Keith Rankin, 21 May 2026 – In 2026, a number of countries desperately need one or two circuit-breakers to trigger an increase in aggregate demand; an increase in spending which can induce both consumer spending and business confidence.

Keynesian economics tells us that the most reliable circuit-breakers are exports and government spending. New Zealand’s exports are booming, and have been for a while. But for New Zealand that’s still far from enough; New Zealand needs a government spending circuit breaker as well.

The United States last year sought to bully the world into buying more American goods. But that hasn’t been a circuit breaker for the United States (but it really boosted China’s trade with other countries), just as Roosevelt’s ‘New Deal’ of the mid-late-1930s was not enough. In that era, the final and successful circuit-breaker was American armament, in 1940 and 1941; armament in support of the United Kingdom in its war against Nazi Germany and also to prepare itself for a possible entry into war against Germany and/or Japan.

From 2023 to 2026, the United States economy is back into a growth phase, dramatically so this year; it’s Keynesian circuit-breaker has – once again – been armament for war. War production in support of others – including Ukraine and Israel – and war production in support of its own foreign adventures. Further, war has proved, literally, to be the killer application which makes AI (artificial intelligence) profitable.

The New Zealand Government this week, seemingly far from producing a circuit-breaking stimulus, has just announced a policy to retrench the public service. (Refer Scoop, Government plans to cut 8700 public service jobs over three years, 19 May 2026.) At first sight, it looks like Déjà vu, all over again; a quick exit to political ignominy for a failed government determined to not learn from the past.

Retrenchment in New Zealand’s past

What in the past was generally called ‘retrenchment’ is today, euphemistically, called ‘fiscal consolidation’. The worst two retrenching Ministers of Finance have been William Downie Stewart Jr., and Ruth Richardson. (Roger Douglas converted to that doctrine, but didn’t practice it to anything like the extent that Ruth Richardson did. Douglas and Richardson subsequently became principals of the ACT Party.)

During the second half of the twentieth century, it was well understood by most bureaucrats and relevant academics that the core political misdemeanour which converted the 1929 global financial crisis into a global Great Depression was government retrenchment.

Retrenchment was a ‘race-to-the-bottom’ policy whereby governments would undermine their own revenue bases in a misframed and impossible quest to ‘balance the Budget’. Undermining the revenue base through spending reductions at a time of already-low consumer and business confidence and already-growing unemployment could only be the height of fiscal folly. In the years from 1926 to 1933, New Zealand had a Minister of Finance who twice brought New Zealand to its economic knees through his ardent and ideological commitment to retrenchment; to a policy supposedly about reducing the size of government, but which actually achieved bigger size reductions to the private sector.

The global crisis around 1931 and 1932 was particularly bad, because the simultaneous retrenchment of almost all capitalist governments had the particularly discouraging effect of collapsing world trade. Government retrenchments and reduced spending on traded goods reinforced each other, creating a particularly problematic downward spiral.

William Downie Stewart Jr was Finance Minister from 24 May 1926 to 10 December 1928, and again from 22 September 1931 to 28 January 1933. During both of those comparatively short tenures, Stewart effectively waged fiscal war on the country. His first tenure as finance minister ended with an ignominious ousting of the Government which indulged his constipatory policies. The second stint ended with an internal putsch of sorts in January 1933 (a dispute around the issue of currency devaluation); a coup driven, ironically, by the man (Gordon Coates) who had been Prime Minister in the 1925 to 1928 government. (In both cases, the economy ‘turned the corner’ after the riddance of Stewart; though it took several years after 1933 to fully recover, meaning that the then proto-National government – led by the hapless George Forbes – was unceremoniously dumped in the 1935 election.)

In like vein, I think we can say that Ruth Richardson was the deserved victim of an internal putsch – a removal that was too slow, though, given that she was still able to do damage in 1994 – instigated by Bill Birch and Jim Bolger. In terms of the popular vote, in the 1993 election, the Left (deservedly trounced in 1990) thumped the Right. If that election had been held under MMP, the result would have been a landslide defeat for a one-term National Government.

Back to the Future

2026 is the future, as seen from 1933 and 1993. Indeed, the framed retrenchment undertaken this week by Willis and Luxon has optics similar to those of 1927, 1932, and 1991. But the then ‘future’ – ie today’s present – is different; subtly but importantly different.

Politically, Ms Willis and Mr Luxon are under pressure from the Treasury, from the New York credit-rating agencies, from David Seymour of the coalition’s Act Party, and from the whiney (but economically sub-literate) journalists whose first question is inevitably “where’s the money coming from?”.

Sending public servants down the road – and replacing them with bots – may be good optics for this kind of staunch masculine fiscal politics. But, to get re-elected, the government needs the circuit-breaker mentioned above. In economies, as in prostate science, flow works better than constriction.

So, what has the Government announced? Ahead of next week’s Budget, they have committed to more than a billion dollars of extra spending. That may be the circuit breaker. Here’s the crux of Nicola Willis’ announcement: “Over the next four years these initiatives will deliver savings of $2.4b which will be re-deployed“. Re-deployed when? In 2026, of course! (That is, predeployed rather than redeployed.)

Where will the money come from? From the public service retrenchment promised for 2027 to 2029. The promised retrenchment is in effect collateral for a loan to be drawn down this year, indeed this month. Based upon my reading, the announced public service disemployment probably won’t even happen; it’s like unmined gold used as collateral – alleged gold that will probably remain in the ground.

Labour, if returned to power in November, will almost certainly cancel National’s public servant retrenchment ‘plan’. And National, if returned to power, may simply move on to other policies and conjuring tricks; journalists are so easily distracted by political sleight-of-hand. Money, as always, is an illusion; a set of circulating promises.

Here’s hoping I’m correct; that this fiscal predeployment does represent a long-awaited expenditure stimulus.

About the writer:

Keith Rankin (keith at rankin dot nz), trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.

Keith Rankin, 20 May 2026 – Recently, the New Zealand First Party released its KiwiSaver policy, promising to make this retirement savings scheme compulsory for New Zealand born citizens, and setting them up with a $1,000 startup deposit at birth. (See Winston Peters unveils KiwiSaver-from-birth NZ First policy, bank takeover plan, Scoop, 18 May 2016.)

The New Zealand First Party also promised that no government which they are a part of will be allowed to raise (from 65) the age of entitlement to New Zealand Superannuation, which is New Zealand’s universal pension. The National Party, on the other hand, plans to campaign on a promise to raise that age of entitlement. What National did not confirm or deny, is whether it will raise the age of entitlement for KiwiSaver.

I cannot imagine the age for KiwiSaver entitlement staying at 65 – what today is loosely called the ‘retirement age’ – while the age of pension entitlement is raised to 67 or higher. Requiring people to wait until they are 67 before they can access their retirement savings may prove to be even more unpopular than raising the pension-entitlement age.

But, back to Peters’ KiwiSaver startup plan.

In the last 24 hours I have heard references on RNZ (publicity excerpt from The Panel) and on Stuff News (TV3) to such start-up retirement savings. And how we can all become retirement millionaires on the basis of ‘the miracle of compound interest’.

The RNZ item considered a savings plan – at five percent interest – commencing at age 18, which would result in a lump-sum at 65 of well over a million dollars.

The TV3 item (This KiwiSaver change could give Kiwis a $53,000 retirement boost. It’s gaining high-profile support across the political divide, Damien Venuto, 19 May 2026) goes like this: “If $1000 was invested into an aggressive account for a New Zealander from birth that would compound to $53,000 by the age of 65 even if nothing else was invested. The one disclaimer here is that inflation will eat into that over time, making the buying power of that $53,000 far lower than what it would be in today’s terms.”

Two Examples of ‘Miracle’ KiwiSaver savings

In my first example, I start with $1,000, and put that aside in a ‘conservative account’ which we expect to yield five percent interest per annum. The result, after 65 years (daily compounding), is $20,081. That’s assuming tax-free interest. To get to $20,000 while paying withholding taxes, a gross interest rate – gross yield – of about seven percent would be required.

In the second example, I go for Damien Venuto’s target: $53,000. You would need a net annual yield of 6.62 percent. Venuto claims that this is possible in an “aggressive account”. We note Venuto’s inflation proviso, though clearly Venuto presumes that average inflation over the next 65 years will be well under 6.62 percent.

(Given that inflation compounds in the same way as savings’ deposits do, we can say that, if inflation averages five percent over those 65 years, our savers at birth would end up multiplying their birth ‘investments’ by a factor of 2.65; meaning that, after correcting for inflation, their $1,000 seed deposit becomes $2,650. However, if inflation averages 2.95 percent, the $1,000 starter rises to $9,000 after adjusting for inflation. My best guess is that inflation over the next 65 years will average over ten percent, given both the present state of the world and the demands on goods and services which will arise from baby boomers and Gen-Xers eventually cashing in their private pensions. At ten percent average inflation, the initial $1,000 would be worth just $132 in 65 years’ time.)

Risk and Uncertainty.

If you are looking for a risk-free Saver account, you should be expecting a gross interest rate of about the rate of inflation; that means a net interest rate below the rate of inflation. Otherwise, you have to accept risk (estimable) and uncertainty (unknown unknowns can be predicted, at best, with intelligent guesswork).

If you transport yourself back to 1961 (New Zealand’s year of maximum births, 65 years ago) and try to guess your way to the year 2026, what inflation, yields, and risks would you have predicted?

(Inflation has compounded since then at an annual average rate of 5.3%. $1000 saved in 1961 would have to have compounded to $29,400 in 2026 just to break even. Money passively – yet ‘aggressively’, in Damien Venuto’s sense – ‘invested’ in shares or property would have achieved an excellent long-run return, however. Money in a savings account would have fallen well short of break-even. It’s highly unlikely that the next 65 years will be as favourable as the last 65 years were. What actually happened in the last 65 years was not necessarily the best prediction; you might win a game of roulette, but the best prediction is that you will lose. In 1961, most people would have predicted some kind of nuclear war by 2026; indeed, with hindsight, the chances of such a war in 1962 may have been as high as 50:50.)

In an ‘aggressive account’, there are many associated risks. The essential difficulty relates to the fact that the returns are principally capital gains, which may or may not occur, and may or may not be taxed.

Capital gains are largely self-fulfilling in economies with a high degree of inequality, because those people with lots of money tend to use it to buy and sell financial assets from and to each other, boosting the prices of those assets in a financial merry-go-round. This situation can go on for a long time, though never forever. The break happens when more than a few people want to cash in their inflated financial assets at the same time; and such ‘corrections’ are almost certain to happen with rapidly aging (‘first world’) populations in the ‘global north’. After all, much of this money is in pension funds and sovereign wealth funds, which are both going to come under extreme pressure when those older persons seek to spend their savings (and require more services); savings which individual savers cannot take to the grave. And, while sovereign nations may not have an imminent grave, their Treasuries have certain expenditure obligations towards their aging populations, and towards the younger people struggling to support the older people.

While investment yields can be real, capital gains by their very nature are largely illusory, dependent on most of the ‘invested’ funds not being withdrawn. These financial assets will largely disappear in the event of another ‘levelling event’, such as the Great World War of 1914 to 1945; noting that that event included the Great Depression, part of the levelling process.

Who Pays the Interest?

Whenever we hear about the magic of compound interest, we hear very little about who pays that interest. Let’s start with a static, non-growing economy. This may be called the ‘zero-sum’ case.

In such an economy, interest (unless the interest rate is negative) represents an unrequited flow of money from debtors to creditors. In the twentieth century world, when it wasn’t at war, that largely meant from private businesses investing in growth to private savers ‘investing’ in financial assets. Governments tended towards balanced budgets from 1950 to 2000, so were more on the financial sidelines than they are today.

In the twenty-first century world, the debtors are mainly small businesses, relatively poor households, and governments. (In some but not all cases, the same governments which have trillion-dollar sovereign wealth funds.) There are other situations, especially around large leveraged ‘investments’, where interest is paid by the very rich to the very rich; these situations ‘net out’, so can be ignored when looking for the big picture around systemic interest flows.

Once netted out, the main flows of interest today are from small and medium size businesses and relatively poor households to the richest ten to fifteen percent of households. Interest flows from poorer households to richer households. And from younger households to older households. Further, dwelling rents constitute a form of interest; they represent a yield paid to landlords by tenants. The words ‘interest’ and ‘yield’ are close synonyms.

What this tells us is that it’s impossible for all of us to benefit from the ‘miracle of compound interest’. Every dollar of interest received must be paid by someone. It also tells us that one of the risks associated with the miracle is the possible default – or bankruptcy – of a smaller or larger proportion of interest payers.

An interesting finding in New Zealand in the late-2000s, when finance companies were going broke, was that there were actually two types of finance company. One was mainly financing property investments, and the interest payers were relatively affluent people. This type of finance company – eg Hanover – failed during or prior to the global financial crisis (GFC) of 2008 to 2009. The second type of finance company were funding distress loans to the poor; they continued to thrive through the GFC. The poor struggle on, conscientiously.

Looking at this second type of finance company, we can see the emergence of a new ‘lower working class’ – many of them denizens rather than citizens of the countries they live and work in – who may be considered to be ‘debt slaves’ or something close to it. In that sense, the lucky Kiwi Savers are enjoying their credit miracle (in the cases when that miracle is not a mirage) at the expense of a global proletariat of debt slaves.

Now consider economic growth, real and nominal. Real economic growth is the ‘positive-sum’ case.

The standard growth story about ‘who pays the interest’, is that the savings are’invested’ in businesses that are creating economic growth. In this story the creditor ‘passive investors’ – the Kiwi Savers – and the debtor ‘active investors’ (small, medium and large businesses) are both receiving the yields arising from the societal process of economic growth. The yields are the increased amounts of goods and services made available through the growth process.

That’s real growth; indeed, exponential real growth. However, high-paced real growth can never go on forever. Eventually – later or sooner – it must crush the planet through depletion, waste, and (probably) the ‘laying waste’ of warfare.

If we don’t have indefinite real growth, we return to the ‘zero-sum’ case discussed above.

Now consider the forms of the nominal economic growth case. This is when apparent economic growth turns out to be inflation. This is benign compared to the zero-sum case outlined above, because inflation erodes both debts and savings. So, it means that the flows of interest from the poorer debtor community to the richer creditor community become sustainable, because these flows are always being ameliorated by inflation.

In the extreme form, the nominal economic growth case is a zero-sum case, because there is no real economic growth. In a less extreme form, there is a mix of some real growth and some inflation. This is probably the optimum. Modest real economic growth is sustainable if it does not intensely use non-renewable resources. And some inflation addresses the debtor-creditor inequity that the miracle of compound interest is predicated on.

In this relatively optimal case, interest rates will on average be approximately equal to the inflation rate. So the miracle of compound interest disappears. If interest approximately equals inflation, then $1,000 today will buy approximately the same amount of stuff in 65 years’ time. And that’s what should happen; we should save when we have a relatively high income, and withdraw our savings when we have a relatively low income. No interest, on balance. We should not kid ourselves that simply sitting on a nest-egg of magic money is going to make us fabulously rich!

Finally

There is another case where the debtor-creditor relationship becomes too exploitative, and when that broken relationship induces socio-economic breakdown. The result is a negative-sum game, whereby everyone – or just about everyone – loses.

Anyone trying to play the compound interest miracle game should understand that they are trying to get something for nothing; that they are playing the role of ‘exploiter’. Capitalism as we know it is a game of exploitation; indeed, low levels of ongoing exploitation can be sustainable.

Under our present order, of liberal private capitalism, the best possible option is a mix of low inflation and low sustainable growth based on renewable resources and accumulation of benign knowledge. Keeping this balance is a bit of a tight-rope walk. Today too many of us have slipped on the rope, and are hanging by our fingers. The more people who slip, the more the tight-rope wobbles, leading ever more people to slip in their wake.

There is a better capitalist order; a more democratic more sustainable form of capitalism which fully incorporates public equity – public property rights alongside private property rights – with appropriate public equity dividends to stem the growth of income inequality. This is consistent with a balanced mix of sustainable growth and sustainable inflation. It is not consistent with interest-rate exploitation.

In the meantime, why do we look kindly upon compound interest alchemists while lampooning conspiracy theorists? The worst offenders in both groups are equally bogus.

About the writer:

Keith Rankin (keith at rankin dot nz), trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.

On Saturday, Trump took revenge on Louisiana Senator Bill Cassidy for Cassidy’s vote five years ago to convict Trump, in his second impeachment, for instigating an attack on the US Capitol.

Cassidy thereby became the first GOP senator defeated by a Trump-endorsed candidate in a Republican primary. (Other Republican senators who have stood up to Trump — such as North Carolina’s Thom Tillis and Utah’s Mitt Romney — saw the writing on the wall and didn’t seek reelection.)

Trump’s purge of Cassidy comes in the wake of Trump’s purges of House Republicans who stood up to him, such as Wyoming’s Liz Cheney.

Trump’s next Republican target in the House is Kentucky representative Thomas Massie, who had the guts to oppose US military involvement in Iran, demand release of the Epstein files, and criticise Trump’s spending bills for adding to the national debt. Massie appears likely to be defeated by a Trump-backed opponent in Tuesday’s Kentucky primary.

Trump is marshaling the full force of his MAGA machine — spending more than $30 million on a House Republican primary — to purge another of his political enemies from the Republican House. Even Secretary of “War” Pete Hegseth is flying to Kentucky to campaign for Massie’s challenger.

It’s all seen as an investment in intimidating and disciplining Republican office-holders who might otherwise think of straying.

Trump has also purged state legislators who have refused to do his bidding, such as the seven Indiana Republicans who refused to redistrict the state as Trump demanded they do, and who Trump insured were defeated in their recent primaries.

The message is clear to every current or aspiring Republican politician: Be a toady to Trump, or you’re out.

In his concession speech Friday night, Cassidy stated the obvious reference to Trump:

“Our country is not about one individual. It is about the welfare of all Americans, and it is about our Constitution.

“And if someone doesn’t understand that and attempts to control others through using the levers of power, they’re about serving themselves. They’re not about serving us. And that person is not qualified to be a leader.”

Nicely put but sadly irrelevant because Trump — who’s clearly serving himself rather than the American public — now possesses all levers of power in the official Republican Party.

As Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said yesterday on Meet the Press, “There’s no room in this party to destroy [Trump’s] agenda.”

Former generations of Republican politicians had principles, beliefs, ideals. They thought the federal government too large. Or believed it spent too much money. Or was too lenient on criminals. Or was too eager to support the civil rights of Black people. Or any number of issues with which Democrats disagreed.

Today’s Republican Party no longer has any purpose other than achieving whatever Trump wants, which is mainly to make Trump richer and more powerful. The GOP is now Trump’s; it is no longer America’s.

Today’s Republican voters, by contrast, are showing increasing frustration with Trump. Those who think of themselves as traditional Republicans don’t like Trump’s expansive use of federal power. Those who are fiscally conservative, like Thomas Massie, are upset by Trump’s wanton spending, tax cuts, and soaring debt.

“America-first” Republican voters are concerned about Trump’s intrusions into Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, and elsewhere. And they want the rest of the Epstein files released.

Yet for elected Republicans, survival now depends on personal loyalty to Trump.

All of which raises a fundamental question: Has the official Republican Party — now nearly purged of anyone willing to reflect the concerns of Republican voters rather than Trump’s will — become complicit in Trump’s criminality? Is it aiding and abetting Trump’s lawlessness?

A case can be made that the official Republican Party is indeed complicit.

For Trump, the first and most basic sign of loyalty to him — and therefore survival as a politician in Trump’s Republican Party — is a willingness to publicly proclaim as truth what we know to be two big lies: that Trump won the 2020 election, and that he did not seek to overturn its results by illegal means. As a result, almost all congressional Republicans are now election deniers.

Trump has also made it clear that loyalty to him bars any criticism of his unlawful immigration dragnet, which has so far resulted in the murders of three US citizens by ICE agents and the detention and deportation, without a hearing, of people suspected of being in the US illegally.

To Trump, loyalty requires full support of his foreign policy — including the abduction of a foreign leader, an undeclared war with Iran, and the killing on the high seas of people only suspected of smuggling drugs, in violation of international law.

Loyalty also demands unquestioned support for other of his lawless acts — using the Justice Department to prosecute his political opponents, building a mammoth White House ballroom, issuing no-bid contracts to his friends, promoting his family’s businesses and implementing policies favorable to them, accepting gifts from foreign powers, and defying court orders.

Is it fair to conclude from all of this that today’s official Republican Party — the people who are in office because Trump has put them there, or who maintain their office because they back whatever Trump wants — has in effect become a criminal organisation, analogous to the mafia or a drug cartel, whose members are blindly loyal to their criminal bosses?

Robert Reich is a US professor, former Secretary of Labor, co-founder of Inequality Media and writes at robertreich.substack.com

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

ANALYSIS: By Trita Parsi

The Middle East is once again teetering on the brink as Trump appears poised to reignite war with Iran.

Press reports indicate he will convene military advisers on Tuesday, though my understanding is that both the meeting and the decision are likely to come sooner.

Over the past several hours, Trump has flooded Truth Social with a barrage of incendiary threats. While some of this may be theatrical brinkmanship designed to force Tehran into submission, sources in the Iranian capital tell me they expect the United States to resume hostilities within the next 48 hours.

We should first recognise that restarting the war amounts to an admission that Trump’s previous escalatory gambit– the blockade of the blockade — has failed. That, in turn, was itself an admission that the war had failed. Which was an admission that the threats of war in January had failed.

As I have argued before on my Substack, this relentless search for an escalatory silver bullet capable of bringing Iran to its knees is not unique to Trump; it has become a defining pathology of American Iran policy for decades.

Although negotiators have made meaningful progress on several fronts, talks have thus far failed to produce an agreement, largely because of irreconcilable differences over Tehran’s highly enriched uranium stockpile. And as Washington has come to realise that the blockade is backfiring, a new and dangerous dynamic has emerged: both sides now believe another round of fighting will strengthen their hand in the negotiations that follow.

As I argued in numerous interviews in January, Trump dramatically underestimated Iran’s strength, while hardliners in Tehran believed war would strengthen Iran’s leverage by exposing the illusion of Iranian weakness.

Vindicated assessment
In their view, the outcome of the conflict vindicated that assessment, leaving them increasingly confident — even emboldened — about what a second round of war could yield. I am told the new Supreme Leader belongs to this camp.

Moreover, just as Tehran believes Trump intends to prosecute the next war with far greater ferocity, Iranian planners are preparing a far more expansive and punishing retaliatory campaign, complete with new strategic objectives and targets.

First, Iranian officials increasingly describe the next war as an opportunity to inflict maximum strategic damage on the United Arab Emirates, citing Abu Dhabi’s active role in the previous conflict, its deepening and increasingly overt partnership with Israel, and its role in urging Trump to resume hostilities.

Tehran is likely to target American data centers in the UAE, a move that serves multiple purposes. Iranian officials argue that these American technology firms have already become participants in the conflict through their support for the Pentagon.

At the same time, Tehran sees an opportunity to cripple the UAE’s ambitions to become a global artificial intelligence hub — and, in doing so, potentially undermine Washington’s AI competition with China.

This points to a second defining feature of Iran’s strategy in a future war. Tehran believes Trump and his family hold financial stakes in many of these same technology ventures.

Targeting Trump’s personal business interests is a lever Iran conspicuously avoided pulling during the first conflict but now appears increasingly willing to use.

Logic straightforward
The logic is straightforward: Trump may tolerate damage to American strategic interests, but he is acutely sensitive to threats against his own financial empire. Raise the personal cost to Trump himself, the reasoning goes, and he may prove more willing to adopt a realistic negotiating position.

Third, Tehran is likely to show far less restraint if evidence emerges that other Gulf Cooperation Council states permit the United States or Israel to use their territory or airspace in a renewed conflict. The result would be broader and far more perilous horizontal escalation, with potentially catastrophic consequences for the global economy should critical energy infrastructure come under attack.

Fourth, the Red Sea is now in play. That would dramatically widen the geographic scope of the conflict while placing even greater upward pressure on already volatile oil prices.

Finally, Tehran is increasingly examining the possibility of severing the major submarine fiber-optic cable networks running beneath the Persian Gulf — arteries through which most GCC internet traffic flows, including billions of dollars in financial transactions. Iranian officials increasingly view this as a potential second Strait of Hormuz: a powerful new point of leverage capable of disrupting the global economy at enormous scale.

Renewed war is not inevitable. But when both sides convince themselves that another round of fighting will strengthen their negotiating position, the gravitational pull toward conflict becomes dangerously strong — however irrational the logic may ultimately be.

Trita Parsi is an Iranian-Swedish political analyst and foreign policy scholar specialising in Middle East geopolitics and US-Iran relations. He is the co-founder and executive vice-president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and founder of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC). Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The eighth floor of the Tempo building in Jakarta became the setting for a gathering rich with meaning.

What brought together community leaders, politicians, academics, religious figures, journalists, and the family of the late Thom Beanal was not merely a book launch. It was an earnest attempt to revisit the essence of struggle, leadership, and hope for the land of Papua.

The event, which took the form of a discussion and review of a three-volume book series on Thom Beanal, opened with greetings in multiple traditions — from an Amungme war cry to salutations representing all major tribes in Papua.

That gesture alone reflected the very spirit of the man being honoured: a leader who embraced diversity and respected every single man and woman.

The gathering coincided with three historic moments, making it even more significant.

First, it marked exactly 27 years since Thom Beanal, standing before President B. J. Habibie, boldly expressed the heartfelt desire of his people. With courage and clarity, he called for recognition as a nation that wanted to cooperate honestly, peacefully, and democratically.

Second, the event served as a memorial, three years after Beanal’s passing — a man who left a deep imprint on the struggle of Indigenous Papuans.

Third, it celebrated the culmination of two years of work by a writing team, resulting in a trilogy that chronicles the journey of a lay pastor, a tribal chief, and what many now call a “father” to the indigenous Papuan.

From lay pastor to Indigenous defender
Thom Beanal was no ordinary leader. Born on 11 July 1947 into the Amungme tribe in Timika, he completed his education from primary school to a Catholic theological academy, then served as a catechist teacher in Wamena and Paniai and as a lay pastor in several parishes.

Yet behind his calming smile and disciplined demeanour lay a profoundly thoughtful mind.

Witnessing firsthand the human rights abuses and ecological destruction caused by PT Freeport Indonesia, Beanal resigned from his pastoral duties. He felt a more urgent calling: to defend indigenous communities whose lands and lives were being uprooted.

In 1994, he founded LEMASA, the Amungme Traditional Deliberative Council, as a vehicle for indigenous advocacy. Two years later, he took an audacious step — suing Freeport in a New Orleans court. That legal action set a precedent: for the first time, a Papuan had dared to take on a multinational giant on foreign soil.

His fight did not stop there. Beanal went on to push for a one percent allocation of mining revenue for affected communities. Although limited in scope, that achievement brought a measure of justice to people who, for decades, had borne the negative impacts of mining without enjoying the wealth of their own land.

Reform era and a unique role
Entering the reform era, Beanal’s role expanded. Together with other Papuan figures and students, he helped establish FORERI, a forum that channelled Papuan aspirations during the early wave of reform.

When the Papuan Council (Dewan Papua) was formed in 2000, he served as its vice chairman. He later became chairman of the Papuan Traditional Council from 2002 to 2007. Remarkably, President Abdurrahman Wahid — known as Gus Dur, a leader with genuine concern for justice in Papua — appointed Beanal as a commissioner of PT Freeport Indonesia.

Serving until 2018, Beanal found himself in a unique position: an indigenous rights fighter sitting on the board of the very company he had long opposed.

Yet despite those strategic roles, speakers at the book launch event described Thom Beanal as a humble man, disciplined and rich in metaphor. He never offered instant answers.

Instead, he opened spaces for collective reason to search for truth. In every balance of history, he arrived precisely when the Papuan people were not in a good state. And sadly, three years after his passing, the reality facing Papua remains far from encouraging.

A grim reality for Papua today
The presentations at the Tempo building painted a grim picture. Terms like genocide, ecocide, and ethnocide were mentioned as ongoing threats to Indigenous life. Papua’s gold and other natural resources, it was argued, remain mortgaged until 2061 under a contract deemed uncivilised because it ignores the basic rights of the customary landowners.

Suffering, the speakers said, is still the daily bread of Papuans. It is against this backdrop that the three books on Thom Beanal were written — not to lament the past, but to read the present clearly and to weave solutions for the future.

The 47 contributors to the third volume, divided into six sections, provided reflections and testimonies that enrich the books. They came from diverse backgrounds: family members, prominent figures of the Amungme tribe, academics, activists, and religious leaders.

The head of the writing team, Markus Haluk, expressed his highest appreciation to everyone who supported the two year process. Moral support and advice from religious, traditional, and political leaders were cited as a key source of strength.

Special thanks were directed to the book’s reviewers, including Dr Budi Hernawan, Dr Suraya Afiff, Yorrys Raweyai, Inayah Wahid, and Emanuel Gobay, for their critical engagement with the content.

Six strategic demands for the future
More than a launch, the event became a platform for six strategic recommendations and hopes. First, the books should serve as historical source material and references for young Papuans and the wider public. The concern that the struggles of national figures might vanish with time underscores why documentation and dissemination are so urgent.

Without conscious efforts to write and spread the stories of past heroes, dark chapters could repeat, and the sacrifices of predecessors might become meaningless.

Second, the book launch was not meant to be a time for complaining or blaming one another. Instead, it is time to speak honestly about Papua’s current realities and then collectively formulate comprehensive, strategic solutions.

This constructive mindset is a legacy of Beanal’s way of thinking — seeing problems as challenges to be solved, not excuses for despair.

Third, participants were called to continue the prophetic voice exemplified by several great figures. Mentioned were bishops such as Monsignor Staverman, Monsignor Monninghoff, Monsignor Laba Ladjar, Monsignor John Philip Saklil, Father Neles Tebay, Monsignor Yanuarius You, and Monsignor Bernardus Baru OSA.

Among executive leaders, two presidents known for their deep concern for Papua — B. J. Habibie and Gus Dur — were hailed as models of dignified, peaceful struggle. The goal is noble: to save the people, culture, and natural world of Papua, which remains the last remaining lung of the Asia Pacific region. Achieving this requires genuine solidarity across sectors and religions.

Fourth, a firm call was directed at the Indonesian government, especially President Prabowo Subianto and relevant ministers: stop the mortgaging of Papua’s natural wealth, stop the gold theft, and stop the destruction of the universe that is the Papuan people’s home.

The contract binding Papua until 2061 is seen as a form of structural injustice that must be corrected. Rejection of all forms of natural resource pledging for the benefit of a few — especially to foreign parties — was voiced loudly before dozens of attendees.

Fifth, recognition of and respect for the rights of the Papuan people over politics, land, natural resources, and human dignity are non negotiable demands. The threats of genocide, ethnocide, and structural violence must be halted immediately. The absence of genuine recognition of these basic rights has been the root of decades of conflict and suffering in the land of Papua.

Sixth, and perhaps most fundamental, is the call to build honest, peaceful, and democratic negotiations between the Papuan people and the Indonesian government. This is not a new idea. It is precisely what Thom Beanal himself voiced when he stood at the State Palace on 26 February 1999.

He laid before the president the sincere desire of his people, offering equal dialogue based on honesty and peace. Twenty seven years later, the same call must be repeated — proof that a massive homework assignment still lies before the Indonesian government.

Continuing the struggle, not grieving
The subsequent discussion session opened the floor for strategic ideas from participants. The emphasis was that this gathering was not for grieving or lamenting fate, but for continuing the struggle. Attendees were encouraged to step out of their comfort zones and contribute according to their capacities.

An academic might contribute through critical research, a journalist through balanced and in-depth reporting, a politician through pro-people policy advocacy, a religious leader through moral and spiritual reinforcement, and an artist through works that raise awareness.

The event closed with a beautiful, touching metaphor drawn from Thom Beanal himself. He once reflected on the rain that welcomed his funeral in Timika. In his poetic logic, he hoped that the words spoken by those who continue his struggle would water the still thirsty soil of the fight.

The land of Papua, with all its natural wealth and cultural diversity, has long been like an arid field waiting for the rain of justice, recognition, and respect from the wider Indonesians.

A test of national commitment
The gathering at the Tempo building ultimately served as a test of Indonesia’s national commitment. Do we truly want to learn from a figure like Thom Beanal? Can we draw wisdom from the journey of a lay pastor who left his religious duties to pursue social justice? Do we have the courage to admit that for decades, systematic structural injustice has occurred in Papua?

And most importantly, do we possess the political will to stop all forms of exploitation and violence, and to build equal, dignified dialogue?

The trilogy on Thom Beanal, launched that day, is not merely a collection of stories from the past. It is a mirror for understanding today’s reality, and a compass for stepping into the future. It is a document of courage from a child of the nation who chose not to remain silent, despite great risks.

It is a legacy for young Papuans so they do not lose their historical roots, and for young Indonesians outside Papua, so they do not lose empathy and a sense of justice.

In the end, the gathering affirmed that Thom Beanal’s struggle is unfinished. His legacy still needs many hands to carry it forward. Amid threats of genocide, ecocide, and various forms of structural violence, prophetic voices like those modelled by the bishops, priests, and presidents who dared to side with justice are still desperately needed.

Will the Indonesian government listen? Will today’s leaders — including President Prabowo Subianto and his ministers — respond to the call to stop mortgaging natural wealth and to start honest, democratic negotiations? These questions still hang in Jakarta’s hot air, while in Timika, the rain may continue to fall, waiting for the words that can water the still thirsty land.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The Solomon Islands has entered a new political era. In a historic morning at Parliament House yesterday, Matthew Cooper Wale was elected as the nation’s new Prime Minister.

His victory marks the culmination of a dramatic week in Honiara and signals a potential shift in both the country’s internal management and its place on the global stage.

Wale, the longtime Leader of the Opposition, defeated former Foreign Minister Peter Shanel Agovaka in a secret ballot, winning 26 votes to 22.

The result was greeted with cheers from supporters gathered outside Parliament, Honiara and around the country, as the 57-year-old leader prepared to take the oath of office before Governor-General Sir David Tiva Kapu.

The road to victory
The path to the premiership was anything but simple. Just eight days ago, the previous government led by Jeremiah Manele collapsed after losing a motion of no-confidence.

For years, Matthew Wale has been the most prominent voice of dissent in the Solomon Islands, often coming close to the top job but never quite reaching it. After falling short in the 2019 and 2024 leadership votes, many viewed Wale as the perpetual runner-up.

However, today’s result proves that his persistence and his message of “breaking the shackles” finally resonated with a majority of his fellow Members of Parliament.

In his first address following the announcement, Prime Minister-elect Wale was humble but realistic.

“We take the government at a difficult time,” Wale told the press. “Change is coming. These changes are necessary, and they may be painful. I ask that you join your government in putting your hand to the plough.”

Profile of a leader
Who is Matthew Wale? Born on 13 June 1968, in Ambu Village, Malaita Province, Matthew Cooper Wale is a seasoned veteran of the Pacific political landscape. Before entering the world of policy and Parliament, he was an accountant — a background that many believe informs his disciplined approach to the national budget.

Wale first entered Parliament in 2008 during a byelection for the Aoke/Langalanga constituency. He quickly made a name for himself as a fiery and articulate speaker. Unlike many politicians who stay in the background, Wale has never been afraid of a verbal scrap on the floor of Parliament.

Over the past 18 years, he has served in various roles, but he is best known for leading the Solomon Islands Democratic Party (SIDP) and acting as the primary check on the power of former Prime Ministers Manasseh Sogavare and Jeremiah Manele.

In late 2024, he was even awarded a CBE (Commander of the Order of the British Empire) for his long service to the public and political life of the country, a testament to his standing both at home and within the Commonwealth.

A vision of ‘economic liberation’
What does a Matthew Wale government look like? Throughout his career, Wale has championed a few core beliefs that he calls his “pillars of change”, “anti-corruption and “elite capture”.

Wale’s most frequent target is what he calls “elite capture” — the idea that a small group of powerful people in Honiara control most of the country’s wealth. He has promised to dismantle these systems to ensure resources reach the rural provinces.

Education and health: A vocal advocate for the “ordinary family”, Wale has consistently pushed for increased funding for hospitals and free, high-quality education. He believes that a nation cannot flourish if its citizens are not healthy and skilled.

Political stability: To end the cycle of “grasshopping” (where MPs switch parties for personal gain), Wale has signaled he will seek to strengthen laws that keep political parties disciplined and accountable.

The ‘China question’ and global relations: Perhaps the most watched aspect of Wale’s new leadership will be his foreign policy. For years, Wale was a staunch critic of the 2022 security pact signed with China, warning that it could “jeopardise” relationships with traditional partners like Australia and the United States.

Tone has evolved
However, as a pragmatist, Wale’s tone has evolved. While he is expected to rebalance the nation’s relationships — likely warming ties with Canberra and Washington — he has acknowledged that Chinese infrastructure is now a reality in the Solomon Islands.

He is unlikely to tear up existing agreements overnight, but observers expect a more “balanced” approach that prioritises Solomon Islands’ sovereignty above all else.

As the sun sets on the nation today, the atmosphere is one of cautious optimism. The challenges facing Prime Minister Wale are immense: a struggling economy, high cost of living, and a deeply divided Parliament.

But for today, the man who spent nearly two decades in the wings finally has the chance to lead. Matthew Wale’s message to the people is clear: the road ahead will be hard, but the destination — a fairer, more transparent Solomon Islands — is worth the effort.

The “Hapi Isles” are watching, and the world is, too.

Campion Ohasio is a Solomon Islands-based self-taught visual artist, graphic designer, and prominent political cartoonist known for capturing South Pacific social issues. He gained early recognition in the 1990s for his work on Uni Tavur at the University of Papua New Guinea and later as a editor for the Solomons Voice. This commentary is republished with the author’s permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

When the Paris-based global watchdog Reporters Without Borders released their annual World Press Freedom Index dossier online three days before World Press Freedom Day, journalists in the Asia-Pacific region were quick to check out their ranking.

Overall the prognosis wasn’t very flattering. No country in the region was ranked in the top 20 of the 180 countries surveyed, and even New Zealand, which has traditionally done well in the past – including even being in the top 10 a few years ago — had continued its downhill slide.

“New Zealand (22nd) remains the region’s model for press freedom, despite slipping six places,” said the World Press Freedom Index report. “Other Asia-Pacific democracies, such as Taiwan (28th), Timor-Leste (30th) and Australia (33rd), face real challenges to upholding the right to reliable information, yet continue to offer broadly protective environments.

“They stand as exceptions in a region where press freedom is being steadily eroded.”

Fiji scored a remarkable 16-place climb to 24th, just two places behind New Zealand, after the scrapping of the draconian Media Industry Development Act in 2023, but this was certainly no grounds to be complacent.

Responding to the rankings and after a woman journalist in Tonga was threatened at gunpoint at Kele’a Voice FM radio station by a jailed-for-life drug gangster’s hooded henchman in Tonga, Pacific Islands News Association (PINA) president Kalafi Moala (himself Tongan and a doyen of Pacific media) declared:

Tongan armed threat against journalist troubles Pacific media freedom

“Threats against press freedom are unfortunately ongoing in the Pacific. The incident in Tonga demonstrates that the enemies of press freedom can come from anywhere — not always the government or those in power, but anyone averse to truth and transparency.

“Whether it is in Fiji, Samoa, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, French Polynesia or anywhere else in the Pacific, media freedom must be protected, advocated for and exercised to the fullest.”

Smear. Kill. Repeat: The constant horror for journalists in Gaza     Video: Al Jazeera

Deafening silence on Gaza
But for all the lively debate and responses across the Asia-Pacific to this year’s Press Freedom Index results, there was a deafening silence and lack of collegial concern from New Zealand to Taiwan about the elephant in the global media freedom room: the unprecedented and chilling wholesale assassinations of Palestinian (and now Lebanese) journalists by the Israeli military forces.

Many of them were targeted and murdered for doing their jobs.

And those still surviving have been risking their lives (and those of their families) day and night while truth-telling to the world with extraordinary courage.

“Under Article 79 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions (1977), journalists on ‘dangerous professional missions in armed conflict’ must be treated as civilians. It is one of the clearest protections in international law,” write Majdolin Hasan and Wadih Sabbagh of the Global Investigative Journalism Network (GIJN).

“Yet in Gaza, their cameras and press vests have become targets.”

Statistics on this Israeli bloodlust are varied, depending on the source and methodology and criteria in compiling the information. According to the latest figures on the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) Gaza database, 264 journalists have been killed, 174 wounded and 107 imprisoned. These figures include war-related killings of journalists and media workers in Gaza, Yemen, Lebanon, Iran and Israel.

“By silencing the press, Israel is silencing those who document and bear witness to what human rights groups and UN experts agree is a genocide. CPJ calls on the international community to hold Israel to account for its unlawful attacks on journalists; ensure international media is given immediate, independent access to Gaza; and open humanitarian corridors for journalists.”

Death toll even higher
Some media counts put the death toll even higher. A United Nations human rights web page, for example, cites UN Human Rights Chief Volker Türk saying in a statement to mark World Press Freedom Day that the situation for journalists in Gaza is a “death trap”.

“Israel’s war in Gaza has become a death trap for the media. My office has verified the killing of nearly 300 journalists since October 2023, with many more injured,” Türk said.

He urged States to investigate all violations against media workers and expressed alarm at the lack of accountability for killings of journalists.

“This year alone, at least 14 journalists have been killed. Over the past 20 years, only around one in 10 killings has led to full accountability,” Türk said.

In January 2024, I wrote an article for Declassified Australia that was already an “early warning” indicator of the growing death toll among Palestinian journalists. My earlier media freedom articles had frequently dealt with the Philippines, which used to be among the worst countries for the killing of journalists.

In the article, “Silencing the messenger”, I also warned against the growing censorship in what was already emerging as the greatest moral issue of our times: “Western journalists taking a stand against their media outlets’ biased coverage of the Israeli war on Gaza are being targeted with career threats and even dismissal. But their colleagues in Palestine are suffering a worse fate.”

I called on journalists to make a stand for truth-telling and in solidarity with their colleagues in Gaza.

Shameful NZ silence
Yet while the silence in the Pacific is perhaps not surprising given the conflicted collaboration of several governments, such as Fiji and Papua New Guinea, on the wrong side of history, in New Zealand it is shameful. At least in Australia, there has been a strong pushback by journalists against the bias in the mainstream, and one independent publication, Crikey, has been publishing a “register” of journalists who have been on paid junkets to Israel and are regarded as potentially compromised.

Media editor Daanyal Saeed wrote: “It’s become clear that a number of Australian politicians and journalists have been on organised tours to the Middle East — many of them sponsored by pro-Israel lobby groups and interest organisations.”

A similar grooming of New Zealand journalists has also been carried out by pro-Israel lobby groups’ “sponsorship” in recent years, but no media has published a comprehensive list.

Is this “captive journalists” phenomena one of the factors for the perceived bias of much of the New Zealand media? John Minto, national campaigns coordinator of the Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA), the largest and most visible advocacy and protest group in the country, agrees: “The large number of journalists here, who should know better, who have taken all expenses paid trips to Israel are part of Israel’s building of a propaganda base.

“Another important factor is the long history of false smears of antisemitism against anyone criticising Israel. Editors think twice about reporting anything showing Israel in a bad light.

“Just last week an RNZ journalist talked on radio about an interview she had done with UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Francesca Albanese, and that the interview would be heard on the Nine to Noon show early the following week. The interview was then advertised to be broadcast on the Monday morning but then never appeared on the programme.

“Pressure from the anti-Palestinian racists in the pro-Israel lobby is the only sensible explanation. Most likely it will simply be buried — along with what’s left of RNZ’s journalistic integrity.”

Limited independent reportage
It needs to be realised too that New Zealand media has a limited independent “international” reportage tradition in contrast to Australia and many other countries. What international coverage with a New Zealand perspective that did exist, largely disappeared after the closure of the country’s only independent news agency, the 131-year-old NZ Press Association cooperative. This shut down in 2011.

Minto blames the narrow range of international news as another factor in why New Zealand media seems so slanted.

“The media industry here takes its overseas content solely from Western news sources such as AP [Associated Press, American], Reuters and the BBC [both British-based] alongside UK and US newspapers such as The New York Times, Washington Post and Daily Telegraph. It is packaged by Israeli sympathisers embedded in senior positions across these outlets and the inevitable result is a stream of pro-Israeli propaganda rather than balanced and accurate journalism.

“The recent analysis by The Intercept underscores this built-in bias in favour of Israel and against Palestinians.”

The Pacific Journalism Review also ran a special edition in July 2024 focused on systemic bias in the New Zealand and some international media. The provocative title theme was “Gaza, genocide and media: Will journalism survive?” and it was aimed at alerting journalists that declining credibility was at stake over this critical moral issue of our times.

Maher Nazzal, a Palestinian New Zealander who is a community advocate and chair of the Palestine Forum of New Zealand, echoes this view.

“Much of the New Zealand media coverage on Palestine has been shaped through Western political narratives and reliance on international wire services that often frame events primarily through an Israeli lens,” he says. “This has contributed to the dehumanisation or invisibility of Palestinian voices, including journalists working under unimaginable conditions in Gaza.”

Courage and professionalism
A good point. The courage and professionalism of Gaza journalists has been widely acknowledged around the globe, including their collectively winning the UNESCO/Guillermo Cano World Press Freedom Prize in 2024, yet NZ journalists seem to be reluctant to recognise this, let alone give statements of solidarity. Why?|

“What Gaza journalists have shown over the past 19 months is extraordinary courage and professionalism,” says Nazzal. “Many continued reporting while displaced, grieving family members, facing starvation, or living under bombardment.

“Some paid with their lives simply for documenting the truth. Their work has become one of the few direct windows into what is happening on the ground.

“Unfortunately, solidarity from many mainstream media institutions in New Zealand has been limited. There appears to be hesitation, fear of controversy, or political sensitivity around speaking openly on Palestine compared with other global conflicts.

“This silence itself becomes part of the problem.”

An independent New Zealand journalist who has been based in the occupied West Bank for two periods during the Israeli war on Gaza — in 2024 for two months and again last year – is also unimpressed with the local reportage.

Video and photojournalist Cole Martin from Ōtautahi Christchurch believes there is a serious lack of understanding in New Zealand media of the context of the structural and institutional violence towards the Palestinians.

“It is a media scene in Aotearoa that repeats very harmful and inaccurate narratives,” Martin says.

“Also, there is this idea to be unbiased and neutral in a conflict, both perspectives must have equal legitimacy.”

Israel regularly condemned
Reporters Without Borders has regularly condemned Israel for refusing to allow journalists from international media into Gaza, except on rare occasions embedded with Israeli military — they saw merely what Tel Aviv wanted them to see.

RSF has joined unsuccessful legal proceedings led by the Foreign Press Association (FPA) at Israel’s Supreme Court to challenge the ban on foreign journalists entering Gaza. It has also file multiple complaints with the International Criminal Court (ICC) calling for investigations into war crimes against journalists.

Minto believes New Zealand journalism is generally embedded with the “built-in bias of Western media” and with very few exceptions local journalists “are as complicit as journalists overseas”.

“I’m the first to admit it’s not easy for journalists to speak up and confront the bias — it’s easier to look the other way.

“Having said that I can’t understand why they would not report on Gaza journalists receiving awards for heroic reporting in circumstances when they know they are on an Israeli hit list. Journalistic solidarity based on fearless reporting which speaks truth to power is sorely missing.”

In general, says Minto, New Zealand journalists wait until Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu or US President Donald Trump make a statement before they report anything on Gaza or Palestine.

“And it’s not just reporting on the genocide in Gaza. Again and again I hear stories from our journalists — particularly in our state broadcaster TVNZ and RNZ — being directed towards reporting stories alleging antisemitism here rather than Islamophobia which is a far greater threat to our social fabric.

“It’s as though we never had a terrorist attack in 2019 which killed 51 Muslim worshippers.”

Media releases ignored
Mainstream news media routinely ignore media releases by Palestinian and solidarity groups.

“They are read by news editors and chief reporters but are otherwise disregarded,” admits Minto. “In fact, pretty much the only time our mainstream media report on PSNA is when we are attacked by the pro-Israel lobby as they did when we opposed Israeli soldiers coming here for rest and recreation from the genocide in Gaza or when we were attacked for ‘selective morality’ by an Iranian supporter of the old despotic Shah of Iran.

“On the other hand, our media releases are avidly read by our supporters and get good pickup on social media.”

While there was a fierce pushback by pro-Israel groups over PSNA’s controversial “Genocide Hotline” in New Zealand media, there was a more sympathetic response by many international media.

In fact, many campaigns in other countries, partly due to the inspiration of the Hind Rajab Foundation (HRF), are going further and actively seeking prosecutions of dual-citizen Israeli Defense Force (IDF) soldiers on rest and recreation to their countries.

The Brussels-based foundation is dedicated to “breaking the cycle Israeli impunity and achieving justice for all the victims of the Gaza genocide” — more than 72,000 people so far, mostly women and children. It was established to honour the memory of five-year-old Hind Rajab who was murdered along with her family on January 29, 2024, in a brutal act of genocidal violence by the IDF.

Hind survived the initial attack, but was left trapped in a car alongside the bodies of her family. Her cries for help were broadcast to the world before being killed by an Israeli tank crew. An investigation found that the car was hit by 335 bullets. The inhumanity of this act has been captured in the 2025 docudrama film The Voice of Hind Rajab.

Hasbara propaganda
The PSNA and other groups have regularly complained to TVNZ and the Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA) about the “appalling reporting” and “systemic bias”, but with little success. At a national hui in Rotorua earlier this month, the PSNA discussed plans to step up its campaign to push back against Israeli disinformation in response to the Knesset’s approval last month of a fivefold budget boost to $730 million for Hasbara — Israeli “public policy”, or propaganda.

In spite of the many obstacles, Maher Nazzal says public awareness about the Palestine struggle has grown significantly in Aotearoa as well as globally: “Community movements, independent journalists, academics, and grassroots organisations have helped challenge dominant narratives and push for more balanced coverage and accountability.”

To improve media coverage, Nazzal would like to see a greater inclusion of Palestinian perspectives, stronger journalistic independence, and willingness to apply universal human rights standards consistently, regardless of who the victims are.

Dr David Robie is convenor of the Asia Pacific Media Network’s Pacific Media Watch project, a former media professor and who previously worked as a journalist and editor with several global news agencies, including Agence France-Presse (AFP) and Gemini News Service.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Most of the Western media refuse to join the dots and explain Israel’s decades-long obsession with defanging Tehran.

The war in Iran is what Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has planned for four decades. He has always wanted Israel to extend from Egypt to the Euphrates and in the process have the United States overthrow seven neighbouring countries, the last and latest being Iran.

That was also America’s plot, hatched by the neo-conservative authors at the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) in 2000. The list of targeted countries, confirmed by US General Wesley Clark in 2007, was based on a proposal published in Israel in 1982.

Ambitious as they were, these long-held intentions have now culminated in the US-Israel war on Iran, which seems sudden but was carefully planned, a former British Ambassador claims.

US President Donald Trump was not “bounced into it” by Israel: it had been in gestation for months, says Craig Murray, Britain’s ambassador to Uzbekistan between 2002 and 2004.

Well in advance, Trump had weapons ordered for fast delivery from Lockheed Martin, naval ships and troops were moved to the Gulf, and CIA and Mossad agitators reportedly stirred up Iranians in several cities, already exasperated by their theocratic rulers and by US sanctions.

If Murray is right, Trump and Netanyahu must have been planning this in their frequent meetings before and since the “12-day war” against Iran last year. Or for longer: Trump has reminded the world that as far back as 1987 he wanted the US to take over some of Iran’s oil, and to go to war for it.

Everything is a ‘deal’
But Trump’s shambolic war shows that he regards everything as a “deal’” and while aggrandising himself, he fails to understand that Iranians don’t accept transactionalism about their country, whoever its leader is.

He appears not to remember that under the Shah, Iran was on good terms with Israel and the US, until the uprising against the Pahlavis in 1979. He doesn’t mention the CIA’s overthrow in 1953 of Prime Minister Mossadegh, who merely wanted to nationalise Iran’s oil.

Instead of understanding Iran and its people, Trump claims to trust his “gut instinct” about the war, and he regularly gets it wrong.

The state of the president’s mental, cognitive and physical health has been raised again lately by his niece Mary Trump, a clinical psychologist. She observes symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease in Trump, and recalls that his father and her grandfather, Fred Trump sr., died with dementia.

Other specialists detect signs of “malignant narcissism”, and note that the President’s repeated threats, exaggerations, and reversals are more likely to be the results of incapacity than of intent.

Still, Trump’s erratic statements keep attention focussed on him, keeping the world guessing and confused, and his narcissistic self on centre stage. For Trump, as for Netanyahu, the personal is paramount. Both of them face coming elections (Trump has to face the mid-terms in November while Netanyahu has a general election before the end of the year); both want to stay alive and out of jail; and the continuing war further enriches them, their families and friends.

Plans for war
Netanyahu’s project derives from the 1982 Yinon Plan, named after its author, an Israeli diplomat, journalist, and former adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. Published in the Hebrew journal Kivunim (“Directions”) as “A Strategy for Israel in the 1980s”, it reappeared in a 1996 policy paper titled “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm”, prepared for Netanyahu by American neoconservative strategists. They also produced their “Project for the New American Century”, advocating a “catastrophic and catalysing event” that would convince Americans of the need for war.

The “Clean Break” document argued that Israel should abandon land-for-peace diplomacy and instead pursue a strategy that would weaken or remove hostile regimes in the region, particularly Iraq and Syria. The goal was not mere military victory but a geopolitical restructuring of the Middle East in Israel’s favour.

In 1997, some of the same people involved with that report established the Project for the New American Century think tank, which produced several major reports, especially “Rebuilding America’s Defences” in the year 2000. It argued for preserving US military preeminence in the Middle East and two other theatres with a “revolution in military affairs” that might be accelerated by a “catastrophic and catalysing event — like a new Pearl Harbor”.

Just a year later on 9/11, such an event occurred, leading Congress quickly to pass the Authorisation for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists, and the anti-terrorism PATRIOT Act.

Track the planning process forward to 2001, and a former CIA operator confirms what many conspiracy analysts have suspected for years: that Israel, together with Saudi Arabia, was potentially informed about conspirators in the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon on September 11 before they occurred. John Kiriakou, a former CIA bureau chief for Pakistan, points to the involvement of the Saudi royal family in Al-Qaeda’s plan.

As well, Kiriakou says that Mossad was thick on the ground on the US east coast in 2001 and Israel knew what was to happen, but did nothing to stop it.

Furious response over Saudis
Kiriakou points to the furious response to Riyadh by US agencies on learning of the Saudis’ dominant involvement in 9/11. It produced three sudden deaths in a week in July 2022: Princes Ahmed bin Salman bin Abdulaziz (in hospital after an operation), Sultan bin Faisal bin Turki (in a car accident), and Fahd bin Turki bin Saud al-Kabir (of thirst in the desert).

The latter two were both in their mid-twenties, while Ahmed was 43. Seven months later Mushaf Ali Mir, Pakistan’s Air Marshal, died in a plane crash in clear weather over the unruly Northwest Frontier province, along with his wife and closest confidants.

9/11 researchers have found out a lot more about what two US “allies”, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, knew in advance of 9/11 and did in support of al-Qaeda. US lawyer Gerald Posner’s account is based on al-Qaeda operative Ali Zubaydah’s claims about his capture and interrogation, and his admissions about his work with Saudi and Pakistani officials.

From Guantánamo Bay, where he has been held without charge for more than two decades, he told Posner that both Prince Ahmed and Mushaf Ali Mir, Pakistan’s Air Marshal, “knew that an attack was scheduled for American soil on that day”. Like Israelis, they did nothing to stop it.

The Report of the 9/11 Commission, which some said was “set up to fail”, read more as a call to arms against al-Qaeda than a forensic criminal report. The GW Bush, Obama, and Biden administrations prevented the US Congress accessing 28 pages from the Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities before and after 9/11.

Eventually released by Biden in June 2016, the pages identified Saudi Arabian diplomats, officials, and members of the ruling family as contributors to preparations for the attacks, but not Israelis.

Yet when US President Bush declared a “war on terror” in response to 9/11, he realised Netanyahu’s aim for the US to attack Israel’s neighbours. And war, says Israeli journalist Gideon Levy, “is always the first option, not the last one in Israel“.

Heavy insider trading was recorded in New York in advance of September 11, including put options on United Airlines, American Airlines, and other related stocks. A majority of those polled by The New York Times in the five years after the attacks on the Twin Towers and Washington thought the government was lying or was hiding something.  Even some staff, investigators, and members of the 9/11 Commission knew that senior military officials and CIA director George Tenet had lied to them, while others’ evidence was suppressed. But their knowledge was excluded from the final report.

Terrorists, neo-colonialists, tyrants and war criminals
This history reveals the need to be sceptical of Washington’s claims about terrorism from 9/11 to today’s war against Iran. “Terror” is repeatedly used as propaganda to manufacture consent for war and to demonise enemies of the West, while what the US and Israel do is “not terrorism”.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 was a war crime, said NATO and its friends: yet the US coalition’s long wars in Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, Somalia, and Syria were not. Russia’s annexation of Crimea, its former territory, was an outrageous land grab: Israel’s annexations of Syria’s Golan and the Palestinians’ West Bank territory were not. Hamas’ breakout from Gaza on 7 October 2023 was terrorism; Israel’s recurrent attacks on Palestinians since 1948 and its ethnic cleansing of Gaza since 2023 were not.

Hamas and Hezbollah’s retaliation and the Houthis’ attacks are terrorism: Israel’s bombing and occupation of Gaza and southern Lebanon are not. Iran’s leaders are murderous tyrants: Israel’s indicted war criminals Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant (both wanted by the International Criminal Court on arrest warrants for crimes against humanity).are not. Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran’s IRGC are designated terrorist organisations: the IDF, CIA, and Mossad are not. The US assaults on Venezuela and Iran, to be followed by Cuba, are claimed to be against terrorism or drugs: in fact they are about who controls oil and makes and unmakes governments.

It does not occur to most Americans and Israelis that their own activities are state terror. Instead, they claim a right to defend US hegemony and all Jews’ right to Eretz Israel and greatness as “God’s chosen people”. Palestinians who resist have no such rights and are called subhuman terrorists, and under a new law, Arab Israelis will be executed for terrorism, while Jewish Israelis are not.

In the 1930s and 1940s, the Nazis made similar claims about the superiority of their civilisation to justify the Holocaust. No wonder some now detect a resurgence of fascism in the US, Israel, and elsewhere. Others observe the sudden rise of anti-Semitism since October 2003.

A growing number expect the US war to fail, leaving Israel to do its worst in Iran and Lebanon.

Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis have been added to Al-Qaeda on the list of designated terrorists. The wars that followed culminate in Iran, labelled by Trump a “terrorist regime”.

Candidate Trump took Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg’s advice to “move fast and break things”. He has done it as president. What ends up broken is now the whole world’s concern.

Dr Alison Broinowski AM is an Australian former diplomat, academic and author. Her books and articles concern Australia’s interactions with the world. She is president of Australians for War Powers Reform. Republished with permission from Declassified Australia.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

While appreciating certain points in Prime Minister Christopher Luxon’s speech “Securing NZ’s Future in a more Volatile World” on current challenges to international law, enshrined “rules” and “order”, we must take a hard look at the solutions he offers to enhance security.

Security now clearly is shaped in a global context. The world’s geopolitical issues affect us all, not just those near sites of military engagement, as wars on Ukraine and Iran show.

So it’s misleading to consider security as simply a national or even regional issue, though people within range of military missiles and drones suffer the most horrendously.

We would agree, as Luxon claims in closing remarks, that we have values worth defending.

What kind of a world and what network of values do we most want to defend? And how can we do this without compromising those same values?

Does anyone really believe that cultural and political values such as democracy are best defended by doubling military spending as he proposes? Or that 20th century national security perspectives and “bomb them to hell” strategies are fit for purpose today, while nuclear arsenals grow month by month, no longer restrained by arms control agreements?

We don’t exist in a defence structure siloed off from a former ally who flouts any semblance of a “rules-based order”. Australia, now our only officially acknowledged defence partner, is closely linked militarily with the US.

Exercises against ‘enemy’
Last year. NZ’s navy joined US and Israel in regular RIMPAC military exercises, to prepare for war against those labelled “enemy”. Judith Collins justified this on the basis that the US sent the invitations; NZ didn’t create the guest list. (Jack Tame interview, The Nation).

Clearly it’s time to weigh up our bedfellows more judiciously, and what values their actions, rather than their words, show they are defending.

It’s hard to see how one defends values like democracy by preparing for war alongside nations whose “Ministries of War” commit and enable genocide in Gaza, threaten to add Canada and Greenland to the US real estate portfolio, and bomb weaker nations back to the Stone Age, while kidnapping presidents of other nations if US corporate interests could benefit.

Luxon is right in stating that this is a historical inflection point, and the way in which we react, along with other nations, will determine “what kind of world comes next”.

How are our values best defended? With weapons and threats? Or by joining like-minded nations to call out all who undermine the values, rules and institutions that endeavoured since the end of World War Two and the United Nations Charter to enhance genuine human security worldwide?

Only ethically grounded values, policy and strategies, supported by inspired multilateral diplomacy and conflict resolution skills, can promote such values and the multilateral order which supported them.

War is a barbaric, blunt tool from a past age which cannot deal with worsening 21st century existential threats which need global collaboration to solve, if most of humanity is to survive the future.

We owe it to our descendants to defend ethical values appropriately to build the foundations of a world that is fit for them.

Frances Palmer is a peace and conflict studies advocate and commentator. She was a SCF nurse in Vietnam and Khmer refugee camps 1975, 1980. Palmer wrote history resources for schools on “Cambodia, Faces of Violence, Hegemony & Holocaust” and “Aotearoa NZ 1980s-1990s, Participation & Resistance to International War”. This article was first published at Scoop.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Keith Rankin, 14 May 2026 – Since the latest Household Labour Force data was released on 6 May, there has been quite a lot of unfocussed chatter about NEETs; young people not in employment, education or training. The standard narrative about NEETs is that they are disengaged young people, especially teenagers, not sufficiently motivated to undertake tertiary education or vocational training in order to find a job.

The latest overall statistic is that 14.4% of New Zealand resident people aged 15-24 are NEETs. In addition, there is an even higher ‘underutilisation rate’. These data are published in an awkward way which makes it hard to mesh them together. And there is a further unmeshed measure; persons aged 15-24 – especially 20 to 24 – who have emigrated.

The real story this year is about young adults aged 20 to 24, not disengaged teenagers. “Women aged 20 to 24 continue to have the highest NEET rate, rising 1.9 percentage points to 20.3 percent in the March 2026 quarter”. This 20.3% is well above the overall rate of 14.4%. The female adult NEET rate has jumped significantly, whereas the male adult rate is lower and has not jumped much this year.

NEETs can be separated into four groups: teenage males and females, and young adult males and females (‘adult’ here being defined as aged over 20). Of these groups, we would expect adult females to be least disengaged. The story that appears to be true is that many if not most NEETS aged 20-24 are young adults who have completed their education or training; rather than being disengaged, these NEETs are educated, trained, often graduated, and raring to commence their careers.

The problem, then, is that we have created an economy which is barely interested in employing our educated youth. This is especially ironic when we keep hearing superannuation scare-stories about how this group of young people will be required to ‘support’ in retirement their huge parental (Gen-X) and grand-parental (Boomer) generations. The statistics clearly show that we are not nurturing this very special cohort, born in the early 2000s.

(Re the underutilisation rates, males aged 20-24 have gone from 11.6% in early 2023 to 18.7% in early 2024 to 19.0% in early 2025 to 21.8% in early 2026. Females aged 20-24 have gone from 17.0% in early 2023 to 23.0% in early 2024 to 22.2% in early 2025 to 25.0% in early 2026. These worsening statistics cannot be blamed on the Israel-USA-Iran war.)

Why Females?

The latest data suggests that tertiary-educated young women are having more difficulty gaining employment than their male peers. Employment outcomes for this age group are very much about employers’ hiring practices.

Economists understand that the perceived labour-cost associated with new hires is all important. This is an age group with minimal work experience, so it means that demographic and educational attributes will be particularly used when making hiring decisions. Statistical profiling – something all employers (including female employers) do, even if they do so with a degree of distaste – is particularly relevant to this age group.

Is the expected cost – a statistical concept meaning the average perceived cost – of hiring young females greater than the expected cost of hiring young males? Especially in the context of very tight business profit margins.

(Differences in expected cost played a huge role in hiring decisions during the Great Depression of the 1930s. Teenage females were cheapest, then teenage males, and then adult females. Adult male joblessness was particularly high in the early 1930s because adult males were the most costly demographic to hire.)

Reasons why young females might be perceived as more costly to employ

Such reasons arise from both statistics and politics.

Individual employers will have access to their own company data. If females in the past decade or so have had a record of leaving their jobs sooner than males, or if they have had a record of taking more sick leave than males, then those records would influence the perceived cost of employing any given female job applicant. Willingness to work overtime – including unpaid overtime – is also something that employers have records of; such willingness, on average, may be different for males than for females.

In the realm of politics, there may be areas of actual positive discrimination – for example, menstrual leave, which exists in a few countries. (See What working women really want: Paid menstrual leave? Stuff 15 August 2023. And of course there are definite examples around maternity leave.) Or perceived positive discrimination; perceived, for example, because pay equity is widely confused with equal pay.

In relation to options like maternity leave and menstrual leave, one way to politically manage these is to offer men similar discretionary leave provisions as those offered to women, to the point that employers perceive the likelihood that a man will take discretionary leave is the same as the likelihood that a woman will take such leave. This, I understand, is the Swedish way. In order to maximise employment of both sexes, the Swedish authorities offer discretionary leave provisions to females and males in equal measure.

Another issue is the sensitivity around the ‘gender pay gap’. (For society as a whole, the ‘pay equity’ argument is that gender-based pay inequity is between occupations, not within occupations or within workplaces.) Such sensitivity is heightened if employers are required to report to some government ministry their firms’ gender pay ratios.

There is one relatively quick way through which employers can make their gender pay ratios more equal. It is to hire fewer young females, giving preference to males. Given that new hires are towards the bottom of employers’ pay scales, having more junior males and fewer junior females will have a significant impact on a firm’s reported gender pay ratio.

Unintended Consequences

The hiring practices mentioned above can all have unintended consequences. Very few employers nowadays – whether male of female employers – believe that it is a good thing to have a gender pay gap. All employers practice ‘equal pay’, as they have been mandated to do since 1972. But employers – under the pressure of legal or moral compliance to achieve one or two key statistics – can end up achieving problematic outcomes for other important statistics.

Is it possible that an unintended consequence of moral compliance in relation to pay equity – of attempts to equalise pay by gender, within firms and other employing organisations – has been to create more young adult female NEETs? It’s a hypothesis that at least deserves to be investigated further.

Of course, there is a wider problem than this female-adverse NEET outcome. There are far too many adult NEETs of both sexes. Our recent governments, through stifling fiscal policies which undermine their own revenue base, have been playing an unnecessary and brutal game of musical chairs; a game in which the odds are stacked against New Zealand’s young adults.

About the writer:

Keith Rankin (keith at rankin dot nz), trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.

Keith Rankin, 13 May 2026 – On 7 May, Al Jazeera ran this alarmist programme about the ‘national debt’ of the United States: US borrowing exceeds GDP: What does it mean for the economy? (And here on YouTube.)

A topic surrounded by so much confusion. (Sigh!) The first problem is that what is commonly called the ‘national debt’ is actually the ‘government debt’. Second, we have the issue of which debt measure to use. By one measure the United States government debt has become equal to the United States gross domestic product (GDP). By another measure, that milestone or millstone was achieved long ago, and is now 123% of GDP. The Al Jazeera programme uses both measures interchangeably.

The programme host – Cryil Vanier, who I usually respect as one of the best news anchors in the world’s television media – commenced his contribution with an easily verified untruth; that is, untrue if using the usual measure of debt as a percent of GDP. He said: “The United States is the most indebted country in the world. Almost every year the United States Government has chosen to spend more than it collects. … The national debt now stands at $39 trillion dollars, exceeding the United States economy … for the first time since World War Two.”

($39 trillion dollars is 123% of the United States’ GDP! That 123% of GDP measure is exceeded by Venezuela, Japan [237%], Sudan, Singapore, Eritrea, Bahrain, Greece [146%], Lebanon and Italy [137%]. Government debt is not an indicator of a government’s economic performance, let alone a cause of poor ‘performance’; noting that the concept ‘performance’ itself is about optics – about theatre – rather than substance.)

Debt is owed by debtors, and owned by creditors. The Al Jazeera programme noted that ‘Japan’ is one of the big three foreign owners of the United States [government] debt. But note, above, that Japan is – among first-world countries – listed as the (proportionately) biggest ‘ower’ of debt. Indeed, Japan sees neither its large ownership of debt nor its large owership of debt as being a major problem; the Japanese economy is a sea of tranquillity compared to many other countries’ economies.

There is a problem though; the one trillion dollar interest bill. That’s unnecessarily large; indeed, that’s a much bigger problem for the United States’ government than for Japan’s government, due to very different monetary policies in the two countries.

The key question to ask about the interest is: ‘Where does the money go?’. It goes from the owers to the owners, of course; but who are the debt-owners who receive most of that interest, and to what extent do they represent the real problem (assuming there is a real problem)? For the most part, the interest-recipient owners – not exactly clamouring for repayment – are more than happy to return the interest to the owers, just so long as it is accounted for as additional debt.

The Al Jazeera programme, using one of the more egregious chart graphics that I’ve seen, shows that “debt has ballooned since the eighties”. Correct, though the chart (commencing around 1800) – not using the correct (logarithmic scale) fails to show earlier balloonings. The chart shows a tenfold increase in the dollar-debt – not the percent of GDP – from 1976 to 1996, and a just a 6½-fold increase from 2002 to 2026; yet the latter smaller jump looks dramatic. At the end of the chart-viewing, we are told that there’s “no plan to actively pay it back”.

Putting aside the one-third foreign ownership of the United States government debt, we can think of the remaining two-thirds – the domestically-held debt – as being owned by the ‘US banking system’ (the banks being a short-cut for what is a rather complex financial system). So, the United States domestic government debt – a liability of the Government – is an asset of the United States’ banking system. As is normal for asset-holders, the banks would rather retain and expand their assets; they would rather not liquidate their assets.

On the other side of the banking systems’ ledger lies the liabilities of the United States’ banks. These are the deposits of American households and businesses. The domestic debt is owned by Americans and owed by the American Government. Bank deposits are assets to depositors, and liabilities (ie debt) to banks. Banks hardly see this debt as ‘bad’ in any sense.

People would rather lend their governments than pay taxes, though most citizens realise that a substantial part of government spending should be funded by taxes rather than debt. A mix of taxes and debt works; it always has. Households and businesses prefer to own some government debt than to fund their governments entirely from taxes. It’s not a problem. Debt’s a solution.

The people own the debt that the government owes (albeit through the intermediation of the baking system). The people do not want the government to repay that debt. They just want the government to pay the interest. The people – the creditors, the debt owners – like it just as it is. The government debt is not a problem for them; rather it’s an income for them, and insurance for them.

What would ‘paying it back mean’?

So, if the government repaid its debt to the banks, the banks would either have to force the people to accept back their deposits, or would have to find other borrowers. In the latter case, some parts of the private sector would have to become substitute debtors, thereby adding much to the financial risk of the citizenry. In the former case, the people would have to accept banknotes – paper money – from the drastically shrinking banks; banknotes that could stand to become worthless.

In other words, if governments tried to pay back their debt, there would be a financial collapse on a scale which would make the global financial crisis seem like a non-event. (There was such a collapse in Romania in the 1980s.)

Looking at it from the point of view of the people, the banks’ creditors – especially consider the Mum and Dad savers. They, and ordinary people like them, are the government’s creditors. The government’s debt is an important part of their savings; indeed, of their retirement savings. Who would like their bank coming to them, saying that the bank’s main debtor (the government, as the banks’ biggest debtor) wants to ‘repay the debt’? So, they would have to take back their deposits; they would have to withdraw their funds; say, half their savings. And, at the same time, each other bank would be saying the same thing to its customers.

There is no clamour from the owners of the United States government debt to have that debt repaid. If anything, there is a clamour from would-be owners of United States government debt for the Government to take on more debt; not less. (In Japan, owning government debt is understood as ‘financial security’.)

Global Financial Balances

We can understand the world’s financial balance sheet, showing the net financial relationship between the two big sectors; the private sector (households and businesses), and the public sector (central and local governments).

Throughout the history of the world, the private sector has been the net creditor, and the public sector the net debtor. A financial balance sheet must add to zero; the net debt owed must be exactly equal to the net debt owned. It is not conceivable that the global balance sheet would have the worlds’ governments – taken together – owning the world’s debt, with the global private sector owing it; except possibly under a global soviet-style communist state, where we could imagine most people being in debt to the government.

The global balance sheet has two (net) components. The first component is financial stocks: assets (owning) set against liabilities (owing); these liabilities represent the global public debt. The second component is about financial flows: surpluses (credits) set against deficits (debits). Both components are, by definition, zero-sum games. Total assets minus total liabilities must equal zero. Total surpluses plus total deficits also must equal zero.

For the world as a whole, the public sector (the fisc) runs the deficits, and the private sector runs the surpluses. It is almost inconceivable that, in any year, there could be a global fiscal surplus, meaning a global private deficit. (In most years there are some countries’ governments which run fiscal surpluses.) This state of affairs is driven by the fundamental drive of private citizens to save parts of their income; if successful on balance, by definition a private sector surplus means a public sector deficit. Basic human nature dictates that there will be a global fiscal deficit, every year.

Public Debt management, in practice

The size of the global public debt, measured (appropriately) as a percent of the size of the global economy, goes up and down over time. This is because there are a numerator (the global fiscal deficit) and a denominator (nominal gross world product, the measure of the size of the world economy, the sum of all countries’ GDPs).

We note that the denominator is a nominal measure, meaning that we are referring to the monetary measure of the size of the world economy, not the production measure. Nominal GWP (gross world product) increases either if world production – global output – increases or if world prices increase. A major reason – but not the only possible reason – for increasing world prices is world inflation.

World public debt increases next year if the world’s fiscal deficit is greater than the increase in gross world product (GWP). Essentially, there are three possible reasons for an increase in world public debt: a big global fiscal deficit, a small (or negative) increase in global output, or low (or negative) world inflation. Commonly, then, rising public debt – as appropriately measured – is a result of slow economic growth and/or low inflation.

Conversely, world public debt decreases next year if the world’s fiscal deficit is smaller than the increase in GWP. Essentially, there are three possible reasons for a decrease in global public debt (expressed as a percentage of GWP): a smallish global fiscal deficit, a largish increase in global output, or highish world inflation. Commonly, then, falling public debt is a result of economic growth and/or inflation.

The most painless route to ‘acceptable’ public debt – what is acceptable is in the eye of each beholder – is through inflation. Far from being ‘economic public enemy number one’, inflation is the market’s method – capitalism’s method – of maintaining healthy and sustainable financial relationships within society. The more that financial relationships are ‘out of whack’, the more inflation is needed to put things right.

(We note that policies to raise the inflation rate are not easy to achieve; in the two decades most famous for such policies – the 1930s and the 2010s – it actually proved extraordinarily difficult to use monetary or fiscal policy to bring about reflation. Cutting interest rates did not achieve the inflation sought. Wars, on the other hand, did achieve inflation in the 1940s and 2020s.)

Of course, an ‘out of whack’ financial community is one with relative losers and perceived winners. A healthy correction restores over-indebted losers to a degree of financial health, and reduces the winners’ excessive winnings. That’s why we are in a battle today between the elite classes (including left [Bidenite/Starmerite] elites and right [Luxonite] elites) and the working classes (including most small and medium businesses).

Class conflict is real. Our political elites – left and right – have a policy bias towards high interest rates and low inflation. Our elites favour an ever-expanding flow of financial incomes from the poorer people to themselves. As debt-owners, they do not want inflation to make prevailing debt relationships more sustainable. (Smart elites might have more foresight than regular elites. Though ‘smart elites’ may be an oxymoron.)

Fiscal probity, its obsession and its distraction

Public debt is presented as a monster; public debt is posed as a fundamental cause of inflation. And inflation is posited as the problem which must be fixed before other problems are addressed.

When in the throes of (usually ineffective) inflation-fighting in the name of fiscal probity, the only thing that the established authorities allow as a distraction is the call to war. For some reason deep in the elite human psyche, financial probity has generally taken second place to the excitement of wars in which the elites become the generals and planners, and the working-classes become the planned.

We can easily see that the United States ‘national’ debt is on an upwards, not a downwards, trajectory; the Department of War can loosen Treasury’s guard-rails more easily than the Department of Health. (This is true in Germany too, with last-year’s partial removal of that country’s debt-brake.)

Wars have always been drivers of public debt; they are inevitably financed by huge fiscal deficits. Intractable wars have also been levelling events, wealth-collapsing events – accompanied by inflation – eventuating in relatively good times for working class survivors.

Elites start wars. Wars finish or diminish elites. Elites are poor learners.

About the writer:

Keith Rankin (keith at rankin dot nz), trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.

Keith Rankin, 12 May 2026 – The outbreak of (Andean) Hantavirus on board the Dutch eco-adventure ship Hondius clearly is a matter of concern; and is not being played well by the experts who tell us one rather soothing thing about it only being transmitted through intimate contact, but then show up in the highest grade of Hazmat suit when evacuating people from the ship.

See this story Where did the hantavirus outbreak start, and where has it spread? from Al Jazeera (11 May 2026) and this Inside Story episode: Should we be worried about the hantavirus outbreak? (Al Jazeera 9 May 2026, and here on YouTube).

We keep hearing about the established history of the virus in southern South America, whereas we need to get a handle on the possibly quite different future of the hantavirus. This zoonotic virus has probably already changed; or it may have found an environment in which it is possible (or even necessary) to behave differently from the way it behaves in its endemic South American setting.

Around 16 minutes into the program, interviewer James Bayes asks: “This particular ship … is not your typical cruise ship. They describe it as an ‘expedition ship, often with scientific, wildlife or geopolitics lecturers on board’. … I am told that the experience of previous passengers is that they have very strict safety protocols because of the places they visit, mainly for biodiversity reasons. Previous passengers have recalled sniffer dogs and having to wear sanitised boots. If it can happen on a ship like that, do you have concerns in general? … Are cruises incubators for disease? Would you go on a cruise holiday?”  (The subsequent answers, by experts, trivialised this important question.)

The Hondius was as sterile as any ship could possibly be. Could the human-human transmission on board that ship be because of that sterility, rather than despite the sterile shipboard environment? In a sterile environment, a virus which has already infected an embarking passenger has no soil or other muck that it can transmit to; rather, the least sterile life-forms available are the other people on board. Hence an unusually sterile environment may be the counterintuitive cause of human-human transmission of a virus which ‘prefers’ other options.

Evolutionary variation of any life-form can arise in three ways: because of selection in favour of one existing variant over another; because of a mutation creating a favourable new variant; or because of a hybridisation of two quite different variants creating a genuinely novel form. The first of these three mechanisms of variation may have been enough to create a humanly-transmissible form of the Andean hantavirus. (We note that Covid19 was significant because it was transmitted by a novel virus; transmission of coronaviruses has been widespread throughout our lifetimes.)

This would be a nightmare scenario. Such a new-variant virus – maybe a novel virus – would still be lethal, would still have a long incubation period, would have an unknown duration of infectiousness before symptoms emerge, and an unknown rate of transmission.

The Black Death in Europe: 1346 to 1353

This historically famous pandemic reduced the population of Europe by about forty percent. It is generally attributed to a disease called Plague (aka Yersinia pestis), which comes in several forms, the best known being bubonic plague. The Plague pathogen – Yersinia pestis bacteria – was identified by Alexandre Yersin and Kitasato Shibasaburō during a much more recent pandemic; a pandemic which impacted seaports all around the world in the decade after 1894 (including Sydney and Auckland in 1900).

This disease – linked to rats and fleas – looked like a good fit for the Black Death; the descriptions of the symptoms were a good match. So, the Black Death narrative came to incorporate Yersinia pestis as the culprit. This pathogen is endemic today in some parts of the world, including the southwest of the United States, but generally confines its lethal mayhem to rodents. People die of it most years. The good news for later twentieth century human populations was that bubonic plague is treatable with antibiotics.

However, especially around the early twenty-first century, the ‘Yersinia pestis as the culprit’ thesis was substantially questioned. (See A plague on all your houses, The Guardian, 14 Aug 2004; I have read Return of the Black Death: The World’s Greatest Serial Killer by Susan Scott and Christopher Duncan.) This questioning has subsided of late, because of the discovery of Yersinia pestis DNA in the bodies of known victims of the Black Death. James Belich, author in 2022 of The World the Plague Made: The Black Death and the Rise of Europe, argues that those sceptical narratives were an important part of the scientific process, but settles on Yersinia pestis, based on subsequent DNA evidence.

Nevertheless, I was persuaded by aspects of Susan Scott’s argument. She agrees that bubonic plague was significantly present in Europe – especially in Mediterranean ports – in the late 1340s. Essentially, her argument is that there was another disease present at that time in Europe, and that this other disease played a greater role than bubonic plague in the lived experience of pandemic plague in the period from the 1340s to the 1590s. Scott made her argument using village studies which suggested that the three main epidemic parameters – transmissibility (especially from humans to humans), incubation, and duration of infectiousness – were a poor fit for the known information about Yersinia pestis. (We may also note that there is a variation of bubonic plague known as pneumonic plague, which is human-human transmitted, looks a more plausible fit for the 1340s to the 1590s than rat-flea transmission. But the parameters of pneumonic plague don’t fit, either.)

In Scott’s thesis the principal agent of the Black Death was what she calls Haemorrhagic Plague. It is well known today that there is a family group of lethal zoonotic viruses which cause haemorrhagic fevers in humans; these include ebola and hantavirus. For the vast majority of human cases, they are transmitted to humans from animal incubators. Her argument is that the majority of Black Death deaths were caused by one of these viruses, not by Yersinia pestisbacteria. The parameters she calculated from the historical data match haemorrhagic fevers rather well.

The pneumonic symptoms of the two diseases could be similar (albeit more blue than black). Indeed the 1918 influenza pandemic was known, at least in New Zealand, as the Black Flu. Plague is bacterial, treatable by antibiotics. Haemorrhagic fever is not treatable, except at the margins; it’s a viral illness.

We may also note that it’s rare to have two simultaneous epidemics. One epidemic of a viral disease tends to pre-empt another viral pathogen. However, simultaneous epidemics – even pandemics – of bubonic plague and haemorrhagic fever seem entirely plausible. Because the pathogens are so different, even if the end states of both diseases are quite similar. And we note that the stresses arising from one lethal illness may create malnutrition and other states of being likely to make us more vulnerable to a second quite different pathogen doing the rounds.

We should also note that, after much trial and error, the Black Plague could be contained by quarantine; isolation for forty days. Quarantines are particularly effective for human-human transmissible diseases. Presumably less effective at containing burrowing rodents (or mosquito-borne diseases for that matter). Rats don’t carry passports.

Warning

Susan Scott was particularly concerned about modern complacency towards the Black Death. The widespread perception in modern infectious diseases studies is that bubonic plague is treatable, and that the rodent-flea transmission mechanism is less plausible in modern more-sterile environments, reflecting the perception that modern cleanliness and bubonic plage are incompatible. (And noting James Bayes’ presumption that if hantavirus can transmit human-to-human on a sterile ship, then it must be able to so transmit anywhere.)

There is no complacency towards haemorrhagic fevers such as ebola (hence the PPE); although it’s still widely understood to be – in a sense, dismissed as – a ‘third world’ disease. Susan Scott was concerned that complacent modern public health systems would leave us completely unprepared for a pandemic involving a haemorrhagic virus, such as hantavirus; indeed, I did not sense sufficient concern among the panel of interviewees on Inside Story.

Even if it can be proved that Scott’s thesis about the Black Death is completely wrong, then nevertheless her research still represented an important warning to the world about what the next really lethal pandemic might look like. At the very least, the present hantavirus scare should be understood as an important wake-up call.

If we had learned much more about the history of coronaviruses – viruses which were known to have been long-circulating as ‘common cold’ viruses – after the 2003 SARS1 panic, we might have been much more prepared for the SARS2 Covid19 pandemic in 2020. Scientists should not be too quick to dismiss Susan Scott’s hypothesis about the causes of the ‘great levelling’ event which came to be called the Black Death.

A lethal transmissible disease which is asymptomatic for six weeks, and which is infectious before symptoms occur, is one of our worst public health nightmares. The present scare should remind us of that.

How can we cooperate through pandemics when we are too busy waging hot and cold wars? The 1918 novel influenza virus was forged on the battlefields of France; a hybrid of influenza strains from Asia and America. In the end, it killed as least as many people as were killed on the 1918 battlefields.

We should learn to question prevailing narratives. Experts – whether epidemiologists, economists, or geopoliticians – don’t have all the answers; too often they pontificate from professional scripts while ignoring inconvenient evidence. People, especially those with a modicum of power, should exercise their influence with more humility and less sureness.

The world is becoming more vulnerable; too vulnerable for badheads and hotheads and sureheads (such as Christopher Luxon) and bombastic appeasers (such as Keir Starmer) who cannot broach alternative explanations or strategies. These people simply ‘double-down’ when the evidence is that what they are doing is harmful or counter to their stated objectives.

Pestilence follows deprivation, closed-mindedness, and stupidity. These qualities are not confined to the uncivilised. Our environments fight back, often in ways that we least expect, often in places where we do not look.

About the writer:

Keith Rankin (keith at rankin dot nz), trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.

Keith Rankin, 11 May 2026 – At the end of this month, the Russia-Ukraine War will have dragged out for as long as World War One, conventionally dated. It’s already much longer than World War One using Russian dating, given Russia’s early exit from that war.

World War One, especially in the East

Despite its minimal emphasis in the anglophile understanding of WWI, the central conflict of that war was between the German Second Reich (the Prussian Empire) and Russia (the Russian Empire). The war was started, with full intent, by the German military who were able to play the emotionally volatile Prussian Kaiser, Wilhelm II. Germany started the war because the Prussians had convinced themselves that Russia was becoming too strong and would inevitably – probably sooner rather than later – invade (and try to overrun) Germany and then the rest of Western Europe.

There was no evidence of such Russian intent. The German Prussians interpreted ‘could’ as ‘would’. So, they decided to attack Russia at a propitious moment, should such a moment arise. Germany had its opportunity in 1914 when Austria-Hungary deemed it necessary to start a Third Balkan War, against Serbia. The Germans adroitly manoeuvred the Austrians into pivoting away from the war the Austrians wanted, and to provide Eastern cover for the war against Russia which Germany wanted.

The reason Germany required Eastern cover was that they feared an attack from Russia’s ally, France. So, the Prussians decided to quickly deal to France, while Austria held back Russia to Germany’s east. Of course, the rest is history; the German army got bogged down in France and Flanders. Austria got exposed in the East. But Germany was able to fight on both fronts simultaneously, and eventually defeated Russia despite having to hold the Western Front.

Russia ratified its surrender in March 1918, when Leon Trotsky signed the Brest-Litovsk Treaty. In that 1918 Treaty, Russia – having just become the Soviet Union – surrendered Ukraine (though not Crimea) to Germany.

Luckily for the new Soviet ‘Bolshevik’ regime – in 1918, while running a substantially reduced Russian Empire – the forces of France, United Kingdom, USA, and influenza prevailed over the forces of the German Second Reich. (By giving Lenin free passage from Switzerland – the German military indirectly plotted the Russian counter-revolution that brought Lenin and his Bolsheviks to power in October 1917, nine months after Tsar Nicholas II was deposed in a popular uprising. Russia experienced regime-change twice that year.)

In the first half of 1918, Germany broke through in the West, bolstered by soldiers transferring from the East. But Germany’s supply lines were too stretched, and soldiers on both sides of the Western Front got very sick from the influenza which was the Americans’ principal contribution. It was only in July 1918 that France gained the upper hand over Germany on the Western Front; Germany quickly folded after that.

The result was the Armistice of November 1918, and the 1919 Treaty of Versailles. The 1919 Treaty stripped Germany of its March 1918 victory spoils; the principal of those spoils being Ukraine. The 1919 Treaty also humiliated Prussia, by separating Prussia’s eastern homeland (now Russia’s Kaliningrad) from the rest of Germany.

In 1919, Germany was not pleased about many things. Foremost among those things was the loss of its prize Eastern conquest. This humiliation formed a key part of reactionary Germany’s ‘stab in the back’ hypothesis; the hypothesis which galvanised the subsequent rise of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi (National Socialist) Party.

The Present War – which in an important sense is again Germany versus Russia

In normal ahistorical ‘rules-based’ discourse – the present war looks like an open and shut case. Bad Country A (Russia) invaded Good Country B (Ukraine). Naughty Vladimir. Solution: tell Vlad to take his war toys back home, and behave himself. (This narrative is hard to sustain now, though, given the 2020s’ behaviour of Israel and the subsequent suspension of the rules-based order.)

Seen through a geopolitical (and appropriately historical) lens, the Ukraine quagmire looks very different from the story that the anglophone world still clings to. A Nato/EU project of eastward expansionism – a ‘Greater Europe’, like a ‘Greater Israel’ but without the overt ethnic cleansing – threatens to return German troops to the heartland of what had been for centuries the economic core of the Russian Empire; namely the territory of Eastern Ukraine.

World War Two

From the Russian point of view, Germany has long coveted the entire territory of Ukraine; not just the bits of West Ukraine which once belonged to the Austro-Hungarian Empire of Franz Josef of Hapsburg (who gifted Aotearoa New Zealand the name of a glacier).

Adolf Hitler’s principal aim was to reverse the humiliations of 1918 and 1919. Thus, once in power, and once Germany had restored its manpower and its gun-power, Hitler struck back into France, forcing the French to sign their surrender at the same place and in the same railway carriage which was used for the 1918 Armistice signing. This time, there was no Austrian Empire to attend to Russia in the meantime. So, Hitler, in 1939, did a deal with Stalin, so that Hitler could deal to France without too much simultaneous aggro in the East.

Once France had been pacified, Hitler turned back to what was really the whole purpose of World War Two in Europe; to win back the territories that had been won in 1918, but had been lost through alleged ‘backstabbing’ in late 1918 and early 1919. (For the 1920s’ ‘make Germany Great Again’ project, the events of late 1918 and early 1919 were the first ‘great steal’.)

The reason for Hitler’s war was lebensraum; it was Hitler’s expansionist project. The principal aim was to re-acquire Ukraine. Having done so – for example, in the First Battle of Kiev (1941) – Hitler’s main goal for the Third Reich was to match the ambition for the Second Reich in WWI, and proceed to take control of the Russian oilfields to the east of Eastern Ukraine.

The Reich held Ukraine for more than two years, until the second Battle of Kiev late in 1943. This time the Russians of the Soviet Union had to defeat Germany on the battlefield; which they did at a huge blood cost.

Just this last weekend, Russia commemorated its military defeat of Nazi Germany.

Finally

From Russia’s point of view, today, the Ukrainian battlefield represents a field in which Nato’s proxy – the Zelenskyy regime of Ukraine – is bringing a Fourth Reich (the European Union; understood to be German dominated, even if Germany’s strength in the European Union temporarily waned after Angela Merkel stepped down) to finally achieve the conquest of Ukraine; the conquest which, from a German perspective, twice in the twentieth century fell agonisingly short.

So, as I read it, no Russian regime – whether led by Putin or somebody else – will ever let Nato (meaning, from a Russian viewpoint, Germany) into Eastern Ukraine.

Militarily, after years of stalemate, Russia has had enough; it is now looking for an offramp by trying to do a deal brokered through former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder. Other than achieving an acceptable deal, Russia can only play for time; it cannot accept a ‘cease-fire’ involving ‘coalition of the willing’ ‘peacekeepers’. Western Europe – especially ‘Old Europe’ – is politically imploding at present; to sustain military ventures, it is dependent on an increasingly unwilling United States.

As I see it, the present war can end easily. But only under a Treaty which prevents Ukraine – or at least Ukraine east of the Dnieper River – from ever hosting German soldiers. The Russian history of World War One and World War Two is too recent for that. The American President, to his credit, has tried to broker a peace in Ukraine. But ‘Old Europe’ will not allow such a peace, as we have seen whenever such a peace deal seemed close.

The main reason Germany folded to the West in 1918 was the Royal Navy’s blockade of German ports; hence an important reason in the 1940s for Hitler’s emphasis on regaining Ukraine. Old Europe wanted, and still wants, Ukraine in its geopolitical orbit. Lebensraum, in the form of a greater western European geopolitical territory, is still at play.

This time Ukraine, Europe’s breadbasket, may be less required for the purposes of food security; though that may be changing with the protracted American and Iranian double-blockade of the Persian Gulf. My deeper sense is that the populist political right in Europe – which is slowly regaining ascendency – has demographic designs on Ukraine. Ukraine is a land with many white women; whereas Old Europe is much less white than it once was, and white women in Old Europe in the 2020s are having very few babies.

About the writer:

Keith Rankin (keith at rankin dot nz), trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.

Throughout 2025, I served on Australia’s first parliamentary inquiry into society-wide antisemitism. When the Bondi terrorist atrocity occurred, we had yet to finalise a report, and I supported the decision to simply send our evidence to the Royal Commission.

A notable feature of our inquiry was the care taken to test evidence and contentions through robust questioning.

This included testing key witnesses vigorously as to the line between antisemitism and legitimate criticism of Israel, and on other key contentions and demands of Jewish representative groups of a Zionist perspective.

This didn’t please all the witnesses, for example, it led Lynda Ben-Menashe, president of the National Council of Jewish Women, to later publicly label me as “NSW’s Gaslighter-in-Chief”. This was for daring to even suggest that a wrongful conflation of Israel and the Australian Jewish community could be driving antisemitism.

In my limited observations so far of the Royal Commission, this degree of scrutiny seems not to be present, particularly when

witnesses have sought to conflate criticism of Israel with antisemitism.

The evidence in our inquiry made clear the absolute centrality in Zionist advocacy in Australia of this conflation, which is no new phenomenon, as former Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban famously said of his work, “the chief task of any dialogue with the Gentile world is to prove that the distinction between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism is not a distinction at all”.

This conflation, however, seems to be worsening antisemitism.

Critising Israel not antisemitic
The Jewish Council of Australia spoke in their evidence of “a politicised and divisive discourse which seeks to label any criticism of Israel as antisemitic, thereby increasing antisemitism by linking Jewish identities to the state of Israel and its human rights abuses”.

A central insight I took from the inquiry is that political leaders need to exercise restraint and responsibility in not treating the Jewish community as a monolith (itself an antisemitic trope), but also in how we respond to political demands from pro-Israel Jewish representative groups.

We should undoubtedly treat these groups as important voices and witnesses on antisemitism and recognise their right to lobby, but if we subcontract the development of policy to them,

counterproductive policies focused on criticism of Israel will inevitably be the result.

This has certainly been the case with the appointment of Jillian Segal, someone, as I put to her in our inquiry, with no obvious expertise on the core question of how to reduce racism across a community.

Long before Bondi, Segal played a central role in demanding the banning of pro-Palestine protests from the CBDs of major cities, and she undoubtedly contributed to the divisive and unconstitutional post-Bondi ban on protests.

I challenged Segal in the inquiry on whether this demand was actually pernicious, because such bans would be unconstitutional and calling for them created fear and suggested the Jewish community was deliberately not being protected. She unsurprisingly disagreed.

Shared understanding missing
Another topic at the inquiry was the importance of dialogue at a community level, building shared understanding between communities sitting on each side of the conflict.

I put to a number of witnesses that perhaps this should be a two-way street.

On the one hand, non-Jewish communities are gaining an understanding of Jewish history, why Israel is so important to so many Jewish people and why the tropes of antisemitism are false.

On the other, Jewish people gaining an understanding of Palestinian history, which perhaps might reduce perceptions of antisemitism arising from Palestinian activism.

Segal was asked in this regard whether, “there might be a role for education within the Jewish community about the history of the Palestinian people” and tartly responded, “education is always valuable, but the focus of the plan is protecting Australians from hate, not asking vulnerable communities to adjust their sensitivity to it”.

Similar evidence emerged from Joshua Kirsch, a Jewish community advocate, of whom I asked:

“Do you think there are ways to deepen community understanding on both ‘sides’, if I can use that term, such that there can be a greater alignment of understandings, or greater understanding of the perspective of the other? We’ve heard evidence about perceptions of antisemitism having a pernicious influence themselves, and people interpreting things in a genuine way as antisemitism that is not intended as antisemitism is intended, for example, things that Palestinians might say about their situation.”

He answered, “I think my priority as a Jewish person, and I think as a person who is involved with Jewish organisations, is not to educate Jewish people about why their feelings are not valid.”

Indeed, what became clear in the evidence was that many of the political demands of pro-Israel groups actively

prevent the development of some semblance of a shared understanding of history.

This came up directly in the inquiry when I questioned Waverley Mayor Will Nemesh, whose council has adopted the IHRA definition of antisemitism, which suggests that it is antisemitic to label Israel a “racist endeavour”.

“If you had a Palestinian resident who came to you and said, ‘I was expelled in 1967 from what is now Israel. I’ve been denied a right of return. I think Israel is a racist endeavour,’ is that resident an antisemite?”

Namesh replied, “There are strong views in terms of Israel and Palestine. What is crucial is understanding there are two peoples and both claim connection to the land. I think both are very valid”. 

It seemed to me that the IHRA definition could, in that public exchange, hardly be defended, because to do so would have been to directly and blatantly deny Palestinian history and identity to an absurd degree.

Yet inevitably, it will continue to be advocated for by many Jewish representative groups.

Zionist denials
In that vein, prominent Australian Zionist Alex Ryvchin attended the inquiry and directly denied that any ethnic cleansing had occurred during the formation of Israel.

A level of denialism, contradicted by the historical record, that is difficult to square with a dedicated commitment to inter-community dialogue. The evidence in our inquiry convinced me that ensuring our Jewish community is not conflated with Israel is central to dealing with growing antisemitism.

Callow future Australian political leaders might return from Israel impressed after free study tours, but the difficult, albeit obvious, truth is that Israel is an Apartheid state, founded on ethnic cleansing, a premeditated determination to create a Jewish super majority and then a denial of the right of return.

The world’s expert human rights organisations do not have this wrong.

These facts, the criminality of the destruction of Gaza and Israel’s increasingly expansionist tendencies, mean Israel will continue to attract a growing storm of criticism.

But Australia is a free society, and our Jewish community is allowed to be as supportive of Israel and Zionism as they wish. No other community in Australia is expected to distance itself from a country with which they identify, no matter how illiberal and criminal its government is, and it should never be demanded of any part of our Jewish community.

Ultimately, the only people responsible for the actions of the state of Israel are the officials of that state.

While most people will agree on this statement, the difficulty is found in how broader narratives and policies, including the conflation of criticism of Israel with antisemitism, impact across the community.

It is in this fiendishly difficult context that we look to Royal Commissioner Bell to chart a way out of the downward and divisive spiral we seem to be in.

She truly will need the wisdom of Solomon to unpick this knot of growing antisemitism in Australia.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

As New Caledonia marks the second anniversary of a spate of unrest and riots that broke out on 13 May 2024, the situation on the ground remains tense, on the political, economic and security levels.

Politically, over the past two years, there have been sequences of discussion between local stakeholders and the French State.

Under the now former Minister for Overseas Territories, Manuel Valls, a series of talks in the suburbs of Paris (Bougival) in July 2025, led to a document that seems to provide a roadmap for more powers for the French Pacific territory, including the prospect of a “State” of New Caledonia, with its associated “nationality”.

This Bougival process was, however, denounced by the FLNKS (Kanak and Socialist National Liberation Front) which said, after its delegates had initially signed the agreement, that their signatures were withdrawn.

Other parties, including the “moderate” pro-independence PALIKA and UPM, committed to the agreement.

But the legislative byproducts of the Bougival document, including a constitutional amendment and an organic law, could not be enacted, especially as a result of a rebuke from the French National Assembly on April 2 this year.

Through a game of alliances between local and mainland French parties, the rejection of the Bougival-inspired bills came from both left (Socialists) and far-left (La France Insoumise) parties and even from the far-right Rassemblement National (RN).

As French Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu announced earlier this month, after holding a fresh series of talks with local politicians, he had decided that crucial local elections should be held on June 28, most of the local parties have now entered into campaign mode.

The poll, which had been postponed three times since May 2024 (the date originally set) is now once again at the centre of debates, especially on the sensitive question of who will be qualified to cast their votes.

Since the Nouméa Accord was signed in 1998, and as part of its implementation, the electoral roll is currently “frozen”. It means it excludes people who were born or have resided in New Caledonia for an uninterrupted 10 years after November 1998.

There have been talks on an “adjustment” of the sensitive electoral roll to at least include people who were born in New Caledonia and have reached voting age since 1998.

Relaxing this criterion — which was originally designed as a temporary measure to guard against a potential risk of “diluting” the indigenous Kanak population vote — would concern about 10,000 new voters, usually referred to as “the natives”.

But this issue is crystallising again tensions and passions in New Caledonia, just like it did in reaction to an earlier attempted constitutional amendment which, in May 2024, was also perceived as the main trigger for the demonstrations, followed by unrest, staged by pro-independence parties.

The violence caused 14 deaths and more than 2 billion euros (NZ$3.9 billion) in material damage, thousands of jobs lost due to the destruction of businesses, as well as a 13.5 percent drop in New Caledonia’s GNP.

But two years on, French Minister for Overseas Naïma Moutchou and French PM Lecornu, have launched another attempt to “adjust” the provincial roll, focusing on the inclusion of the “natives”.

The provincial elections in New Caledonia elects new members for the three provincial assemblies. Based on the results, they will also determine proportionally, the makeup of New Caledonia’s Congress, the makeup of New Caledonia’s collegial government and its president.

The organic law to integrate the natives is scheduled to be tabled before the Senate on  May 18, and later before the Lower House, the National Assembly.

On the same day in Nouméa, the local Congress will be asked to vote and therefore express its position on the same matter, even though the vote would be non-binding for the French lawmakers.

Under a particularly tight schedule, the proposed organic law is also supposed to be endorsed by France’s Constitutional Council before the end of May 2026.

If it fails, New Caledonia’s provincial elections will still take place, but without any change to the “frozen” electoral roll.

In a special, 30-minute long address dedicated to New Caledonia, on social networks on May 8, Lecornu said the “status quo is not a destiny”.

After the provincial polls, Lecornu intends to bring politicians together again sometime in July to resume wider talks on New Caledonia’s political future.

In preparation for the poll, most of New Caledonia’s political parties and groups, whether pro-independence or pro-France (those who wish New Caledonia to remain a part of France), have already positioned themselves, especially on the electoral roll issue.

In the pro-France camp, there are ructions within leading parties, such as Rassemblement-LR and other components, such as Les Loyalistes or Nicolas Metzdorf’s Génération NC.

Rassemblement president and head of the local government Alcide Ponga’s suggestion that his party should run the provincial elections behind Metzdorf — who is also one of New Caledonia’s two representatives at the French National Assembly — has drawn criticism and several resignations from Rassemblement.

Since August 2024, the FLNKS has lost two of its pillars: the PALIKA (Kanak Liberation Party) and the UPM (Progressist Union in Melanesia) have formed their own “UNI” (Union Nationale pour l’Indépendance) group, mostly based on their disapproval of the hardline approach promoted by the main component of FLNKS, Union Calédonienne and its allied “pressure groups”.

One of those groups, the CCAT (Field Action Coordination Committee), was perceived as the main force behind the protests that later degenerated into riots, in May 2024.

In August 2024, CCAT leader Christian Téin was elected as FLNKS president, even though he was at the time serving a pre-trial jail term in Mulhouse (north-east of mainland France).

Pending the ruling on his case for alleged crime-related charges, which has not happened yet, Téin was allowed to return to New Caledonia.

The purpose of the march was to reaffirm that “the fight is not over” and to pay homage to the Kanak “martyrs” of May 2024.

“We are here because what happened in 2024 is about to happen again,” FLNKS politburo member Henri Juni told the crowd, denouncing what he terms another “passage en force” from the French State.

Juni said the FLNKS now aimed at restoring “maximal unity” within the pro-independence camp to obtain maximal results at the coming provincial elections.

FLNKS’s official stance on the matter is that the electoral roll can be modified, but that this can only take place as part of a comprehensive agreement on the future of New Caledonia.

PALIKA, on its part, held an extraordinary congress over the weekend that mostly concluded that its commitment to the Bougival process, further reinforced by more talks in January 2026, had now de facto come to an end, since it regarded this process as also de facto ended due to the April 2026 French parliament’s rejection.

In view of the June 2026 provincial polls, PALIKA is now calling for “mobilisation” from voters “in order to create the conditions of a ‘rapport de force’ to support our project of full sovereignty in partnership”.

On the sensitive issues of relaxing the restrictions of the electoral roll, PALIKA says in a release published on Tuesday that they are in favour of a readjustment for the “natives”.

One heart, one voice
On the pro-France side, parties are in support of the relaxation of the electoral roll, not only for the “natives”, but also for qualified “spouses”.

A local association named “Un, Coeur, une voix” (One heart, one voice, or OHOV) is campaigning against the minimal inclusion of “natives”, but calls for a wider opening for the roll.

“This is a minimal adjustment that institutionalises a durable exclusion”, OHOV wrote to French President Emmanuel Macron early in May 2026.

OHOV is also preparing to bring the matter to a court, in opposition to the partial “readjustment” of the proposed organic law to eventually contest the future outcome of the provincial polls.

“You have thousands of (New) Caledonians who were born there, or their spouses, … And they cannot vote… This is a matter of justice, of balance also and this is not a great demographic upset, it’s a point of equilibrium”, Minister Moutchou pleaded earlier this week during an interview with French national media France Info.

Security issues
On the security front, French High commissioner Jacques Billant has already enforced a ban on the sale of alcohol between 11 and 17 May 2026. The only exception being the sale of alcohol at New Caledonia’s international airport, Nouméa-La Tontouta.

Billant said this was “to prevent any public order unrest”, or “events and demonstrations” taking place around the symbolic date of 13 May 2024.

Earlier in April, 3-star Lieutenant-General Pierre Poty, who commands all gendarmerie forces in France’s Overseas Territories, told New Caledonian media French forces were “ready to confront fresh unrest, thanks to its prepositioned forces and their armoured components”.

But he said he did not see “any precursor sign of a resumption of violence”.

Meanwhile, in Nouméa, a neighbourhood watch group of so-called “Citizen Resistance Collective” (CRC), said earlier this week they have remained vigilant and would not allow “another May 13 to happen, because the response would be immediate and determined”.

The CRC was formed during the 2024 unrest, mainly to protect their property against burning and looting from protesters.

Early in May 2026, the French High Commission in Nouméa revealed latest statistics showing that in 2025, the number of burglaries on residential properties has risen by 46.7 percent, mostly in the capital Nouméa and its urban surroundings.

Economy
New Caledonia’s economic situation remains a matter for concern.

Most private sector stakeholders have sounded the alarm bell over the past months, despite French assistance being deployed over the past two years, mostly to refinance the construction of destroyed public buildings and infrastructure.

Businesses, employers and employees are up in arms against the current situation which deprives business leaders and investors of the required “visibility” to regain confidence.

Most of them are demanding that a political agreement be reached, which would provide them a minimum of predictability in the long term.

“We don’t believe things are getting better”, New Caledonia’s Chamber of Commerce and Industry (CCI) vice president Stéphane Yoteau told an economic forum earlier this month.

Yoteau said businesses in New Caledonia have now reached “a degree of absolute urgency”.

“The situation is catastrophic, we’re now caught in a vicious circle that is feeding itself: less business (-20 percent), less employment (-12,000), less spending revenues (household budgets have lost 10 percent on average), so there is less consumption, therefore less public tax income, etc. And so on”, the CCI leader explained.

The forum gathered representatives from employers federations MEDEF-NC, CPME-NC (small and medium industries confederation) and FEINC (federation of industries of New Caledonia).

‘A degree of absolute urgency’
They are asking for five emergency measures, including a postponement or a tax holiday for some social contributions.

They said these measure could be drawn from French government assistance and re-directed to help small and medium businesses keep their heads above water.

They say New Caledonia’s economy is “on the verge of collapse” and “economic breakdown”.

“The question today is not even to access financing faculties. There is no more business in New Caledonia. Everything stops,” FEINC President Xavier Benoist told local media.

He said 40 percent of businesses only have a few weeks of visibility and 45 percent have only three months left in terms of cash flow.

Despite the recent announcement from the French PM of a “re-foundation” plan for more than 2 billion euros over the next five years, business leaders are asking for an immediate emergency package to “save New Caledonia’s economy”.

“What we are asking is not a favour, it’s not assistance. It’s something to keep our economic fabric alive. Otherwise, it will continue to go down”, said Sonia Critg, vice-president of the small industries branch of the CPME.

“Not doing anything today amounts to deliberately choosing a much deeper and much more expensive social crisis tomorrow”, she stressed.

On May 11, more than 100 business leaders, employees, unemployed, retired workers, staged a protest march in front of New Caledonia’s government building in downtown Nouméa.

Once again, at the heart of their plea, was a cry for assistance to ease their situation which, they said, was “no longer bearable”.

Minister for Economy Christopher Gygès received a delegation and promised some exemption measures were in the pipeline, especially targeting small and very small businesses.

Recently appointed head of the French inter-ministerial mission for reconstruction, Amaury Decludt recently completed his first mission in the French Pacific territory.

He assured that out of the more than 2 billion euros earmarked by France, about 10 percent was ready to be mobilised, mainly for large infrastructure projects such as one road across New Caledonia’s main island or a project to build bus exchange stations in rural areas.

He said talks were ongoing regarding New Caledonia’s crucial nickel mining sector and has been facing major difficulties over the past few years..

Out of the three companies currently in existence, two (one in the North of the main island, the other in the South) were currently up for sale.

Decludt also said the French government was also in contact with the European Union to persuade Brussels of the appeal of New Caledonia’s nickel.

New Caledonia’s nickel industry has been facing major structural challenges over the past few years, mainly due to the rise of world-class competitors in Indonesia, as well as high costs of production mainly related to high cost of the energy.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz