New Zealand’s opposition Labour leader Chris Hipkins says he does not support the United States and Israel’s strikes on Iran.

He disagrees with Prime Minister Christopher Luxon’s stance that it was not New Zealand’s place to comment on the legality of the strikes.

Iran and Israel have continued to trade strikes since joint US and Israeli airstrikes killed Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Saturday.

US President Donald Trump has warned that “bigger strikes” are to come, and says the conflict could drag out longer than the four to five weeks he initially planned.

New Zealanders in Iran are urged to leave if it is safe to do so, and register on SafeTravel.

Hipkins said he believed the strikes were illegal.

“I think New Zealand government seems to be moving away from what has been a long-standing and principled approach to these issues,” he told RNZ’s Morning Report.

‘International law matters’
“We have been very clear that we think international law matters, and that all parties to these sorts of conflicts should follow international law. That’s not the case here.”

He said it was important that the New Zealand government spoke with authority and in favour of international law.

“New Zealand’s government should stand up for the international system of rules that we rely on for our own security as a country,” Hipkins said.

“If the situation becomes that the countries with the most power can do whatever they like regardless of what international law says, that’s very bad news for a small country like New Zealand.”

Luxon has previously said it would be up to the US and Israel to explain the legal basis for their attacks.

“Issues of legality [are] for Israel and the US to talk to because we’re not party to that information or that intelligence they may have,” he said.

Luxon went on to say it wasn’t guaranteed New Zealand would ever see this intelligence — and his government would not be asking to see it.

‘Long-standing commitment’
“We’ve had a long-standing commitment under successive governments that any actions that stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon is a good thing, any actions that take to stop them from sponsoring terrorism is a good thing, any actions that stops them from killing their own people is a good thing,” he said.

“This is not a good regime and that has been a long-standing position of New Zealand governments under different administrations.”

Hipkins said he had been taken aback by Luxon’s language around New Zealand supporting any actions to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

“I was somewhat shocked to see that comment . . .  that does not reflect the position that successive New Zealand governments have taken,” he said.

“Successive New Zealand governments have expressed significant concern about the Iranian regime but that does not justify any action, particularly when it breaches international law.”

Endangers rules-based order
Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson said the latest conflict in the Middle East endangered the rules-based order New Zealand relied on.

“The idea that we can start encouraging and allowing other countries to invade just because we don’t like their leaders is an incredibly dangerous take for this Prime Minister to support.

“He needs to be up front and declare whether he supports the rule of law, whether he supports countries in the world just willy nilly being able to decide, on vibes, whether they can invade or not.

“That’s really dangerous. That puts us and regions of the world in a really unsafe position.”

Deputy Prime Minister and ACT leader David Seymour is backing Luxon’s stance on the US-Israel attacks on Iran.

“One thing he’s noted that’s important is that New Zealand does not have all of the information that the US and Israel have used to justify their actions,” he told RNZ’s First Up today.

“So, we could spend a lot of time with New Zealand trying to be precise in its position, but I don’t think that’s what the world’s waiting for.”

‘Normal rights’
He said as a result of the strikes, Iranian girls will have an opportunity to “dress as you like, go to school, do things that are normal rights that have been withheld from them by this regime”.

“And finally, for them in Iran and also for all of us around the world, it’s critical that trade is able to continue and resume so that we don’t face price shocks and even more economic peril. Those are the things that I think are important.”

Seymour would not say if he expected advance warning from allies like the UK if New Zealand troops at allies’ bases in the region were in danger.

“That’s something that we constantly talk about with our allies, but I think it’s safe to say that whatever we may or may not be doing won’t be helped by me announcing it on New Zealand radio . . .

“Clearly, the safety of New Zealand personnel is critical, and whatever moves might or might not be afoot, we’re not going to discuss publicly.”

Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters said New Zealand was not given any advance notice of the attack on Iran, and has again urged New Zealanders to leave if it is safe to do so.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Western leaders defend the rules-based international order when it suits them, but remain largely silent as those same rules are breached by the United States and Israel.

The result is a system that shields the powerful and abandons the vulnerable — most starkly in Palestine.

The white men and a few women couldn’t hide their anger over Trump threatening to take over Greenland. NATO members joined in at the horror of Trump subverting the rules-based international order (RBIO).

They were appalled at this breach of the RBIO, that Australian Foreign Minister Richard Marles and all right-thinking people in the West keep talking about.

But these very same people — including the Australian and New Zealand political elite — say precious little or nothing at all when the rules are broken by the US and Israel to attack the poor and vulnerable of this world.

Greenlanders are special, but not Palestinians.

The breaches of RBIO didn’t come with Trump. The West has been breaching the rules for decades. Trump’s rule-breaking is just more gross and explicit.

Not only are we very selective in our concerns, but we also tug the forelock in joining the US and Israel in numerous and wilful breaches of the RBIO, breaches that have brought death and misery to tens of millions of people.

With impunity the rich and powerful break the rules and punish the poor and vulnerable. Or as Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney put it, “the strong can do what they can and the weak must suffer what they must.”

And those that suffer are not white Christians or Jews but brown Muslims. No wonder our Muslim brothers and sisters believe that the system is loaded against them. They are right to feel aggrieved.

The cruellest example in the world today of breach of rules is the genocide which Israel, with the support of United States, is inflicting on the brave people of Palestine.

This is not to suggest that Mark Carney’s Davos speech is not to be welcomed and applauded. But the RBIO is selectively applied. Are Palestinians of less value than Greenlanders?

Just look at some instances of how the US has breached the RBIO.

1. Use of force without UN authorisation
Under the UN Charter, force is legal only in self-defence or with UN Security Council approval. The US has violated this rule multiple times.

Iraq (2003)

• The invasion had no explicit UN Security Council authorisation.
• Claims about weapons of mass destruction were false. It resulted in massive civilian casualties and long-term regional destabilisation.

Kosovo / Serbia (1999)

• NATO bombing campaign (led by the US) proceeded without UN authorisation.

Panama (1989)

• US invaded to arrest Manuel Noriega. It was condemned by the UN General Assembly as a violation of international law.

Syria (from 2014 onward)

• US military presence and airstrikes occurred without Syrian consent or UN authorisation.

2. Undermining state sovereignty through regime change
The US has frequently violated the principle of non-intervention.

Latin America (1970s–1980s)

• Chile (1973): Supported the overthrow of democratically elected President Allende
• Nicaragua: Funded and armed the Contras, despite a ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) condemning US actions.

Afghanistan (1980s)

• Covertly armed insurgents to weaken the Soviet-backed government, contributing to decades of instability.

Libya (2011)

• UN authorisation was for civilian protection, not regime change. NATO operations (led by the US) went far beyond the mandate, resulting in state collapse.

3. Ignoring or rejecting international courts and legal rulings

International Court of Justice (ICJ)

• Nicaragua vs United States (1986): ICJ ruled the US violated international law by supporting Contra rebels. The US rejected the ruling, withdrew from ICJ compulsory jurisdiction, and refused to pay reparations.

International Criminal Court (ICC)

• The US refuses to join the ICC and passed domestic laws authorising force to free US personnel if detained by the ICC.
• The US sanctioned ICC officials investigating US actions in Afghanistan

4. Torture, detention, and human rights violations

‘War on Terror’ practices

• Guantánamo Bay: Indefinite detention without trial, violating habeas corpus and Geneva Conventions.
• CIA black sites: Secret prisons involving torture (waterboarding, sleep deprivation).
• Extraordinary rendition: Transferring suspects to countries known to practise torture.

These actions directly contradict:

• The UN Convention Against Torture (which the US ratified).
• International humanitarian law.

5. Violations of international humanitarian law in warfare

Civilian casualties

• Repeated airstrikes in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, and Syria caused high death tolls.

Use of controversial weapons

• Cluster munitions: Used despite long-recognised humanitarian concerns (the US is not a signatory to the ban).
• Depleted uranium munitions: Long-term health and environmental impacts.

6. Sanctions and economic coercion outside UN frameworks
The US increasingly uses unilateral sanctions, bypassing the UN.

Examples:

Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, Russia.

Sanctions often:

• Lack UN approval and have severe humanitarian consequences.
• Use extraterritorial enforcement, pressuring third-party states.

7. Selective application of ‘rules’
A core criticism isn’t just violations — but selectivity.

• Condemning territorial conquest while supporting allies doing similar things.
• Defending human rights rhetorically while shielding allies from accountability.
• Promoting international law when convenient.

Israeli breaches of rules-based international order

1. Occupation and settlements in the West Bank

• Under international humanitarian law (Fourth Geneva Convention), an occupying power is prohibited from transferring its civilian population into occupied territory.
• Israel has built and expanded settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
• These settlements are considered illegal under international law by the UN, the (ICJ).

2. Annexation of East Jerusalem

• Israel annexed East Jerusalem after the 1967 war.
• The UN Security Council has repeatedly declared this annexation null and void.
• Unilateral annexation violates the principle that borders cannot be changed by force.

3. Use of force and civilian harm in Gaza

• Israel’s military operations in Gaza have resulted in large civilian casualties and infrastructure destruction.
• Human rights groups and UN bodies have accused Israel of disproportionate force and potential war crimes, including collective punishment (such as blockades affecting civilians).

4. Blockade of Gaza

• Israel has maintained a land, sea, and air blockade on Gaza since 2007.
• The UN and many legal scholars argue the blockade constitutes collective punishment, which is prohibited under international law.

5. Disregard for UN resolutions and international rulings

• Israel has not complied with numerous UN General Assembly and Security Council resolutions, particularly on settlements and occupation.
• It has rejected the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC) over alleged crimes in the occupied territories.

6. Unequal application of law (apartheid allegations)

• Major human rights organisations (e.g., Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch) have accused Israel of practising apartheid due to different legal systems for Israelis and Palestinians in the same territory.

The bigger picture: Israel benefits from political protection, especially from the US, which shields it from sanctions or enforcement — creating a perception that the rules-based order is selective rather than universal.

The RBIO was designed to help protect the weak but is selectively applied by the strong. The US and Israel regularly breach the RBIO.

John Menadue is the founder and editor-in-chief of Pearls and Irritations. He was formerly Secretary of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet under Gough Whitlam and Malcolm Fraser, Ambassador to Japan, Secretary of the Department of Immigration and CEO of Qantas. For this article he has been assisted by WeChat for breaches by the US and Israel of the RBIO. He edited to shorten. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Dear warmongers:

You are sleepwalking towards a war in the Middle East that could set the whole world ablaze. Do not pretend you don’t know this.

Your generals know it. Your intelligence agencies know it. Financial markets know it. Every citizen with a memory longer than a news cycle can feel it in their bones.

This is an open letter from a species that wishes to survive. I will be blunt.

1. Halt all preparations for a war of choice against Iran or any other state in the region. Freeze strike planning. Pull back offensive deployments. If you really have evidence of an imminent threat, present it to independent, technically competent, international scrutiny. If you will not do that, the world is entitled to assume this is a manufactured crisis.

2. Put in place binding, monitored arrangements to stop accidents turning into cataclysms: naval and air incident protocols, hotlines that actually work, rules of engagement that favour restraint, not bravado. If you cannot even agree to that, you are not avoiding war — you are courting it.

3. Stop playing God with other people’s governments. Regime‑change schemes — whether by bombing, sanctions that strangle civilians, or covert destabilisation — have left a trail of wrecked societies across the Middle East and beyond. You know the record. You just refuse to learn from it.

4. If you possess nuclear weapons, stop using them as toys for your vanity. Commit — publicly, in law — to never being the first to use them. Make it clear that any nuclear use by anyone, anywhere, will be treated as an unforgivable crime. If you cannot do even that, your talk of “values” is a sick joke.

5. Choke off the money pipeline that keeps this war machine humming: end the revolving door between government and arms manufacturers, subject major arms sales to real global oversight, and stop treating conflict as a business model. As long as war pays, someone will always be lobbying for it.

6. Admit that your own house is not in order. Societies riven by inequality, corruption and polarisation are more prone to lash out abroad. Fix the rot at home instead of reaching for foreign enemies to distract your populations.

7. Above all, drop the delusion that domination is leadership. Real leadership today is the courage to restrain your own power when using it would shatter the fragile systems that keep all of us alive.

You are not emperors. You are temporary stewards of a civilisation perched on the edge of multiple tipping points, and you’re not any good at that either.

If you drag us into yet another avoidable war, with nuclear forces in the background, you are gambling with everything that breathes.

So here it is, without poetry or excuse:

Step back from your stupidity. Submit your claims to scrutiny. Rein in your war machines. Protect those who speak truth. Treat nuclear weapons as the abomination they are. Stop feeding the economy of perpetual conflict.

If you cannot do that, then you only have the right to call yourselves fools.

Richard David Hames is an Australian philosopher-activist, strategic adviser, entrepreneur and futurist, and he publishes The Hames Report on Substack.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

COMMENTARY: By Eugene Doyle

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney gave a speech at Davos this week that signals there may still be a leader in the West worth following.

“Middle powers must act together because if we’re not at the table, we’re on the menu,” he warned.

The Canadian PM was brutally honest about Western conduct in the world but shone a bright light on a better path forward.

At a time when the US has pivoted to a smash-and-grab deployment of hard power that now extends to its closest allies, Carney stepped up.

The speech wasn’t a rhetorical tour de force; it was better than that: it was a declaration by the leader of a major, middle ranked Western power that the snivelling compliance, the fawning and the keep-your-head-down approach that has typified the collective West’s response to Trumpism is at a strategic dead end.

We are at a moment which Carney defines as “a rupture in the world order”.

Nostalgia is not a strategy
“We know the old order is not coming back. We shouldn’t mourn it. Nostalgia is not a strategy,” Carney said.

At a time when the US is led by a criminal toddler who can’t stop whining about not getting the Nobel Peace Prize even as he attacks country after country, it is refreshing to encounter a leader who thinks and speaks like a statesman of the first rank.

“We are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition. Over the past two decades, a series of crises in finance, health, energy and geopolitics have laid bare the risks of extreme global integration.

“But more recently, great powers have begun using economic integration as weapons, tariffs as leverage, financial infrastructure as coercion, supply chains as vulnerabilities to be exploited,” Carney said.

A modern non-aligned movement
Carney did not reference the Non-Aligned Movement formed at the Belgrade Conference in September 1961 but it leapt to my mind when I heard him say:

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Donald Trump is a classic example of why you don’t let bullies prosper. “Trump is cutting the last threads of the tattered cloth of ‘the rules-based international order’  — the self-serving system that touted international law as long as it didn’t apply to the US and its allies.

The Canadians, the Danes, the Panamanians and the rest of us should wake up to reality and see we are objects, we are mere “things” to the Americans, not allies with some deeply shared “values”. 

I wrote that in January 2025 in this article that I reproduce today. It provides a useful backgrounder, including historical precendents, to help us navigate through the times we are living through right now.

What do Panama, Canada and Greenland have in common? Could Trump be getting the US back to brass tacks, to a core strategy of dominating the Western hemisphere? Possibly, and he may be blowing away the fraudulent rhetoric about rules-based international order, territorial integrity, international law and the crusade to expand democracies.

Trump said this week that the US is prepared to use military force to assert control over Panama and Greenland.

“We need Greenland for national security purposes.  People don’t even know if Denmark has any legal right to it but even if they do they should give it up because I’m talking about protecting the free world,” Trump said.

The world’s largest island is bigger than France, Germany, Spain, the United Kingdom, Italy, Greece, Switzerland, and Belgium combined. It’s literally bigger than Texas (300 percent bigger) — and the US wants it.

A greater risk
Think about that.  The US may pose a greater risk to the territorial integrity of the European Union than the Russians do. If they get antsy with the US, Trump will “tariff them”.

The Danes, like the rest of Europe, are frightened of the US. In response to Trump’s Greenland gambit, Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen timidly said this week that Denmark was “open to a dialogue with the Americans on how we can cooperate, possibly even more closely than we already do, to ensure that American ambitions are fulfilled”.

To ensure American ambitions are fulfilled. And this was the country that gave us the Vikings. If Ragnar Lodbrok, Eric Bloodaxe or Bjorn Ironside had been around when Donald Trump Junior swooped into Nuuk for his photo op, his skull would have been used as a drinking tankard for a blót sumbl feast that same evening.

Top independent strategists have for years despaired of the strategic brainlessness of US foreign policy — the Midas Touch in reverse, as Professor Mearsheimer calls it.  Wherever they went — from Vietnam to Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine and Gaza — Americans embroiled themselves in conflicts of little strategic worth and left behind piles of bodies, millions of implacable enemies and a litany of failures.

Trump’s rough woo-ing of Canada to become the 51st state, and his threat to use military force to seize both Greenland and the Canal, speak to a back-to-basics focus for American imperialism — a shift in US policy that will bring it closer to its core strategic interests.

That’s quite appropriate for a man who counts President Teddy Roosevelt (1901-09) as a role model. There is a whiff of the Rough Rider (Roosevelt’s cavalry which kicked over the Spaniards in Cuba in 1898) about Trump’s recent utterances.

Outside the American Museum of Natural History in New York you could see a magnificent statue of Teddy Roosevelt, cowboy kerchief around his neck, six-shooter hanging off his hip, astride a proud steed with two bare-chested Noble Savages — an African and an American Indian — walking on either side of the Great White Man.

Punkish metal spikes
I particularly like the slightly punkish metal spikes sticking out of his hair to stop birds crapping on his head.  After 82 years, the City finally woke up to the fact that this was a racist, colonialist trope and took the statue down in 2021.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

When Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, New Zealand responded with unusual speed. Sanctions followed. Condemnations were issued. The language was unambiguous.

We were told this was about defending the “rules-based international order” — a phrase our politicians have grown remarkably fond of. Winston Peters has deployed it frequently in his time as Foreign Minister.

So where is that principled clarity now?

On Saturday, the United States attacked the Venezuelan capital Caracas, seized President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, and spirited them away to face charges in New York.

President Donald Trump then declared that America would “run” Venezuela — including, he made abundantly clear, its oil reserves. He threatened the acting president with a fate “probably worse than Maduro” if she failed to cooperate.

This is, by any reasonable definition, an invasion. An act of aggression against a sovereign state. A violation of Article Two of the UN Charter. The kind of thing New Zealand normally objects to, or used to.

Peters’ response? After about 24 hours, he made a brief statement on social media: “New Zealand is concerned by and actively monitoring developments in Venezuela and expects all parties to act in accordance with international law.”

That’s it. “Concerned”. “Monitoring”. Expecting all parties to behave. One party has just bombed a capital city, kidnapped a head of state, and announced it will control the country’s resources. But sure, let’s urge “all parties” to play by the rules.

The Prime Minister’s Office, when asked for a response at the highest level, simply referred journalists back to Peters’ tweet. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon himself has said nothing.

As Geoffrey Miller, the independent geopolitical analyst, observed: “Luxon will probably be grateful to escape the media spotlight by virtue of the weekend’s events falling in the depths of New Zealand’s typically elongated summer holidays.”

The language tells you everything
Pay attention to the words politicians choose and the words they avoid. Peters didn’t name the United States. He didn’t describe what happened as an invasion, an attack, or even an intervention. The carefully crafted statement avoids assigning responsibility to anyone. It’s diplomatic jelly.

Compare this to how other countries have responded. Brazil, Mexico, Chile, Colombia and Uruguay issued a joint statement expressing “deep concern and rejection of the military actions carried out unilaterally in the territory of Venezuela, which contravene fundamental principles of international law.”

They warned that “such actions set an extremely dangerous precedent for regional peace and security and for the rules-based international order.”

Spain’s Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez was equally direct: “Spain did not recognise the Maduro regime. But neither will it recognise an intervention that violates international law and pushes the region toward a horizon of uncertainty and belligerence.”

Norway’s Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide put it simply: “International law is universal and binding for all states. The American intervention in Venezuela is not in accordance with international law.”

Even Singapore, which is hardly known for picking diplomatic fights, issued a statement saying it was “gravely concerned” and “strongly condemned any unprovoked invasion of a sovereign country under any pretext.” That echoes the language Singapore used after Russia invaded Ukraine.

New Zealand? “Concerned” and “monitoring”.

The vested interests behind timidity
Maduro is no martyr; he is a dictator who ran his country into the ground. He lost the 2024 election by an enormous margin and then stole it. His regime was corrupt, authoritarian, and responsible for the flight of eight million Venezuelans from their own country. No tears should be shed for him personally.

But that’s not the point. The question isn’t whether Maduro deserved power. He didn’t. The question is whether the United States can bomb sovereign nations, kidnap their leaders, and declare control of their natural resources whenever it feels like it.

The answer, if you believe in national sovereignty or the rules-based order our government claims to defend, should be an emphatic no.

Why can’t New Zealand say so? The answer lies in vested interests: both American and our own.

Start with Washington. Trump’s intervention is not primarily about narcotics or democracy.

As Professor Robert Patman of Otago University has noted, Venezuela is not at the centre of America’s drug problems. Fentanyl and other drugs mainly come from places like China and Mexico. Trump’s announcement that America would “run” Venezuela and take its oil reserves revealed the true motivation.

At his news conference, Trump made clear his major objective was securing Venezuela’s oil resources, which he claims the United States “owns”. This from the man who once said America made a mistake in not grabbing Iraq’s oil reserves after the 2003 invasion.

The vested interests of American corporations are driving this policy, dressed up in the language of law enforcement and regional security. The military is simply being used to secure assets for private corporations.

And what about New Zealand’s own vested interests in staying quiet? Here the picture becomes clearer. Our farming and export sectors have already been hit by Trump’s tariff regime. An initial 10 percent rate in April was raised to 15 percent.

A November decision to roll back tariffs on food imports provided some relief, but American trade policy remains a constant threat. India has been hit with 50 percent tariffs for buying Russian oil. Brazil was targeted because of its prosecution of Trump ally Jair Bolsonaro.

Our agricultural and export lobby groups watch these retaliatory tariffs nervously. Any government criticism of Trump risks placing New Zealand next on the punishment list. This explains why Peters has been so careful not to name the United States in his statement.

The economic interests of New Zealand’s export sector — farmers, meat processors, dairy companies — are being prioritised over principles. It’s the politics of fear, wrapped in the language of diplomacy.

Stephen Nagy, a professor at the International Christian University in Tokyo, put it bluntly when explaining why America’s Asian allies have been so reluctant to criticise Trump: “You don’t bite the hand that feeds you.” This is what happens when a country’s foreign policy becomes subordinate to its immediate economic interests.

The double standard is breathtaking
Consider how this would play out if the roles were reversed. Imagine China had just bombed Taipei, sent special forces to capture Taiwan’s leader, and declared it would “run” the island.

Would Winston Peters be tweeting about how New Zealand “expects all parties” to respect international law? Would Chris Luxon be hiding behind his summer holiday?

Of course not. The response would be immediate, forceful, and unambiguous. We would be told that Chinese aggression cannot be tolerated. Gordon Campbell made this point sharply: “If the Chinese military were blowing up merchant shipping in the South China Sea, bombing Taipei and sending in special forces to kidnap Taiwan’s leader . . .  New Zealand wouldn’t be meekly asking both sides to show restrained respect for international law. We would be outraged.”

The same double standard has been on display over Gaza. Peters’ line about expecting “all parties” to respect international law has been the government’s exact position there too, as if both sides in that conflict have been equally responsible for bombing hospitals and blocking humanitarian aid.

Only last week, New Zealand opted not to join a joint statement by foreign ministers from Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Iceland, Japan, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom calling for Israel to abide by ceasefire terms. Peters sat that one out.

Opposition voices show what’s possible
Not everyone in New Zealand politics has been so timid. Phil Twyford of the Labour Party issued a stronger statement, actually naming the United States and describing the action as a violation of international law.

It’s not revolutionary language (more like stating the obvious) but in the context of the government’s mealy-mouthed response, it stands out. Opposition Leader Chris Hipkins should be speaking out likewise.

Helen Clark has been characteristically direct, telling RNZ that the US attack was “clearly illegal under the UN Charter.” When former prime ministers speak more clearly than current foreign ministers, something has gone badly wrong.

Professor Patman told RNZ that New Zealand’s response should be “firm and robust” and noted that the days of “softly, softly diplomacy” with Trump are over. Patman says: “New Zealand has persisted for the last 12 months in what I call softly, softly diplomacy towards Trump. The idea is if we keep our heads beneath the radar, we say nice things, we have photo opportunities with the great men at international meetings, he will soften and we’ll be able to nudge him in a more moderate direction. I’m afraid that’s over.”

He labelled Peters’ statement as “limp”.

The credibility at stake
The consequences of this craven approach go beyond the immediate crisis. Geoffrey Miller warned that the inconsistency between how Western allies responded to Russia and how they’re responding to America “may come back to haunt them, particularly when it comes to their credibility with the Global South.”

He’s right. Countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America are watching. They’ve heard endless lectures from Western nations about the importance of the rules-based order, about sovereignty, about international law.

Now they’re watching those same nations stay quiet — or worse, make excuses — when the violator is the United States. Beijing and Moscow will exploit this at every opportunity. They’ll point to Venezuela whenever anyone raises Ukraine or Taiwan. And they’ll have a point.

As Nathalie Tocci wrote in The Guardian, the European failure to condemn Trump’s action “embodies the law of the jungle so dear to dictators such as Putin. For Europeans to silently condone such a vision is not just unethical. It is plain stupid.”

After all, Trump is now speaking out loud about annexing Greenland too. And increasingly, the concept of “Spheres of Influence” seems to be rising, whereby military superpowers such as the US, Russia, China, etc can operate on a “might is right” basis to intervene however they want in their own regions.

If the world reverts to such “Spheres of Influence”, New Zealand is left exposed. If the US can claim the Americas, what is to stop a superpower from claiming the Pacific?

New Zealand has spent years positioning itself as “a good international citizen”. It has sought seats on the UN Security Council. It has championed multilateralism. It has talked endlessly about the importance of small states having a voice in international affairs.

How does that square with staying silent when a great power simply ignores international law because it can?

The integrity test New Zealand is failing
This is ultimately a question of integrity — the kind of integrity New Zealand claims to stand for on the world stage. Either international law applies to everyone, or it doesn’t. Either sovereignty matters, or it’s just a convenient talking point when it suits politicians.

Either New Zealand is willing to call out violations regardless of who commits them, or else the politicians are just selective critics who only speak up when the target is someone they already dislike.

Winston Peters once prided himself on being willing to speak uncomfortable truths. New Zealand First has long positioned itself as independent-minded, unwilling to simply follow the crowd. Where is that independence now?

What we’re seeing instead is a government so afraid of offending Trump, and so captured by the economic interests of our export sector, that it can’t even name the United States in a statement about an American military attack.

As Professor Patman observed: “Foreign policy in this country has been traditionally bipartisan. We have stood up for the rule of law internationally.” If that’s true, then it’s certainly time to show some element of independence from the US and Five Eyes.

But doing so requires the New Zealand government to put principles ahead of the vested interests of farmers and exporters, and ahead of the political calculation that offending Trump carries too high a price.

Murray McCully, not exactly a darling of the left, showed more backbone when he championed UN Security Council Resolution 2334 on Israeli settlements in 2016. As Gordon Campbell observed, the current situation almost makes you yearn for the days when McCully was foreign minister.

That’s a damning indictment of how far New Zealand has fallen.

So, as we head towards an election year, foreign policy needs to be made a major issue. Voters now deserve to know whether New Zealand will continue to subordinate its principles to its perceived economic interests.

Dr Bruce Edwards is a political commentator and analyst. He is director of the Integrity Institute, a campaigning and research organisation dedicated to strengthening New Zealand democratic institutions through transparency, accountability, and robust policy reform. Republished with the author’s permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

What have we become if to survive in our so-called “free world” we must turn a blind eye to cold-blooded genocide, must arm ourselves to oppose our major trading partner, must support a contrived war to defeat an adversary that no longer exists, (lest its new form otherwise achieves its potential) must sanction some and not others, trade with some and not others — and now must, yet again, be silent as another sovereign nation is brazenly plundered for its wealth.

US President Donald Trump’s attack on Venezuela is not a “police operation” against a criminal “fugitive,” nor is it part of an “escalating pressure campaign” against a hostile regime.

It’s none of the things that the White House and our media claims, faithfully copying and pasting stories supplied by The New York Times, CNN and The Washington Post.

Blithely asserting the right to “run” Venezuela and “take” the country’s vast oil reserves, in a textbook example of the 19th century colonialism, Trump’s actions brazenly violate international law and numerous entrenched conventions. And all of it whitewashed by our media in euphemistic pseudo-legalese, to impress those gullible enough.

With Trump not only flouting the US Constitution but no longer even pretending that this is about anything other than the theft of another country’s resources, bragging that US oil companies will begin “taking a tremendous amount of wealth out of the ground,” what does it say about us that we accept such brigandry?

How, in God’s name, have we allowed ourselves to be swayed by the dribblings of a scurrilous misogynist, the associate of a convicted paedophile and a creature so altogether odious that, in any other context, we wouldn’t be seen dead with him?

Brandishing his big black marker, Trump, the unabashed narcissist, has changed the US Constitution from; “We the People . . . ” to now read: “ME the People”!

When can we expect those we have entrusted to defend the principles we claim to represent, to stand up and say something?

Or is it simply a matter of us being too gutless ourselves, too intimidated, too craven, to break ranks, step forward and say: “The Emperor has no clothes!”

Malcolm Evans is an independent New Zealand award-winning cartoonist and commentator.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The road from Beijing to Taiwan no longer seems impossible.

Nothing appears to prevent Moscow — should it decide — from abducting the Ukrainian president from the heart of Kyiv.

There is no longer any real immunity protecting political leadership anywhere, including Iranian leaders. The reason is not international chaos.

The reason is Gaza.

Gaza: The moment of great exposure
Gaza is not a passing war, nor a limited regional conflict.

Gaza is the moment when the international system collapsed entirely.

In Gaza, the following fell:

• International law;
• The concept of sovereignty;
• The neutrality of international institutions; and
• The claim of Western values

A people were annihilated before the eyes of the world. Hospitals, schools, and United Nations facilities were destroyed. Children were killed. Starvation was used as a weapon.

And yet — no one was held accountable.

When the killer walks free in Gaza
Israel’s impunity in Gaza was not a detail; it was a dangerous precedent. A clear message reached every capital:

Do whatever you want, as long as you are protected by the United States. From that moment, red lines collapsed:

• Sovereignty was no longer protected;
• Leaders lost immunity;
• Agreements lost meaning; and
• International courts lost relevance

If the annihilation of a besieged city is possible, what prevents the kidnapping of a president, the assassination of a leader, or the toppling of an entire state?

America: From guardian of order to sponsor of crime
The United States is no longer a mediator or even a biased partner.

It has become the political guarantor of crime. It has:

• Provided cover;
• Supplied weapons;
• Used the veto;
• Obstructed accountability; and
• And legitimised extermination

Then it has continued speaking of “international order” and “human rights” as if Gaza had never happened.

The end of the illusion of immunity
After Gaza, one truth has become clear to every world leader:

• The United Nations does not protect;
• Conventions do not save;
• International law does not shield;
• The only immunity that remains today is power; and
• Those who do not possess it are potential targets.

This is why China is recalculating, Russia deals with law pragmatically, Iran understands that Western guarantees are an illusion, and many states are stepping out from under the American cloak.

Gaza was not the exception. It was the official declaration of the collapse of the global order.

In the age of American–Israeli thuggery:

• Sovereignty has fallen;
• Law has died;
• Power has become the only source of legitimacy; and
• Those without power are denied the right to live.

Sameer Barghouthi is an emeritus professor at Al-Quds University, Jerusalem, Palestine. This article was first published by Qatar Tribune.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

New Zealand’s National-led coalition government’s policy on Gaza seems caught between a desire for a two-state diplomatic solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and closer alignment with the US, which supports a Netanyahu government strongly opposed to a Palestinian state

In the last 17 months, Gaza has been the scene of what Thomas Merton once called the unspeakable — human wrongdoing on a scale and a depth that seems to go beyond the capacity of words to adequately describe.

The latest Gaza conflict began with a horrific Hamas terrorist attack on Israel on 7 October 2023 that prompted a relentless Israel ground and air offensive in Gaza with full financial, logistical and diplomatic backing from the Biden administration.

During this period, around 50,000 people – 48,903 Palestinians and 1706 Israelis – have been reported killed in the Gaza conflict, according to the official figures of the Gaza Health Ministry, as well as 166 journalists and media workers, 120 academics,and more than 224 humanitarian aid workers.

Moreover, a fragile ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, signed in mid-January, seems to be hanging by a thread.

Israel has resumed its blockade of humanitarian aid to Gaza and cut off electricity after Hamas rejected an Israeli proposal to extend phase 1 of the ceasefire deal (to release more Israeli hostages) without any commitment to implement phase 2 (that envisaged ending the conflict in Gaza and Israel withdrawing its troops from the territory).

Hamas insists on negotiating phase 2 as signed by both parties in the January ceasefire agreement

Over the weekend, Israel reportedly launched air-strikes in Gaza and the Trump administration unleashed a wave of attacks on Houthi rebel positions in Yemen after the Houthis warned Israel not to restart the war in Gaza.

New Zealand and the Gaza conflict
Although distant in geographic terms, the Gaza crisis represents a major moral and legal challenge to New Zealand’s self-image and its worldview based on the strengthening of an international rules-based order.

New Zealand’s founding document, the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi, emphasised partnership and cooperation between indigenous Māori and European settlers in nation-building.

While the aspirations of the Treaty have yet to be fully realised, the credibility of its vision of reconciliation at home depends on New Zealand’s willingness to uphold respect for human rights and the rule of law in the international arena, particularly in states like Israel where tensions persist between the settler population and Palestinians in occupied territories like the West Bank.

New Zealand’s declaratory stance towards Gaza
In 2023 and 2024, New Zealand consistently backed calls in the UN General Assembly for humanitarian truces or ceasefires in Gaza. It also joined Australia and Canada in February and July last year to demand an end to hostilities.

The New Zealand Foreign Minister, Winston Peters, told the General Assembly in April 2024 that the Security Council had failed in its responsibility “to maintain international peace and security”.

He was right. The Biden administration used its UN Security Council veto four times to perpetuate this brutal onslaught in Gaza for nearly 15 months.

In addition, Peters has repeatedly said there can be no military resolution of a political problem in Gaza that can only be resolved through affirming the Palestinian right to self-determination within the framework of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.

The limitations of New Zealand’s Gaza approach
Despite considerable disagreement with Netanyahu’s policy of “mighty vengeance” in Gaza, the National-led coalition government had few qualms about sending a small Defence Force deployment to the Red Sea in January 2024 as part of a US-led coalition effort to counter Houthi rebel attacks on commercial shipping there.

While such attacks are clearly illegal, they are basically part of the fallout from a prolonged international failure to stop the US-enabled carnage in Gaza.

In particular, the NZDF’s Red Sea deployment did not sit comfortably with New Zealand’s acceptance in September 2024 of the ICJ’s ruling that Israel’s continued presence in the occupied Palestinian territory (East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza) was “unlawful”.

At the same time, the National-led coalition government’s silence on US President Donald Trump’s controversial proposal to “own” Gaza, displace two million Palestinian residents and make the territory the “Riviera” of the Middle East was deafening.

Furthermore, while Wellington announced travel bans on violent Israeli settlers in the West Bank in February 2024, it has had little to say publicly about the Netanyahu government’s plans to annex the West Bank in 2025. Such a development would gravely undermine the two-state solution, violate international law, and further fuel regional tensions.

New Zealand’s low-key policy
On balance, the National-led coalition government’s policy towards Gaza appears to be ambivalent and lacking moral and legal clarity in a context in which war crimes have been regularly committed since October 7.

Peters was absolutely correct to condemn the UNSC for failing to deliver the ceasefire that New Zealand and the overwhelming majority of states in the UN General Assembly had wanted from the first month of this crisis.

But the New Zealand government has had no words of criticism for the US, which used its power of veto in the UNSC for more than a year to thwart the prospect of a ceasefire and provided blanket support for an Israeli military campaign that killed huge numbers of Palestinian civilians in Gaza.

By cooperating with the Biden administration against Houthi rebels and adopting a quietly-quietly approach to Trump’s provocative comments on Gaza and his apparent willingness to do whatever it takes to help Israel “to get the job done’, New Zealand has revealed a selective approach to upholding international law and human rights in the desperate conditions facing Gaza

Professor Robert G. Patman is an Inaugural Sesquicentennial Distinguished Chair and his research interests concern international relations, global security, US foreign policy, great powers, and the Horn of Africa. This article was first published by The Spinoff and is republished here with the author’s permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

ANALYSIS: By Jonathan Cook

If there is one thing we can thank US President Donald Trump for, it is this: he has decisively stripped away the ridiculous notion, long cultivated by Western media, that the United States is a benign global policeman enforcing a “rules-based order”.

Washington is better understood as the head of a gangster empire, embracing 800 military bases around the world. Since the end of the Cold War, it has been aggressively seeking “global full-spectrum domination”, as the Pentagon doctrine politely terms it.

You either pay fealty to the Don or you get dumped in the river. Last Friday, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was presented with a pair of designer concrete boots at the White House.

The innovation was that it all happened in front of the Western press corps, in the Oval Office, rather than in a back room, out of sight. It made for great television, Trump crowed.

Pundits have been quick to reassure us that the shouting match was some kind of weird Trumpian thing. As though being inhospitable to state leaders, and disrespectful to the countries they head, is unique to this administration.

Take just the example of Iraq. The administration of Bill Clinton thought it “worth it” – as his secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, infamously put it — to kill an estimated half a million Iraqi children by imposing draconian sanctions through the 1990s.

Under Clinton’s successor, George W Bush, the US then waged an illegal war in 2003, on entirely phoney grounds, that killed around half a million Iraqis, according to post-war estimates, and made four million homeless.

Those worrying about the White House publicly humiliating Zelensky might be better advised to save their concern for the hundreds of thousands of mostly Ukrainian and Russian men killed or wounded fighting an entirely unnecessary war — one, as we shall see, Washington carefully engineered through Nato over the preceding two decades.

Henchman Zelensky
All those casualties served the same goal as they did in Iraq: to remind the world who is boss.

Uniquely, Western publics don’t understand this simple point because they live inside a disinformation bubble, created for them by the Western establishment media.

Henry Kissinger, the long-time steward of US foreign policy, famously said: “It may be dangerous to be America’s enemy, but to be America’s friend is fatal.”

Zelensky just found that out the hard way. Gangster empires are just as fickle as the gangsters we know from Hollywood movies. Under the previous Joe Biden administration, Zelensky had been recruited as a henchman to do Washington’s bidding on Moscow’s doorstep.

The background — the one Western media have kept largely out of view — is that, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US tore up treaties crucial to reassuring Russia of Nato’s good intent.

Viewed from Moscow, and given Washington’s track record, Nato’s European security umbrella must have looked more like preparation for an ambush.

Keen though Trump now is to rewrite history and cast himself as peacemaker, he was central to the escalating tensions that led to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

In 2019, he unilaterally withdrew from the 1987 Treaty on Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces. That opened the door to the US launching a potential first strike on Russia, using missiles stationed in nearby Nato members Romania and Poland.

He also sent Javelin anti-tank weapons to Ukraine, a move avoided by his predecessor, Barack Obama, for fear it would be seen as provocative.

Repeatedly, Nato vowed to bring Ukraine into its fold, despite Russia’s warnings that the step was viewed as an existential threat, that Moscow could not allow Washington to place missiles on its border, any more than the US accepted Soviet missiles stationed in Cuba back in the early 1960s.

Washington pressed ahead anyway, even assisting in a colour revolution-style coup in 2014 against the elected government in Kyiv, whose crime was being a little too sympathetic to Moscow.

With the country in crisis, Zelensky was himself elected by Ukrainians as a peace candidate, there to end a brutal civil war — sparked by that coup — between anti-Russian, “nationalistic” forces in the country’s west and ethnic Russian populations in the east. The Ukrainian President soon broke that promise.

Trump has accused Zelensky of being a “dictator”. But if he is, it is only because Washington wanted him that way, ignoring the wishes of the majority of Ukrainians.

Reddest of red lines
Zelensky’s job was to play a game of chicken with Moscow. The assumption was that the US would win whatever the outcome.

Either Russian President Vladimir Putin’s bluff would be called. Ukraine would be welcomed into Nato, becoming the most forward of the alliance’s forward bases against Russia, allowing nuclear-armed ballistic missiles to be stationed minutes from Moscow.

Or Putin would finally make good on his years of threats to invade his neighbour to stop Nato crossing the reddest of red lines he had set over Ukraine.

Washington could then cry “self-defence” on Ukraine’s behalf, and ludicrously fearmonger Western publics about Putin eyeing Poland, Germany, France and Britain next.

Those were the pretexts for arming Kyiv to the hilt, rather than seeking a rapid peace deal. And so began a proxy war of attrition against Russia, using Ukrainian men as cannon fodder.

The aim was to wear Russia down militarily and economically, and bring about Putin’s overthrow.

Zelensky did precisely what was demanded of him. When he appeared to waver early on, and considered signing a peace deal with Moscow, Britain’s prime minister of the time, Boris Johnson, was dispatched with a message from Washington: keep fighting.

That is the same Boris Johnson who now breezily admits that the West is fighting a “proxy war” against Russia.

Hmm, maybe someone can help me.

How was Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine entirely ‘unprovoked’, when the British leader in charge at the time, Boris Johnson, now admits Nato viewed Ukraine as the battlefield for a ‘proxy war’ against Russia? 🤯 pic.twitter.com/VS6jRE03gH

— Jonathan Cook (@Jonathan_K_Cook) February 24, 2025

His comments have generated precisely no controversy. That is particularly strange, given that critics who pointed this very obvious fact out three years ago were instantly denounced for spreading “Putin disinformation” and Kremlin “talking points”.

For his obedience, Zelensky was feted a hero, the defender of Europe against Russian imperialism. His every “demand” — demands that originated in Washington — was met.

Ukraine has received at least $250 billion worth of guns, tanks, fighter jets, training for his troops, Western intelligence on Russia, and other forms of aid.

Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian and Russian men have paid with their lives — as have the families they leave behind.

Mafia etiquette
Now the old Don in Washington is gone. The new Don has decided Zelensky has been an expensive failure. Russia isn’t lethally wounded. It’s stronger than ever. Time for a new strategy.

Zelensky, still imagining he was Washington’s favourite henchman, arrived at the Oval Office only to be taught a harsh lesson in mafia etiquette.

Trump is spinning his stab in the back as a “peace agreement”. And in some sense, it is. Rightly, Trump has concluded that Russia has won — unless the West is ready to fight World War III and risk a potential nuclear war.

Trump has faced up to the reality of the situation, even if Zelensky and Europe are still struggling to.

Trump’s overt ‘genocidal’ warning over Gaza.   Video: TRT World News

But his plan for Ukraine is actually just a variation of his other peace plan — the one for Gaza. There he wants to ethnically cleanse the Palestinian population and, on the bodies of the enclave’s many thousands of dead children, build the “Riviera of the Middle East” — or “Trump Gaza” as it is being called in a surreal video he shared on social media.

In telling the “people of Gaza”, they will be “DEAD” if the hostages aren’t released – something they can’t decide – Trump is expressing clear genocidal intent. He’a also sending the arms to make that genocide possible.

He needs to be in the ICC dock alongside Netanyahu. pic.twitter.com/eomkGP6eWe

— Jonathan Cook (@Jonathan_K_Cook) March 6, 2025

Similarly, Trump now sees Ukraine not as a military battlefield but as an economic one where, through clever deal-making, he can leverage riches for himself and his billionaire pals.

He has put a gun to Zelensky and Europe’s head. Make a deal with Russia to end the war, or you are on your own against a far superior military power. See if the Europeans can help you without a supply of Washington’s weapons.

Not surprisingly, Zelensky, Britain’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron huddled together at the weekend to find a deal that would appease Trump. All Starmer has revealed so far is that the plan will “stop the fighting”.

That is a good thing. But the fighting could have been stopped, and should have been stopped, three years ago.

Money, not peace
It is deeply unwise to be lulled into tribalism by all this — the very tribalism Western elites seek to cultivate among their publics to keep us treating international affairs no differently from a high-stakes football match.

No one here has behaved, or is behaving, honourably.

A ceasefire in Ukraine is not about peace. It’s about money, just as the earlier war was. As all wars are, ultimately.

An acceptable ceasefire for Trump, as well as for Putin, will involve a carve-up of Ukraine’s goodies. Rare earth minerals, land, agricultural production will be the real currency driving the agreement.

Zelensky now understands this. He knows that he, and the people of Ukraine, have been scammed. That is what tends to happen when you cosy up to the mafia.

If anyone doubts Washington’s insincerity over Ukraine, look to Palestine for clarity.

In his earlier presidency, Trump tried to bring about what he termed the peace “deal of the century” whose centrepiece was the annexation of much of the Occupied West Bank.

The hope was that the Gulf states would ultimately fund an incentivisation programme — the carrot to Israel’s stick — to encourage Palestinians to make a new life in a giant, purpose-built industrial zone in Sinai, next to Gaza.

That plan is still simmering away in the background. At the weekend, Israel received a green light from Washington to revive its genocidal starvation of Gaza’s population, after Israel refused to negotiate the second phase of the original ceasefire agreement.

The Trump administration and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are now spinning their own bad faith as Hamas “rejectionism”.

They and the echo chamber that is the Western media are blaming the Palestinian group for refusing to be gulled into an “extension” of what was never more than a phoney ceasefire — Israel’s fire never ceased. Israel wants all the hostages back, without having to leave Gaza, so that Hamas has no leverage to stop Israel reviving the full genocide.

The people of Gaza are still being fed into the Washington mafia’s meatgrinder, just as the Ukrainian people have been.

Trump wants them out of the way so he can develop a Mediterranean playground for the rich, paid for with Gulf oil money and the so-far untapped natural gas reserves just off Gaza’s coast.

Unlike his predecessors, Trump doesn’t pretend that Ukraine and Gaza are anything more than geostrategic real estate for Washington.

The big shakedown
Zelensky’s shakedown did not come out of the blue. Trump and his officials had been flagging it well in advance.

Two weeks ago, the industrial correspondent for Britain’s Daily Telegraph wrote an article headlined “Here’s why Trump wants to make Ukraine a US economic colony”.

Trump’s team believes that Ukraine may have rare-earth minerals under the ground worth some $15 trillion — a treasure trove that will be critical to the development of the next generation of technology.

In their view, controlling the exploration and extraction of those minerals will be as important as control over the Middle East’s oil reserves was more than a century ago.

And most important of all, the US wants China, its chief economic — if not military — rival excluded from the plunder. China currently has an effective monopoly on many of these critical minerals.

Or as the Telegraph puts it, Ukraine’s “minerals offer a tantalising promise: the ability for the US to break its dependence on Chinese supplies of critical minerals that go into everything from wind turbines to iPhones and stealth fighter jets”.

A draft of the plan seen by the Telegraph would, in its words, “amount to the US economic colonisation of Ukraine, in legal perpetuity”.

Washington wants first refusal on all deposits within the country.

At their Oval Office confrontation, Trump reiterated this goal: “So we’re going to be using that [Ukraine’s rare earth minerals], taking it, using it for all of the things we do, including AI, and including weapons, and the military. And it’s really going to very much satisfy our needs.”

All of this means that Trump has a keen incentive to get the war finished as quickly as possible, and Russia’s territorial advance halted. The more territory Moscow seizes, the less territory is left for the US to plunder.

Self-sabotage
The battle against China over rare-earth minerals isn’t a Trump innovation either — and adds an additional layer of context for why Washington and Nato have been so keen over the past two decades to prise Ukraine away from Russia.

Last summer, a Congressional select committee on competition with China announced the formation of a working group to counter Beijing’s “dominance of critical minerals”.

The chairman of the committee, John Moolenaar, noted that the current US dependence on China for these minerals “would quickly become an existential vulnerability in the event of a conflict”.

Another committee member, Rob Wittman, observed: “Dominance over global supply chains for critical mineral and rare earth elements is the next stage of great power competition.”

What Trump appears to appreciate is that Nato’s proxy war against Russia in Ukraine has, by default, driven Moscow deeper into Beijing’s embrace. It has been self-sabotage on a grand scale.

Together, China and Russia are a formidable opponent, and one at the centre of the ever-growing Brics group — comprised of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. They have been seeking to expand their alliance by adding emerging powers to become a counterweight to Washington and Nato’s bullying global agenda.

But a deal with Putin over Ukraine would provide an opportunity for Washington to build a new security architecture in Europe — one more useful to the US — that places Russia inside the tent rather than outside it.

That would leave China isolated — a long-time Pentagon goal.

And it would also leave Europe less central to the projection of US power, which is why European leaders — led by Keir Starmer — have been looking and sounding so unnerved over the past few weeks.

The danger is that Trump’s “peacemaking” in Ukraine simply becomes a prelude to the fomenting of a war against China, using Taiwan as the pretext in the same way Ukraine was used against Russia.

As Moolenaar implied, US control over critical minerals — in Ukraine and elsewhere — would ensure the US was no longer vulnerable in the event of a war with China to losing access to the minerals it would need to continue the war. It would free Washington’s hand.

Trump may be behaving in a vulgar manner. But the gangster empire he now heads is conducting the same global shakedown as ever.

Jonathan Cook is an award-winning British journalist. He was based in Nazareth, Israel, for 20 years and returned to the UK in 2021. He is the author of three books on the Israel-Palestine conflict, including Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair (2008). In 2011, Cook was awarded the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism for his work on Palestine and Israel. This article was first published in Middle East Eye and is republished with the author’s permission.

This article was first published on Café Pacific.

New Zealand should be robust in its response to the “unacceptable” situation in Gaza but it must also back its allies against threats by the US President, says an international relations academic.

Otago University professor of international relations Robert Patman said the rest of the world also “should stop tip-toeing” around President Donald Trump and must stand up to any threats he makes against allies, no matter how outlandish they seem.

Trump doubled down on his proposal for a US takeover of Gaza on Friday, after the idea was rejected by Palestinians and leaders around the world.

Foreign Minister Winston Peters told RNZ that New Zealand would not comment on the plan until it was clear exactly what was meant, but said New Zealand continued to support a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine.

Dr Patman said the president’s plan was “truly shocking and absolutely appalling” in light of the devastation in Gaza in the last 15 months.

It was not only “tone deaf” but also dangerous, he added, with the proposal amounting to “the most powerful country in the world — the US — dismantling an international rules=based system that [it] has done so much to establish”.

“This was an extraordinary proposal which I think is reckless and dangerous because it certainly doesn’t help the immediate situation. It probably plays into the hands of extremists in the region.

“There is a view at the moment that we must all tiptoe round Mr Trump in order not to upset him, while he’s completely free to make outrageous suggestions which endanger people’s lives.”

Winston Peters’ careful position on a potential US takeover of Gaza was “a fair response . . . but the Luxon-led government must be clear the current situation is unacceptable” and oppose protectionism, he said.

“[The government ] wants a solution in the Middle East which recognises both the Israeli desire for security but also recognises the political right to self determination of the Palestinian people — in other words the right to have a state of their own.”

New Zealand should also speak out against Trump’s threats to annex Canada, “our very close ally”, he said.

He was “not suggesting New Zealand be provocative but it must be robust”, Dr Patman said.

Greens also respond to Trump actions
The Green Party said President Trump had been explicit in his intention to take over Gaza, and New Zealand needed to make its position crystal clear too.

Greens co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick said the Prime Minister needed to stand up and condemn the plan as “reprehensible”.

“President Trump’s comments have been pretty clear to anybody who is able to read or to listen to them, about his intention to forcibly displace, or to see displaced, about 1.8 million Gazans from their own land, who have already been made refugees in their own land.”

France, Spain, Ireland, Brazil and other countries had been “unequivocal” in their condemnation of Trump’s plan, and NZ’s Foreign Affairs Minister should be too, she added.

“New Zealanders value justice and they value peace, and they want to see our leadership represent that, on the international stage. So [these were] really disappointing and unfortunately unclear comments from our Deputy Prime Minister.”

Yesterday Foreign Minister Winston Peters told RNZ that New Zealand still supported a two-state solution, but said he would not comment on Trump’s Gaza plan until officials could grasp exactly what this meant.

Trump sanctions International Criminal Court
Meanwhile, an international law expert says New Zealand’s cautious position following Trump’s sanctions on International Criminal Court (ICC) staff is the right response — for now.

Dozens of countries have expressed “unwavering support” for the ICC in a joint statement, after the US President imposed sanctions on its staff.

The 125-member ICC is a permanent court that can prosecute individuals for war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and the crime of aggression against the territory of member states or by their nationals.

The United States, China, Russia and Israel are not members.

Trump has accused the court of improperly targeting the US and its ally, Israel.

Neither New Zealand nor Australia had joined the statement, but in a statement to RNZ the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said it had always supported the ICC’s role in upholding international law and a rules-based system.

University of Victoria law professor Alberto Costi said currently New Zealand is at little risk of sanctions and there’s no need for a stronger approach.

“At this stage there is no reason to be stronger. New Zealand is perceived as a state that believes in a rules-based order and is supportive of the work of the ICC.

“So there’s not much need to go further but it’s a space to watch in the future, should these sanctions become a reality.

“But as far as New Zealand is concerned, at the moment there is no need to antagonise anyone at this stage.”

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Indonesia officially joined the BRICS — Brazil, Russia, China and South Africa — consortium last week marking a significant milestone in its foreign relations.

In a statement released a day later on January 7, the Indonesian Ministry of Foreign Affairs said that this membership reflected Indonesia’s dedication to strengthening multilateral cooperation and its growing influence in global politics.

The ministry highlighted that joining BRICS aligned with Indonesia’s independent and proactive foreign policy, which seeks to maintain balanced relations with major powers while prioritising national interests.

This pivotal move showcases Jakarta’s efforts to enhance its international presence as an emerging power within a select group of global influencers.

Traditionally, Indonesia has embraced a non-aligned stance while bolstering its military and economic strength through collaborations with both Western and Eastern nations, including the United States, China, and Russia.

By joining BRICS, Indonesia clearly signals a shift from its non-aligned status, aligning itself with a coalition of emerging powers poised to challenge and redefine the existing global geopolitical landscape dominated by a Western neoliberal order led by the United States.

Indonesia joining boosts BRICS membership to 10 countres — Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran and the United Arab Emirates — but there are also partnerships.

Supporters of a multipolar world, championed by China, Russia, and their allies, may view Indonesia’s entry into BRICS as a significant victory.

In contrast, advocates of the US-led unipolar world, often referred to as the “rules-based international order” are likely to see Indonesia’s decision as a regrettable shift that could trigger retaliatory actions from the United States.

The future will determine how Indonesia balances its relations with these two superpowers. However, there is considerable concern about the potential fallout for Indonesia from its long-standing US allies.

The smaller Pacific Island nations, which Indonesia has been endeavouring to win over in a bid to thwart support for West Papuan independence, may also become entangled in the crosshairs of geostrategic rivalries, and their response to Indonesia’s membership in the BRICS alliance will prove critical for the fate of West Papua.

Critical questions
The crucial questions facing the Pacific Islanders are perhaps related to their loyalties: are they aligning themselves with Beijing or Washington, and in what ways could their decisions influence the delicate balance of power in the ongoing competition between great powers, ultimately altering the Melanesian destiny of the Papuan people?

For the Papuans, Indonesia’s membership in BRICS or any other global or regional forums is irrelevant as long as the illegal occupation of their land continues driving them toward “extinction”.

The pressing question for Papuans is which force will ultimately dismantle Indonesia’s unlawful hold on their sovereignty.

Will Indonesia’s BRICS alliance open new paths for Papuan liberation fighters to re-engage with the West in ways not seen since the Cold War? Or does this membership indicate a deeper entrenchment of Papuans’ fate within China’s influence — making it almost impossible for any dream of Papuans’ independence?

While forecasting future with certainty is difficult on these questions, these critical critical questions need to be considered in this new complex geopolitical landscape, as the ultimate fate of West Papua is what is truly at stake here.

Strengthening Indonesia’s claims over West Papuan sovereignty
Indonesia’s membership in BRICS may signify a great victory for those advocating for a multipolar world, challenging the hegemony of Western powers led by the United States.

This membership could augment Indonesia’s capacity to frame the West Papuan issue as an internal matter among BRICS members within the principle of non-interference in domestic affairs.

Such backing could provide Jakarta with a cushion of diplomatic protection against international censure, particularly from Western nations regarding its policies in West Papua.

However, it is also crucial to note that for more than six decades, despite the Western world priding itself on being a champion of freedom and human rights, no nation has been permitted to voice concern or hold Indonesia accountable for the atrocities committed against Indigenous Papuans.

The pressing question to consider is what or who silences the 193 member states of the UN from intervening to save the Papuans from potential eradication at the hands of Indonesia.

Is it the United States and its allies, or is it China, Russia, and their allies — or the United Nations itself?

Indonesia’s double standard and hypocrisy
Indonesia’s support for Palestine bolsters its image as a defender of international law and human rights in global platforms like the UN and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).

This commitment was notably highlighted at the BRICS Summit in October 2024, where Indonesia reaffirmed its dedication to Palestinian self-determination and called for global action to address the ongoing conflict in line with international law and UN resolutions, reflecting its constitutional duty to oppose colonialism.

Nonetheless, Indonesia’s self-image as a “saviour for the Palestinians” presents a rather ignoble facade being promoted in the international diplomatic arena, as the Indonesian government engages in precisely the same behaviours it condemns Israel over in Palestine.

Military engagement and regional diplomacy
Moreover, Indonesia’s interaction with Pacific nations serves to perpetuate a façade of double standards — on one hand, it endeavours to portray itself as a burgeoning power and a champion of moral causes concerning security issues, human rights, climate change, and development; while on the other, it distracts the communities and nations of Oceania — particularly Vanuatu and the Solomon Islands, which have long supported the West Papua independence movement — from holding Indonesia accountable for its transgressions against their fellow Pacific Islanders in West Papua.

On October 10, 2024, Brigadier-General Mohamad Nafis of the Indonesian Defence Ministry unveiled a strategic initiative intended to assert sovereignty claims over West Papua. This plan aims to foster stability across the Pacific through enhanced defence cooperation and safeguarding of territorial integrity.

The efforts to expand influence are characterised by joint military exercises, defence partnerships, and assistance programmes, all crafted to address common challenges such as terrorism, piracy, and natural disasters.

However, most critically, Indonesia’s engagement with Pacific Island nations aims to undermine the regional solidarity surrounding West Papua’s right to self-determination.

This involvement encapsulates infrastructure initiatives, defence training, and financial diplomacy, nurturing goodwill while aligning the interests of Pacific nations with Indonesia’s geopolitical aspirations.

Indonesia has formally joined the BRICS group, a bloc of emerging economies featuring Russia, China and others that is viewed as a counterweight to the West https://t.co/WArU5O2PfT pic.twitter.com/IQKmPOJqlS

— Al Jazeera English (@AJEnglish) January 7, 2025

Military occupation in West Papua
As Indonesia strives to galvanise international support for its territorial integrity, the military presence in West Papua has intensified significantly, instilling widespread fear among local Papuan communities due to heightened deployments, surveillance, and restrictions.

Indonesian forces have been mobilised to secure economically strategic regions, including the Grasberg mine, which holds some of the world’s largest gold and copper reserves.

These operations have resulted in the displacement of Indigenous communities and substantial environmental degradation.

As of December 2024, approximately 83,295 individuals had been internally displaced in West Papua due to armed conflicts between Indonesian security forces and the West Papua Liberation Army (TPNPB).

Recent reports detail new instances of displacement in the Tambrauw and Pegunungan Bintang regencies following clashes between the TPNPB and security forces. Villagers have evacuated their homes in fear of further military incursions and confrontations, leaving many in psychological distress.

The significant increase in Indonesia’s military presence in West Papua has coincided with demographic shifts that jeopardise the survival of Indigenous Papuans.

Government transmigration policies and large-scale agricultural initiatives, such as the food estate project in Merauke, have marginalised Indigenous communities.

These programmes, aimed at ensuring national food security, result in land expropriation and cultural erosion, threatening traditional Papuan lifestyles and identities.

For more than 63 years, Indonesia has occupied West Papua, subjecting Indigenous communities to systemic marginalisation and brink of extinction. Traditional languages, oral histories, and cultural values face obliteration under Indonesia’s colonial occupation.

A glimmer of hope for West Papua
Despite these formidable challenges, solidarity movements within the Pacific and global communities persist in their advocacy for West Papua’s self-determination.

These groups, united by a shared sense of humanity and justice, work tirelessly to maintain hope for West Papua’s liberation. Even so, Indonesia’s diplomatic engagement with Pacific nations, characterised by eloquent rhetoric and military alliances, represents a calculated endeavour to extinguish this fragile hope for Papuan liberation.

Indonesia’s membership in BRICS will either amplify this tiny hope of salvation within the grand vision of a new world re-engineered by Beijing’s BRICS and its allies or will it conceal West Papua’s independence dream on a path that is even harder and more impossible to achieve than the one they have been on for 60 years under the US-led unipolar world system.

Most significantly, it might present a new opportunity for Papuan liberation fighters to reengage with the new re-ordering global superpowers– a chance that has eluded them for more than 60 years.

From the 1920s to the 1960s, the tumult of the First and Second World Wars, coupled with the ensuing cries for decolonisation from nations subjugated by Western powers and Cold War tensions, forged the very existence of the nation known as “Indonesia.”

It seems that this turbulent world of uncertainty is upon us, reshaping a new global landscape replete with new alliances and adversaries, harbouring conflicting visions of a new world. Indonesia’s decision to join BRICS in 2025 is a clear testament to this.

The pressing question remains whether this membership will ultimately precipitate Indonesia’s disintegration as the US-led unipolar world intervenes in its domestic affairs or catalyse its growth and strength.

Regardless of the consequences, the fundamental existential question for the Papuans is whether they, along with their global solidarity networks, can reinvent themselves while nurturing the fragile hope of restoring West Papua’s sovereignty in a world rife with change and uncertainty?

Ali Mirin is a West Papuan academic and writer from the Kimyal tribe of the highlands bordering the Star mountain region of Papua New Guinea. He lives in Australia and contributes articles to Asia Pacific Report.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The New Zealand government remains disturbingly quiet on the unfolding genocide in Gaza.

New Zealand’s silence is clearly undermining its self-image as a principled and independent state within the United Nations. It is following its Anglosphere English-speaking partners (United States, UK, Canada, and Australia) in avoiding putting in place any sanctions against Israel — as has been done with Russia — in response to its invasion of Ukraine.

Not only is New Zealand doing nothing to influence Israel to stop its slaughter of Palestinian children and civilians, New Zealand is at risk of being seen to be complicit in a genocide. New Zealand, as a contracting party to the UN Convention on Genocide, has a responsibility under the convention.

It is doubtful that New Zealand’s “performance” in the UN General Assembly (UNGA), where it typically votes the “right way”, supporting a ceasefire and Palestinian membership of the UN, provides a get out of jail card for New Zealand vis-a-vis its responsibilities under the convention.

That the New Zealand government is ignoring the spate of decisions by UN international bodies calling out Israel for contravening international humanitarian and criminal law is, if anything, puzzling.

These bodies are the guardians of the international rule of law. Member states of the UN are obliged to support their decisions actively, not just in voice, and again, New Zealand’s rhetoric historically is that it supports the international rule of law.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) deemed that a probable genocide is occurring in Gaza and has recently called for an immediate ceasefire in Rafah. The International Criminal Court (ICC) has recommended that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Yoav Gallant be held criminally liable for the act of starvation inflicted against the Palestinian people.

New Zealand also stubbornly refuses to recognise Palestinian statehood, even though it has been argued by successive New Zealand governments, since 1993, that it supports the Oslo Accords and its key feature, the two-state solution.

This positioning has always provided a convenient smoke screen for New Zealand to appear to be supportive of an independent Palestinian state but in reality successive New Zealand governments have shown no real interest in doing so.

Importantly, New Zealand fails to distinguish between Israel as the occupier of Palestinian land and the Palestinians as the occupied people. Given this inequivalence, the New Zealand rhetoric of “leaving it to the parties” to agree what Palestinian state arrangements and borders might look like is laughable, if it wasn’t so cruel.

There are now more than 700,000 Israeli illegal citizens which have been illegally transferred (settled) by Israel to the Occupied Territories — which under a two-state solution would be a future Palestinian state. This area is tiny, only about half the size of the area of Auckland (which is about 5600 sqkm.) It makes the task of an independent and sovereign Palestinian state near impossible to achieve.

The illegal transfer of Israeli citizens on to Palestinian land in the Occupied West Bank has a clear purpose — to transfer Palestinians off their land.

By remaining quiet the New Zealand government is effectively ignoring the rules-based order which it has historically argued it bases its foreign policy decision-making on. Indeed, this shift or “reset” in New Zealand foreign policy was intimated by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Winton Peters, in a recent speech to the NZ Institute of International Affairs.

Aware of the growing criticism of the lack of independence in New Zealand foreign policy, the minister stated that “New Zealand’s independent foreign policy does not, and never has, meant we are a non-aligned nation, although that is the way some critics in politics and the media see us . . .  We take the world as it is, and this realism is a shift from our predecessors’ vaguer notions of an indigenous foreign policy that no-one else understood, let alone shared.”

This is clearly a move to a more “realpolitik” approach to international relations, where New Zealand’s “interests” are paramount. Our values are clearly a secondary consideration, and it is only by good luck that our interests and values might align.

As a recent Palestinian speaker in New Zealand, Professor Mazim Qumsiyeh, so rightly put it, “in the end we will not remember the words of our enemies but we will remember the silence of our friends.” Accordingly, New Zealand must employ all of its endeavours to place real pressure on Israel to stop its genocidal attack on the Palestinian people now.

It only needs to look to its Ukrainian/Russian playbook, to begin to do the right thing.

John Hobbs is a doctoral candidate at the National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies (NCPCS), University of Otago.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The Biden administration has officially re-designated Ansarallah – the dominant force in Yemen also known as the Houthis – as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist entity.

The White House claims the designation is an appropriate response to the group’s attacks on US military vessels and commercial ships in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden, saying those attacks “fit the textbook definition of terrorism”.

Ansarallah claims its actions “adhere to the provisions of Article 1 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide,” since it is only enforcing a blockade geared toward ceasing the ongoing Israeli destruction of Gaza.

One of the most heinous acts committed by the Trump administration was its designation of Ansarallah as a Foreign Terrorist Organisation (FTO) and as Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGT), both of which imposed sanctions that critics warned would plunge Yemen’s aid-dependent population into even greater levels of starvation than they were already experiencing by restricting the aid that would be allowed in.

One of the Biden administration’s only decent foreign policy decisions has been the reversal of that sadistic move, and now that reversal is being partially rolled back, though thankfully only with the SDGT listing and not the more deadly and consequential FTO designation.

US Re-Designates Houthis as ‘Specially Designated Global Terrorists’
The designation will hamper aid deliveries and could complicate a peace deal between the Saudis and Houthis
by Dave DeCamp@DecampDave #Yemen #Houthis #SaudiArabia #RedSea #Gaza https://t.co/6bXDM0MdiU pic.twitter.com/K8mj2itz2f

— Antiwar.com (@Antiwarcom) January 17, 2024

In a new article for Antiwar about this latest development, Dave Decamp explains that as much as the Biden White House goes to great lengths insisting that it’s going to issue exemptions to ensure that its sanctions don’t harm the already struggling Yemeni people,

“history has shown that sanctions scare away international companies and banks from doing business with the targeted nations or entities and cause shortages of medicine, food, and other basic goods.”

DeCamp also notes that US and British airstrikes on Yemen have already forced some aid groups to suspend services to the country.

Still trying to recover
So the US empire is going to be imposing sanctions on a nation that is still trying to recover from the devastation caused by the US-backed Saudi blockade that contributed to hundreds of thousands of deaths between 2015 and 2022. All in response to the de facto government of that very same country imposing its own blockade with the goal of preventing a genocide.

That’s right: when Yemen sets up a blockade to try and stop an active genocide, that’s terrorism, but when the US empire imposes a blockade to secure its geostrategic interests in the Middle East, why that’s just the rules-based international order in action.

Today, in response to these continuing threats and attacks, the United States announced the designation of Ansarallah, also known as the Houthis, as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist – Jake Sullivan, U.S. National Security Advisorhttps://t.co/D5d8MylujK pic.twitter.com/pSFUzCR7qk

— U.S. Central Command (@CENTCOM) January 17, 2024

It just says so much about how the US empire sees itself that it can impose blockades and starvation sanctions at will upon nations like Yemen, Venezuela, Cuba, Iran, Syria and North Korea for refusing to bow to its dictates, but when Yemen imposes a blockade for infinitely more worthy and noble reasons it gets branded an act of terrorism.

The managers of the globe-spanning empire loosely centralised around Washington literally believe the world is theirs to rule as they will, and that anyone who opposes its rulings is an outlaw.

Based on power
“What this shows us is that the “rules-based international order” the US and its allies claim to uphold is not based on rules at all; it’s based on power, which is the ability to control and impose your will on other people.

The “rules” apply only to the enemies of the empire because they are not rules at all: they are narratives used to justify efforts to bend the global population to its will.

We are ruled by murderous tyrants. By nuclear-armed thugs who would rather starve civilians to protect the continuation of an active genocide than allow peace to get a word in edgewise.

Our world can never know health as long as these monsters remain in charge.

Caitlin Johnstone is an Australian independent journalist and poet. Her articles include The UN Torture Report On Assange Is An Indictment Of Our Entire Society. She publishes a website and Caitlin’s Newsletter. This article is republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The United States government’s overseas development aid arm US Agency for International Development (USAID) opened two new offices in Papua New Guinea and Fiji last week, pledging to assist Pacific island countries in addressing the sustainable development goals (SDGs).

The last USAID office in the region was closed over 25 years ago.

The haste with which the US re-established these offices with its Administrator, Dr Samantha Power — a former Harvard professor, flying from the US to officiate in the ceremonies in Suva and in Port Moresby in PNG on August 15 has also got some sceptics in the region questioning its motives.

Addressing Pacific youth at a ceremony at the University of the South Pacific, also attended by the Pacific Island Forum’s Secretary-General Henry Puna — a former prime minister of Cook Islands — Power said USAID was setting up an office in the Pacific to help them to directly “listen, learn, and better understand” the challenges that Pacific Island countries were facing.

“Our new mission here in Fiji and our office in Papua New Guinea — are not going to come in and impose our ideas or our solutions for the shared challenges that we face” she told an audience of students and academics from the region.

USP is one of only two regional universities in the world largely funded by regional countries. She described the two missions as “reinvigorated (US) commitment to the Pacific Islands”.

At a number of times during her 20-minute speech, Power emphasised that USAID only gave grants and they did not give loans.

“As we increase our investments here in the Pacific, I want to be very clear — and this is subject to some misunderstanding — so please, I hope I am very clear,” she said.

Not forcing nations
“The United States is not forcing nations to choose between partnering with the United States and partnering with other nations to meet their development goals.

“That said, we do want you to have a choice. It’s not a choice that we will make for you, but we want you to have options.

“We want Pacific Island nations to have more options to work with partners whose values and vision for the future align with your own.”

Although Dr Power did not mention China in her speech, this could be interpreted as a reference to the Chinese presence in the Pacific and the “rules-based order” the US and its allies claim to promote in the region.

She immediately added to the above comments by pointing out that USAID only gives grants.

“We are very interested in economic independence, and independence of choice and not saddling future generations with attachments and debts that will later have to be paid,” she said.

“And we will engage with you openly, transparently, with respect for individual dignity and the benefits of inclusive governance, the benefits of being held accountable by your citizens, and we will join you in seeking to combat corrupt dealings that can enrich elites often at the expense of everyday citizens.”

Training farmers in new techniques
Another area where they would allocate funding would be training farmers in new techniques to grapple with changing weather patterns and encroaching salt water.

She also announced the launch of a new initiative, a Blue Carbon Assessment, to quantify the true value of the marine carbon sinks across the Blue Pacific continent.

Referring to Dr Power’s comments about reinvigorating the US’s commitment to the region, Maureen Penjueli, coordinator of the Pacific Network on Globalisation (PANG), told IDN that this was a way to frame the US as a partner of choice by allowing the islanders to determine what is a priority in terms of their development.

“The US is not the only development partner that is suggesting this,” she added, “Australia’s recent Development Policy attempts to frame themselves is no different.”

Referring to US ally Australia’s aid policies, she pointed out that for decades there has been accusation of tied aid, “boomerang aid” by many of our development partners — or how aid is an extension of foreign policy and therefore it is by its nature extractive — an iron fist in a velvet glove”.

“But its other implication is to subtly suggest that the US and its allies’ goals are unlike what China does, which is to ‘extract concessions’ through this relationship either through ensuring that Chinese companies get the contracts, Chinese labour is recruited (as well as) many other forms of accusation of Chinese engagement in the region,” Penjueli said.

During an interaction with the local media after her speech, a local television reporter told Dr Power that critics had been quick to say that the US was ramping up support in the greater Indo-Pacific region because it believed that American dominance was at risk.

“How do you respond to such an observation? And why should Pacific leaders choose US diplomatic support over Chinese support?”, the reporter asked.

“Lots of experience around the world is the recognition that governance and human rights, and economic development go hand in hand,” Dr Power replied.

“You can have economic development without human rights, but it’s almost impossible to have inclusive economic development that reaches broad segments of the population.

“So, we really believe that a development model that values transparency, that ensures that private sector investment is conducted in a manner that benefits broad swaths of the population rather than like a couple of government officials who take a bribe or pay a bribe.”

Grants at a time of a different model
Dr Power also added that USAID gave grants at a time when others were pushing a very different model, “which is much more about concentrating both political and economic power, which tends to stifle the voices of citizens to hold their leaders accountable, allows officials to do what they believe is right, but without checks and balances”.

USAID is representing the reopening of the two offices as a follow up to President Biden’s meeting with the Pacific leaders in Washington DC last year.

Its Manila-based deputy assistant director of USAID, Betty Chung, has told Radio New Zealand that currently there are just two staffers in Fiji but by the end of the year, they hope to have eight to 10 there, building up to about 30.

Also the USAID budget for the Pacific has tripled in the past three years.

In a joint press conference in Port Moresby, PNG Prime Minister James Marape has welcomed USAID’s renewed commitments to the region and said that Power’s presence completes what is President Biden’s 3D strategy — diplomacy, defence, and development — in the focus to revamp the US presence in PNG and the Pacific.

He also referred to recent defence agreements signed with the US but said that it should not be a one-way relationship on how they relate to the US. He asked Power and UNAID to assist PNG in preserving their forest resources.

Pacific people need to watch
Pointing out that PNG is home to one-third of the world’s forests and 67 percent of global biodiversity, Marape said that he had asked Dr Power to take the message back to the US and particularly to Congress “who sometimes offer resistance to support to emerging nations” — to help PNG to preserve its forest resources to offset the US “huge carbon footprint”.

Referring to Dr Power’s undertaking that she came to the Pacific to listen, Penjueli said that people in the Pacific needed to watch how USAID could translate this listening exercise into grant-making and in which areas and how they do it.

“For Pacific Island governments, I do believe that they are in a better place, this gives them more options to consider if they (foreign donors) support their own development needs particularly in the current context of a climate emergency, post-pandemic debt stress economies and an ongoing Ukraine war.”

Dr Kalinga Seneviratne is a Sri Lanka-born journalist, broadcaster and international communications specialist. He is currently a consultant to the journalism programme at the University of the South Pacific. He is also the former head of research at the Asian Media Information and Communication Center (AMIC) in Singapore and the Asia-Pacific editor of InDepth News (IDN), the flagship agency of the non-profit International Press Syndicate. This article is republished under content sharing agreement between Asia Pacific Report and IDN.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz