From time to time, I post transcripts I’ve come across of particularly insightful conversations. Here’s one that’s particularly relevant to the US “No Kings” Day protests at the weekend.

Recently, The Conversation hosted a webinar in which executive editor and general manager Beth Daley interviewed John Shattuck, professor of practice at The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, and Oliver Kaplan, associate professor at Josef Korbel School of Global and Public Affairs at the University of Denver and a visiting scholar at Stanford University.

Shattuck is the former president of Central European University in Hungary, where he defended academic freedom against a rising authoritarian government. Kaplan is the author of Resisting War: How Communities Protect Themselves. This interview has been condensed and edited for print.

BETH DALEY: What is an authoritarian regime, and what are their characteristics?

JOHN SHATTUCK: The authoritarian, often referred to as a “king,” is the ideal role from the point of view of the king, but certainly not from the point of view of the people. Authoritarian characteristics include centralised unlimited power, the opposite of democracy; no accountability and no rule of law; no independent courts; no checks and balances on how the king operates; rule by fear and coercion, and when necessary, in order to carry out the king’s orders, rule by by force.

There are no individual rights or civil liberties except those the king decides to allow those who are loyal to him to have, at least until he decides to take them away.

That’s a nutshell informal description of an authoritarian regime. A special threat today is that an authoritarian can emerge from a democratic election, and, indeed, a democratic election can be used to turn a weak democracy into an authoritarian regime.

But when this happens, it opens the door to challenge the authoritarian in a subsequent election if civic activism can defend the electoral process by which the authoritarian was elected.

BD: What are we seeing and not seeing in the US that other countries have gone through in terms of authoritarian government?

OLIVER KAPLAN: I think we are heading toward an autocracy, if not there already. In their 2026 report, the Varieties of Democracy Project writes that the US is no longer a liberal democracy and is moving into “competitive authoritarianism,” marked by executive overreach and erosion of judicial and legislative checks. The report notes that US democracy is being dismantled at a speed that is “unprecedented in modern history”.

We are seeing shifts in terms of concentration of power to the executive branch and a disregard of the rule of law, things like ignoring court orders and difficulty with holding the executive branch accountable. We are also seeing the militariSation of law enforcement, monitoring of US citizens, and what some refer to as the dual state — that the state is working for some people while causing more challenges for or oppressing other people.

One of the things we’re not seeing at full force yet is a complete shutdown of civic space. We’re able to hold this kind of conversation, and people are still able to dialogue and go out on the street.

There are some efforts at curtailing free speech, and I think there’s some self-censorship possibly happening. But there’s still this open space and a powerful mass movement growing in this country.

USA today:

7 million Americans in the streets today protesting for freedom.
3,000 cities and towns. Every single state. “No Kings” protests against the authoritarianism of the Trump. This is one of the largest demonstrations in American history.

pic.twitter.com/cLAwlXK69f

— James Melville 🚜 (@JamesMelville) March 28, 2026

BD: John, you were on the front lines, particularly in Hungary as the head of Central European University. What did you see there that has parallels today to the US?

JOHN SHATTUCK: There’s certainly a parallel between Hungary and the US, even though the countries are very different in size, history and background. What I saw in Hungary when I became president of Central European University in 2009 was a weak, new democracy that was only established in 1990 after 70 years of fascism and communism.

I was in Hungary from 2009 to 2016 and, despite the differences, I could begin to see some parallels. Many people had grievances in Hungary about how their economy was operating, particularly after the global financial crisis that affected Hungary more than any other Eastern European country.

Then there was an urban-rural divide, the urban elite versus the rural majority in the country.

Along came a cynical populist-nationalist politician, Viktor Orbán. Orbán started manipulating these grievances, and did so to significantly divide Hungarian society. He attacked many of the institutions of democracy, which were increasingly unpopular because of people’s grievances.

He went after elites, and foreigners, and migrants, and the media. And he blamed all of them for the country’s problems. He then was able to ride these grievances into office.

Once in office, Orbán amended the constitution and laws relating to the Parliament. He undermined the independence of the media and the judiciary so as to centralise power. All of this happened while I was running an international university in Budapest, which remained independent because it received no funding from the Hungarian government.

We were able to resist the increasingly authoritarian regime over issues of academic freedom. The government tried to shut down our programmes of migration studies and gender studies, and tried to censor aspects of our history department.

These authoritarian attacks are similar to what we’ve seen happening in the US, and in fact, Viktor Orbán was greatly admired by Donald Trump, and a lot of the playbook that Orban has followed was mirrored in Project 2025 in the US under Trump.

BD: How do communities respond in different ways to authoritarian regimes?

OLIVER KAPLAN: Pro-democracy movements and protection types of movements at the local level often co-occur. For example, in Colombia there have been various leftist movements and political parties that have pushed for greater democratic opening while communities mobilise to keep people safe and help them cope with repressive conditions.

In places like Chile, El Salvador and Guatemala, communities built trust and support networks to provide aid, such as for people who needed food assistance. This provides space to independently operate and preserve the community.

The US has parallels, such as innovating early warning networks to get advance notice of risks and threats, by communicating using the Signal app. In the Democratic Republic of Congo, villages set up radio networks, and in Ukraine they have sophisticated early warning networks to get word of airstrikes and drone attacks.

Fact-finding and countering stigma are important, and in the US we’re seeing that in the form of the video recording and publicising of harmful actions. This has played out similarly in Syria with fact-finding to protect nongovernment organisations.

There’s also accompaniment where outside actors come in to provide support to communities. Around the world, church organisations play important accompaniment roles. We’re seeing clergy in the US step up and visit places that are at risk.

And then, there are protests, the most visible kind of action. In Minnesota, we’ve seen communities actually setting up community barricades, which has also happened in Mexico, Colombia and Northern Ireland. Communicating the nonviolent nature of these movements is important to avoid any pretext for additional crackdowns.

I think Americans have been taking similar actions to other places around the world in part because there are some similar background conditions: repression and strong social capital networks. Those two things come together to produce these strategies.

BD: Could you speak more about the need to build a clear narrative and a positive one?

JOHN SHATTUCK: There are two basic rules for how to resist authoritarianism that I’ve learned from experience: Build a diverse coalition and develop a unifying theme. You need a diverse coalition in order to appeal to a broad range of the public, and in order to do that, you need agreement on the goal and values of what you’re trying to accomplish.

You need a clear and unifying narrative. The narrative often involves economic issues and issues of corruption, since there’s often a great deal of corruption in authoritarian regimes.

Hungary will have its next parliamentary election in April in which Orbán will seek his fifth term as prime minister. The opposition has developed a broad coalition and a unifying theme, while Orbán is using the centralised instruments of government and media that he controls to try to manipulate public opinion.

The opposition coalition is headed by Peter Magyar, who was once a major supporter of Orbán’s government. Magyar’s name can be magical in Hungary — sort of like a “Joe America” in the US.

With Magyar as its head, the opposition is aiming to peel off supporters of the regime. It’s campaigning on economic grounds, with a positive message and on moderate terms. And most importantly, it includes parties from the left, right and center.

Poland has succeeded in doing what the Hungarian opposition is attempting. It managed to vote out an authoritarian government by putting together a broad coalition to defend the independence of the Polish judiciary. That became a coalition to elect parliamentarians in 2023, and that succeeded in changing the government.

BD: How important is the preexisting social fabric of a community to the success of a protest movement?

JOHN SHATTUCK: It’s important, but complicated. Hungary had a very weak civil society after 70 years of totalitarian fascism and communism. When I was there, the very word to “volunteer,” which we think of as the essence of community action and service, was seen to be a bad word in Hungarian because it was closely associated with collaborating with the regime.

In the US, we’re the opposite in a sense, although the US is now slipping on this. We have a long history of volunteerism, we have all these civil society organisations, we have a tradition of barn raising, people getting together with their neighbours and doing things in their communities. This is very much a part of the American spirit and a core value.

But today, I would say a combination of consumerism and economic individualism coming out of decades of economic deregulation has caused our civil society to fray. But the authoritarian challenge that we face now, and the way in which we are beginning to respond to it, is in fact bringing communities back together again.

I think what happened in Minneapolis is an example of that. And this may reflect a growing capacity to resist an authoritarian regime.

Republished from Robert Reich’s Substack, originally published by The Conversation. Republished under Creative Commons.

Robert Reich is an American professor, writer, former Secretary of Labour, and author of The System, The Common Good, Saving Capitalism, Aftershock, Supercapitalism, The Work of Nations. He is also co-founder of Inequality Media.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

From time to time, I post transcripts I’ve come across of particularly insightful conversations. Here’s one that’s particularly relevant to the US “No Kings” Day protests at the weekend.

Recently, The Conversation hosted a webinar in which executive editor and general manager Beth Daley interviewed John Shattuck, professor of practice at The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, and Oliver Kaplan, associate professor at Josef Korbel School of Global and Public Affairs at the University of Denver and a visiting scholar at Stanford University.

Shattuck is the former president of Central European University in Hungary, where he defended academic freedom against a rising authoritarian government. Kaplan is the author of Resisting War: How Communities Protect Themselves. This interview has been condensed and edited for print.

BETH DALEY: What is an authoritarian regime, and what are their characteristics?

JOHN SHATTUCK: The authoritarian, often referred to as a “king,” is the ideal role from the point of view of the king, but certainly not from the point of view of the people. Authoritarian characteristics include centralised unlimited power, the opposite of democracy; no accountability and no rule of law; no independent courts; no checks and balances on how the king operates; rule by fear and coercion, and when necessary, in order to carry out the king’s orders, rule by by force.

There are no individual rights or civil liberties except those the king decides to allow those who are loyal to him to have, at least until he decides to take them away.

That’s a nutshell informal description of an authoritarian regime. A special threat today is that an authoritarian can emerge from a democratic election, and, indeed, a democratic election can be used to turn a weak democracy into an authoritarian regime.

But when this happens, it opens the door to challenge the authoritarian in a subsequent election if civic activism can defend the electoral process by which the authoritarian was elected.

BD: What are we seeing and not seeing in the US that other countries have gone through in terms of authoritarian government?

OLIVER KAPLAN: I think we are heading toward an autocracy, if not there already. In their 2026 report, the Varieties of Democracy Project writes that the US is no longer a liberal democracy and is moving into “competitive authoritarianism,” marked by executive overreach and erosion of judicial and legislative checks. The report notes that US democracy is being dismantled at a speed that is “unprecedented in modern history”.

We are seeing shifts in terms of concentration of power to the executive branch and a disregard of the rule of law, things like ignoring court orders and difficulty with holding the executive branch accountable. We are also seeing the militariSation of law enforcement, monitoring of US citizens, and what some refer to as the dual state — that the state is working for some people while causing more challenges for or oppressing other people.

One of the things we’re not seeing at full force yet is a complete shutdown of civic space. We’re able to hold this kind of conversation, and people are still able to dialogue and go out on the street.

There are some efforts at curtailing free speech, and I think there’s some self-censorship possibly happening. But there’s still this open space and a powerful mass movement growing in this country.

USA today:

7 million Americans in the streets today protesting for freedom.
3,000 cities and towns. Every single state. “No Kings” protests against the authoritarianism of the Trump. This is one of the largest demonstrations in American history.

pic.twitter.com/cLAwlXK69f

— James Melville 🚜 (@JamesMelville) March 28, 2026

BD: John, you were on the front lines, particularly in Hungary as the head of Central European University. What did you see there that has parallels today to the US?

JOHN SHATTUCK: There’s certainly a parallel between Hungary and the US, even though the countries are very different in size, history and background. What I saw in Hungary when I became president of Central European University in 2009 was a weak, new democracy that was only established in 1990 after 70 years of fascism and communism.

I was in Hungary from 2009 to 2016 and, despite the differences, I could begin to see some parallels. Many people had grievances in Hungary about how their economy was operating, particularly after the global financial crisis that affected Hungary more than any other Eastern European country.

Then there was an urban-rural divide, the urban elite versus the rural majority in the country.

Along came a cynical populist-nationalist politician, Viktor Orbán. Orbán started manipulating these grievances, and did so to significantly divide Hungarian society. He attacked many of the institutions of democracy, which were increasingly unpopular because of people’s grievances.

He went after elites, and foreigners, and migrants, and the media. And he blamed all of them for the country’s problems. He then was able to ride these grievances into office.

Once in office, Orbán amended the constitution and laws relating to the Parliament. He undermined the independence of the media and the judiciary so as to centralise power. All of this happened while I was running an international university in Budapest, which remained independent because it received no funding from the Hungarian government.

We were able to resist the increasingly authoritarian regime over issues of academic freedom. The government tried to shut down our programmes of migration studies and gender studies, and tried to censor aspects of our history department.

These authoritarian attacks are similar to what we’ve seen happening in the US, and in fact, Viktor Orbán was greatly admired by Donald Trump, and a lot of the playbook that Orban has followed was mirrored in Project 2025 in the US under Trump.

BD: How do communities respond in different ways to authoritarian regimes?

OLIVER KAPLAN: Pro-democracy movements and protection types of movements at the local level often co-occur. For example, in Colombia there have been various leftist movements and political parties that have pushed for greater democratic opening while communities mobilise to keep people safe and help them cope with repressive conditions.

In places like Chile, El Salvador and Guatemala, communities built trust and support networks to provide aid, such as for people who needed food assistance. This provides space to independently operate and preserve the community.

The US has parallels, such as innovating early warning networks to get advance notice of risks and threats, by communicating using the Signal app. In the Democratic Republic of Congo, villages set up radio networks, and in Ukraine they have sophisticated early warning networks to get word of airstrikes and drone attacks.

Fact-finding and countering stigma are important, and in the US we’re seeing that in the form of the video recording and publicising of harmful actions. This has played out similarly in Syria with fact-finding to protect nongovernment organisations.

There’s also accompaniment where outside actors come in to provide support to communities. Around the world, church organisations play important accompaniment roles. We’re seeing clergy in the US step up and visit places that are at risk.

And then, there are protests, the most visible kind of action. In Minnesota, we’ve seen communities actually setting up community barricades, which has also happened in Mexico, Colombia and Northern Ireland. Communicating the nonviolent nature of these movements is important to avoid any pretext for additional crackdowns.

I think Americans have been taking similar actions to other places around the world in part because there are some similar background conditions: repression and strong social capital networks. Those two things come together to produce these strategies.

BD: Could you speak more about the need to build a clear narrative and a positive one?

JOHN SHATTUCK: There are two basic rules for how to resist authoritarianism that I’ve learned from experience: Build a diverse coalition and develop a unifying theme. You need a diverse coalition in order to appeal to a broad range of the public, and in order to do that, you need agreement on the goal and values of what you’re trying to accomplish.

You need a clear and unifying narrative. The narrative often involves economic issues and issues of corruption, since there’s often a great deal of corruption in authoritarian regimes.

Hungary will have its next parliamentary election in April in which Orbán will seek his fifth term as prime minister. The opposition has developed a broad coalition and a unifying theme, while Orbán is using the centralised instruments of government and media that he controls to try to manipulate public opinion.

The opposition coalition is headed by Peter Magyar, who was once a major supporter of Orbán’s government. Magyar’s name can be magical in Hungary — sort of like a “Joe America” in the US.

With Magyar as its head, the opposition is aiming to peel off supporters of the regime. It’s campaigning on economic grounds, with a positive message and on moderate terms. And most importantly, it includes parties from the left, right and center.

Poland has succeeded in doing what the Hungarian opposition is attempting. It managed to vote out an authoritarian government by putting together a broad coalition to defend the independence of the Polish judiciary. That became a coalition to elect parliamentarians in 2023, and that succeeded in changing the government.

BD: How important is the preexisting social fabric of a community to the success of a protest movement?

JOHN SHATTUCK: It’s important, but complicated. Hungary had a very weak civil society after 70 years of totalitarian fascism and communism. When I was there, the very word to “volunteer,” which we think of as the essence of community action and service, was seen to be a bad word in Hungarian because it was closely associated with collaborating with the regime.

In the US, we’re the opposite in a sense, although the US is now slipping on this. We have a long history of volunteerism, we have all these civil society organisations, we have a tradition of barn raising, people getting together with their neighbours and doing things in their communities. This is very much a part of the American spirit and a core value.

But today, I would say a combination of consumerism and economic individualism coming out of decades of economic deregulation has caused our civil society to fray. But the authoritarian challenge that we face now, and the way in which we are beginning to respond to it, is in fact bringing communities back together again.

I think what happened in Minneapolis is an example of that. And this may reflect a growing capacity to resist an authoritarian regime.

Republished from Robert Reich’s Substack, originally published by The Conversation. Republished under Creative Commons

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Politicians are under fire overseas. But New Zealand should take note too.

The US Justice Department’s release of more than three million Epstein files (including 180,000 images and 2000 videos) has blown the doors off the most protected social network of the late 20th century.

What these documents reveal is not just a catalogue of one man’s depravity. It is, as Helen Rumbelow wrote in The Times, like “taking the back off the world clock”, exposing how power actually works at the top of the Western world.

And the implications reach all the way to New Zealand.

New Zealand media has done useful work tracking the Kiwi names that appear in the files.

Paula Penfold at Stuff searched more than a thousand New Zealand references. Joel MacManus at The Spinoff, Ben Tomsett and Ethan Manera at The New Zealand Herald, and Steve Braunias at Newsroom have reported on the local angles — Peter Thiel’s investment relationship with Epstein, the New Zealand Defence Force couple who managed Epstein’s properties, Auckland academic Brian Boyd, physicist Lawrence Krauss and his pursuit of Epstein money for an Otago University role.

These stories matter. But the fixation on which Kiwis appear in the files misses the real story. The Epstein scandal is not fundamentally about which individuals had dinner with a monster. It is about what kind of political systems allow monsters to operate at the centre of global power for decades without consequence.

On that score, New Zealand should be paying very close attention, because our systems are weaker than those now failing spectacularly in countries around us.

The Mandelson masterclass
The most instructive case study is not American but British. The fall of Peter Mandelson (the architect of New Labour, the self-described “Prince of Darkness”) is a textbook case of how politics and money have gone rotten in liberal democracies.

The Epstein files revealed that Mandelson, while serving as “Deputy PM” to Gordon Brown, and in the position of Business Secretary, forwarded highly sensitive government tax plans to Jeffrey Epstein.

He told Epstein he was “trying hard to amend” a planned tax on bankers’ bonuses and suggested that JPMorgan’s CEO should “mildly threaten” the Chancellor to water down the policy. He gave Epstein advance notice of a €500 billion EU bailout before public announcement.

On Christmas Day, he wrote to a convicted paedophile: “I do not want to live by salary alone”.

So, a sitting Cabinet minister was leaking government intelligence to a convicted sex offender, lobbying against his own government’s financial regulation on behalf of that offender’s banking contacts, and angling for post-politics employment — all at the same time.

Within weeks of leaving office, his lobbying firm Global Counsel was chasing work with the Russian state investment fund and the state-owned China International Capital Corporation.

The Starmer government is bleeding credibility. Police opened a criminal investigation, Mandelson’s properties were searched, and yesterday Starmer’s chief of staff Morgan McSweeney resigned, saying the appointment decision “has damaged our party, our country and trust in politics itself”.

The Economist magazine has called it “Britain’s worst political scandal of this century”. UK Labour now trails Reform UK in the polls.

As former Prime Minister Gordon Brown wrote in The Guardian last Friday, in a remarkable act of public contrition: “I greatly regret this appointment . . .  He seems to have used market-sensitive inside information to betray the principles in which he said he believed”.

Brown’s piece was not merely an apology. It was a manifesto for integrity reform. Brown called for an independent anti-corruption commission with statutory powers, a fully accountable vetting system for major political appointments, mandatory parliamentary hearings for senior ambassadors and ministers, a five-year cooling-off period for former ministers entering lobbying, and the creation of corruption as a new statutory offence.

Brown argued for nothing less than a “century-defining rebalancing of power and accountability”, and he warned that without fundamental change, the revelations would be “acid in our democracy, corroding trust still further”.

Heather Stewart, writing in The Guardian, drew out the structural lesson: Mandelson’s personal disgrace is “deep and unique, and may yet bring down a prime minister — but by laying bare the dark allure of the filthy rich, it also underlines the need for tougher constraints on money in politics”.

Stewart documented how Epstein’s efforts to influence government policy — working to water down Alistair Darling’s bonus tax at a time when the banks had crashed the economy — “underline the powerful forces with which politicians are faced”.

She noted that Transparency International warned last summer: “We stand at the beginning of a new and dangerous era, where big money dominates in a way that has corroded US politics across the Atlantic”. The campaign group Spotlight on Corruption warned the current system is “full of major loopholes and gaps”.

The real takeaway is this: when it comes to money and politics, whether post-parliamentary employment, lobbying, or party funding, it is unwise to take honesty and decency as a given. As Stewart concluded: “It is not too late to pull up the drawbridge . . .  by introducing stringent new rules to protect British democracy from the malign influence of powerful companies, and dodgy billionaires”.

The global rot at the top
What is striking is the convergence. Left, right, and libertarian commentators from across the ideological spectrum are reaching the same conclusion: the Epstein network was not an aberration. It was a symptom of what happens when wealth, power, and access operate without transparency or accountability.

As Josie Pagani observed in The Post, “there appears to be a high degree of crossover between the sort of people who attend World Economic Forum jamborees at Davos, and the sort of people who hung out with Jeffrey Epstein”. The Economist noted the files read “like a ‘Who’s Who’ which has gathered only a thin layer of dust”.

These are not fringe figures being exposed. These are the people who run things.

Pratap Bhanu Mehta, a political theorist at Princeton, described the files as “a sobering x-ray of some of America’s elites — immature, full of impunity, corrupt, venal, venial, and venereal all at once”. He warned that “an elite so needy, greedy, and now so vulnerable can hardly be trusted to exercise good judgment”.

Owen Jones put it bluntly: Mandelson is “the logical culmination of the career politician, attracted to government office not because of any commitment to a set of values or public service, but simply for power, position, and profit”. Jones asked the question that should haunt every democracy: “What is being done now by ministers and politicians to secure preferment and nice jobs later?”

The Economist observed on the Epstein-Mandelson scandal that “a weakened elite is also more vulnerable to populism” and that “public opinion is less tolerant of hypocrisy than of sex scandals or corruption”. A record 43 percent of Americans surveyed by Gallup now say they have “very little faith” in big business.

The political lesson people take from the documents is broader: elites protect elites. And once voters accept that as a general pattern, they start to look at their own politics differently. They see the local versions: the donor dinners, the quietly arranged appointments, the lobbyists writing submissions, the ministers lining up post-parliament careers. They start to interpret routine insider politics as corruption-by-another-name.

So what does this mean for New Zealand?
It’s easy to shrug this off as a foreign horror story. That shrug is the vulnerability.
New Zealand has no lobbying regulations. None. No register, no code of conduct, no cooling-off period for ministers who walk out of the Beehive and into lobbying firms or corporate boardrooms.

We rank 42nd out of 48 OECD countries on lobbying transparency. NZ is ahead of only Slovakia, Luxembourg, and Turkey. Yet Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith has said lobbying reform “is not a priority”.

As The NZ Herald editorial argued on the Epstein scandal, “what this all reveals . . .  is how utterly certain those in power are that they will be protected”. That certainty, and that sense of impunity, is not confined to Manhattan townhouses and Caribbean islands. It operates wherever wealth and politics intersect without adequate transparency.

Our own political history provides uncomfortable parallels. Minister Stuart Nash was sacked in 2023 for emailing confidential Cabinet information to wealthy donors, a mini-parallel to Mandelson’s alleged leaking of market-sensitive information to Epstein.

But in Nash’s case, he lost his ministerial role without ever facing a police investigation. The structural failure is the same: the revolving door, the undisclosed lobbying, the donation loopholes, the absence of any meaningful cooling-off period.

If the Mandelson affair teaches one lesson, it is this: weak integrity systems do not just allow bad behaviour, they incentivise it. New Zealand has all of these mechanisms for embedding soft corruption, in weaker form than the UK. We rely on a “she’ll be right” attitude in place of the institutional safeguards that comparable democracies take for granted.

The example of Peter Thiel sharpens this further. Thiel is a New Zealand citizen. He is also a billionaire power broker in Silicon Valley and a funder of rightwing politics who appears prominently in the Epstein files.

That is a reminder: New Zealand has granted citizenship, and effectively social legitimacy, to a man who sits inside the very global plutocratic networks now being publicly scrutinised for moral collapse and elite impunity. Thiel is symbolic because he represents something New Zealand has not seriously confronted: the country’s relationship with the global super-rich, and the way money can smooth entry into our political community.

Meanwhile, public trust in New Zealand’s institutions has collapsed. The 2025 Edelman Trust Barometer showed New Zealand’s trust index falling below the global average for the first time: 47 percent compared to 56 percent globally. Political parties are the least trusted institution, at just 32 percent according to the OECD’s 2024 survey. And the anti-politics mood is deepening.

The recent McSkimming police corruption scandal, where a Deputy Commissioner’s misconduct was systematically covered up, has already forced a national debate about the “C-word”. The ground was prepared before the Epstein files even arrived.

An election-year wake-up call
So what happens when this mood hits an election year? November 7 is nine months away, and the Epstein scandal feeds directly into a public mood that was already getting toxic.
The danger here is not that the public demands accountability. The danger is that the public concludes accountability is impossible, because the system is so captured by insiders and vested interests that reform cannot come from within.

Scandals like this feed anti-politics. People conclude that “they’re all the same,” that it’s a rigged game, that power protects itself. But the same disgust can create reform pressure. When trust collapses, political promises about integrity stop being an optional add-on.

They become central. Voters start demanding answers: who is lobbying whom? Who is funding whom? Why do politicians leave office and immediately cash in? Why are conflicts of interest treated as personal errors rather than structural failures?

No party in New Zealand “owns” the anti-corruption space. That’s also both a vulnerability and an opening. The party or leader who takes integrity reform seriously in 2026 — who makes the lobbying register, the donation caps, the Integrity Commission a genuine campaign commitment rather than a footnote — will be tapping into something powerful and real.

The party that ignores it will be betting that public anger stays diffuse. That would be a bad bet.

The global mood of elite scepticism will shape this election whether our politicians like it or not. Voters are more suspicious than ever of cosy relationships between politicians and the wealthy. They are less willing to accept opacity, conflicts of interest, and the revolving door as the price of doing business.

Chris Trotter, writing today in The Interest, argues there are “heaps of lessons New Zealanders can learn from what is unfolding in the United Kingdom”. He is right. New Zealand has an opportunity to get ahead of the global backlash. We can build the transparency infrastructure — the lobbying register, the Integrity Commission, the cooling-off rules — that most comparable democracies already have.

Or we can keep pretending that we are too small and too decent for this kind of corruption, and wait for the next scandal to prove us wrong.

Starmer’s warning to his own cabinet, that “the public don’t really see individuals in this scandal, they see politicians”, applies here too. New Zealanders are watching the Mandelson affair, they’re reading the files, and they’re drawing the obvious conclusion: that the people who run the world are not to be trusted, and the systems meant to hold them accountable are broken.

A country can’t keep shrugging at unregulated influence while telling voters to trust the system. If New Zealand’s political class wants to avoid the kind of legitimacy collapse now unfolding overseas, the time to act is now. Not after the next (inevitable) scandal.

An immediate test
And here is the immediate test. Transparency International is releasing its annual Corruption Perceptions Index. For the last couple of decades, New Zealand’s showing in the index has been in decline. Our score has slipped from the mid-90s to 83, and our ranking has dropped to fourth globally, now seven points behind Denmark.

Will this decline continue? If it does, it will be one more data point confirming what voters already sense: that the gap between New Zealand’s self-image as a clean, transparent democracy and the reality of our thin integrity architecture is growing wider.

The Epstein files have taken the back off the world clock. New Zealanders can see the mechanism now. The question is what do we do about it?

Dr Bryce Edwards is a political commentator and analyst. He is director of the Democracy Project, focused on scrutinising and challenging the role of vested interests in the political process. Republished with the author’s permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Will maximising investment returns override ethics? That is the question the tertiary sector posed to UniSaver, the academic equivalent of KiwiSaver, now revealed to invest in Israeli weapons and military intelligence.

In 2024, some 400 university staff appealed to UniSaver to divest from such companies.

The fund initially ignored the call.

The fund issued a statement in September 2025 emphasising its fiduciary duty to ensure best performance, arguing divestment was unnecessary because the New Zealand government had not imposed sanctions against Israel, and noting its Israel-linked exposure is only 0.11 percent of total assets.

After a November open letter signed by 715 staff, nearly double the earlier number, UniSaver agreed to meet representatives of the group.

What should the tenor of those discussions be?

And why should any of this matter to the average New Zealander returning from the summer lull, facing a new year that looks uncomfortably like the last, with no sign from the Prime Minister’s State of the Nation last weekend that domestic pressures will ease?

The core question
This is the core question: with so many local concerns, why should the Israel–Palestine conflict matter?

Or, more pointedly, why should 0.11 percent of a pension fund belonging to a relatively privileged cohort matter to those worried about jobs, the cost of living, and healthcare?

Global issues are closer than we think. The suffering of Gazans and the anxieties of New Zealanders share a root: public policy framed as instrumental and amoral, where the wellbeing of persons is sacrificed to detached abstractions of markets and efficiencies while morality and integrity are treated as incidental.

These attitudes yield the same harvest everywhere: dehumanisation, insecurity, and the corrosion of civic trust.

Our only defence is a moral standpoint that declares “thus far shall you come, and no farther”.

When a society publicly avows that certain principles, human dignity and the integrity of persons, are non negotiable, it restores those ideals to the centre of the public square.

This is what a rules-based order is for: to foreground the human person before power and profit. Where such an order is honoured, flourishing follows; where it is neglected, flourishing is the first casualty.

Small acts of moral probity — even a mere 0.11 percent — may appear inconsequential.

Beacons for human progress
Yet as articulations of what we hold valuable, they resound deeply in the moral universe. They are the lit matches that, gathered, become the beacon that lights human progress.

Recent years have seen our public life dominated by the contrary impulse: to measure every policy by an economic yardstick calibrated to austerity.

As we enter an election year, two paths lie before us: one paved by slavish adherence to instrumental rationality, the other by a politics that puts people in a place of honour and treats wellbeing, security, and human flourishing as the purpose, not by product, of policy.

We have precedents. In the 1930s, as the world entered a moment not unlike our own, New Zealand, small, distant, still reeling from the Depression, adopted what became known as a moral foreign policy.

After that most devastating conflict, we added our voice to a chorus that helped shape a rules-based international order privileging human rights, cooperation, and diplomacy over war.

From the gradual undermining of that settlement, particularly after the crisis-ridden 1970s, one can trace many of today’s global and national disorders.

So what has all this to do with UniSaver?

Instability gathering pace
From our relatively safe redoubt at the bottom of the world, we watch instability elsewhere gather pace. Shall we respond in the same polarising, amoral terms or recover the loftier stance that once gave us outsized moral influence?

The UniSaver Board now faces a profound opportunity. In opposing the 715 who call for ethical investment, it has chosen expediency over ethics.

But morality often begins with small, unfashionable acts that grow, over time, into the juggernaut of social change.

Consider how a small student-led divestment campaign in the 1950s catalysed what became the global movement that helped topple South African apartheid.

Such actions shift the parameters of the values debate. Even if it concerns only 0.11 percent, UniSaver can redraw the moral horizon.

If its decision signals that we value a fair go for all — yes, even for far off Palestinians — it will achieve far more than a simple reassignment of assets.

It will have reminded us who we are.

And it will return UniSaver to being an institution to be proud of, one that affirms that people matter at least as much as the return on investment.

Dr Vincent Wijeysingha is senior lecturer in social work and social policy at Massey University. He is a member of Uni Workers 4 Palestine but writes here in a personal capacity.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

COMMENTARY: By Jeremy Rose

The word antisemitism has become so debased that depending on who is using it I might well take it as a sign that the accused is worth listening to.

When the World Criminal Court (ICC) issued a warrant for Benjamin Netanyahu’s arrest, he responded by saying the court was being antisemitic. One of the court’s legal advisers was Theodor Meron, a former Israeli ambassador and legal adviser who spent a chunk of his childhood in a Nazi concentration camp.

Last month, Netanyahu declared the leaders of France, the UK and Canada of fuelling antisemitism.

Their “crime”? Threatening “concrete action” against Israel if it continues its “egregious” blockade of aid entering Gaza.

Egregious not genocidal. And the concrete action referred to wasn’t sanctions or a full arms embargo but stalling free trade talks.

The bitter irony is that with none of those countries having yet imposed a complete ban on arms exports to Israel they are all in a sense fuelling a genocide.

The Army-McCarthy hearings
We’re coming up to the 71st anniversary of the Army-McCarthy hearings where an army lawyer, Joseph Welch, rebuked Senator Joseph McCarthy with the famous line: “Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?”

We’ll be waiting a long time for the wanted war criminal Netanyahu to show any decency, but could we be approaching a tipping point where the establishment finally calls off a witch hunt after realising no one is safe from false accusations.

The McCarthyite red scare, which began in the late 1940s, saw more than 2000 federal workers sacked, thousands of academics, teachers, and union members pressured or forced to resign due to anti-communist policies, and up to 500 Hollywood directors and actors blacklisted for being leftwing or refusing to name names.

Welch’s rebuke was triggered by none of that. It was McCarthy turning his metaphorical guns onto the military implying he would expose high ranking army personnel that saw the army lawyer return fire.

The conflating of criticism of Israel with antisemitism has been spectacularly successful in making any criticism of Israel a potentially career ending move. Three Ivy League presidents have been pushed out of their jobs for failing to crack down hard enough on students protesting the brutality of Israel’s ongoing genocide.

UK Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, whose popularity had seen the party become the biggest political movement in Europe, was toppled in 2016 after bogus accusations of antisemitism.

In the purge of the Labour Party that followed Jews were five times more likely to be investigated for antisemitism than goys.

It’s the same story in Germany where Jews feature prominently among those cancelled for alleged antisemitism. Renowned professor of Jewish studies Peter Schäfe was forced to resign as the director of Berlin’s Jewish Museum after it retweeted a post critical of Germany’s anti-Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) resolutions.

Greece’s former Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis — not a Jew — has been banned from Germany or even appearing via Zoom for this response, on 8 October 2023, to being asked if he condemned Hamas:

“I condemn every single atrocity, whomever is the perpetrator or the victim. What I do not condemn is armed resistance to an apartheid system designed as part of a slow-burning, but inexorable, ethnic cleansing programme.
As a European, it is important to refrain from condemning either the Israelis or the Palestinians when it is us, Europeans, who have caused this never-ending tragedy: after practising rabid anti-Semitism for centuries, leading up to the uniquely vile Holocaust, we have been complicit for decades with the slow genocide of Palestinians, as if two wrongs make one right.”

That nuanced response, with its acknowledgement of the dreadful legacy of real antisemitism, has not only seen him banned from speaking — in person or virtually — but dropped by his German publisher.

Antisemitism is often referred to as the oldest hatred — with good reason — but the word itself is relatively recent.

A ‘scientific’ word for an old hatred
Nineteenth century German journalist, Wilhelm Marr, popularised the term in a pamphlet the title of which translates as: The way to victory of Germanism over Judaism.

What distinguished antisemitism from the commonly used Judenhass — or Jewish hate — was the idea that it was a Jew’s race not their religion that was deserving of hate.

Antisemitism was a prejudice proud to speak its name. It was respectable in a way that religious intolerance wasn’t. Prominent professors and politicians happily declared themselves antisemites and adherents of “scientific racism”.

It was an old idea dressed up in new clothing. Fifteenth century Spain passed Limpieza de Sangre (cleanliness of blood) statutes to allow discrimination against Jewish and Muslim converts to Christianity.

The Judeo-Christian civilisational conflict with Islam, often referred to by right-wing supporters of Israel, is a relatively new construct. When the Jews were expelled from Spain, the Ottomans sent ships to take them to new homes in Istanbul, Thessaloniki and Izmer.

Times change and while it was once possible — even common — to be a respectable antisemite and scientific racist but frowned upon to discriminate based on religious belief, now the reverse is true.

So-called new atheists like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins declare all religions bad but Islam worse.

“Listening to the lovely bells of Winchester, one of our great mediaeval cathedrals. So much nicer than the aggressive sounding “Allahu Akhbar.” Or is that just my cultural upbringing?” Dawkins once tweeted.

The cultures of Europe have indeed cultivated racist ideas for centuries. And just as half a millennia ago conversion offered you no protection from the racism of the Spanish court, embracing Buddhism didn’t protect Columbia University student Moshen Mahdawi from being snatched from a naturalisation interview by balaclava-clad ICE agents.

His crime? Being Palestinian and telling his story.

It’s a topsy-turvy world where life-long anti-fascists like Jeremy Corbyn and Yanis Varoufakis are sanctioned on bogus claims of antisemitism while the likes of Elon Musk and Hungarian PM Victor Orban — both peddlers of old-style antisemitic conspiracies — are welcomed to Israel as friends and allies in a contrived battle of civilisations.

One thing that differentiates antisemitism from the Judeophobia, which has been a European disease since the early days of Christianity, is that it places Jews among the victims of the continent’s white supremacist legacy.

It’s perhaps no coincidence the Christopher Columbus set sail for the Americas in the same year, 1492, that Spain expelled its Jews and Muslims.

The settler colonisation of the Americas has been estimated by historian David Stannard to have resulted in the death of 100 million indigenous people — many from introduced diseases but tens of millions also died in genocides only recently making their way into history books.

Last month, when Netanyahu declared Israel’s attacks on Gaza “a war against human beasts” he was echoing the words of settler colonialists from Alaska to Aotearoa and the dehumanising language of the Nazis against the Jews.

So, back to that question about whether we’ve reached a tipping point where unfair accusations of antisemitism will be seen in a similar light to McCarthy’s red scare.

With Netanyahu accusing the leader of the Democrats party, Yair Golan, an IDF reserve major-general, of promoting a blood libel for speaking out against the starving of babies in Gaza, it’s hard not to draw parallels with the Army-McCarthy hearings.

It’s worth quoting the words that saw Israel’s PM accuse Golan of a blood libel — a reference to the lie that Jews used the blood of non-Jewish children in the baking of matzos, and a trigger for centuries of pogroms.

“A sane country does not wage war against civilians, does not kill babies as a hobby, and does not set goals for itself like the expulsion of a population.”

The idea that an IDF general speaking out against the killing of babies is propagating racist hatred of Jews is surely a leap too far even for many fervent Zionists.

Another sign that the tide might be turning is Kenneth Stern, the lead drafter of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism, saying the US administration’s weaponisation of the IHRA definition is making academics and students (including Jews) less safe.

The self-described Zionist said the definition was being distorted and used to silence anti-Israel critics.

The IHRA working definition has been widely adopted internationally — including by institutions in New Zealand and Australia.

Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have both criticised the definition claiming it has seen those documenting Israel’s human rights abuses being falsely accused of antisemitism.

It’s a tragedy that weaponised accusations of antisemitism aimed at protecting Israel from criticism are obscuring a rise in Judeophobic conspiracy theories and attacks on Jewish community centres and synagogues around the world.

And even more tragically that those accusations are blunting criticisms of Israel that could help bring the ongoing genocide in Gaza to an end.

Jeremy Rose is a Wellington-based journalist. He has a Substack: Towards democracy

This article was first published on Café Pacific.

ANALYSIS: By Ilan Pappé

Responses in the Western world to the genocide in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank raise a troubling question: why is the official West, and official Western Europe in particular, so indifferent to Palestinian suffering?

Why is the Democratic Party in the US complicit, directly and indirectly, in sustaining the daily inhumanity in Palestine — a complicity so visible that it probably was one reason they lost the election, as the Arab American and progressive vote in key states could, and justifiably so, not forgive the Biden administration for its part in the genocide in the Gaza Strip?

This is a pertinent question, given that we are dealing with a televised genocide that has now been renewed on the ground. It is different from previous periods in which Western indifference and complicity were displayed, either during the Nakba or the long years of occupation since 1967.

During the Nakba and up to 1967, it was not easy to get hold of information, and the oppression after 1967 was mostly incremental, and, as such, was ignored by the Western media and politics, which refused to acknowledge its cumulative effect on the Palestinians.

But these last 18 months are very different. Ignoring the genocide in the Gaza Strip and the ethnic cleansing in the West Bank can only be described as intentional and not due to ignorance.

Both the Israelis’ actions and the discourse that accompanies them are too visible to be ignored, unless politicians, academics, and journalists choose to do so.

This kind of ignorance is, first and foremost, the result of successful Israeli lobbying that thrived on the fertile ground of an European guilt complex, racism and Islamophobia. In the case of the US, it is also the outcome of many years of an effective and ruthless lobbying machine that very few in academia, media, and, in particular, politics, dare to disobey.

The moral panic phenomenon
This phenomenon is known in recent scholarship as moral panic, very characteristic of the more conscientious sections of Western societies: intellectuals, journalists, and artists.

Moral panic is a situation in which a person is afraid of adhering to his or her own moral convictions because this would demand some courage that might have consequences. We are not always tested in situations that require courage, or at least integrity. When it does happen, it is in situations where morality is not an abstract idea, but a call for action.

This is why so many Germans were silent when Jews were sent to extermination camps, and this is why white Americans stood by when African Americans were lynched or, earlier on, enslaved and abused.

What is the price that leading Western journalists, veteran politicians, tenured professors, or chief executives of well-known companies would have to pay if they were to blame Israel for committing a genocide in the Gaza Strip?

It seems they are worried about two possible outcomes. The first is being condemned as antisemites or Holocaust deniers. Secondly, they fear an honest response would trigger a discussion that would include the complicity of their country, or Europe, or the West in general, in enabling the genocide and all the criminal policies against the Palestinians that preceded it.

This moral panic leads to some astonishing phenomena. In general, it transforms educated, highly articulate and knowledgeable people into total imbeciles when they talk about Palestine.

It disallows the more perceptive and thoughtful members of the security services from examining Israeli demands to include all Palestinian resistance on a terrorist list, and it dehumanises Palestinian victims in the mainstream media.

On ‘Moral Panic’ and the Courage to Speak – Professor Ilan Pappé examines how fear of professional consequences silences Western voices in the face of genocide in Gaza — and what this reveals about power, complicity, and moral responsibility.

Don’t miss this exclusive article.… pic.twitter.com/bnYHYVNckM

— The Palestine Chronicle (@PalestineChron) April 18, 2025

Lack of compassion
The lack of compassion and basic solidarity with the victims of genocide was exposed by the double standards shown by mainstream media in the West, and, in particular, by the more established newspapers in the US, such as The New York Times and The Washington Post.

When the editor of The Palestine Chronicle, Dr Ramzy Baroud, lost 56 members of his family — killed by the Israeli genocidal campaign in the Gaza Strip — not one of his colleagues in American journalism bothered to talk to him or show any interest in hearing about this atrocity.

On the other hand, a fabricated Israeli allegation of a connection between the Chronicle and a family, in whose block of flats hostages were held, triggered huge interest by these outlets.

This imbalance in humanity and solidarity is just one example of the distortions that accompanies moral panic. I have little doubt that the actions against Palestinian or pro-Palestinian students in the US, or against known activists in Britain and France, as well as the arrest of the editor of the Electronic Intifada, Ali Abunimah, in Switzerland, are all manifestations of this distorted moral behaviour.

A similar case unfolded just recently in Australia. Mary Kostakidis, a famous Australian journalist and former prime-time weeknight SBS World News Australia presenter, has been taken to the federal court over her — one should say quite tame — reporting on the situation in the Gaza Strip.

The very fact that the court has not dismissed this allegation upon its arrival shows you how deeply rooted moral panic is in the Global North.

But there is another side to it. Thankfully, there is a much larger group of people who are not afraid of taking the risks involved in clearly stating their support for the Palestinians, and who do show this solidarity while knowing it may lead to suspension, deportation, or even jail time. They are not easily found among the mainstream academia, media, or politics, but they are the authentic voice of their societies in many parts of the Western world.

The Palestinians do not have the luxury of allowing Western moral panic to have its say or impact. Not caving in to this panic is one small but important step in building a global Palestine network that is urgently needed — firstly, to stop the destruction of Palestine and its people, and second, to create the conditions for a decolonised and liberated Palestine in the future.

Dr Ilan Pappé is an Israeli historian, political scientist, and former politician. He is a professor with the College of Social Sciences and International Studies at the University of Exeter in the United Kingdom, director of the university’s European Centre for Palestine Studies, and co-director of the Exeter Centre for Ethno-Political Studies. This article is republished from The Palestine Chronicle, 19 April 2025.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A wave of criticism by Indonesia’s academic community against the leadership of President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo continues to grow as the republic faces a presidential election next week.

In the latest incident a council of professors, rectors and students at Yogyakarta Muhammadiyah University (UMY) in Bantul, Yogyakarta province, has issued a national message and moral appeal to “Safeguard Indonesian Democracy”.

In a statement read by UMY’s Professor Akif Khilmiyah last Sunday, the academics and students stated that an escalation of constitutional violations and the loss of state ethics had continued over the past year.

“Starting with the emasculation of the KPK [Corruption Eradication Commission], officials who are fond of corruption, the DPR [House of Representatives] which does not function to defend the country’s children and some MK [Constitutional Court] judges who do not have any ethics or self-respect,” she said.

The culmination this, continued Professor Khilmiyah, was the “shackling” of the Constitutional Court judges by the “ambitions of the country’s rulers” and a loss of ethics in the political contest ahead of the 2024 elections on February 14 — Valentine’s Day.

Instead of thinking about ordinary people who were “eliminated by the power of the oligarchy“, according to Professor Khilmiyah, the country’s rulers appeared ambitious and were busy pursuing and perpetuating their power.

“The fragility of the state’s foundations is almost complete because the state’s administrators, the government, the DPR and the judiciary have failed to set a good example in maintaining their compliance with the principles of the constitution and the country’s ethics that should be obeyed wholeheartedly,” she said.

Upholding principles
As a democratic country and based on the constitution, state administrators should be the best examples of upholding the principles of the constitution and setting an example in upholding the country’s ethics for citizens.

Without this, the professor said, the Republic of Indonesia was at risk of becoming a failed state.

“Without exemplary state administrators, Indonesia will be on the verge of become a failed state,” she said.

The ordinary people must be active in reminding all state administrators so they complied with the constitution and cared for Indonesian democracy.

“[We] urge the President of the Republic of Indonesia to carry out his constitutional obligations as a state administrator to realise the implementation of the 2024 elections that are honest and fair,” Professor Khilmiyah said.

“The use of state facilities with all the authority they possess represents a serious constitutional violation,” she said, reading out the demands of professors and the UMY academic community.

The academics urged the political parties to stop the practice of money politics and abuse of power in the 2024 election contest, demanding that they prioritise political ideas and education to enlighten ordinary people.

Independent judiciary
They demanded that judicial institutions, namely the Supreme Court and the courts under its authority and the Constitutional Court, be independent and impartial in handling various disputes and violations during the 2024 elections.

Appealing to all Indonesian people to jointly safeguard the implementation of the 2024 elections so that they were dignified, honest and fair to enable the election of a leader who was visionary and had the courage to uphold the principles of the constitution.

The wave of criticism from campuses around Indonesia has continued to spread.

Earlier, several campuses issued petitions addressed to President Widodo, starting with the Gajah Mada University (UGM) in Yogyakarta, Central Java, which released a “Bulaksumur Petition” (a long road hemmed in by rice fields where a well is found) because of their disappointment with one of the graduates of the university — President Widodo.

Protests on campus by the academic community against the Widodo leadership then became more widespread such as at the State Islamic University (UII) in Yogyakarta which called for an “Indonesian Statesmanship Emergency”.

Last Friday, on February 2, at least three more campuses issued statements criticising President Widodo. In a statement, the University of Indonesia (UI) claimed it had been called on to beat the drums of war to restore democracy.

Meanwhile, several professors and academics from Hasanuddin University (Unhas) in the South Sulawesi provincial capital of Makassar warned President Widodo and all state officials, law enforcement officers and political actors in the cabinet to remain within the corridors of democracy, prioritising popular values and social justice and a sense of comfort in democracy.

Lecturer coalition
A coalition of lecturers from Mulawarman University (Unmul) in Samarinda, East Kalimantan, also joined in calling on people to take a stand to save democracy and asked President Widodo not to take sides in the 2024 elections.

The palace itself has already responded to the wave of calls from Indonesian campuses. Presidential Special Staff Coordinator Ari Dwipayana responded by saying it was normal for a contest of opinions to emerge ahead of elections. He also touched on partisan political strategies.

“We are paying close attention in this political year, ahead of elections a contest of opinion will definitely emerge, the herding of opinions,” said Dwipayana.

“A contest of opinions in a political contestation is something that is also normal. Moreover it’s related to partisan political strategies for electoral politics.”

Nevertheless, Dwipayana emphasised that the criticism by campus academics represented a form of free speech and was a citizen’s democratic right.

Translated by James Balowski for IndoLeft News. The original title of the article was “UMY Kritik Pemerintahan Jokowi: RI di Ambang Pintu Jadi Negara Gagal”.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

ANALYSIS: By Duncan Graham

An Australian academic is risking an eruption of diplomatic fury by publicly criticising Indonesia’s brutal response to the Papuan independence movement, a hypersensitive topic for the governments of both countries.

Queensland historian Dr Greg Poulgrain last month told a Jakarta seminar that the Indonesian government’s approach “has long been top-heavy, bureaucratic, clumsy and self-serving.

“The military arrived in 1962 and 60 years later they’re still there in strength . . . more troops there now than ever before.

“The NGO Kontras declared that 734 Papuans were killed in 2022. That’s two-and-a-half times the number of Palestinians killed by the Israeli army last year. And from (the Highland province) Nduga there were 60,000 refugees.”

His comments were made just as the West Papua independence movement failed to get Pacific Islands’ backing at a stormy meeting of the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) in Vanuatu with an Indonesian delegation walk-out.

The bid was thwarted by an alleged “corrupt alliance” of member states apparently after pressure from Indonesia which is funding Vanuatu airport repairs (including the VIP lounge) worth A$1.47 million. More of this later.

A report of the Jakarta seminar, organised by the government research agency Baden Riset dan Inovasi Nasional (BRIN), was published in Indonesia’s leading newspaper Kompas. It ran to 830 words but never mentioned Dr Poulgrain or his comments, although he was the invited international guest speaker.

Australian government stays hush
An estimated 500,000 indigenous Papuans are alleged to have died in the past 50 years through Indonesian military action. But the Australian government stays hush.

Before she became Foreign Minister, Senator Penny Wong, wrote that Labor was distressed by “human rights violations” in West Papua. However, there is a “don’t touch” clause in a two-nation pact signed 17 years ago “to address security challenges”.

The Lombok Treaty binds Australia and Indonesia to mutually respect the “sovereignty, territorial integrity, national unity and political independence of each other”.

New England University academics Dr Xiang Gao and Professor Guy Charlton claim “non-interference” limits Australian responses “despite the domestic sympathy much of the Australian public has given to the West Papuan population”.

They quote a 2019 website post from Wong saying the treaty “remains the bedrock of security cooperation” between Australia and Indonesia.

Dr Poulgrain told his Jakarta audience that the military’s presence in Papua “has led to amazing problems.

“In the first 40 years, the Papuan death toll was horrendous. In 1983 the London-based Anti-Slavery Society sent me to check a report that Papuan under-fives in the Asmat district (South Papua) were dying like flies — six out of ten were dying. The report was correct.

Hardly any benefit at all
“We’re dealing with a people about whom very little effort to understand has been made. It has been claimed that the indigenous inhabitants of Papua should be grateful that so much money is spent . . . but the benefit they receive (as a percentage of the intended amount) is hardly any benefit at all.”

The Indonesian government says it has allocated more than Rp 1,036 trillion (A$106 million) in the past eight years for development (mainly roads) in a bid to appease self-government demands. That’s a tiny sum against the income.

The Grasberg mine in Central Papua has “proven and probable reserves of 15.1 million ounces of gold”. If correct that makes it the world’s biggest gold deposit.

It is run by PT Freeport Indonesia, a joint venture between the Indonesian government and the US company Freeport-McMoRan.

Dr Poulgrain claims gross revenue from the mine last year was about A$13 billion:

“We can be sure that the immense wealth of gold was a crucial influence on the sovereignty dispute in the 1950s and still influences the politics of Papua and Indonesia today.”

Despite the riches, Papua is reportedly one of the least developed regions in Indonesia, with poverty and inequality levels up to three times above the national average of 9.5 percent, as calculated by the Asian Development Bank.

In 1962 control of the Western half of the island of New Guinea, formerly part of the Dutch East Indies, was temporarily run by the UN. In 1969 it was ceded to Indonesia after a referendum when 1025 “leaders” hand-picked by the Indonesian military voted unanimously to join Jakarta.

‘Act of No Choice’
It was labelled an Act of Free Choice; cynics called it an “Act Free of Choice”, of “Act of No Choice”.

Historian Dr Emma Kluge wrote: “West Papuans were denied independence also because the UN system failed to heed their calls and instead placed appeasing Indonesia above its commitment to decolonisation and human rights.”

Pro-independence groups have since been fighting with words at the UN and at first with spears and arrows in the Highland jungles. Some now carry captured modern weapons and have been ambushing and killing Indonesian soldiers and road workers, and suffering casualties.

In February the West Papua National Liberation Army (TPNPB), the armed section of the umbrella Organisasi Papua Merdeka (OPM, Papua Freedom Organisation), kidnapped NZ pilot Philip Mehrtens and demanded independence talks for his release.

After searching for six months the Indonesian military (TNI) has so far failed to free the Kiwi.

The OPM started gaining traction in the 1970s. Indonesia has designated it a “terrorist group” giving the armed forces greater arrest and interrogation powers.

Amnesty International claimed this showed Indonesia’s “lack of willingness to engage with the real roots of the ongoing conflict”, although it failed to pick apart the “roots” or offer practical solutions.

Journalists are banned
Communications in the mountains are tough and not just because of the terrain. Cellphone signals could lead to discovery. Journalists are banned. Requests for entry by this correspondent were given verbal OKs but are now ignored.

The only news comes from Christian pastors smuggling out notes, and statements from different West Papua freedom movement factions like the United Liberation Movement for West Papua (ULMWP).

This is chaired by Benny Wenda who lives in exile in the UK. In 2003, he was granted political asylum by the British government after fleeing Indonesia while on trial for leading an independence procession.

He has not backed the kidnapping of Mehrtens. The pro-independence movement’s failure to speak with one voice exposes their weakness.

Earlier this year, Wenda was in Fiji where Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka pledged support and more recently Vanuatu has been seeking support for Papua independence through the Melanesian Spearhead Group formed in 1998.

The lobbying is angering Jakarta, a major donor to the region. Papuans identify as Melanesians and are mainly Christian. The Indonesian delegation walked out in Port Vila when Wenda got up to speak.

Indonesia’s deputy Foreign Minister Pahala Mansury was quoted as saying: “Indonesia cannot accept that someone who should be responsible for acts of armed violence in Papua, including kidnappings, is given the opportunity to speak at this honourable forum.”

‘The world is watching’ – it’s a test for Melanesian leaders over West Papua, says Wenda

Could not reach consensus
The ABC reported that the leaders could not reach a consensus, but Wenda told Radio NZ he was confident the ULMWP would eventually get full membership: “The whole world is watching and this is a test for the leadership to see whether they’ll save West Papua”.

PNG’s National Capital District Governor Powes Parkop told Asia Pacific Report: “I am totally disappointed in the failure of the MSG leaders to seize the opportunity to redefine the future of West Papua and our region.

“Fear of Indonesia and proactive lobbying by Indonesia again has been allowed to dominate Melanesia to the detriment of our people of West Papua.”

Curiously Indonesia is an associate member of the MSG though the republic is dominated and led by Javanese. Around two million (0.7 percent) Papuans are Indonesian citizens.

Dr David Robie, NZ-based publisher of Asia Pacific Report, responded: “The MSG has thrown away a golden chance for achieving a historical step towards justice and peace in West Papua by lacking the courage to accept the main Papuan self-determination advocacy movement as full members.

‘Terrible betrayal’
“Many see this as a terrible betrayal of West Papuan aspirations and an undermining of Melanesian credibility and solidarity as well as an ongoing threat to the region’s security and human rights.”

#MSG throws away golden chance to #reset #peace and #justice for West Papua #CafePacific #asiapacificreport #WestPapua #decolonisation @westpapuamedia @westpapuanews @kazukuru #HumanRights @USPWansolwara @BennyWenda @kanakyOnLine @KanakySuport @jubidotcom https://t.co/ukfEb87VCv

— David Robie (@DavidRobie) August 26, 2023

Wenda is not the only emigre: Prize-winning Indonesian human rights lawyer Veronica Koman is wanted by the Indonesian police for allegedly speaking out on violence in Papua.

Like Wenda, she says she does not support hostage-taking.

Koman lives in Australia, works with Amnesty International and says she gets death threats. Her parents’ house in Jakarta has reportedly been stoned.

Just like The Hague’s handling of Indonesian anti-colonialists in the 1945-49 Revolutionary War, Jakarta’s policy has been force. Protesters are dehumanised, tagged as “criminals” or “terrorists”, however mild their involvement, an ancient tactic in warfare making it legally easier to shoot than arrest.

The pro-independence cause gets little sympathy from Indonesians in other provinces. Papuan students in Java have been attacked and suffered racial abuse. Anyone caught flying the Morning Star flag of independence risks 15 years in jail.

Vice-President Ma’ruf Amin has urged the military to “get tough”. At a Jakarta ceremony in June, former President Megawati Soekarnoputri was quoted as saying: ‘”If I were still a commander, I would deploy the number of battalions there. That’s cool, right?”

Battalions will not solve the problem
No, said Dr Poulgrain: “The history of the Papuan people that has become the norm is not correct. This is still a problem today. It’s our perception that’s the problem. Adding battalions will not solve the problem today.”

Dr Poulgrain is a specialist in Indonesian history and an adjunct fellow at the University of the Sunshine Coast and Malang State University in East Java. His interest in Papua goes back to his student years as a backpacker exploring the archipelago.

Dr Poulgrain said his involvement in the debate was as an independent historian seeking a peaceful settlement. After speaking in Jakarta he flew to Jayapura to address a seminar at the Papua International University.

In 1999, when Megawati was vice-president (she is now the chair of BRIN), he was invited to a meeting on Papua with 10 of her advisors:

“They said to me, quite frankly, Papua was a problem they did not know how to solve. I suggested vocational training schools. We started — but the whole educational project stopped when the East Timor referendum established independence. Times haven’t changed.”

In 2018, activists delivered a petition to the UN with 1.8 million signatures demanding an independence referendum. That has gone nowhere. Instead, Jakarta has split West Papua into six provinces supposedly to give locals more say, but to no real effect.

Bolder stance unlikely
An analysis by the Washington-based Centre for Strategic and International Studies concludes:

“As the US and Australia continue to support Indonesia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity in Papua, both administrations are unlikely to take bolder stances.

“International action in the situation is likely to remain limited to the Pacific Islands . . .  Separatist violence, having shown its resiliency to Indonesia’s attempts to control the region, is thus likely to continue.’

Duncan Graham has been a journalist for more than 40 years in print, radio and TV. He is the author of People Next Door: Understanding Indonesia (UWA Press) and winner of the Walkley Award and human rights awards. He lives in East Java and is now writing for the English language media in Indonesia on a permanent resident visa with work rights. This took five years to get using sponsorship through his Indonesian wife. He contributes to Asia Pacific Report and this article was first published by Michael West Media and is republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A bizarre swinging punch towards an academic from a senior management figure at the top of the University of the South Pacific (USP) is underscoring a deepening crisis in the regional organisation.

While it was not vice-chancellor Professor Pal Ahluwalia who threw the punch, its plain the one time Fiji deportee is spectacularly failing USP. With falling student roles, and running out of already badly spent money, the once model of regional cooperation and dreams is heading toward a Fiji road smash.

Much of it will have been Professor Ahluwalia’s fault, but inaction on the part of the current pro-chancellor Dr Hilda Heine carries a burden of liability too.

Professor Ahluwalia has gone into a kind of cone of silence, neither calling the “senior management team” (SMT) for several months, nor dealing with urgent issues.

To those inside the Suva campus, the place seems on remote control. Money is disappearing, and the institution is struggling again to pay its bills. Nothing decisive is happening to rescue the organisation founded in 1968.

While tensions between senior academic staff in any university is not unknown, inside USP it has become deeply hostile. Various allegations are made about staff, and the place has descended into a kind of madhouse.

Professor Ahluwalia occasionally issues emails to criticise those who he thinks is bringing him down. He now directs who gets what jobs and where.

Management ‘explosion’
This seems to have been behind an explosion at one of the last SMTs where a top figure is said to have screamed “bastard” and swung a punch at another academic head. Another senior figure had to break it up.

Professor Ahluwalia took no action and the man who swung the punch has been told his place is safe. Consequently Professor Ahluwalia has a new loyalist in SMT.

The latest events at USP have deep political implications in host nation Fiji, where a new government says it is going to pay its USP dues of F$86 million. The previous FijiFirst government led by Voreqe Bainimarama refused to pay, claiming Professor Ahluwalia and other senior figures in USP were corrupt.

Professor Ahluwalia was kicked out of Fiji and took refuge in USP regional offices in Nauru and Samoa.

With Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka in power in Suva, Professor Ahluwalia has been allowed back.

It may only be a coincidence, or not, that Bainimarama has subsequently been arrested and faces a charge of abuse of office. The charge specially cites his role over USP.

‘Colonial’ research deal
Now it is emerging that some in USP are party to a research deal with India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi (signed in Papua New Guinea) that has a decently colonial feel to it, an endorsement of transferring Pacific resources to India.

It is not what universities are supposed to be doing, especially those set up to advance Pacific people.

While Professor Ahluwalia and Dr Heine — former President of the Marshall Islands who in 2016 made history as the first woman leader of a Pacific Islands independent nation — might hope to cope with the new tsunami hitting them, the reality is that the big donors, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, the European Union and the United Nations, are going to get pretty weary of this endless, destructive childishness at USP.

Michael Field is an independent journalist and author, and co-editor of The Pacific Newsroom. This article from “On The Wire” is republished with his permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A recent cash payment by the state for the release of three hostages held captive by armed gunmen in Papua New Guinea’s Southern Highlands province has set a “dangerous precedent”, says the opposition.

Deputy opposition leader Douglas Tomuriesa said in a statement that the Marape government had set a bad precedent in allowing ransom money to be paid to the kidnappers for the release of the three hostages late last month instead of eliminating the gunmen.

The shadow treasurer said that thankfully the three captives had been set free without any harm but he expressed sadness that such a bad precedent had been set for the country which was likely to spur similar hostage-taking incidents in future.

Tomuriesa said since the hostages were now free, Police Commissioner David Manning must ensure that the culprits would be brought to justice and face the full force of the law.

He said it was “shameful” that the Prime Minister had contradicted his Police Commissioner by initially denying that any ransom had been paid.

“I now demand the Prime Minister tell the truth and reveal the actual amount of ransom paid to the criminals and why a third party was involved,” Tomuriesa said.

One of three women captives was released on February 23 while the other two were released with Australia-based New Zealand academic Professor Bryce Barker on February 26 after K100,000 (NZ$46,000) had been paid, according to one news report.

“If all the government can do is pay ransom to terrorists, then PNG can forget about promoting tourism and foreign investment in the country as investors will view the country as too dangerous.

“By very quickly resorting to allowing payment of ransom money, the government has now realised that the PNG police and military are very ill-equipped to deal with a dangerous hostage-taking situation.

“The whole country will remain at risk unless the gunmen are made to surrender all their guns, including the high-powered machines stolen from the PNG Defence Force armoury.”

Tomuriesa said the government must now seek specialised training and assistance from friendly countries like Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom, or the United States to establish and train a special task force for the PNG police and military.

The special force would need to be capable of undertaking search and rescue operations should similar hostage-taking situations arise in future.

Republished from the PNG Post-Courier with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The look on the faces of their families said it all, as they cried awaiting anxiously for their loved ones who made their way from the aircraft into the airport terminal at the capital Port Moresby.

For the families of the last three Papua New Guinea hostage crisis captives, the nightmare of being held prisoner for an entire week had ended.

The relief was evident across the nation as pictures of two of the three hostages went viral online as they were being airlifted out of Moro in the Southern Highlands province.

The trio named by the Office of the Prime Minister are Professor Bryce Barker, Jemina Haro and Teppsy Beni.

From preliminary reports, all were unharmed.

According to police sources, the trio had been moved several times during the week-long ordeal with the trio and the armed men finally surrounded at Sebese village near Mount Bosavi in the Southern Highlands.

A thankful son and daughter of one of the two women released on Saturday evening shed tears of joy as they waited for the return of their mum.

Hunt continues for 21
For the perpetrators, the hunt continues for all 21-armed men who held eight people hostage before releasing all eight over a week-long crisis culminating in yesterday when the final three were released.

Security personnel, however, will remain in Bosavi for the next few months as they hunt for the men who are alleged to have been the main players in the kidnap and ransom demand.

Police Commissioner David Manning said that the trio were in “good spirits” as he arrived back into Port Moresby.

Commissioner Manning confirmed that security personnel were still in Southern Highlands, saying “we still have unfinished business and we hope to resolve that within a limited time frame”.

He also stated that a “component that required to be paid” was paid.

Prime Minister James Marape said that money was paid — but not “to the tune of K3.5 million” (NZ$1.6 million).

“Criminal enterprise has no longevity, there will not be any negotiations from here on out, you either come out or we will come for you,” Marape said.

Foot bandaged, but happy
One of the two women had one of her feet bandaged, but both women looked to be happy to be back in Port Moresby after their six-day ordeal in the jungles of Bosavi.

Professor Barker, who Marape named, was the hostage from New Zealand, but living in Australia, and has had a long standing relationship with Papua New Guinea and in particular with Gulf province and the Mount Bosavi area.

His release was welcomed by New Zealand High Commissioner Philip Taula who thanked the PNG government and the security personnel for the repatriation of the professor out of Bosavi.

Professor Barker and the two women were quickly transported to Moro where they all underwent medical check before being airlifted out of Moro.

They arrived in Port Moresby at 4.40pm yesterday where they were embraced by their children and were quickly whisked out of the APEC Terminal.

Family members screamed with joy as one of the two women waved at them before they were driven out.

Outside the terminal, there was heavy police presence with Prime Minister Marape saying there was no place in PNG for such armed criminals.

“Police firepower was more powerful and such activities has no place in the country,” he said.

“These people were there to assist the government and the people.”

Miriam Zarriga is a PNG Post-Courier reporter. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Prime Minister James Marape has urged armed captors to free the remaining four hostages which includes an Australian-based New Zealand professor, following the release of a local woman and three local guides.

“These are citizens of our country and a friend of our country. Let’s settle this the Melanesian way,” Marape said.

“We know who you are.”

Marape, who is in Fiji for the Pacific Islands Forum “unity” summit this week, said the full names and pictures of the 13 people involved in the kidnapping were with police.

“[You have] been identified. So release the [remaining] four hostages,” he said.

The armed men, reported to be from Hela, kidnapped the seven researchers and guides on Sunday for a cash ransom at Fogomaiyu village near Mt Bosavi on the border of Southern Highlands and Hela.

The PNG woman was released with the four local guides.

One guide stays with professor
But one guide chose to remain with the professor, who is a permanent resident of Australia and teaches at the University of Southern Queensland.

The seven included a female staff of the National Museum, a Woman Leader Network member, an anthropology graduate of the University of Papua New Guinea, who is doing field work with the professor, and four local guides.

Marape called on the kidnappers, who were known to authorities, to release the four remaining hostages.

Marape said that the hostages were well.

“We are working with locals in the area as intermediaries to negotiate the safe release of the four,” he said.

Second such incident
Meanwhile, Deputy Prime Minister John Rosso said this was the second such incident to happen in the area.

“It is not an organised crime, but a group of opportunists, who are heavily involved in the guns and drugs trade in the region who are doing this. It was a chance encounter,” he said.

“The safety of the remaining four people still held as hostages remain paramount.

“We are negotiating for their safe release.”

Deputy Police Commissioner Dr Philip Mitna said police were talking to the armed men through intermediaries.

“We are treating the matter as serious,” he said.

Rebecca Kuku is a reporter for The National. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The Post-Courier has exclusively been advised of the release of one of the women held captive by armed men in the Bosavi mountains, Southern Highlands.

Police Commissioner David Manning confirmed with the newspaper that the woman was released yesterday afternoon with authorities working to bring her home.

“The release of one of the Papua New Guinean women is a positive outcome, and negotiations continue for the safe release of the remaining two women and the New Zealand professor,” he said.

The full story will be in the Post-Courier today.

Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Thousands of New Zealand tertiary union members will go on strike at eight universities tomorrow over a cost of living pay demand.

The Tertiary Education Union (TEU) said its members were walking off the job for part of the day at the eight universities in the country.

Union members at Auckland University of Technology initially planned to refuse to enter students’ marks from October 6 to 21, the union said.

However, after the AUT management warned that striking staff would face suspension and loss of pay for two weeks, TEU withdrew the action so that staff would join the Thursday strike instead, a later union statement said today.

The TEU, which has 7000 members, is demanding an 8 percent pay rise needed to keep up with the cost of living.

Each university was negotiating its own collective agreements with the union, but the agreements expired at about the same time enabling a co-ordinated industrial action.

The action announced includes full stoppage between 1pm and 5pm at University of Auckland, University of Waikato and AUT; from 12pm to 4.30pm at Victoria University of Wellington and for shorter periods at three other universities.

There will be rallies at each university and marches and pickets at Waikato and Massey universities.

On its website, the University of Auckland stated it had explained to the unions that it had made an offer that was fair and reasonable and rewarded staff, while retaining fiscal responsibility.

“The university has made a best offer of a 5 percent and 4 percent general revision offer over two years, subject to certain conditions,” the statement said.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A union representing New Zealand tertiary sector staff says a proposal which could lead to massive job cuts at the Auckland University of Technology came completely out of the blue and was a major shock.

Around 230 jobs could be axed as the university suffers a significant drop in international student enrolments, due to the covid-19 pandemic.

AUT yesterday announced it would review administration and support roles and a small number of courses with low enrolments.

Programmes included in the university’s proposal included Bachelor’s degrees in Social Sciences, Conflict Resolution, Japanese Studies, and English and New Media.

The faculty with the highest number of proposed cuts is Design and Creative Technologies, with 50 jobs being axed.

Tertiary Education Union national secretary Tina Smith told RNZ Checkpoint she was shocked and horrified by the depth of the cuts.

“The thing that’s horrific, really horrific, is the numbers of staff that they’re talking about – they’re talking about 150 academic and about 80 general professional staff and that’s full time equivalent, in real numbers, in real people numbers, that could be a lot more.”

Smith said a member who had worked there for more than 20 years told her they had never before seen cuts of this magnitude.

Significant international student drop
Costs had increased, international student numbers had dropped significantly, and it had fewer New Zealand students than last year because more people, including school leavers, were choosing to work instead of study, AUT said.

AUT vice-chancellor Professor Damon Salesa said the proposed staff cuts would reduce spending by $21 million a year.

Smith acknowledged that student numbers would be down next year because students had had a tough time due to covid and there was a workforce shortage.

“So there’s that option for students to go and earn some money instead of study,” she said.

“But what we need to do is encourage people into the long-term futures that will do the best for them and their whānau, which is gaining the real skills that they need to rebuild our economy, this country and for businesses.”

Cutting courses and students was “short-term thinking” and not the right approach, she said.

Smith acknowledged that some courses did have low student numbers but said it was important to keep those staff on board and look at alternatives for them.

Faulty ‘benchmarking’
“One of the things they’re [AUT] using for their rationale is that the percentage of staff of our operating expenses is above the benchmarking of other universities.”

But AUT was a comparatively new university so had higher debt and less reserves than some of the more established universities, she said.

AUT had had a high percentage of lower decile students and had been a good employer in the past, Smith said.

“So why change a formula that worked really well? Yes, it’s going to be a bit of a rocky time – but what you do in a rocky time is you stand together, you hold tight and you say, ‘we’re going to take the long view’.”

It was essential not to lose what made your institution valuable, Smith said.

• AUT made a $12.9 million surplus in 2021, after a $12.3 million surplus in 2020. It has a policy of being the “university of choice” for Māori and Pacific students.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz