By Stephanie Tran of Michael West Media

Under new registration requirements introduced by Israel’s Ministry of Diaspora Affairs and Combating Antisemitism, NGOs have been required to submit lists of their Palestinian employees for review and to refrain from criticism of Israel.

A number of NGOs did not comply with the requirement to disclose the identities of their Palestinian staff, citing safety concerns amid reports that Israel has deliberately targeted and killed aid workers in Gaza.

As a result, the registrations of 37 international NGOs lapsed on 31 December 2025. The organisations will be required to withdraw by 1 March 2026 if their registrations are not renewed.

The aid ban comes as Israel has passed laws prohibiting the supply of water and electricity to UNRWA, the UN agency for Palestinian refugees.

Michael West Media wrote to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Penny Wong, and Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) seeking clarification on Australia’s position regarding Israel’s suspension of humanitarian organisations operating in Gaza.

The questions included whether Australia intended to publicly condemn Israel’s decision to ban aid organisations; how the government assessed the move’s compatibility with international humanitarian law, including Israel’s obligations under the Geneva Conventions; and whether Australia would join or support diplomatic statements or measures alongside other countries calling for the ban to be lifted.

DFAT declined to provide a comment on the record, while Minister Wong did not respond to the request for comment.

In correspondence with MWM, DFAT instead provided a statement “for use in reporting, not for attribution”. In their response, the Department referred to a previous joint statement signed by Minister Wong calling on Israel to allow aid into Gaza.

International condemnation rises
The refusal to comment comes as the UN Secretary-General, multiple governments and at least 53 international NGOs have publicly condemned Israel’s suspension of 37 aid organisations from operating in Gaza and the occupied West Bank, warning it will severely restrict humanitarian access to Gaza and breach Israel’s obligations under international law.

The foreign ministers of Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Iceland, Japan, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom issued a joint statement condemning  the aid ban, warning that

One in three healthcare facilities in Gaza will close if INGOs operations are stopped.

UN Secretary-General António Guterres has called on Israel to reverse the measures, warning it “will further exacerbate the humanitarian crisis facing Palestinians”.

On Monday, seven European countries denounced Israel’s policies as incompatible with humanitarian principles and obligations under international law.

In a joint letter, 53 international aid organisations called the ban “a deliberate policy choice with foreseeable consequences”.

“More than 500 humanitarian workers have been killed since 7 October 2023. INGOs cannot transfer sensitive personal data to a party to the conflict since this would breach humanitarian principles, duty of care and data protection obligations,” the letter stated.

NGOs in limbo
Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), one of the largest medical providers operating in Gaza, said it remained in a state of uncertainty.

“Our registration expired as of the 31st of December,” said Ashley Killeen, director of engagement at Médecins Sans Frontières Australia and New Zealand. “We are still trying to have dialogue with Israeli authorities to try and maintain some type of access.”

“At this point in time, we are still continuing to try and negotiate and stay in Gaza. It’s a fragile moment.”

Killeen said claims that MSF had failed to comply with the new registration process were inaccurate.

“We’ve fully engaged in the process announced in July, we submitted the majority of the required information,” she said.

However, Killeen said MSF was unwilling to comply with the requirement to provide the identities of its Palestinian staff due to safety concerns. She stated that

Providing the names of our staff is an ethical red line that we’re not willing to cross.

“Fifteen of our colleagues have been killed since the start of this war by Israeli forces. We have an obligation to safeguard the rights of our staff, and that is why we’re not willing to provide the staff list of our Palestinian colleagues in Gaza.”

Delivering 1 in 3 babies
MSF has operated in Gaza since 1989 and supports six hospitals and two field hospitals.

“We deliver one in three babies in Gaza. I don’t know what their solution would be if MSF were not allowed to operate,” Killeen said.

“The entire health system is decimated. Banning the little aid and services that’s available for those people in there is horrific.”

“We’re not finished yet; there’s a lot more to do.”

In the ER of Al-Rantisi hospital in Gaza City, our teams help 300 children receive medical care each day.

🎥 Dr Jennifer Hulse explains our vital services and what it would mean for Palestinians if Israel stops us from… pic.twitter.com/GENl2PnIyR

— MSF International (@MSF) January 9, 2026

ActionAid Australia has also warned that deregistration would severely undermine its ability to operate.

“Being de-registered will severely restrict our ability to bring food, medical supplies and other relief into Gaza, scale operations, and respond at the huge level of humanitarian need,” said Michelle Higelin, ActionAid Australia’s executive director.

“This action by the government of Israel undermines not just ActionAid,

but the entire humanitarian response architecture.

ActionAid has delivered humanitarian assistance and medical support to more than 650,000 displaced people over the past two years.

Impact ‘not abstract’
“The impact is not abstract — it is borne by families already surviving day to day,” Higelin said. “For people in Gaza, this decision will mean less water and food, little or no sanitation, reduced shelter and medical support and increasing exposure to health risks.”

Higelin warned that pregnant women would be particularly affected by the aid ban.

“As we support one of the only functioning maternity hospitals in Gaza, we are particularly concerned about the impacts on pregnant women who are already giving birth in unsterile conditions”

ActionAid reiterated MSF’s concerns regarding the disclosure of the identities of their Palestinian staff.

“We cannot comply with requirements that compel us to hand over sensitive personal data of Palestinian staff and their families or accept political and ideological conditions unrelated to humanitarian work,” Higelin said.

“No humanitarian organisation should be forced to choose between protecting its staff and continuing lifesaving assistance.”

Violation of international humanitarian law
Under international humanitarian law, occupying powers are obliged to ensure the provision of life saving aid to civilians in conflict zones. The 4th Geneva Convention and customary international law require that humanitarian assistance be allowed to reach civilians without undue obstruction.

The International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute has warned that deliberate obstruction of humanitarian assistance, resulting in hunger and widespread suffering, constitutes a grave violation of international humanitarian law and may amount to war crimes.

Amnesty International Australia has characterised Israel’s broader blockade and systematic obstruction of aid as not only a violation of humanitarian law but as potentially amounting to crimes against humanity, citing provisions of the Geneva Conventions that require occupying powers to ensure the food and medical supplies of the population are met unconditionally. 

“It’s an obligation under international law to provide humanitarian aid. Israel has an obligation to allow aid into Gaza,” said Killeen.

Killeen said MSF was urging the Australian government to do more than reiterate general support for aid access.

International law?
“What we would hope for from our government is that they continue to uphold the principles of international humanitarian law, and in doing so, they would advocate for the rights of organisations like MSF to continue providing aid to people in Gaza,” she said.

Higelin said the moment demanded decisive action from the Australian government.

“This is a watershed moment: one that will make or break the future of civic space and humanitarian assistance in Palestine, which Israel has been occupying unlawfully for decades.

“We urge UN agencies and donor governments, including Australia, to use all available leverage to secure the reversal of this decision. Independent, principled humanitarian operations must be protected to ensure civilians can receive the assistance they urgently need.

“Lives depend upon it.”

Stephanie Tran is a journalist with a passion for uncovering stories that hold power to account. With a background in both law and journalism, she has worked at The Guardian and as a paralegal, where she assisted Crikey’s defence team in the high-profile defamation case brought by Lachlan Murdoch. Her reporting has been recognised nationally, earning her the 2021 Democracy’s Watchdogs Award for Student Investigative Reporting and a nomination for the 2021 Walkley Student Journalist of the Year Award.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

COMMENTARY: By Duncan Graham

Under-reported in the Australian and New Zealand media, Indonesia has been gripped by protests this year, some of them violent.

The protests have been over grievances ranging from cuts to the national budget and a proposed new law expanding the role of the military in political affairs, President Prabowo Subianto’s disastrous free school meals programme, and politicians receiving a $3000 housing allowance.

More recently, further anger against the President has been fuelled by his moves to make corrupt former dictator Soeharto (also Prabowo’s former father-in-law) a “national hero“.

Ignoring both his present travails, as well as his history of historical human rights abuses (that saw him exiled from Indonesia for years), Prabowo has been walking the 27,500-tonne HMAS Canberra, the fleet flagship of the Royal Australian Navy, along with PM Anthony Albanese.

The location was multipurpose: It showed off Australia’s naval hardware and reinforced the signing of a thin “upgraded security treaty” between unequals. Australia’s land mass is four times larger, but there are 11 Indonesians to every one Aussie.

Ignoring the past
Although Canberra’s flight deck was designed for helicopters, the crew found a desk for the leaders to lean on as they scribbled their names. The location also served to keep away disrespectful Australian journalists asking about Prabowo’s past, an issue their Jakarta colleagues rarely raise for fear of being banned.

Contrast this one-day dash with the relaxed three-day 2018 visit by Jokowi and his wife Iriana when Malcolm Turnbull was PM. The two men strolled through the Botanical Gardens and seemed to enjoy the ambience. The President was mobbed by Indonesian admirers.

This month, Prabowo and Albanese smiled for the few allowed cameras, but there was no feeling that this was “fair dinkum”. Indonesia said the trip was “also a form of reciprocation for Prime Minister Albanese’s trip to Jakarta last May,” another one-day come n’go chore.

Analysing the treaty needs some mental athleticism and linguistic skills because the Republic likes to call itself part of a “non-aligned movement”, meaning it doesn’t couple itself to any other world power.

The policy was developed in the 1940s after the new nation had freed itself from the colonial Netherlands and rejected US and Russian suitors.

It’s now a cliché — “sailing between two reefs” and “a friend of all and enemy of none”. Two years ago, former Foreign Minister Retno Marsudi explained:

“Indonesia refuses to see the Indo-Pacific fall victim to geopolitical confrontation. …This is where Indonesia’s independent and active foreign policy becomes relevant. For almost eight decades, these principles have been a compass for Indonesia in interacting with other nations.

“…(it’s) independent and active foreign policy is not a neutral policy; it is one that does not align with the superpowers nor does it bind the country to any military pact.”

Pact or treaty?
Is a “pact” a “treaty”? For most of us, the terms are synonyms; to the word-twisting pollies, they’re whatever the user wants them to mean.

We do not know the new “security treaty” details although the ABC speculated it meant there will be “leader and ministerial consultations on matters of common security, to develop cooperation, and to consult each other in the case of threats and consider individual or joint measures” and “share information on matters that would be important for Australia’s security, and vice-versa.”

Much of the  “analysis” came from Foreign Minister Penny Wong’s media statement, so no revelations here.

What does it really mean? Not much from a close read of  Albanese’s interpretation: ”If either or both countries’ security is threatened,

to consult and consider what measures may be taken either individually or jointly to deal with those threats.”

Careful readers will spot the elastic “consult and consider”. If this were on a highway sign warning of hazards ahead, few would ease up on the pedal.

Whence commeth the threat?  In the minds of the rigid right, that would be China — the nation that both Indonesia and Australia rely on for trade.

Indonesia’s militaristic president Prabowo Subianto is seizing books which undermine his political agenda. Duncan Graham #indonesia https://t.co/akvGdOqC9d

— 💧Michael West (@MichaelWestBiz) October 19, 2025

Keating and Soeharto
The last “security treaty” to be signed was between PM Paul Keating and Soeharto in 1995. Penny Wong said the new document is “modelled closely” on the old deal.

The Keating document went into the shredder when paramilitary militia and Indonesian troops ravaged East Timor in 1999, and Australia took the side of the wee state and its independence fighters.

Would Australia do the same for the guerrillas in West Papua if we knew what was happening in the mountains and jungles next door? We do not because the province is closed to journos, and it seems both governments are at ease with the secrecy. The main protests come from NGOs, particularly those in New Zealand.

Foreign Minister Wong added that “the Treaty will reflect the close friendship, partnership and deep trust between Australia and Indonesia”.

Sorry, Senator, that’s fiction. Another awkward fact: Indonesians and Australians distrust each other, according to polls run by the Lowy Institute. “Over the course of 19 years . . . attitudes towards Indonesia have been — at best — lukewarm.

And at worst, they betray a lurking suspicion.

These feelings will remain until we get serious about telling our stories and listening to theirs, with both parties consistently striving to understand and respect the other. “Security treaties” involving weapons, destruction and killings are not the best foundations for friendship between neighbours.

Future documents should be signed in Sydney’s The Domain.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Senior ministers of both countries, including deputy prime ministers Richard Marles and Johnny Koanapo, initialled the Nakamal Agreement at the summit of Mount Yasur volcano on Tanna Island, ahead of formal sign-off next month.

The two nations have agreed to a landmark deal worth A$500 million that will replace the previous security pact that was scrapped in 2022.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Australia’s Foreign Minister Penny Wong has released a statement saying “the Israeli government cannot allow the suffering to continue” after the UN’s aid chief said thousands of babies were at risk of dying if they did not receive food immediately.

“Australia joins international partners in calling on Israel to allow a full and immediate resumption of aid to Gaza,” Wong said in a post on X.

“We condemn the abhorrent and outrageous comments made by members of the Netanyahu government about these people in crisis.”

Wong stopped short of outlining any measures Australia might take to encourage Israel to ensure enough aid reaches those in need, as the UK, France and Canada said they would do with “concrete measures” in a recent joint statement.

pic.twitter.com/fDGPRs1G4M

— Senator Penny Wong (@SenatorWong) May 21, 2025

An agreement has been reached in a phone call between UAE Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan and his Israeli counterpart Gideon Saar, reports Al Jazeera.

According to the Palestinian news agency WAM, the aid would initially cater to the food needs of about 15,000 civilians in Gaza.

It will also include essential supplies for bakeries and critical items for infant care.

‘Permission’ for 100 trucks
Earlier yesterday, a spokesperson for the UN humanitarian office in Geneva said Israel had given permission for about 100 aid trucks to enter Gaza.

However, the UN also said no aid had been distributed in Gaza because of Israeli restrictions, despite a handful of aid trucks entering the territory.

“But what we mean here by allowed is that the trucks have received military clearance to access the Palestinian side,” reports Tareq Abu Azzoum from Deir el-Balah, central Gaza.

“They have not made their journey into the enclave. They are still stuck at the border crossing. Only five trucks have made it in.”

The few aid trucks alowed into Gaza are nowhere near sufficient to meet Gaza’s vast needs, says the medical charity Doctors Without Borders, known by its French initials MSF.

Instead, the handful of trucks serve as a “a smokescreen” for Israel to “pretend the siege is over”.

“The Israeli authorities’ decision to allow a ridiculously inadequate amount of aid into Gaza after months of an air-tight siege signals their intention to avoid the accusation of starving people in Gaza, while in fact keeping them barely surviving,” said Pascale Coissard, MSF’s emergency coordinator in Khan Younis.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Australia has announced more than A$68 million over the next five years to strengthen and expand Australian broadcasting and media sector engagement across the Indo-Pacific.

As part of the Indo-Pacific broadcasting strategy, the ABC will receive just over $40m to increase its content for and about the Pacific, expand Radio Australia’s FM transmission footprint across the region and enhance its media and training activities.

And the PacificAus TV programme will receive over $28 million to provide commercial Australian content free of charge to broadcasters in the Pacific.

The strategy provides a framework to help foster a vibrant and independent media sector, counter misinformation, present modern multicultural Australia, and support deeper people-to-people engagement.

It focuses on three key areas, including:

• supporting the creation and distribution of compelling Australian content that engages audiences and demonstrates Australia’s commitment to the region;
• enhancing access in the region to trusted sources of media, including news and current affairs, strengthening regional media capacity and capability; and
• boosting connections between Australian-based and Indo-Pacific media and content creators.

Crucial role
Foreign Minister Penny Wong said media plays a crucial role in elevating the voices and perspectives of the region and strengthening democracy.

Wong said the Australia government was committed to supporting viable, resilient and independent media in the region.

Minister for International Development and the Pacific Pat Conroy said Australia and the Pacific shared close cultural and people-to-people links, and an enduring love of sport.

“These connections will be further enriched by the boost in Australian content, allowing us to watch, read, and listen to shared stories across the region — from rugby to news and music.

Conroy said Australia would continue and expand support for media development, including through the new phase of the Pacific Media Assistance Scheme (PACMAS) and future opportunities through the Australia-Pacific Media and Broadcasting Partnership.

Communications Minister Michelle Rowland said a healthy Fourth Estate was imperative in the era of digital transformation and misinformation.

“This strategy continues Australia’s longstanding commitment to supporting a robust media sector in our region,” she said.

“By leveraging Australia’s strengths, we can partner with the region to boost media connections, and foster a diverse and sustainable media landscape.”

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Dear Foreign Minister,

I am writing to you on behalf of the Australia West Papua Association in Sydney concerning the brutal torture of a West Papuan man, Defianus Kogoya by Indonesian troops in West Papua in early February.

Anybody watching the video footage of the Papuan man being tortured by the Indonesian security forces cannot help but be horrified and outraged at the brutality of those involved in the torture.

A video of the torture is circulating on social media and in numerous articles in the main stream media.

The video shows the man placed in a drum filled with water, with both his hands tied. The victim is repeatedly punched and kicked by several soldiers.

His back is also slashed with a knife. One can only imagine the fear and terror the Papuan man must feel at this brutal torture being inflicted on him.

At first the military denied the claim. However, they eventually admitted it was true and arrested 13 soldiers involved in the incident.

I’m sure we will hear statements from Jakarta that this was an isolated incident, that they were “rogue” soldiers and that 13 soldiers have been arrested over the torture. However, if the video had not gone viral would anybody have been held to account?

Tragically this is not an isolated incident. We will not go into all the details of the human rights abuses committed against West Papuans by the Indonesian security forces as we are sure you are aware of the numerous reports documenting these incidents.

However, there are regular clashes between the Indonesian security forces and the TPNPB (Free Papua Movement) who are fighting for their independence. As a result of these clashes the military respond with what they call sweeps of the area.

It’s not unusual for houses and food gardens to be destroyed during these operations, including the arrest and torture of Papuans. Local people usually flee in fear from the military to the forest or other regions creating internally displaced people (IDP).

Human rights reports indicate there are more than 60,000 IDP in West Papua. Many suffer from malnutrition and their children are missing out on their education.

Amnesty International Indonesia, church and civil society groups in West Papua and around the world have condemned the torture and are calling for a thorough investigation into the torture case.

AWPA is urging you to also add your voice, condemning this brutal torture incident by the Indonesian military .

The West Papuan people are calling on the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to visit West Papua to investigate the human rights situation in the territory. We urge you to use you good offices with the Indonesian government, urging Jakarta to allow such a visit to take place.

Yours sincerely

Joe Collins
Australia West Papua Association (AWPA)
Sydney

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Twenty-four weeks of city marches and a five-week vigil outside the Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s electoral office in Marrickville have taken pro-Palestinian protests against Israel’s war on Gaza to an unprecedented level.

In a new development, hundreds of protesters joined in a street theatre performance outside Albanese’s electorate office on Friday evening to highlight their horror at massacres of Palestinian citizens by Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) in Gaza.

Over 31,000 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza since October 7, including many shot by the IDF while seeking care in hospitals, food from aid trucks or fleeing IDF bombing.

The street theatre protest was part of an ongoing 24-hour-a-day peaceful vigil that has been going now for five weeks. There is no shortage of volunteers.  A minimum of 6 people are present at any one time with around 200 people visiting each day.

When City Hub attended twice last week, frequent toots from passing cars indicated plenty of public support.

At 6.30 pm on Friday, sirens and rumblings could be heard along Marrickville Road sending a signal to scores of protesters dressed in white to lie down on the pavement. They were then sprinkled with red liquid.

As the sirens quietened, a woman’s voice rang out: “War criminals, that is what our government is. They are not representing the people . . . We will not stop until our government ends every single tie with Israeli apartheid.

‘We’ll not stop . . .’
“We will not stop until the ethnic cleansing has ended. Palestinian voices need to be heard. Palestinian voices must be amplified.”

Greens Deputy Leader Senator Mehreen Faruqi attended the action. Before the “die-in”, she responded to Foreign Minister Penny Wong’s announcement earlier in the day that Australia will resume funding to the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA).

Last week, Senator Faruqi called on Wong urgently to restore the funding. “It has been 43 days since the morally corrupt government made the inexcusable decision to suspend aid funding to UNRWA despite the minister admitting she hadn’t seen a shred of evidence,” she tweeted.

Along with some other Western governments, the Albanese government suspended UNRWA funding when Israel circulated a reportedly “explosive” but secret dossier outlining alleged links between Hamas and UNRWA staff. This happened shortly after the International Court of Justice found that Israel is “plausibly” committing genocide.

The dossier alleged that UNRWA members were involved in the Hamas attack on 7 October 2023.  After analysing the documents, Britain’s Channel 4 concluded that the dossier provided “no evidence to support the explosive claim that UN staff were involved in terror attacks”.

Recently, UNRWA accused Israel of torturing UNRWA staff to get admissions. On Friday, the European Union’s top humanitarian official Janez Lenarcic said that neither he nor anyone at the EU had been shown any evidence.

In “unpausing” the aid, Wong provided no evidence about what the government knew when it suspended aid and what it now claims to know about the allegations. Speaking at Friday’s protest, Senator Faruqi said she welcomed the restoration of  funding but, “just as they restored the funding, they paused the visas of Palestinians en route to Australia while they were mid-air. How cruel and how inhumane can this Labor government get? Just as you think that there are no further depths that they can get to, they show us that they can.” (Late on Sunday, there were reports that the visa decision may be reversed.)

Unprecedented protest
While protests outside Prime Minister’s offices are not unusual, a 24-hour protest for more than a month has never happened before.

Given the length of the protest, it is remarkable that there has been almost no media mainstream coverage. City Hub conducted a Dow Jones Factiva search which revealed one report on SBS and a mention in The Guardian. (The search engine does not cover commercial radio.)

The weeks long, 24 x 7 protest in the heart of the Prime Minister’s own electorate has remained hidden from most of the Australian public and international audiences.

Prime Minister Albanese has not responded to requests for meetings with organisers who include Palestinian families who have been his constituents for many years. City Hub has spoken to protest organisers who say that despite repeated requests, they have received no response from the Prime Minister. The office is now closed to the public which means people are unable to deliver letters or make inquiries.

Protesters sit down in Market Street

The ongoing 24-hour sit-down Marrickville protest is an extension of the broader protest movement in which thousands of protesters marched on Sunday for the 24th week in a row. Similar protests have been happening in Melbourne and other cities. Again, although there have been bigger protests at times, the regularity of protests attended by thousands each week is unprecedented in Australian history.

Protests on this scale did not happen even during the Vietnam War era in the 1970s.

Last week, protesters marched from Hyde Park down Market Street completely filling several blocks of Sydney’s busiest shopping area. Their chant “Ceasefire Now’ reverberated around the streets. It was accompanied by drummers, some of them children.

Some protesters briefly took their demonstration to a new level by staging a brief sit-down in Market Street. The area was filled with Sunday shoppers who watched as protesters chanted, “While you’re shopping, bombs are dropping.”

The Prime Minister’s office has been contacted for comment. When a response is received, this article will be updated.

Wendy Bacon was previously professor of journalism at the University of Technology (UTS). She spoke at the rally about the lack of media coverage of pro Palestinian protests. She will write about this in a future article.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

In an unprecedented legal development, senior Australian politicians, including Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, have been referred to the International Criminal Court (ICC) for investigation into whether they have aided or supported Israel’s actions in Gaza.

The referral, made by the Sydney law firm Birchgrove Legal on behalf of their clients, is the first time any serving Australian political leaders have been formally referred to the ICC for investigation.

The referral asserts that Albanese, Foreign Minister Penny Wong, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton and other members of the government have violated the Rome Statute, the 1998 treaty that established the ICC to investigate and prosecute allegations of war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity.

Specifically, the law firm references:

• Australia’s freezing of aid to the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), the aid agency that operates in Gaza
• the provision of military aid to Israel that could have been used in the alleged commission of genocide and crimes against humanity
• permitting Australians to travel to Israel to take part in attacks in Gaza
• providing “unequivocal political support” for Israel’s actions in Gaza.

A key aspect of the referral is the assertion, under Article 25 of the Rome Statute, that Albanese and the others bear individual criminal responsibility for aiding, abetting or otherwise assisting in the commission (or attempted commission) of alleged crimes by Israel in Gaza.

At a news conference today, Albanese said the letter had “no credibility” and was an example of “misinformation”. He said:

Australia joined a majority in the UN to call for an immediate ceasefire and to advocate for the release of hostages, the delivery of humanitarian assistance, the upholding of international law and the protection of civilians.

How the referral process works
There are a couple of key questions here: can anyone be referred to the ICC, and how often do these referrals lead to an investigation?

Referrals to the ICC prosecutor are most commonly made by individual countries — as has occurred following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 — or by the UN Security Council. However, it is also possible for referrals to be made by “intergovernmental or non-governmental organisations, or other reliable sources”, according to Article 15 of the Rome Statute.

The ICC prosecutor’s office has received 12,000 such referrals to date. These must go through a preliminary examination before the office decides whether there are “reasonable grounds” to start an investigation.

The court has issued arrest warrants for numerous leaders over the past two decades, including Russian President Vladimir Putin and his commissioner for children’s rights, Maria Lvova-Belova; former Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir; and now-deceased Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.

ABC interview with barrister Sheryn Omeri KC on the referral of Australian political leaders to the International Criminal Court.

Acting for over 100 Australian lawyers, Omeri, through the law firm Birchgrove Legal, has referred Australian prime minister Anthony Albanese & key… pic.twitter.com/aHAdVct6eV

— Peter Cronau (@PeterCronau) March 5, 2024

Why this referral is unlikely to go anywhere
Putting aside the merit of the allegations themselves, it is unlikely the Australian referrals will go any further for legal and practical reasons.

First, the ICC was established as an international court of last resort. This means it would only be used to prosecute international crimes when courts at a national level are unwilling or unable to do so.

As such, the threat of possible ICC prosecution was intended to act as a deterrent for those considering committing international crimes, as well as an incentive for national authorities and courts to prosecute them.

Australia has such a process in place to investigate potential war crimes and other international crimes through the Office of the Special Investigator (OSI).

The OSI was created in the wake of the 2020 Brereton Report into allegations of Australian war crimes in Afghanistan. In March 2023, the office announced its first prosecution.

Because Australia has this legal framework in place, the ICC prosecutor would likely deem it unnecessary to refer Australian politicians to the ICC for prosecution, unless Australia was unwilling to start such a prosecution itself. At present, there is no evidence that is the case.

Another reason this referral is likely to go nowhere: the ICC prosecutor, Karim Khan, is currently focusing on a range of investigations related to alleged war crimes committed by Russia, Hamas and Israel, in addition to other historical investigations.

Given the significance of these investigations – and the political pressure the ICC faces to act with speed – it is unlikely the court would divert limited resources to investigate Australian politicians.

Increasing prominence of international courts
This referral to the ICC, however, needs to be seen in a wider context. The Israel-Hamas conflict has resulted in an unprecedented flurry of legal proceedings before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the UN’s top court.

Unlike the ICC, the ICJ does not deal with individual criminal responsibility. The ICJ does, however, have jurisdiction over whether countries violate international law, such as the Genocide Convention.

This was the basis for South Africa to launch its case against Israel in the ICJ, claiming its actions against the Palestinian people amounted to genocide. The ICJ issued a provisional ruling against Israel in January which said it’s “plausible” Israel had committed genocide in Gaza and ordered Israel to take immediate steps to prevent acts of genocide.

In addition, earlier this week, a new case was launched in the ICJ by Nicaragua, alleging Germany has supported acts of genocide by providing military support for Israel and freezing aid for UNRWA.

PRESS RELEASE: #Nicaragua institutes proceedings against #Germany and asks the #ICJ to indicate provisional measures https://t.co/RtdImbNben pic.twitter.com/UdsKZmDdxS

— CIJ_ICJ (@CIJ_ICJ) March 1, 2024

All of these developments in recent months amount to what experts call “lawfare”. This refers to the use of international or domestic courts to seek accountability for alleged state-sanctioned acts of genocide and support or complicity in such acts. Some of these cases have merit, others are very weak.

As one international law expert described the purpose:

It’s […] a way of raising awareness, getting media attention and showing your own political base you’re doing something.

These cases do succeed in increasing public awareness of these conflicts. And they make clear the desire of many around the world to hold to account those seen as being responsible for gross violations of international law.

Dr Donald Rothwell, professor of international law, Australian National University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

ANALYSIS: By Duncan Graham

An Australian academic is risking an eruption of diplomatic fury by publicly criticising Indonesia’s brutal response to the Papuan independence movement, a hypersensitive topic for the governments of both countries.

Queensland historian Dr Greg Poulgrain last month told a Jakarta seminar that the Indonesian government’s approach “has long been top-heavy, bureaucratic, clumsy and self-serving.

“The military arrived in 1962 and 60 years later they’re still there in strength . . . more troops there now than ever before.

“The NGO Kontras declared that 734 Papuans were killed in 2022. That’s two-and-a-half times the number of Palestinians killed by the Israeli army last year. And from (the Highland province) Nduga there were 60,000 refugees.”

His comments were made just as the West Papua independence movement failed to get Pacific Islands’ backing at a stormy meeting of the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) in Vanuatu with an Indonesian delegation walk-out.

The bid was thwarted by an alleged “corrupt alliance” of member states apparently after pressure from Indonesia which is funding Vanuatu airport repairs (including the VIP lounge) worth A$1.47 million. More of this later.

A report of the Jakarta seminar, organised by the government research agency Baden Riset dan Inovasi Nasional (BRIN), was published in Indonesia’s leading newspaper Kompas. It ran to 830 words but never mentioned Dr Poulgrain or his comments, although he was the invited international guest speaker.

Australian government stays hush
An estimated 500,000 indigenous Papuans are alleged to have died in the past 50 years through Indonesian military action. But the Australian government stays hush.

Before she became Foreign Minister, Senator Penny Wong, wrote that Labor was distressed by “human rights violations” in West Papua. However, there is a “don’t touch” clause in a two-nation pact signed 17 years ago “to address security challenges”.

The Lombok Treaty binds Australia and Indonesia to mutually respect the “sovereignty, territorial integrity, national unity and political independence of each other”.

New England University academics Dr Xiang Gao and Professor Guy Charlton claim “non-interference” limits Australian responses “despite the domestic sympathy much of the Australian public has given to the West Papuan population”.

They quote a 2019 website post from Wong saying the treaty “remains the bedrock of security cooperation” between Australia and Indonesia.

Dr Poulgrain told his Jakarta audience that the military’s presence in Papua “has led to amazing problems.

“In the first 40 years, the Papuan death toll was horrendous. In 1983 the London-based Anti-Slavery Society sent me to check a report that Papuan under-fives in the Asmat district (South Papua) were dying like flies — six out of ten were dying. The report was correct.

Hardly any benefit at all
“We’re dealing with a people about whom very little effort to understand has been made. It has been claimed that the indigenous inhabitants of Papua should be grateful that so much money is spent . . . but the benefit they receive (as a percentage of the intended amount) is hardly any benefit at all.”

The Indonesian government says it has allocated more than Rp 1,036 trillion (A$106 million) in the past eight years for development (mainly roads) in a bid to appease self-government demands. That’s a tiny sum against the income.

The Grasberg mine in Central Papua has “proven and probable reserves of 15.1 million ounces of gold”. If correct that makes it the world’s biggest gold deposit.

It is run by PT Freeport Indonesia, a joint venture between the Indonesian government and the US company Freeport-McMoRan.

Dr Poulgrain claims gross revenue from the mine last year was about A$13 billion:

“We can be sure that the immense wealth of gold was a crucial influence on the sovereignty dispute in the 1950s and still influences the politics of Papua and Indonesia today.”

Despite the riches, Papua is reportedly one of the least developed regions in Indonesia, with poverty and inequality levels up to three times above the national average of 9.5 percent, as calculated by the Asian Development Bank.

In 1962 control of the Western half of the island of New Guinea, formerly part of the Dutch East Indies, was temporarily run by the UN. In 1969 it was ceded to Indonesia after a referendum when 1025 “leaders” hand-picked by the Indonesian military voted unanimously to join Jakarta.

‘Act of No Choice’
It was labelled an Act of Free Choice; cynics called it an “Act Free of Choice”, of “Act of No Choice”.

Historian Dr Emma Kluge wrote: “West Papuans were denied independence also because the UN system failed to heed their calls and instead placed appeasing Indonesia above its commitment to decolonisation and human rights.”

Pro-independence groups have since been fighting with words at the UN and at first with spears and arrows in the Highland jungles. Some now carry captured modern weapons and have been ambushing and killing Indonesian soldiers and road workers, and suffering casualties.

In February the West Papua National Liberation Army (TPNPB), the armed section of the umbrella Organisasi Papua Merdeka (OPM, Papua Freedom Organisation), kidnapped NZ pilot Philip Mehrtens and demanded independence talks for his release.

After searching for six months the Indonesian military (TNI) has so far failed to free the Kiwi.

The OPM started gaining traction in the 1970s. Indonesia has designated it a “terrorist group” giving the armed forces greater arrest and interrogation powers.

Amnesty International claimed this showed Indonesia’s “lack of willingness to engage with the real roots of the ongoing conflict”, although it failed to pick apart the “roots” or offer practical solutions.

Journalists are banned
Communications in the mountains are tough and not just because of the terrain. Cellphone signals could lead to discovery. Journalists are banned. Requests for entry by this correspondent were given verbal OKs but are now ignored.

The only news comes from Christian pastors smuggling out notes, and statements from different West Papua freedom movement factions like the United Liberation Movement for West Papua (ULMWP).

This is chaired by Benny Wenda who lives in exile in the UK. In 2003, he was granted political asylum by the British government after fleeing Indonesia while on trial for leading an independence procession.

He has not backed the kidnapping of Mehrtens. The pro-independence movement’s failure to speak with one voice exposes their weakness.

Earlier this year, Wenda was in Fiji where Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka pledged support and more recently Vanuatu has been seeking support for Papua independence through the Melanesian Spearhead Group formed in 1998.

The lobbying is angering Jakarta, a major donor to the region. Papuans identify as Melanesians and are mainly Christian. The Indonesian delegation walked out in Port Vila when Wenda got up to speak.

Indonesia’s deputy Foreign Minister Pahala Mansury was quoted as saying: “Indonesia cannot accept that someone who should be responsible for acts of armed violence in Papua, including kidnappings, is given the opportunity to speak at this honourable forum.”

‘The world is watching’ – it’s a test for Melanesian leaders over West Papua, says Wenda

Could not reach consensus
The ABC reported that the leaders could not reach a consensus, but Wenda told Radio NZ he was confident the ULMWP would eventually get full membership: “The whole world is watching and this is a test for the leadership to see whether they’ll save West Papua”.

PNG’s National Capital District Governor Powes Parkop told Asia Pacific Report: “I am totally disappointed in the failure of the MSG leaders to seize the opportunity to redefine the future of West Papua and our region.

“Fear of Indonesia and proactive lobbying by Indonesia again has been allowed to dominate Melanesia to the detriment of our people of West Papua.”

Curiously Indonesia is an associate member of the MSG though the republic is dominated and led by Javanese. Around two million (0.7 percent) Papuans are Indonesian citizens.

Dr David Robie, NZ-based publisher of Asia Pacific Report, responded: “The MSG has thrown away a golden chance for achieving a historical step towards justice and peace in West Papua by lacking the courage to accept the main Papuan self-determination advocacy movement as full members.

‘Terrible betrayal’
“Many see this as a terrible betrayal of West Papuan aspirations and an undermining of Melanesian credibility and solidarity as well as an ongoing threat to the region’s security and human rights.”

#MSG throws away golden chance to #reset #peace and #justice for West Papua #CafePacific #asiapacificreport #WestPapua #decolonisation @westpapuamedia @westpapuanews @kazukuru #HumanRights @USPWansolwara @BennyWenda @kanakyOnLine @KanakySuport @jubidotcom https://t.co/ukfEb87VCv

— David Robie (@DavidRobie) August 26, 2023

Wenda is not the only emigre: Prize-winning Indonesian human rights lawyer Veronica Koman is wanted by the Indonesian police for allegedly speaking out on violence in Papua.

Like Wenda, she says she does not support hostage-taking.

Koman lives in Australia, works with Amnesty International and says she gets death threats. Her parents’ house in Jakarta has reportedly been stoned.

Just like The Hague’s handling of Indonesian anti-colonialists in the 1945-49 Revolutionary War, Jakarta’s policy has been force. Protesters are dehumanised, tagged as “criminals” or “terrorists”, however mild their involvement, an ancient tactic in warfare making it legally easier to shoot than arrest.

The pro-independence cause gets little sympathy from Indonesians in other provinces. Papuan students in Java have been attacked and suffered racial abuse. Anyone caught flying the Morning Star flag of independence risks 15 years in jail.

Vice-President Ma’ruf Amin has urged the military to “get tough”. At a Jakarta ceremony in June, former President Megawati Soekarnoputri was quoted as saying: ‘”If I were still a commander, I would deploy the number of battalions there. That’s cool, right?”

Battalions will not solve the problem
No, said Dr Poulgrain: “The history of the Papuan people that has become the norm is not correct. This is still a problem today. It’s our perception that’s the problem. Adding battalions will not solve the problem today.”

Dr Poulgrain is a specialist in Indonesian history and an adjunct fellow at the University of the Sunshine Coast and Malang State University in East Java. His interest in Papua goes back to his student years as a backpacker exploring the archipelago.

Dr Poulgrain said his involvement in the debate was as an independent historian seeking a peaceful settlement. After speaking in Jakarta he flew to Jayapura to address a seminar at the Papua International University.

In 1999, when Megawati was vice-president (she is now the chair of BRIN), he was invited to a meeting on Papua with 10 of her advisors:

“They said to me, quite frankly, Papua was a problem they did not know how to solve. I suggested vocational training schools. We started — but the whole educational project stopped when the East Timor referendum established independence. Times haven’t changed.”

In 2018, activists delivered a petition to the UN with 1.8 million signatures demanding an independence referendum. That has gone nowhere. Instead, Jakarta has split West Papua into six provinces supposedly to give locals more say, but to no real effect.

Bolder stance unlikely
An analysis by the Washington-based Centre for Strategic and International Studies concludes:

“As the US and Australia continue to support Indonesia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity in Papua, both administrations are unlikely to take bolder stances.

“International action in the situation is likely to remain limited to the Pacific Islands . . .  Separatist violence, having shown its resiliency to Indonesia’s attempts to control the region, is thus likely to continue.’

Duncan Graham has been a journalist for more than 40 years in print, radio and TV. He is the author of People Next Door: Understanding Indonesia (UWA Press) and winner of the Walkley Award and human rights awards. He lives in East Java and is now writing for the English language media in Indonesia on a permanent resident visa with work rights. This took five years to get using sponsorship through his Indonesian wife. He contributes to Asia Pacific Report and this article was first published by Michael West Media and is republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The ABC has soundly condemned the Solomon Islands Office of the Prime Minister for a series of “factual errors” in a statement released which criticised the Four Corners investigative report Pacific Capture: How Chinese money is buying the Solomons.

In a rare statement defending its independent journalism, it said today the ABC “stood by the accuracy and integrity” of the reporting in this programme.

It said about the programme broadcast on August 4:

The ABC wishes to correct the following factual errors in the press release issued by the Solomon Islands Office of the Prime Minister and Cabinet regarding the Four Corners report Pacific Capture, which examined the impact of China’s growing presence across Solomon Islands.

At no point did the program rely on “misinformation and distribution of pre-conceived prejudicial information”.

It was not our intention to “cause division between the governments of Australia and Solomon Islands”, rather to highlight issues of concern to all Solomon Islanders.

We completely reject the offensive notion of “racial profiling that is bordering racism and race stereotyping”. In fact, we were determined to tell the story from the perspective of Solomon Islanders and the program reflected their concerns. Its main interviews were with two eminent Solomon Islanders, rather than relying on “foreign experts” as is often the case. The ABC rejects the idea that we were “putting words into the mouths of the interviewees” and sees this as insulting to the Solomon Islanders who appeared in the program.

On the issue of Kolombangara, the ABC did not say that the “shareholders have made a decision to sell off the company to a Chinese firm”. Rather, the program accurately reported that the issue had been discussed at board level and that the Australian directors were so concerned about a potential sale to a Chinese state-owned company that they twice wrote to the Federal Government expressing concerns that the purchase could be used by Beijing to establish a base under the cover of a commercial enterprise. Foreign Minister Penny Wong’s office confirmed it was aware of the issue. Her office has also not ruled out intervening. The ABC also notes that the plantation on Kolombangara is owned 85 per cent by the Nien Family of Taiwan and 15 percent by the government of the Solomon Islands, not the 60/40 split claimed in the press release.

It is incorrect to claim that the program did not acknowledge that Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare “repeatedly reaffirmed to Solomon Islanders and the Pacific region that there will be no military or naval base in Solomon Islands”.

The program said: “At a meeting in Fiji, Sogavare assured the new Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese that Beijing won’t be allowed to establish a military base in the Solomons.” It went on to say that one of the main concerns was that a commercial enterprise controlled by Beijing could one day be used to house military assets.

The ABC stands by the accuracy and integrity of the reporting in this program.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The Brussels-based International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) has condemned the censoring of the Solomon Islands Broadcasting Corporation (SIBC) as an “assault on press freedom” and an “unacceptable development” amid mounting concern over China’s influence on the media and security.

“The censoring of the Solomon Island’s national broadcaster is an assault on press freedom and an unacceptable development for journalists, the public, and the democratic political process,” the IFJ said in a statement.

“The IFJ calls for the immediate reinstatement of independent broadcasting arrangements in the Solomon Islands.”

The government of the Solomon Islands on August 1 ordered the national radio and television broadcaster SIBC to censor its programmes of anti-government voices.

The Prime Minister and Cabinet Office of the Solomon Islands mandated the SIBC to censor its programmes of perspectives critical of the incumbent government.

According to SIBC staff, the acting chairman of the board, William Parairato, outlined the new guidelines on July 29.

Both news and paid programmes are to be vetted in line with government regulations, as the government attempts to crack down on “disunity”.

SIBC now beholden
Special Secretary to the Prime Minister Albert Kabui indicated that the SIBC would now be beholden to a government-appointed board of directors, who would be appointed solely from the Prime Ministerial office.

The SIBC, which has moved from a state-owned enterprise to receiving all funding from the ruling government, had previously allowed paid programmes to broadcast criticism of the government.

The broadcaster also provided full live coverage of Australian Foreign Affairs Minister Penny Wong’s visit to Honiara in June, with coverage funded by the Australian High Commission.

Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavere has been unavailable for comment, as reported by several news organisations.

In recent months the Solomon Islands has further developed existing links to China, which the Australian Broadcaster Corporation argues is indicative of “authoritarian and anti-journalist” developments in Solomon Islands’ leadership.

The IFJ raised concerns surrounding press freedoms in the Solomon Islands during Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s visit to the Pacific in May.

Wang Yi’s press tour of the Solomon Islands featured heavily restricted press conferences, with local journalists collectively confined to one question for the nation’s Foreign Minister.

Sourced from an IFJ dispatch.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Foreign Minister Penny Wong’s decision to embark on a diplomatic offensive to outflank China in the Pacific within days of being sworn in has yielded what appears to have been an early success.

Whether Wong’s intervention gave Pacific leaders pause about a wide-ranging economic and security pact with China or they would have baulked anyway, the fact is Australian diplomacy can claim a dividend.

In the process, the country appears to have a new foreign minister who will engage in more creative and activist foreign policy then her predecessor.

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s extensive tour of the Pacific has been aimed at extending Beijing’s influence in the region at a moment when regional leaders had grown restive about Australia’s commitment to its immediate neighbourhood.

The Morrison government’s equivocation on climate has not sat well with leaders of the Pacific’s micro-states.

Wong’s mission appears to have succeeded on three important fronts:

1. it has reassured Pacific neighbours that a new Labor government will do more than pay lip service to their concerns about climate and other issues
2. Wong has made it clear Canberra will not be reticent in contesting Beijing’s influence in the region
3. her mission has enabled her to assert her own authority early over the foreign policy and security reach of her portfolio.

This latter aspect will be important in how and in what form Australia responds to Chinese overtures aimed at achieving a re-set in relations.

Labor governments have long managed the relationship well
In one respect, the new Labor government has history on its side.

This year marks the 50th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between Canberra and Beijing.

All these years later, another Labor government has the opportunity to re-set Australia’s relations with the dominant regional player at a moment when the Indo-Pacific is undergoing profound change.

Few would reasonably argue against the proposition that a “re-set” is overdue after years of drift and ill-will under the Morrison government.

The question for Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and his national security team is how to proceed in a way that conforms with Australia’s national interest, is faithful to its values, and enables Canberra’s voice to be inserted in regional councils.

Wong has, for some time, been sketching out a more creative foreign policy approach — evident in her Pacific initiative — that will seek to expand Australia’s regional relationships and, where appropriate, take the lead in alignment with the country’s national interest.

In this sense, the joint communique on December 21 1972, signalling the establishment of diplomatic relations between Australia and the People’s Republic of China, makes interesting reading.

Unlike Richard Nixon’s Shanghai communique of 1972, which fudged the Taiwan issue, the Whitlam government document is explicit.

The Australian government recognises the Government of the People’s Republic of China as the sole legal Government of China, acknowledges the position of the Chinese Government that Taiwan is a province of the People’s Republic of China, and has decided to remove its official representation from Taiwan before 25 January, 1973.

Albanese and his security policy team can be sure this document will not be gathering dust in a Chinese Foreign Ministry archive.

China’s attachment to anniversaries is one of the more notable features of its diplomacy. These occasions may be used for political purposes, but history weighs heavily on Beijing’s foreign policy calculations.

Albanese government should jump on the promise of a thaw
When Prime Minister Li Keqiang promptly sent a congratulatory message to Albanese on the latter’s success in the recent election, Labor’s historic shift towards Beijing back in 1972 will not have been overlooked.

The wording of Li’s message was pointed. It said, in part, that China was:

ready to work with the Australian side to review the past, face the future, uphold principles of mutual respect, mutual benefit.

Beijing talks a lot about “mutual respect” and “mutual benefit”. These are phrases that are, more often that not, designed to deflect criticism of China’s human rights abuses and other bad behaviour.

But taken together with overtures for a “re-set” by the new Chinese ambassador in Canberra, Xiao Qian, Beijing has clearly decided it is in China’s interests to turn the page on a sour period between the countries.

Asked at his press conference after the conclusion of Quad talks in Tokyo about his response to the conciliatory message from Li, Albanese simply said:

I welcome that. And we will respond appropriately in time when I return to Australia.

In other responses to questions about troubled relations with China, the new prime minister has said it is up to Beijing to start removing sanctions on Australian exports.

These Albanese responses are prudent. There is no point in rushing to acknowledge such overtures. However, he would be making a mistake if he seeks to prolong what has the makings of a thaw.

He might remind himself that virtually all of Australia’s western allies, including America, have working relations with Beijing that enable officials to engage in a constructive dialogue, despite differences.

Australia’s first ambassador to China, Stephen Fitzgerald, has some wise counsel for the new government in Canberra about how to better manage relations with Beijing.

Australia under a Labor government must now return to diplomacy, talking with the PRC, for which it is ready and putting away the megaphone of gratuitous criticism, insult and condemnation which were the hallmarks of Morrison’s China policy. If we do this, there will be many issues on which we can have constructive engagement.

One of these issues can — and should — be the continued detention in China of two Australian citizens, the journalist Cheng Lei and the democratic activist Yang Hengjun. Progress towards their release should be a condition of improved relations, along with removal of punitive tariffs on imports of such items as wine and barley.

Finally, Albanese’s security policy team should pay particular attention to US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken’s landmark foreign policy speech delivered to the Asia Society in Washington on May 26.

In that speech, Blinken laid down guidelines for the conduct of relations with Beijing in a world whose foundations are shifting. His words bear repeating as a template for Canberra’s own interactions with Beijing.

We are not looking for conflict or a new Cold War […] We don’t seek to block China from its role as a major power […] But we will defend [the international order] and make it possible for all countries – including the United States and China – to coexist and co-operate.

Blinken’s attempts to define a workable China policy should be regarded in the same vein as another important statement delivered 17 years ago by then Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick in New York. In that speech, Zoellick said:

We now need to encourage China to become a responsible stakeholder in the international system.

Blinken’s and Zoellick’s interventions, two decades apart, are important guardrails for a constructive relationship with China.

Dr Tony Walker is a vice-chancellor’s fellow, La Trobe University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Australia’s newly sworn-in Foreign Minister, Penny Wong, says the new Labor government “will be a generous, respectful and reliable member of the Pacific family”.

In a message addressing the region on Monday, Wong set the tone for Australia’s renewed priorities for its island neighbours.

Wong said Australia recognised climate change was “central to the security and well-being of the Pacific”.

She said the Labor government had heard the Pacific and would act to address the climate crisis.

She added Australia would also boost assistance to support the region’s pandemic recovery, enhance defence and maritime cooperation, as well as expand opportunities and improve the working conditions for more than 24,000 Pacific workers in Australia.

“I’ve become foreign minister at a time when our region faces unprecedented challenges. But we will face these challenges together, and we will achieve our shared aspirations together,” she said.

“We want to help build a stronger Pacific family. That is why we will do more, but we will also do it better. We will listen because we care what the Pacific has to say.”

The Australian Labor Party’s win in the 2022 general elections was its first such victory in almost a decade, defeating a conservative coalition government led by Scott Morrison.

While the count continues, Labor currently has 74 seats with independents holding 15 and the Liberal Coalition 53.

Labor needs 76 for an outright majority.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A spectre is haunting the Pacific. It is focused on Solomon Islands today, but has eyes everywhere and might pounce anywhere next.

No, I’m not talking about China. I am talking about us.

More specifically, I’m talking about a particular type of Western security pundit, who hypes danger and itches for confrontation. And I am talking about the way our politicians behave when they strive to win votes by stoking fear of the world outside our borders.

The saga of China’s “military base” in Solomon Islands demonstrates how unhelpful such behaviour is, both to our own interests, and to the people of the Pacific.

If you had the good fortune of missing the last few weeks, here’s what happened.

In late March, journalists revealed that China and Solomon Islands had signed a policing agreement. Someone from within the Solomon Islands government also leaked a broader draft security agreement with China.

In April, this agreement was finalised and signed. (Its text hasn’t been released but appears likely to be very similar to the draft.) You can see the draft here. It’s short and clear.

Ship visits and stopover
Solomons can ask China to provide police and military assistance. If, and only if, the Solomon Islands government of the day consents, China can “make ship visits to, carry out logistical replenishment in, and have stopover and transition in Solomon Islands, and relevant forces of China can be used to protect the safety of Chinese personnel and major projects in Solomon Islands.”

Permanent bases are not mentioned.

This, however, didn’t stop antipodean pundits from racing to hype the threat of a Chinese base. To be fair, few went as far as David Llewellyn-Smith, who demanded that Australia preemptively invade Solomons.

He was an outlier (although it didn’t stop him from being uncritically quoted in the Courier-Mail). But all spoke of a base as a near certainty.

Then politicians piled on. Penny Wong, who normally displays an impressive understanding of aid and the Pacific, decried the agreement as the “worst failure of Australian foreign policy in the Pacific since the end of World War II”.

Peter Dutton warned that Australia could now expect “the Chinese to do all they can”. (Although he added optimistically they were unlikely to do so before the election.)

Barnaby Joyce fretted about Solomons becoming a, “little Cuba off our coast”. (Solomons is more than 1500km from Australia; Cuba is about 200km from the US.)

Australian agreement similar
Amidst the racket, much was lost. Australia has its own security agreement with Solomon Islands. It’s more carefully worded, but it affords Australia similar powers to China.

And China already has a security agreement with Fiji. Indeed, there was real talk of a base when that agreement was signed, but no base materialised, and the agreement has had no effect on regional security.

And as Scott Morrison pointed out, Manasseh Sogavare, the Solomon Islands Prime Minister, has explicitly ruled out a Chinese base.

True, Sogavare is a political maneuverer who can’t be taken at his word. But a Chinese base in Solomons serves neither his interest, nor that of the Chinese.

It doesn’t serve Sogavare’s interests because it won’t give him what he wants — a stronger hold on power. Seen as the embodiment of a corrupt elite, he’s unpopular in Honiara. His election brought riots.

As did his standoff with Malaitan Premier Daniel Suidani. So he wants Chinese police training and maybe military assistance in times of instability. But a base won’t help.

Solomons is a Sinophobic country and the obvious presence of a base will increase Sogavare’s unpopularity. It would also jeopardise the security support he gets from Australia, as well as Australian aid. (By my best estimate, based on Chinese promises, which are likely to be overstatements, Australia gave more than 2.5 times as much aid to Solomons in 2019, the most recent year with data.)

Base isn’t in China’s interest
I’m not defending Sogavare. I’d rather Chinese police weren’t helping him. But a base isn’t in his interest. And he’s no fool.

A base isn’t in China’s interests either. I don’t like China’s repressive political leaders. But their military ambitions are limited to places they view as part of China. What they’ve done, or want to do, in Tibet, Xinjiang, Hong Kong and Taiwan is odious.

But Australia isn’t next on their list. Outside of their immediate sphere of influence they want trade. They need trade, and the wealth it brings, to sustain the political settlement that keeps them prosperous and in power. Any war that saw China menace Australia from Solomon Islands would bring ruinous sanctions in its wake. (US bases in Guam and Okinawa would be a headache too, I’d imagine.)

The broader security agreement is helpful to China: it gives them the ability to protect Chinese nationals and Chinese business interests if riots break out.

But they don’t need a base for that. A base would be costly, hard to establish in a country with little available land, and quite possibly useless next time the Solomons government changes.

I’m not a supporter of the security agreement. But it’s not a base. And it’s not a catastrophe.

Our behaving like it’s a catastrophe is harmful though.

Harmful to Australia and NZ
It’s harmful to countries like Australia and New Zealand, because the main advantage we have over China in the Pacific is soft power. Thanks to anti-Chinese racism and a healthy wariness of China’s authoritarian government, most people in Pacific countries, including political elites, are more hesitant in dealing with China than with us.

Sure, money talks, and China can procure influence, but we are a little better liked. And that helps. Yet we lose this advantage every time we talk of invading Pacific countries, or call the region our “backyard”, or roughly twist the arms of Pacific politicians.

The Pacific is not some rogue part of Tasmania. It’s an ocean of independent countries. That means diplomacy is needed, and temper tantrums are unhelpful.

Worse still, our propensity to view the Pacific as a geostrategic chessboard has consequences for the region’s people. Geopolitical aid is too-often transactional and poorly focused on what people need. It is less likely to promote development.

There’s an alternative: to choose realism over hype in our collective commentary. And to earn soft power by being a respectful and reliable partner. It’s not always easy. But it’s not impossible. Yet it has completely escaped us in the shambles of the last few weeks.

Dr Terence Wood is a research fellow at the Development Policy Centre, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University. His research focuses on political governance in Western Melanesia, and Australian and New Zealand aid. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

If the coming election goes to Australia’s Labor party, Penny Wong is very likely to become Foreign Minister. So when she speaks, people across the region prick up their ears.

Without the least disrespect to her recent forebears, she could be one of the most acute, incisive and insightful FMs in recent history.

Whether she’ll be any more effective than them is another matter.

Australia has a long tradition of placing prominent front-benchers into the role, and then pointedly ignoring their efforts, their advice and their warnings. It’s as if government leaders find their greatest rival and send them trotting off around the globe, more to keep them from making mischief at home than to achieve anything noteworthy while they’re gone.

In Australia, it seems, foreign policy is domestic policy done outdoors.

If she achieves nothing more, Wong would be well served to look closely at the people supporting her, and to spend considerable effort re-organising and in fact re-inventing DFAT.

Its disconnection from other departments, especially Defence and PMO, has created an internal culture that spends more time feeding on itself than actually helping produce a persuasive or coherent foreign policy.

Ensuring foreign policy’s primacy at the cabinet table is a big ask, but it will be for naught if the department can’t deliver. There are significant structural matters to be dealt with.

‘Worst failure of foreign policy in the Pacific’: Labor launches scathing attack on government over Solomon Islands-China pact https://t.co/efbU2tM6Iu

— ABC News (@abcnews) April 19, 2022

Rolling development and aid into the department was a significant regression that hampered both sides. Volumes can be written about the need to distinguish development assistance from foreign policy, and many of them could be focused on the Pacific islands region.

The two are mostly complementary (mostly), but they must also be discrete from one another.

It’s far more complicated than this, but suffice it to say that development aid prioritises the recipient’s needs, while foreign relations generally prioritise national concerns. The moment you invert either side of that equation, you lose.

Exempli gratia: Solomon Islands.

It’s well known that Australia spent billions shoring up Solomon Islands’ security and administrative capacity. Surely after all that aid, they can expect the government to stay onside in geopolitical matters?

Applying the admittedly simplistic filter from the para above, the answer is an obvious no.

Aid is not a substitute for actual foreign relations, and foreign relations is definitely not just aid.

So is Penny Wong correct when she calls the CN/SI defence agreement a massive strategic setback? Sure.

Is she right to call Pacific Affairs Minister Zed Seselja “a junior woodchuck”, sent in a last minute attempt to dissuade Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare from signing the agreement?

The idea of a minister responsible for the complex, wildly diverse patchwork of nations spanning such a vast space has value. But in terms of resources and policy heft, Seselja rides at the back of the posse on a mule.

There are good reasons to devote an entire office to Pacific affairs. There are also blindingly good reasons to keep the Foreign Minister as the primary point of contact on matters of foreign policy.

That means the role—and yes, the existence—of the Pacific Affairs ministry needs a ground-up reconsideration. Notionally, it fulfills a critical role. But how?

It’s fair to say that Wong is more insightful than those who describe Solomon Islands as a fly-speck in the Pacific, or a Little Cuba (whatever the F that means). But in the past, Labor’s shown little insight into the actual value and purpose of foreign policy.

For the better part of four decades, neither Australian party was fussed at all about the fact that there had been few if any official visits between leaders. Prime Ministers regularly blew off Pacific Islands Forum meetings.

In Vanuatu’s case, the first ever prime ministerial visit to Canberra was in 2018. Why aren’t such meetings annual events?

Australia is rightly proud of its pre-eminence in development assistance in the Pacific islands. But that never was, and never will be, a substitute for diplomatic engagement. And you can’t have that without a functioning diplomatic corps whose presence is felt equally in Canberra and in foreign capitals.

But even that’s not enough. Penny Wong has yet to show in concrete terms how she plans to address what could accurately be called the greatest strategic foreign policy failure since WWII: Leaving Australia alone to guard the shop.

In 2003, George W. Bush was rightly vilified for characterising Australia’s role in the region as America’s Sheriff.

But the Americans weren’t the only ones who walked away, leaving Australia alone to engage with the region. The UK and the EU (minus France in their patch) rolled back their diplomatic presence substantially.

Even New Zealand agreed to restrict its engagement in large areas in deference to its neighbour. The most enduring presence was provided by organisations without any meaningful foreign policy role: UN development agencies and multilateral financial institutions.

Since the beginning of the War on Terror, there has been a consistent and often deliberate draw-down on the capital provided by democratic institutions, multilateral foreign policy, and indeed any collective course-setting among nations.

Post Cold-War democratic momentum has been squandered on an increasingly transactional approach to engagement that’s begun to look alarmingly like the spheres of influence that appeal so much to Putin and Xi.

This hasn’t happened in the Pacific islands alone. The UN has become an appendix in the global body politic, one cut away from complete irrelevance. ASEAN and APEC are struggling just as hard to find relevance, let alone purpose, as the Pacific Islands Forum or the Melanesian Spearhead Group.

Australia has “led” in the Pacific islands region by being the largest aid donor, blithely assuming that all the other kids in the region want to be like it. But that “leadership” masks a massive gap in actual influence in shaping the agenda in a region that’s larger and more diverse than any other in the world.

Want to know more? I have a whole chapter in my last book about it: https://t.co/RjggiClW5Z

— Joanne Wallis (@JoanneEWallis) March 30, 2022

The data’s there if people want it. This isn’t a particularly contentious… er, contention, if you’re among the far-too-small group of people who actually live in and care about the future of the region.

In a regional dynamic defined and dominated by transactional bilateralism, China holds all the aces. The only hope anyone has of slowing its growth in the region is through meaningful multilateralism that treats Pacific island countries as actual nations with national pride and individual priorities. Instead of silencing them, their voices should be amplified and defended, not by Australia alone, but by every other democratic nation with the means and the will to do so.

If we can’t respect the equal standing of nations, we can’t protect their integrity.

Scott Morrison may indeed be one of the worst exemplars of this blithe disregard for actual foreign policy engagement. He’s certainly won few friends with his world-class foot-dragging on climate change. America’s suddenly renewed interest in the region is an indication that they’ve woken up to the Bush administration’s mistakes.

It’s also clear they don’t trust Australia to play Sheriff any more. Kurt Campbell’s upcoming visit to the region is just the latest in a series of increasingly high profile tours of the region.

So yes, Penny Wong is justified in saying that China’s advances in the Pacific derive at least in part from Australia’s lack of a coherent and effective foreign policy.

But foreign policy is not made at home. It’s not Australia’s interests alone that matter. And subjugating Pacific nations in compacts of free association isn’t a substitute for actual policy making.

Pacific island nations will not defend Australia’s national interests unless they share those interests. The only way that Australia—and the world—can be assured they do is by actively listening, and by incorporating Pacific voices into the fabric of a renewed and revitalised global family.

Dan McGarry was previously media director at Vanuatu Daily Post/Buzz FM96. The Village Explainer is his semi-regular newsletter containing analysis and insight focusing on under-reported aspects of Pacific societies, politics and economics. His articles are republished by Asia Pacific Report with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz