By Phil Goff

Like many others, I was appalled and astounded by the dishonest comments made about the situation in Ukraine by the Trump Administration.

As one untruthful statement followed another like something out of a George Orwell novel, I increasingly felt that the lies needed to be called out.

I found it bizarre to hear President Trump publicly label Ukraine’s leader Volodymyr Zelenskyy a dictator. Everyone knew that Zelenskyy had been democratically elected and while Trump claimed his support in the polls had fallen to 4 percent it was pointed out that his actual support was around 57 percent.

Trump made no similar remarks or criticism of Russia’s Vladimir Putin and never does. Yet Putin’s regime imprisons and murders his opponents and suppresses democratic rights in Russia.

Then Trump made the patently false accusation that Ukraine started the war with Russia. How could he make such a claim when the world had witnessed Russia as the aggressor which invaded its smaller neighbour, killing thousands of civilians, committing war crimes and destroying cities and infrastructure?

That President Trump could lie so blatantly is perhaps explained by his taking offence at Zelenskyy’s refusal to comply with unreasonable and self-serving demands such as ceding control of Ukraine’s mineral wealth to the US. What was also clear was that Trump was intent on pressuring Ukraine to capitulate to Russian demands for a one sided “peace settlement” which would result in neither a fair nor sustainable peace.

It is astonishing that the US voted with Russia and North Korea in the United Nations against Ukraine and in opposition to the views of democratic countries the US is normally aligned with, including New Zealand.

Withdrew satellite imaging
It then withdrew satellite imaging services Ukraine needed for its self defence in an attempt to further pressure Zelenskyy to agree to a ceasefire. No equivalent pressure has yet been placed on Russia even while it has continued its illegal attacks on Ukraine.

Trump and Vance’s disgraceful bullying of Zelenskyy in the White House as he struggled in his third language to explain the plight of his nation was as remarkable as it was appalling.
What Trump was doing and saying was wrong and a betrayal of Ukraine’s struggle to defend its freedom and nationhood.

Democratic leaders around the world knew his comments to be unfair and untrue, yet few countries have dared to criticise Trump for making them.

Like the Hans Christian Anderson fairy tale, everyone knew that the emperor had no clothes but were fearful of the consequences of speaking out to tell the truth.

As New Zealand’s High Commissioner to the UK, I had on a number of occasions met and talked with Ukrainian soldiers being trained by New Zealanders in Britain. It was an emotionally intense experience knowing that many of the men I met with would soon face death on the front line defending their country’s freedom and nationhood.

They were extremely grateful of New Zealand’s unwavering support. Yet the Trump Administration seemed to care little for that country’s cause and sacrifice in defending the values that a few months earlier had seemed so important to the United States.

The diplomatic community in London privately shared their dismay at Trump’s treatment of Ukraine. The spouse of one of my High Commissioner colleagues who had been a teacher drew a parallel with what she had witnessed in the playground. The bully would abuse a victim while all the other kids looked on and were too intimidated to intervene. The majority thus became the enablers of the bully’s actions.

Silence condoning Trump
By saying nothing, New Zealand — and many other countries — was effectively condoning and being complicit in what Trump was doing.

It was in this context, at the Chatham House meeting, that I asked a serious and important question about whether President Trump understood the lessons of history. It was a question on the minds of many. I framed it using language that was reasonable.

The lesson of history, going back to the Munich Conference in 1938, when British Prime Minister Chamberlain and his French counterpart Daladier ceded the Sudetenland part of Czechoslovakia to Hitler, was clear.

Far from satisfying or placating an aggressor, appeasement only increases their demands. That’s always the case with bullies. They respect strength, not weakness.

Czechoslovakia could have been part of the Allied defence against Hitler’s expansionism but instead it and the Czech armaments industry was passed over to Hitler. He went on to take over the rest of Czechoslovakia and then invaded Poland.

As Churchill told Chamberlain, “You had the choice between dishonour and war. You chose dishonour and you will have war.”

The question needed to be asked because Trump was using talking points which followed closely those used by the Kremlin itself and was clearly setting out to appease and favour Russia.

A career diplomat, trained as a public servant to be cautious, might have not have asked it. I was appointed, with bipartisan support, not as a career diplomat but on the basis of political experience including nine years as Foreign, Trade and Defence Minister.

Question central to validity, ethics
“The question is central to the validity as well as the ethics of the United States’ approach to Ukraine. It is also a question that trusted allies, who have made sacrifices for and with each other over the past century, have a right and duty to ask.

The New Zealand Foreign Minister’s response was that the question did not reflect the view of New Zealand’s Government and that asking it made my position as High Commissioner untenable.

The minister had the prerogative to take the action he did and I am not complaining about that for one moment. For my part, I do not regret asking the question which thanks to the minister’s response subsequently received international attention.

Over the decades New Zealand has earned the respect of the world, from allies and opponents alike, for honestly standing up for the values our country holds dear. The things we are proudest of as a nation in the positions we have taken internationally include our role as one of the founding states of the United Nations in promoting a rules-based international system including our opposition to powerful states exercising a veto.

They include opposing apartheid in South Africa and French nuclear testing in the Pacific. We did not abandon our nuclear free policy to US pressure.

In wars and in peacekeeping we have been there when it counted and have made sacrifices disproportionate to our size.

We have never been afraid to challenge aggressors or to ask questions of our allies. In asking a question about President Trump’s position on Ukraine I am content that my actions will be on the right side of history.

Phil Goff, CNZM, is a New Zealand retired politician and former diplomat. He served as leader of the Labour Party and leader of the Opposition between 11 November 2008 and 13 December 2011. Goff was elected mayor of Auckland in 2016, and served two terms, before retiring in 2022. In 2023, he took up a diplomatic post as High Commissioner of New Zealand to the United Kingdom, which he held until last month when he was sacked by Foreign Minister Winston Peters over his “untenable” comments.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

In Gaza, Israeli strikes have killed at least 123 journalists (Gaza media sources say 178 killed) — the largest number of journalists to be killed in any armed conflict in this span of time to date.

Dozens of media outlets have been leveled. Independent investigations such as those conducted by Forbidden Stories have found that in several of these cases journalists were intentionally targeted by the Israeli military — which constitutes a war crime.

Over the past year IPI has stood with its press freedom partners calling for an immediate end to the killing of journalists in Gaza as well as for international media to be allowed unfettered access to report independently from inside Gaza.

In May, IPI and its partner IMS jointly presented the 2024 World Press Freedom Hero award to Palestinian journalists in Gaza. The award recognised the extraordinary courage and resilience that Palestinian journalists have demonstrated in being the world’s eyes and ears in Gaza.

This week, IPI renewed its call on the international community to protect journalists in Gaza as well as in the West Bank and Lebanon. Allies of Israel, including Media Freedom Coalition members, must pressure the Israeli government to protect journalist safety and stop attacks on the press.

This also includes the growing media censorship demonstrated by Israel’s recent closure of Al Jazeera’s Ramallah bureau.

Raising awareness
IPI was at the UN in Geneva this week with its partners Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), Reporters without Borders (RSF), and the European Federation of Journalists (EFJ), and others for high-level meetings aimed at raising awareness of the continued attacks on the press and urging the international community to protect journalists.

Among the key messages: The continued killings of journalists in Gaza — and corresponding impunity — endangers journalists and press freedom everyone.

On this sombre anniversary, the joint advert in this week’s Washington Post honours the journalists bravely reporting on the war, often at great personal risk, and underscores IPI’s solidarity with those that dedicate their lives to uncovering the truth.

pic.twitter.com/qZ2bf0raRt

— Washington Post Press Freedom Partnership (@wppressfreedom) October 7, 2024

“But it is clear that solidarity is not enough. Action is needed,” said IPI in its statement.

“The international community must place effective pressure on the Israeli authorities to comply with international law; protect the safety of journalists; investigate the killing of journalists by its forces and secure accountability; and grant international media outlets immediate and unfettered access to report independently from Gaza.

“We urge the international community to meet this moment of crisis and stand up for the protection of journalists and freedom of the press in Gaza.

“An attack against journalists anywhere is an attack against freedom and democracy everywhere.”

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

RNZ Pacific

A New Zealand professor and his two Papua New Guinean colleagues have been released from captivity, more than a week after being kidnapped by an armed gang.

Archaeologist Professor Bryce Barker, who now lives in Australia and works with the University of Southern Queensland (USQ), was held alongside fellow members of his research team.

They were doing fieldwork in a remote part of PNG’s Highlands when they were taken by a criminal gang from Hela Province who demanded a ransom for their freedom.

Their release brings to an end days of negotiations, and a complex security operation involving PNG police and defence personnel, in consultation with the Australian and New Zealand governments.

It comes two days after another woman who had also been taken was set free.

Prime Minister James Marape announced their release on his Facebook page, thanking Police Commissioner David Manning, the police force, military, leaders and community involved.

“We apologise to the families of those taken as hostages for ransom. It took us a while but the last three [captives] has [sic] been successfully returned through covert operations with no $K3.5m paid.

“To criminals, there is no profit in crime. We thank God that life was protected.”

The Post-Courier had earlier reported that the kidnappers had demanded K3.5 million (NZ$1.6 million) for their release.

However, ABC News reports that it understood a ransom payment was discussed as part of the negotiations, although it was significantly smaller than the original amount demanded.

Mahuta praises the release
Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta praised the release on Twitter, welcoming their safe return.

Aotearoa New Zealand 🇳🇿welcomes the safe release of hostages in PNG including a NZer. Tenkiu tru for your leadership and cooperation governments of PNG 🇵🇬and Australia 🇦🇺. #tatoutatou

— Nanaia Mahuta (@NanaiaMahuta) February 26, 2023

Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong thanked the PNG government “for its leadership in securing a safe and peaceful resolution”.

She also thanked the “Australian and New Zealand officials who helped support this outcome”.

The ABC named the released fellow members of his research team as Cathy Alex (set free on Wednesday), Jemina Haro and PhD student Teppsy Beni.

The ABC reported that on February 12, Barker had shared a picture of his arrival in PNG’s capital on social media, captioning it simply “Port Moresby”.

‘Welcome to Port Moresby’
His friend Cathy Alex, a highly regarded local programme coordinator, replied: “Welcome to PNG”.

The two would soon be reuniting and heading into the country’s highlands as part of an ongoing archaeological research program with the University of Southern Queensland (USQ).

In a statement released to the ABC, USQ vice-chancellor Geraldine Mackenzie said the university was relieved to hear their much-loved colleague and his research team had been released.

“Professor Barker and his research team were in Papua New Guinea undertaking archaeological research,” Ms Mackenzie said.

“Bryce is a highly regarded archaeologist and a valued colleague at USQ and in the wider archaeological community. He has many years experience in undertaking research in PNG.

“Our deepest thanks go to the governments of Papua New Guinea, Australia and New Zealand, and the many people who worked tirelessly during this extremely difficult and sensitive time to secure their release.”

NZ pilot held in West Papua
In the neighbouring Indonesian-ruled province of Papua, another New Zealander, pilot Phillip Mehrtens, is still apparently in captivity with pro-independence rebels after he landed a plane in remote highlands near Nduga.

There was no new information about whether or not he would be released.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Prime Minister James Marape has approved the building of a monument of the late Grand Chief Sir Michael Somare at the University of Papua New Guinea.

During the ground-breaking ceremony on Friday, Marape said the monument would symbolise what the nation’s founding fathers stood for, and the legacy of Sir Michael who was driving the move for independence.

“It is proper to build the late Grand Chief Sir Michael Somare’s monument here at the very highest learning institution of the country,” he said.

“He was a simple teacher, but he rose up in the ranks to become the first Prime Minister.

“I believe this will inspire the next generations of leaders.”

The project will be overseen by the government and Moresby North-West MP Lohia Boe Samuel.

Marape said Sir Michael “stood for so many things in his fight for independence”.

‘Freedom and liberty’
“But one I believe was closest to his heart was to see the next generations of Papua New Guineans have the freedom and liberty to decide the fate of their country,” he said.

“This is the dream we carry today and are heading towards.”

The momument was suggested by the University Students’ Representative Council which started fundraising last year.

“The late Sir Michael was at the prime age of 30 to 37 when he led the call for independence,” former council president Matthew Tinol said.

“That is what we must draw [from] — to be selfless, to be builders of our country, to be visionary and leaders that late Sir Michael needed us to become.”

UPNG vice–chancellor Professor Frank Griffin thanked the government for supporting the students’ council funding of the project with its fundraising last year.

The monument is expected to be completed by September 16 — PNG’s Independence Day — next year.

Nathan Woti is a reporter for The National. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

RNZ News

A New Zealand professor and his two Papua New Guinean colleagues have been released from captivity, more than a week after being kidnapped by an armed gang.

Archaeologist Professor Bryce Barker, who now lives in Australia and works with the University of Southern Queensland (USQ), was held alongside fellow members of his research team.

They were doing fieldwork in a remote part of PNG’s Highlands when they were taken by a criminal gang from Hela Province who demanded a ransom for their freedom.

Their release brings to an end days of negotiations, and a complex security operation involving PNG police and defence personnel, in consultation with the Australian and New Zealand governments.

It comes two days after another woman who had also been taken was set free.

Prime Minister James Marape announced their release on his Facebook page, thanking Police Commissioner David Manning, the police force, military, leaders and community involved.

“We apologise to the families of those taken as hostages for ransom. It took us a whole but the last three [captives] has [sic] been successfully returned through covert operations with no $K3.5m paid.

“To criminals, there is no profit in crime. We thank God that life was protected.”

The Post-Courier had earlier reported that the kidnappers had demanded K3.5 million (NZ$1.6 million) for their release.

Mahuta praises the release
Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta praised the release on Twitter, welcoming their safe return.

Aotearoa New Zealand 🇳🇿welcomes the safe release of hostages in PNG including a NZer. Tenkiu tru for your leadership and cooperation governments of PNG 🇵🇬and Australia 🇦🇺. #tatoutatou

— Nanaia Mahuta (@NanaiaMahuta) February 26, 2023

The ABC named the released fellow members of his research team as Cathy Alex (set free earlier), Jemina Haro and PhD student Teppsy Beni.

The ABC reported that on February 12, Barker had shared a picture of his arrival in PNG’s capital on social media, captioning it simply “Port Moresby”.

‘Welcome to Port Moresby’
His friend Cathy Alex, a highly regarded local programme coordinator, replied: “Welcome to PNG”.

The two would soon be reuniting and heading into the country’s highlands as part of an ongoing archaeological research program with the University of Southern Queensland (USQ).

In a statement released to the ABC, USQ vice-chancellor Geraldine Mackenzie said the university was relieved to hear their much-loved colleague and his research team had been released.

“Professor Barker and his research team were in Papua New Guinea undertaking archaeological research,” Ms Mackenzie said.

“Bryce is a highly regarded archaeologist and a valued colleague at USQ and in the wider archaeological community. He has many years experience in undertaking research in PNG.

“Our deepest thanks go to the governments of Papua New Guinea, Australia and New Zealand, and the many people who worked tirelessly during this extremely difficult and sensitive time to secure their release.”

NZ pilot held in West Papua
Another New Zealander, pilot Phillip Mehrtens, is still apparently in captivity with pro-independence rebels after he landed a plane in Papua’s remote highlands.

There is no new information about whether or not he will be released.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Five weeks on from Christmas Eve, I think most of us are still a bit stunned at what has happened in Fiji.

A new government came to power in dramatic circumstances.

It took not one but two Sodelpa management board meetings to change it, with razor-thin margins.

The same drama extended into Parliament.

There was definitely a bump in the road when the military openly expressed concern about the speed of change.

But that was navigated smoothly.

One other thing stood on a razor-thin margin.

Nobody in Fiji should forget it.

‘Rule of law’
A little thing called “rule of law”.

In a Fiji Times column last week, I tried to capture the idea of this.

First, the idea that the law is more important than everyone, including the government.

But second, the idea that the law is more than just rules and regulations which restrict us.

Rule of law means also that the government is bound to respect ordinary people’s rights and freedoms.

That rule of law was seriously at risk under the FijiFirst government.

Things had gotten to the point where, using bullying and fear, unafraid of the courts or any other institution which might restrain it, the FijiFirst government just did what it wanted.

In its last year of power, the only restraint on FijiFirst was the fact that an election was coming.

Turned on opponents
Had it won that election, FijiFirst would have turned its guns on the only opponents it had left — the opposition political parties, the independent news media and the few non-government organisations that continued to criticise it.

Fiji would have fallen firmly into that growing group of countries now called “democratic dictatorships” — places which have elections and the other trappings of democracy, but which in truth severely restrict the democratic rights and freedoms of their people.

Four key officials holding important constitutional positions — the Chief Justice, the Commissioner of Police, the Commissioner of Corrections and the Supervisor of Elections — have been suspended inside of four weeks.

That tells us one of two things.

Either the new government is particularly vengeful.

Or there are complaints against these officials that date back to the FijiFirst party’s time in power and which are only now coming to light.

After all, they’ve hardly had time to offend us under the new government.

And if these are in fact complaints about things which happened long ago, we must ask — why were they not actioned under the FijiFirst government?

No one dared complain
Or was fear of the government so pervasive that no one dared to complain against these officials — and the complaints are only being made now?

We need to know about these complaints.

Yes, each of these officials is innocent until proven otherwise.

But they are public officials, occupying some of the most powerful and critical positions in the country.

The decisions they make concern our most basic rights and freedoms — whether or not we spend a night in a cell, whether (and when) we will get a ruling on our employment dispute, or whether we are able to vote.

So we, the public, have a right to know what they are accused of.

What has changed?

The overwhelming sentiment for most of us — at least those around me — is a new sense of freedom.

Doesn’t change things
For many of us, that does not really change things from day to day.

Not everyone has the compelling urge to air their opinions on everything (in newspaper columns or elsewhere).

But it is simply the fact that if you want to rant about something on Facebook, you’re not worrying about what the government will think.

Most of us, day to day, are not worrying about whether we will be unfairly held for 48 hours in a jail cell.

Yet only two years ago in the covid crisis, the police were doing that to hundreds of people.

We are not worrying about whether we will be arrested for saying something which will “cause public alarm”.

Yet, every time an NGO or opposition political party leader issued a public statement in the last 10 years, this was a constant worry.

But much of the real damage done was at the next level down — the level where ordinary people like us want to get things done.

This week I met a small group of distinguished doctors.

Climate of fear
I heard with some amazement about the climate of fear which predominated in the Ministry of Health.

Criticism was not permitted.

In November last year, the permanent Secretary for Health publicly told politicians to “leave the Health Ministry alone”.

Nobody, he said, should talk about it.

Nobody should “undermine” it — because it was on the cusp of great things.

One senior medical specialist who famously criticised the state of our hospitals in The Fiji Times was immediately banned from entering them.

This was hardly a hardship — he was only volunteering his skills for free.

But what about all the patients who he was looking after?

He recounted to me, with some wonder the bureaucratic memo-writing process that is now being followed to bring him back.

Cash and volunteers
The International Women’s Association has cash and volunteers ready to improve women’s and children’s health at CWM Hospital.

We are talking about basic things, like hot water and decrepit bathrooms.

How do you run hospital wards without hot water?

IWA’s mistake was to make these deficiencies public on social media.

So the Health Ministry stopped talking to IWA.

Only with the change of government is IWA allowed to openly communicate with the Ministry of Health about what it wants to do — instead of whispers to officials on their gmail accounts.

For years, I have marvelled at the stupidity of the edicts issued from Ministry of Education headquarters.

Schools may not fund-raise without permission.

Schools may not invite speakers to their school assemblies without permission.

Schools may not run extracurricular classes for students without their permission.

‘In name of equality’
The policy seems to be “in the name of equality, we must all be equally dumbed down”.

As the Education Ministry pursued the government’s mad obsession with our “secular state”, schools owned by religious bodies cannot choose their own school heads, even if they pay for them and save the government money.

Education and health are critical issues for all of us.

The government can’t deliver everything.

Governments by nature are unwieldy, bureaucratic and slow (sometimes for good reason, because they have to carefully manage public funds and follow other laws).

So people have to get involved.

Get involved

We also have to get involved on a wide swathe of other issues such as poverty, domestic violence, drug abuse, crime and economic opportunities.

Criticism not welcome
These are all things which, for the past 15 years, we were told, the government had under control — like “never before”.

Our input — and certainly our criticism — were not welcome.

Let’s be clear about our new government.

We might be glad that it’s there.

And we should never take for granted the rights and freedoms it has restored to us and the refreshing new attitude it brings after 15 years.

But soon the honeymoon will end, the shine will come off and we will all have to get down to the work (which never ends) of solving our deep social and economic problems.

The expectations on the new government are huge.

Everybody wants every problem to be solved and every complaint to be answered.

We want every crook who has received an unfair benefit to be (as we now always seem to say) “taken to task”.

Same huge debt
The new government has the same huge debt, the same shortage of cash and the same lack of resources the old government did.

It can move some money around and change some priorities — but it can never solve every problem.

But a government that is prepared to tolerate criticism has at least one advantage over one that is not.

It can hear from real people about where the real problems are.

That’s why freedom of expression is not just a nice thing to have.

It’s actually important to tell us what is going on.

This government, like the old one, will gradually become more complacent and unresponsive as it becomes burdened with the ordinary business of administration.

And that is why every democracy — at least every real one — prizes freedom.

Freedom to march
Freedom for people to criticise, to march in the street, to take the government to court, without being punished for it.

These are some of the tools we use to hold the government to account, to remind the politicians that it is about us, not them, and to embarrass the politicians into action.

But just as important is the responsibility on us not just to talk — but also to act.

Our new freedom also means freedom to get involved.

What are the things that are important to us?

Is it health?

Education?

Child poverty?

Prison reform?

Our local environment?

So what will we do?

Don’t take it for granted
We don’t need to be part of some official committee or NGO to fight for the things that are important to us.

We don’t need the government’s permission to hold a public forum to talk about problems and solutions.

After 15 years we need to be able to say to our leaders: “We’re in charge here. This is what we want. You work for us.”

They won’t always listen — but that’s what freedom is.

It was a close-run thing on Christmas Eve — but freedom is what we got.

So let’s not take it for granted.

Let’s use it.

Richard Naidu is a Suva lawyer who is fairly free with his opinions. The views in this article are not necessarily the views of The Fiji Times. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

We woke to the news yesterday that the Australian government has negotiated with the designer of the Aboriginal flag Harold Thomas, and copyright for the flag will be transferred to the Commonwealth.

The government has now stated the flag is freely available for public use. Prime Minister Scott Morrison stated:

We’ve freed the Aboriginal flag for Australians.

While many Indigenous people are celebrating today and rejoicing in the idea the flag has been “freed,” I am not so sure.

I think we should all take a moment to pause and consider what this new “ownership” might represent.

The flag was first flown at Victoria Square on Kaurna Country, on National Aborigines Day in July in 1971.

A brief history of the flag
The flag was first flown at Victoria Square on Kaurna Country, on National Aborigines Day in July in 1971.

In 1972, it became the official flag for the Aboriginal Tent Embassy which was established on Ngunnawal Country.

In 1995, William Hayden, Governor-General of Australia proclaimed both the Aboriginal flag and the Torres Strait Islander flag (designed by the late Bernard Manok as) “Flags of Australia” under the Flags Act 1953.

But the truth is the Aboriginal flag has always been our flag. We didn’t need an act of Parliament to recognise its significance.

But it doesn’t belong to “all Australians”. It was meant to belong to just us. https://t.co/mzpIg6hV7o

— Scott (@ScottTrindall) January 24, 2022

A national flag?
National flags are seen as sacred objects by many: in many countries, to desecrate the flag carries penalties. As citizens, we are expected to revere the national flag and to be proud of what it represents.

But the Australian national flag represents white sovereignty and a belief in national unity.

The national flag symbolises both patriotism and nationalism. Nowhere was this more evident than when Morrison wore a mask sporting the design of the flag. The flag/mask drapes his face with the most prominent national symbol for all to see.

When wearing this mask, the prime minister literally embodies the symbolism of nation and all that stands for.

The national flag is flown at schools and all prominent government buildings. It is, for many Australians, a site of heightened emotion where the main response is a sense of belonging to what Benedict Anderson called an “imagined community”.

Of course, the Union Jack is another nation’s flag. It belongs to the United Kingdom. It represents our dispossession and is a constant reminder of our forced and continued colonisation.

The Union Jack does not represent us, our history or our future aspirations.

Not only did they steal the land, they now own the symbol of the movement built to get that land back.

Happy 50 years

— My Land (@BundjalungBud) January 24, 2022

A symbol of strength
The Aboriginal flag is a symbol of our strength as an ancient people who preceded the symbolic and real effects of national borders.

The Aboriginal flag does not belong to all Australians. It belongs, like the land, to us as a symbol of our sovereignty. Morrision’s statement about having “freed” the flag for all is offensive.

It is ours; he has no authority to “free” it. The Aboriginal flag cannot just be “freed”. It is an emblem of our emotion, our loves and losses. It holds our faith, our hope and our future.

I grew up in the 1970s and 80s. When I saw the Aboriginal flag, I felt a sense of pride and belonging. As a young person, I wasn‘t aware there were any copyright issues or that there were legalities that needed to be considered.

I always knew I belonged to what the flag stood for: our survival, our resilience as Indigenous people, and our steadfastness in the face of the on-going and omnipresent colonial struggles that continue to affect us today.

The flag was created in protest against the very people who now own it. This isn’t a win for Blackfullas.

— Anton Schirripa (@YourUncleAnton) January 24, 2022

Our sorrows and our unity
On Australia Day, we see the Australian national flag waving take place. There is both banality and symbolism to this ritual.

For some, the flag is waved without thought as to what it might mean to others: it is just part of the ritual of the national holiday. For many, it is emotionally charged and can generate fervour and national pride.

I am not sure many people stop to think about the flag’s design, its history or what it might mean to some non-white Australians.

But the design of the Aboriginal flag is intimately connected to our struggle for land rights.

The red represents the land, the yellow the life-giving sun and the black Aboriginal people.

The flag is a symbol of our unceded sovereignty of our lands. It represents a powerful symbol of resistance in our ongoing battle with the Crown in terms of the unlawful claiming of our lands as terra nullius.

How is it possible it can be so seamlessly hijacked in order to be incorporated — “freed” — into another set of meanings? Allowed onto the market for anyone to use? I see this act of “freeing” our flag as an act of arrogance at the very least.

One could also say it is a violent appropriation of what Aboriginal people deem to be a symbol of reverence.

As someone who is currently property of the colonial State, let me tell you that the flag now being owned by the gubbas does not make it free.

This is not a win.

This is not freedom.

— Disposable Human (@haveachattabs) January 24, 2022

Our flag contains our sorrows and our unity as a colonised people. It is not a “free-for-all” symbol. Nor is it a symbol that can be neatly injected into the national psyche as a means of expressing some kind of racial unity that overshadows the injustice and inequality Aboriginal people experience on a daily basis.

It is the fabric of our souls. When it flies, we can see ourselves in flight as we once were, free nations.

Dr Bronwyn Carlson is professor of Indigenous studies and director of the Centre for Global Indigenous Futures, Macquarie University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz