The global human rights landscape has witnessed a significant diplomatic milestone.

Indonesia, for the first time since the body’s establishment in 2006, has officially taken the presidency of the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC).

Indonesia’s Permanent Representative to the UN in Geneva, Ambassador Sidharto Reza Suryodipuro, is currently guiding the procedural and diplomatic course of the world’s foremost human rights forum for the coming year.

This appointment, backed by consensus within the Asia-Pacific regional group and subsequently endorsed by the full council, is far more than a routine procedural rotation.

It is a mirror reflecting diplomatic success, yet also a fragile piñata — ready to spill forth either in praise or sharp criticism depending on the blows dealt by reality and unfolding dynamics.

This moment is not the end of a journey, but the opening of a new chapter rife with interpretation — a complex test of Indonesia’s credibility, capacity, and consistency on the stage of global issues.

The test begins not only in the halls of Geneva but simultaneously in the halls of power in Jakarta, where the government is pushing for the ratification of a revised Human Rights Law by this year.

This legislative endeavour has now become inextricably linked to the credibility of its international leadership.

Foundations and mandate
To understand the seriousness of this position, one must look to its foundational pillars.

The UN Charter, as the supreme constitution of global governance, clearly places the promotion and respect for human rights as a central pillar for maintaining international peace and security.

This charter provides an undeniable moral and political mandate. Indonesia’s presidency, within this framework, is an operational instrument to realise the charter’s noble aims — a collective trust bestowed by the community of nations.

The Human Rights Council itself is a product of the post-Cold War collective consciousness and the failures of its predecessor, the Commission on Human Rights. Established by General Assembly Resolution 60/251, it was designed as a more legitimate intergovernmental body with a mandate to strengthen the promotion and protection of human rights globally.

It is a space of often-tense dialogue, a tireless advocacy arena for civil society, and a stage where mechanisms like the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) and Special Procedures strive to illuminate dark corners of violations.

Within this complexity, the council president is not merely a passive moderator but a pacesetter, agenda-shaper, balance-keeper, and often a mediator in intricate political deadlocks. This position holds the key that can either unlock discussions on neglected issues or bury them in procedure.

The normative compass for the council is the International Bill of Human Rights — comprising the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).

These standards are the shared measure, the common language, and the basis for demands.

Indonesia’s leadership will be judged on its ability to advance the language and spirit of these covenants, not only within the halls of Geneva but also through their resonance and enactment at the national level. It is here that the ongoing revision of Indonesia’s own Human Rights Law (Law Number 30 of 1999) transforms from a domestic legislative process into a litmus test for its international posture.

Two sides of the coin
Globally, this presidency represents the pinnacle of Indonesia’s soft power diplomacy. It affirms the image of a consequential developing nation deemed capable of leading even the most sensitive conversations.

It is an invaluable platform to voice Global South perspectives, emphasise the interdependence of civil-political and socio-economic rights, and champion dialogue over confrontation.

Indonesia has the opportunity to act as a bridge-builder, spanning the divides between West and East, North and South, in an increasingly polarised human rights discourse.

Yet, behind the stage lights, the shadows are long and critical. Organisations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have consistently warned that leadership on the council must align with tangible commitment.

They are watching closely: Will Indonesia use its influence to push for access by special mandate-holders to global conflict zones, or will it cloak inaction in the rhetoric of state sovereignty?

Will its voice be loud in highlighting violations in one region while falling silent on another due to geopolitical and geostrategic considerations?

Herein lies the ultimate credibility test. The United Liberation Movement for West Papua (ULMWP) criticises Indonesia’s presidency, arguing it could swiftly become “hollow prestige” if seen merely as a product of regional rotation, not a recognition of substantive capability.

The ULMWP asserts that Indonesia is unfit for the role, pointing to allegations of a 60-year conflict in Papua, historical casualties, and comparing the situation to past international controversies.

They challenge Indonesia’s moral standing, citing unresolved historical allegations, internal displacement, and the long-standing refusal to grant access to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

This opposition underscores the profound domestic scrutiny the presidency faces: every action on the global stage will be measured against conditions in Papua, where critics describe ongoing tensions and demand immediate access for journalists and a UN visit.

The most profound implications may, in fact, unfold domestically. This presidency is a mirror forcibly held up to the nation itself. It creates unique political and moral pressure to address longstanding homework.

Issues such as freedom of expression, protection of minorities and vulnerable groups, law enforcement in cases of alleged violations, and the state of labour and environmental rights will come under a brighter international spotlight.

In this context, the government’s move to revise the Human Rights Law is a direct response to this pressure.

Human Rights Minister Natalius Pigai, in a meeting with Commission III of the House of Representatives (DPR) on February 2, 2026, emphasised that the drafting process involves prominent national human rights figures — including Professor Jimly Asshiddiqie, Makarim Wibisono, Haris Azhar, Rocky Gerung, Ifdhal Kasim, and Roichatul Aswidah — to ensure the revised law is “more progressive and advanced”.

The government is targeting ratification in 2026, aiming to synchronise domestic legal progress with its international leadership year.

The government thus faces a stark choice: leverage this historic moment as a catalyst for deeper legal and institutional human rights reforms, open wider dialogue with civil society, and demonstrate tangible progress anchored in a stronger law; or, wield the position merely as a diplomatic shield to deflect criticism, content with symbolism over substance, even if that symbolism includes a newly passed but weakly implemented law.

The latter would be a damaging boomerang, deepening a crisis of trust both in the eyes of its own citizens and the global community.

Indonesian civil society, conversely, holds a golden opportunity. They now have a wider door to elevate domestic issues to the global forum, using their own nation’s presidential position as an accountability tool. The involvement of activists in the law revision process is a start, but the presidency must be seen not as the sole property of the government, but as a national asset to be filled with diverse and critical voices, both sweet and bitter, to ensure the promised progress is real.

Navigating the terrain
A clear-eyed SWOT analysis is indispensable for Indonesia to strategically navigate its historic presidency of the UN Human Rights Council. This framework illuminates the internal and external factors that will define its tenure, balancing inherent advantages against palpable risks, all while the domestic reform clock ticks.

Strengths: Indonesia enters this role with a formidable diplomatic toolkit. Its long-standing tradition of “free and active” foreign policy has cultivated a wide non-aligned network and substantial credibility as an independent voice in the Global South.

As the world’s third-largest democracy, it offers a practical case study in balancing governance, diversity, and development. Furthermore, its soft power assets — embodied in the national motto Bhinneka Tunggal Ika (Unity in Diversity) and its narrative of moderate Islam — provide unique cultural and religious leverage to mediate polarised debates on sensitive issues like religious freedom.

Operationally, the presidency itself confers significant agenda-setting power, allowing Indonesia to prioritise thematic issues such as the right to development, climate justice, and interfaith tolerance, while influencing the appointment of key human rights investigators.

The concurrent push for a progressive Human Rights Law revision can be framed as a strength, showcasing a commitment to aligning domestic norms with international aspirations.

Weaknesses: Indonesia’s most significant vulnerability remains the perceived gap between its international advocacy and its domestic human rights landscape. Longstanding, contentious issues — including restrictions on civil liberties, protections for minorities, and unresolved past alleged violations — provide immediate fodder for critics and undermine its moral authority.

This credibility deficit is a strategic weakness that adversaries will exploit. The revision of the Human Rights Law, if perceived as a rushed or cosmetic exercise to coincide with the presidency, could exacerbate this weakness rather than alleviate it.

Additionally, the technical and political capacity of its permanent mission in Geneva will be under immense strain, tested by the need to master complex procedural rules while managing intensely politicised negotiations among competing global blocs in real-time.

Opportunities: This presidency is an unparalleled platform for strategic nation-branding, casting Indonesia as a consensus-driven, responsible global leader. Domestically, it creates a powerful political catalyst to accelerate and deepen stalled legislative reforms.

The targeted 2026 ratification of the Human Rights Law is the prime opportunity; it must be used to revitalise national human rights institutions like the National Commission of Human Rights (Komnas HAM) and pass long-delayed bills like the Domestic Workers Protection Bill.

Internationally, it offers the chance to operationalise its bridge-builder identity, mediating in protracted conflicts or humanitarian crises where dialogue has stalled, thereby translating diplomatic principle into tangible impact.

Successfully shepherding a meaningful domestic reform would give Indonesia undeniable moral currency in these international efforts.

Threats: The external environment is fraught with challenges. The council is often an arena for great power politicisation, where human rights issues are weaponised for geopolitical ends. Indonesia risks being ensnared in these zero-sum games, which could drain diplomatic capital and compromise its neutral stance.

Simultaneously, it faces relentless scrutiny from a vigilant transnational civil society and global media, ensuring that any perceived stagnation or regression at home — such as a watered-down Human Rights Law or continued restrictions in Papua — will trigger amplified criticism internationally.

The paramount threat, however, is the boomerang effect: that the heightened visibility of the presidency exponentially raises expectations, and the subsequent failure to demonstrate concrete progress — both in Geneva through effective leadership and in Jakarta through substantive reform—could severely damage Indonesia’s hard-won diplomatic reputation, leaving it weaker than before it assumed the chair.

Thus, Indonesia’s tenure will be a constant balancing act: leveraging its strengths to seize opportunities, while meticulously managing its weaknesses to mitigate existential threats.

The presidency is not merely a position of honour, but a high-stakes test of strategic foresight and authentic commitment, where domestic legislative action is now part of the international exam.

From symbol to substance: The path forward
Indonesia’s election as the 2026 President of the UNHRC is an acknowledgment of its role and potential on the global stage. However, this acknowledgment comes as a loan of trust with very high interest: increased accountability and consistency.

The government’s own timeline, aiming to ratify a revised Human Rights Law within this same year, has voluntarily raised the stakes, tying its legacy directly to tangible domestic output.

This year of leadership is not a celebratory party, but a laboratory for authentic leadership. Its success will not be measured by the smoothness of procedural sessions or the number of meetings chaired.

It will be measured by the extent to which Indonesia can articulate and champion a vision of inclusive and just human rights globally, and — just as crucially — by the degree to which this office leaves a positive legacy for the advancement of human rights at home.

The revised Human Rights Law is poised to be the most visible component of that domestic legacy. Minister Pigai’s confidence in its progressiveness, bolstered by the involvement of respected figures, must translate into a law that meaningfully addresses past shortcomings and empowers institutions.

Indonesia stands at a crossroads. One path leads to transformative leadership, using this position to strengthen global norms while cleansing the domestic mirror through courageous reform and open engagement. The other leads to transactional leadership, leveraging prestige and a new but potentially inert law to impress without touching the core of the issues.

Indonesia’s choice will determine whether history records 2026 as the year Indonesia truly led the world on human rights by exemplifying the change it advocates, or merely performed a protocol duty on a stage where the lights are slowly fading on its credibility.

A historic mandate and its dual imperative
This strategic position is a historic achievement, cementing the country’s role while presenting a real-time test of its global credibility. As a body of 47 member states, the UNHRC holds vital authority in investigating violations, conducting periodic reviews, and shaping international human rights norms. The Council President controls the agenda, guides dialogue, and, most importantly, builds consensus from diverse interests.

Indonesia is no newcomer, currently serving its sixth membership term and often as a Vice-President. Securing the top seat opens the chance to shift from “player” to “game-setter,” potentially shaping a more inclusive global human rights discourse.

This achievement is built on active diplomacy: vigorous economic and peace diplomacy (including Indonesia’s peacemaker initiatives), strengthened regional diplomacy emphasising ASEAN centrality and Global South solidarity, and a consistent multilateral commitment as a strong UN system supporter.

The Indonesian Ministry of Foreign Affairs has affirmed its commitment to lead the council objectively, inclusively, and in a balanced manner. Potential agenda paths include advocating for contextualising human rights principles to be more sensitive to the historical, developmental, and socio-cultural contexts of developing nations; expanding the discourse to seriously discuss issues like corruption, environmental degradation, and electoral governance in the Council; and testing its bridge-builder capacity in acute conflicts, such as the Palestinian issue, by leading constructive diplomatic initiatives.

Ultimately, history will record not just the prestigious title of “UNHRC President,” but the substance and impact of the leadership. This position is a mirror: Is Indonesia ready to lead with consistency and firm moral principle, or will it become trapped in the contradiction between rhetoric in Geneva and reality at home?

The parallel process to revise the Human Rights Law is now part of that reflection. Its quality, its process, and its final enactment will be scrutinised as evidence of Indonesia’s sincerity.

True leadership will be measured by the courage to build bridges amid global divisions and the ability to connect words with concrete action and accountability domestically. The year 2026 will determine whether this moment is remembered as a renaissance of moral diplomacy, backed by genuine legal evolution at home, or merely a display window of symbolism where even new laws ring hollow.

The final word rests not on the title itself, but on the government’s collective actions in both the international arena and the national legislature. Success in this dual mission would add a brilliant and coherent achievement to the international record of the administration of President Prabowo Subianto and Vice-President Gibran Rakabuming Raka.

The choice — and the test — is in Indonesia’s hands.

Laurens Ikinia is a Papuan lecturer and researcher at the Institute of Pacific Studies, Indonesian Christian University, Jakarta. He is also an honorary member of the Asia Pacific Media Network (APMN) in Aotearoa New Zealand.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A movement dedicated to peaceful self-determination among indigenous groups in the Pacific is the latest group in Aotearoa to add support for struggling Papuan students caught in Aotearoa New Zealand after an abrupt cancellation of their scholarships.

About 70 Papuan students are currently in New Zealand but more than half have been negatively impacted on by the sudden removal of their Indonesian government scholarships earlier this year.

Pax Christi Aotearoa New Zealand has added its voice to media academics, church groups, community groups such as the Whānau Hub, and Green and Labour MPs in appealing for special case visas to be granted for the almost 40 students still stuck in the country trying to complete their qualifications.

It has also donated $1000 to the students fundraising campaign to assist with their living and accommodation costs while appeals have been made to some educational institutions to waive tuition fees.

A Pax Christi group met with a delegation of the Papuan students at the Friends’ House in Auckland last week.

“The 40 or so students across several institutions who are the object of our concern have been suddenly faced with the cancellation of their scholarships awarded by the Indonesian government,” said Pax Christi spokesperson Kevin McBride in an appeal to Immigration Minister Kris Faafoi this month.

He said efforts by the International Alliance of Papuan Student Associations Overseas (IAPSAO) and other relevant bodies to address their plight had been unsuccessful.

‘Perilous situations’
This had left many of them in “perilous situations” over the status of their visas and their ability to complete their qualifications.

Professor David Robie, editor of Asia Pacific Report and a specialist Pacific journalism educator for the past 30 years, is also one of the people who have appealed for special case visas for the students.

In a letter late last month to the minister, he said the students had been “unfairly treated” by the abrupt cancellation of their Indonesian scholarships.

He described it as an “unprecedented action” and that they were Melanesian students and ought to be “considered as Pacific Islanders” for completing their studies in New Zealand.

In an earlier open letter to the minister, Dr Robie said Papuan students studying in Australia and New Zealand faced “tough and stressful challenges apart from the language barrier”.

McBride said that in this Asia-Pacific region of the world, a predominant basis for division was colonisation and the effects of colonisation.

“Over many years, members of our Pax Christi section have been able to visit West Papua and to work with the mainly church-based groups there intent in improving the capacity of their people to play a significant role in the development of their nation,” he said.

Assistance with education
“Often this involves assisting them to gain educational qualifications in overseas countries and helping them cope with problems associated with that process.”

Pax Christi had been able to strengthen relationships and understanding.

“We have been hosting seminars and dialogue with sympathetic groups here in Aotearoa and across the international Pax Christi movement, which includes an Indonesian section,” McBride said.

Laurens Ikinia, a 26-year-old Papuan postgraduate communications student and the media spokesperson of IAPSAO, welcomed the assistance from Pax Christi and other groups and thanked New Zealand for its generosity.

“We are determined to finish our studies if we can,” he said.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The violent protests which erupted in major cities across Kazakhstan over the past week, fueled by the people’s fury over high gas prices, grew into a monumental anti-corruption movement with the hope of changing the country’s direction.

The Kazakh people are reportedly fed up with the country’s immense wealth, owed to large oil reserves, being held by a small number of corrupt elites.

However, as with so many revolutions, the battle has intensified into a bloody clash between the people and the military.

Last Sunday, the rebellion began in western Kazakhstan, a region known for its natural resources and oil richness, against a significant surge in fuel prices. Despite the Kazakh government’s promise to lower them­­, the protests spread throughout the country with a broader demand for better social benefits and less governmental corruption.

The Kazakh president, Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, issued a statement on Wednesday night calling, without offering evidence, protesters “a band of terrorists” who had been “trained abroad” – alluding to possible foreign interference.

Tokayev declared a state of emergency in Kazakhstan and requested the intervention from Russia’s version of NATO, the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), to which Kazakhstan and Russia are members. Others include Armenia, Belarus, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan.

The chairman of the CSTO, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, also blames “outside interference” for the mass protests.

Russian-led troops
As promised by the military pact between Russia and Kazakhstan, Russian-led CSTO troops have stormed into Kazakhstan’s largest city, Almaty, and were being met by large groups of demonstrators setting fire to trucks, police cars, and barricading themselves.

Some protesters wielding firearms were caught on camera looting shops and malls and setting government buildings on fire (including Almaty’s City Hall and the president’s former office).

Local demonstrators also captured the Almaty airport. Flights in and out of airports in Almaty, Aktau, and Aktobe were suspended until further notice.

Much of the violence and scale of the chaos can be witnessed on social media applications such as Instagram, Facebook, and Tik Tok. However, with the government’s internet shutdown on the entire country, many current reports are unconfirmed.

Kazakh locals, such as Galym Ageleulov, who has been witnessing the events of the past few days, states that throngs of criminals had co-opted the “movement that was calling for peaceful change”.

Suddenly, the protesters morphed into groups of primarily young men posing with riot shields and helmets captured from police officers.

According to Ageleulov, these groups of men had replaced the Almaty police force and were “highly organised and managed by gang leaders”.

Three police beheaded claim
Further unconfirmed reports sent in by locals on the ground in Almaty have stated that these men have beheaded up to three police officers.

The Kazakh interior ministry stated that at least eight police officers and national guard troops were killed during the protests while 300 were injured and more than 3800 protesters were arrested.

Kazakh Americans have flocked to social media to spread awareness of what is going on in the influential Central Asian nation.

One source on Tik Tok powerfully declared that “the revolution has started” and that the Kazakh people are calling for President Tokayev to “step down”.

In response to the people’s demands for a sincere governmental anti-corruption, Tokayev simply sacked the country’s cabinet — and this did little to ease dissent and infuriated the protesters.

Tokayev’s request for foreign military troops to help quell the protests has only further angered the Kazakh people, who feel deeply betrayed that their government would beckon foreign military groups to gun down Kazakh protestors chanting for their country’s freedom.

The nation’s fury with their authoritarian leader is exacerbated by Tokayev’s recent statement in a televised address that “whoever does not surrender will be destroyed. I have given the order to law enforcement agencies and the army to shoot to kill without warning”.

Locals line up for bread
Almaty’s commercial banks have been ordered to shut down, forcing Kazakhs to withdraw all their cash from ATMs. Stores and markets have been forcibly closed as well, causing locals to line up for rations of bread — a heartbreaking sight that has been unseen in Kazakhstan since the country’s independence from the Soviet Union in 1991.

Almaty’s City Hall, a famous white building that once served as the Communist Party headquarters, is charred black from protestors’ flames set on it.

Kazakhstan has been long been praised as being one of the most successful post-Soviet republics. The country has by far the highest GDP per capita in the Central Asian region and plenty of oil reserves, driven mostly by its western region.

Additionally, Kazakhstan accounted for more than 50 percent of the global uranium exports in 2020.

Kazakhstan is also the second largest country for bitcoin mining. Due to the Kazakh government’s shutdown of the internet, crypto markets have seen a considerable loss.

Despite the country’s abundance of natural resources, most of Kazakhstan’s enormous wealth has not been equally spread among the populace.

Corrupt elites live in style
Since the country’s independence, corrupt elites and officials have been living in luxury while the vast majority of the Kazakh people survive on paltry salaries.

The current dire situation in Kazakhstan can be interpreted as a significant warning for neighbouring Russia. Presidential succession creates unrest in authoritarian countries.

In 2019, former president Nursultan Nazarbayev hand-picked his successor, Tokayev. While this change may have seemed refreshing on the surface, the Kazakh people are well aware of Nazarbayev’s shadow-emperor hold on the country’s political power.

An invaluable lesson must be learned from Kazakhstan’s present state: a raging sea of anger and discontent might be storming beneath a thin veil of regional stability.

A petition posted on Change.org, which 36,000+ people have signed, calls to remove foreign military troops from Kazakhstan.

Ella Kelleher is a Kazakh American at English major graduate at Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles, US. She is the book review editor-in-chief and a contributing staff writer for Asia Media International. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Twenty years ago, I was on a plane from Rarotonga to Auckland. Lovely flight, with a path at the end I had never experienced before.

Almost from the tip of the North Island, down to Tamaki Makaurau — the rising sun bathing the hills and coastline in rich, almost mango, orange. So rich and orange that for a second I wondered if I had mistakenly got on a flight to Aussie, not Aotearoa.

It was the most stunningly beautiful sight.

Half asleep from the then usual awake-all-night, early morning departure, dawn arrival, I floated through duty free and customs, not noticing anything really different — until our old Cook Islands Press photographer Dean Treml who was on the same flight came up looking alarmed.

“There’s been an attack in New York – two planes have flown into the World Trade Towers,” or words to that effect. I was like, “..whaaat? No …Really??”

He nodded, hurried off.

I blinked a bit, shook off my disbelief, and forgot about it as we moved through the lines, looking forward to seeing my younger son, Mikaera.

He was there in arrivals. Rushed to give my three-year-old a kneeling hug. Smiled up at his grandparents.

‘Stay calm’
“Stay calm,” the grandfather told me, “and don’t get upset, but terrorists have attacked the Twin Towers in America,” or words to that effect. “It’s on the screen behind you.”

In those days, news was still played on the big multiscreens over the arrival doors. I turned, looked, and caught sight of a jet slicing into one of the towers. Over the rest of the day, that scene, and its twin, were replayed over and again, as a stunned world witnessed an unthinkably cinematic display of destruction.

And then, hours later, one by one, the towers dropped.

Like billions of others, I watched, in my case in between playing with my young son, alone at his mum’s home, looking over his shoulder at the television.

A few times it got too much. Made sure Mikaera was okay with toys and/or food, then stepped outside to the garage to cry, the replay sight of people jumping from the smoking towers to their deaths; hiding my tears and low moans of stunned despair.

Big breaths, wipe away the tears, back inside to play with blocks and trucks, and … planes. One eye on the TV.

Nearly 3000 people died that day. Almost all Americans, with a few hundred other nationalities.

Since then?

Tragedy of so-called ‘War on Terror’
Millions of non-Americans have died in the Middle East, mostly from economic blockades resulting in deaths from starvation and treatable diseases. Hundreds of thousands dying in a so-called “War on Terror” that served to produce tens of thousands more “terrorists”, vowing to avenge the deaths of their children, siblings, parents, aunties, cousins and uncles.

Western states have spent trillions of dollars, weapons dealers making obscenely fat profits on the back of jingoistic propaganda from news media which, to this day, counts Western deaths to the last man and woman, but barely mentions any civilian deaths from their bullets, bombs and drones.

Profits that have been used to bribe officials at home and abroad, via a network of secrecy havens such as New Zealand and the Cook Islands, but mostly via American states like Delaware, or financial centres like London in the UK, flushing trillions more through millions of secret companies for the benefit of a few.

9/11, they said, changed everything.

Twenty years later, with the war on terror a complete and utter failure, everything certainly has changed.

For the worse.

Western financial hypocrisy
Trillions continue to be hidden, including with our help, legally or otherwise. Legality being a very moveable feast. Western states pick on tiny offshore banking centres like the Niue, Samoa and the Cook Islands, while ignoring the gaping holes in their own banks and finance centres.

Governments like New Zealand and Australia fund corruption studies in the Pacific, as one regional example, but not their own.

And, like little children, we are still over-awed when famous people come to visit our homelands, happily posing and smiling in delight whenever big country people deign to visit our shores.

Unlike when then Tahitian president Gaston Flosse came to Rarotonga in 1996, and Cook Islanders protested nuclear testing, for example, the Cook Islands happily welcomed then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2012.

Even media people and supposed journalists lined up to grin, to grip the hand of a leader reported as once asking about using a drone to assassinate Wikileaks founder Julian Assange.

In fact, in 1996, I was one of those people, “meeting” Clinton on a rope line at the Atlanta Olympics when I was “Press Attache” for our Olympics team.

“Greetings from the South Pacific!” I said cheerily when she offered her hand to me, among a hundred or so others who had suddenly gathered.

“Outstanding!”, she replied, equally delighted.

Of course, none of us knew then what was coming.

But we know now.

Cook Islands in lockstep
And still the Cook Islands walks in lockstep with our powerful neighbours, a “dear friend” of Australia’s ruling party and its unbelievably corrupt mining, military and media networks.

Two decades later, the Homeland seems yet to learn any lessons from 9/11, yet to admit any responsibility for its part in enabling #corruption, money laundering and terrorism which breeds extremism, hate, and death, on all sides.

Instead, our government works against the interests of our own region, a Pacific pawn used and abused in age-old colonial tactics of divide et empera – divide and conquer – a phrase going back over two millennia.

Today our peoples are further misled by a tsunami of fake news – misinformation and disinformation – from mysteriously well-resourced sources. Distracted from real responses to the #covid19 pandemic, which distracts further from even bigger threats from global warming — or “climate change” as it was known for so long, before leaders started only recently admitting we face a “climate crisis” — but still locked to “market mechanisms” as a supposed solution.

So, what are the solutions?

Fight fake news. Fight corruption. Fight the hateful, extremist, death cults hiding behind religion, especially within the largest, most powerful faith in the world — Christianity.

Fight for a world where shorelines are bathed in mango dawns, and our children don’t grow up watching death replayed every single day of their lives.

Jason Brown is founder of Journalism Agenda 2025 and writes about Pacific and world journalism and ethically globalised Fourth Estate issues. He is a former co-editor of Cook Islands Press. This article is republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Pacific Media Watch newsdesk

The Peter Greste-fronted Alliance for Journalists’ Freedom is launching a press freedom tracker for use in engaging with politicians and government officials to push for better protections for journalists in the Asia-Pacific region, reports Miranda Ward of the Australian Finanancial Review.

Greste, who spent more than 400 days behind bars after he and two colleagues were charged with terrorism offences while on assignment for Al Jazeera in Egypt, said the press freedom tracker would record incidents, both attacks on press freedom and positive steps forward, and help the AJF and other stakeholders assess the state of press freedom in the region.

Peter Greste wants to help the Australian public understand the challenges facing press freedom in Australia.

“It’s designed to be something that looks at the state of press freedom, the direction of travel and whether it’s up or down across the Asia-Pacific region,” he said.

“We’re also being very careful not to rate countries because we don’t think that’s necessarily helpful. What we’re looking at, though, is a way of comparing and contrasting the way that various countries handle press freedom across the region and the broad direction of trends.”

Greste said the AJF would use it as a tool “for opening political and diplomatic conversations and as a tool for advocacy”.

The AJF was formed in 2017 by Greste, lawyer Chris Flynn and former journalist and strategic communications consultant Peter Wilkinson. Flynn and Wilkinson worked with the Greste family to free Greste from an Egyptian prison.

Complement advocacy work
The press freedom tracker, which was launched in Brisbane yesterday, will complement the AJF’s advocacy work and how the organisation engages with governments to discuss press freedom issues.

Greste said the AJF was also working on its “regional dialogue” project, which is a series of semi-formal meetings between news companies, governments and security agencies designed to help each understand the other better and find better ways of working together.

“One of the chief arguments is that there’s often talk about the trade-off between press freedom and national security, the balance between press freedom and national security, which implies that if you have more of one, by definition, you have less of the other,” he said.

“We disagree with that characterisation. We think that press freedom is actually part of the national security framework. It indirectly helps government function better, it helps the system work more effectively, it helps expose corruption within governments and organise crime.”

The biggest challenge facing press freedom in Australia, said Professor Greste who is also UNESCO chair in journalism and communication at the University of Queensland, was making the general population understand the threats facing media.

“Opening up a daily newspaper, it doesn’t feel as though Australia press is limited in any way. We don’t have explicit censorship and not seeing journalists thrown in prison. Up until the [Australian Federal Police] raids [on the ABC and a News Corp journalist], we weren’t seeing police kicking down the doors of journalists in a rage reaction. So it doesn’t look as though journalism is in a crisis,” he said.

Greste said that if the public had a better understanding of how “dangerous it is for sources within government to speak to journalists anonymously, confidentially”, and the effect that has on stories that are not being told, he believed it would be more widely recognised that journalism in this country was “not as healthy as we’d like to believe”.

No constitutional protection
“The challenge is getting the public to understand the role that journalism plays, and appreciate that role, and recognise the loss of press freedom that we’ve seen since 9/11. The impact that the national security legislation has had on press freedom.”

In Australia specifically, the AJF is pursuing the creation of a media freedom act that would help provide protections to journalists and compel the courts to consider press freedom in any case that would affect the state of press freedom in the country.

“Australia is about the worst Western liberal democracy in the world when it comes to legal and constitutional protections for things like freedom of speech and press freedom,” Greste said.

“We have no constitutional protection at all.”

The AJF hopes a media freedom act would help protect news organisations from police raids such as the AFP’s 2019 raid on the ABC’s Sydney headquarters by insisting judges be obligated to consider press freedom and the public interest before signing warrants to allow such raids to take place.

Greste said that while a parliamentary inquiry in August last year recommended sweeping reforms, politicians need to find the will to implement the recommendations.

“The opportunity for the AJF is to help the public understand this and to find and develop political support for media freedom,” he said.

“We’re getting some support, we’ve had a number of politicians approach us. We’re in the process of drafting an act. We’ve been speaking to a number of independent MPs about working on the idea and certainly politicians in the Coalition and in the Labor Party privately have been expressing support for the idea.”

“It’s just that it’s hard to put on the political agenda and get the kind of moment that we need to see a piece of legislation go through.”

Republished with permission from the Alliance for Journalists’ Freedom.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Year 2020 was the annus horribilis worldwide due to the deadly coronavirus pandemic. Recently the Fiji government expelled University of the South Pacific vice-chancellor Professor Pal Ahluwalia after his claims in 2020 of financial mismanagement of the university by the former administration, close to the government.

It is still beyond belief that the government should interfere in the matters of an independent academic institution owned by 12 Pacific nations – not just the host country Fiji – and take such draconian and unjustified action against the vice-chancellor.

In New Zealand, across the road at the University of Auckland the management had its fair share of criticism for the purchase of a new house for vice-chancellor Dawn Freshwater at an exorbitant amount, prompting the auditor-general to write that Auckland University broke own rule in purchase of $5 million house.

Here, at Auckland University of Technology (AUT), the investigation into allegations of bullying and sexual harassment started in July 2020 and its subsequent Davenport independent review report legitimately highlighted many shortcomings that the first university of the new millennium in 2000 has failed to address in a timely fashion.

It is clear that the main lesson to be learned was “to be kind” to others, as often heard throughout the covid-19 pandemic by “aunty” Prime Minister Jacinda Arden. The reply from AUT’s vice-chancellor Derek McCormack was even more powerful and along the lines of promising to do better.

We all hope that the issues will be dealt with as swiftly and as diplomatically as possible in order to reinstate the reputation of our youngest university in the Pacific.

Those three events are serious setbacks to the academic realm in our part of the world and whether their effects have been felt locally or globally, they have generated seriously unwanted publicity.

AUT and an on-going saga: the PMC future
Following the Davenport recommendations, a seminar was organised by the Pacific Media Centre about future directions – and to say their goodbyes to Professor David Robie, director of the PMC for 13 years, who retired in December.

A retired University of the South Pacific development studies emeritus professor, Dr Crosbie Walsh, penned a tribute to David, saying he “has lived in the Pacific, been involved in Pacific human rights and media freedom issues, or taught journalism to Pacific Islanders and others for 40 years. He will be a hard man to replace”.

But that tribute didn’t dispel apprehensions about lack of a succession plan in the School of Communication Studies and the continued questions over the future of PMC more than three months later.

A lot has been commented about the issue of the suddenly empty PMC office (Outcry over signs of upheaval at Pacific Media Centre). Comments and questions still pour in on social media from worried students, sympathisers, television presenters, and former colleagues of the PMC about the whereabouts of this vital repository of knowledge, their new “office” and the future of the PMC team.

Here are sample quotes from two former students:

John Pulu (Tagata Pasifika anchor, TV1): “I just want to say mālō ‘aupito/thank you to Professor David, Del and team for the last 13 years of service at the Pacific Media Centre, AUT University. I hope the great legacy of PMC will be continued from here to help the next lot of broadcasters, journalists and academics who will cover or have interest in the Pacific region.”

Matt Scott (a reporter at Newsroom, TV3): “David Robie and the PMC provided me some of my first opportunities to step into the role of a journalist. Without the PMC, I feel that there will be a void not just at AUT but in journalism as a whole in this part of the world. The centre provides a space and platform for journalists covering an under-reported region that is in dire need of people fighting for truth, fairness and transparency. Removing the centre is a big step backwards.”

We have also seen support and anger at the lack of transparency regarding the future of the centre on Facebook:

Is AUT as a platform for Pacific news broadcasts about to lose its audience?
An in-depth article from former New Zealand Herald editor-in-chief Gavin Ellis has magnified many of the issues regarding the relationship that the PMC has with the Faculty of Design and Creative Technologies (DCT), or its School of Communication Studies (SCS).

One of the most salient issues has been the autonomous status of the PMC. Quoting the Australia Asia Pacific Media Initiative (AAPMI) which described the PMC as “the jewel in AUT’s crown”, it should enjoy its own independence, a condition that AUT might not want to ignore if they want to avoid the loss of the centre.

Or maybe the future of PMC should actually be to break away to survive, as Ellis advocates.

Similarly, a newly published article from Spinoff by Teuila Fuatai recounts the genesis of the issue from March 2020 to post Professor Robie’s retirement in December, highlighting the lack of transparency in this matter and the long awaited appointment of a new director.

For my part and based on the students’ outpouring of support, the worrying issues are twofold: First, is the “partnership” issue raised in an answer by Dr Rosser Johnson, head of the SCS, who presented a 100 percent commitment and the exponential work that would now be able to be accomplished in the new era of the partnership PMC-SCS.

What is missing is the idea of continuity that is being engulfed in what Professor Robie quotes as “regime change” with a determined effort to sideline those who had contributed so much to the development of the centre over the past 13 years.

In his view, this means “no continuity, no institutional memory or history and zero opportunities for the students”.

Second, from the students’ perspective: We have witnessed across New Zealand universities carrying out cost-cutting exercises triggered by the pandemic due to the lack of revenue usually brought in by the international students. However, it is not without legitimate suspicion that PMC might be one of those targets of this financial fix.

It is also the question posed by students who are at the centre of this issue: what about developing our Pacific people in media and journalism? Under representation of Pacific people (and Māori for that matter) who are experts in their communities in media spaces is well documented.

What the PMC has created is a pool of students and contributors who have an invaluable relationship to and inside knowledge of the geopolitical issues surrounding the Pacific basin and the Asian region.

This pool of “grassroots” contributors will certainly add a plus value to the overarching entity, be it a university or an independent institution, in terms of reporting facts.

Ena Manuireva, born in Mangareva (Gambier islands) in Ma’ohi Nui (French Polynesia), is a language revitalisation researcher at Auckland University of Technology and is currently completing his doctorate on the Mangarevan language. He is also a campaigner for nuclear reparations justice from France over the 193 tests staged in Polynesia over three decades.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Fiji’s NGO Coalition on Human Rights has called for stronger accountability and commitment to human rights at home in response to the country taking the world stage as the head of a UN body.

The UN Human Rights Council (UNHCR) elected Fiji’s ambassador Nazhat Shameem as its 2021 president on Friday.

“As the president of the UNHCR, Fiji now faces global scrutiny on our human rights obligations,” said the NGOCHR chair Nalini Singh in a statement.

“This is a welcome opportunity for Fiji to reflect on our progress and the existing human rights concerns that need to be addressed.”

It was encouraging to witness a small Pacific island nation like Fiji taking the lead at a global forum and representing key regional human rights issues, she said.

“It is also a critical time for the Pacific and Fiji, as we see the impacts of the coronavirus pandemic exacerbating human rights issues in the region.

Fiji ‘must act over justice’
“With Fiji’s new appointment, our government must act to ensure that human rights and the principles of equality and justice are upheld across all sectors,” said Singh.

A recent concern has been cases of alleged police brutality that have been raised by the NGOCHR.

The NGOCHR has reaffirmed that there must be “no rollback of human rights” under the guise of response measures and continues to raise concerns on the arrests of Fiji citizens during the nation-wide curfew.

“We are at the world stage taking a strong stance on human rights but we must walk the talk here at home and set the example,” said Singh.

Fiji’s selection as the President of the UNHCR is a step forward in the right direction and we must keep this momentum to foster a culture that promotes and protects human rights, justice and democracy.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Yesterday, 16 years ago, Munir Said Thailb, a defender of human rights, was murdered with arsenic poison aboard a Garuda plane on his way to the Netherlands to pursue his postgraduate studies.

An official independent joint investigation team later concluded it was a premeditated murder.

However, the mastermind of the assassination has not been prosecuted.

If Munir was still alive, he would have said “justice delayed, justice denied”, very similar to the serious human rights crimes that he had fought against in Indonesia.

The findings and recommendations of the 2005 independent fact-finding team into the killing, established by then-president Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, were disregarded by his government and the government that followed and have never been made public.

The current government refuses to recognise the existence of the official report, even though the Central Information Commission has ruled that the document should be publicly disclosed.

The report could lead to a criminal investigation if there is the political will from the government to reveal the truth.

‘Black September’ rights violations
It seems like something of a coincidence that many serious human rights violations in Indonesia have taken place in September, which is why we refer to it as “Black September”. Apart from the killing of Munir on September 7, 2004, the “scorched earth” mass violence in East Timor, now Timor-Leste, occurred in September 1999 after people in the territory voted for independence from Indonesia.

In the same year, violence perpetrated by troops resulted in the deaths of student protesters in Jakarta in the Semanggi 2 tragedy on September 24.

The carnage in Tanjung Priok happened on September 12, 1984, and the mass killings and persecution of people deemed to be followers and sympathisers of the Indonesian Communist Party began after the September 30, 1965, movement.

During his life, Munir worked tirelessly to demand justice for victims of human rights violations, including the victims of those aforementioned atrocities.

He would never have thought he would also be on the “Black September” victims list, although he several times acknowledged that he risked losing his life as a consequence of his fearless fight.

Unfortunately, the murder of Munir was not the last serious human rights violation committed against human rights and democracy defenders in the country. Violence has continued to be used against human and women’s rights activists, labor and farmer activists, corruption watchdogs and leaders of indigenous groups who defend their communities, land and cultural pride, as well as journalists and bloggers who promote human rights.

According to human rights monitors, many Indonesian human rights defenders have been increasingly exposed to threats, harassment, intimidation, violence, prosecution and defamation.

Examples of attacks on advocates
Among the prominent examples are the acid attack against Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) investigator Novel Baswedan, the prosecution of lecturer Saiful Mahdi from the University of Syiah Kuala for criticising his university policies, the arbitrary arrest of musician Ananda Badudu for using crowdfunding to support student movements, the arrest of journalist Dhandy Dwi Laksono and the hate speech charges leveled against human rights lawyer Veronika Koman for revealing alleged human rights abuses in Papua.

Some people who have defended the rights of local communities to land and the environment have also paid for their advocacy work with their lives. I can recall Yanes Balubun in Maluku, Salim Kancil in East Java and more recently Golfrid Siregar in North Sumatra.

Justice has not been served in any of these human rights violations. The truth surrounding those cases has never been revealed either, due to the absence of credible and independent investigations, which are required under the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Defenders. It is very hard to establish a complete truth that can provide the lessons needed to guarantee such acts are not repeated.

The UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, adopted by the UN General Assembly in December 1998, recognizes specific protections for human rights defenders, including the right to conduct human rights work individually and in association with others and to make complaints about official policies and acts relating to human rights and to have such complaints reviewed.

On the other hand, the state has the obligation to protect human rights defenders, and to conduct prompt and impartial investigations of alleged rights violations against them.

The murder of Munir illustrates the continuation of impunity in Indonesia. After 16 years, only recently did the UN Human Rights Committee, a body overseeing the implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) to which Indonesia is a state party, release a question on Munir’s case. The Indonesian government will have to answer, most likely in the second review session next year.

A similar recommendation on the specific case was raised in an initial review under the ICCPR in 2013. This is only one of many recommendations made by international human rights groups, which have persistently urged Indonesia to solve the killing of Munir and other cases of serious human rights violations in the country.

Impunity lingers on
Last year, Indonesia was reelected as a member of the UN Human Rights Council. This should have pushed the country to work harder to solve Munir’s case once and for all. On the contrary, impunity has facilitated the recurrence of human rights violations, weakened people’s trust in the law and left them defenseless when confronted with injustice.

Revealing the truth of the premeditated murder of Munir and prosecuting the main perpetrators will be an important step to ending the chain of impunity. A few years ago, President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo expressed a commitment to solve Munir’s case and other past serious human rights violations.

“Our homework is dealing with the past, including the case of Munir,” Jokowi said. Munir’s family and friends remain sceptical about the fulfillment of the promise.

However, all is not lost. Through hard work and creative campaigning by human rights groups, the first ever human rights museum built by a (local) government in Indonesia will be named after Munir.

During the anniversary of Munir’s birthday on December 8, 2019, the East Java governor kicked off the construction of the Munir Human Rights Museum in Batu city, Munir’s hometown. The museum will be managed by an independent group to ensure that Munir’s legacy will continue to inspire new generations.

We still have a long way to go on the road to justice, but I believe we are walking on the right path and soon many more will join us.

Indria Fernida is a board member of Museum Omah Munir and regional coordinator of Asia Justice and Rights (AJAR).

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

It is clear and proper that New Zealand’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade is closely monitoring a concerning situation of deteriorating violence in West Papua.

It is also apparent that groups who have long monitored the security situation in West Papua have contacted the New Zealand Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, urging her to speak up against the violence and human rights abuses in the Indonesian-controlled state. I believe the Prime Minister should. Here’s why.

When considering the history of West Papua – the increasing violence; the enduring wish of its peoples for self-determination; the arrests on treason charges of those who seek a pathway toward independence; the intensifying concerns of its immediate neighbours Papua New Guinea, Vanuatu, and the states that make up the Melanesian Spearhead Group – it would be a brave but significant step should New Zealand also add its considerable weight behind a call for a multilateral-led resolution to the West Papua conflict.

New Zealand’s reputation as an honest-broker on global human rights issues, and the Prime Minister’s significant reputation for being able to identify common-ground, and, map out a way forward for parties with disparate interests, would provide significant leverage and resolution to a conflict that is at risk of becoming a human catastrophe.

Also, New Zealand is right, smack, in the middle of the Asia Pacific region. Despite Australia’s historical interests in Melanesia, this is New Zealand’s patch as well. Human rights abuses, conflicts, disorder within our region will impact on New Zealand in the future as they have in the past.

Take the Solomon Islands conflict in the early 2000s. The Melanesian state was descending into civil war. In 2003, I was in Townsville, at an Australian airforce base when the leaders of Melanesian and Polynesian states (including New Zealand’s Helen Clark and Australia’s John Howard) signed a non-aggression pact and sent armed forces to the Solomon Islands to help reestablish peace and progress.

The operation became known as RAMSI (Regional Assistance Mission to the Solomon Islands).

Under RAMSI, once order was restored in the Solomon Islands, the countries of this region helped the once chaotic state to establish good governance and government operations, and helped to establish a thriving civil society.

The merits of RAMSI can be seen today in how the Solomon Islands now functions as a progressing state and valuable member of the Pacific Islands Forum.

Regarding West Papua, New Zealand, and indeed the other nations of the region, ought not to permit a repeat of the violence that took hold of East Timor in 1999.

For years those advocating self-determination in East Timor were persecuted and killed by forces and militia loyal to Indonesia’s interests. In 1999 the crisis descended into massacre. In the end, it was estimated over 100,000 people were butchered in an unnecessary and preventable street-conflict.

At the time in 1999, New Zealand was hosting APEC (Asia Pacific Economic Co-Operation) leader’s summit. It was the end of the National Party’s run of government and Jenny Shipley was the prime minister. The government was determined to keep East Timor and its troubles off the APEC agenda. It refused to allow the massacre to be discussed at formal APEC meetings, that is, until the United States’ then president Bill Clinton and Japan’s then prime minister Keizō Obuchi demanded that a special meeting to discuss a multilateral response to the East Timor crisis be held.

While thousands of people were being massacred on the streets of East Timor’s capital, Dili, the leaders of APEC’s nations forged a consensus that became a pathway to peace.

Obuchi’s message to his Indonesian counterpart Habibie was as follows: “East Timor remains in a very difficult situation. But Japan has a good relationship with Indonesia. And Japan will continue to encourage Indonesia to take measures to bring East Timor back to a state of peace.”

He went further with diplo-speak akin to: ‘We are your friend Habibie, you know we are your friend. Afterall we provide you with $2 billion US in humanitarian aid [60 percent of the annual total]. We do not want to take that away from you, to do so will cause hardship throughout Asia, and only bring retaliatory consequences to all. So allow the international peacekeepers in to help you bring about peace. To do so is not an embarrassment. It is recognising the gesture of a friend. And to do so will prevent Japan from having to withdraw its aid to the people of Indonesia.” (ref. Scoop, Selwyn Manning, 1999)

The gesture was significant and began a process that led to East Timor becoming the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste – a self-determining independent state.

I argue here, that there is no need for Asia Pacific’s leaders to sit back and dispassionately observe a disturbing escalation of violence in West Papua.

Timor-Leste’s experience, as does RAMSI – the Regional Assistance Mission to the Solomon Islands – provide examples of how leaders of a region, who have the willpower, can and do bring warring parties back from the brink of atrocity.

Jacinda Ardern has, for good reasons, obvious diplomatic credentials. She is seen as an honest broker on the world stage. A new generation leader. She is reacquainting New Zealand to a foreign policy that we were once proud of, that is as an independent Pacific Island state. The realignment is something to celebrate. With regard to West Papua, there is an opportunity to use it, and to do good for the people there, who are experiencing persecution and death for their ethnicity and for their political views.

It need not be so.

One of this year’s most potentially explosive and dangerous political issues has been allegations of foreign meddling against the University of Canterbury’s Prof Anne-Marie Brady because of her role as a critic of Chinese state political interference. 

It’s a fascinating tale alleging attacks by a foreign state on the politics and democracy of another country. It involves burglary, state spies, police investigations, and suspected sabotage of Brady’s family car. Brady and her supporters say this is a case of a very powerful foreign state carrying out outrageous and illegal actions in New Zealand in order to silence a critic.

Some are even comparing the alleged 2018 interference of the Chinese Government in New Zealand with France’s bombing of the Rainbow Warrior in 1985. Certainly, allegations about the sabotage of Brady’s car, raises the spectre of state-sponsored terrorism and warnings have been made in light of the recent Saudi killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

It’s been a slow-burning topic throughout the year, and has finally come to a head with the publishing yesterday of an Open letter to the Government from a coalition of academics and civil society figures, demanding that they stand up in defense of Anne-Marie Brady. In particular, it asks that the Prime Minister and her Foreign Minister “Be very clear that any intimidation and threats aimed at silencing academics voices in this country will not be tolerated.”

This is covered best by Matt Nippert in his report, Burgled professor case: PM called on to defend academic freedom. He points to support for the open letter from the Green and Act parties, and reports that David “Seymour said the nine-month silence from government on the issue was concerning.”

To illustrate Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s reluctance to comment on the issues, Nippert reports that his own “request to discuss the matter” has been consistently declined by the Prime Minister’s office over the last six months.

The instigator of the open letter, Tze Ming Mok, is also reported as complaining that Ardern isn’t doing enough on the issue, saying “The silence is very conspicuous” – see Anusha Bradley’s ‘Shocked and disturbed’ by alleged Chinese govt intimidation. Also, it’s reported that Brady’s experience is having “a chilling effect amongst China-focused experts in this country with many unwilling to comment on the saga publicly”.

Brady is quoted as saying the Police investigation is over, and the ball is in the Government’s court: “The police have done a really great job and a thorough investigation has been completed. The next step now is the political will that needs to have the guts to face up to the situation.”

Matt Nippert has been covering all of these issues in depth, and his article last week is particularly worth reading – see: Report says China researcher Anne-Marie Brady’s car ‘tampered with’. This deals primarily with the apparent break-in to Brady’s garage to tamper with her car tyres: “The Herald understands pressure in the front two tyres had been lowered to around 14 psi, a level at which the low pressure is not obviously visible but that significantly increases the risk of an accident when cornering at speed.”

The article also reports on wider debate over the Brady claims: “The Brady case has sparked furious debate, both within the foreign policy establishment and the New Zealand Chinese community. Auckland councillor Mike Lee suggested on Facebook over the weekend that Brady was inventing her complaints to advance American interests.” The article quotes Lee: “Where is the proof? Or are these smear tactics by an academic who receives funding from hawkish American think tanks?”

In an article from earlier this month, Nippert reports on the debates on Brady and her allegations – see: Suspected sabotage of car belonging to burgled professor and China researcher Anne-Marie Brady. In particular, details of the Police investigation are given: “A Herald investigation into the Brady break-ins can also reveal the case is being handled by the Police’s National Security Investigation Team, a secretive unit that is understood specialises in national security cases – including terrorism – and works closely with the New Zealand Security and Intelligence Service.”

Nippert also draws attention to recent vitriolic responses to Brady in some Chinese-language media: “Commentary in local Chinese-language media has been an especially heated, with a recent op-ed by Morgan Xiao – published simultaneously by SkyKiwi, the Mandarin Pages and the New Zealand Chinese Daily News – describing Brady and other New Zealand-Chinese democracy activists as ‘anti-Chinese sons of bitches’ who should ‘get out of New Zealand’.”

Response to open letter

Jacinda Ardern has now responded to yesterday’s open letter, in a much more robust way than previously: “I absolutely defend the rights of academics to utilise their academic freedom, and of course the rights that are granted to them through our legislation, I absolutely support that and defend that. They should continue to be able to do their work, and with freedom from repercussion and from this Government or any other government.”

In terms of the Police investigation into Brady’s situation, the PM vows to take action if the findings warrant it: “Quite frankly, if I received a direct report that said that there was an issue there, that could be directly attributable to China, or at China’s direction, I would act on that. But I have not received such information.”

This is all best covered today by Laura Walters’ Worldwide calls for Govt to speak up on China, which also reports on a second open letter written by professors Geremie Barmé and John Minford, who have both previously taught Brady, and are recognised China experts. According to this pair,
“international foreign policy experts and researchers have been producing reports backing up [Brady’s] work”.

One of them is quoted warning that the New Zealand Government needed a stronger stance on China because, without this, New Zealand is becoming “internationally regarded as the soft underbelly that’s basically sliding towards becoming a vassal state of China”.

To read the full open letter, see Michael Reddell’s Voices in support of Anne-Marie Brady. And Reddell adds his own comments on “the supine, scared of their own shadow, attitude of the government.” He speculates that the New Zealand political elite may not actually want to see a Police investigation result in any clarity and resolve: “Official Wellington might be thought to have a strong interest in the investigation not coming to a conclusion”.

There’s a very good reason for the New Zealand Government to tread extremely carefully on the topic according to Chris Trotter, who says very frankly that “Pissing-off China… can be extremely injurious to this nation’s economic health” – see: The Case of the problematic professor.

Trotter suggests that those wanting the Government to take strong action are being rather naive and foolish. His point about New Zealand’s economic reliance on China is worth quoting at length: “But do people have any right to answers in a matter as delicate as this one? Is the public entitled to push aside all the geopolitical and economic factors impinging on their government as if they are of no importance? Prattling on about being the ‘critic and conscience’ of society is all very well, but when New Zealand’s universities are so dependent on the continuing inflow of international students, is it really all that wise to antagonise one of the largest contributors to this country’s educational export trade?”

Furthermore, Trotter raises the prospect of agricultural exports and investments being endangered: “And all that Chinese investment in New Zealand’s agricultural sector: all those massive milk treatment plants springing up around the provinces; how keen would the government be to see all that brought to an end? How would Shane Jones respond to the loss of so many well-paying jobs? And David Parker, how would he feel when New Zealand’s perishable exports started piling-up on China’s docks? How would Federated Farmers react to a Chinese freeze-out? Or the Dairy Workers Union, for that matter?”

Trotter goes even further, and questions Brady’s role in the wider US-China rivalry; suggesting that she might be, inadvertently or not, part of the United States’ “soft-power” strategies against China.

As to what the Government should do, Trotter suggests that Ardern learn from the realpolitik way in which Donald Trump dealt with Saudi Arabia and the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, making no real moral condemnation but instead pointing to strong trade ties with the rogue state, which enriches America.

RNZ’s Tim Watkin also draws parallels with the Khashoggi affair, but reaches the opposite conclusion, calling for Ardern to take action if evidence warrants it: “If it comes to it, Ardern must use this event to reinforce that principle, not shrink from it. It is past time our leaders – Ardern especially – made it clear just how serious these allegations are. And if the evidence is there, she must not be cowed or muted in her response. Some things are just too important” – see: If Jacinda Ardern wants inspiration on Brady & China, she can look to Khashoggi & Trump.

Watkin’s parallel is also worth quoting at length: “Ardern should look to Trump’s play as she assesses how to respond to the Brady claims. It’s a classic case of how not to respond. If the claims are confirmed – or even considered probable with ‘high confidence’ – then this will be Ardern’s first true test on the international stage. And it cannot be half-hearted or full of weasel words. We look back at the fourth Labour government’s handling of the Rainbow Warrior bombing with little pride, as France (with support from some of our supposed allies) dodged its responsibility. Labour does not want another fail grade when it comes to standing up to power. If China did what Brady claims, the only difference between it and Saudi Arabia is that the Saudis did not fail. The Saudis sought to stifle dissent and free inquiry. They used violence and terror (yes terror; such a murder can send only one message to other critics) to stop an independent press from asking questions and critiquing those in power.”

Finally, in the weekend, visiting former Australian Foreign Minister Bob Carr went on TVNZ’s Q+A to warn New Zealand against following Australia’s “China panic” – you can watch the 10-minute interview here: Q+A with Bob Carr, as well as the panel discussion that followed: Q+A Panel: Justice and China.

The gap between policy and people was a key topic at the last week’s Climate Change and Conflict in the Pacific workshop when experts from Western and Pacific countries gathered to share stories and studies.

The Auckland event – hosted by the Toda Peace Institute and the National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies (NCPACS) at the University of Otago – sought to bridge the gap by connecting Western, scientific policies with the deeply spiritual customs and beliefs of Pacific life.

Workshop facilitator and Toda director Professor Kevin Clements, who is also founding director of NCPACS, says it is an opportunity to understand Pacific perspectives and respond creatively to an existential threat.

READ MORE: The climate change workshop and policy papers

“We in New Zealand and Australia have a deep responsibility to listen,” he says.

“If we don’t understand the Pacific way of thinking, we will begin to undermine relationships in unanticipated, unconscious ways.”

Relationships were a major theme throughout the workshop, with many participants affirming the unique relationship Pacific people have with their land.

Vanua philosophy
Fijian teacher Rosiana Kushila Lagi says the traditional Fiji philosophy of Vanua reflects the absolute interconnectedness between people, land and sea.

Working in Tuvalu, Lagi is engaging communities to use the principals of Vanua to mitigate the destruction caused by climate change. The behaviour of animals, plants and the weather are all useful indicators of environmental change and can be used to prepare for extreme events.

However, she says many communities are losing this traditional knowledge when they are physically separated from the land, something that also contributes to a loss of identity.

Tuvaluan minister Tafue Lusama shared a similar perspective, stressing the importance of traditional knowledge in the Tuvalu way of life.

“Indigenous knowledge is the way we focus our relationship to everything, to the land, to the sea, to each other and to all living things,” he says.

“It is our way to communicate with the clouds, birds, plants, animals; this includes communicating with the spirits of our ancestors.”

With an average height of 2m above sea level, Tuvalu is particularly vulnerable to the affects of climate change. Rising sea levels not only threaten property but also food and water sources.

Storm surges
Storm surges can sweep inland, flooding deep-rooted crops like taro and coconut and contaminating fresh water reservoirs.

Yet for many communities who have already relocated, the struggles of adjusting to a new home can be just as harsh.

Discussed at the workshop were the people from the diminishing Carteret Islands, who in recent years have been relocated to land donated by the Catholic Church on mainland Bougainville.

Managed by grassroots organisation Tulele Peisa, the initiative sees every family given a hectare of land on which they can live and grow crops for trade and sustenance.

While the relocation project has been considered successful, there are concerns for the Cataract Islanders living in a region recovering from a bloody civil war over the Panguna copper mine. Even today, violence is widespread.

According to Volker Boege, a peace and conflict academic who has worked extensively in the region, there have been reports of attacks on the Carteret Islanders and their property.

He says this has a lot to do with tribal competition over limited land, much of which is customary.

Establishing relationships
“Before the relocation, Tulele Peisa put in a lot of work establishing relationships with the Bougainville community and engaging in discussions with the chiefs. Nevertheless, land is scarce,” Boege says.

“The policies don’t take into account the complexities between the indigenous people and the fighting that can occur between tribes when relocated.”

Despite predictions that the Carteret Islands will be completely underwater by 2040, he says some of the people are choosing to return home from Bougainville.

For these people giving up home, identity and starting a new life in a foreign land is simply too much to ask.

While other Pacific communities are on the list for relocation, there was a commitment among the workshop participants to factor in the values, customs and wishes of both the relocating and the receiving communities into any polices moving forward.

Future collaboration between the many organisations present would also allow an inclusive, dynamic approach where information could be easily shared from the top down and vice versa, connecting the grassroots to the researchers and policy makers.

Ideal outcome
For Paulo Baleinakorodawa, this was an ideal outcome of the workshop. As operations manager of Fiji-based NGO Transcend Oceania, he has worked extensively with relocated and relocating communities, resolving conflict and trying to make the process as peaceful as possible.

However, he says that plans for cross-organisation collaboration have stalled prior to the workshop.

“I was hoping that coming in here I would find an opportunity to actually push that into more actions,” he says.

“It’s been wonderful because there has been a lot of information, a lot of networking and commitment from people that are actually doing something about climate change.”

“And so now Toda, Transcend Oceania, the Pacific Conference of Churches, and the Pacific Centre for Peace Building are going to be partnering together to continue that project.”

While climate change and its affects will only continue to worsen, the workshop was an encouraging show of unity and compassion that will be needed if further suffering in Pacific is to be prevented.

Most importantly, it opened an essential conversation in which the many different voices could be heard.

“This is only the beginning of that conversation,” says Baleinakorodawa.

Michael Andrew is a student journalist on the Postgraduate Diploma in Communication Studies (Journalism) reporting on the Asia-Pacific Journalism course at AUT University.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

At this week’s gathering of key Pacific Island leaders on the Micronesian island of Nauru, conspicuously missing were journalists from Australia’s public broadcaster.

This was because the South Pacific’s smallest nation has refused visas to journalists from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation to enable them to attend and cover the four-day Pacific Islands Forum leaders summit.

And one of the Pacific’s most experienced journalists, Television New Zealand’s Barbara Dreaver was detained for more than three hours yesterday after interviewing refugees from the notorious Australian-established detention centres on the island. The Nauru government claims she was not “detained”, merely “questioned’.

READ MORE: Self-immolation, hunger strikes and suicide: Children on Nauru want to die

The Nauru government’s ban on the ABC, it says, is in retaliation for the news organisation’s “blatant interference in Nauru’s domestic politics prior to the 2016 elections, harassment of and lack of respect towards our President and… continued biased and false reporting about our country.”

But some say ABC’s criticism of Nauru’s policies on notorious Australian-run refugee detention centre on the island – plagued by widespread reports of physical, psychological and sexual abuse, with at least five suicide deaths to date – may have more to do with it.

Those controversial camps are not on the agenda and not likely to be a subject of much discussion within the forum which ended today.

And neither is the issue of free speech and media freedom, since efforts to repress critical reporting has become increasingly common among Pacific governments.

Climate change
It is not only climate change and rising sea levels that threaten the lives and wellbeing of Pacific Islanders. Rising levels of official intolerance of dissent and free speech across the region pose a threat to the wellbeing of their democracies.

Indeed, CIVICUS Monitor, an online platform that tracks threats to civil society across the globe, has found that these violations of freedom of expression appear to be systemic in the region.

In Fiji, attempts by the government to intimidate and silence free speech is creating a chilling effect ahead of upcoming national elections and before the date has even been set.

In February, Island Business magazine’s editor and two of its journalists were questioned under the Public Order Act over articles on the firing of a magistrate who had presided over a union dispute.

The 2016 sedition charges against The Fiji Times – widely regarded as the country’s last independent news outlet – saw its publisher, editor-in-chief and two others hauled through the courts over a reader’s letter to the editor that allegedly contained controversial views about Muslims.

Human rights groups believe the charges were politically motivated. The state has filed an appeal against their acquittal.

Journalists in Papua New Guinea often work in fear and many believe media freedom has been eroded. In February this year, PNG Post Courier reporter, Franky Kapin, was attacked and assaulted by staff from the Morobe Province Governor’s office for alleged biased reporting.

Journalists threatened
Journalists continue to be threatened and barred from covering the ongoing crisis at the Australian refugee detention center on Manus Island (after its closure) in the country’s north.

Senior Papua New Guinean journalist Titi Gabi says that increasing outside interference of the editorial process and the bribing and threatening of journalists has led to media freedom no longer being enjoyed in the country.

After a passenger ferry sank in Kiribati in February, leaving 93 people dead, authorities barred foreign journalists from entering the country to report on the disaster.

Meanwhile, the government of Samoa was criticised by a media freedom lobby group earlier this year for seeking to repress freedom of expression by reintroducing legislation on criminal libel without proper public consultation

Civil society groups in the regional power of Australia are extremely concerned about the impact that changes to security laws will have on fundamental freedoms. The National Security Legislation Amendment (Espionage and Foreign Interference) Bill 2017 and the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Bill 2017 were met with a storm of protest from media outlets and civil society organisations.

Australian Lawyers for Human Rights has criticised the legislation, warning that the measures will have a “severely chilling effect upon academic research, free speech, and particularly constitutionally-protected free political speech”.

According to Amnesty International Australia, the draconian laws will make it a crime for charities to expose human rights violations, and to communicate with the United Nations about those violations.

Stifled free speech
So, why are governments in the region working to increasingly stifle free speech?

For one, they are coming under growing public scrutiny, led by journalists and civil society using social media, for abuse of power, lack of transparency and corruption at various government levels.

News stories exposing official human rights violations have received global attention, thanks to the efforts of international media and non-governmental organisations. Averse to the negative publicity, Pacific governments have responded with repressive action.

Also, civil society groups in the Pacific are increasingly raising not just national concerns but sensitive regional ones as well, such as rights abuses in West Papua, a region in Indonesia where there is an active pro-independence movement, and in refugee detention centres in Nauru and PNG’s Manus Island.

Seeking to appease regional powerhouses Indonesia and Australia as they appeal for economic investment, governments of small island states have no qualms trying to silence those speaking out on these issues at home.

In turn, the “growing influence of China” has also been cited as a justification for Australia’s new security policies. But many believe another objective is to keep government dealings from the public.

This regional trend flies in the face of Pacific countries’ clear commitments to respect and protect freedom of expression.

Good governance
In 2000, governments signed the Biketawa Declaration committing themselves to democracy, good governance, protection of human rights and maintenance of the rule of law. At the meeting in Nauru, leaders are expected to sign a Biketawa Plus Declaration, building on the original document.

In recent years, island nations have also made commitments to the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which include the promotion of peaceful and inclusive societies, access to justice for all and effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels contained in Goal 16. Ensuring fundamental freedoms is pivotal to meeting this goal, as well as the other 16 SDGs.

Leaders at the gathering needed to reiterate their nations’ commitment to fundamental freedoms in its communique and demonstrate it – to create an enabling environment for both the media and civil society to work without fear of criminalisation, harassment and reprisals.

Failing to do so – and the detention of Barbara Dreaver yesterday – are clear signs that the forum is willing to undermine its international obligations and its commitment to democracy and the rule of law.

Josef Benedict is a civic space research officer with global civil society alliance Civicus and a contributor to Asian Correspondent. This article is republished from Asian Correspondent with the permission of the author.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Auckland University of Technology’s Pacific Media Centre has marked its tenth anniversary with a seminar discussing two of the wider region’s most critical media freedom crises.

The “Journalism Under Duress” seminar examined media freedom and human rights in Philippines and Indonesia’s Papua region, otherwise known as West Papua.

Pacific Media Centre 10 Years On video.

The executive director of the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism, Malou Mangahas spoke about extrajudicial killings and an ongoing spate of murders of journalists in her country.

Threats to journalists in the Philippines have been on the rise since President Rodrigo Duterte came to power last year. However, according to Mangahas, his “war on drugs” has seen more than 7000 people killed, over often spurious allegations that they were drug dealers.

LISTEN: PCIJ’s Malou Mangahas interviewed by RNZ Mediawatch

In the discussion about West Papua, the PMC seminar heard that access to the Indonesian region for foreign journalists, while still restricted, remained critical for helping Papuan voices to be heard.

Many West Papuans did not trust Indonesian national media outlets in their coverage of Papua, while independent journalists in this region face regular threats by security forces for covering sensitive issues.

-Partners-

The Pacific Media Centre and its two associated news and current affairs websites, Pacific Media Watch and Asia Pacific Report (previously Pacific Scoop), are among the few New Zealand media outlets to cover West Papua.

Research, media production
As well as a range of media books over the past decade, the PMC also publishes the long-running research journal Pacific Journalism Review.

“The Pacific Media Centre is rather unique in a New Zealand university context because it combines the attributes of a research and publication unit, and is also a media producer,” said the PMC director Professor David Robie.

“The PMC provides a publishing environment for aspiring and young journalists to develop specialist expertise and skills in the Pacific region which is hugely beneficial for our mainstream media. All our graduates go on to very successful international careers.

“We also provide an important independent outlet for the untold stories of our region,” he said.

Earlier, the head of the School of Communication Studies at AUT, Professor Berrin Yanıkkaya launched the book Conflict, Custom & Conscience: Photojournalism and the Pacific Media Centre 2007-2017, as well as the latest edition of the Pacific Journalism Review.

She said Dr Robie and his PMC colleagues had created “a channel for the voiceless to have a voice, a platform for the unseen to be seen”.

RNZ International report republished by Asia Pacific Report with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz