SPECIAL REPORT: By Scott Waide, RNZ Pacific PNG correspondent

The nauseating stench of dried blood hung in the air as we arrived in Karida village, a few kilometers outside of Tari in Papua New Guinea’s Hela province.

Through the landcruiser window, I could see two men carrying a corpse wrapped in blue cloth and a tarpaulin. They were walking towards the hastily dug graveyard.

This was July 2019.

A longstanding tribal fight by various factions in the Tagali area of the Hela province had triggered this attack. Several armed men came at dawn. The residents, mostly women and children, bore the brunt of the brutality.

The then Provincial Administrator, William Bando, advised us against travelling alone when we arrived in Tari. He requested a section of the PNG Defence Force to take us to Karida where the killings had happened less than 24 hours before.

Two men carrying the corpse, hesitated as we arrived with the soldiers. One of the soldiers ordered the men to disarm. The others who carried weapons fled into the nearby bush.

On the side of the road, the bodies of 15 women and one man lay tightly wrapped in cloth. The older men and women came out to meet the soldiers.

The village chief, Hokoko Minape, distraught by the unimaginable loss, wept beside the vehicle as he tried to explain what had happened.

“This, I have never seen in my life. This is new,” he said in Tok Pisin.

Complexity of tribal conflicts and media attention
For an outsider, the roots of tribal conflicts in Papua New Guinea are difficult to understand. There are myriad factors at play, including the province, district, tribe, clan and customs.

But what’s visible is the violence.

The conflicts are usually reported on when large numbers of people are killed. The intense media focus lasts for days . . . maybe a month . . . and then, news priorities shift in the daily grind of local and international coverage.

Some conflicts rage for years and sporadic payback killings continue. It is subtle as it doesn’t attract national attention. It is insidious and cancerous — slowly destroying families and communities. In many instances, police record the one off murders as the result of alcohol related brawls or some other cause.

The tensions simmer just below boiling point. But it affects the education of children and dictates where people congregate and who they associate with.

Although, the villagers at Karida were not directly involved in the fighting, they were accused of providing refuge to people who fled from neighboring villagers. The attackers came looking for the refugees and found women and children instead.

The Deputy Commissioner for Police responsible for specialist operations, Donald Yamasombi, who has personally investigated instances of arms smuggling, said the traditional trade of drugs for guns along the eastern and southern borders of Papua New Guinea is largely a thing of the past.

“People are paying cash for guns. They are bringing in the weapons and then legitimising them through licensing,” Yamasombi said. “The businessmen who fund them actually run legitimate businesses.”

The involvement of political players is a subject many will state only behind closed doors.

In the highlands, the hire men are a recent addition to the complex socio-political ecosystem of tribal and national politics. Political power and money have come to determine how hire men are used during elections. They are tools of intimidation and coercion. The occupation is a lucrative means of money making during what is supposed to be a “free and fair” electoral process.

“Money drives people to fight,” Yamasombi said. “Without the source of money, there would be no incentive. There is incentive to fight.”

Rules of war
At the end of elections, the hire men usually end up back in the communities and continue the cycle of violence.

In February, Papua New Guineans on social media watched in horror as the death toll from a tribal clash in Enga province rose from a few dozen to 70 in a space of a few hours as police retrieved bodies from nearby bushes.

The majority of the men killed were members of a tribe who had been ambushed as they staged an attack.

Traditional Engan society is highly structured. The Enga cultural center in the center of Wabag town, the Take Anda, documents the rules of war that dictated the conduct of warriors.

Traditionally, mass killings or killings in general were avoided. The economic cost of reparations were too high, the ongoing conflicts were always hard to manage and were, obviously, detrimental to both parties in the long run.

Engans, who I spoke to on the condition of anonymity, said high powered guns had changed the traditional dynamics.

Chiefs and elders who once commanded power and status were now replaced by younger men with money and the means to buy and own weapons. This has had a direct influence on provincial and national politics as well as traditional governance structures.

The unusual level of violence and the use of guns left many Papua New Guineans confused. Milne Bay province, widely known as a peaceful tourism hub, suffered a massive PR hit with embassies issuing travel warnings to their citizens.

In Pindiu, Morobe province, the widespread use of homemade weapons resulted in the deaths of a local peace officer and women and children in a long running conflict in 2015.

The Morobe Provincial Government sent mediators to Pindiu to facilitate peace negotiations. Provincial and national government are usually hesitant to intervene directly in tribal conflicts by arresting the perpetrators of violence.

This is largely due to the government’s inability to maintain security presence in tribal fighting areas for long periods.

Angoram killings
Two weeks ago, 26 women and children were killed in yet another attack in Angoram, East Sepik.

Five people have been arrested over the killings. But locals who did not wish to be named said the ring leaders of the gang of 30 are still at large.

Angoram is a classic example of a district that is difficult to police.

The villages are spread out over the vast wetlands of the Sepik River. While additional police from Wewak have been deployed, there is no real guarantee that the men and women who witnessed the violence will be protected if they choose to testify in court.

Will new legislations and policy help?
The Enga massacre dominated the February sitting of Parliament. Recent changes were made to gun laws and stricter penalties prescribed. But while legislators have responded, enforcement remains weak.

The killers of the 16 people at Karida remain at large. Many of those responsible for the massacre in Enga have not been arrested even with widely circulated video footage available on social media.

In April, the EU, UN and the PNG government hosted a seminar aimed at formulating a national gun control policy.

The seminar revisited recommendations made by former PNG Defence Force Commander, retired Major-General Jerry Singirok.

One of the recommendations was for the licensing powers of the Police Commissioner as Registrar of Firearms to be taken away and for a mechanism to buy back firearms in the community.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Papua New Guinea police have arrested three men and seized a stockpile of unlicensed firearms, ammunition, explosives and other illegal items in a raid in Western Highlands province last week.

The arrests identified a further seven men who were alleged to be part of a blackmarket network who move the illegal items from Western Highlands into the upper Highlands provinces. They were also arrested.

About 800 rounds of ammunition, firearms, explosives and other illegal items were  confiscated from the trio, including a Winchester shotgun, shotgun belts, sniper scopes, a Glock pistol and a hand grenade.

Deputy Commissioner of Police-Operations Dr Philip Mitna confirmed that a security operation had been carried out.

“Illegal firearms and drug trade is an ongoing issue in the highlands,” he said.

Firearms and live ammunition are smuggled into many border provinces linked by the Okuk Highway.

“A security team in Hela had made surveillance on firearms and ammunition. They visited Hagen (travelling in from Tari) and engaged with Hagen police, who organised raids and executed two search warrants on July 30, 2023, and effected several arrests,” Deputy Commissioner Mitna said.

Regular arms supply
According to information received by the Post-Courier newspaper, there is a regular ammunition and firearms supply arriving from illegal dealers in the Highlands eastern end and this is supplied to the western end, which includes Hela, Enga and Southern Highlands.

“With the continued tribal fights in Hela and Enga provinces and other criminal activities involving firearms, the intelligence had confirmed most of the ammunition was being bought from Jiwaka and Mt Hagen dealers,” Deputy Commissioner Mitna said.

“So far, the number of people being detained has increased to 10, and we anticipate more arrests. Among those arrested included a prominent businessman and security firm owner in Mt Hagen.”

According to the findings and assessment by security personnel, the Western Highlands share has built up to 80 percent of illegal ammunition and has been supplying other provinces.

The team tracked persons of interest from Tari to Mt Hagen and sought assistance, leading to several search warrants being executed by police with support from the PNG Defence Force Reconnaissance Unit.

The arrests of the 10 men came as the operations were executed in two-week intervals and continued last month.

The arrest of a local man in Hides started an investigation into the proliferation and movement of firearms and ammunition within the Highlands region.

Allegedly involved in kidnappings
The man who was picked up in Hides was allegedly involved in the recent series of kidnappings and ransom and incidents in Mt Bosavi, Southern Highlands, and parts of Western Province.

The arrest of the man in Hides and nine more in Mt Hagen led to the uncovering of a large stash of unlicensed firearms and varieties of live ammunition, including a hand grenade as well as several other illegal items at a home in Newtown, Mt Hagen.

According to reports, the intelligence gathered led to the arrest of the main suspect  who was apprehended in Mt Hagen. He is alleged to be the main supplier and distributor of unlicensed weapons and ammunition in the tribal fighting zones in the Highlands region as well as other parts of PNG.

On Tuesday, August 1, 2023, the main suspect was formally cautioned and formally charged with 10 counts under the newly Amended Firearms Act 2022 and two counts under the Explosive Act (chapter 308) respectively.

The charges are:

• Two counts of unlawfully in possession of unlicensed Firearms under section 65 (c)(ii) of the Amendment Firearms Act, 2022;
• Eight counts of unlawfully in possession of unlicensed live ammunitions under the section 65A (a) of the Amendment Firearms Act, 2022; and
• Two counts of unlawfully in possession of unlicensed explosive under the section 14(1) of the Explosive Act, Chapter 308.

The other nine men were still being interviewed and were being processed.

Police investigations were continuing.

Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

It has been an interesting couple of weeks for Solomon Islands, with stories of policing, weapons, replica weapons and a security agreement with China dominating the local and regional media.

Let’s start with the issue of arming the police. After the tensions, for a long time Solomon police did not carry arms but this is an exception in our history.

Indeed, the precursor of the Royal Solomon Islands Police Force (RSIPF) created during the early colonial era was known as the “BSIP Armed Constabulary”.

For as long as I can remember, our police have had access to some form of arms stored in the armoury. Their use traditionally was ceremonial, mostly during parades.

In fact, many of us who used to watch their parades loved to hear the sound made when the police and marine units lifted the guns as they responded to the orders of the parade commander.

The only time the weapons were used in my lifetime was during the Bougainville crisis and during the ethnic tensions.

The Bougainville crisis necessitated the importation by the Solomon Islands government of high-powered guns because of incursions by armed Papua New Guinean soldiers across the border and their use against Solomon Islands citizens at the PNG-Solomon Islands border.

Weapons bought via US broker
I recall that importation as at that time I was a legal adviser in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The weapons were purchased from the US via a broker in Singapore.

Some questions were asked but, given the circumstances, their importation was justifiable.

A diplomatic request was made for their temporary storage in Australia before they were shipped to Honiara. These were government-procured arms and the procurement procedures for their acquisition duly complied with government procurement processes.

I have been advocating for some time the rearmament of the RSIPF and I am also supportive of the RSIPF to be trained by whoever can provide it. Many police officers have been trained in the US, Taiwan, Australia, UK, Singapore, New Zealand and Fiji.

Thus, I have no particular issues with them being trained by Chinese advisers as was the case recently.

However, I do have issues if the RSIPF is going to equip itself with high-powered guns, whether real ones (as supplied by Australia) or fake ones (as supplied by China). These concerns are exacerbated by the current level of secrecy and confusion around the security arrangements.

Firstly, it is questionable whether it is necessary for the RSIPF to be armed with high-powered weapons. Perhaps there are still a number of guns that were taken from the armoury that are still in the hands of former MEF (Malaitan Eagle Force) militants.

Moreover, this information might be known by a key member of the current political coalition who is a former MEF commander. Perhaps the police just want to be prepared.

Memories of the ethnic tensions
However, we also should not forget what happened 22 years ago during the ethnic tensions, when the armoury was compromised by police giving weapons to militants and militants raiding the armoury for weapons — weapons which were then used by Solomon Islanders to intimidate and kill their fellow citizens.

Members of the public are also genuinely concerned about the manner in which the Chinese fake guns were imported into the country — via a logging vessel which is, to say the least, an unusual means of transporting official government goods.

The shifting narratives from the Police Commissioner about this incident have raised more questions than they have answered.

There are also broader questions. Is security created through arming the police? Or should we instead focus on an approach to security whereby the community is recognised as a partner in building and maintaining peace, and build on the long history Solomon Islanders have of brokering conflict among themselves?

While, as I said, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with arming the police, the focus needs to be on using community policing, chiefs, and youth leaders to broker conflicts. It is unfortunate when the ordinary citizens of the country are viewed not as partners in development, but as threat to the hegemony and hold on power by some people.

Last year’s riots and covid-19 have revealed many underlying governance weaknesses. As I have argued earlier, they are symptomatic of a society that has become increasingly less pluralistic, and of political and economic institutions that have become less inclusive.

Then there is the leaked security agreement with China, which has exacerbated existing unease among the public about China. The increasing engagement with China is explained by the Prime Minister as an attempt by the government to diversify its engagement on security.

Chinese naval base unlikely
It is unlikely that China will build a naval base in Solomon Islands. The agreement does not specify that it will and, although it could be construed that way, the reality is that it is not going to happen.

Australia is already building a patrol base in Lofung, in the Shortland Islands which borders Papua New Guinea, and has announced that they will build another one in the eastern Solomon Islands. I would venture to suggest that the capacity of these investments should cater for a naval base if the need ever arises in the future.

What is unprecedented about this security arrangement is that it allows China, with the consent of the Solomon Islands government, to send armed personnel to protect its citizens and assets.

It also prohibits any publicity around these arrangements. It is ironic that a prime minister who invariably extols the virtues of national sovereignty should agree to cede a fundamental sovereign function — the protection of lives and property — to a foreign force.

It is not clear if this is inadvertent, but it would seem that its ramifications have not been thought through.

The security arrangement has also raised concerns in the region. The President of the Federated States of Micronesia has written to Prime Minister Sogavare requesting that he reconsider it.

There is perhaps nothing intrinsically wrong with Solomon Islands signing a security agreement with China. There should, however, be coherence with similar arrangements with other countries, which focus on the capacity of the Solomon Islands Police Force to deal with internal security uprisings, and preferably all assistance should be within a regional framework supported by the Pacific Islands Forum.

Cannot choose neighbours
While a country may choose its friends, it cannot choose its neighbours.

In Solomon Islands today, there is no opportunity for policy debate by the public except on Facebook. The public and constituents do not have the same ease of access to our ministers and prime minister as embassy officials, and mining and logging CEOs.

Such is the current degree of polarisation that any criticism or comment is viewed by the current political coalition as “anti-government”. There does not seem to be any scope for dissenting views, or even constructive ideas from outside the inner circle, to be accommodated.

Unless a more pluralistic society is promoted where people’s views are welcomed, and there are more inclusive political and economic institutions, the government will be forced to depend on regional troops to support it.

At some stage, regional partners must hold Solomon Islands politicians to account for the economic and political situation they have created and the resulting violence such as the rioting last year.

The current focus on arms, without attention to rights and responsibilities, cannot and should not be sustained.

Dr Transform Aqorau is CEO of iTuna Intel and founding director, Pacific Catalyst, and a legal adviser to the Marshall Islands. He is the former CEO of the Parties to the Nauru Agreement Office. This article was first published by Devpolicy Blog from the Development Policy Centre at The Australian National University and is republished under a Creative Commons licence.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) demands the immediate and unconditional release of Lady Ann Salem, a Manila-based alternative journalist who was arrested on a firearms charge at the end of a raid on her home in which the police planted the evidence.

The co-founder of the alternative media network Altermidya and editor of the Manila Today news site, Salem – also known as “Icy” Salem – is now facing up to 20 years in prison on a trumped-up charge of illegal possession of firearms and explosives, a charge that does not allow release on bail.

When the police arrived at her home in a Manila suburb at around 9 am on December 10, they refused to let her contact her lawyer and made her turn her face to the wall while they carried out a search.

“While I was forced to turn my back for an hour, they planted the evidence,” she managed to tell another journalist as she was being led away to a police vehicle.

The police claim they found four .45 pistols and four grenades during the search.

“The police clearly planted the evidence to incriminate ‘Icy’ Salem in an utterly shameless manner,” said Daniel Bastard, the head of RSF’s Asia-Pacific desk.

“In view of their shocking methods, we demand this journalist’s immediate and unconditional release. This latest attack on independent media by the Philippine authorities just discredits President Rodrigo Duterte’s government on the international stage.”

‘Red-tagging’
The police used exactly the same method when they arrested Frenchie Mae Cumpio, the editor of the Eastern Vista news website in the eastern city of Tacloban on February 7. Police officers planted firearms in her home when carrying out her arrest.

Like Manila Today, Eastern Vista is part of the Altermidya network of alternative media outlets that are committed to independent journalism and to defending the most marginalised sectors of Philippine society.

As a result, they are routinely branded as communist by the authorities, a process known as “red-tagging.”

A hangover from the Cold War and, before that, from when the country was a US colony, “red-tagging” is a typically Philippine practice under which dissenting individuals or groups, including journalists and media outlets, are identified to the police and paramilitaries as legitimate targets for arbitrary arrest or, worse still, summary execution.

Relentless war
During a parliamentary hearing on December 1, the government-run National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict (NTF-ELCAC) formally labelled members of the Altermidya network as violent communist activists without presenting a “shred of evidence” in support of this claim.

Altermidya is the latest victim of the Duterte administration’s relentless war against independent media. Its targets include Maria Ressa, the founder and CEO of the independent news website Rappler, who had to post bail and appear in court on December 4 as a result of a new warrant for her arrest on a charge of online criminal defamation.

Ressa is currently the subject of at least eight different cases by various government agencies.

Last July, the irascible and authoritarian president’s supporters in congress drove the final nails into the coffin of the country’s biggest radio and TV network, ABS-CBN, by refusing to give it a new franchise, after previously refusing to extend its 25-year franchise when it expired in May.

The Philippines is ranked 136th out of 180 countries in RSF’s 2020 World Press Freedom Index.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Retired and serving police officers in Papua New Guinea are being investigated for alleged offences such as gun-smuggling, fraud and theft, according to Police Minister Bryan Kramer.

It includes “massive corruption at the police headquarters in Port Moresby by retired and serving senior police officers”.

“Cases now under investigation are the smuggling of firearms, land/housing fraud, payroll fraud, drugs, fuel theft, insurance scam, stealing from the retired officers’ pension fund and misusing police allowances,” Kramer said.

“Investigations are halfway complete in most of the cases.

“Arrests will be done at the completion of the investigations.”

Kramer said the “massive corruption” at police headquarters in Konedobu was done during the term of the previous government led by former Prime Minister Peter O’Neill.

Kramer said the police force, once described as a national pride, had been “reduced to a private security business serving corrupt politicians and dodgy foreign businessmen”.

Weapons on-sold to province
Meanwhile, a source at police headquarters said detectives were struggling with the investigations into the smuggling of guns allegations because the suspects were retired senior police officers.

“These retired senior officers purchased firearms for the police force and brought them into the country,” the source said.

“However, the firearms were then smuggled out of Port Moresby to another province by a private security company.”

Clifford Faiparik is a reporter for The National newspaper in Papua New Guinea. The Pacific Media Centre republishes National articles with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

By Philip Cass

Former Prime Minister Lord Tu’ivakano will be sentenced at the end of next month after being found guilty in the Supreme Court yesterday of three charges, including making a false statement for the purpose of obtaining a passport and perjury.

The offences in what was known as the Chinese passport scandal were committed in 2015, but he was not charged until 2018.

Local media reported that the jury retired at 4pm and were back in just over half an hour.

READ MORE: Former PM denies bribery, firearms, perjury charges over Chinese passport scandal

RNZ reported earlier that six charges of bribery and money laundering in relation to the issuance of Tongan passports to Chinese nationals had been dropped.

As Kaniva News reported last week, it was originally alleged that between 2013-2014, while serving as Minister for Foreign Affairs, he accepted money to issue Tongan passports to various Chinese nationals.

The amounts involved were said to range from TP$3000 (NZ$2052) to TP$199,408.94 (NZ$136,460).

These allegations were withdrawn and not heard.

Firearm charge
Crown Prosecutor Semisi Lutui told the court, the Attorney-General had advised against proceeding with the charges.

The presiding judge, Lord Chief Justice Whitten, will sentence Lord Tu’ivikano on charges of three counts of making a false statement for the purpose of obtaining a passport, perjury and possession of 212 pieces of ammunition without a licence.

Last week, the former Prime Minister pleaded guilty to possessing a .22 rifle without a licence.

The firearm and ammunition charges stemmed from a police search of his home  in Nuku’alofa on March 1, 2018.

Lord Tu’ivakano was  accused of making a false statement on the grounds that on July 17, 2015 he wrote a letter to the Immigration Division of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, stating that Hua Guo and Xing Lui were naturalised as Tongans on October 29, 2014.

On the charge of perjury, it was alleged that on December 21, 2015, he made an oath in an affidavit, stating that these two were naturalised during his tenure as the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Ministry and that naturalisation Tongan passports were then issued to them, knowing this statement was false.

He was further charged with making a false statement, in that on July 17, 2015 with the purpose of obtaining a passport for Hua Guo and Xing Liu, and with intent to deceive the Immigration Division of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the accused wrote a letter to the Immigration Division, stating that these two were naturalised as Tongans on October 29, 2014, and he had reasonable cause to believe that statement was misleading.

He was bailed on condition that he surrender his passport and not leave Tongatapu.

Lord Tu’ivakano is still a member of Parliament as a Noble’s Representative.

Philip Cass is associate editor of Pacific Journalism Review and a research associate of the Pacific Media Centre. This article is republished under a partnership agreement with Kaniva Tonga.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

by Dr Bryce Edwards

As a political commentator, I’ve never experienced anything like it – the phone calls and email requests for interviews from international media have been constant. Broadcasters and journalists all want to discuss the Christchurch terrorist attack and the aftermath. But mostly they want to discuss Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern.

There is a huge fascination with who she is, what she is about, and how she has managed the events following the attacks on Muslims in Christchurch two weeks ago. For example, yesterday, I spent two hours talking to a German journalist who had flown over here specifically to write a major profile on Ardern for readers in that country.

The strong consensus – both here and abroad – is that Ardern has demonstrated extraordinarily impressive leadership since the terrorist atrocities. Numerous commentaries have celebrated her emotional and empathetic response, combined with her strength and “steeliness” in taking decisive action on matters such as gun control and victim support, her correctness in labelling the murders as “terrorism”, and her ability to project and foster unity (when there is a tendency towards division, even from many of her own supporters).

Below are some of the more interesting articles published in response to Ardern’s handling of the terrorist attacks.

One of the first important international articles praising Ardern’s performance was by academic and Washington Post foreign affairs writer, Ishaan Tharoor – see: The world is watching New Zealand’s Jacinda Ardern. In this, he outlined the Prime Minister’s previous progressive credentials, which had “burnished her image as a global feminist icon”, and painted her handling of the Christchurch situation as a continuation of this trend.

Also in the Washington Post, Anna Fifield has written a good overall account of the global reaction – see: New Zealand’s prime minister receives worldwide praise for her response to the mosque shootings.

Writing in India, Ahamad Fuwad puts together a list of seven reasons Ardern’s leadership since the atrocity has been a success – see: How to deal with tragedy: New Zealand PM Jacinda Ardern sets an example for world leaders, emerges as liberal mascot.

Writing for the Sydney Morning Herald, Nick O’Malley and Deborah Snow labelled Ardern’s leadership as: A masterclass from New Zealand in responding to terror. They asserted Ardern’s achievements: “If there had been quiet criticism in some circles that she was an inexperienced leader with as much stardust as substance, that has now been put to rest. Ardern has been a commanding figure of poise, compassion and strength, a textbook example to other world leaders about how to respond in the face of mass casualty terrorist attacks.”

I’m quoted in this article, on the strategic nature of Ardern’s careful leadership: “Firstly, she seeks to ensure that the division the gunman sought to sow between New Zealand Muslims and the greater community does not take hold. Secondly, she wants to head off the potential for a culture war inside her country, with elements of the left seeking to identify racism in New Zealand society as the cause of the attack and sections of the right using it to impugn immigration or the Islamic community itself. Thirdly Ardern – no doubt on the advice of police and intelligence agencies – has security implications in mind… By positioning New Zealand itself as the victim of the attack as well as its Muslim community, and by demonstrating unity with that community, Ardern is intent on reducing the potential for revenge attacks.”

Writing on this last point, the Guardian’s Jonathan Powell praises Ardern, saying she has “almost single-handedly managed to avoid the attacks becoming a cause of further tit-for-tat violence around the world” – see: If Jacinda Ardern was in No 10, imagine how different Brexit would be.

Powell’s column compares Ardern and Theresa May, saying both are having “to lead as their countries confront one of the greatest man-made crises they have ever faced.” He imagines a scenario in which the countries have swapped leaders: “If the United Kingdom had been led by Ardern we might still have had Brexit, but we would not have ended up with this national humiliation, a divided society and an imperilled economy. If May had been prime minister of New Zealand at her robotic worst, God knows what would have happened after the massacres.”

Ardern’s very high level of emotional intelligence is cited by Powell as the key strength that has allowed her to triumph. And he explains the importance of this quality for leaders dealing with national tragedies: “That is the sort of intelligence a leader needs. They must be able to understand what people feel and channel it, as Blair did at the time of Princess Diana’s death. Ardern managed that brilliantly in the way she expressed the grief of the people of New Zealand about the mass-murder in the mosques.”

Jamila Rizvi, the editor of Future Women magazine discusses whether Ardern’s “typically feminine behaviour” has served her and New Zealand so well – see: Jacinda Ardern just proved typically ‘feminine’ behaviour is powerful.

Rizvi suggests that Ardern is leading in a very different way to her counterparts, throwing away the “traditional script for a world leader reacting to a terrorist attack on home soil”, which is normally about “power and retribution”. As well as pointing out that Ardern has focused on the victims instead of the perpetrator, and put her energy into fostering unity rather than division, she says Ardern is outwardly-focused, rather than trying to get people to concentrate on her: “Instead, she listens. She comforts not by instruction but by making space for the thoughts and feelings of others.”

And politicians everywhere, male and female, could learn from this: “Authenticity and compassion go beyond gender, or race, or religion, or next week’s polling numbers. Authenticity is an atheist leader donning hijab without thinking about the ‘optics’, but simply because it’s the right and respectful thing to do.”

This leads onto perhaps one of the best international pieces about Ardern’s leadership – Rosa Silverman’s Ardern shows the leadership the world has been missing.

First, Silverman outlines how she sees Ardern’s leadership over this period: “infused with emotional intelligence and warmth, she has thrown her arms around a grieving nation and is visibly striving, with every fibre of her being, to heal its still open wounds. This is what leadership looks like. Sometimes you have to see it up close to understand what it is you have been missing. Ardern has walked hand-in-hand with those affected by the horror – literally, but also figuratively. She has pressed her face against theirs, presenting to the world the most powerful image of unity we could hope a politician might give.”

Silverman also contrasts the New Zealand Prime Minister with Theresa May: “When Britain’s Prime Minister, Theresa May, was confronted with a moment like this – the death of 72 people in the Grenfell Tower fire of June 2017 – her response was precisely the opposite: cold, stilted, detached. She projected none of Ardern’s conviction. She did not even meet with survivors the first time she visited the site. Here was a situation crying out for leadership, which our leader was ill-equipped to offer.”

Other world leaders are also being unfavourably compared to Ardern. The Guardian’s Suzanne Moore said “We have seen the qualities that define leadership in such a way that it is clear she is a lioness and that to call so many of our current leaders donkeys is a disservice to hardworking donkeys the world over” – see: Jacinda Ardern is showing the world what real leadership is: sympathy, love and integrity.

As with many such international pieces, this article seized on Ardern’s smackdown of US President Donald Trump: “Asked directly whether she agreed with Donald Trump that rightwing terrorism was not growing, she answered clearly: ‘No.’ How could the US help? ‘Sympathy and love for all Muslim communities.’ Sympathy and love, what kind of leader talks like that in a world where to be tough is to build walls and imprison children or, on our own shores, elevate intransigence and prevarication to new heights?”

In the international media, Ardern is once again being positioned as the “anti-Trump”, and the Financial Times’ Jamie Smyth elaborates on this saying her recent leadership has “cemented her reputation globally as a standard bearer for progressive politics” – see: Jacinda Ardern’s ‘solace and steel’ seen uniting New Zealand.

This article also emphasises that she “confounded domestic critics by displaying a toughness that some doubted she had, publicly criticising Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan for attempting to exploit the attacks ahead of the country’s upcoming election.”

All of these actions and words have led to many suggestions that Ardern should receive the Nobel Peace Prize. For the best discussion of this, see Stephanie Mitchell’s International petition pushes for Jacinda Ardern to get the Nobel Peace Prize.

There’s no doubt that Ardern’s moral mandate and authority has been enhanced in the last two weeks. Even critics and opponents have been full of praise for her. See, for example, 1News’ Judith Collins praises Jacinda Ardern’s handling of Christchurch attack, showing respect by wearing headscarf.

Rightwing political commentator Matthew Hooton has expressed his huge admiration for Ardern’s performance and has even compared her to his own political heroes: “For the Prime Minister, it is as if all her past life has been but a preparation for this hour and for this trial. In the last week Jacinda Ardern has demonstrated the empathy of Ronald Reagan after the Challenger disaster and the steely resolve of Margaret Thatcher after the Brighton hotel bombing. Consequently, New Zealand will heal faster than it may have otherwise” – see: After Christchurch, Ardern’s moment has come.

As a result, he says, “the political context has changed. The Prime Minister has an opportunity to use her new-found ascendancy to act decisively across a range of issues. If she really believes in a CGT, for example, she can now be more assertive in demanding Winston Peters fall into line. Similarly, she need no longer defend failing programmes like KiwiBuild but has more freedom to replace them.”

This doesn’t mean that there are no criticisms of Ardern at all, and some are now starting to emerge, as reported by Tracy Watkins in her column, Will Jacinda Ardern keep her ‘halo’ once domestic realities resume?

This mainly covers a column this week in The Australian newspaper, in which economist Judith Sloan criticises the “deification” of the New Zealand prime minister while “selectively” ignoring failures of leadership – such as allowing only a relatively small increase in refugees, and very little progress on the flagship KiwiBuild housing programme. You can see Sloan’s critique of Ardern here: Remove the halo and Ardern is ordinary.

Watkins herself notes that such questions “will only get louder” and politics will return to usual for Ardern: “Once the realities of domestic politics intrude – and they have already, after a week-long political truce – those expectations may run far ahead of what Ardern can realistically deliver.”

Finally, there has been one particular photograph of Jacinda Ardern that has stood out in the aftermath of the Christchurch atrocities – a poignant image of a sorrowful leader in mourning behind coloured-glass. The story behind the image is also very interesting – see Glen McConnell’s Face of empathy: Jacinda Ardern photo resonates with the world after terror attack.

by Dr Bryce Edwards

As the Christchurch terrorist debate has unfolded, there has been astonishment that New Zealand’s gun laws are so lax. Loopholes and liberal gun laws have been highlighted as a key factor in allowing the alleged gunman to murder 50 people.

Helen Clark has been at the forefront of this concern, complaining with incredulity that the laws could possibly be so bad. She asked: “How can people like these killers be able to have five guns, to legally have five guns? Why do we allow semi-automatics? What is sporting, hunting or recreational about semi-automatics?”

When challenged about her own role in allowing these laws to remain unreformed in the nine years that she was prime minister, she responded by claiming that it wasn’t an issue when she was in power: “I was Prime Minister for nine years, and it never came to the top of the pile… It’s a pity that it wasn’t top of the priority list” – see Vita Molyneux’s Helen Clark reveals why she didn’t change gun laws as Prime Minister.

When it comes to making gun law reform a priority, Clark says “unfortunately someone has to put them there” and “then there has to be the votes for it.” And even if it had been a priority, she claims that the numbers weren’t there to support it while she was prime minister: “With these coalition governments and confidence and supply agreements, sometimes you just don’t have the numbers”.

Clark’s former government colleague, Alliance Cabinet Minister Matt Robson, also says the numbers were a problem under the Clark-led administration, but he remembers things very differently. Robson says he had reform legislation ready for the Clark-led Government to implement, but the Labour caucus decided to block it. This is all recorded in Derek Cheng’s article, Past gun law reform attempts by Labour and National have failed.

This article explains how Robson had been pushing strongly for law reform while in opposition, primarily with a private members’ bill in 1999, and: “When Labour won the election later that year, Robson thought the new Labour-Alliance Coalition would strengthen the bill with the provisions that Labour had previously supported in his own member’s bill. He said he was shocked when he was told that wouldn’t happen because Labour MPs feared losing rural votes.”

According to Robson, “It was our policy. It was their policy. I was very shocked we couldn’t get it through. We had the opportunity. We were the Government. There’s no excuse for not doing it.” The article notes that two Labour ministers from that time – Phil Goff and George Hawkins – dispute Robson’s account.

Cheng’s article also details how other political parties and politicians – especially “Labour, National and NZ First” – have thwarted gun law reform over recent years, “likely in part due to a fear of losing rural votes”.

According to Tracy Watkins, this has all amounted to “years of shameful political self-interest of successive Governments over gun controls”, which the current Government is finally having to clean up after – see: Jacinda Ardern’s gun reforms needed to strike a delicate balance – and they do.

She writes about the shocking fact that it has taken politicians so long to act, when they knew about the problems: “There have been countless warnings sounded about our lax gun laws, including successive inquiries, select committee reports and police investigations.”

There is now a drive to understand why and how gun law reform has been stymied by the politicians for so long. As Michelle Duff and Tom Hunt state: “For almost three decades, successive Governments have missed opportunities to tighten gun control. New Zealand’s gun laws haven’t changed substantially since 1992. But why have we been so relaxed about semi-automatic weapons, and what’s halted change?” – see: Australia took action with its gun laws. Why didn’t New Zealand?

They put forward an answer: “Sustained pressure from gun lobbyists and the reluctance of politicians to push through tougher measures that were not considered a priority – despite a high-powered enquiry and multiple warnings – has meant the status quo has remained.”

Also writing on this question, Laura Walters points out that reform only occurs when public pressure makes it hard for politicians to ignore: “New Zealand has made numerous attempts to change gun laws in recent years. Ardern cited attempts in 2005, 2012 and 2017. There has not been a significant change in more than 26 years. The issue of guns is constantly bubbling away under the surface, with debates rising to the top every time there’s a high-profile incident involving a firearm” – see: Why changing gun laws isn’t that simple.

Walters has also written about this in another important article, saying “It always takes a tragedy. Like many countries, New Zealand has tried on numerous occasions to implement meaningful gun law reform. The Arms Act was introduced in 1983. Changes in the past 26 years were more like tweaks. Since the attack last Friday, politicians – on both sides of the House – had faced hard questions on why it had taken the death of 50 people to get change” – see: Time for full overhaul of gun laws.

She cites law professor Alexander Gillespie arguing that this is by-and-large how law and reforms are made: “Legislative change was usually reactionary, rather than precautionary”.

Hence, it was the 1990 Aramoana shootings that led to the last serious gun law reforms. And the 1996 Port Arthur massacre in Australia led to major change over there, and it influenced an important inquiry here – the Thorp Inquiry. This resulted in major recommendations for reform, which were then largely ignored by subsequent governments.

According to Duff and Hunt, “Thorp’s 1997 report made 60 recommendations to improve gun control, including a ban on military style semi-automatics, controls on handguns, registration of all firearms, and improved security and vetting.”

The then National-led Government decided against implementing the recommendations. Derek Cheng reports: “in response to the Thorp inquiry, then-Police Minister Jack Elder declined to ban MSSAs [military-style semi-automatics] because he wanted to keep gun owners ‘on board’, rather than ‘waving a big stick’ by threatening to seize their guns.”

One of those involved in the Thorp inquiry, Queen’s Counsel Simon Mount, now says: “Tragically, I believe if the Thorp recommendations had been implemented in 1997, the Christchurch attacker would not have been able to obtain the semi-automatic weapons he used in this country.”

The most recent example of a government ignoring recommendations for reform came less than two years ago, after the law and order select committee held a year-long study of firearms rules. According to Duff and Hunt, “The committee came up with 20 recommendations, which were supported by the Police Association. But in June 2017 police minister Paula Bennett accepted only seven recommendations, rejecting 12.”

The National Government’s dismissal of the reforms was, according to Cheng, “applauded by Federated Farmers. One of the dropped recommendations was to investigate a new category of restricted semi-automatic rifle and shotgun. Bennett said many of the recommendations would unduly affect legal firearm users.”

According to Cheng, “Labour’s police spokesman Stuart Nash supported Bennett’s decision ‘100 per cent’, even though he was on the committee that endorsed all the recommendations.”

Laura Walters writes that Bennett “is understood to be a keen hunter”, and that the “Police Association President Chris Cahill said the minister had given into the pressure of a lobby which he believed represented fewer than 10,000 of the then-240,000 licensed gun owners”.

New Zealand First is also often identified as an ongoing impediment to reform. According to Cheng, writing about the 2016 select committee recommendations, “The only dissenting voice was NZ First MP Ron Mark, who said the recommendations would restrict ‘legitimate ownership of legally-held firearms’ and would do nothing to stop criminals from committing offences with illicit firearms.”

That party is said to have a long-standing close relationship with pro-gun lobby groups. Richard Harman wrote on this a few days ago, saying “It has close connections to the gun lobby. During the last election campaign, the Kiwi Gun Blog, a popular gun owners site, rated the NZ First firearms policy: ‘We will just say that the NZ First party has been supporting us – it would be good if a lot of shooters supported them – Even with a tactical party vote’, the blog said during the last election” – see: The gun control compromise.

But politicians and their parties are changing fast. Former Police Minister Judith Collins was hardly a staunch advocate for gun control when she was in government, but has come out this week to say that she is deleting all the lobbying communications that gun groups are sending her – see Nick O’Malley’s Judith Collins tells US lobby group NRA to ‘bugger off’ over New Zealand gun reform.

Finally, in terms of individual responses by politicians to the current gun reform campaign, it’s worth reading Lucy Bennett’s Former minister Rick Barker targeted by gunman backs register, and Jason Walls’ Deputy Labour Leader Kelvin Davis has handed one semi-automatic rifle over to police.

by Dr Bryce Edwards

Although important questions remain about the Government’s firearms law reform programme, at this stage there is a broad consensus that Jacinda Ardern and her colleagues have successfully navigated the first tranche of change.

 
Praise is coming in from all quarters, including internationally. And when praise for gun law reform also comes from farmers’ groups, hunters, the police, and a variety of political commentators, then you can be sure that the Government has dealt with this major response to the Christchurch terrorist attacks in a highly adept fashion.

What the Government announced on Thursday was definitely a compromise, which is perhaps why it’s been politically successful. Instead of announcing a complete ban on all semi-automatic guns, the Government chose to make a number of exemptions, which makes the ban less radical than that implemented by John Howard in Australia following the Port Arthur massacre.

This is explained best by the Herald’s Jared Savage: “Exempted from the ban in New Zealand are semi-automatic .22 rifles (with a magazine which holds no more than 10 rounds), as well as semi-automatic or pump action shotguns with internal magazines (holding no more than five rounds)” – see: Why the gun ban was a smart compromise but needs to go further.

He explains the logic and political sense in this: “This is also a sensible move. These firearms are regularly used by farmers for pest control, as well as hunters. Banning them would cause great unrest in rural communities in particular, so politically speaking, the exemption makes it hard for critics to argue legitimate firearms owners are being unfairly targeted. I suspect most won’t complain.”

Savage argues that “banning dangerous weapons while reaching out to those who will be most affected – will go a long way to unite most people behind the changes.”

Stuff’s political editor, Tracy Watkins, agrees that a politically adept balance has been struck in what she calls “one deft move” by the Prime Minister to avoid either being too radical or moderate in reform – see: Jacinda Ardern’s gun reforms needed to strike a delicate balance – and they do.

She says it means Ardern will “be criticised by those at the opposite ends of the gun debate as not going far enough by some, and too far by others.” But Watkins argues that the Government needed to find a compromise that would keep some of the gun lobby on side: “Ardern’s challenge was in striking a balance between the more lethal and MSSA weapons, and the types of shotguns popular among duckshooters and hunters, which the tide of public opinion could have easily swept into the list of guns that should be banned.”

This wasn’t just about electoral calculations, but also ensuring that the reforms would actually result in compliance from gun owners: “the risks of a backlash and black market from non-compliance are also factors that have to be weighed up.”

It’s therefore of great interest that groups such as Federated Farmers, the Police Association, Rural Security, Fish and Game and Trade Me have come out in support of the changes. For example, Police Association president Chris Cahill has said: “It’s a good mix of reforms that balance the practical requirements of firearm owners in New Zealand with the need to protect society, we’re very pleased” – see RNZ’s Wide support for government’s move to tighten gun laws.

For detail from a hunter about why this is the right decision, see Lew Stoddart’s Gun law reform strikes a fair balance. He is full of praise for the Government’s decision: “The government’s gun law reform package is notable because it balances three factors that in previous reforms have proven irreconcilable: it removes the most dangerous firearms from legal circulation immediately; it does so without being a knee-jerk overreaction; and it does so quickly, without extravagant cost, and without much legal vulnerability.”

For Stoddart, the key is that changes to the legislation are “based on power, action type, and magazine capacity”, thereby allowing for some less-dangerous semi-automatics to be exempted from the ban. For example, guns that only have a calibre barrel of 0.22 or less, and which can only hold up to 10 rounds, are still allowed. And Stoddart says: “The object of the reforms is to get the largest number of most-dangerous firearms out of circulation in the shortest possible time with the least hassle, and the only way that works is with the consent of firearms owners.”

For more on the technical details of the ban, see Stuff’s Q&A: A closer look at New Zealand’s new weapons ban.

Inside the Government, this appears to have been a carefully designed compromise to keep both politicians and gun owners on side. This is explained well by Richard Harman: “The decision to ban military-style semi-automatic firearms yesterday does not go as far as Australia did in 1996 after the Port Arthur massacre and was not the first preference of the Greens. Instead, it is a political compromise designed to get the vote of NZ First and National when it is presented to Parliament in a fortnight. What the Prime Minister clearly wanted to avoid was provoking a full-on fight with the rural community and the gun lobby” – see: The gun control compromise.

Harman says that he “understands the Greens wanted all semi-automatic firearms banned. That would have been consistent with their manifesto for the last election”. But this more radical ban would have been opposed by both New Zealand First and the National Party. Therefore “Ardern knew that if she wanted bipartisan support for a ban, she would have to reject the Greens policy”.

The international news media has reported surprise at the “lightning speed” and ease with which the New Zealand Government has been able to achieve this initial reform. The contrast with fights over gun control in the United States has been particularly highlighted. For the best item explaining to an international audience why New Zealand was able to push this through, see Rick Noack and Shibani Mahtani’s Washington Post story, New Zealand just banned military-style firearms. Here’s why the US can’t.

Similarly, see Matt Kwong’s Canadian report, New Zealand promised and delivered a gun ban. Here’s why the US can’t do the same.

All of the congratulations and hailing of the Government’s success doesn’t mean that there are no criticisms at all. Most importantly, the various gun exemptions still have some people worried. And there’s continued questioning about how much farmers really need these types of guns anyhow – especially when farmers cite “animal welfare” justifications. One answer is that it’s about the slaughter of bobby calves.

One writer, from a family of gun-owners, says: “The whole issue is so obnoxious to me that I can hardly write about it, but unfortunately it’s a regular part of the dairy farming process. A year or so ago dairy farmers were banned from ending their bobby (male) calves lives with hammers or bits of wood. Essentially the calves would be clubbed to death. Thankfully semi-automatic guns are now the accepted method. Firearms make this abhorrent job easier for both the calf and the farmer” – see: I’m from a farming family: Owning a gun isn’t a right.

And how well will the buy-back scheme even work? The Government is projecting that the scheme will cost up to $200 million. Lobby groups, say it could be much more, based on the fact that “Military style semi-automatics can cost from $200 to more than $10,000 and there are at least 15,000 registered in New Zealand” – see Maiki Sherman’s Firearm buyback scheme could cost $500m, twice the Government’s estimate, lobbyist group says.

Already some gun-owners are apparently indicating that they won’t hand over their now-illegal guns. According to one news report, “The Gunshack owner Peter Watson said while he was not personally affected by the ban, he had spoken to at least 10 recreational shooters who said they would refuse to hand over their weapons” – see Jennifer Eder’sGun shop owner warns recreational shooters won’t buy in to buy-back gun control legislation.

One gun lobbyist, Mike Loder, has even written an “open letter” questioning whether the government should really compel “shooters, in a supposedly free nation, to hand in private property on the promise of later compensation” – see Tom Pullar-Strecker’s NRA calls for stop to NZ’s ‘socialist disarmament’ alongside appeal for donations.

Another gun lobbyist, Bill O’Leary of the Deerstalkers Association, is campaigning to have compensation amounts determined by negotiation on a one-by-one basis: “It would mean every firearm would have to sit on a table, and on one side would be the person from the government and on the other would be the owner” – see Rob Stock’s The ban of military-style semi-automatics will cost millions – here is how the Australians did it.

Similarly, another gun-owner is reported today saying “If we hand in our firearms without assurances that compensation will be appropriate, what cost $20,000 will suddenly turn into $5000 of compensation” – see Cecile Meier’s Gun owner happy to hand in rifle for free, others say law change is causing anxiety.

Although there are obviously a variety of responses from gun-owners, another one says: “With the stroke of a pen, the Government has made some of my firearms illegal… I am anxious that the police may turn up at my house and seize my property in front of my whole neighbourhood. I am losing sleep.”

There are also a number of criticisms about the legislative process that the Government is attempting to take. The best arguments against this have been put by the Otago Daily Times’ Mike Houlahan, who says that haste in lawmaking can lead to bad law, which might even include loopholes, making the new rules less effective – see: Composure needed before creating new laws.

Finally, regardless of laws, are you personally complicit in helping the arms industry and the production of guns? Rob Stock explains, How to go weapons-free in your KiwiSaver portfolio.

Police have charged a man with murder after the death of his security officer colleague in a shootout. Both men were Filipinos and investigators are working closely with the Philippines Embassy in Port Moresby. Video: EMTV News

By Michael Arnold in Port Moresby

A shootout in a supermarket in the Papua New Guinean capital of Port Moresby last Thursday has sparked a nationwide debate on gun control and calls for civilians to be banned from carrying firearms.

The shooting, which happened in Moresby Northeast, resulted in two gunmen firing off 15 rounds in the crowded Boroko Foodworld supermarket, leaving one man dead and two children injured after being caught in the crossfire.

However, both EMTV News and Loop PNG website reported three people had been wounded, including two boys.

Reports from the Pacific International Hospital (PIH) said one young boy was being treated for grazes to his leg and his back.

Doctors also confirmed that apart from the flesh wounds the boy also suffered psychological trauma after the shooting.

He is currently in a stable condition but is being kept under observation at the hospital.

PIH representatives also said the hospital had admitted a high frequency of gunshot cases over past years.

Reckless firarms use
Thursday’s incident has been yet another demonstration of the reckless use of firearms by people in public spaces.

The current moratorium on gun licences is already in place, and there has also been a call for a total ban on private firearm ownership.

The issue of gun control has been high on the government agenda over the past week, with several parliamentarians having already called for improved gun licensing processes and the imposition of heavier penalties for illegal possession of firearms.

Earlier in the day last Thursday, Police Minister Jelta Wong told Parliament he believed the government must totally eradicate illegal weapons.

Presenting his ministerial statement on the status of gun-related issues, he said the report pushed for a total ban on licences as well as illegal guns.

Established by a parliamentary committee headed by former member of Goroka Bire Kimisopa, the report on guns control proposed banning guns and increasing penalties for offenders.

Wong signed a moratorium on October 4 last year, banning the purchase and issuing of new gun permits to citizens.

MPs were able to debate the issue, with many suggesting changes should be made for more assistance on the education of youths, allowing them to change for the better.

Michael Arnold is a PNG Post-Courier reporter.

• Earlier report on the shootout

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz