The issue of Australians — and New Zealanders as well — serving in the Israeli military has sparked growing debate as the genocidal war crimes in Gaza mount.

Most of those involved are believed to be dual Israeli-Australian citizens, and under current Australian law, it is not automatically illegal to join a recognised foreign army, reports OnePath.

However, critics say the lack of transparency, including unclear numbers, roles, and oversight, is troubling, especially while international courts are examining serious allegations linked to the conflict.

Proceedings at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), where Israel is on trial for  genocide in a case brought by South Africa, and International Criminal Court (ICC) warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyhu and other officials have intensified questions about Australia’s responsibility to monitor its citizens abroad.

According to an Al Jazeera report, more than 50,000 Western nationals — most of them holding US or European Union passports — have joined the Israeli military in its genocidal war that has killed more than 72,000 Palestinians.

The largest number is from the United States — 12,350 dual nationality US-Israel citizens and 1207 multiple nationalities — followed by 6127 French dual national citizens and 337 multiple nationalities, according to data obtained by the Israeli NGO Hatzlacha through Israel’s Freedom of Information Law.

Australia is well down the list with 502 dual nationality soldiers and 119 multiple nationality citizens. New Zealand is 56th with 39 and 11.

Accountability major concern
A major concern being raised is accountability: if any Australians serving in Gaza were involved in alleged war crimes, would they actually be investigated?

Legal experts say Australia has “universal jurisdiction” laws, meaning citizens can theoretically be prosecuted for serious crimes committed overseas, but so far, there has been little public evidence of active investigations.

Critics argue this creates a perception of double standards.

The debate ultimately centres on whether Australia is willing to apply the same scrutiny to its own nationals in foreign conflicts, ensuring that military service abroad does not place individuals beyond the reach of the law.

Similar questions apply to New Zealand.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

In this the sixth episode of A View from Afar for 2023 political scientist Dr Paul G. Buchanan and Selwyn Manning present a two-part episode to analyse what to make of New Zealand Prime Minister, Chris Hipkins’ bilateral meetings with People’s Republic of China’s President Xi JinPing and other leaders of the PRC.

In part one, Paul and Selwyn also consider how the PRC-NZ trade relationship is seen in the eyes of New Zealand’s security partners.

Then, in the second half of today’s podcast, Paul and Selwyn analyse the most recent events in Russia – events that have taken shape since Wagner Commander Yevgeny Prigozhin’s pronounced intent to mobilise his mercenaries against the Russian Federation’s top two military heads, and, while doing so, pronounced that the Kremlin’s decision to invade Ukraine was based on falsehoods.

What should we expect next? What is the real state of Putinism? What do the political and power elites in Russia make of President Vladimir Putin’s handling of the matter?

Weeks prior to this event happening inside Russia, Paul and Selwyn analysed the question: How stable is Russian President Vladimir Putin’s hold on power? It’s a question that all those who watch Russian affairs have now been confronted with.

In this episode Paul and Selwyn unpack the complexity, look at what has changed as opposed to what has been said.

INTERACTION WHILE LIVE:

Paul and Selwyn encourage their live audience to interact while they are live with questions and comments.

To interact during the live recordings of this podcast, go to Youtube.com/c/EveningReport/

Remember to subscribe to the channel.

For the on-demand audience, you can also keep the conversation going on this debate by clicking on one of the social media channels below:

• Youtube.com/c/EveningReport/
• Facebook.com/selwyn.manning
• Twitter.com/Selwyn_Manning

RECOGNITION: The MIL Network’s podcast A View from Afar was Nominated as a Top Defence Security Podcast by Threat.Technology – a London-based cyber security news publication. Threat.Technology placed A View from Afar at 9th in its 20 Best Defence Security Podcasts of 2021 category.

You can follow A View from Afar via our affiliate syndicators.

The humanitarian aid worker Andrew Bagshaw, who has dual New Zealand and British citizenship, has been missing in Ukraine for more than 10 days.

Bagshaw and his British colleague Christopher Parry worked as part of a team of Ukrainian and international volunteers delivering aid and carrying out evacuations of civilians, often under fire from Russian forces.

They have not been seen since January 6, when they left the city of Kramatorsk for Soledar, in eastern Ukraine, which has since been claimed by the Russian mercenary company Wagner.

Humanitarian volunteers often represent the best of us. They are driven to put themselves at personal risk with little financial reward to reduce human suffering and the impacts of conflicts.

Their ethical justifications for entering dangerous locations, despite clear warnings from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs not to travel to Ukraine, are often exemplary.

But aid workers are at high risk. During the past two decades, intentional attacks on aid or humanitarian workers have become a disturbing trend, often perpetrated to drive outside influences away from war zones and fully isolate populations.

Ukraine conflict: Fellow aid worker keeps faith Andrew Bagshaw will be found alive https://t.co/2xOm1wInxC

— RNZ News (@rnz_news) January 12, 2023

It is a war crime to intentionally attack aid workers. Some, such as personnel working for the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and the United Nations, have considerably more rights than others.

Despite this division, all aid workers are covered by basic rules. The problem is that international humanitarian law is not based on the ethics of why someone is in a war zone. This is especially the case if they are foreigners.

Rights of foreigners who enter war zones
There are three main groups of foreigners who voluntarily go into war zones.

1. Some people volunteer to fight in foreign wars and are paid more than local fighters. If captured and deemed mercenaries, these people have no rights. They can be executed.
2. The second group are “aliens”, inadvertently caught up in a conflict in a country that is not theirs. For these people, if captured and non-combatants, they have a prima-facie right to leave the country. However, this is not an absolute right — they can still be held if their departure is contrary to the national interests of the state that captured them.
3. Aid workers represent the third group, and they are at increasing risk. Capturing aid workers for hostage and propaganda purposes is a repugnant trend. In recent conflicts, we’ve also seen a rise in the number of victims of collateral violence — their deaths were not intended but a result of indiscriminate force now commonly used in war zones.

More often that not, attacks on aid workers are a combination of intentional and unintentional actions.

Globally, at least 460 aid workers were victims of major attacks in 2021: 140 were were killed, 203 wounded and 117 kidnapped.

Most of these attacks happened in countries such as South Sudan, Afghanistan, Syria and Ethiopia. But other conflict zones are also contributing to the figures, with growing numbers of deaths, kidnappings and wounding of aid workers recorded in Ukraine in 2022.

International humanitarian law is clear that if a country where a war is happening consents to the presence of aid workers and they are impartial in their work, they “shall be respected and protected”.

Although Russia has withdrawn its consent to the specific convention that contains this rule, Ukraine is a signatory. The obvious problem is that Russia now considers this annexed territory to be Russian, not Ukrainian.

Irrespective of debates about ownership and consent, Russia is still bound by other rules. Russia, like Ukraine, is a party to the Hostages Convention, which prohibits and criminalises the taking of hostages, for whatever justification.

Russia is also bound by the Security Council resolution, in which it strongly condemned all forms of violence against humanitarian workers. The council, including Russia, then urged states to ensure crimes against such personnel do not go unpunished.

Between theory and practice on the battlefield
Despite all of these rules and obligations, there is a large gap between the theory of restraint and the practices developing in Ukraine.

It is possible that Bagshaw and other humanitarian workers have been directly caught up in the violence in Ukraine. To be operating in a war zone, which involves the indiscriminate use of force, Somme-like conditions, the possibility of war crimes and the arrival of thousands of mercenaries who often pay scant regard to rules, is extremely risky.

It is also possible they have been taken for bargaining purposes. A practice is developing in Ukraine in which combatants and non-combatants, including foreigners, are taken and traded by the belligerents.

These exchanges also include the bodies of the dead.

Whichever scenario applies, this is a tragedy. We are at a point where individuals with the highest ethical motivations to provide impartial humanitarian assistance have themselves become victims: collateral in a war being conducted without honour.

Dr Alexander Gillespie is professor of law, University of Waikato. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Papua New Guinea’s Deputy Opposition Leader and Shadow Inter-government and Bougainville Relations Minister Timothy Masiu says the people of Bougainville are closely watching developments over the purported “appointment” of Sir Julius Chan as caretaker PM by Peter O’Neill. The following commentary was published on journalist Sylvester Gawi’s blog Graun Blong Mi – My Land.

With all due respect to Sir Julius as a founding father of this nation, the Sandline Affair, a defining moment in the history of Papua New Guinea, which resulted in his resignation as Prime Minister has not yet been forgotten by not just the people of Bougainville, but also the many Papua New Guineans that took to the streets to protest against the involvement of foreign mercenaries in ending the Bougainville crisis.

The team leading the country at the time also included the former Deputy Prime Minister, and current Governor of Gulf Chris
Haivetta.

For those of you who may have forgotten the details, or who may have been too young to remember, or who may have a more watered down recollection, let me remind you on behalf of the people of Bougainville of the events of March 1997.

READ MORE: ‘I’m not PNG’s acting PM,’ Chan tells nation

After failed attempts to both negotiate a peace deal and also defeat the Bougainville Revolutionary Army, the Chan-Haivetta government turned to Sandline International, a company led by a retired Scots Guards Lieutenant-Colonel Tim Spicer, as both Australia and New Zealand had refused to assist.

Sandline specialised in providing arms, equipment, and contractors to participate in conflicts. At the heart of the conflict was control over CRA’s Panguna mine.

When the Sandline Affair was leaked in the Australian news media by The Australian newspaper there was a public uproar. The news quickly broke in Papua New Guinea.

PNGDF soldiers were approached by members of a local NGO called Melanesian Solidarity which wanted to consolidate a military and civil society protest against the Chan-Haivetta decision to engage Sandline.

Forced to resign
Chan was forced to resign as Prime Minister after operation “Rausim Kwick” which was planned by the then Commander of the PNG Defence Force Jerry Singirok and commanded by Major Walter Enuma, and began on the evening of the 16 March 1997.

In 24 hours they had arrested and disarmed the mercenaries.

On March 17, Singirok gave Chan, Haivetta and Defence Minister Mathias Ijape 48 hours to resign. Chan responded by refusing to resign and instead sacked Singirok.

The NGOs began nationwide strikes in support of General Singirok. Singirok accepted his termination and urged the rank and file to support his replacement. He denied that he had sought to take power in any sort of coup.

During this period the Governor-General, Sir Wiwa Korowi took out a
full page ad accusing the government of widespread corruption.

Protests continued to grow, and despite the potential for defence/
police clashes, the army observed great discipline under the watchful
eye of Major Enuma.

Chan was forced to cancel the Sandline deal and announce an inquiry –
Singirok and Enuma had achieved their most important goal. However,
they continued to demand Chan, Haivetta, and Ijapes resignations.

Sandline withdrawn
On March 21 all Sandline personnel were withdrawn from PNG. Only Tim Spicer remained to give evidence.

After immense public pressure, Chan sacked both Haivetta and Ijape and resigned himself on March 26.

The following year a peace deal was negotiated in Bougainville.

Too often here in PNG we suffer from a short memory in relation to issues of national significance such as this.

I urge those members of Parliament who continue to support the O’Neill regime camped at the Crown Hotel to think carefully and follow your conscience before any vote takes place on the floor of Parliament.

Only on the floor of Parliament can a Prime Minister be selected.

Race for copper
In a race to secure access to a commodity, copper, during the Sandline Affair the leaders of the day, Chan and Haivetta were willing to sacrifice the safety and security of the innocent men, women and children of Bougainville and the integrity of processes of government and state institutions.

This is not the type of leadership Papua New Guinea needs today as our
natural resources have grown ten-fold.

We must think of our people in Hela, Southern Highlands, Western Province, Gulf, Central, Enga, Madang, Morobe, New Ireland and now Sepik.

Our people need leadership that will protect their interests with a collective approach towards managing national assets in the national interest.”

HON TIMOTHY MASIU MP
Deputy Opposition Leader and Member for South Bougainville

• Republished from Sylvester Gawi’s bog with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz