in some of the world’s bloodiest conflicts, was detained in a US sting operation in Thailand in 2008, extradited to the United States, and sentenced in 2012 to 25 years behind bars.

At the time of her arrest, Griner had been playing for a professional team in Russia, as a number of WNBA players do in the off-season. She pleaded guilty to the charges against her, but said she did not intend to break the law or use the banned substance in Russia. Griner testified that she had permission from a US doctor to use medicinal cannabis to relieve pain from her many injuries. The use of medical marijuana is not allowed in Russia.

US president Joe Biden announced Griner’s release on Thursday flanked by her wife, Cherelle Griner, pictured in red below:

Moments ago I spoke to Brittney Griner.

She is safe.
She is on a plane.
She is on her way home. pic.twitter.com/FmHgfzrcDT

— President Biden (@POTUS) December 8, 2022

Joy and relief

WNBA commissioner Cathy Engelbert said there was a “collective wave of joy and relief” in the women’s professional league where Griner has been a star for a decade. On social media, there was also joy at the long-awaited return of Griner – as well as concern.

The WNBA Twitter account expressed relief:

After 294 days of tireless work… Our friend, sister, loved one, Brittney Griner is FREE. We love you BG pic.twitter.com/UQ7PARbVhg

— WNBA (@WNBA) December 8, 2022

Sherrilyn Ifill shared feeling joy:

Just this sweet, hopeful smile on the airplane earlier today lifts my heart. Welcome home, #BrittneyGriner pic.twitter.com/elm5OY3uoa

— Sherrilyn Ifill (@SIfill_) December 9, 2022

Professor Chanda Prescod-Weinstein pointed out that as a Black woman, Griner faced misogynoir:

None of this would have happened to Brittney Griner if Americans treated women athletes with the same respect they treat men athletes.

I will never ever stop thinking about that. She was a victim of American misogynoir first.

— Chanda Prescod-Weinstein (@IBJIYONGI) December 8, 2022

Professor Uju Anya pointed out the unfairness of why Griner was in Russia in the first place:

Glad Brittney Griner will spend the holidays with her wife and family. Still outrageous what Russian govt put her through using her as a political pawn. Also unjust she had to work abroad in the first place to compensate for shitty wages women pro ball players get compared to men https://t.co/t4Az1OrIeW

— Uju Anya (@UjuAnya) December 8, 2022

Writer Sami Schalk reiterated the specifics of Griner’s experience as a Black woman:

No one loves and supports Black women like Black women. Give us space to rejoice that Brittney Griner is free.

— Sami Schalk (@DrSamiSchalk) December 8, 2022

The Root writer Stephanie Holland said:

let’s never forget that it was women, primarily the Black women she plays with in the WNBA, who made sure Griner’s plight was never forgotten. Black women kept the pressure on President Biden, kept the story in the news and used their platforms to make sure Brittney’s name trended around the world. This is what happens when Black women take the reins and get stuff done.

Featured image via YouTube/screenshot – Washington Post

Additional reporting by Agence France-Presse

By Maryam Jameela

This post was originally published on Canary.
November 30, 2022

Oceania Indigenous ‘guardians’ call for self-determination on West Papua day
OPEN LETTER: The Ōtepoti Declaration by the Indigenous Caucus of the Nuclear Connections Across Oceania Conference

On the 61st anniversary of the first raising of West Papua’s symbol of independence — 1 December 1961 — the Morning Star flag:

We, the Indigenous caucus of the movement for self-determination, decolonisation, nuclear justice, and demilitarisation of the Pacific, call for coordinated action for key campaigns that impact the human rights, sovereignty, wellbeing and prosperity of Pacific peoples across our region.

As guardians of our Wansolwara (Tok Pisin term meaning “One Salt Water,” or “One Ocean, One People”), we are united in seeking the protection, genuine security and vitality for the spiritual, cultural and economic base for our lives, and we will defend it at all costs. We affirm the kōrero of the late Father Walter Lini, “No one is free, until everyone is free!”
- LISTEN TO RNZ MORNING REPORT: Activists, academics fight plans to put nuclear waste in Pacific Ocean
We thank the mana whenua of Ōtepoti, Te Ao o Rongomaraeroa, the National Centre for Peace and Conflict and Kā Rakahau o Te Ao Tūroa Centre for Sustainability at the University of Otago for their hospitality in welcoming us as their Pacific whānau to their unceded and sovereign lands of Aotearoa.

We acknowledge the genealogy of resistance we share with community activists who laid the mat in our shared struggles in the 1970s and 1980s. Our gathering comes 40 years after the first Te Hui Oranga o Te Moana Nui a Kiwa, hosted by the Pacific Peoples Anti Nuclear Action Committee (PPANAC) at Tātai Hono in Tamaki Makaurau.

Self-determination and decolonisation
We remain steadfast in our continuing solidarity with our sisters and brothers in West Papua, who are surviving from and resisting against the Indonesian genocidal regime, injustice and oppression. We bear witness for millions of West Papuans murdered by this brutal occupation. We will not be silent until the right to self-determination of West Papua is fully achieved.

We urge our Forum leaders to follow through with Indonesia to finalise the visit from the UN Commissioner for Human Rights to West Papua, as agreed in the Leaders Communiqué 2019 resolution.

We are united in reaffirming the inalienable right of all Indigenous peoples to self-determination and demand the sovereignty of West Papua, Kanaky, Mā’ohi Nui, Bougainville, Hawai’i, Guåhan, the Northern Mariana Islands, Rapa Nui, Aotearoa, and First Nations of the lands now called Australia.

Of priority, we call on the French government to implement the United Nations self-governing protocols in Mā’ohi Nui and Kanaky. We urge France to comply with the resolution set forth on May 17th, 2013 which declared French Polynesia to be a non-self-governing territory, and the successive resolutions from 2013 to 2022. The “empty seat policy” that the administering power has been practising since 2013 and attempts to remove Mā’ohi Nui from the list of countries to be decolonised have to stop. We call on France to immediately resume its participation in the work of the C-24 and the 4th Commission of the United Nations.

Members of the Indigenous Caucus of the Nuclear Connections Across Oceania Conference. Image: Sina Brown-Davis/APR

Nuclear justice
We grieve for the survivors and victims who lost their lives to the nuclear violence caused by over 315 nuclear weapons detonated in Marshall Islands, Australia, Kiribati, Johnston Atoll and Mā’ohi Nui by the United States, United Kingdom/Australia and France. The legacy and ongoing nuclear violence in our region is unfinished business and calls for recognition, reconciliation and reparations to be made by nuclear colonisers are long overdue.

We call for the United States, United Kingdom/Australia and France to deliver fair and just
compensation to Indigenous civilians, workers and servicemen for the health and environmental harms, including intergenerational trauma caused by nuclear testing programs (and subsequent illegal medical experiments in the Marshall Islands). The compensation schemes currently in place in all states constitute a grave political failure of these aforementioned nuclear testing states and serve to deceive the world that they are recognising their responsibility to address the nuclear legacy. We call for the United States, United Kingdom/Australia, and France to establish or otherwise significantly improve
accessible healthcare systems and develop and fund cancer facilities within the Marshall Islands, Kiribati/Australia and Mā’ohi Nui respectively, where alarming rates of cancers, birth defects and other related diseases continue to claim lives and cause socio-economic distress to those affected. The descendants of the thousands of dead and the thousands of sick are still waiting for real justice to be put in place with the supervision of the international community.

We demand that the French government take full responsibility for the racist genocidal health effects of nuclear testing on generations of Mā’ohi and provide full transparency, rapid assessment and urgent action for nuclear contamination risks. While the President of France boasts on the international stage of his major environmental and ecological transition projects, in the territory of Mā’ohi Nui, the French government’s instructions are to definitively “turn the page of nuclear history.” This is a white-washing and colonial gas-lighting attitude towards the citizens and now the mokopuna of Mā’ohi Nui. It is
imperative for France to produce the long-awaited report on the environmental, economic and sanitary consequences of its 193 nuclear tests conducted between 1966 and 1996.

We proclaim our commitment to the abolition of nuclear weapons and call all states of the Pacific region who have not done so to sign and ratify the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), namely Australia, the Solomon Islands, Tonga, Papua New Guinea, the Federated States of Micronesia and the Marshall Islands. We urge Pacific nations along with the world’s governments to contribute to the international trust fund for victims of nuclear weapons implemented by the TPNW. We urge Aotearoa/New Zealand and other states who have ratified the TPNW to follow through on their commitment to nuclear survivors, and to create a world free from the threat and harm of nuclear weapons through the universalisation of the TPNW. There can be no peace without justice.

We oppose the despicable proposal of Japan and the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) to dump 1.3 million tonnes of radioactive wastewater next year in 2023, and support in solidarity with the citizens of Japan, East Asian states and Micronesian states who sit on the frontlines of this crisis. This is an act of trans-boundary harm upon the Pacific. We call on the New Zealand government and others to stay true to its commitment to a Nuclear Free Pacific and bring a case under the international tribunal for the Law of the Sea against the proposed radioactive release from TEPCO’s Fukushima Daiichi planned from 2023 to 2053.

Demilitarisation
We condemn the geopolitical order forced upon our nations by imperial powers, who claim to be our friends, yet treat our islands as collateral damage and use financial blackmail to bully us into submission. We demand that the United States remove and remediate all military bases, infrastructure, debris and nuclear and chemical waste from the Pacific. Of priority is the US-owned nuclear waste storage site of Runit Dome on Enewetak Atoll which threatens nuclear contamination of the ocean and marine-life, on which our lives depend. Furthermore, we call for all remaining American UXOs (unexploded ordnances) from World War II in the Solomon Islands, which cause the preventable deaths of more than 20 people every year to be removed immediately!

We support in solidarity with Kānaka Maoli and demand the immediate end to the biennial RIMPAC (Rim of the Pacific) exercises hosted in Honolulu, Hawai’i. We urge all the present participating militaries of RIMPAC to withdraw their participation in the desecration and plunder of Indigenous lands and seas. We support in solidarity with the Marianas and demand an end to munitions testing in the Northern Marianas and the development of new military bases. We rebuke the AUKUS trilateral military pact and the militarisation of unceded Aboriginal lands of the northern arc of Australia and are outraged at Australia’s plans to permit further military bases, six nuclear-capable B52s and eight nuclear-powered submarines to use our Pacific Ocean as a military playground and nuclear highway.

We call on all those committed to ending militarism in the Pacific to gather and organise in Hawai’i between 6-16 June 2024, during the Festival of the Pacific and bring these issues to the forefront to renew our regional solidarity and form a new coalition to build power to oppose all forms of military exercises (RIMPAC also returns in July -August 2024) and instead promote the genuine security of clean water, safe housing, healthcare and generative economies, rather than those of extraction and perpetual readiness for war.

We view colonial powers and their militaries to be the biggest contributors to the climate crisis, the continued extractive mining of our lands and seabeds and the exploitation of our resources. These exacerbate and are exacerbated by unjust structures of colonialism, militarism and geopolitical abuse. This environmental destruction shifts the costs to Pacific and Indigenous communities who are responsible for less than 1 percent of global climate emissions.

As Pacific peoples deeply familiar with the destruction of nuclear imperialism, we strongly disapprove of the new propaganda of nuclear industry lobbyists, attempting to sell nuclear power as the best solution for climate change. Similarly, we oppose the Deep Sea Mining (DSM) industry lobbyists that promote DSM as necessary for green technologies. We call for a Fossil Fuel Non-proliferation Treaty to be implemented by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and for safe and equitable transition to better energy solutions. We reject any military solution for the climate crisis!

We recognise the urgent need for a regional coordinator to be instituted to strategise collective grassroots movements for self-determination, decolonisation, nuclear justice and demilitarisation.

Our existence is our resistance.

We, the guardians of our Wansolwara, are determined to carry on the legacy and vision for a Nuclear Free and Independent Pacific.
- More information
This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.
November 14, 2022

Biden and Xi seek to avoid conflict at first US-China summit in years

Presidents Joe Biden and Xi Jinping shook hands in front of the two nations’ flags before starting a long-awaited sit down on the Indonesian resort of Bali ahead of a Group of 20 summit, following months of tension over Taiwan and other issues.

Biden said that Beijing and Washington “share responsibility” to show the world that they can “manage our differences, prevent competition from becoming conflict.”

Xi told Biden that the world has “come to a crossroads,” and added:

The world expects that China and the United States will properly handle the relationship.

Despite the upbeat public statements, both nations are increasingly suspicious of each other, with the United States fearing that China has stepped up a timeline for seizing Taiwan.

Taiwan and more

US officials said ahead of the meeting that Biden hoped to set up “guardrails” in the relationship with China and to assess how to avoid “red lines” that could push the world’s two largest economies into conflict.

The most sensitive issue is Taiwan, the self-governing democracy claimed by China.

The United States has been stepping up support for Taiwan, while China has ramped up its threats to seize control of the island. After House Speaker Nancy Pelosi visited Taipei in August, China reacted by staging unprecedented military drills.

On the eve of his talks with Xi, Biden met with Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida and South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol on the sidelines of a Southeast Asian summit in Cambodia, with the three leaders jointly calling for “peace and stability” on the Taiwan Strait.

Biden is also expected to push China to rein in its ally North Korea after a record-breaking spate of missile tests has raised fears that Pyongyang will soon carry out its seventh nuclear test.

Cold calculations

US officials and experts have come to believe that Xi has no desire for moderation, with the new Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party stacked with hardliners and lacking any obvious heir apparent.

Yun Sun, a senior fellow at the Stimson Centre in Washington, said:

We all knew that Xi Jinping was going to prevail. But I think people are still surprised that Xi Jinping could not even find the grace to save some accommodation for his political opponents.

With the Party Congress over, Xi now has greater space and flexibility to focus on his international push for a stronger China, she said. Sun concluded:

We are not looking at a Xi Jinping who is going to be less emboldened

Both Biden and Trump identified China as the preeminent global competitor to the United States. But while Trump by late in his term was railing against China on everything from trade to Covid-19, Biden has supported talks on narrow areas of cooperation. Biden told reporters Wednesday he would speak to Xi about each country’s “red lines” in the hopes of avoiding conflict.

Biden has said three times that the United States would defend Taiwan militarily if China attacks, although the White House has walked back the apparent shift from longstanding US ambiguity.

Inching away

Biden’s meeting with Xi is notable as a departure from US-China relations under Trump. As the Canary’s John McEvoy reported:

the US has adopted an increasingly confrontational stance towards China. In January 2018, Trump launched a trade war with China. In 2019, it imposed a ban on Chinese telecommunications firm Huawei. And following the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic, Trump has consistently attempted to distract from his administration’s failures to contain the virus with anti-Chinese racism.

Another element that casts doubts on this seemingly happy proceeding is the alliance of Australia, the UK, and the US. As the Canary’s Joe Glenton explained:

Australia, the UK, and the US have signed a new military pact they say will protect their countries. The allies claim an AUKUS (pronounced ‘awk-us’) alliance will support a “peaceful and rules-based international order”. But critics have called the move a new Cold War against China. And some question the Western countries’ decision so soon after defeat and withdrawal from Afghanistan. It seems to ignore key lessons: that US power is in decline and that expeditionary warfare is a recipe for disaster.

Indeed, Yun doubted China would be as obliging as they may appear, saying that Xi views co-operation as transactional:

With competition the main theme of the US’s China policy, why would China cooperate?

Their calculation is that they are not going to do anything from the goodness of their hearts. They want to see the US give something.

Featured image via screenshot – YouTube/BBC News

Additional reporting by Agence France-Presse

By Maryam Jameela

This post was originally published on Canary.
October 21, 2022

Gavin Ellis: News media face distrust by association with social media
COMMENTARY: By Gavin Ellis

A new study suggests that the news media’s tanking levels of public trust may be made worse merely by association with social media.

The study, released this month by the Reuters Institute at Oxford University, has exposed gaps between trust in news via conventional delivery and the same thing consumed via social media.

It doesn’t matter whether people use social media or not: Levels of trust is lower if they simply associate news with the platforms.
- READ MORE: The trust gap: how and why news on digital platforms is viewed more sceptically versus news in general
The gap varies between platforms and between countries but the overall finding is that levels of trust in news on social media, search engines, and messaging apps is consistently lower than audience trust in information in the news media more generally.

And our media is becoming more and more associated with social media.

Many of the country’s main news outlets have done deals with Google to appear on its Google News platform. Click on the app and you’ll see stories from Stuff, Newshub, New Zealand Herald and NewstalkZB, Radio New Zealand, Television New Zealand, Newsroom, and the Otago Daily Times.

I think I’ve also seen The Spinoff in there, too.

NZME has brokered a deal with Facebook for the use of content, and other publishers are using the Commerce Commission in the hope of leveling the negotiating playing field.

Split between north and south
The Reuters study (part of the institute’s on-going research into trust in the media) was a split between north and south. The four countries surveyed were the United Kingdom, the United States, India, and Brazil. Two thousand people were surveyed in each country and covered seven platforms: Facebook, Google, Instagram, TikTok, Twitter, WhatsApp, and YouTube.

New Zealand use of social media more closely follows that of the United States and the United Kingdom than India and Brazil so the data relating to those two nations are quoted here. The full results can be found here.

Google showed the smallest gap between platform and general trust in news. It was only one percentage point behind in Britain where 53 percent express general trust in news. In the US, where the general trust level sits at 49 percent, Google was actually four percentage points ahead.

The same could not be said for other platforms.

To ease the calculation, we’ll say roughly 50 percent of respondents in both countries express trust in news in general. Contrast that with news on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter, which score in the mid to high twenties.

TikTok news is trusted by only 20 percent on those surveyed, the same number as WhatsApp rates in the United States (the UK is higher on 29 percent).

Only YouTube emerged from the twenties, with its news content being rated by 33 percent in Britain and 40 percent in the United States.

Complex reasons
The reasons for these gaps in perception of news on social media are complex. This is due in part to the fact that social media serves many different purposes for many different users.

The Trust Gap report cover. Image: Reuters Institute/University of Oxford

News is only a small part of the interchange that occurs. The study shows that no more than a third use Google or Facebook for daily access to news, with other platforms below 20 percent, and on TikTok only 11 percent.

Large portions of the public, in fact, do not use social media platforms at all (although this does not stop them having opinions about them in the survey). Usage varies between Britain and America but a quarter to a third never use Facebook, Google or YouTube and half to three quarters do not use the remaining platforms.

Previous Reuters research has shown levels of trust in news are higher in those who access it on a regular basis. Distrust is highest among those who have least contact with news and with social platforms. This is confirmed by the latest survey.

News organisations may take some comfort from the findings that young people are more trusting of news on social platforms than older people. The gap is huge in some cases.

An average 14 percent of Americans and Britons over 55 trust news on Facebook. That rises to 40 percent among those under 35. The gap for Google is similar and even greater on other platforms.

News aside, however, people have generally positive views of platforms. More than two-thirds give Google a tick and almost as many give the thumbs-up to YouTube. Both are seen as the best platforms on which learn new things.

Facebook doesn’t fare so well
Facebook does not fare quite so well but at 40-45 percent positive rating, while fewer than a third feel positively about Twitter and TikTok.

In spite of these warm fuzzies, however, the surveys reveal “big problems”, particularly with Facebook.

Almost two-thirds of respondents blame Facebook for propagating false or misleading information and it is also seen as the worst culprit in on-platform harassment, irresponsible use of personal data, prioritising political views, and censoring content.

Although opinions expressed by non-users has complicated the Reuters study, both users and no-users express similar views when it comes to these problems. For example, the proportion of Facebook users that say false or misleading information is a problem on the platform (63 percent) is virtually the same as those who say it is in the overall sample.

The study, which includes an even wider range of variables than are included here, attempts to correlate platform usage and ideas about journalism. After all, it is on such platforms — and from the mouths of some politicians — that users encounter discussions about journalism and criticism of journalists.

The survey asked specific questions about journalists. Half the respondents thought journalists try to manipulate the public to serve the agendas of powerful politicians and care more about getting attention than reporting the facts.

Forty percent thought journalists were careless in what they reported, and a slightly higher proportion thought they were only in it for the money.

Criticism of journalism
The researchers then attempted to identify where and how criticism of journalism is encountered. Twitter users are most likely to encounter it. In the United States almost half said they often see criticism of media there and the UK is not far behind.

More than 40 percent of Facebook and Google users in America encounter it and a third of British users of those two platforms say they see it there. Other (newer) platforms have even higher incidences.

So that is where the criticism of journalists is propagated, but who is doing the criticising? Almost half those surveyed in the United States pointed the finger at politicians and political parties, although a similar number also say the hear it from “ordinary people”.

The figures are slightly lower in the UK but around a third identify political or government sources.

The survey also asked whether other public figures were responsible for criticism of journalists. Celebrities and activists figure in around a third of responses but so, too, do journalists themselves.

The surveys also give some pointers about the relative importance of “clicks” or how much attention our newsrooms should give to real-time analytics. The answer is . . . some.

Respondents were asked to pick the factors that were important in deciding whether they could trust information on online platforms. In both countries fewer than 40 percent said the number of likes or shares were important or very important.

Media source familiarity
Around half paid attention to comments on items but far more important was whether they had heard of the media source. Two thirds were influenced by the tone or language used in headlines and almost 60 percent were influenced by accompanying images.

That finding correlates with another in which respondents were asked who should be responsible for helping to differentiate between trustworthy and untrustworthy content on the internet.

More than two-thirds put that responsibility on media organisations, higher than on tech companies, and significantly higher than on government (although Britons were more inclined toward regulation than their American cousins).

However, if the research proved one thing, it was that the media/social media environment is deeply nuanced and manifests the complexities of human behaviour. The conclusions drawn by the researchers say as much. They leave a couple of important take-aways.

“As a trade-off for expanding reach and scale, newsrooms have often ceded considerable control to these outside companies in terms of how their content is distributed and how often and in what form their work appears on these services.

“Such relationships have been further strained as publishers become increasingly dependent on platforms to reach segments of the public least interested in consuming news through legacy modes, even as platforms themselves have pivoted to serving up other kinds of experiences farther removed from news, recognising that many of their most active users have less interest in such content, especially where politically contentious issues are involved.”

They say the gap they have identified is likely a reflection of this mismatch in audience perceptions about what platforms are for, the kinds of information they get when using the services, and how people think more generally about news media.

“It is possible that the main challenge for news organisations when it comes to building and sustaining audience trust is less about the specific problem of how their journalism is perceived when audiences encounter it online, and more about the broader problem of being seen at all.”

My conclusion
Years ago, we heard the term “News You Can Use” as a response to the challenge of declining newspaper circulation. That was a catchy way of saying “We must be relevant”. The Reuters study is further proof that journalism’s real challenge lies in producing content that ordinary people need to live their daily lives. If that means collating and publishing daily lists of what every supermarket chain is charging for milk, bread, cabbages and potatoes then so be it.

Dr Gavin Ellis holds a PhD in political studies. He is a media consultant and researcher. A former editor-in-chief of The New Zealand Herald, he has a background in journalism and communications — covering both editorial and management roles — that spans more than half a century. Dr Ellis publishes a website called Knightly Views where this commentary was first published and it is republished by Asia Pacific Report with permission.

This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.
October 13, 2022

Women-led protests in Iran gather momentum – but will they be enough to bring about change?
ANALYSIS: By Tony Walker, La Trobe University

As protests in Iran drag on into their fourth week over the violent death in custody of Mahsa Amini, a young Kurdish woman, there are two central questions.

The first is whether these protests involving women and girls across Iran are different from upheavals in the past, or will simply end the same way with the regime stifling a popular uprising.

The second question is what can, and should, the outside world do about extraordinarily brave demonstrations against an ageing and ruthless regime that has shown itself to be unwilling, and possibly unable, to allow greater freedoms?
- READ MORE: The Iran nuclear talks are resuming, but is there any trust left to strike a deal?
- 3 ways these latest Iran demonstrations are different to past protests
The symbolic issue for Iran’s protest movement is a requirement, imposed by morality police, that women and girls wear the hijab, or headscarf. In reality, these protests are the result of a much wider revolt against discrimination and prejudice.

Put simply, women are fed up with a regime that has sought to impose rigid rules on what is, and is not, permissible for women in a theocratic society whose guidelines are little changed since the overthrow of the Shah in 1979.

Women are serving multi-year jail sentences for simply refusing to wear the hijab.

Two other issues are also at play. One is the economic deprivation suffered by Iranians under the weight of persistent sanctions, rampant inflation and the continuing catastrophic decline in the value of the Iranian riyal.

The other issue is the fact Mahsa Amini, the 22-year-old whose death sparked the protests, was a Kurd.

The Kurds, who constitute about 10 percent of Iran’s 84 million population, feel themselves to be a persecuted minority. Tensions between the central government in Tehran and Kurds in their homeland on the boundaries of Iraq, Syria and Turkey are endemic.

A BBC report on the Mahsa Amini protests.

Another important question is where all this leaves negotiations on the revival of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). The JCPOA had been aimed at freezing Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions.

Former President Donald Trump recklessly abandoned the 2015 agreement in 2018.

The Biden administration, along with its United Nations Security Council partners plus Germany, had been making progress in those negotiations, but those efforts are now stalled, if not frozen.

The spectacle of Iranian security forces violently putting down demonstrations in cities, towns and villages across Iran will make it virtually impossible in the short term for the US and its negotiating partners to negotiate a revised JCPOA with Tehran.

Russia’s use of Iranian-supplied “kamikaze” drones against Ukrainian targets will have further soured the atmosphere.

How will the US and its allies respond?
So will the US and its allies continue to tighten Iranian sanctions? And to what extent will the West seek to encourage and support protesters on the ground in Iran?

One initiative that is already underway is helping the protest movement to circumvent regime attempts to shut down electronic communications.

Elon Musk has announced he is activating his Starlink satellites to provide a vehicle for social media communications in Iran. Musk did the same thing in Ukraine to get around Russian attempts to shut down Ukrainian communications by taking out a European satellite system.

However, amid the spectacle of women and girls being shot and tear-gassed on Iranian streets, the moral dilemma for the outside world is this: how far the West is prepared to go in its backing for the protesters.

Since the Iranian protests began there have also been pro-government rallies in response. Image: Abedin Taherkenareh/EPA/AAP

It is one thing to express sympathy; it is another to take concrete steps to support the widespread agitation. This was also the conundrum during the Arab Spring of 2010 that brought down regimes in US-friendly countries like Egypt and Tunisia.

It should not be forgotten, in light of contemporary events, that Iran and Russia propped up Syria’s Assad regime during the Arab Spring, saving it from a near certain end.

In this latest period, the Middle East may not be on fire, as it was a decade or so ago, but it remains highly unstable. Iran’s neighbour, Iraq, is effectively without a government after months of violent agitation.

The war in Yemen is threatening to spark up again, adding to uncertainties in the Gulf.

In a geopolitical sense, Washington has to reckon with inroads Moscow has been making in relations with Gulf States, including, notably Saudi Arabia.

The recent OPEC Plus decision to limit oil production constituted a slap to the US ahead of the mid-term elections in which fuel prices will be a potent issue.

In other words, Washington’s ability to influence events in the Middle East is eroding, partly as a consequence of a disastrous attempt to remake the region by going to war in Iraq in 2003.

The US’s ability to influence the Middle East is much weaker than before it went to war in Iraq in 2003. Image: Susan Walsh/AP/AAP

A volatile region
Among the consequences of that misjudgement is the empowerment of Iran in conjunction with a Shia majority in Iraq. This should have been foreseen.

So quite apart from the waves of protest in Iran, the region is a tinderbox with multiple unresolved conflicts.

In Afghanistan, on the fringes of the Middle East, women protesters have taken the lead in recent days from their Iranian sisters and have been protesting against conservative dress codes and limitations on access to education under the Taliban.

This returns us to the moral issue of the extent to which the outside world should support the protests. In this, the experience of the “green” rebellion of 2009 on Iran’s streets is relevant.

Then, the Obama administration, after initially giving encouragement to the demonstrations, pulled back on the grounds it did not wish to jeopardise negotiations on a nuclear deal with Iran or undermine the protests by attaching US support.

Officials involved in the administration, who are now back in the Biden White House, believe that approach was a mistake. However, that begs the question as to what practically the US and its allies can do to stop Iran’s assault on its own women and girls.

What if, as a consequence of Western encouragement to the demonstrators, many hundreds more die or are incarcerated?

What is the end result, beyond indulging in the usual rhetorical exercises such as expressing “concern” and threatening to ramp up sanctions that hurt individual Iranians more than the regime itself?

The bottom line is that irrespective of what might be the desired outcome, Iran’s regime is unlikely to crumble.

It might be shaken, it might entertain concerns that its own revolution that replaced the Shah is in danger of being replicated, but it would be naïve to believe that a rotting 43-year-old edifice would be anything but utterly ruthless in putting an end to the demonstrations.

This includes unrest in the oil industry, in which workers are expressing solidarity with the demonstrators. The oil worker protest will be concerning the regime, given the centrality of oil production to Iran’s economy.

However, a powerful women’s movement has been unleashed in Iran. Over time, this movement may well force a theocratic regime to loosen restrictions on women and their participation in the political life of the country. That is the hope, but as history has shown, a ruthless regime will stop at little to re-assert its control.

Dr Tony Walker is a vice-chancellor’s fellow, La Trobe University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.
October 13, 2022

Report on the 51st session of the Human Rights Council

The International Service for Human Rights (ISHR) and 12 other NGOs gave a joint assessment of the 51st session of the Human Rights Council which was held from Monday 12 September to Friday 7 October 2022. [see also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2022/09/20/human-rights-defenders-at-the-51st-session-of-the-un-human-rights-council/]

We welcome that for the first time, the Council heard from two representatives of directly impacted communities from the podium in the enhanced interactive dialogue with the High Commissioner and the International Independent Expert Mechanism to Advance Racial Justice and Equality in Law Enforcement: Collette Flanagan of Mothers against Police Brutality (MAPB) whose son was killed by United States‘ police in 2013; and Jurema Werneck, director of Amnesty International in Brazil. As highlighted in the HC’s report, States are continuing to deny the existence and impact of systemic racism, especially institutional racism. Our view is that States actively protect the interests of police institutions in order to maintain the status quo which is designed to oppress Africans and people of African descent. We call on States to fully implement the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action (DDPA), to fully cooperate with the International Independent Expert Mechanism to Advance Racial Justice and Equality in the context of Law Enforcement including accepting country visits, implement the recommendations from their report and the High Commissioner’s Agenda towards Transformative Change for Racial justice and Equality.

We welcome the ‘from rhetoric to reality: a global call for concrete action against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance’ resolution. The resolution, interalia, strongly condemns the discriminatory treatment, unlawful deportations, excessive use of force and deaths of African migrants and migrants of African descent, including refugees and asylum-seekers, at the hands of law enforcement officials engaged in migration and border governance. It calls on States to ensure accountability and reparations for human rights violations at borders and to adopt a racial justice approach, including by adopting policies to address structural racism in the management of international migration. It reiterates that the Transatlantic Trade in Enslaved Africans and colonialism were grave violations of international law that require States to make reparations proportionate to the harms committed and to ensure that structures in the society that are perpetuating the injustices of the past are transformed, including law enforcement and administration of justice and to dispense reparatory justice to remedy historical racial injustices…..

We welcome the resolution on the “human rights implications of new and emerging technologies in the military domain” and its request for a study examining these implications. The adoption of the resolution adds to the growing attention that UN human rights mechanisms are paying to the negative human rights impacts of arms, including new technologies that can be weaponised. It is undoubtable that concerns relating to the military domain should not be seen as only relevant to disarmament fora. In response to comments from some States on whether international humanitarian law (IHL) falls within the remit of HRC, we recall that international human rights law and IHL are complementary and mutually reinforcing, as the HRC itself has reiterated on several occasions in past resolutions. We welcome the inclusion of paragraph on the responsibility to respect human rights of business enterprises, and in this regard, we recall the Information Note by the UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights on the Arms Industry (“Responsible business conduct in the arms sector: Ensuring business practice in line with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights”) published in August 2022. While we welcome the reference in the resolution to the role of human rights defenders and civil society organisations in raising awareness about the human rights impacts of the use of new and emerging technologies in the military domain, we regret that it does not include a specific mention of the risks that the use of these technologies can pose for human rights defenders and civil society organisations.

We welcome the resolution on arbitrary detention and especially the inclusion of a new paragraph on the necessity to fully implement the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders. The resolution recognises the role of HRDs, peaceful protesters, journalists and media workers in safeguarding the prohibition of arbitrary deprivation of liberty and calls upon States to make sure that they are not arbitrarily detained as a result of their activities. We further commend the main sponsor, France, for having rejected any language that could have weakened the resolution, especially on the right to legal assistance.

We welcome the adoption of the safety of journalists resolution. It has now been a decade since the first resolution on this topic, and the HRC has since created an elaborate and robust set of international standards to protect journalists. This iteration of the resolution adds new strong commitments on multiple new and emerging issues affecting journalists, from strategic lawsuits against public participation to extraterritorial attacks. It also strengthens language on investigations into attacks against journalists, calling on authorities to exhaust lines of enquiry that determine whether such attacks are linked to their journalistic work. We now urge States to implement these commitments to their full extent.

We welcome the approval by consensus by the Council of the resolution on terrorism and human rights, that has been updated with important paragraphs related to the centrality of the rule of law and human rights to counter terrorism, international human rights obligations in transfers of terrorist suspects, profiling of individuals, detention, the right to a fair trial and other due process guarantees, the right to privacy and freedom of expression, and in relation to children rights and civil society. We regret that paragraphs stemming from security based concerns have increased even though they are unrelated to the competence of the Council to promote human rights.

We warmly welcome the adoption of the resolution on the human rights situation in the Russian Federation, mandating a Special Rapporteur on Russia for the first time. …The Russian Federation’s growing repressive policies, combined with the country’s exclusion from the Council of Europe – victims of new human rights violations committed by the Russian Federation from 17 September lost protection under the European Convention on Human Rights– and its diplomatic isolation from those States which have been supportive of human rights and civil society in Russia, have made it increasingly difficult for Russian human rights defenders, activists, and civil society organisations to engage with the international community. Russian civil society had been vocal in calling for a Special Rapporteur’s mandate, strongly believing it will help to create a bridge between the United Nations and Russian civil society and the wider general public in Russia at an acute moment of widespread domestic human rights violations, both ensuring their voice is heard at an international level, and that the United Nations can further develop its understanding and analysis of the deterioration in Russia’s domestic human rights situation and the implications that has had – and continues to have – for Russia’s foreign policy decisions.

We welcome the extension and strengthening of the OHCHR capacity to collect, consolidate, analyse and preserve evidence and information and to develop strategies for future accountability, as well as to extend the mandate for enhanced monitoring and reporting by the OHCHR on Sri Lanka. Given the complete lack of any credible avenues for accountability at the national level, the OHCHR’s Sri Lanka Accountability Project remains the only hope of justice, more than thirteen years after the war, for thousands of victims of war time atrocities and their families.

We welcome the UN Secretary General’s report on missing people in Syria; and urge States to support and implement the report’s findings, in line with resolution A/HRC/51/L.18 which underscored “the report’s finding that any measure towards addressing the continuing tragedy of missing persons in the Syrian Arab Republic requires a coherent and holistic approach going beyond current efforts, which must be inclusive and centered on victims”. Addressing the issue of missing persons in Syria requires a “new international institution” mandated to clarify the fate and whereabouts of missing persons, to “work in cooperation and complementarity with existing mechanisms”, the body having “a structural element that ensures that victims, survivors and their families […] may participate in a full and meaningful manner in its operationalization and work” as recommended in the study of the Secretary General.

The Council has taken a vitally important step in renewing the mandate of the Fact-Finding Mission on Venezuela and of the reporting mandate of OHCHR for a further two years. In its most recent report, A/HRC/51/43, the Fact-Finding Mission deepened its investigation of alleged crimes against humanity, making clear that alleged perpetrators remain in power. The ongoing accountability drive through the work of the Mission allied with the work of OHCHR, is key to providing victims of violations with hope for justice. It is also key to the prevention of ongoing violations, particularly in the context of upcoming elections, and of encouraging political processes that respect human rights.

We regret that the Council failed to respond adequately to several human rights situations including Afghanistan, China, Philippines, and Yemen.

We welcome the extension and strengthening of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Afghanistan. However, this in no way makes up for the Council’s repeated failure to respond to the calls from Afghan human rights defenders, especially women human rights defenders, and civil society for an independent accountability mechanism with a mandate and resources to investigate the full scope of violations abuses that continue to be committed in Afghanistan by all parties and to preserve evidence of these violations for future accountability. It is particularly concerning that despite the overwhelming evidence of gross violations and abuses in Afghanistan that the Council failed to muster consensus on even the bare minimum.

We deplore that this Council was unable to endorse the proposal for a debate on Xinjiang, after the UN identified possible crimes against humanity committed by the Chinese government against Uyghurs and Turkic peoples. Dialogue is a pillar of multilateralism, and is fundamental, even on the hardest issues. Despite the leadership of the core group and all 18 States who voted in favour, this Council looked the other way. We strongly condemn the 19 countries who blocked this proposal, and regret all the abstentions that enabled it. We particularly regret that leading OIC States Indonesia and Qatar, as well as Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, the UAE, Côte d’Ivoire, Mauritania, Sudan, Gabon, Cameroon and Eritrea, decided to abandon Uyghurs and Muslim minorities in China. We command Somalia for being the only Muslim Council member to stand up for Muslim minorities. Uyghur and international human rights groups won’t give up efforts to hold China accountable. We urgently call on current and future Council members to support efforts to prevent the continuation of atrocity crimes in Xinjiang, and uphold this Council’s credibility and moral authority. [see: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2022/10/05/uyghur-issue-at-the-un-human-rights-council-will-there-be-even-a-debate/]

We are deeply disappointed that despite the High Commissioner’s clear recommendation and demands by victims and their families as well as civil society from the Philippines, the Council has failed to put forward a resolution mandating the High Commissioner to continue monitoring and reporting on the situation, allowing the Philippines to use the rhetoric of cooperation and the UN Joint Programme for Human Rights to window-dress its appalling human rights record without any tangible progress or scrutiny.

We are dismayed by an Item 10 resolution that will not allow for reporting to the HRC on the human rights situation in Yemen. Despite a truce that now looks in danger of collapsing, the humanitarian and human rights crisis in Yemen has not ended. …Lasting peace in Yemen requires a sustained commitment by the international community to ensure accountability and redress for the millions of victims in Yemen. We call on UN member states to give meaning to the pledges they have made and begin to work toward the establishment of an international independent investigative mechanism on Yemen.

On 10 October 2022 a Blog post of the Universal Rights NGO gave the following quick summary of this session of the Human Rights Council

With Ms. Michelle Bachelet’s mandate as the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights having come to an end on 31 August 2022, and the incoming UN High Commissioner, Mr. Volker Türk, not taking up his official functions until 17 October 2022, Ms. Nada Al-Nashif, opened, as Acting High Commissioner, by presenting a global update on the situation of human rights around the world.

Four new Special Procedures mandate-holders were appointed to the following mandates: the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance (India), the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of internally displaced persons (Colombia), the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers (United States of America), and one member of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (from Eastern European States).

9 expert members were elected to the Human Rights Council’s Advisory Committee (from Algeria, Angola, China, Qatar, Slovenia, Spain, Uruguay, Bahamas, Brazil).

42 texts (39 resolutions, one decision, and one statement by the President) were considered by the Council. This represents a 52% increase in the number of adopted texts compared to one-year prior (HRC48). Of the 41 adopted texts, 30 were adopted by consensus (73%), and 11 by a recorded vote (27%).

The Council rejected a draft decision to hold a debate on the situation of human rights in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, China by vote (17 votes in favour, 19 against, and 11 abstentions).

Following the adoption by vote of a draft resolution on the situation of human rights in the Russian Federation (17 votes in favour, 6 against, and 24 abstentions), the Council created a new Special Procedure mandate on the situation of human rights in the Russian Federation for a period of one year, and requested the mandate holder to make recommendations and to present a comprehensive report to the Council at its 54th session and to the General Assembly at its 78th session, while calling upon the Russian authorities to cooperate fully with the Special Rapporteur.

The Council further extended the mandates of 8 thematic Special Procedures (i.e., the Independent Expert on older persons; the Special Rapporteurs on the right to development, on contemporary forms of slavery, on the rights to water and sanitation, on Indigenous Peoples, and on the right to health, as well as the Working Groups on arbitrary detention, and on mercenaries), and 7 country-specific mechanisms (i.e., the Special Rapporteurs on Afghanistan, and on Burundi; the International Commission of Human Rights Experts on Ethiopia; the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, the International Team of Experts on the Democratic Republic of the Congo; the Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in the Central African Republic; and the mandate of the Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in Somalia).

25 written amendments were tabled by States ahead of the consideration of texts by the Council but 14 were withdrawn by the main sponsor prior to voting. The remaining 11 amendments were rejected by a vote. Additionally, one oral amendment was brought forward by China during voting proceedings.

31 of the texts adopted by the Council (79%) had Programme Budget Implications (PBI) and required new appropriations not included in previous Programme Budgets.

https://ishr.ch/latest-updates/hrc51-civil-society-presents-key-takeaways-from-human-rights-council/

https://www.universal-rights.org/urg-human-rights-council-reports/report-on-the-51st-session-of-the-human-rights-council/
October 4, 2022

Honiara doesn’t want to be forced to choose sides, says Foreign Minister
RNZ Pacific

Solomon Islands Foreign Minister Jeremiah Manele says the country joined an agreement with the United States only after changes to wording relating to China.

He said the country did not want to be forced to choose sides, and the Pacific should be seen as a region of peace and cooperation.

Manele was in Wellington today for an official meeting with his New Zealand counterpart Nanaia Mahuta, and was welcomed to Parliament with a pōwhiri today.
- READ MORE: Climate change gets ‘highest priority’ in US, Pacific agreement
Solomon Islands has been a central focus in discussions over partnerships and security in the region after it signed a partnership agreement with China in April.

After a draft of the agreement was leaked in March, New Zealand had described it as “gravely concerning”, but the full text of the final document has never been made public.

The US has been working to contain China’s growing influence with Pacific countries, and last week brought leaders of 12 Pacific nations to Washington DC for two days with the aim of finalising a new Pacific strategy with a joint declaration of partnership.

Solomon Islands had initially refused to sign the declaration, which covered 11 areas of cooperation, but later agreed after a requirement for Pacific Island states to consult with each other before signing security deals with regional impacts was removed.

Decision clarified
Manele clarified that decision when questioned by reporters this afternoon.

“In the initial draft there were some references that we were not comfortable with, but then the officials under the discussions and negotiations … were able to find common ground, and then that took us on board, so we signed,” he said.

Asked what specifically they were uncomfortable with, he confirmed it related to indirect references to China.

“There was some references that put us in a position that we would have to choose sides, and we don’t want to be placed in a position that we have to choose sides.”

He said the Solomons’ agreement with China was domestically focused and did not include provision for a military base.

“My belief … and my hope is this — that the Pacific should be a region of peace, of co-operation and collaboration, and it should not be seen as a region of confrontation, of conflict and of war,” he said.

“And of course we are guided by the existing regional security arrangements that we have in place — and these are the Biketawa declaration as well as the Boe declaration.

US re-engagement welcomed
“We welcome the US re-engagement with the Pacific and we look forward to working with all our partners.”

After securing its partnership agreement, US officials acknowledged they had let the relationship with Pacific nations “drift” in recent years, and there was more work to do.

A pōwhiri for Solomon Islands Foreign Minister Jeremiah Manele at Parliament today. Image: Samuel Rillstone/RNZ

Manele said he was “delighted” to be in Aotearoa for the first time in about eight years, after his previous plans to visit two years ago were put on hold by the covid-19 pandemic.

He thanked New Zealand for support in helping manage and contain the virus, including with vaccines and medical equipment.

Manele said the discussion between the ministers covered the RSE scheme, the need to review the air services agreement, the 2050 Blue Pacific strategy, and maritime security.

He was keen to stress the importance of increased flights between New Zealand and Solomon Islands.

“I think this is important, we are tasking our officials to start a conversation, we’ll be writing formally to the government of New Zealand to review the air services agreement that we have between our two countries,” he said.

Boost for business, tourism
“This will not only facilitate the RSE scheme but I hope will also facilitate the movement of investors and business people and general tourism.”

The country was also hopeful of more diplomatic engagement with New Zealand.

“Not only at the officials level but also at the ministerial level and at the leaders level, and your Prime Minister has an invitation to my Prime Minister to visit New Zealand in the near future, and my Prime Minister is looking forward to visiting.”

New Zealand’s Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta welcomes Jeremiah Manele at Parliament today. Image: Samuel Rillstone/RNZ

Increased engagement would be required, he said, from all Pacific Island Forum partners, including Australia and New Zealand, to tackle climate change in line with the Blue Pacific Continent 2050 strategy agreed at the most recent Forum meeting in Fiji.

Both Manele and Mahuta highlighted climate change as the greatest threat to security in the region.

He was to attend a roundtable discussion with New Zealand business leaders this evening.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
September 22, 2022

Fiji hosts US-led multinational military exercises on Pacific ‘threats’
RNZ Pacific

Mortar demonstrations involving military forces from five nations have taken place in Fiji.

The tactical field training exercise called Exercise Cartwheel was a US and Fiji-led multinational exercise conducted in the Nausori Highlands.

It involved defence personnel from the Republic of Fiji Military Forces, United States Army Pacific, the New Zealand Defence Force, the British Army and the Australian Defence Force.
- READ MORE: Other reports on Pacific security
The exercise was designed to enhance capability in both urban and jungle environments.

Training also included demonstrations of sustained fire machine guns, section attacks and ambushes, reacting to enemy indirect firing, and ethical decision-making scenarios.

TVNZ reported Major Atonia Nagauna of the Fiji Infantry Regiment, Third Battalion, saying that Pacific nations faced challenges that require collective action.

“When I talk about threats, I talk about natural disasters, I talk about illegal fishing, I talk about other traditional non-state actors which try and destabilise this part of the world,” he said.

“We work together so we feel we are not alone and they also treat us as equal partners in this.”

The exercise brings together the same allies which fought side-by-side in Solomon Islands during World War II.

The tactical field training exercise, Exercise Cartwheel, was a US and Fiji-led multinational exercise conducted in the Nausori Highlands in Fiji. Image: Petty Officer Chris Weissenborn/RNZ

Developing long-standing relationships in the Pacific
The New Zealand Defence Force said a total of 55 combat soldiers from 1st (NZ) Brigade participated in the exercise.

A light infantry platoon from Delta Company, 2nd/1st Battalion, Royal New Zealand Infantry Regiment (RNZIR), also conducted reconnaissance operations, section and platoon harbours drills, survival and tracking training.

New Zealand’s Land Component Commander, Brigadier Hugh McAslan, said New Zealand had long-standing relationships with their military partners in the Pacific and valued opportunities to train alongside them.

“This exercise also provides opportunities for our people to immerse themselves in Fijian culture, build strong professional and personal relationships with our Pacific military whanau, as well as train in an environment that is different to New Zealand,” he said.

“We are taking every opportunity to learn from one another. In doing so, these skills and relationships, coupled with professionalism, set the conditions for a bright future for our region.”

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

This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.
September 3, 2022

A Cruel and Unusual Punishment: The Gas Chamber

By Tess Walsh 39 years ago this week, the United States gas chamber tortured a prisoner to death in a botched execution that added weight to the charge that the death penalty is unconstitutional. Today, the gas chamber remains available for use in four states and with botched lethal injections and US-wide drug supply issues, […]
This post was originally published on Human Rights Centre Blog.
September 1, 2022

US Law firms receive Frankel Award for Pro Bono Service

On 31 August 2022 Human Rights First announced that three law firms will be honored with the Marvin E. Frankel Award for Pro Bono Service: Greenberg Traurig LLP, Latham & Watkins LLP, and Morrison Foerster. The Frankel Award is presented annually to law firms that demonstrate outstanding commitment to pro bono service, helping Human Rights First achieve justice for refugees in the United States.

“Over the past year, pro bono attorneys around the country have stepped up in historic numbers to represent refugees fleeing Afghanistan, the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and the many other conflicts and human rights abuses that occur around the world,” said Jenna Gilbert, Director of Refugee Representation, at Human Rights First. “The law firms we honor with this year’s Marvin E. Frankel Award have demonstrated their commitment as extraordinary leaders in pro bono during this challenging period. Thanks to their tireless work, they have changed lives and provided asylum seekers with the legal protections they deserve to feel empowered in their new communities.”

The award is named for Judge Marvin E. Frankel, co-founder and former chairman of Human Rights First. During his lifetime, Judge Frankel was a champion for the human rights movement and understood the critical impact pro bono representation can have on the lives of clients and lawyers. Under his guidance, Human Rights First developed a nationally recognized pro bono representation program that is now one of the largest of its kind in the country.

In 2021, HRF’s refugee representation team partnered with 2,139 pro bono attorneys across 175 law firms, corporations, and law school clinics to provide standard-setting, life-saving legal representation to asylum seekers from around the world.

https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/press-release/human-rights-first-honors-three-law-firms-2022-marvin-e-frankel-award-pro-bono-service
August 9, 2022

Angelo Guillen gets 2022 Baldwin medal

On 8 August 2022 Human Rights First announced that Angelo Karlo Guillen, a human rights lawyer in the Philippines, is the winner of the 2022 Roger N. Baldwin Medal of Liberty. The Baldwin Medal will be presented to Guillen in person at an event in the United States later this year.

For more on the Baldwin Medal and its laureates, see: https://www.trueheroesfilms.org/thedigest/awards/F23B5465-6A15-4463-9A91-14B2977D9FCE

Michael Breen, President and CEO of Human Rights First said “Angelo Guillen is a courageous and effective advocate whose work has made a difference in the lives of his fellow Filipinos and put a spotlight on abuses and calling for accountability.”

Guillen is a prominent human rights defender and a leader in the National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL). He lives and works primarily on the island of Panay, and his legal practice has included a focus on helping document human rights violations and educating farmers and indigenous communities on their human rights under domestic and international law.

In March 2021, after years of being followed, surveilled, and vilified for his work, Guillen survived a brutal stabbing by unknown assailants. The attack followed repeated attempts by government officials and others to depict him and other NUPL lawyers as “terrorists.” Three other NUPL lawyers have been murdered in previous years.

“I am honored to accept the Baldwin Medal, which I do on behalf of all Filipino human rights lawyers and defenders,” said Guillen. “This award will encourage us even more, to continue our work defending human rights and civil liberties in the Philippines, even in these difficult times.

“I am especially glad this award could be announced on the International Day of the World’s Indigenous Peoples, which is also National Indigenous Peoples Day in the Philippines. Indigenous peoples, like the Tumandok community, as well as farmers, labor leaders, and activists, have borne the brunt of unjust arrests, extrajudicial killings, and other human rights violations committed by state security forces that, to this day, still take place throughout the country. Their rights must be protected, and we hope that this recognition will help bring attention to their plight.”

The immediate past recipient of Human Rights First’s Roger Baldwin Medal, Hong Kong lawyer and human rights defender Albert Ho, remains unjustly detained. Human Rights First continues to call on Hong Kong authorities to release Ho. [see: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2020/12/10/albert-ho-wins-baldwin-medal-2020/]

https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/press-release/filipino-human-rights-lawyer-angelo-guillen-honored-baldwin-medal-liberty

This post was originally published on Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards.
August 4, 2022

USA stands for democracy…in certain places

By Ralph Underhill