Timing is everything. And from China’s perspective, this week’s visit by its foreign minister to New Zealand could be coming at just the right moment. The visit by Wang Yi to Wellington will be his first since 2017.

Anniversaries are important to Beijing. It is more than just a happy coincidence that the visit is taking place during the tenth anniversary year of the signing of a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership between China and New Zealand.

That agreement, signed during a visit to Wellington by Xi Jinping in November 2014, marked the start of glory days for bilateral trade. New Zealand’s exports to China have roughly doubled in value since Xi’s visit. They now stand at nearly $NZ21 billion annually. Imports are not far behind, but there is still a trade surplus of some $NZ3 billion in New Zealand’s favour.

Indeed, China has been New Zealand’s biggest two-way trading partner since 2017. A consistent flow of agricultural exports to China – especially milk powder and meat – helped to keep New Zealand afloat during the Covid-19 pandemic while both countries’ borders were closed.

However, New Zealand’s exports to China fell last year for the first time (except for covid-affected 2020) since the 2014 pact was signed. Goods exports took a particular tumble, falling $NZ1.7 billion from 2022 levels in the year to December 2023. Only a post-pandemic recovery in services exports, driven by travel, was able to mask a greater fall. But it was not enough to prevent a $NZ500 million drop overall.

The removal of China’s last remaining tariffs on New Zealand dairy products at the start of 2024 may provide some hope for improvement this year.

But forecasts for China’s economy are mixed and a bumpy post-Covid 19 recovery seems likely. After an expansion of 5.2 per cent in 2023, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) predicts China’s economy will grow by only 4.6 per cent this year and 4.1 per cent in 2025.

Given its food-focused exports, New Zealand is particularly vulnerable to sluggish Chinese economic growth. Tourism is also affected: visitor numbers from China for November 2023 were just 52 per cent of those seen during the same month four years earlier, before the pandemic.

A visit by Wang Yi cannot solve these wider macroeconomic problems. But it will put New Zealand’s crucial relationship with China in the spotlight.

There is every chance the trip could set the stage for an anniversary year visit to Wellington by Xi Jinping later in 2024.

However, whether this occurs will be highly dependent on New Zealand’s next steps in relation to Aukus.

It can be taken as read that Wang will have strong words for Winston Peters, his New Zealand counterpart, about Wellington’s apparent enthusiasm to entertain joining ‘Pillar II’ of the new pact.

The tea leaves are still being read after Labour lost power in the October 2023 election and a new three-way, centre-right coalition led by the National Party’s Christopher Luxon took office the following month.

A joint statement issued by Australia and New Zealand after the countries’ foreign and defence ministers met in Melbourne in early February claimed Aukus was making ‘a positive contribution toward maintaining peace, security and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific.’

Reaction from the Chinese Embassy in Wellington to the text was typically furious. In an apparent reference to another section of the joint statement which expressed ‘grave concerns about human rights violations in Xinjiang’, a spokesperson argued that ‘groundless accusations have been made on China’s internal affairs’.

Meanwhile, on Aukus, the Embassy asserted that the pact ran counter to ‘the common interests of regional countries pursuing peace, stability and common security’. The spokesperson asked ‘relevant countries’ to ‘cherish the hard-won environment for peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region, and be prudent with their words and action to maintain peace, stability and development’.

An indirect, yet ultimately harder-hitting rebuke came from the Chinese Ambassador to New Zealand himself, Wang Xiaolong. Lamenting a lack of options after a last-minute cancellation of a flight to Auckland the day after the joint statement was issued, the Ambassador posted on X: ‘Stuck at Wellington airport clueless as to what to do due to the cancellation of my flight to Auckland and the lack of alternatives. Right now, I am really missing the high-speed trains back in China.’

The displeasure could not be clearer.

Earlier, New Zealand’s new government had sought to move swiftly on Aukus, particularly after Labour itself had laid the groundwork for the new Government by issuing a set of three hawkish defence blueprints just months before the election.

In December, Judith Collins, the defence minister, said that a failure to join Aukus in some form was ‘a real opportunity lost by the previous government’. Christopher Luxon then appeared to back her, telling media: ‘we’re interested in exploring Pillar II, particularly in Aukus, and the new technologies and the opportunities that may mean for New Zealand’. Meanwhile, Winston Peters called for greater NZ-US cooperation in the Pacific, saying ‘we will not achieve our shared ambitions if we allow time to drift’.

However, the Aukus tide may be turning.

Bonnie Jenkins, the US Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security, visited New Zealand in early March and told media: ‘we’re still in the process of having discussions about additional partners’, adding ‘that’s not where we’re at right now’.

Speech notes for an address to be given by Jenkins also seemed restrained.

The lack of a concrete Aukus membership offer is not a new argument. In May 2023, New Zealand’s then Labour Prime Minister Chris Hipkins called the idea of joining ‘purely hypothetical’.

However, gradual shifts in language since then – culminating with Luxon’s comments in December – had suggested that a more specific proposal was afoot.

A looming US election was also a logical reason for New Zealand to act on Aukus sooner rather than later.

But perhaps nothing had ever really changed. A new government in Wellington might have been getting ahead of itself.

Alternatively, it could be that a rethink is now going on in Canberra, London and Washington over the merits of asking Wellington – or others – to become involved with Aukus at all.

In New Zealand itself, opposition to the deal also appears to be increasing in intensity. Labour is appearing to back away from its ‘open to conversations’ approach to Aukus that was set by former Prime Minister Chris Hipkins during a visit by Anthony Blinken to New Zealand in July.

In February, Phil Twyford, the party’s associate foreign affairs spokesperson, described Aukus as an ‘offensive warfighting alliance against China’. And David Parker, Labour’s main spokesperson, said ‘we’re not convinced we should be positioning China as a foe’.

The same month, high-profile former Labour Prime Minister Helen Clark co-wrote an opinion piece in the New Zealand Herald newspaper with Don Brash, a former right-wing rival. The strongly-worded article called on Luxon to ‘reassert New Zealand’s independent foreign policy by making it clear that we want no part of Aukus’.

Finally, questions are being asked in Australia about the future of the original purpose of Aukus – to give Canberra nuclear-powered submarines – following a US decision to cut production of ‘Virginia’ class submarines in half from 2025.

Adding to the uncertainty is Donald Trump’s presumptive nominee status in the US presidential election campaign. A survey conducted in August 2023 found 37 per cent of Australians thought Canberra should pull out of the wider Anzus alliance if Trump wins in November. Meanwhile, Trump’s own stance on the Aukus deal remains unknown.

If all is not well with ‘Pillar I’ of Aukus, it is hard to see an expansion to ‘Pillar II’ in the short-term.

For China’s Wang Yi, the potential wavering over Aukus is an opportunity.

The clock is certainly ticking, but no final decisions have been made.

There is still time for Beijing to make its case to Wellington.

Geoffrey Miller is the Democracy Project’s geopolitical analyst and writes on current New Zealand foreign policy and related geopolitical issues. He has lived in Germany and the Middle East and is a learner of Arabic and Russian. He is currently working on a PhD at the University of Otago on New Zealand’s relations with the Gulf states.

This article can be republished for free under a Creative Commons copyright-free license. Attributions should include a link to the Democracy Project (https://democracyproject.nz)

In a historic first visit to an independent Pacific state by a sitting French president, President Emmanuel Macron has denounced a “new imperialism” in the region during a stop in Vanuatu, warning of a threat to the sovereignty of smaller states.

But, earlier, during a two-day stop in France’s colonial outpost, Kanaky New Caledonia, he refused to entertain demands by indigenous Kanak leaders to hold a new referendum on independence.

“There is in the Indo-Pacific and particularly in Oceania a new imperialism appearing, and a power logic that is threatening the sovereignty of several states — the smallest, often the most fragile,” he said in a speech in the Vanuatu capital Port Vila on July 27.

“Our Indo-Pacific strategy is above all to defend through partnerships the independence and sovereignty of all states in the region that are ready to work with us,” he added, conveniently ignoring the fact that France still has “colonies” in the Pacific (Oceania) that they refuse to let go.

Some 1.6 million French citizens live across seven overseas territories (colonies), including New Caledonia, French Polynesia (Tahiti), and the smaller Pacific atolls of Wallis and Futuna.

This gives them an exclusive economic zone spanning nine million sq km.

Macron uses this fact to claim that France is part of the region even though his country is more than 16,000 km from New Caledonia and Tahiti.

An ‘alternative’ offer
As the US and its allies seek to counter China’s growing influence in the region, France offered an “alternative”, claiming they have plans for expanded aid and development to confront natural catastrophes.

The French annexed New Caledonia in 1853, reserving the territory initially as a penal colony.

Indigenous Kanaks have lived in the islands for more than 3000 years, and the French uprooted them from the land and used them as forced labour in new French plantations and construction sites.

Tahiti’s islands were occupied by migrating Polynesians around 500 BC, and in 1832 the French took over the islands. In 1946 it became an overseas territory of the French Republic.

China is gaining influence in the region with its development aid packages designed to address climate change, empowerment of grassroots communities, and promotion of trade, especially in the fisheries sector, under Chinese President Xi Jinping’s new Global Development Initiative.

After neglecting the region for decades, the West has begun to woo the Pacific countries lately, especially after they were alarmed by a defence cooperation deal signed between China and Solomon Islands in April 2022, which the West suspect is a first step towards Beijing establishing a naval base in the Pacific.

In December 2020, there was a similar alarm, especially in Australia, when China offered a $200 million deal to Papua New Guinea to establish a fisheries harbour and a processing factory to supply fisheries products to China’s seafood market, which is the world’s largest.

Hysterical reactions in Australia
It created hysterical reactions in the Australian media and political circles in Canberra, claiming China was planning to build a naval base 200 km from Australia’s shores.

A stream of Western leaders has visited the region since then while publicly claiming to help the small island nations in their development needs, but at the same time, arm-twisting local leaders to sign defence deals for their navies, in particular to gain access to Pacific harbours and military facilities.

While President Macron was on a five-day visit to New Caledonia, Vanuatu and PNG, US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken and Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin were in Tonga and PNG, respectively, negotiating secret military deals.

At the same time, Macron made the comments of a new imperialism in the Pacific.

Defence Secretary Austin was at pains to explain to sceptical journalists in PNG that the US was not seeking a permanent base in the Pacific Islands nation. It has been reported in the PNG media that the US was seeking access to PNG military bases under the pretext of training PNG forces for humanitarian operations in the Pacific.

Papua New Guinea and the US signed a defence cooperation agreement in May that sets a framework for the US to refurbish PNG ports and airports for military and civilian use. The text of the agreement shows that it allows the staging of US forces and equipment in PNG and covers the Lombrum Naval Base, which Australia and US are developing.

There have been protests over this deal in PNG, and the opposition has threatened to challenge some provisions of it legally.

China’s ‘problematic behavior’
Blinken, who was making the first visit to Tonga by a US Secretary of State, was there to open a new US embassy in the capital Nuku’alofa on July 26. At the event, he spoke about China’s “problematic behavior” in the Pacific and warned about “predatory economic activities and also investments” from China, which he claimed was undermining “good governance and promote corruption”.

Tonga is believed to be heavily indebted to China, but Tongan Prime Minister Siaosi Sovaleni later said at a press conference that Tonga had started to pay down its debt this year and had no concerns about its relationship with China.

Pacific leaders have repeatedly emphasised that they would welcome assistance from richer countries to confront the impact of climatic change in the region, but they do not want the region to be militarised and get embroiled in a geopolitical battle between the US and China.

This was stated bluntly by Fiji’s Defence Minister at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore last year. Other Pacific leaders have repeated this at various forums since then.

Though the Western media reports about these visits to the Pacific by Western leaders as attempts to protect a “rules-based order” in the region, many in the Pacific media are sceptical about this argument.

Fiji-based Island Business news magazine, in a report from the New Caledonian capital Noumea, pointed out how Macron ignored Kanaks’ demands for independence instead of promoting a new deal.

President Macron has said in Noumea that “New Caledonia is French because it has chosen to remain French” after three referendums on self-determination there. In a lengthy speech, he has spoken of building a new political status in New Caledonia through a “path of apology and a path of the future”.

Macron’s pledges ring hollow
As IB reported, Macron’s pledges of repentance and partnership rang hollow for many indigenous Kanak and other independence supporters.

In central Noumea, trade unionists and independence supporters rallied, flying the flag of Kanaky and displaying banners criticising the president’s visit, and as IB noted, the speech was “a clear determination to push through reforms that will advantage France’s colonial power in the Pacific”.

Predominantly French, conservative New Caledonian citizens have called for the electoral register to be opened to some 40,000 French citizens who are resident there, and Macron has promised to consider that at a meeting of stakeholders in Paris in September.

Kanaky leaders fiercely oppose it, and they boycotted the third referendum on independence in December 2022, where the “No” vote won on a “landslide” which Macron claims is a verdict in favour of French rule there.

Kanaks boycotted the referendum (which they were favoured to win) because the French government refused to accept a one-year mourning period for covid-19 deaths among the Kanaks.

Kanaky independence movement workers’ union USTKE’s president Andre Forest told IB: “The electorate must remain as is because it affects citizens of this country. It’s this very notion of citizenship that we want to retain.”

Independence activists and negotiator Victor Tutugoro said: “I’m one of many people who were chased from our home. The collective memory of this loss continues to affect how people react, and this profoundly underlies their rejection of changes to the electorate.”

‘Prickly contentious issues’
In an editorial on the eve of Macron’s visit to Papua New Guinea, the PNG Post-Courier newspaper sarcastically asked why “the serene beauty of our part of the globe is coming under intense scrutiny, and everyone wants a piece of Pasifica in their GPS system?”

“Macron is not coming to sip French wine on a deserted island in the middle of the Pacific,” noted the Post-Courier. “France still has colonies in the Pacific which have been prickly contentious issues at the UN, especially on decolonisation of Tahiti and New Caledonia.

“France also used the Pacific for its nuclear testing until the 90s, most prominently at Moruroa, which had angered many Pacific Island nations.”

Noting that the Chinese are subtle and making the Western allies have itchy feet, the Post-Courier argued that these visits were taking the geopolitics of the Pacific to the next level.

“Sooner or later, PNG can expect Air Force One to be hovering around PNG skies,” it said.

China’s Global Times, referring to President Macron’s “new colonialism” comments, said it was “improper and ridiculous” to put China in the same seat as the “hegemonic US”.

“Macron wants to convince regional countries that France is not an outsider but part of the region, as France has overseas territories there,” Cui Hongjian, director of the Department of European Studies at the China Institute of International Studies told Global Times.

“But the validity of France’s status in the region is, in fact, thin, as its territories there were obtained through colonialism, which is difficult for Macron to rationalise.”

“This is why he avoids talking about it further and turns to another method of attacking other countries to help France build a positive image in the region.”

Meanwhile, during his visit to the 7th Melanesia Arts and Cultural Festival in Port Vila, four chiefs from the disputed islands of Matthew and Hunter, about 190 km from New Caledonia, handed over to the French President what they called a “peaceful demand” for independence. IDN-InDepthNews

Ravindra Singh Prasad is a correspondent of InDepth News (IDN), the flagship agency of the International Press Syndicate. This article is republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

In a historic first visit to an independent Pacific state by a sitting French president, President Emmanuel Macron has denounced a “new imperialism” in the region during a stop in Vanuatu, warning of a threat to the sovereignty of smaller states.

But, earlier, during a two-day stop in France’s colonial outpost, Kanaky New Caledonia, he refused to entertain demands by indigenous Kanak leaders to hold a new referendum on independence.

“There is in the Indo-Pacific and particularly in Oceania a new imperialism appearing, and a power logic that is threatening the sovereignty of several states — the smallest, often the most fragile,” he said in a speech in the Vanuatu capital Port Vila on July 27.

“Our Indo-Pacific strategy is above all to defend through partnerships the independence and sovereignty of all states in the region that are ready to work with us,” he added, conveniently ignoring the fact that France still has “colonies” in the Pacific (Oceania) that they refuse to let go.

Some 1.6 million French citizens live across seven overseas territories (colonies), including New Caledonia, French Polynesia (Tahiti), and the smaller Pacific atolls of Wallis and Futuna.

This gives them an exclusive economic zone spanning nine million sq km.

Macron uses this fact to claim that France is part of the region even though his country is more than 16,000 km from New Caledonia and Tahiti.

An ‘alternative’ offer
As the US and its allies seek to counter China’s growing influence in the region, France offered an “alternative”, claiming they have plans for expanded aid and development to confront natural catastrophes.

The French annexed New Caledonia in 1853, reserving the territory initially as a penal colony.

Indigenous Kanaks have lived in the islands for more than 3000 years, and the French uprooted them from the land and used them as forced labour in new French plantations and construction sites.

Tahiti’s islands were occupied by migrating Polynesians around 500 BC, and in 1832 the French took over the islands. In 1946 it became an overseas territory of the French Republic.

China is gaining influence in the region with its development aid packages designed to address climate change, empowerment of grassroots communities, and promotion of trade, especially in the fisheries sector, under Chinese President Xi Jinping’s new Global Development Initiative.

After neglecting the region for decades, the West has begun to woo the Pacific countries lately, especially after they were alarmed by a defence cooperation deal signed between China and Solomon Islands in April 2022, which the West suspect is a first step towards Beijing establishing a naval base in the Pacific.

In December 2020, there was a similar alarm, especially in Australia, when China offered a $200 million deal to Papua New Guinea to establish a fisheries harbour and a processing factory to supply fisheries products to China’s seafood market, which is the world’s largest.

Hysterical reactions in Australia
It created hysterical reactions in the Australian media and political circles in Canberra, claiming China was planning to build a naval base 200 km from Australia’s shores.

A stream of Western leaders has visited the region since then while publicly claiming to help the small island nations in their development needs, but at the same time, arm-twisting local leaders to sign defence deals for their navies, in particular to gain access to Pacific harbours and military facilities.

While President Macron was on a five-day visit to New Caledonia, Vanuatu and PNG, US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken and Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin were in Tonga and PNG, respectively, negotiating secret military deals.

At the same time, Macron made the comments of a new imperialism in the Pacific.

Defence Secretary Austin was at pains to explain to sceptical journalists in PNG that the US was not seeking a permanent base in the Pacific Islands nation. It has been reported in the PNG media that the US was seeking access to PNG military bases under the pretext of training PNG forces for humanitarian operations in the Pacific.

Papua New Guinea and the US signed a defence cooperation agreement in May that sets a framework for the US to refurbish PNG ports and airports for military and civilian use. The text of the agreement shows that it allows the staging of US forces and equipment in PNG and covers the Lombrum Naval Base, which Australia and US are developing.

There have been protests over this deal in PNG, and the opposition has threatened to challenge some provisions of it legally.

China’s ‘problematic behavior’
Blinken, who was making the first visit to Tonga by a US Secretary of State, was there to open a new US embassy in the capital Nuku’alofa on July 26. At the event, he spoke about China’s “problematic behavior” in the Pacific and warned about “predatory economic activities and also investments” from China, which he claimed was undermining “good governance and promote corruption”.

Tonga is believed to be heavily indebted to China, but Tongan Prime Minister Siaosi Sovaleni later said at a press conference that Tonga had started to pay down its debt this year and had no concerns about its relationship with China.

Pacific leaders have repeatedly emphasised that they would welcome assistance from richer countries to confront the impact of climatic change in the region, but they do not want the region to be militarised and get embroiled in a geopolitical battle between the US and China.

This was stated bluntly by Fiji’s Defence Minister at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore last year. Other Pacific leaders have repeated this at various forums since then.

Though the Western media reports about these visits to the Pacific by Western leaders as attempts to protect a “rules-based order” in the region, many in the Pacific media are sceptical about this argument.

Fiji-based Island Business news magazine, in a report from the New Caledonian capital Noumea, pointed out how Macron ignored Kanaks’ demands for independence instead of promoting a new deal.

President Macron has said in Noumea that “New Caledonia is French because it has chosen to remain French” after three referendums on self-determination there. In a lengthy speech, he has spoken of building a new political status in New Caledonia through a “path of apology and a path of the future”.

Macron’s pledges ring hollow
As IB reported, Macron’s pledges of repentance and partnership rang hollow for many indigenous Kanak and other independence supporters.

In central Noumea, trade unionists and independence supporters rallied, flying the flag of Kanaky and displaying banners criticising the president’s visit, and as IB noted, the speech was “a clear determination to push through reforms that will advantage France’s colonial power in the Pacific”.

Predominantly French, conservative New Caledonian citizens have called for the electoral register to be opened to some 40,000 French citizens who are resident there, and Macron has promised to consider that at a meeting of stakeholders in Paris in September.

Kanaky leaders fiercely oppose it, and they boycotted the third referendum on independence in December 2022, where the “No” vote won on a “landslide” which Macron claims is a verdict in favour of French rule there.

Kanaks boycotted the referendum (which they were favoured to win) because the French government refused to accept a one-year mourning period for covid-19 deaths among the Kanaks.

Kanaky independence movement workers’ union USTKE’s president Andre Forest told IB: “The electorate must remain as is because it affects citizens of this country. It’s this very notion of citizenship that we want to retain.”

Independence activists and negotiator Victor Tutugoro said: “I’m one of many people who were chased from our home. The collective memory of this loss continues to affect how people react, and this profoundly underlies their rejection of changes to the electorate.”

‘Prickly contentious issues’
In an editorial on the eve of Macron’s visit to Papua New Guinea, the PNG Post-Courier newspaper sarcastically asked why “the serene beauty of our part of the globe is coming under intense scrutiny, and everyone wants a piece of Pasifica in their GPS system?”

“Macron is not coming to sip French wine on a deserted island in the middle of the Pacific,” noted the Post-Courier. “France still has colonies in the Pacific which have been prickly contentious issues at the UN, especially on decolonisation of Tahiti and New Caledonia.

“France also used the Pacific for its nuclear testing until the 90s, most prominently at Moruroa, which had angered many Pacific Island nations.”

Noting that the Chinese are subtle and making the Western allies have itchy feet, the Post-Courier argued that these visits were taking the geopolitics of the Pacific to the next level.

“Sooner or later, PNG can expect Air Force One to be hovering around PNG skies,” it said.

China’s Global Times, referring to President Macron’s “new colonialism” comments, said it was “improper and ridiculous” to put China in the same seat as the “hegemonic US”.

“Macron wants to convince regional countries that France is not an outsider but part of the region, as France has overseas territories there,” Cui Hongjian, director of the Department of European Studies at the China Institute of International Studies told Global Times.

“But the validity of France’s status in the region is, in fact, thin, as its territories there were obtained through colonialism, which is difficult for Macron to rationalise.”

“This is why he avoids talking about it further and turns to another method of attacking other countries to help France build a positive image in the region.”

Meanwhile, during his visit to the 7th Melanesia Arts and Cultural Festival in Port Vila, four chiefs from the disputed islands of Matthew and Hunter, about 190 km from New Caledonia, handed over to the French President what they called a “peaceful demand” for independence. IDN-InDepthNews

Ravindra Singh Prasad is a correspondent of InDepth News (IDN), the flagship agency of the International Press Syndicate. This article is republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Research on climate crisis as the new target for disinformation peddlers, governance and the media, China’s growing communication influence, and journalism training strategies feature strongly in the latest Pacific Journalism Review.

Byron C. Clark, author of the recent controversial book Fear: New Zealand’s Hostile Underworld of Extremists, and Canterbury University postgraduate researcher Emanuel Stokes, have produced a case study about climate crisis as the new pandemic disinformation arena with the warning that “climate change or public health emergencies can be seized upon by alternative media and conspiracist influencers” to “elicit outrage and protest”.

The authors argue that journalists need a “high degree of journalistic ethics and professionalism to avoid amplifying hateful, dehumanising narratives”.

PJR editor Dr Philip Cass adds an article unpacking the role of Pacific churches, both positive and negative, in public information activities during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Several articles deal with media freedom in the Pacific in the wake of the pandemic, including a four-country examination by some of the region’s leading journalists and facilitated by Dr Amanda Watson of Australian National University and associate professor Shailendra Singh of the University of the South Pacific.

They conclude that the pandemic “has been a stark reminder about the link between media freedom and the financial viability of media of organisations, especially in the Pacific”.

Dr Ann Auman, a specialist in crosscultural and global media ethics from the University of Hawai’i, analyses challenges facing the region through a workshop at the newly established Pacific Media Institute in Majuro, Marshall Islands.

Repeal of draconian Fiji law
The ousting of the Voreqe Bainimarama establishment that had been in power in Fiji in both military and “democratic” forms since the 2006 coup opened the door to greater media freedom and the repeal of the draconian Fiji Media Law. Two articles examine the implications of this change for the region.

An Indonesian researcher, Justito Adiprasetio of Universitas Padjadjaran, dissects the impact of Jakarta’s 2021 “terrorist” branding of the Free West Papua movement on six national online news media groups.

In Aotearoa New Zealand, media analyst Dr Gavin Ellis discusses “denying oxygen” to those who create propaganda for terrorists in the light of his recent research with Dr Denis Muller of Melbourne University and how Australia might benefit from New Zealand media initiatives, while RNZ executive editor Jeremy Rees reflects on a historical media industry view of training, drawing from Commonwealth Press Union reviews of the period 1979-2002.

Across the Tasman, Griffith University communication and journalism programme director Dr Kasun Ubayasiri presents a powerful human rights Photoessay documenting how the Meanjin (Brisbane) local community rallied around to secure the release of 120 medevaced refugee men locked up in an urban motel.

Monash University associate professor Johan Lidberg led a team partnering in International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) studies about “the world according to China”, the global media influence strategies of a superpower.

The Frontline section features founding editor Dr David Robie’s case study about the Pacific Media Centre which was originally published by Japan’s Okinawan Journal of Island Studies.

A strong Obituary section featuring two personalities involved in investigating the 1975 Balibo Five journalist assassination by Indonesian special forces in East Timor and a founder of the Pacific Media Centre plus nine Reviews round off the edition.

Pacific Journalism Review, founded at the University of Papua New Guinea, is now in its 29th year and is New Zealand’s oldest journalism research publication and the highest ranked communication journal in the country.

It is published by the Asia Pacific Media Network (APMN) Incorporated educational nonprofit.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Timing is everything.

After months of mixed signals, Chris Hipkins will head to China at the end of June.

The New Zealand Prime Minister’s long-awaited visit to Beijing will come shortly before he attends July’s NATO summit in Vilnius.

The careful timing of the PM’s China trip – billed as a trade mission – offers advantages to both the Chinese and New Zealand sides.

For Beijing, the tour will provide a valuable opportunity to influence the leader of a ‘Five Eyes’ country, just before Hipkins takes his seat at the NATO table in Lithuania.

NATO last year launched a new ‘Strategic Concept’ that called out China for its ‘stated ambitions and coercive policies’ and pinpointed the country as a source of ‘systemic challenges’ for the alliance.

For Wellington, the fact that Hipkins is choosing to visit China first – immediately prior to the NATO summit – will be a chance to balance up its recent foreign policy trajectory.

Since Hipkins took over as Prime Minister in January, New Zealand has generally sailed a more hawkish, pro-US course.

The latest instalment in that story came on Friday, when New Zealand signed up to a joint statement with Japan and the other four Five Eyes countries – Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States – this time condemning economic coercion.

Interestingly, the joint declaration did not explicitly name China.

The decision to omit an explicit reference to Beijing – which was the clear and obvious target – might have been a concession to the more sensitive countries in the grouping, especially New Zealand.

After all, the US now no longer shies away from openly criticising China. Traditional diplomatic niceties now frequently seem to be a thing of the past – as demonstrated by the sharp language used recently by Lloyd Austin, the US defence secretary.

Whatever the motivations, the wording of the joint statement failed to stave off a typically swift and sharp reaction from the Chinese Embassy in Wellington.

Wang Xiaolong, the Ambassador, published a series of tweets which began: ‘Smearing other countries, either directly or indirectly, won’t whitewash one’s own dismal record on coercion’.

The embassy later issued a statement that said ‘certain countries tend to overstretch or abuse the concept of national security to impose protectionist policies’.

China is still New Zealand’s biggest trading partner by some margin – although the value of New Zealand’s exports to the country largely flatlined over the past year. The total now sits at $NZ21.6 billion.

In the year to March 2023, exports to China made up only 23 per cent of New Zealand’s total exports of goods and services, according to Statistics New Zealand.

During his time in China, Chris Hipkins will be seeking to rekindle and rebuild the trading relationship, especially after Covid-19. Reviving Chinese tourism to New Zealand will be one obvious major focus.

But he can also expect to hear more about China’s frustrations with both the joint declaration on economic coercion and other recent New Zealand foreign policy developments.

A meeting between Hipkins and Xi Jinping, the Chinese president, has yet to be officially confirmed, but – again – this seems to be only a question of timing.

Beijing’s concerns are likely to centre on New Zealand’s potential role in AUKUS, the elite-level military pact that currently involves Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States.

Andrew Little, New Zealand’s defence minister, has said New Zealand is ‘willing to explore’ joining the next stage of AUKUS, which is focused on advanced technologies and is commonly referred to as ‘Pillar II’.

Little has also been at the forefront of other recent decisions that might have irritated China.

These include the recent signing of a new military agreement with Japan and a forthcoming upgrade of New Zealand’s defence ties with Fiji, as well as the boost in New Zealand’s military aid to Ukraine that was announced in early May.

Chris Hipkins and foreign minister Nanaia Mahuta appear to be less enthusiastic about New Zealand joining AUKUS.

After Mahuta visited Beijing herself in March, she said ‘we don’t want to see the militarisation of the Pacific, we’re not part of the AUKUS arrangements’, while Hipkins called the Pillar II issue ‘purely hypothetical’ when questioned in May.

It is difficult to work out the true extent of any divisions on foreign policy within Chris Hipkins’ Labour cabinet.

But recent speeches given a week apart by Little and Mahuta provide a useful case-study.

At the ‘Shangri-La Dialogue’ in Singapore on June 2, Little told fellow defence ministers that New Zealand viewed the global situation with ‘clear eyes’ and would ‘maintain the military capability necessary to contribute to the rules-based international order and protection of our free and democratic way of life’.

By contrast, Nanaia Mahuta’s speech to last week’s conference of the New Zealand Institute of International Affairs (NZIIA) in Auckland was more nuanced.

The foreign minister addressed the risks of a ‘more contested environment’, which she listed as ‘poverty levels, indebtedness, conflict, economic exclusion and human rights abuses’.

But Mahuta also told attendees that New Zealand did not cooperate ‘exclusively with those mirroring our views’ and argued ‘binary choices’ were unnecessary.

Perhaps most significantly, Mahuta argued there was no ‘new Cold War’ – a reference that would have been carefully chosen for its likelihood of a positive reception in Beijing.

China regularly warns countries – including New Zealand – against taking what it calls a ‘Cold War mentality’.

If avoiding superpower confrontation is the priority, Hipkins’ visit at the end of June may come at just the right time.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken is set to visit Beijing on June 18, in a much-awaited top-level trip. If it happens, Blinken’s mission will go against the grain of deteriorating US-China relations.

China’s defence minister Li Shangfu declined to meet with his US counterpart, Lloyd Austin, when the pair were in Singapore – a response to the US refusing to lift old sanctions on Li.

Not long after this diplomatic failure, the US released a video of an apparent near-collision of US and Chinese warships in the Taiwan Strait – which in turn came not long after claims of a similar incident involving aircraft.

Last but not least, US officials claimed at the weekend China had been spying on the US for years from Cuba. Unsurprisingly, China has rejected the allegations.

With New Zealand still being China’s best friend in the West, Hipkins has the potential to build on any progress made by Blinken in establishing proverbial ‘guardrails’ to prevent tensions between the superpowers from spiralling out of control.

Ultimately, the most likely role to be played by Chris Hipkins is that of messenger.

NATO leaders will be keen to hear what the New Zealand PM has to say about his China trip when he arrives in Europe in early July.

Chris Hipkins is going to China.

The timing is crucial.

And only time will tell just how successful his trip will be.

Geoffrey Miller is the Democracy Project’s geopolitical analyst and writes on current New Zealand foreign policy and related geopolitical issues. He has lived in Germany and the Middle East and is a learner of Arabic and Russian. Disclosure: Geoffrey attended the Global Media Congress in 2022 as a guest of the organisers, the Emirates News Agency.

LIVE@MIDDAY NZ Time – 6pm USEST – In this, the 20th episode of A View from Afar for 2022 political scientist Dr Paul Buchanan and host Selwyn Manning will analyse The Era of Restive Politics.

In particular, Paul and Selwyn will explore the political dynamics in the United States of America, the United Kingdom, the People’s Republic of China, Italy, and Brazil.

And within this context, they will examine the threads of social and political change that’s sweeping the world and what this means as we approach the end of 2022.

INTERACTION WHILE LIVE: Paul and Selwyn invite and encourage you to interact while they are live with questions and comments. They recommend you do so via EveningReport’s YouTube channel. Here’s the link: Youtube (remember to subscribe to the channel).

You can also keep the conversation going on this debate by clicking on one of the social media channels below:

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

If you miss the LIVE Episode, you can see it as video-on-demand, and earlier episodes too, by checking out EveningReport.nz or, subscribe to the Evening Report podcast here.

RECOGNITION:

The MIL Network’s podcast A View from Afar was Nominated as a Top  Defence Security Podcast by Threat.Technology – a London-based cyber security news publication.

Threat.Technology placed A View from Afar at 9th in its 20 Best Defence Security Podcasts of 2021 category. You can follow A View from Afar via our affiliate syndicators.

The head of the Solomon Islands state-owned broadcaster has defended its role in the face of the government tightening control — a move that critics say is squarely aimed at controlling and censoring the news.

The government said last Friday that the Solomon Islands Broadcasting Corporation (SIBC) would retain editorial control and that government officials would not censor or restrain the outlet.

Earlier in the week, the government had lashed out at the broadcaster, accusing it of a “lack of ethics and professionalism” and saying the government had a duty to “protect our people from lies and misinformation” it claimed was propagated by the SIBC.

In an interview published by the VOA News, Johnson Honimae, the SIBC chief executive, said he was proud of the broadcaster’s award-winning journalism.

He said it was business as usual for the broadcaster and there were no government censors vetting stories before they were broadcast, contrary to what was reported by some news outlets.

The government’s move came at a politically tumultuous time in the Solomon Islands.

There were riots in the capital of Honiara last November, followed by a no-confidence vote in Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare in December, which he survived.

Security pact with China
Then in April, Sogavare signed a security pact with China that has caused deep alarm in the Pacific and around the world.

The SIBC has reported those developments and has included the views of Sogavare’s opponents.

The broadcaster, which began as the Solomon Islands Broadcasting Service, has been a fixture for 70 years in the Solomon Islands.

Employing about 50 people and operating under the slogan “Voice of the nation,” the broadcaster is the main source of radio and television news for the nation’s 700,000 people and is listened to and watched from the capital to the smallest village.

In late June, the government moved to delist the SIBC as a state-owned enterprise and take more direct control, saying the broadcaster had failed to make a profit, something that had been expected of such state-owned businesses.

Opposition Leader Matthew Wale said the delisting was a scheme orchestrated by Sogavare as “a clear attempt to directly control and censor the news content of SIBC”.

“This will hijack well-entrenched principles of law on defamation and freedom-of-speech, thus depriving the public using SIBC to freely express their views, or accessing information on government activities,” Wale said.

Critical government calls
Honimae said the broadcaster took critical calls from Sogavare’s office in recent months.

“They believe we’ve been running too many stories from the opposition side, causing too much disunity,” Honimae said.

Honimae said the broadcaster and its staff won several journalism awards this year from the Media Association of Solomon Islands, including newsroom of the year and journalist of the year.

He also said the broadcaster plays the national anthem when broadcasts begin each morning at 6 am and again when they finish at 11 pm.

“We believe we are a great force for unity and peace in this country,” Honimae said.

Honimae added that the broadcaster needed to “balance our stories more” and leave no opportunity for criticism.

He said Sogavare — who is also the government’s Broadcasting Minister– had said in Parliament that the government would not tamper with the broadcaster’s editorial independence.

“There is no censorship at the moment,” Honimae said. “We operate as professional journalists.”

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A View from Afar – In this podcast, political scientist Paul Buchanan and Selwyn Manning analyse hostilities and the pathway ahead for Taiwan, China, Asia Pacific nations and the United States of America.

Buchanan and Manning examine why hostilities have intensified, what defence and pre-emptive security moves have been actioned, and what we all should expect next, including the ramifications impacting on Asia Pacific nations’ foreign policies and what the short, medium and long term consequences will be.

The Questions:

What to expect from a deterioration of China / Taiwan relations?

What’s next in the PRC Taiwan stand-off?

What impact will PRC Taiwan hostilities have on the foreign policy positions of Asia Pacific nations?

And is the USA’s Indo-Pacific security/defence realignment a help or a hindrance in the region?

You can comment on this debate by clicking on one of these social media channels and interacting in the social media’s comment area. Here are the links:

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

If you miss the LIVE Episode, you can see it as video-on-demand, and earlier episodes too, by checking out EveningReport.nz or, subscribe to the Evening Report podcast here.

The MIL Network’s podcast A View from Afar was Nominated as a Top  Defence Security Podcast by Threat.Technology – a London-based cyber security news publication.

Threat.Technology placed A View from Afar at 9th in its 20 Best Defence Security Podcasts of 2021 category. You can follow A View from Afar via our affiliate syndicators.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sourced from an IFJ dispatch.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The Solomon Islands government has ordered the country’s national broadcaster to self-censor its news and other paid programs and only allow content that portrays the nation’s government in a positive light.

Staff at Solomon Islands Broadcasting Corporation (SIBC) confirmed to the ABC that acting chairman of the board William Parairato met with them last Friday to outline the new requirements.

They include vetting news and talkback shows to ensure they did not “create disunity”.

Parairato had earlier attended a meeting with the Prime Minister’s office, the SIBC journalists said.

Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare has become increasingly critical of the public broadcaster, accusing SIBC of publishing stories that have not been verified or balanced with government responses.

Last month, SIBC was removed as a state-owned enterprise (SOE) and became fully funded by the government, raising concerns over the broadcaster’s independence.

The government defended the reclassification, saying it had a duty to protect its citizens from “lies and misinformation”.

It is unclear whether SIBC — which plays a vital role as a government watchdog — will be able to publish any news or statements from the opposition under the new regime.

Critics are concerned the new rules resemble media policies adopted by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and could essentially make SIBC a mouthpiece for the government.

The ABC Four Corners investigative journalism report on China and the Solomon Islands this week.

Media Association of Solomon Islands (MASI) president Georgina Kekea said there were growing fears the government would be influenced by its “new partner”, referring to the security pact recently signed between Solomon Islands and China.

“It really doesn’t come as a surprise,” she told the ABC.

“This is one of the things which we are fearful of for the past month or so now.

“We’ve been vocal on this issue, especially when it comes to freedom of the press and media doing its expected role.”

What impact will it have?
Honiara-based Melanesian News Network editor Dorothy Wickham said it was unclear how the development would play out.

Dorothy Wickham says she is not surprised by the move, given the government’s ongoing criticism of the media.

“We haven’t seen this happen before,” she said.

“If the opposition gets on SIBC and starts criticising government policies, which every opposition does … would the government disallow SIBC to air that story or that interview? That is the question that we’re asking.”

Officials have denied taking full control of SIBC’s editorial policy, saying it just wants the broadcaster to be more responsible because it is a government entity.

But University of South Pacific journalism associate professor Shailendra Singh said the government’s intentions were clear.

“There seems to be no doubt that the government is determined to take control of the national broadcaster, editorially and financially,” he told ABC’s The World Today.

“I don’t think there’s any way the government can be stopped.

“This latest move by the government, what it has done with the SIBC, is bring it closer to media in a communist system than in a democracy.”

Press freedoms dwindling
Local media have been vocal about increased government secrecy, the closing of doors and controlled dissemination of information from the prime minister’s office.

Wickham said the media did not have issues with governments in the past, adding that since the security pact had been signed with China, the government had been making life harder for the press.

“I don’t think this government actually restricts us, I think it’s controlling their information more than they used to,” Wickham told ABC’s The World Today.

“The government has been concerned that the negativity expressed by a lot of Solomon Islanders is affecting how the government is trying to roll out its policies.”

When China’s foreign minister toured the country in May, Solomon Islands local media boycotted a press conference because they were collectively only allowed to ask one question — to their own Foreign Minister.

They also struggled to get information about the timing of the visit and agreements being signed between the two countries.

Last month, the ABC was also shunned after being promised an interview with Sogavare after his national independence day speech, in which he thanked China for being a “worthy partner” in the country’s development.

Instead, his minders escorted him to a nearby vehicle, with police blocking reporters from getting close to the Prime Minister.

Dr Singh warned that the country’s democracy would suffer as a result of less media freedom.

“Media is the last line of defence, so if the media are captured, who will sound the alarm? It’s happening right before our eyes. It’s a major, major concern,” he said.

‘A wake-up call’
Kekea said SIBC staff should be able to do their job freely without fear and intimidation.

But the best thing the media can do is uphold the principles of journalism, stressing that “we must do our jobs properly”.

“It’s a wake-up call for SIBC to really look at how they have gone over the years, how they format their programs, the quality control they have in place,” Kekea said.

“It’s really a wake up call for every one of us.”

She said the media landscape had changed over the years and standards had been dropping, but the government also needed to respect the role of journalist and be more open to requests for information.

The Prime Minister had repeatedly said he was available for questions and calls, but local media complained they were continuously left unanswered, she said.

“They do not have the courtesy to respond to our emails. Even if we want to have an exclusive it gets rejected,” Kekea said.

“So it’s time governments should also walk the talk when it comes to responding to the media when they ask questions.”

The ABC has contacted Solomon Islands’ Prime Minister’s office and SIBC for comment.
YouTube Reporter Dorothy Wickham tells The World it’s still unclear what this means for the public broadcaster.

Annika Burgess is a reporter for ABC Pacific Beat. Republished with the permission of Pacific Beat.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Today’s speech by Jacinda Ardern to the China Business Summit in Auckland was full of soothing words for Beijing.

The headline-grabber was Ardern’s comment that ‘a few plans are afoot’ for New Zealand ministers to return to China – and that the Prime Minister herself hopes to return to the country ‘to renew and refresh in-person connections’.

This might come sooner than we think. While China’s current elimination approach to Covid-19 heavily restricts in-person travel, New Zealand’s own experience shows how quickly these settings can change. After abandoning its own zero-covid policy, New Zealand this week fully re-opens to all visitors.

Expressing a willingness to travel to China – even if it is not currently possible to so – is a signal in itself.

A recurring theme during Ardern’s speech and the subsequent Q&A was the importance of marking this year’s 50th anniversary of diplomatic ties between Beijing and Wellington.

Calling New Zealand’s relationship with China as ‘one of our most important’, Ardern pointed to the ‘long history of engagement, and of beneficial interactions between our governments, our people, cultures and in commerce’.

Indeed, throughout the speech, Ardern was mild with her criticism of China and optimistic about the health and future of the bilateral relationship.

This does not mean that the speech was entirely a one-way street – Ardern said that New Zealand would continue to ‘speak out’ on contentious issues such as ‘economic coercion, human rights, Xinjiang and Hong Kong’.

But none of this was new – Ardern has cited these same issues in similar speeches before. And in the context of an address that was overwhelmingly positive towards China, the enumeration of the thorny issues on which Beijing and Wellington do not see eye-to-eye felt more like an obligatory recitation than a serious attempt at criticism.

In the speech itself, Ardern made only a single reference to Taiwan, on which she called New Zealand’s approach ‘consistent’ – a rather placative word she also deployed at several other times during the speech. But unsurprisingly, the Taiwan issue also topped the Q&A session afterwards, especially in relation to rumours of a potential visit there this week by US House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

In response, Ardern noted that ‘dialogue and diplomacy remain key’. And she continued to deploy these and other China-friendly phrasings – such as ‘de-escalation’ – to stave off the more sensitive sections of the interactive session. These very tactical ‘d-words’ also made multiple appearances in the speech itself.

Taken as a whole, then, Ardern’s speech seemed to strike a softer and friendlier tone towards China than might be expected given the overall deterioration in bilateral relations between Wellington and Beijing this year.

Of all of New Zealand’s shifts towards the West this year– and there have been many – Beijing seemed most irked by the Prime Minister’s participation at the NATO summit in Madrid in late June and by the hawkish joint statement issued after Jacinda Ardern met Joe Biden in the White House at the end of May.

Both actions met with swift and sharp rebukes from China. While Beijing imposed no further penalty, there is no guarantee that New Zealand will keep escaping punishment if it continues down this bolder path.

Of course, Jacinda Ardern is adept at tailoring her speeches to her audiences. Today’s summit would have always been a chance to express a more China-friendly position. After all, Wang Xiaolong, China’s Ambassador to New Zealand, was listening in the front of the audience – and Ardern greeted him as she left the stage.

Still, the Prime Minister’s speech today continued an attempt at rhetorical recalibration that seemed to begin with her addresses in early July to Chatham House in London and the Lowy Institute in Sydney.

In London, Ardern defended China’s right to be involved in the Pacific and talked up the need for diplomacy and dialogue. In Sydney, she rejected the idea of a ‘democracy vs autocracy’ contest in the aftermath of Russia’s war on Ukraine.

Ardern’s Lowy Institute speech also heavily emphasised the notion of New Zealand having an ‘independent foreign policy’ – the phrase or variations of it were deployed no fewer than seven times – and her address to the China Business Summit today continued this theme.

Noting once again that New Zealand aimed to be ‘consistent’, Ardern said the country had for ‘decades’ adopted a ‘fiercely independent foreign policy driven by our assessment of our interests and values’.

This will go down well with Beijing: several recent official Chinese statements on the bilateral relationship have approvingly cited the phrase. The embassy’s account of a virtual meeting held between Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi and his New Zealand counterpart Nanaia Mahuta in mid-June – when tensions were particularly high – cited Beijing’s ‘respect for New Zealand’s independent foreign policy.’

China’s liking for the phrase is not without good reason. After all, the origins of the ‘independent foreign policy’ lie in New Zealand’s rift with the United States in the 1980s over the Fourth Labour Government’s nuclear-free policy.

Wellington may have largely patched up its relations with Washington since then, but New Zealand has never been fully reintegrated into the ANZUS defence alliance – a situation that Beijing would no doubt like to see continue.

The theme of the China Business Summit this year is ‘A Balancing Act’. And certainly, the softer line on China today and in recent speeches could be driven by a realisation on the part of Ardern that New Zealand had gone too far with its pro-Western foreign policy in the first half of the year.

The bigger international picture might also provide an opening for a less hardline and more nuanced approach to relations between East and West. In July, Wang Yi signalled a potential thaw in tensions with Australia, saying ‘the Chinese side is willing to take the pulse, recalibrate, and set sail again’. And Joe Biden’s virtual meeting with Xi Jinping last week was the first direct communication between the pair since March.

Of course, this positivity over rhetoric needs to be set against the substance. And on that front, the picture looks rather bleak. After all, Xi used his phone call to tell Biden ‘if you play with fire you get burned’ – a reference to the rumours that Nancy Pelosi will visit Taiwan this week.

Against this grim global backdrop, Ardern’s more generous, critical friend approach towards China will be popular with Beijing.

But time will tell whether it is anything more than just talk.

Geoffrey Miller is the Democracy Project’s international analyst and writes on current New Zealand foreign policy and related geopolitical issues. He has lived in Germany and the Middle East and is a learner of Arabic and Russian.

Further reading on international relations today
Newshub: Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern wants to visit China to ‘seize new opportunities’
Audrey Young (Herald): Jacinda Ardern: NZ opens arms to students and tourists from China
Shane Jones (Herald): We need to maximise our trade potential with China (paywalled)
Christine Rovoi (Stuff): NZ targets defence policy reset amid US-China fallout in the Pacific
Vaimoana Mase (Herald): Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern heads to Samoa as international borders reopen
Gianina Schwanecke (Stuff): Russia bans 32 more Kiwis from entering country in retaliation for sanctions
Reuben Steff (Newsroom): NZ can’t kick the can on global crises
Sam Sachdeva (Newsroom): Independence, not neutrality, for NZ foreign policy

Other items of interest and importance today

POLITICAL FINANCE LAWS AND HIGH COURT TRIAL
Thomas Manch (Stuff): Government to close NZ First Foundation ‘loophole’ in electoral law
Max Rashbrooke (Stuff): Undisclosed money threatens next election
Jane Patterson (RNZ): Cabinet to consider urgent law change to close donations loophole
ODT: Editorial – Maturity missing on reform
Claire Trevett (Herald): Money and politics – the troubling mess of donation laws and attempts to outwit them (paywalled)
Russell Palmer (RNZ): Political donations law changes: Clock ticking ahead of election
Claire Trevett (Herald): National, Act say Labour’s electoral donation reforms attempt to ‘screw the scrum’
Thomas Manch (Stuff): Political donation reform on the cards as Greens call for ‘loophole’ closure
Brent Edwards (NBR): Act calculates cost of lower disclosure threshold for donations (paywalled)
Tim Murphy (Newsroom): Two dinners, a $90,000 imperial robe and a hall full of evidence
Amy Williams (RNZ): Money trail in Nats and Labour ‘sham donors’ trial unfolding in High Court
Catrin Owen (Stuff): Week 1 of the Labour and National political donations trial and what’s next

GREENS
Thomas Coughlan (Herald): Green leadership race begins as MP complains of ‘nefarious deeds’, others eye candidacy (paywalled)
Heather du Plessis-Allan (Herald): James Shaw deserves the attack on his Green Party leadership (paywalled)
Josie Pagani (Stuff): Green plotters are wrong: James Shaw is a radical achieving as much as he can
Emile Donovan (RNZ): The Green Party’s philosophical tug-of-war
William Hewett (Newshub): Former Greens MP Kevin Hague backs James Shaw, says he’s ‘achieved more’ on climate than every previous minister, Government
William Hewett (Newshub): Green Party leadership challenge: MPs Jan Logie, Teanau Tuiono rule themselves out of running for co-leader
1News: Green MP Teanau Tuiono not running for co-leader
Peter Dunne (Newsroom): Removing Shaw as Greens co-leader won’t lead to stronger climate change policy
Chris Trotter: The Greens’ unhappy relationship with power
Colin Peacock (RNZ): Greens’ grass roots ‘revolt’ excites media
Hayden Munro (Herald): Green Party’s James Shaw knows climate action needs parliamentary power not protest (paywalled)
RNZ: Green Party co-leader nominations open
1News: Julie Anne Genter not seeking Green Party co-leadership
Steve Braunias (Herald): The secret diary of James Shaw (paywalled)
Martyn Bradbury (Daily Blog): The Greens only have themselves to blame for this phantom coup
Martyn Bradbury (Daily Blog): By capitulating to Māori Capitalism, James Shaw proves why he should be rolled

ECONOMY, EMPLOYMENT AND COST OF LIVING
Gareth Vaughan (Interest): Politics + monetary policy = a political schmozzle?
Janet Wilson (Stuff): You can’t reduce inflation by throwing more money around
Matthew Scott (Newsroom): Targeted living cost payments no bullseye, say advocates
Liam Dann (Herald): Nation of Debt: Just how much does every Kiwi owe now? (paywalled)
Jem Traylen (BusinessDesk): Zero income but no cost of living payment from government (paywalled)
1News: Ardern rejects claim Govt spending making inflation worse
Melanie Carroll (Stuff): What is the risk of a recession for New Zealand?
Tom Pullar-Strecker (Stuff): Unemployment figures expected to show labour market ‘as tight as a drum’
Kevin Norquay (Stuff): We are spending less on the things that make us happy, thanks to Covid
Harshal Chitale (Stuff): We must fight inflation now or pay a higher price
Paula Bennett (Herald): The job market is in crisis and welfare numbers don’t tally (paywalled)
Michael Neilson (Herald): Benefit incomes up 40pc on 2018 – Ministry of Social Development report
Daniel Smith (Stuff): Businesses trial four day working week but expert says employers should go even further
Liam Dann (Herald): Making sense of the Reserve Bank pile-on (paywalled)
Brent Edwards (NBR): Treasury begins paying for losses incurred by the Reserve Bank (paywalled)
David Hargreaves (Interest): How hot will the labour market be? And what will the RBNZ make of it?
Richard Harman: Reserve Bank “played with fire” (paywalled)
Andy Fyers (BusinessDesk): Everyone feels the inflation pain this time (paywalled)
Catherine Hubbard (Stuff): Fishing company boss to work on factory floor as labour shortage bites
Liam Dann (Herald): NZ’s inflation problem: It could be worse – and it is in many countries (paywalled)
Rob Stock (Stuff): New Zealanders overseas face mounting student loan debt
Herald: What would a monetary policy review mean for the Reserve Bank?

PARLIAMENT, GOVERNMENT AND ELECTIONS
Rachel Smalley (Today FM): Labours leadership is inept, irresponsible and chaotic
Matthew Hooton (Herald): Danger on the left, risk on the right (paywalled)
Pete McKenzie (North & South): The Man in the shadows
1News: Class politics in Western democracies are changing – expert
Liam Dann (Herald): Grant Robertson: ‘I loved him, he was my father but I never really forgave him’
Martyn Bradbury (Daily Blog): TDB Cabinet Top 10 Rankings
Brian Easton (Pundit): Turmoil in the National caucus
Alison Mau (Stuff): The figures just don’t stack up for big-talker Brian Tamaki
Bill Ralston (Listener/Herald): Searching for a bright spot in NZ’s bleak, cold winter of discontent (paywalled)
Larry McMyler (RNZ): Youth MPs call for improved civics education in NZ schools
Luke Malpass (Stuff): ACT and the Greens: two very different parties, two similar trajectories
Sam Sachdeva (Newsroom): Govt hires for income insurance scheme despite timing concerns
Thomas Going (Stuff): Make lowering voting age an issue for Parliament
Audrey Young (Herald): Three MPs exempt from wearing masks in Parliament all from Act
Glenn McConnell (Stuff): Simon Bridges wants to start a new life, but strangers keep flashing him
Newshub: Michael Wood, Nicola Willis quizzed on whether they want Labour, National’s top jobs

THREE WATERS
Graham Adams (The Platform): Talk of a coup ratchets up Three Waters debate
Herald: Editorial: Three Waters seems to have blocked Government’s ears (paywalled)
ODT: Calls for national referendum
The Facts: Summary of 10 Three Waters polls
Thomas Manch (Stuff): LGNZ asks Government to delay stormwater handover in Three Waters reforms
1News: Compromise could see Three Waters become Two Waters
Grant Miller (ODT): Three Waters: Jacinda Ardern’s governance message greeted with scepticism by southern leaders
Cate Macintosh (Stuff): No timeframe for fluoridating Christchurch’s water, while misinformation grows
Adan E. Suazo (Newsroom): No resolving water conflicts without trust

CO-GOVERNANCE AND DEBATES ON RACE
Deena Coster (Stuff): ‘White anxiety’ and the quest for power-sharing in Aotearoa
Deena Coster (Stuff): The idea of sharing power in Aotearoa doesn’t need to be scary
George Driver (North & South): The Fate of our national estate
Elizabeth Rata: In Defence of democracy
Anthony Poole (Open inquiry): It’s time to speak up against the New Racists
Wilhelmina Shrimpton (Today FM): Let’s stop racism before it starts

GOVT TRANSPARENCY AND CONTROL OF OFFICIAL INFORMATION
Andrea Vance (Stuff): National accuses Government of ‘sanctimonious talk’ on transparency
Andrea Vance (Stuff): How flawed freedom of information system keep the public in the dark
Nikki Macdonald (Stuff): Official information law is a horse and cart on a Formula One race track – former ombudsman
Peter Boshier (Stuff): The changes our official information watchdog wants to see
Nikki Macdonald (Stuff): ‘Delay is the killer’ – why our OIA watchdog isn’t working
Andrea Vance (Stuff): Gagging the official information act: why new secrecy clauses are a worry
Andrea Vance (Stuff): Ombudsman raps police over ‘no surprises’ policy for Ministers
Lisa Woods (Stuff): Accountability, transparency are the victims of a flawed law
No Right Turn: Why we need an OIA review
Ella Somers (BusinessDesk): Transparency International, Council for Civil Liberties call for urgent stats bill amendments (paywalled)
Charlie Mitchell (Stuff): The Government has built a data colossus – is it playing with fire?
Phil Pennington (RNZ): Head in the clouds? Call for NZ to take control of data storage

MEDIA AND COMMUNICATION
Duncan Greive (Spinoff): The Te Puke Affair: How Morning Report saw a social media flub and smelled a cover-up
Mark Jennings (Newshub): TVNZ news boss a scapegoat in Santamaria affair
Damien Venuto (Herald): Kamahl Santamaria saga: Why TVNZ news boss Paul Yurisich had to go
Tom Dillane (Herald): The short turbulent tenure of Paul Yurisich as head of TVNZ news and current affairs (paywalled)
Stuff: The Kamahl Santamaria scandal at TVNZ, why it matters and what next
Herald: TVNZ’s Head of News Paul Yurisich who hired ex-Breakfast host Kamahl Santamaria resigns
Melanie Earley and Alison Mau (Stuff): Kamahl Santamaria scandal claims head of TVNZ news boss as review criticises hiring of key presenters
1News: TVNZ news boss quits after review finds failures recruiting Santamaria
Colin Peacock (RNZ): Criticism of mini-doco funding hits a dead end
André Chumko (Stuff): Warning over social media news proves new media entity needed ‘more than ever’
Sophie Cornish (Stuff): Social media giants agree to ‘first of its kind’ code of conduct in Aotearoa
Tova O’Brien (Today FM): It’s time for a Misinformation Minister
Tom Pullar-Strecker (Stuff): NZ code to tackle disinformation: what have Google and Meta really agreed to do?

RNZ-TVNZ MERGER
David Skipwith (Stuff): Conflict brewing ahead of TVNZ-RNZ merger over journalists promoting brands on social media
RNZ: New state broadcasting entity passes first hurdle
Dita De Boni (NBR): Nats rail against TVNZ/RNZ merger (paywalled)
RNZ: Public media legislation takes another step

IMMIGRATION AND BORDER:
Kelly Dennett (Stuff): New Zealand is fully reopening to the world, but how prepared are we?
Chris Hyde (Stuff): What will a near-fully reopened New Zealand look like?
Glenn McConnell (Stuff): The ‘Immigration Rebalance’: What it is and why it matters

Former Kiribati President Anote Tong suspects a major agreement is “cooking” between Beijing and Tarawa after the country’s decision to quit the Pacific Islands Forum.

Kiribati President Taneti Maamau’s “surprise” announcement to abandon its membership from the region’s premier policy and political body at the 51st Forum Leaders’ meeting this week has heightened concerns the Micronesian nation is moving closer to China.

“I know they are cooking something with China,” Tong, who led the atoll island nation from 2003 to 2016, said.

“I think it would have started with the reopening of the Phoenix Island Protected Area.”

The Phoenix Islands Protected Area is the largest designated marine protected area in the world, spanning almost 400,000 sq km in the South Pacific Ocean, midway between Australia and Hawai’i.

Sources have told RNZ Pacific that a possible deal may include exclusive access to Chinese vessels to the Protected Area.

Tong believed the move by the Maamau government suggested that it hoped to “gain from being isolated from the region” by striking a deal directly with China.

‘Totally unexpected’
“It’s totally unexpected. I did not think it was in our nature, in our character, to do something quite so radical like that,” he said.

The Kiribati government is under financial pressure due to the economic impacts of covid-19 and the current drought.

“I know that the government is in a serious problem with the escalating budget which is not sustainable,” Tong said.

He said it should not come as a surprise if the government was talking about a deal directly with the Chinese about the Phoenix Islands.

“I have seen expressions in the past in which the president [Maamau] confirmed China was going to assist in the development of Canton Islands … a former US military base and it was in closer proximity to Hawaii. So, we are very strategically located,” he said.

“It is the reason why Kiribati may have withdrawn from the Pacific Island Forum.”

Blamed on China
Meanwhile, Kiribati’s opposition leader Tessie Lambourne is blaming Kiribati’s decision to withdraw from the Forum on pressure exerted by China.

The former diplomat told The Guardian she was “shocked and extremely disappointed” by the government’s move.

Lambourne said she believed the decision was influenced by China, and that the Maamau administration was weak, vulnerable and greatly indebted to Beijing.

She said someone seemed to be telling the Kiribati government that the country did not need regional solidarity.

“I’m embarrassed because what we are saying is that we are not in the fold … we are outside,” she told The Guardian.

“And why are we outside? I think it’s us who keep ourselves out … because we are not engaged or engaging.”

China brushes off claims
China, however, has denied allegations that it has anything to do Kiribati’s decision, saying it “does not interfere in the internal affairs of Pacific Islands countries”.

Kiribati said it did not feel its concerns over the leadership rift had been listened to following the special meeting hosted by the forum chair Fiji in June, and as a consequence it had no other alternative but to leave.

Federated States of Micronesia President David Panuelo said that while it was not known if China was exerting its influence to force Kiribati out of the forum “we hope to find out soon”.

Panuelo said there was a lot of work put into the Suva Agreement to achieve a reform package which would see that the forum was “much strengthened”.

“Our aim is to open the doors and continue to invite Kiribati because when one member is not on board, it is not quite over yet,” he said.

Tong said he “completely disagrees” with Maamau’s reasoning.

“I am not so sure that it really provides the justification for the kind of reaction to just withdraw like that,” he said.

“There should have been a lot of room to manoeuvre the discussions in Suva. There is so much at stake in losing membership of the forum. I cannot imagine how Kiribati would win by having taken that step.”

Tong also raised concerns about the recent visit by China’s foreign minister to Tarawa.

“The Chinese foreign minister went through here for a few hours last month and there was a deal signed,” he said.

“Nobody knows what that deal is. And so that is maybe part of the whole process.”

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

For the Pacific news media sector, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s recent eight-nation South Pacific tour may be over, but it should not be forgotten. The minister and his 20-member “high-level” delegation’s refusal to take local journalists’ questions opened a veritable can of worms that will resonate in Pacific media circles for a while.

However, Wang’s sulky silence should not be seen as isolated incident but embedded in deeper problems in media freedom and development for the Pacific.

Besides dealing with their own often hostile national governments and manoeuvring through ever-more restrictive legislation, Pacific media is increasingly having to contend with pressure from foreign elements as well.

China is the most prominent in this regard, as underscored by Wang’s visit, but there have been other incidents of journalist obstruction involving countries like Indonesia as well.

What is particularly appalling is how some Pacific governments seem to have cooperated with foreign delegations to stop their national media from asking legitimate questions.

Fijian journalist Lice Mavono’s account of the extent to which local Fijian officials went to limit journalists’ ability to cover Wang’s visit is highly troubling. In scenes rarely seen before, Wang and Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama’s joint press conference was apparently managed by Chinese officials, even though it was on Fijian soil.

When some journalists defied instructions and yelled out their unapproved questions, a Chinese official shouted back at them to stop. One journalist was ordered to leave the room with a minder attempting to escort him out, but fellow journalists intervened.

Journalists obstructed
Similar behaviour was witnessed at the Pacific Islands Forum-hosted meeting between Wang and forum Secretary-General Henry Puna, where Chinese officials continued to obstruct journalists even after forum officials intervened on the journalists’ behalf.

The Chinese officials’ determined efforts indicated that they came well prepared to thwart the media. It also conveyed their disrespect for the premier regional organisation in the Pacific, to the point of defying forum officials’ directives.

However, what should be most concerning for the region as a whole is the way this episode exposed the apparent ability of Chinese officials to influence, dominate, and even give instructions to local officials.

This is all the more disturbing as China is ramping up its engagement with Pacific governments. Consequently, longstanding questions about China’s impact on the region’s democratic and media institutions become even more urgent.

Indeed, just weeks after Wang’s visit, Solomon Islands media reported that Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare, in an extraordinary gazette, announced that the government would be taking full financial control of the state broadcaster, Solomon Islands Broadcasting Corporation (SIBC).

There are fears that this arrangement — which draw comparisons with the Chinese state-owned broadcaster CCTV — will give the government far more control over SIBC, potentially both editorially and in its day-to-day management.

This is troubling given Sogavare’s antagonism towards the SIBC, who he has accused of giving more airtime to government critics than to officials. Veteran Solomon Islands journalist Dorothy Wickham condemned the move, stating: “We now don’t have a public broadcaster!”

Additional steps
This trend indicates the need for additional steps to strengthen media rights by, among other things, boosting journalist professional capacity. This is simply because good journalists are more aware of and better able to safeguard media rights.

To this end, one area that clearly needs work is a greater focus on reporting regional events effectively. As major powers jostle for influence, and Pacific politics become ever more interconnected, what happens in one country will increasingly affect others.

Journalists need to be aware of this and more strongly frame their stories through a regional lens. However, this will not happen without focused and targeted training.

In this context, media research and development is an oft-overlooked pillar of media freedom. While all kinds of demands are made of Pacific journalists and much is expected of them, there seems to be little regard for their welfare and not much curiosity about what makes them tick.

To get an idea of how far behind the Pacific is in media research, it is worth considering that there has only been one multi-country survey of Pacific journalists’ demography, professional profiles and ethical beliefs in 30 years.

This recent, important research yielded valuable data to better understand the health of Pacific media and the capabilities of Pacific journalists.

For instance, the data indicates that Pacific journalists are more inexperienced and under-qualified than counterparts in the rest of the world. In addition, the Pacific has among the highest rate of journalist attrition due to, among other things, uncompetitive salaries, a feature of small media systems.

Conditions ignored
So, while governments make much of biased journalists, they conveniently ignore the working conditions, training, education, and work experience that are needed to increase integrity and performance.

In other words, the problems in Pacific media are not solely the work of rogue elements in the news media, they are structural in nature. These factors are not helped by draconian legislation which is supposedly intended to ensure fairness, but in fact only further squeezes already restricted journalists.

This situation underscores the need for further research, which can identify and offer informed solutions to the problems in the sector. Yet, scholarships and fellowships for Pacific media research are as rare as hen’s teeth.

Furthermore, Wang’s Pacific visit and China’s activities in the region are a wake-up call for regional media as to the urgent need for capacity-building. Any remedial actions should be informed by research and need to consider problems in a holistic manner.

As we have seen, “band-aid’ solutions at best provide only temporary relief, and at worst misdiagnose the problem.

This China fiasco is also a reminder to care about Pacific journalists, try to understand them and show concern for their welfare. We should not regard journalists as merely blunt instruments of news reporting.

Rather, a free and democratic media is the lifeblood of a free and democratic Pacific.

Dr Shailendra B Singh is the head of journalism at the University of the South Pacific and a research fellow at the Australian National University. This article was first published by ANU’s Asia and the Pacific Policy Society Policy Forum and is republished here with the author’s permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A View from Afar – In this podcast, political scientist Paul Buchanan and Selwyn Manning analyse how the Pacific region has become the epicentre of foreign policy assertions from the region’s, and the world’s, powers.

This month has seen the United States President Joe Biden forward commit to increasing the USA’s presence in the Pacific. The announcement was pitched during a Whitehouse meeting in Washington DC with New Zealand’s Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern.

Meanwhile, at the same time, the People’s Republic of China’s foreign minister Wang Yi was on a whistle-stop series of meetings with Pacific regional leaders, seeking mutual agreements on investment, infrastructure development, and security.

And back in China, the PRC took exception to this element of the US-NZ joint statement where Biden and Ardern jointly stated: “… we note with concern the security agreement between the People’s Republic of China and the Solomon Islands. In particular, the United States and New Zealand share a concern that the establishment of a persistent military presence in the Pacific by a state that does not share our values or security interests would fundamentally alter the strategic balance of the region and pose national-security concerns to both our countries.”

That position compelled China’s spokesperson for its Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Zhao Lijian, to state: “We noted the relevant contents of the joint statement, which distorts and smears China’s normal cooperation with Pacific Island countries, deliberately hypes up the South China Sea issue, makes irresponsible remarks on and grossly interferes in China’s internal affairs including issues related to Taiwan, Xinjiang and Hong Kong. China is firmly opposed to this.”

New Zealand is now positioned squarely on the fault-line between two opposing global powers.

Now add into the foreign policy mix the election of a new Labor Government in Australia where Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was quickly sworn in alongside his cabinet and then whisked off to a QUAD security pact leaders’ summit, and, most recently has met with his Indonesian counterpart, President Joko Widodo, to discuss securing a more cooperative relationship between the two regional powers.

In this episode of A View from Afar Paul Buchanan and Selwyn Manning deep-dive into these events to determine what this all means and where the shifting sands of Pacific foreign policy is heading.

One this is for sure, the Pacific Islands Forum leaders’ summit this year will be important and interesting.

You can comment on this debate by clicking on one of these social media channels and interacting in the social media’s comment area. Here are the links:

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

If you miss the LIVE Episode, you can see it as video-on-demand, and earlier episodes too, by checking out EveningReport.nz or, subscribe to the Evening Report podcast here.

The MIL Network’s podcast A View from Afar was Nominated as a Top  Defence Security Podcast by Threat.Technology – a London-based cyber security news publication.

Threat.Technology placed A View from Afar at 9th in its 20 Best Defence Security Podcasts of 2021 category. You can follow A View from Afar via our affiliate syndicators.

As China seeks greater influence in the South Pacific, its manipulation of local news outlets is having a serious impact on media independence.

Most Pacific media organisations are struggling financially, many journalists have lost their jobs and China is offering a way for them to survive — at the cost of media freedom.

It’s not just the “no strings attached” financial aid and “look and learn” tours of China for journalists; it’s about sharing an autocratic media model.

Prominent journalists and media executives say Pacific leaders are copying Chinese media tactics and stopping them from doing their jobs.

China is one of the worst countries in the world for media freedom. It ranks 177 on the Reporters Without Borders World Press Freedom Index.

Now it’s trying to influence media around the world, especially in countries which have signed up to its Belt and Road Initiative. That includes 10 Pacific island nations. Four remain with Taiwan.

China has spent an estimated US$6.6 billion over 13 years strengthening its global media presence. It took over Radio Australia’s shortwave transmitter frequencies in the Pacific when the ABC shut down its shortwave service in 2017.

Satellite service for Vanuatu
China’s national television service is about to start broadcasting by satellite into Vanuatu.

In a 2020 report, the International Federation of Journalists warned that foreign journalists were wooed by exchange programs, opportunities to study in China, tours and financial aid for their media outlets. Beijing also provides free content in foreign newspapers and ambassadors write opinion pieces for local media.

The federation’s report found that journalists frequently think their media is strong enough to withstand this influence, but a global survey suggests that’s not the reality and China is reshaping the media round the world.

These attempts at ‘sharp power’ go beyond simply telling China’s story, according to Sarah Cook, research director for China, Hong Kong and Taiwan at Freedom House. Their sharper edge often undermines democratic norms, erodes national sovereignty, weakens the financial sustainability of independent media, and violates local laws.

Journalists say this is an ideological and political struggle, with China determined to combat what it sees as decades of unchallenged Western media imperialism.

There’s mounting evidence from the Pacific of the impact of Beijing’s worldwide campaign, particularly in Solomon Islands and Vanuatu.

The situation for journalists in Solomon Islands has rapidly changed since the country swapped diplomatic allegiance from Taipei to Beijing in 2019. Media freedom has deteriorated and journalists say leaders are now taking their cues from China.

Vulnerable media outlets
Media outlets are vulnerable to offers of financial help. Many journalists have lost jobs and others haven’t been paid for months. It’s estimated there are just 16 full-time journalists left in Honiara.

There’s been little advertising since the November 2021 riots, a situation exacerbated by the covid pandemic. The only income for one privately owned media outlet is from the small street sales of its newspapers.

Earlier this month, the Solomon Islands government held its first news conference for 2022 after months of pressure to talk to journalists. The government denied there were restrictions on media freedom.

As the media struggles to survive, China’s ambassador is offering support, such as more trips to China (after the pandemic) and donations including two vehicles to the Solomon Star and maintenance of the newspaper’s printing presses. In the experience of other media, these offers are often followed with pressure to adhere to editorial positions congruent with those of the Chinese embassy.

While some journalists are resisting the pressure and holding a strong line, others are being targeted by China with rewards for “friends”.

Chinese embassies throughout the South Pacific are active on social media. In Solomon Islands, the embassy’s Facebook site includes posts about its aid assistance for covid-19, joint press releases with the Solomons government and stories from official Chinese news outlets.

There are numerous examples of the growing impact on media freedom.

Harassment over investigation
A freelance journalist has relocated to Australia after her investigations into the relationship between Solomons Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare and a Chinese businessman resulted in harassment from police. She said police told her an order for her arrest came directly from the prime minister.

She was advised by Australia’s high commissioner to move to Australia for her safety.

Veteran journalist Dorothy Wickham was among a group of Solomon Islands journalists who accepted an invitation for a “look and learn” tour of China soon after the Sogavare government swapped allegiance to China in 2019.

She said the trip left her concerned about how Solomon Islands would deal with its new diplomatic partner.

“By the time our tour concluded in Shanghai, I was personally convinced that our political leaders are not ready or able to deal effectively with China. Solomon Islands’ regulatory and accountability mechanisms are too weak,” she says.

“We have already shown some spirit with our attorney-general rejecting a hasty deal to lease the island of Tulagi, the capital of one of our provinces, to a Chinese company, but I fear how fragile and weak my country is against any large developed nation let alone China,’ she wrote in an article for The Guardian.

One senior media executive that said if his own government, Australia, and New Zealand didn’t assist, he would look to China.

“There is too much talk about the role of media in democracy,” he said. He thought the Chinese ambassador understood that his organisation had its own editorial policy.

Soon after that, though, he was asked to publish a press release word for word.

No expense spared
Another media executive said he only had to ring the Chinese embassy and help arrived. He said China was rapidly moving into his country’s media space with no expense spared.

High-profile Vanuatu journalist Dan McGarry says he has no doubt that some Pacific governments are following China’s lead and adopting its contempt for critical speech and dissent.

In 2019, McGarry left Vanuatu to attend a forum in Australia, but his visa was revoked and he was banned from re-entering Vanuatu. He told the ABC’s Media Watch programme at the time that he had no doubt it was because of a story he wrote about the secret deportation of six Chinese from Vanuatu.

The six were arrested and detained without charge on the premises of a Chinese company with numerous large government contracts before being escorted out of Vanuatu by Chinese and Vanuatu police. McGarry said he was summoned by the prime minister, who told him he was disappointed with his negative reporting.

McGarry said he had no evidence that China tried to influence the Vanuatu government over his residence, but he’d seen a tendency in Pacific leaders to emulate behaviour they saw elsewhere.

Now back in Vanuatu, he said the decision to refuse his work permit was still under judicial review and he’s seeking financial compensation.

In 2018, Papua New Guinea journalist Scott Waide was suspended by EMTV under pressure from Prime Minister Peter O’Neill for a story he wrote about a diplomatic Chinese tantrum and a scandal over the purchase of Maserati cars for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meeting in Port Moresby.

Waide told the ABC that Pacific governments were taking lessons from China in dealing with their critics using media clampdowns and intimidation. That didn’t necessarily involve direct instructions from Beijing, “but people watch, people learn”.

Head of news sacked
A dispute over media freedom has escalated with the sacking of the head of news and 24 journalists at EMTV in PNG. They were initially suspended but later terminated for supporting their editor over interference from a government minister about a story involving an Australian man charged with drug trafficking.

On March 9, the EMTV news manager was sacked for insubordination. The network has since hired a new team of recent graduates with little experience — just months before the scheduled elections in June.

These examples give a sharper edge to concerns about China’s growing influence in the South Pacific and the lack of an Australian media voice there. The ABC’s presence has been described as a whisper.

There’s only one Australian journalist based in the region, the ABC’s Natalie Whiting in PNG. Meanwhile, Xinhua has a correspondent based in Fiji and China has recently been recruiting Pacific journalists for its global TV network.

The situation worries Australia’s national broadcaster. ABC managing director David Anderson told a Senate hearing in February 2022 of growing Chinese influence in the Pacific.

“The single biggest piece of information that comes back to us from the public broadcasters is concern over the pressure the Chinese government put on them to carry content,” he said.

In November 2019, the Melanesian Media Freedom Forum at Griffith University expressed concern about growing threats to media freedom. It called on Pacific governments to fund public broadcasters properly to ensure they have sufficient equipment and staff to enable their services to reach all citizens and to adequately play their watchdog role.

Australian journalist, media development consultant and trainer Jemima Garrett says media executives are at risk of being captured by China.

She has no doubt that China’s growing influence is a major story, but with so few Australian journalists based in the region, even significant developments in the China story are going unreported.

Sue Ahearn is the creator and co-editor of The Pacific Newsroom and co-convenor of the Australia Asia Pacific Media Initiative. She was a senior executive at ABC Radio Australia and is currently studying Pacific development at the Australian National University. Image: Media Association of Solomon Islands/Facebook. This article was first published by The Strategist and is republished with the author’s permission.

• Author’s note: Some of the Pacific journalists in this story have asked not to be named or identified because of the sensitivity of the issue.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz