The parties involved in talks aimed at resolving an impasse over Bougainville’s push for independence are planning to meet several more times before a deadline in June.

The leaders of Papua New Guinea and Bougainville have been meeting all week in Port Moresby, with former New Zealand Governor-General Sir Jerry Mateparae serving as moderator.

The question before them hinges on the conditions for tabling the results of the 2019 Bougainville referendum in the PNG Parliament, in which there was overwhelming support for independence.

PNG wants an absolute majority of MPs to agree to the tabling, while Bougainville says it should be a simple majority.

Bougainville says changes to the PNG Constitution would come later, and that is when an absolute majority is appropriate.

Bougainville’s President Ishmael Toroama has suggested a solution could be reached outside of Parliament, but PNG Prime Minister James Marape has questioned the readiness of Bougainville to run itself, given there are still guns in the community and the local economy is miniscule.

Sources at the talks say that, with the parties having now stated their positions, several more meetings are planned where decisions will be reached on the way forward.

Burnham key to civil war end
One of those meetings is expected to take place at Burnham, New Zealand.

It was preliminary talks at Burnham in 1997 that led to the end of the bloody 10-year-long civil war in Bougainville.

Bougainville is holding elections in September, and the writs are being issued in June, hence the desire that the process to determine its political future is in place by then.

Last week, Bougainville leaders declared they wanted independence in place by 1 September 2027.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Prime Minister James Marape has made two foreign policy gaffes in the space of a week that may come back to bite him as Papua New Guinea prepares for its 48th anniversary of independence this Saturday.

Critics have been stunned by the opening of a PNG embassy in Jerusalem in defiance of international law — when only three countries have done this other than the United States amid strong Palestinian condemnation — and days later a communique from his office appeared to have indicated he had turned his back on West Papuan self-determination aspirations.

Marape was reported to have told President Joko Widodo that PNG had no right to criticise Indonesia over human rights allegations in West Papua and reportedly admitted that he had “abstained” at the Port Vila meeting of the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) last month when it had been widely expected that a pro-independence movement would be admitted as full members.

• READ MORE: MSG throws away golden chance to reset peace and justice for West Papua
• Other West Papua reports

The membership was denied and the United Liberation Movement for West Papua (ULMWP) remained as observers — as they have for almost a decade, disappointing supporters across the Pacific, while Indonesia remains an associate member.

Although Marape later denied that these were actually his views and he told PNG media that the statement had been “unauthorised”, his backtracking was less than convincing.

In the case of Papua New Guinea’s diplomatic relations with Israel, they were given a major and surprising upgrade with the opening of the embassy on September 5 in a high-rise building opposite Malha Mall, Israel’s largest shopping mall.

Marape was quoted by the PNG Post-Courier as saying that the Israeli government would “bankroll” the first two years of the embassy’s operation.

Diplomatic rift with Palestine
This is bound to cause a serious diplomatic rift with Palestine with much of the world supporting resolutions backing the Palestinian cause, especially as Marape also pledged support for Israel with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu attending the inauguration ceremony.

Papua New Guinea has now joined Guatemala, Honduras, Kosovo and the United States as the “pariah” countries willing to open embassies in West Jerusalem. Most countries maintain embassies instead in Tel Aviv, the country’s commercial centre.

Israel regards West Jerusalem as its capital and would like to see all diplomatic missions established there. However, 138 of the 193 United Nations member countries do not recognise this.

Palestine considers East Jerusalem as its capital for a future independent state in spite of the city being occupied by Israel since being captured in the 1967 Six Day War and having been annexed in a move never recognised internationally.

As Al Jazeera reports, Israel has defiantly continued to build illegal settlements in East Jerusalem and in the Occupied West Bank.

“Many nations choose not to open their embassies in Jerusalem, but we have made a conscious choice,” Marape admitted at the embassy opening.

“For us to call ourselves Christian, paying respect to God will not be complete without recognising that Jerusalem is the universal capital of the people and the nation of Israel,” Marape said.

Law as ‘Christian state’
According to PNG news media, Marape also plans to introduce a law declaring the country a “Christian state” and this has faced some flak back home.

In an editorial, the Post-Courier said Marape had officially opened the new embassy in Jerusalem in response to PNG church groups that had lobbied for a “firmer relationship” with Israel for so long.

“When PM Marape was in Israel,” lamented the Post-Courier, “news broke out that a Christian prayer warrior back home, ‘using the name of the Lord, started performing a prayer ritual and was describing and naming people in the village who she claimed had satanic powers and were killing and causing people to get sick, have bad luck and struggle in finding education, finding jobs and doing business’.

“Upon the prayer warrior’s words, a community in Bulolo, Morobe Province, went bonkers and tortured a 39-year-old mother to her death. She was suspected of possessing satanic powers and of being a witch.

“It is hard to accept that such a barbaric killing should occur in Morobe, the stronghold of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, which has quickly condemned the killing.”

The Post-Courier warned that the country would need to wait and see how Palestine would react over the embassy.

“Australia and Britain had to withdraw their plans to set up embassies in Jerusalem, when Palestine protested, describing the move as a ‘blatant violation of international law’.

Pacific Journalism Review: How Indonesian media amplifies the state’s narrative on the Free West Papua movement. #westpapua #indonesia #humanrights https://t.co/J3Rj0Ulhzs pic.twitter.com/9ygIo6KjWN

— Human Rights Monitor (@hurimonitor) September 12, 2023

Indonesian ‘soft-diplomacy’ in Pacific
The establishment of the new embassy coincides with a high profile in recent months over the Indonesian government’s major boost in its diplomatic offensive in Oceania in an attempt to persuade Pacific countries to fall in line with Jakarta over West Papua.

Former Security, Politics and Legal Affairs Minister Wiranto – previously a former high-ranking Indonesian general with an unsavoury reputation — gained an additional budget of 60 million rupiah (US$4 million) to be used for diplomatic efforts in the South Pacific

“We are pursuing intense soft-diplomacy. I’m heading it up myself, going there, coordinating, and talking to them,” he told a working meeting with the House of Representatives (DPR) Budget Committee in September 2018.

“We’re proposing an additional budget of 60 billion rupiah.”

Wiranto was annoyed that seven out of 13 Pacific countries back independence for West Papua. He claimed at the time that this was because of “disinformation” in the Pacific and he wanted to change that.

In 2019, he was appointed to lead the nine-member Presidential Advisory Council but his Pacific strategy was followed through over the past six years.

“We’ve been forgetting, we’ve been negligent, that there are many countries [in the Pacific] which could potentially threaten our domination — Papua is part of our territory and it turns out that this is true,” said Wiranto at the time of the budget debate.

But for many critics in the region, it is the Indonesian government and its officials themselves that have been peddling disinformation and racism about Papua.

Atrocities in Timor-Leste
Wiranto has little credibility in the Pacific, or indeed globally over human rights.

According to Human Rights Watch: “The former general Wiranto was chief of Indonesia’s armed forces in 1999 when the Indonesian army and military-backed militias carried out numerous atrocities against East Timorese after they voted for independence.

“On February 24, 2003, the UN-sponsored East Timor Serious Crimes Unit filed an indictment for crimes against humanity against Wiranto and three other Indonesian generals, three colonels and the former governor of East Timor.

“The charges include[d] murder, arson, destruction of property and forced relocation.

“The charges against Wiranto are so serious that the United States has put Wiranto and others accused of crimes in East Timor on a visa watch list that could bar them from entering the country.”

Australian human rights author and West Papuan advocate Jim Aubrey condemned Wiranto’s “intense soft-diplomacy” comment.

“Yeah, right! Like the soft-diplomatic decapitation of Tarina Murib! Like the soft-diplomatic mutilation and dismemberment of the Timika Four villagers! Like Indonesian barbarity is non-existent!,” he told Asia Pacific Report, saying that Jakarta’s policy had continued since Wiranto’s declaration.

“The non-existent things in Wiranto’s chosen words are truth and justice!”

Conflicting reports on West Papua
When the PNG government released conflicting reports on Papua New Guinea’s position over West Papua last weekend it caused confusion after Marape and Widodo had met in a sideline meeting in in Jakarta during the ASEAN summit.

According to RNZ Pacific, Marape had said about allegations of human rights violations in West Papua that PNG had no moral grounds to comment on human rights issues outside of its own jurisdiction because it had its “own challenges”.

He was also reported to have told President Widodo Marape that he had abstained from supporting the West Papuan bid to join the Melanesian Spearhead Group because the West Papuan United Liberation Movement (ULMWP) “does not meet the requirements of a fully-fledged sovereign nation”.

“Indonesia’s associate membership status also as a Melanesian country to the MSG suffices, which cancels out West Papua ULM’s bid,” Marape reportedly said referring to the ULMWP.

Reacting with shock to the report, a senior PNG politician described it to Asia Pacific Report as “a complete capitulation”.

“No PNG leader has ever gone to that extent,” the politician said, saying that he was seeking clarification.

The statements also caught the attention of the ULMWP which raised its concerns with the Post-Courier.

Marape statement ‘corrected’
Three days later the Post-Courier reported that Marape had “corrected” the original reported statement.

In a revised statement, Marape said that in an effort to rectify any misinformation and alleviate concerns raised within Melanesian Solidarity Group (MSG) countries, West Papua, Indonesia, and the international community, he had addressed “the inaccuracies”.

“Papua New Guinea never abstained from West Papua matters at the MSG meeting, but rather, offered solutions that affirmed Indonesian sovereignty over her territories and at the same time supported the collective MSG position to back the Pacific Islands Forum Resolution of 2019 on United Nations to assess if there are human right abuses in West Papua and Papua provinces of Indonesia.”

He also relayed a message to President Widodo that the four MSG leaders of Melanesian countries – [Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Solomon islands and Vanuatu] — had resolved to visit him at his convenience to discuss human rights.

But clarifications or not, Prime Minister Marape has left a lingering impression that Papua New Guinea’s foreign policy is for sale with chequebook diplomacy, especially when relating to both Indonesia and Israel.

Solomon Islands Foreign Minister Jeremiah Manele says the country joined an agreement with the United States only after changes to wording relating to China.

He said the country did not want to be forced to choose sides, and the Pacific should be seen as a region of peace and cooperation.

Manele was in Wellington today for an official meeting with his New Zealand counterpart Nanaia Mahuta, and was welcomed to Parliament with a pōwhiri today.

Solomon Islands has been a central focus in discussions over partnerships and security in the region after it signed a partnership agreement with China in April.

After a draft of the agreement was leaked in March, New Zealand had described it as “gravely concerning”, but the full text of the final document has never been made public.

The US has been working to contain China’s growing influence with Pacific countries, and last week brought leaders of 12 Pacific nations to Washington DC for two days with the aim of finalising a new Pacific strategy with a joint declaration of partnership.

Solomon Islands had initially refused to sign the declaration, which covered 11 areas of cooperation, but later agreed after a requirement for Pacific Island states to consult with each other before signing security deals with regional impacts was removed.

Decision clarified
Manele clarified that decision when questioned by reporters this afternoon.

“In the initial draft there were some references that we were not comfortable with, but then the officials under the discussions and negotiations … were able to find common ground, and then that took us on board, so we signed,” he said.

Asked what specifically they were uncomfortable with, he confirmed it related to indirect references to China.

“There was some references that put us in a position that we would have to choose sides, and we don’t want to be placed in a position that we have to choose sides.”

He said the Solomons’ agreement with China was domestically focused and did not include provision for a military base.

“My belief … and my hope is this — that the Pacific should be a region of peace, of co-operation and collaboration, and it should not be seen as a region of confrontation, of conflict and of war,” he said.

“And of course we are guided by the existing regional security arrangements that we have in place — and these are the Biketawa declaration as well as the Boe declaration.

US re-engagement welcomed
“We welcome the US re-engagement with the Pacific and we look forward to working with all our partners.”

After securing its partnership agreement, US officials acknowledged they had let the relationship with Pacific nations “drift” in recent years, and there was more work to do.

Manele said he was “delighted” to be in Aotearoa for the first time in about eight years, after his previous plans to visit two years ago were put on hold by the covid-19 pandemic.

He thanked New Zealand for support in helping manage and contain the virus, including with vaccines and medical equipment.

Manele said the discussion between the ministers covered the RSE scheme, the need to review the air services agreement, the 2050 Blue Pacific strategy, and maritime security.

He was keen to stress the importance of increased flights between New Zealand and Solomon Islands.

“I think this is important, we are tasking our officials to start a conversation, we’ll be writing formally to the government of New Zealand to review the air services agreement that we have between our two countries,” he said.

Boost for business, tourism
“This will not only facilitate the RSE scheme but I hope will also facilitate the movement of investors and business people and general tourism.”

The country was also hopeful of more diplomatic engagement with New Zealand.

“Not only at the officials level but also at the ministerial level and at the leaders level, and your Prime Minister has an invitation to my Prime Minister to visit New Zealand in the near future, and my Prime Minister is looking forward to visiting.”

Increased engagement would be required, he said, from all Pacific Island Forum partners, including Australia and New Zealand, to tackle climate change in line with the Blue Pacific Continent 2050 strategy agreed at the most recent Forum meeting in Fiji.

Both Manele and Mahuta highlighted climate change as the greatest threat to security in the region.

He was to attend a roundtable discussion with New Zealand business leaders this evening.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting has ended in Rwanda with Samoa confirmed as the next host of the meeting.

Samoa’s hosting of the 2024 event will be the first time a Pacific member country will host CHOGM

Samoa’s Prime Minister, Fiame Naomi Mata’afa attended the meeting in Rwanda.

CHOGM brings together leaders and delegations from 54 Commonwealth nations from across Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, the Pacific, and Europe.

Leaders of Commonwealth countries meet every two years, hosted by different member countries on a rotating basis since 1971.

#Samoa to host the next #Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in 2024. @RNZPacific @KaiSawaieke @IBIupdate @radioaustralia @samoaobserver
Follow live press conference: https://t.co/9VZSSsmnTM pic.twitter.com/VCm72xxOJR

— Josephine Latu-Sanft (@JoLatuSanft) June 25, 2022

The last meeting was hosted by the United Kingdom in 2018, and this is the first meeting since the covid-19 pandemic delayed the meeting for two years.

The week-long meeting discussed important matters to the Commonwealth family of nations such as democracy, peace, and governance; sustainable and inclusive development; post-covid-19 recovery, climate crisis, new members, and the secretary-general of the Commonwealth Secretariat.

On Saturday, during the Leaders Retreat, Samoa was confirmed as the next host for the CHOGM in 2024.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The West and China continue to exert influence over the Pacific region. But discussions of Pacific Island Countries (PICs) are increasingly patronising, framing them as vulnerable, and omitting their agency.

In the battle for geopolitical influence and supremacy in the Pacific, the two most visible antagonists, the Anglo-West and China, are often the only two sides which matter to the mainstream media and political discourse.

The third side, the Pacific Big Ocean States (BOSs), are often forgotten, or relegated to the margin. In a subconscious way, this hierarchy of significance has roots in the colonial discourse which continued to undermine Pacific agency in various ways to this day.

As an example, the recent whirlwind visit to the region by China’s Foreign Minister, Wang Yi, caused media outcry and desperate diplomatic visitations — the political ripples spread far and wide provoking narratives of indignation, anxiety, and outright anger among the Anglo-Western states.

China responded by using tactical diplomatic language to tone down and conceal its own global expansionist agenda under the Belt and Road initiative. Both sides tried their best to project their humane and empathetic imagery towards the Pacific people while concealing their respective geopolitical, ideological, and strategic interests.

This is exactly what diplomacy is all about: putting on different masks when the circumstances require.

As it turned out, the BOSs “won” the diplomatic battle. They rejected China’s hegemonic and all-consuming plan to form a multilateral regional bloc in the form of the “China-Pacific Countries Common Development Vision,” as well as pushed back on the Anglo-Western insistence on keeping away from Chinese offerings.

Bilateral agreements
In the end, Pacific leaders signed bilateral agreements with China, based on specific developmental, economic, and wellbeing needs of individual states.

Bilateral agreements are common in international relations. The United States, Australia, and Aotearoa New Zealand all have bilateral economic agreements with China as part of their economic lifeline as modern states. Likewise, BOSs are also seeking economic agreements for their survival and why should they be discouraged from engaging with China or any other country in this regard?

There is a subtle ring of patronisation and paternalism here. The Anglo-Western states see the Pacific as their “natural” habitat which should not be shared with anyone else because that’s where they sent explorers, missionaries, and settlers, had colonies, fought against the Japanese invaders,  tested their nuclear bombs, built military bases, and exerted significant cultural influence.

During the Cold War, the Pacific was often described as the “American Lake” because it was literally littered with US military and naval bases.

Despite decolonisation in the region, this feeling of false imperial grandeur still persists in various subconscious forms. For instance, being lectured on the evils of China by the Anglo-West is almost like saying that the BOSs are not smart, strong, and sophisticated enough to stand up to China’s manipulative intents.

Aid, which is used to counter Chinese influence, often ends up benefiting the donor countries such as Australia and New Zealand because the contractors are largely from those countries.

On the other hand, China’s low quality infrastructure and debt-creating loans seem to suggest the rather patronising “beggars cannot be choosers” attitude. Chinese influence is far more cunningly subtle through its “soft power” long term approach compared to the rather abrupt short term approach of the Anglo-Saxon powers.

Common colonial experiences
China has strategically invoked the South-South discourse to engage with BOSs hoping that they will see each other as “developing” countries who share common colonial experiences of Western colonialism.

Whether the BOSs buy this ideological bait is another question. By and large, BOSs still see China as a highly industrialised state with lots of goodies to dangle and benefit from, and not so much as a fellow “poor” Global South brethren.

One of the ironies of history is that colonialism, apart from creating a culture of subservience, has also deeply embedded a strong pro-Anglo-Western cultural orientation amongst the BOSs, despite moments of political and ideological resistance. Most Pacific people speak English, go through Anglo-Western education, are readily exposed to Anglo-Western cultural influences such as music, Hollywood movies, and other forms of ideological hegemony, and have close connections with their neighbours such as Australia, New Zealand, and the USA, where they migrate for various reasons.

These factors have created a deep sense of connection with the Anglo-Western world, a reality which China will never be able to replicate, or even challenge, in the next 20 years, despite its extensive “soft power” machinations.

The BOSs’ engagement with China is more economic and diplomatic and less cultural, although this has been on the increase through scholarship offerings and the establishment of Confucius institutions, among other strategies. BOSs frame their engagement with China on the basis of need rather than ideological alignment as is often assumed and misrepresented by their Anglo-Western neighbours. They are able to play the diplomatic and geopolitical game in subtle and smart ways that keep the big powers guessing and sometimes worried.

The reality is that while individual BOSs may sign bilateral agreements with China, none of them will allow itself to become China’s patron state, the same way that the US has been creating buffer and client states around the world. This is because, as they probably know, the cost of assimilation into China’s sphere of influence will be massive and they have a lot to lose.

Some BOSs have adopted a “Look North Policy” and in recent years Pacific students have travelled  to China for studies, Pacific businesses have sold their products to the Chinese market, and states have engaged in bilateral or multilateral deals with the Asian power. This should be seen as part of the diplomatic diversification process rather than a colonising project.

Just another partner
The reality is that China will always become just another partner and not the alternative to the Anglo-Western connection. Most Pacific people will opt to migrate to New Zealand, US, or Australia, rather than China.

This is where the anxiety and fear of the Anglo-Western countries about a Chinese “takeover” is not just misplaced, but utterly irrational. It does not consider the agency of the BOSs to wisely, strategically, and imaginatively navigate their way through the treacherous geopolitical waters. The overreaction by the Anglo-Western bloc about potential Chinese influence sends out a rather unsavoury message about “bullying” and “colonial attitude.”

This is reinforced by insults such as that by former Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison that the Pacific is Australia’s “backyard” or the racist insinuation by Heather du Plessis-Allan (a right-wing New Zealand journalist) that Pacific people are “leeches,” or the unkind and patronising labelling by some Australian academics and policy thinkers of the Pacific as an “Arc of Instability.”

Residues of neo-colonial perception are consciously and subconsciously entrenched in the Anglo-Western perception of the BOSs. This has a long history. The Pacific Island Labourers Act 1901, an offshoot of the White Australian policy, was designed to remove Pacific people from Australia.

In New Zealand, the Dawn Raid era of the mid-1970s and early 1980s saw the arrest, harassment, and removal of Pacific peoples who were unwanted in New Zealand. The then  Australian Immigration Minister Jim Forbes said in May 1971 that “Pacific Islanders are unsophisticated and unsuited to settlement in Australia.”

Pacific people have always been treated as dispensable entities who need to be kept out, only invited in to support their economy as cheap dispensable labour. This philosophy and practice, which started during the Australian labour trade in the 1800s and in New Zealand in the 1950s and 60s, continues today in both countries under the seasonal labour scheme.

Times have changed and it’s important for our bigger members of the Vuvale (family)  to engage with their Pacific neighbours as equal partners, not subordinate and unsophisticated backyard children. The BOS’s agency needs full recognition as capable of making their own mind and plotting their trajectory towards the future they desire.

The old order where colonial paternalism, imperial patronage, racialised narratives, and belittling perceptions shaped relationships no longer have any place. The Anglo-Western countries in the region are good at ticking the UN Sustainable Development boxes such as equity, diversity, and inclusion (SDG10), but they hardly  practice these in meaningful ways.

No matter how well these subtle manoeuvres are diplomatically concealed, these still cannot escape the gaze of Pacific BOSs because they live with it all the time.  Time for a dramatic attitudinal transformation.

Steven Ratuva is a professor and interdisciplinary scholar and director of the Macmillan Brown Centre for Pacific Studies at the University of Canterbury, Aotearoa New Zealand. This article was first published by the Australian Institute of International Affairs under a Creative Commons Licence and is republished with the author’s permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Samoa and China do not have any plans for military ties, Samoa Prime Minister Fiamē Naomi Mataʻafa says.

Fiamē — who is on a three-day trip to Aotearoa — is making her first official bilateral trip abroad since becoming leader last year.

Her visit marks 60 years of diplomatic relations between New Zealand and Samoa and the 60th anniversary of Samoa’s independence.

At a media briefing after talks with New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern yesterday, Fiamē said: “There are no discussions between Samoa and China on militarisation at all.”

She said the Pacific nations would discuss China’s security proposals at the Pacific Islands Forum due to take place from July 12.

“The issue needs to be considered in the broader context,” she said.

Ardern said there was capability in the region to deal with security issues and they could be addressed together, while stressing that Pacific nations still had the sovereign right to decide their own future.

“We have convergence on our regional priorities,” Fiamē said, adding that Samoa believed in the region taking a collective approach to issues.

She said the anniversary of the Treaty of Friendship signed by the two countries would coincide with Samoa opening its borders fully on August 1.

Watch the media briefing

Ardern and Fiamē hold a joint media briefing. Video: RNZ News

The talks with Ardern had covered a lot of ground, she said, and the two countries would work together on tourism, education and in other economic areas.

“Targeted assistance from New Zealand has enabled us to open our borders.”

From August 1 flights to Samoa would increase from the current weekly flight for passengers to daily flights by the end of the year.

Her message to Samoans living in New Zealand was that the anniversary celebrations will take place over 12 months so they had plenty of time to come home.

Asked what Samoa required of New Zealand, Fiamē said “she was not in a rush to come up with a shopping list”.

Instead it might be time just to reflect on reprioritising issues while saying climate change and education remained important as well as “building back stronger” after covid-19.

Time for a rethink on RSE scheme
On the subject of seasonal workers, which Samoa has “slowed down”, she said the New Zealand scheme was well run. But there were some concerns and Samoa was noticing the impact of the loss of workers in its own development sectors.

Originally it was intended to send unemployed workers to Australia and Aotearoa for the RSE programme, but now the civil service and the manufacturing sector in Samoa were being hit by experienced employees leaving.

“We need to have a bit more balance,” Fiamē said, adding that the new government wanted to hold new talks with both the Australia and New Zealand governments on the issue.

Referring to the Dawn Raids, Fiamē welcomed Ardern’s formal ceremonial apology last year.

“When we all live together it’s important to settle grievances and differences,” she said.

Ardern said the visit has come at a special time for the two countries, referring to the Treaty of Friendship and Samoa’s 60th anniversary.

She announced the launch of a special fellowship in Fiamē’s name and the New Zealand prime minister’s award plus the start of new sports leaders’ awards with an emphasis on women and girls.

Discussions had covered their shared experiences on Covid-19 with Ardern praising the high vaccination rates among young Samoans.

Climate change had also been discussed and New Zealand will increase funding for Samoa’s plans to tackle it.

Invitation to Ardern
On her arrival at Parliament yesterday morning, Fiamē invited Ardern to Samoa to take part in the independence celebrations next month and she repeated the invitation at the media briefing.

Fiamē’s visit comes ahead of the Pacific Island Forum meeting.

After welcoming Fiamē, Ardern acknowledged the importance of that meeting which will discuss issues like climate change and the current “strategic” situation across the Pacific.

China’s growing presence in the Pacific is among topics sure to be covered by the two leaders during their talks.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A senior Solomon Islands MP has warned that the controversial security agreement with China could result in action among local opponents of the deal.

The government in Honiara signed a controversial security agreement with China despite concern from local political figures, as well as Australia, New Zealand and the United States.

There are regional concerns the deal could open the door for Beijing to base its military in Honiara, but Prime Minister Manasseh Sovagare denies that that is the purpose of the security pact.

Solomon Islands parliamentarian and chair of the Foreign Relations Committee Peter Kenilorea Jr said Sogavare’s decision to seal the deal — despite significant opposition — could lead to domestic ramifications.

He said certain sections of the nation’s population have been strongly against China since the diplomatic switch from Taiwan in 2019.

Kenilorea said some people would not take this lightly and it was going to cause further tensions that were already at play locally.

“It will just further inflame emotions and tensions. And again underscores the mistrust that people have in the government,” he said.

‘A cause for concern’
“And it is cause for concern for many Solomon Islanders, but definitely a certain segment of the society will now feel even more concerned and might want to start to take certain action which is not in the best interest of Solomon Islands in our own unity as a country.”

Kenilorea said the government needed to make the security document signed with China available to the public.

“It is that important that it should be made public. We have a security treaty with Australia, and that can be accessed online.

“So why couldn’t this be and I will be calling for that signed copy to be made available so that all Solomon Islanders as well as a region can see what is in there,” he said.

Opposition Leader Matthew Wale made that a formal request in Parliament “to allay any regional fears” and received a non-commital response from Sogavare.

Australia’s disappointment with Honiara
The Australian federal government has declared it is “deeply disappointed” that Solomon Islands has pressed ahead and signed the security pact with China.

The announcement came just days after Australia’s Minister for the Pacific Zed Seselja travelled to Honiara and met Sogavare in a last-ditch effort to dissuade him from going ahead with the deal.

Senator Seselja and Foreign Minister Marise Payne said the government was “disappointed” by the agreement and that it was not reached in a transparent way.

“Ultimately, this is a sovereign decision of the government of Solomon Islands and we absolutely recognise that, but … declarations and these engagements on security issues have been dealt with in a Pacific-wide manner,” Payne said.

“That is the traditional approach for these issues and it’s why some Pacific partners have also raised concerns.”

Senator Payne said the government’s position was still that Pacific neighbours were the best to delivery security in the region and said it was an “unfair characterisation” to say the region had become less secure while Prime Minister Scott Morrison has been in power.

The ministers said while Solomon Islands had the right to make sovereign decisions about national security, Australia still believed the “Pacific family” was best placed to provide security guarantees.

In Washington, the White House, which is sending a high-level US delegation to Honiara this week, said it was concerned about “the lack of transparency and unspecified nature” of the pact.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The long-serving New Zealand MP Louisa Wall has fired a broadside at her own Labour Party as she leaves Parliament to take up a Pacific diplomacy role — using her valedictory speech to accuse the party president of leading a corrupt process.

Wall is leaving politics after 14 years — citing a legal battle in the lead-up to the 2020 election over the Manurewa seat as one of the reasons for leaving.

In the days leading up to her final speech at Parliament, she spoke out about a rift with the party’s leadership, claiming the Prime Minister told her directly she would never be a minister.

Today she slammed the Labour Party for its handling of the Manurewa electorate.

She accused the Labour Party president, Claire Szabó, of leading a “corrupt process”.

“When I was forced out of my electorate in 2020, by the unconstitutional actions of the party president Claire Szabó and some members of council, I was devastated.

“The president accepted a late nomination, did not share the fact of the late receipt with the council until questions were asked and then retrospectively tried to justify and legitimise her actions.”

Agreed to leave
Wall told the House at the conclusion of the spat, she agreed with the Labour Party to leave politics during this Parliamentary term.

“In 2020, I agreed to leave. Because irrespective of the merits of challenging actions, being in a team where there is no appetite for your contribution is not healthy.

“I took the opportunity to complete some of my ongoing work, including in the international advocacy space. I was placed on the list just below where I had been in 2017 and accepted that I was to resign as an MP during this term.”

Wall thanked MPs Michael Wood, Nanaia Mahuta and Tim Barnett for helping her reach this agreement but told the House she was not going of her own volition.

“I stand here today fulfilling my part of the agreement but I want to be very clear that this was not entirely my choice.”

As is custom on Thursday, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern was not in the debating chamber but deputy Prime Minister Grant Robertson watched on.

Despite never holding a ministerial position, Wall has a long list of legislative achievements, including her successful campaign to legalise same-sex marriage.

‘Rapid-fire course’
She told MPs the journey to marriage equality was “a rapid-fire course in process and procedures” not universally supported within the Labour caucus.

“While the deputy leader of the caucus at the time wanted more recognition of civil unions I believed that advocacy for marriage equality was based on fundamental human rights and that civil unions became a stop gap measure because it was not clear that marriage would get over the line,” she said.

“When I expressed this view I was told that this would be the end of my career and I would be on my own.”

Wall said throughout her time in politics she had been able to advocate on housing, period poverty, surrogacy, alcohol policies, revenge porn and abortion safe zones.

With her family watching from the packed public gallery, she finished her speech on a positive note that paid tribute to her previous sporting career.

“So while there have been obstacles to face and overcome I leave knowing I did what I could within those constraints. To use a sporting analogy, I left it all on the field.”

Louisa Wall is taking up a newly-created role as ambassador for Pacific gender equality starting next month.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz