Asia Pacific Report

A new documentary film on the devastating “ecocide” happening in West Papua will be screened as a world premiere at a weekend solidarity forum in Auckland Tāmaki Makaurau this weekend.

The 90min feature film, Pesta Babi (“Pig Feast”) — Colonialism In Our Time, produced by award-winning Papuan journalist Victor Mambor and directed by Dandhy Dwi Laksono, tells a story about the impact of the Indonesian government and military on the lives of thousands of Papuans trying to protect their rainforests from destruction.

It also relates the plight of thousands of internal refugees in the Melanesian region.

The peaceful resistance of local communities is revealed in the documentary as they face up to 54,000 Indonesian troops and large corporate entities make big profits at the expense of an ancient culture.

Dorthea Wabiser of the environmental and human rights group Pusaka, will speak on the deforestation and displacement of communities in the south-eastern district of Merauke  where Indonesia is destroying 2.5 million ha of rainforest for palm oil, sugar cane, biodiesel, rice and other crops.

Military force is deployed to silence any dissent from communities.

Pesta Babi (Pig Feast).                              Trailer: Jubi Media

Solidarity group hosts
The solidarity group West Papua Action Aotearoa with West Papua Action Tāmaki are hosting the two-day public forum on March 7 and 8 with the speakers from West Papua including environmental champions and filmmakers who operate in militarised zones at considerable risk to their personal safety.

Also, a media talanoa featuring Jubi Media founder Victor Mambor and others will be hosted by the Asia Pacific Media Network (APMN) at the Whānau Community Centre and Hub on March 9.

“The forum is an important event with a number of speakers and filmmakers from West Papua telling the hidden stories of the Indonesian occupation of their country,” said organiser Catherine Delahunty.

The climate impact of their destruction was incredibly serious as was the use of the military to enforce an end to traditional life, food sources, and forests, she said in a statement.

“These people are our Pacific neighbours with a devastating story to tell that our government and others across the world have chosen to ignore,” she said.

“They have a right to come here and to be heard despite the media bans in Indonesia and the desire of successive New Zealand governments to ignore structural genocide in our region.

NZ citizen kidnapped
“Only when a NZ citizen was kidnapped by Papuan soldiers did the government show any interest in West Papua, and this quickly faded once he was safely released thanks especially to West Papuan efforts.”

Other speakers at the forum include veteran activist and writer Maire Leadbeater, Green MP Teanau Tuiono, Hawai’an academic Dr Emalani Case, journalist and author Dr David Robie, Dr Arama Rata of Te Kuaka, and PNG academic Dr Nathan Rew.

• Forum Day One (public sessons), Saturday, March 7:  Old Choral Hall, University of Auckland, 7 Symonds St,  9am–4pm.
• World Premiere of “Pesta Babi” (The Pig Feast) documentary with Q&A – The Academy Cinema, Lorne St, CBD (below the Auckland Public Library), March 7, 6-8.30pm.
• Forum Day Two (solidarity development), Sunday, March 8: The Taro Patch, 9 Dunnotar Rd, Papatoetoe.
• Media Talanoa, Monday, March 9: “Kōrero with Victor Mambor: West Papua: Journalism as Resistance” – Whānau Community Centre and Hub, 165 Stoddard Rd, Mt Roskill (Next to Harvey Norman), 6-8pm.
• Further information: Catherine Delahunty, West Papua Action Tāmaki and West Papua Action Aotearoa. Tel: 021 2421967

This article was first published on Café Pacific.

Debate on Guam’s future as a US territory has intensified with its legislature due to vote on a non-binding resolution to become a US state amid mounting Pacific geostrategic tensions and expansionist declarations by the Trump administration.

Located closer to Beijing than Hawai’i, Guam serves as a key US strategic asset, known as the “tip of the spear,” with 10,000 military personnel, an air base for F-35 fighters and B-2 bombers and home port for Virginia-class nuclear submarines.

The small US territory of 166,000 people is also listed by the UN for decolonisation and last year became an associate member at the Pacific Islands Forum.

Local Senator William A. Parkinson introduced the resolution to the legislature last Wednesday and called for Guam to be fully integrated into the American union, possibly as the 51st state.

“We are standing in a moment of history where two great empires are standing face-to-face with each other, about to go to war,” Parkinson said at a press conference on Thursday.

“We have to be real about what’s going on in this part of the world. We are a tiny island but we are too strategically important to be left alone. Stay with America or do we let ourselves be absorbed by China?”

His resolution states the decision “must be built upon the informed consent of the people of Guam through a referendum”.

Trump’s expansionist policies
Parkinson’s resolution comes as US President Donald Trump advocates territorially expansionist policies, particularly towards the strategically located Danish-ruled autonomous territory of Greenland and America’s northern neighbour, Canada.

“This one moment in time, this one moment in history, the stars are aligning so that the geopolitics of the United States favour statehood for Guam,” Parkinson said. “This is an opportunity we cannot pass up.”

As a territory, Guam residents are American citizens but they cannot vote for the US president and their lone delegate to the Congress has no voting power on the floor.

The US acquired Guam, along with Puerto Rico, in 1898 after winning the Spanish-American War, and both remain unincorporated territories to this day.

Independence advocates and representatives from the Guam Commission on Decolonisation regularly testify at the UN’s Decolonisation Committee, where the island has been listed as a Non-Self-Governing Territory since 1946.

Commission on Decolonisation executive director Melvin Won Pat-Borja said he was not opposed to statehood but is concerned if any decision on Guam’s status was left to the US.

“Decolonisation is the right of the colonised,” he said while attending Parkinson’s press conference, the Pacific Daily News reported.

‘Hands of our coloniser’
“It’s counterintuitive to say that, ‘we’re seeking a path forward, a path out of this inequity,’ and then turn around and put it right back in the hands of our coloniser.

“No matter what status any of us prefer, ultimately that is not for any one of us to decide, but it is up to a collective decision that we have to come to, and the only way to do it is via referendum,” he said, reports Kuam News.

With the geostrategic competition between the US and China in the Pacific, Guam has become increasingly significant in supporting American naval and air operations, especially in the event of a conflict over Taiwan or in the South China Sea.

The two US bases have seen Guam’s economy become heavily reliant on military investments and tourism.

The Defence Department holds about 25 percent of Guam’s land and is preparing to spend billions to upgrade the island’s military infrastructure as another 5000 American marines relocate there from Japan’s Okinawa islands.

Guam is also within range of Chinese and North Korean ballistic missiles and the US has trialed a defence system, with the first tests held in December.

The “moment in history” for statehood may also be defined by the Trump administration spending cuts, Guam Governor Lou Leon Guerrero warned in her “state of the island” address on Wednesday.

Military presence leveraged
The island has in recent years leveraged the increased military presence to demand federal assistance and the territory’s treasury relies on at least US$0.5 billion in annual funding.

“Let us be clear about this: Guam cannot be the linchpin of American security in the Asian-Pacific if nearly 14,000 of our residents are without shelter, because housing aid to Guam is cut, or if 36,000 of our people lose access to Medicaid and Medicare coverage keeping them healthy, alive and out of poverty,” Guerrero said.

Parkinson’s proposed legislative resolution calls for an end to 125-plus years of US colonial uncertainty.

“The people of Guam, as the rightful stewards of their homeland, must assert their inalienable right to self-determination,” states the resolution, including that there be a “full examination of statehood or enhanced autonomous status for Guam.”

“Granting Guam equal political status would signal unequivocally that Guam is an integral part of the United States, deterring adversaries who might otherwise perceive Guam as a mere expendable outpost.”

If adopted by the Guam legislature, the non-binding resolution would be transmitted to the White House.

A local statute enacted in 2000 for a political status plebiscite on statehood, independence or free association has become bogged down in US courts.

‘Reject colonial status quo’
Neil Weare, a former Guam resident and co-director of Right to Democracy, said the self-determination process must be centred on what the people of Guam want, “not just what’s best for US national security”.

“Right to Democracy does not take a position on political status, other than to reject the undemocratic and colonial status quo,” Weare said on behalf of the nonprofit organisation that advocates for rights and self-determination in US territories.

“People can have different views on what is the best solution to this problem, but we should all be in agreement that the continued undemocratic rule of millions of people in US territories is wrong and needs to end.”

He said the 250th anniversary of the US Declaration of Independence next year can open a new venue for a conversation about key concepts — such as the “consent of the governed” — involving Guam and other US territories.

Republished from BenarNews with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Pacific nations and smaller states are being urged to unite to avoid being caught in the crossfire of a possible nuclear conflict between China and the US.

On the cusp of a new missile age in the Indo-Pacific, a nuclear policy specialist suggests countries at the centre of the brewing geopolitical storm must rely on diplomacy to hold the superpowers accountable.

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace’s Ankit Panda said it was crucial smaller states and Pacific nations concerned about potential nuclear conflict “engage in meaningful risk reduction, arms control and broader diplomacy to reduce the possibility of war.”

“States [which] are not formally aligned with the United States or China were more powerful united,” and this “may create greater incentives for China and the United States to engage in these talks,” the think tank’s nuclear policy program Stanton senior fellow said.

North Korea and the United States have been increasing their inventories of short- to intermediate-range missile systems, he said.

“The stakes are potentially nuclear conflict between two major superpowers with existential consequences for humanity at large.”

The US military’s newest long-range hypersonic missile system, called the ‘Dark Eagle’, could soon be deployed to Guam, he said.

Caught in crossfire
A report issued by the Congressional Budget Office last year suggested the missile could potentially reach Taiwan, parts of mainland China, and the North Korean capital of Pyongyang if deployed to Guam, he said.

“Asia and Pacific countries need to put this on the agenda in the way that many European states that were caught in the crossfire between the United States and the Soviet Union were willing to do during the Cold War,” Panda said.

In 2022, North Korea confirmed it had test-launched an intermediate-range ballistic missile capable of reaching Guam.

Guam is a US Pacific territory with a population of at least 170,000 people and home to US military bases.

Guam’s unique position
Panda said it could be argued that Guam’s unique position and military use by the US as a nuclear weapons base makes it even more of a target to North Korea.

He said North Korea will likely intensify its run of missile tests ahead of America’s presidential election in November.

“If [President] Biden is re-elected, they will continue to engage with China in good faith on arms control.

“But if [Donald] Trump gets elected then we can expect the opposite. We’ll see an increase in militarism and a race-to-arms conflict in the Indo-Pacific,” he said.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

When I was growing up in Kiribati, then known as the Gilbert Islands, New Zealand divers came to safely detonate unexploded munitions from World War II.

Decades on from when US Marines fought and won the Battle of Tarawa against Japan, war was still very much a part of everyday life.

Our school bell was a bombshell. We’d find bullet casings.

In fact, my grandmother’s leg was badly injured when she lit a fire on the beach, and an unexploded ordnance went off. There are Japanese bunkers and US machine gun mounts along the Betio shoreline, and bones are still being found — even today.

Stories are told . . . so many people died . . . these things are not forgotten.

That’s why the security and defence pacts being drawn up around the Pacific are worrying much of the region, as the US and Australia partner up to counter China’s growing influence.

You only have to read Australia’s Defence Strategic Review 2023 to see they are preparing for conflict.

The battle is climate change which is impacting their everyday life. The bigger powers will most certainly go through the motions of at least hearing their voices.

— Barbara Dreaver

Secret pact changed landscape
While in the last few years we have seen China put big money into the Pacific, it was primarily about diplomatic weight and ensuring Taiwan wasn’t recognised. But the secret security pact with the Solomon Islands changed the landscape dramatically.

There was a point where it stopped being about just aid and influence — and openly started to become much more serious.

Since then, the escalation has been rapid as the US and Australia have amped up their activities — and other state actors have as well.

In some cases, lobbying and negotiating have been covertly aggressive. Many Pacific countries are concerned about the militarisation of the region — and whether we like it or not, that’s where it’s headed.

Tuvalu’s Foreign Minister Simon Kofe said he understands why his country, which sits between Hawai’i and Australia, is of strategic interest to the superpowers.

Worried about militarisation, he admits they are coming under pressure from all sides — not just China but the West as well.

“In World War II, the war came to the Pacific even though we played no part at all in the conflict, and we became victims of a war that was not of our making,” he said.

Important Pacific doesn’t forget
“So it’s important for the Pacific not to forget that experience now we are seeing things that are happening in this part of the world, and it’s best we are prepared for that situation.”

Academic Dr Anna Powles, a long-time Pacific specialist, said she was very concerned at the situation, which was a “slippery slope” to militarisation.

She said Pacific capitals were being flooded with officials from around the region and from further afield who want to engage.

Pacific priorities are being undermined, and there is a growing disconnect in the region between national interest and the interest of the political elites.

Today in Papua New Guinea, we see first-hand how we are on the cusp of change.

They include big meetings spearheaded by the US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, another one by India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi and a defence deal that will allow US military access through ports and airports. In exchange, the US is providing an extra US$45 million (NZ$72 million) in funding a raft of initiatives, some of which include battling the effects of climate change.

Equipment boost
The PNG Defence Force is also getting an equipment boost, and there’s a focus on combatting law and order issues — which domestically is a big challenge — and protecting communities, particularly women, from violence.

There is much in these initiatives that the PNG government and the people here will find attractive. It may well be the balance between PNG’s national interest and US ambitions is met — it will be interesting to see if other Pacific leaders agree.

Because some Pacific leaders are happy to be courted and enjoy being at the centre of global attention (and we know who you are), others are determined to do the best for their people. The fight for them is not geopolitical, and it’s on the land they live on.

The battle is climate change which is impacting their everyday life. The bigger powers will most certainly go through the motions of at least hearing their voices.

What that will translate to remains to be seen.

Barbara Dreaver is TV1’s Pacific correspondent and is in Papua New Guinea with the New Zealand delegation. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A group of former leaders of Pacific island nations have condemned the AUKUS security pact saying it is “bringing war much closer to home” and goes against the Blue Pacific narrative.

The deal between Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom will see Canberra forking out billions of dollars over the next three decades to acquire a fleet of nuclear submarines.

In a swinging criticism of the agreement, the Pacific Elders’ Voice, which includes former leaders of Kiribati, the Marshall Islands, Tuvalu and Palau, said Australia was deliberately exploiting a loophole in the Pacific’s nuclear-free agreement — the Rarotonga Treaty — which permits the transit of nuclear-powered craft such as submarines.

“AUKUS signals greater militarisation by joining Australia to the networks of the US military bases in the northern Pacific and it is triggering an arms race, by bringing war much closer to home,” the Pacific elders said in a statement.

“Not only does this go against the spirit of the Blue Pacific narrative, agreed to all [Pacific Islands] Forum member countries last year, it also demonstrates a complete lack of recognition of the climate change security threat that has been embodied in the Boe and other declarations by Pacific leaders.”

The group stated that the “staggering” amount of money committed to AUKUS “flies in the face of Pacific islands countries, which have been crying out for climate change support”.

“The fact that not even a significant fraction of this figure is available for the region to deal with the greatest security threat shows a complete lack of sensitivity to this key Pacific priority in Canberra, London, Paris and Washington,” they wrote.

They also raised concerns about New Zealand’s ambitions to join the trilateral security deal, saying the forum should discourage Aotearoa from joining the “military alliance”.

“We are urging the Pacific Island Leaders to take a decisive and ethical stand on this important matter and not to be subsumed by the AUKUS nations. This does not only put our region at greater risk of a nuclear war but the real environmental impacts arising out of any incidents will be huge,” they said.

Pacific security threatened by ‘climate change’ — not China
One of the spokespeople for the Pacific Elders’ Voice, former Kiribati president Anote Tong told RNZ Pacific it was disappointing that Australia — as a founding forum member — was ready to commit more than $3 billion for military expansionism.

Australia is also a signatory to the 2050 Strategy for the Blue Pacific, which is the strategy that underscores the climate crisis as the region’s single greatest security threat.

“In the Pacific, we have always been saying loud and clear that the greatest challenge to our security has been climate change. It has always always been at the top of the agenda,” Tong said.

“We understand that the security priorities of the AUKUS partners is different from our priority, but at least we also have the existing arrangements in the region with respect to nuclear.”

Australia, Tonga said, was more concerned about the geopolitics when it came to concerns about security.

But for Pacific islands “security is what is the threat that we see challenging our future existence and it is climate change,” he said.

“It is not China or what is happening on the other side of the world.”

The recent attempts by the Australian government to reassure regional leaders that AUKUS would not breach the Rarotonga agreement demonstrated the lack of consultation on Canberra’s part, according to the former Kiribati leader.

“The consultations are taking place [now], but if that had taken place before all of this had happened it would have removed all of these concerns. If we all understood what it involves [and] I am sure if Pacific leaders were happy with it and the region feels that here is no threat to the existing [security] arrangement then we would have no opposition to what is going on.”

‘Australia’s got to step up’
Tong said Australia needed to “step up as a part of the Pacific family”.

He said anytime that a major decision, like AUKUS, was made all Pacific nations must be consulted.

“We have known what has happened in the past when some countries have felt left out so we could have fragmentation,” he said, referencing the Solomon Islands security pact with China which was condemned by other Pacific countries for the lack of consultation on Honiara’s part.

“We do not want to repeat it. We all have an interest in what goes on in our Blue Pacific. It has to be an every-way process, not just a one-way process.”

But while the former leaders group, the forum, and several regional leaders have expressed strong opposition, a few have publicly supported Australia’s plans — including Fiji Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka and Palau’s President Saurengal Whipps Jr.

President Whipps told RNZ Pacific in an interview that as part of peace and security “you also have to have the capability of deterrence”.

“We support what Australia has done because we believe that it is important that Australia is ready and is prepared to defend the Pacific,” he said.

He said Oceania’s largest economy was the first to assist its smaller neighbours with illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing and maritime security.

“Australia is doing its part in making sure that we protect freedom and democracy and peace, provide peace and security in the region is important.”

President Whipps said Palau had held seven referendums to amend its constitution to allow the US to transmit nuclear submarines or vessels through its waters because it was about peace and security.

“Now, should they be testing nuclear? Or dumping nuclear waste in our waters? No, we do not agree to that,” he said.

“But we also understand that nuclear energy is something that you need. It powers aircraft carriers or powers, submarines, it powers power plants, and it’s clean energy.

“We need to continue to discuss and put everything into context as to where we are and how we can all do our part and make any increase in peace and security in the region.”

‘We will not acquire nuclear weapons’ – Australia
Last week, Vanuatu’s Climate Change Minister Ralph Regenvanu appealed in a tweet for Australia to assure its island neighbours that the nuclear submarines under the AUKUS agreement would not carry nuclear weapons.

Australia has signed up to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), a UN agreement that includes an unequivocal obligation for non-nuclear States Parties such as Australia to never acquire nuclear weapons.

“The Australian government has confirmed unequivocally that we do not seek, and will not acquire nuclear weapons,” a Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade spokesperson told RNZ Pacific.

“This reflects Australia’s existing international legal obligations under the TPNW and the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty (SPNFZ), both of which we ratified decades ago.”

The spokesperson said the Australian government had reaffirmed that it would continue to meet in full its obligations under the TPNW and the SPNFZ Treaty.

“Australia has underscored the above position with Pacific governments, particularly during consultative engagements on AUKUS over the past 18 months.

“The Australian government shares the ambition of TPNW States Parties of a world without nuclear weapons.

“It is committed to engaging constructively to identify possible pathways towards nuclear disarmament and to an ambitious agenda to advance nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament,” the DFAT spokesperson added.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Papua human rights activist and lawyer Veronica Koman has called for an independent inquiry into the attack on health workers in the Kiwirok district, Star Highlands, Papua, saying there are two versions of how the tragedy happened.

A healthcare worker, 22-year-old Gabriella Maelani, was killed during the attack by the West Papua National Liberation Army-Free Papua Organisation (TPNPB-OPM) resistance movement.

“There is one version which is clearly being shared a lot in the media. And there is a second version circulating among the Papuan people,” Koman told CNN Indonesia.

Koman said that the chronology of events which was being broadcast by most news media depicted the alleged brutality of the TPNPB-OPM during the attack.

In the second version alleged the attack was triggered when a person wearing a doctor’s uniform shot at the TPNPB, causing a shootout inside the healthcare building, Koman said.

She said that in Papua many TNI (Indonesian military) personnel held dual posts as teachers and doctors. She believed this caused a great deal of suspicion in Papua.

Nevertheless, she was saddened by the news that a healthcare worker died, although she said that the truth about the chronology of events must still be investigated.

Death of healthcare worker
Based on information she had received, the death of the healthcare worker was not because they were tortured by the TPNPB as alleged.

“The Papuan people’s version is that it’s not true that there was torture. Gabriella jumped [into a ravine] while escaping, she wasn’t thrown into the ravine by the OPM,” she said.

Koman called for an independent investigation. According to Koman, finding out which chronology was correct would influence several factors, particularly racism against the Papuan people.

“If for example the alleged barbaric actions are not true, it will influence the stigma and racism against the Papuan people. And that is very barbaric,” she said.

“Looking for examples of human rights issues, we can separate it. The ones adversely affected should be the OPM, not the ordinary Papuan people.

“In general with minority groups, including the Chinese, when one person does wrong, everyone is adversely affected. LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender] for example, if a gay person does something, the whole community is adversely affected. So it’s important to straighten it out.”

Koman also said care was needed to be taken with the witness testimonies.

Information under duress
She questioned whether or not the witnesses provided information under duress.

“There would have been many soldiers around them … So they could have been pressured,” she said.

Earlier, the TPNPB-OPM admitted responsibility for attacking public facilities such as a community healthcare centre and school building in the Kiwirok district on September 13 and 14.

They claimed that the attack was a form of resistance demanding Papuan independence from Indonesia.

The Presidential Staff Office said that “armed criminal groups” (KKB) — as officials generally describe Papuan armed independence fighters — violated human rights law after the healthcare worker died during the attack on September 13.

Presidential Staff Deputy V Jaleswari Pramodhawardani said that the armed group had violated several laws such as the healthcare law, the nurses law, the hospital law and the healthcare quarantine law.

Translated by James Balowski for IndoLeft News. The original title of the article was “Veronica Koman Klaim Ada 2 Versi Penembakan Nakes di Papua”.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Since the September 11 terror attacks, there has been no hiding from the increased militarisation of the United States. Everyday life is suffused with policing and surveillance.

This ranges from the inconvenient, such as removing shoes at the airport, to the dystopian, such as local police departments equipped with decommissioned tanks too big to use on regular roads.

This process of militarisation did not begin with 9/11. The American state has always relied on force combined with the de-personalisation of its victims.

The army, after all, dispossessed First Nations peoples of their land as settlers pushed westward. Expanding the American empire to places such as Cuba, the Philippines, and Haiti also relied on force, based on racist justifications.

The military also ensured American supremacy in the wake of the Second World War. As historian Nikhil Pal Singh writes, about 8 million people were killed in US-led or sponsored wars from 1945–2019 — and this is a conservative estimate.

When Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican and former military general, left the presidency in 1961, he famously warned against the growing “military-industrial complex” in the US. His warning went unheeded and the protracted conflict in Vietnam was the result.

The 9/11 attacks then intensified US militarisation, both at home and abroad. George W. Bush was elected in late 2000 after campaigning to reduce US foreign interventions.

The new president discovered, however, that by adopting the persona of a tough, pro-military leader, he could sweep away lingering doubts about the legitimacy of his election.

Waging war on Afghanistan within a month of the Twin Towers falling, Bush’s popularity soared to 90 percent. War in Iraq, based on the dubious assertion of Saddam Hussein’s “weapons of mass destruction”, soon followed.

The military industrial juggernaut
Investment in the military state is immense. 9/11 ushered in the federal, cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security, with an initial budget in 2001-02 of US$16 billion. Annual budgets for the agency peaked at US$74 billion in 2009-10 and is now around US$50 billion.

This super-department vacuumed up bureaucracies previously managed by a range of other agencies, including justice, transportation, energy, agriculture, and health and human services.

Centralising services under the banner of security has enabled gross miscarriages of justice. These include the separation of tens of thousands of children from parents at the nation’s southern border, done in the guise of protecting the country from so-called illegal immigrants.

More than 300 of the some 1000 children taken from parents during the Trump administration have still not been reunited with family.

The post-9/11 Patriot Act also gave spying agencies paramilitary powers. The act reduced barriers between the CIA, FBI, and the National Security Agency (NSA) to permit the acquiring and sharing of Americans’ private communications.

These ranged from telephone records to web searches. All of this was justified in an atmosphere of near-hysterical and enduring anti-Muslim fervour.

Only in 2013 did most Americans realise the extent of this surveillance network. Edward Snowden, a contractor working at the NSA, leaked documents that revealed a secret US$52 billion budget for 16 spying agencies and over 100,000 employees.

Normalisation of the security state
Despite the long objections of civil liberties groups and disquiet among many private citizens, especially after Snowden’s leaks, it has proven difficult to wind back the industrialised security state.

This is for two reasons: the extent of the investment, and because its targets, both domestically and internationally, are usually not white and not powerful.

Domestically, the 2015 Freedom Act renewed almost all of the Patriot Act’s provisions. Legislation in 2020 that might have stemmed some of these powers stalled in Congress.

And recent reports suggest President Joe Biden’s election has done little to alter the detention of children at the border.

Militarisation is now so commonplace that local police departments and sheriff’s offices have received some US$7 billion worth of military gear (including grenade launchers and armoured vehicles) since 1997, underwritten by federal government programmes.

Militarised police kill civilians at a high rate — and the targets for all aspects of policing and incarceration are disproportionately people of colour. And yet, while the sight of excessively armed police forces during last year’s Black Lives Matter protests shocked many Americans, it will take a phenomenal effort to reverse this trend.

The heavy cost of the war on terror
The juggernaut of the militarised state keeps the United States at war abroad, no matter if Republicans or Democrats are in power.

Since 9/11, the US “war on terror” has cost more than US$8 trillion and led to the loss of up to 929,000 lives.

The effects on countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, and Pakistan have been devastating, and with the US involvement in Somalia, Libya, the Philippines, Mali, and Kenya included, these conflicts have resulted in the displacement of some 38 million people.

These wars have become self-perpetuating, spawning new terror threats such as the Islamic State and now perhaps ISIS-K.

Those who serve in the US forces have suffered greatly. Roughly 2.9 million living veterans served in post-9/11 conflicts abroad. Of the some 2 million deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, perhaps 36 percent are experiencing PTSD.

Training can be utterly brutal. The military may still offer opportunities, but the lives of those who serve remain expendable.

Life must be precious
Towards the end of his life, Robert McNamara, the hard-nosed Ford Motor Company president and architect of the United States’ disastrous military efforts in Vietnam, came to regret deeply his part in the military-industrial juggernaut.

In his 1995 memoir, he judged his own conduct to be morally repugnant. He wrote,

We of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations who participated in the decisions on Vietnam acted according to what we thought were the principles and traditions of this nation. We made our decisions in light of those values. Yet we were wrong, terribly wrong.

In interviews with the filmmaker Errol Morris, McNamara admitted, obliquely, to losing sight of the simple fact the victims of the militarised American state were, in fact, human beings.

As McNamara realised far too late, the solution to reversing American militarisation is straightforward. We must recognise, in the words of activist and scholar Ruth Wilson Gilmore, that “life is precious”. That simple philosophy also underlies the call to acknowledge Black Lives Matter.

The best chance to reverse the militarisation of the US state is policy guided by the radical proposal that life — regardless of race, gender, status, sexuality, nationality, location or age — is indeed precious.

As we reflect on how the United States has changed since 9/11, it is clear the country has moved further away from this basic premise, not closer to it.

Dr Clare Corbould, Associate Professor, Contemporary Histories Research Group, Deakin University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The local West Papua action group in Dunedin has met Taieri MP Ingrid Leary and raised human rights and militarisation issues that members believe the New Zealand government should be pursuing with Indonesia.

Leary has a strong track record on Pacific human rights issues having worked in Fiji as a television journalist and educator and as a NZ regional director of the British Council with a mandate for Pacific cultural projects.

She is also sits on the parliamentary select committees for Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, and Finance and Expenditure.

Leary met local coordinator Barbara Frame, retired Methodist pastor Ken Russell, and two doctoral candidates on West Papua research projects at Otago University’s National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies (NCPCS), Ashley McMillan and Jeremy Simons, at her South Dunedin electorate office on Friday.

She also met Dr David Robie, publisher and editor of Asia Pacific Report that covers West Papuan issues, and Del Abcede of the Auckland-based Asia-Pacific Human Rights Coalition (APHRC).

New Zealand’s defence relationship with Indonesia was critiqued in an article for RNZ National at the weekend by Maire Leadbeater, author of See No Evil: New Zealand’s Betrayal of the People of West Papua.

‘Human rights illusion’
“The recent exposure of New Zealand’s military exports to Saudi Arabia and other countries with terrible human rights records is very important,” Leadbeater wrote.

“The illusion of New Zealand as a human rights upholder has been shattered, and we have work ahead to ensure that we can restore not only our reputation but the reality on which it is based.”

She cited Official Information Act documentation which demonstrated that since 2008 New Zealand had exported military aircraft parts to the Indonesian Air Force.

“In most years, including 2020, these parts are listed as ‘P3 Orion, C130 Hercules & CASA Military Aircraft:Engines, Propellers & Components including Casa Hubs and Actuators’, she wrote.

The documentation also showed that New Zealand exported other ‘strategic goods’ to Indonesia, including so-called small arms including rifles and pistols.

“New Zealand’s human rights advocacy for West Papua is decidedly low-key, despite claims by some academics that Indonesia is responsible for the alleged crime of genocide against the indigenous people,” Leadbeater wrote.

“Pursuing lucrative arms exports, and training of human rights violators, undermines any message our government sends. As more is known about this complicity the challenge to the government’s Indonesia-first setting must grow.”

Massive militarisation
Asia Pacific Report last month published an article by Suara Papua’s Arnold Belau which revealed that the Indonesian state had sent 21,369 troops to the “land of Papua” in the past three years.

Jakarta sends 21,000 troops to Papua over last three years, says KNPB

This figure demonstrating massive militarisation of Papua did not include Kopassus (special forces), reinforcements and a number of other regional units or the Polri (Indonesian police).

Victor Yeimo, international spokesperson for the West Papua National Committee (KNPB), was cited as saying that Papua was now a “military operation zone”.

“This meant [that] Papua had truly become a protectorate where life and death was controlled by military force,” Belau wrote.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Campaigners at a TAPOL-hosted global webinar have called on the people of Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom, United States and other countries to stop funding military training for Indonesian security forces who are “killing innocent West Papuans”.

Rosa Moiwend, a member of the War Resisters International, said West Papuans wanted to live peacefully without any oppression by the military – this was the hope of the indigenous Melanesian people.

“If your government is actually behind this scenario, I think the main thing you have to do is to go and talk to your government, Parliament members and question them about your tax money,” she said.

“Where does your tax money go? Does it go to pay [for] the war or is the tax money used for the purpose of human lives?”

Moiwend said many people across the world loved peace and justice, so they were anti-military and war.

Stopping governments funding military training was a must for activists.

Moiwend, a strong Melanesian and Pacific woman, gave an inspiring message to activists around the world to stand up firmly and speak out about the arms business that was violating human rights and killing people everywhere, “including the lives of innocent West Papuans”.

Sharing militarist experiences
An organiser said a key objective of the webinar was to give an opportunity to lawyers, activists, and supporters of a Make West Papua Safe campaign to share their experiences of militarisation and militarised policing.

Other speakers in the London-hosted webinar on Monday included Elijah Dacosta, a TAPOL campaigner; Yohanis Mambrassar, a lawyer for West Papuan human rights activists; Yones Douw, head of the justice and peace department of the Papua Kemah Gospel Church; author and researcher Jason MacLeod, co-founder of Make West Papua Safe; and Zelda Grimshaw, a Make West Papua Safe campaigner.

TAPOL (Tahanan Politik) is a British-based organisation campaigning for human rights and democracy in Indonesia.

“TAPOL was founded in 1973, and in the beginning the TAPOL campaign was focusing on releasing political prisoners in Indonesia,” said Dakosta.

But later the seriousness of military occupation became increasingly important.

“We have expanded to raise awareness on human rights issue in Aceh, East Timor and West Papua,” said Dakosta.

Yohanes Mambrasar, a West Papuan lawyer gave an illuminating description on what has been happening over human rights violence by state institutions towards indigenous people of West Papua.

“There has been increasing repression. We are seeing violent actions by the TNI (Indonesian National Armed Forces) and police against unarmed peaceful civilians who are gathering to express their political aspirations. We can really see this increasing year by year, even month by month,” said Mambrassar.

Human rights advocacy
Mambrassar who has been working on human rights advocacy said that during 2019 and 2020 “we are seeing this crackdown on protesting West Papuans.”

But they were also seeing a lot of violence towards villagers, who were suspected of supporting independence or having “separatist sympathies”, such as in Nduga, Intan Jaya, and other regions.

He said the violence was now extended to the virtual world where some people who disseminated information on social media such as Facebook and YouTube would face cyber-attacks. They were even physically attacked by the police or armed forces.

RNZ Pacific reports that Indonesian military denied shooting civilians in Papua. Papua’s police chief said that reports of a new military operation in the troubled Nduga regency were a “hoax”.

However, Yones Douw, head of the justice and peace department of KIMI church (West Papua Kemah Gospel Church), said that violence had never stopped since Indonesia had occupied West Papua.

“Really the violence has not changed since 1961 to 1969, 1969 to 2020, and 2020, when special autonomy was declared here in West Papua – right through until today the violence has continued,” said Douw.

Douw, a human rights activist, said that when special autonomy was introduced, Jakarta said that West Papuans would be 90 percent independent.

Promises ‘only words’
He said this was “only words – in fact, we have been seeing increasing violence”.

“So, if special autonomy went the way it was supposed to, West Papuan people should be protected and cared for. But that has not happened at all,” Douw said.

“Why is [the violence] increasing like this? Well, if you find a pastor who is speaking about the suffering of his congregation, he will be called a separatist. Anyone who speaks about human rights will be called as separatist, anyone who speaks about the welfare of Papuan people will be labelled as separatist,” he said.

He said that the Indonesian laws granting freedom of expression did not hold in West Papua. Even journalists, human rights activists, and some church leaders could not work without feeling a sense of fear.

“These are school students who are being shot, these are student who are walking around their own villages and without even any question they are being shot.

“Imagine what it is like if you are an older person, there is just no freedom at all to move,” said Douw.

Stopping foreign support
Jason MacLeod, co-founder of Make West Papua Safe, said he had collaborated with New Zealand activist Maire Leadbeater and Rosa Moiwend in launching this campaign.

The campaign was “to stop foreign government support for the Indonesian police and military,” said MacLeod.

He said it was a peaceful movement seeking to stop New Zealand and Australian government funding and training for the Indonesian police and military which every day brutally repressed the indigenous people of West Papua.

Brisbane-based MacLeod, who has been working on West Papua issues for the last 30 years, said the motivation behind the founding of the Make West Papua Safe campaign was in response to students speaking out in Jayapura.

Asked what they had thought about the New Zealand and Australian governments’ help for the Indonesian military, the students replied that both governments “can go to hell”, said MacLeod.

The activists, lawyers, and human rights defenders called on the people in Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom, United States, the Pacific, Africa, Caribbean, Europe and Asia to raise their voices support of stopping military oppression in West Papua.

Contributed by a postgraduate communication studies student at Auckland University of Technology.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz