There is no doubt that the war Israel and the United States have launched against Iran will have global economic consequences. While it is difficult to know what those consequences will be, it is hard to see them as positive, and they could be very, very negative.

Already we have seen oil prices spike by 8 percent since last week, and by much more since January.

Oil prices reached above US$100 a barrel with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, but then gradually started to fall, and by the start of the year had returned to their pre-2022 level of US$60.

Just before the weekend they had risen to US$70 and now they are almost at US$80. With the Strait of Hormuz effectively closed, they could rise much more.

That is on the price front. There could also, unlike in 2022, be problems on the quantity side.

If it continues to be difficult to ship oil out of the Middle East, then shortages of oil might start to emerge. The countries that will do best in such a situation are those with large stockpiles or plenty of bargaining power.

The Pacific Island countries have neither.

Reliant on 80% oil
The Pacific is also vulnerable because of its extreme reliance on oil. According to a 2022 UN report, the Pacific meets 80 percent of its energy requirements through oil.

Even in the electricity sector, renewable energy sources make only a limited contribution.

There has been some growth in renewable energy as an electricity source. According to analysis by Janendra Prasad at UNSW, the share of renewable energy in electricity production in the Pacific has increased from 17 percent in 2017 to 24 percent in 2023. That is still low, and nowhere near what Pacific governments are themselves targeting (in excess of 80 percent by 2030).

The Pacific is also vulnerable because of its lack of domestic oil production and very limited storage capacity. In fact, Tonga suffered fuel shortages last year due to problems with its fuel depot and a stranded fuel vessel.

With drivers now queuing in Australia and the UK to get their petrol before prices rise or petrol rationing begins, it wouldn’t be surprising to see queues develop across the Pacific.

Governments can tell people not to panic, but it may seem like a rational response given the risks of petrol price rises and rationing.

It is important to clarify that PNG is the “odd one out” in the Pacific. PNG will actually likely benefit from the crisis as it is a large exporter of LNG. The government’s tax and dividend take will increase as LNG prices rise.

PNG oil refinery
PNG also has an oil refinery. And this war will also help the prospects for PNG’s much-delayed and still-uncertain future LNG projects by increasing the value to Asia of sourcing its LNG nearer to home than the Middle East.

So far we have focused on petroleum. But there are also the wider ramifications of the war.

It may lead to an uptick in global inflation, and may even push the world towards or even into recession. An oil shock on its own is unlikely to be enough to lead to a recession, but an escalated, widespread Middle East conflict (or possibly a conflict that extends to Turkey and Europe) certainly could.

Again, PNG will benefit from a further increase in the gold price as investors lose faith in the US, and therefore in the US dollar.

But overall, what is bad for the world is bad for the Pacific. Remittances, tourism, fishing licence fees, aid and investment returns would all suffer in the event of a global recession.

There is a possible upside. If Iran capitulates and, with or without regime change, gives in to US demands, then, with sanctions removed, oil production might go up and oil prices down.

Right now, that doesn’t seem like a likely scenario.

Relevant positives
More relevant are the positives that could limit or to some extent offset the downside for the Pacific.

One is that it is still unclear how long this war will go on for. The shorter it is the less worrying the outcomes.

A second is the positive role Australia can play. Although there are questions about Australia’s own limited oil storage capacity, Australia will be under pressure to share whatever oil it is able to import with its Pacific family.

Third, and longer-term, this crisis, especially if it is long-lasting, might make the world more serious about the renewable transition, not so much to avoid dangerous climate change, but to shore up energy security.

Understandably, for the Pacific, which is highly vulnerable to climate change impacts and whose emissions are negligible at the global level, the focus to date has been on climate change adaptation rather than mitigation.

But the sort of crisis currently unfolding should give the Pacific countries and their funders a stronger incentive to close the growing gap between Pacific renewable energy targets and reality — not to reduce the risks of climate change, but rather to reduce Pacific vulnerability to an increasingly shock- and conflict-prone Middle East.

Stephen Howes is director of the Development Policy Centre and professor of economics at the Crawford School of Public Policy at The Australian National University. Rubayat Chowdhury is a macroeconomist with experience working on monetary policy, growth, and economic development in emerging market economies. He is a research officer at the Development Policy Centre. 

Stephen Howes was recently interviewed on this topic for the ABC’s Pacific Beat programme.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Analysts are warning fuel prices are expected to jump in the Pacific following the Israeli and US attacks on Iran, and the retaliatory response by Iran.

Iran borders the Strait of Hormuz, which carries 20 percent of the world’s oil and gas supply, and shipments have been suspended following the attacks.

Crude oil prices could climb as high as US$100 per barrel, leading to widespread concerns the Middle East war could precipitate into “a global energy crisis”.

Pacific Island fuel prices are generally high and volatile due to import dependency and shipping distance.

Saul Kanovic, an energy sector analyst at MST Financial in Sydney, told RNZ Pacific the “threat is severe”.

“If the situation doesn’t de-escalate and the passage through [the Strait of Hormuz] remains significantly disrupted, we’re looking at a global energy crisis that we haven’t seen since the 1970s,” Kanovic said.

“This could be bigger than that.”

Isolated nations suffer
Kanovic said that more isolated nations with less diversified economies would suffer from a greater exposure to these price shocks.

“Cost of transport is going to go up from a fuel cost perspective, but we might also see insurance premiums rising.”

In the Pacific, imported fuel is usually paid for by forward contracts in advance, and in bulk orders that can last months, as a hedge against price shocks.

But the impact could embed itself into freight costs, both for shipping and air, which in the Pacific is already relatively high given the distance.

Glen Craig, Vanuatu’s special envoy for international development, told RNZ Pacific the severity of the impact would depend on whether the duration of the conflict outpaced a Pacific nation’s petroleum reserves.

Not yet ‘panicking’
“No one is panicking now, but there is definitely going to be some fuel price increases at some stage,” Craig said.

“We should be okay, but it depends on how big and how long this conflict is going to go for.”

When it hits, Craig said it would likely be reflected in all imported goods on Pacific shelves, as well as tourism and regional travel.

“It’s a bit like if you’re on a busy motorway, and there’s an accident on the road 30 km ahead; it might take half an hour to trickle down to the end, but it eventually gets to you.”

“I would dare say we’re looking at something in maybe four months’ time.”

Papau New Guinea set to ‘definitely benefit’ – minister
Papua New Guinea’s Foreign Minister Justin Tkatchenko saw some potential upside for his country as a petroleum and oil exporter.

“It will definitely benefit PNG, but then there’s the other side, where fuel prices for the domestic market will then go up,” Tkatchenko said.

PNG is predominantly a petroleum gas exporter, with China, Japan and Taiwan as its biggest importers.

With LNG prices impacted by the Middle East, but PNG protected by distance, it leaves a shortage that they can fill.

“Unfortunately, it’s the consumers that will cop it, the people, and they are the ones that end up paying for it,” Tkatchenko said.

“So yeah, it’s good in one way, but definitely won’t help out people in the long run.”

A higher price means a higher tax take. According to its 2025 budget, PNG’s mining and petroleum tax drew in roughly US$971 million, a 16.5 percent increase from 2024.

The MPT, which is linked to gains from the sale of mining and petroleum goods, comprises PNG’s second largest source of tax revenue.

It may put the government in a position where it can commit to supporting consumers through any eventual price shock, as Prime Minister James Marape told local media over the weekend.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

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

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

So where is that principled clarity now?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Zealand? “Concerned” and “monitoring”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He labelled Peters’ statement as “limp”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Papua New Guinea’s largest resource development has reached a milestone more than a decade in the making.

The PNG Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Project has fully retired its bank-financed project debt, closing one of the most complex financing arrangements in the country’s economic history.

The debt, raised in the late 2000s to fund construction of onshore and offshore infrastructure, totalled about US$16 billion, including interest.

Although liquefied natural gas exports began in 2014, repayments continued for more than a decade, limiting how much revenue flowed to equity holders, including the state through Kumul Petroleum Holdings, which holds a 19.4 percent stake.

In December 2025, joint venture partners accelerated the final repayment, clearing the facility around six months ahead of schedule. Sustained production, disciplined cost control and favourable global LNG prices helped bring forward the close, removing a long-standing financial constraint from the project.

Prime Minister James Marape described the milestone as a national achievement during a site visit to the LNG facilities.

“PNG LNG is now debt-free. It is a free-standing, world-class asset for the country,” he said, linking the early repayment to Papua New Guinea’s credibility as a destination for large-scale global investment.

The Prime Minister has pointed to the project’s long delivery arc — from financing during the global financial crisis to more than a decade of continuous operations — as evidence that PNG can sustain projects of international scale.

What changes now
With the project finance facility closed, PNG LNG’s future revenues will no longer be directed first to servicing debt. After operating costs, cash will flow directly to shareholders, including Kumul Petroleum and, by extension, the state.

That reshapes the project’s financial profile. It does not create an immediate budget windfall, but it improves long-term income prospects and balance-sheet flexibility for PNG’s national oil company.

Kumul Petroleum chairman Gerea Aopi said the timing was strategically important as PNG prepares for its next major gas development.

“Our increased income will strategically flow into and assist us to put together the necessary finance for PNG to take up its mandated 22.5 percent equity in the forthcoming Papua LNG Project, especially during its four-to-five-year construction period,” he said.

Aopi cautioned the announcement should not be read as a sudden cash surplus, noting future income remains exposed to global petroleum prices and largely committed to upcoming obligations.

Malaysia centralised its hydrocarbons industry under Petronas, a commercially run national oil company with broad autonomy. Profits were reinvested domestically over decades, helping fund infrastructure, education and industrial diversification while reducing reliance on raw commodity exports.

Indonesia followed a hybrid approach through Pertamina, operating alongside international partners under production-sharing contracts. While governance challenges persisted, the model allowed the state to retain resource ownership while building domestic capability over time.

Papua New Guinea entered the LNG era later and adopted a project-finance joint-venture model, anchored by foreign operators and lenders. The state participates primarily as an equity partner through Kumul Petroleum rather than as an operator or sector-wide manager.

Large upfront borrowing was repaid from future LNG revenues, meaning debt servicing took priority over dividends for much of PNG LNG’s life.

The retirement of PNG LNG’s debt narrows the gap with regional peers, but it does not change the underlying model PNG follows — one reliant on project-by-project financing rather than a fully integrated national oil company structure.

That distinction now shapes decisions around Papua LNG and P’nyang, where the question is not only how much equity PNG holds, but how revenues are managed once construction and financing pressures return.

From one mega-project to the next
With PNG LNG’s debt chapter closed, attention turns to the next phase of the gas industry. Projects such as Papua LNG and P’nyang are intended to extend exports well into the 2030s, but they bring fresh financing needs, risks and negotiations.

Supporters argue that retiring PNG LNG’s debt early strengthens investor confidence and shows PNG can honour long-term agreements. Each new project, however, will reopen familiar debates over equity, landowner benefits and the balance between fiscal returns and long-term development.

The early retirement of PNG LNG’s project debt closes a significant chapter in Papua New Guinea’s resource history.

Whether it marks a decisive shift in how resource wealth supports long-term development — or simply resets the cycle ahead of the next mega-project — will depend on the choices that follow.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Amid widespread condemnation of the United States over its brazen weekend attack on Venezuela around the world and in the UN Security Council today, Senator Bernie Sanders has posted on social media six reasons why the operation to kidnap President Nicolás Maduro on Venezuela was very wrong.

Abducted Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro told a packed New York City courtroom that he was “innocent”, a “decent man”, and that he had been “kidnapped”, in his first public comments since the US attack, reports Al Jazeera.

Members of the 15-strong UN Security Council (UNSC), including key US allies, condemned Washington and warned that the kidnapping of Maduro and his wife by US special forces could be a precedent-setting event for international law.

The reasons Senator Sanders (Democrat-Vermont) has given why Trump’s actions were wrong are:

1. It is illegal and unconstitutional. Congress did not authorise or even know about this military action.
2. It will make the world less safe. If international law is ignored, any nation or terrorist organisation can justify violent attack by pointing to Trump’s actions in Venezuela. This was Putin’s logic in Ukraine.
3. It is blatant imperialism. Powerful nations do not have the legal or moral right to invade smaller countries to steal their natural resources. Venezuela’s oil belongs to the people of Venezuela, not US corporations.
4. At a time when the entire world is moving away from fossil fuels for cheaper and non-polluting sustainable energies, protecting the interests of Big Oil is bad for the climate and bad economics.
5. Maduro is corrupt and anti-democratic. So is MBS of Saudi Arabia. So are many other leaders around the world. Just because we do not like a country’s leader does not mean we have the right to overthrow their government.
6. Trump ran for president as a “peace candidate” who believed in “America First”, not someone who was going to “run” another country. At a time when 60 percent of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck, maybe he should try doing a better job running this country [United States], not taking over Venezuela.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The United Nations climate conference in Brazil this month finished with an “extremely weak” outcome, according to one Pacific campaigner.

Shiva Gounden, the head of Pacific at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said the multilateral process is currently being attacked, which is making it hard to reach a meaningful consensus on decisions.

“The credibility of COPs [Conference of Parties] is dropping somewhat but it can be salvaged if there’s a little bit of political will, that is visionary from across the world,” he said.

“The Pacific has showed leadership in this quite a bit in the last few COPs.”

Gounden said the outcomes of this COP and previous ones mean global temperature rise will not be limited to 1.5C — the threshold climate scientists say is needed to ensure a healthy planet.

“There are parties within the system who are attacking the science and the facts that show that we need to really be lot more ambitious than we are.

“If that continues there will be a lot more faith that’s lost by a lot of people across the world, and that can only be salvaged by political will and the unity of people across the world.”

No explicit cutting of fossil fuels
COP30 finished in Belém, Brazil, with an agreement that does not explicitly mention cutting fossil fuels. This is despite more than 80 countries pushing to advance previous commitments to transition away from oil, coal and gas.

“I feel the [outcome] was extremely weak,” Gounden said.

Pacific Islands Climate Action Network (PICAN) international policy lead Sindra Sharma said the outcome had not made much progress.

“It feels like just a waste of time to be honest, that we haven’t been able to close the ambition gap in any significant way, when a lot of the two weeks was also spent on reminding us that we are in a really bad place.

“We’re going to overshoot 1.5C and we need to do something about it.”

The meeting did finish a call to a least triple adaptation finance which Sharma said was a good signal.

“But if you look at the language, then it’s actually quite non-committal and weak.”

Based in Türkiye next year
COP31 will take place at the coastal city Antalya, Türkiye, next year and Australia will be president of negotiations in the lead up and at the meeting. It gives Australia significant control over deliberations.

A pre-COP will also be hosted in the Pacific.

Gounden said he hoped the plan would become more clear in the next few months.

“This is a very complicated situation where you’ve got a negotiation president that is actually not a host of the presidency as well as the COP president across the whole year, so all of that stuff still needs to be clear and specified.”

He said three different groupings need to work together to make COP work — Türkiye, Australia and the Pacific.

Sharma said the co-presidency between Australia and Türkiye was unusual.

“There’s going to be a lot of work in terms of the push and pull of how those two presidencies are able to work together.”

Talia’s comments are part of a new report from The Fossil Free Pacific Campaign, which argues Australia is undermining the regional solidarity on climate.

Talia said Australia was a long-time friend of Tuvalu, so it was “heartbreaking to see the Albanese government continue to proactively support the continued expansion of the fossil fuel industry”.

“Australia has dramatically increased the amount of energy it generates from clean, renewable sources. But at the same time, coal mines have been extended and the gas industry has been encouraged to continue polluting up to 2070,” Talia said.

“It’s a decision that is hard to reconcile with the government’s own net zero by 2050 target and is incompatible with a viable future for Tuvalu.”

In September, Australia extended the North West Shelf — one of the world’s biggest gas export projects.

The report said Australia’s climate and energy policies are not consistent with the action needed to secure a 1.5C world. It said Australia now had an obligation to align with the International Court of Justice advisory opinion in July which found states could be held legally responsible for their greenhouse gas emissions.

‘Real game changer’
University of Melbourne’s Dr Elizabeth Hicks, a legal academic who was featured in the report, told RNZ Pacific the advisory opinion was a “real game changer” for Australia’s legal obligations.

“We’ve seen that Australian executive government, both under Liberal and Labor, governments continue to approve new fossil fuel projects and industries receive significant subsidies,” Hicks said.

Australia is the leading donor to Pacific Island countries, making up 43 percent of official development finance.

Hicks said that Australia positioned itself as part of the Pacific family, with the nation giving aid and acting as a security partner.

But equally Australia was responsible for the vast majority of emissions coming from the Pacific and had done little to limit fossil fuel expansion, she said.

Individuals and groups could bring lawsuits against their own countries for failing to comply with the court’s opinion, and states could also return to the International Court of Justice to hold each other to account.

The decision by the world’s top court had opened the possibility for countries to sue each other, sje said.

“This is placing Australia, right now in a very uncertain position. It would not be helpful for Australia’s domestic credibility on climate policy, or regionally in the Pacific context, to have proceedings brought against it.”

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Israel is in a weak position and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s extremism knows no bounds. The only other way around an eventual regional war is the ousting of the Israeli prime minister.

US President Donald Trump has closed his line of communication with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, according to various reports citing officials.

This comes amid alleged growing pressure on Israel regarding Gaza and the abrupt halt to American operations against Ansarallah in Yemen. So, is this all an act or is the US finally pressuring Israel?

On May 1, news broke that President Donald Trump had suddenly ousted his national security advisor Mike Waltz. According to a Washington Post article on the issue, the ouster was in part a response to Waltz’s undermining of the President, for having engaged in intense coordination with Israeli PM Netanyahu regarding the issue of attacking Iran prior to the Israeli Premier’s visit to the Oval Office.

Some analysts, considering that Waltz has been pushing for a war on Iran, argued that his ouster was a signal that the Trump administration’s pro-diplomacy voices were pushing back against the hawks.

This shift also came at a time when Iran-US talks had stalled, largely thanks to a pressure campaign from the Israel Lobby, leading US think tanks and Israeli officials like Ron Dermer.

Then, seemingly out of nowhere, Trump publicly announced the end to a campaign designed to destroy/degrade Yemen’s Ansarallah-led government in Sana’a on May 6.

Israeli leadership shocked
According to Israeli media, citing government sources, the leadership in Tel Aviv was shocked by the move to end operations against Yemen, essentially leaving the Israelis to deal with Ansarallah alone.

After this, more information began to leak, originating from the Israeli Hebrew-language media, claiming that the Trump administration was demanding Israel reach an agreement for aid to be delivered to Gaza, in addition to signing a ceasefire agreement.

The other major claim is that President Trump has grown so frustrated with Netanyahu that he has cut communication with him directly.

Although neither side has officially clarified details on the reported rift between the two sides, a few days ago the Israeli prime minister released a social media video claiming that he would act alone to defend Israel.

On Friday morning, another update came in that American Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth would be cancelling his planned visit to Tel Aviv.

Can Trump and Netanyahu remake the Middle East?       Video: Palestine Chronicle

Is the US finally standing up to Israel?
In order to assess this issue correctly, we have to place all of the above-mentioned developments into their proper context.

The issue must also be prefaced on the fact that every member of the Trump government is pro-Israeli to the hilt and has received significant backing from the Israel Lobby.

Mike Waltz was indeed fired and according to leaked AIPAC audio revealed by The Grayzone, he was somewhat groomed for a role in government by the pro-Israel Lobby for a long time.

Another revelation regarding Waltz, aside from him allegedly coordinating with Netanyahu behind Trump’s back and adding journalist Jeffrey Goldberg to a private Signal group chat, was that he was storing his chats on an Israeli-owned app.

Yet, Waltz was not booted out of the government like John Bolton was during Trump’s first term in office, he has instead been designated as UN ambassador to the United Nations.

The UN ambassador position was supposed to be handed to Elise Stefanik, a radically vocal supporter of Israel who helped lead the charge in cracking down on pro-Palestine free speech on university campuses. Stefanik’s nomination was withdrawn in order to maintain the Republican majority in the Congress.

If Trump was truly seeking to push back against the Israel Lobby’s push to collapse negotiations with Iran, then why did Trump signal around a week ago that new sanctions packages were on the way?

He announced on Friday that a third independent Chinese refiner would be hit with secondary sanctions for receiving Iranian oil.

Israeli demands in Trump’s rhetoric
The sanctions, on top of the fact that his negotiating team have continuously attempted to add conditions the the talks, viewed in Tehran as non-starters, indicates that precisely what pro-Israel think tanks like WINEP and FDD have been demanding is working its way into not only the negotiating team, but coming out in Trump’s own rhetoric.

There is certainly an argument to make here, that there is a significant split within the pro-Israel Lobby in the US, which is now working its way into the Trump administration, yet it is important to note that the Trump campaign itself was bankrolled by Zionist billionaires and tech moguls.

Miriam Adelson, Israel’s richest billionaire, was his largest donor. Adelson also happens to own Israel Hayom, the most widely distributed newspaper in Israel that has historically been pro-Netanyahu, it is now also reporting on the Trump-Netanyahu split and feeding into the speculations.

As for the US operations against Yemen, the US has used the attack on Ansarallah as the perfect excuse to move a large number of military assets to the region.

This has included air defence systems to the Gulf States and most importantly to Israel.

After claiming back in March to have already “decimated” Ansarallah, the Trump administration spent way in excess of US$1 billion dollars (more accurately over US$2 billion) and understood that the only way forward was a ground operation.

Meanwhile, the US has also moved military assets to the Mediterranean and is directly involved in intensive reconnaissance over Lebanese airspace, attempting to collect information on Hezbollah.

An Iran attack imminent?
While it is almost impossible to know whether the media theatrics regarding the reported Trump-Netanyahu split are entirely true, or if it is simply a good-cop bad-cop strategy, it appears that some kind of assault on Iran could be imminent.

Whether Benjamin Netanyahu is going to order an attack on Iran out of desperation or as part of a carefully choreographed plan, the US will certainly involve itself in any such assault on one level or another.

The Israeli prime minister has painted himself into a corner. In order to save his political coalition, he collapsed the Gaza ceasefire during March and managed to bring back his Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir to his coalition.

This enabled him to successfully take on his own Shin Bet chief Ronen Bar, in an ongoing purge of his opposition.

However, due to a lack of manpower and inability to launch any major ground operation against Gaza, without severely undermining Israeli security on other fronts, Netanyahu decided to adopt a strategy of starving the people of Gaza instead.

He now threatens a major ground offensive, yet it is hard to see what impact it would have beyond an accelerated mass murder of civilians.

The Israeli prime minister’s mistake was choosing the blocking of all aid into Gaza as the rightwing hill to die on, which has been deeply internalised by his extreme Religious Zionism coalition partners, who now threaten his government’s stability if any aid enters the besieged territory.

Netanyahu in a difficult position
This has put Netanyahu in a very difficult position, as the European Union, UK and US are all fearing the backlash that mass famine will bring and are now pushing Tel Aviv to allow in some aid.

Amidst this, Netanyahu made another commitment to the Druze community that he would intervene on their behalf in Syria.

While Syria’s leadership are signaling their intent to normalise ties and according to a recent report by Yedioth Ahronoth, participated in “direct” negotiations with Israel regarding “security issues”, there is no current threat from Damascus.

However, if tensions escalate in Syria with the Druze minority in the south, failure to fulfill pledges could cause major issues with Israeli Druze, who perform crucial roles in the Israeli military.

Internally, Israel is deeply divided, economically under great pressure and the overall instability could quickly translate to a larger range of issues.

Then we have the Lebanon front, where Hezbollah sits poised to pounce on an opportunity to land a blow in order to expel Israel from their country and avenge the killing of its Secretary General Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah.

Trigger a ‘doomsday option’?
Meanwhile in Gaza, if Israel is going to try and starve everyone to death, this could easily trigger what can only be called the “doomsday option” from Hamas and other groups there. Nobody is about to sit around and watch their people starve to death.

As for Yemen’s Ansarallah, it is clear that there was no way without a massive ground offensive that the movement was going to stop firing missiles and drones at Israel.

What we have here is a situation in which Israel finds itself incapable of defeating any of its enemies, as all of them have now been radicalised due to the mass murder inflicted upon their populations.

In other words, Israel is not capable of victory on any front and needs a way out.

The leader of the opposition to Israel in the region is perceived to be Iran, as it is the most powerful, which is why a conflict with it is so desired. Yet, Tehran is incredibly powerful and the US is incapable of defeating it with conventional weapons, therefore, a full-scale war is the equivalent to committing regional suicide.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The leader of the Pacific Conference of Churches (PCC) has reacted to the election of the new pope.

Pope Leo XIV was elected by his fellow cardinals in the Conclave on Thursday evening, Rome time.

Leo, 69, formerly Cardinal Robert Prevost, is originally from Chicago, and has spent most of his career as a missionary in Peru.

He became a cardinal only in 2023 and has become the first-ever US pope.

PCC general secretary Reverend James Bhagwan said he was not a Vatican insider, but there had been talk of cardinals feeling that the new pope should be a “middle-of-the-road person”.

Reverend Bhagwan said there had been prayers for God’s wisdom to guide the decisions made at the Conclave.

“I think if we look at where the decisions perhaps were made or based on, there had been a lot of talk that the cardinals going into Conclave had felt that a new pope would need to be someone who could take forward the legacy of Pope Francis, reaching out to those in the margins, but also be a sort of a middle-of-the-road person,” he said.

Hopes for climate response
Reverend Bhagwan said the Pacific hoped that Pope Leo carried on the late Pope Francis’s connection to the climate change response.

He said Pope Francis released his “laudate deum” exhortation on the climate shortly before the United Nations climate summit in Dubai last year.

“The focus on care for creation, the focus for ending fossil fuels and climate justice, the focus on people from the margins — I think that’s important for the Pacific people at this time.

“I know that the Catholic Church in the Pacific has been focused on on its synodal process, and so he spoke about synodality as well.

“I know that there were hopes for an Oceania synod, just as Pope Francis held a synod of the Amazon. And I think that is still something that’s in the hearts of many of our Catholic leaders and Catholic members.

“We hope that this will be an opportunity to still bring that focus to the Pacific.”

Picking up issues
New Zealand’s Cardinal John Dew, who was in the Conclave, said the new pope would not hesitate to speak out about issues around the world.

He said they were confident Pope Leo would pick up many of the issues Francis was well known for, like speaking up for climate change, human trafficking and the plight of refugees; and within the church, a different way of meeting and talking with one another — known as synodality — which is an ongoing process.

“I think any pope needs to be able to challenge things that are happening around the world, especially if it is affecting the lives of people, where the poor are getting poorer and the rich are getting richer.”

Pope Leo appeared to be a very calm person, he added.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Pacific climate activists this week handed a letter from civil society to this year’s United Nations climate conference hosts, Brazil, emphasising their demands for the end of fossil fuels and transition to renewable energy.

More than 180 indigenous, youth, and environmental organisations from across the world have signed the letter, coordinated by the campaign organisation, 350.org.

A declaration of alliance between Indigenous peoples from the Amazon, the Pacific, and Australia ahead of COP30 has also been announced.

The “strongly worded letter” was handed to COP30 President André Corrêa do Lago and Brazil’s Environment and Climate Change Minister Marina Silva who attended the Acampamento Terra Livre (ATL), or Free Land Camp, in Brasília.

“We, climate and social justice organisations from around the world, urgently demand that COP30 renews the global commitment and supports implementation for the just, orderly, and equitable transition away from fossil fuels towards renewable energy,” the letter states.

“This must ensure that solutions progressively meet the needs of Indigenous, Black, marginalised and vulnerable populations and accelerate the expansion of renewables in a way that ensures the world’s wealthiest and most polluting nations pay their fair share, does not harm nature, increase deforestation by burning biomass, while upholding economic, social, and gender justice.”

‘No room for new coal mines’
It adds: “The science is unequivocal: there is no room for new coal mines or oil and gas fields if the world is to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius — especially in critical ecosystems like the Amazon, where COP30 will be hosted.

“Tripling renewables by 2030 is essential, but without a managed and rapid phaseout of fossil fuels, it won’t be enough.”

350.org’s Fiji community organiser, George Nacewa, said it was now up to the Brazil COP Presidency if they would act “or lock us into climate catastrophe”.

“This is a critical time for our people — the age of deliberation is long past,” Nacewa said on behalf of the group that call themselves “Pacific Climate Warriors”.

“We need this COP to be the one that spearheads the Just Energy Transition from words to action.”

COP30 will take place in Belém, Brazil, from November 10-21.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

COMMENTARY: By Eugene Doyle

What we are witnessing is not just the end of a regime but quite possibly the destruction of the Syrian state.

We are being told by the Western media that we should join Benjamin Netanyahu, Joe Biden and the Europeans in celebrating what risks being the creation of yet another failed state in the Middle East/West Asia.

I shed no tears for Assad — nor would I if any of the US’s preferred family dictatorships in the region fell. I’m happy for the prisoners who have been freed; could we also free those in Guantanamo Bay, Israel and all the US torture/black sites in places like Jordan, Thailand, Poland, Romania, Lithuania and Kosovo?

When I see that most of the destruction to the country has occurred after Assad has left and that Israel is in the lead in destroying the military and administrative foundations of a viable state, there seems little to give me hope that Syria will be united, sovereign and free any time soon.

Political scientists say that “state monopoly on violence” — the concept that the state alone has the right to use or authorise the use of force (and has the means to ensure compliance within its territory) — is a sine qua non of a viable state.

Assad has fled, the armed forces have vanished yet the Israelis, in particular, by their massive ongoing air strikes on the country’s navy, air force, military installations and arms depots, are ensuring the incoming government will struggle to defend itself against aggressors foreign or domestic.

Permanent dismemberment could easily follow, with Israel already over-running the UN buffer zone and taking territory in the south, and the US and its Kurdish allies holding a huge swathe of the northeast.

The extent of Turkish ambitions is unclear and whether the Russians hold on to their bases in Tartus and at Khmeimim is unresolved. The fate of the two million Alawites and other minorities is also unsure. The country is awash in arms and factions.

People liberating themselves from a dictator is admirable; state destruction, in contrast, is a grave crime against humanity because it robs millions of people of the ability to meet even the most basic needs of existence.

Israeli tanks invade Syria.     Video: Kanal 13

Look at Libya.  In 2011, the US-NATO bombing campaign turned the tide against the Gaddafi regime. US drones spotted Gaddafi’s motorcade fleeing Sirte and signalled to French jets to strike the convoy.  Locals finished the job.

As Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, said with a chuckle during a TV interview hours afterwards:  “We came. We saw. He died.”  A sick variant of “Veni, vidi, vici” (I came, I saw, I conquered), Julius Caesar’s cocky phrase for one of his swift victories.

There was nothing swift for the Libyans, however, other than their fall from being one of Africa’s wealthiest societies with excellent health, education, housing and infrastructure to being a zone of endless civil war, criminality, desperate poverty and insecurity from 2011 to the present day.

And here we are, yet again, the amnesiac West celebrating another lightning quick victory — like the fall of Kabul, the fall of Tripoli and the fall of Baghdad. Mission Accomplished.

Talking of Julius Caesar and cocky imperialism, the US named their highly-successful, crushing economic, energy and food sanctions against Syria “The Caesar Sanctions”.  Imposed and maintained since 2019, they helped hollow out the Syrian economy, making it easy meat for hyenas, such as the Israelis, to work on the carcass.

A couple of years ago I listened to Dana Stroul, the US Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East talking to an audience at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. Perhaps because she was in a friendly place Stroul was remarkably candid, boasting that the US “owned” a third of Syria — which they do to this day.

During the “civil war” America seized the wheat and oil fields in Northern Syria and are unlikely to give them back anytime soon. This, perhaps more than any single factor, is the root cause of the collapse of the Assad regime.

Most people in the West don’t even know that the US holds this chokehold on the country. It uses a Texas oil company to pump Syria’s oil out of the ground, sell it on the international market and use the proceeds to pay their Kurdish fighters.

By seizing the breadbasket of Syria and its oil, the US gained what Stroul described as “compelling leverage to shape an outcome that was more conducive to US interests”.

“But it wasn’t just about the one-third of Syrian territory that the US and our military owned,” Stroul said. The US was isolating the Assad regime, preventing embassies from returning to Damascus and blocking reconstruction.

The US used some of the looted oil money for civil projects in northern Syria but Stroul boasted: “The rest of Syria is rubble. What the Russians want and what Assad wants is economic reconstruction — and that is something that the United States can basically hold a card on via the international financial institutions and our cooperation with the Europeans.”

That’s called saying the quiet part out loud: the US and the EU prevented measures to improve the lives of millions of Syrians and ensured millions of refugees could not return home, all in order to weaken the regime and ensure popular discontent remained high. Nice.

There are more than 10 million Syrian refugees — most are hated “Others” in Europe and Turkey.  The war, with so much blood on Assad’s hands, was in part fuelled and funded by the US and the EU to weaken a geostrategic adversary.

It created the largest refugee and displacement crisis of our time, affecting millions of people and spilling into surrounding countries.  More than 15 million Syrians needed emergency assistance in 2023, more than 90 percent live below the poverty line and some 12 million suffer food insecurity, but the US has the chutzpah to view Syria as a geostrategic success story because it robbed the country of any chance at reconstruction over the last several years.

Interrupted …:)

Syria’s rebirth hinges on inclusivity, democracy, and sovereignty: Marwa… https://t.co/8QJrCbubFl via @YouTube

— Marwan (@marwanbishara) December 12, 2024

For the moment the Western media is promoting Abu Mohammad al-Jalani, the leader of Hayʼat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), whose forces took Damascus last weekend, as a kind of Woke Al Qaeda leader who has embraced Western values.  More cynical commentators like Pepe Escobar refer to him as “an Al-Qaeda head-chopper with a freshly-trimmed beard and a Zelensky suit”.

I have no opinion either way; time will tell.

I’m perplexed, however, that within hours of his Turkish-trained, Qatari-funded, Western armed troops crossing out of Idlib province, al-Jalani was on CNN; it smacked of a K Street/Washington PR exercise. Clearly al-Jalani is astute enough to know that being friends with America is a sensible survival strategy for the time being.

He may even have had his own Road to Damascus moment. Let’s hope.

Hayʼat Tahrir al-Sham is still designated a terror group by both the UN Security Council and the US, the latter posted a $10 million bounty on al-Jalani’s head some years ago.  But that didn’t stop the US keeping close contact with him via diplomats like James Jeffrey, Special Envoy to Syria from 2018-2020, who described HTS as a US “asset”.

From the Obama administration onwards, the US poured arms and dollars into al-Qaeda and other Islamist groups, via secret multi-billion dollar programmes like Operation Timber Sycamore. The jihadists were the most effective fighters undermining the Assad regime.  Back in 2012 Jake Sullivan wrote to his boss Hilary Clinton to famously clarify that “AQ [al-Qaeda)] is on our side in Syria.” Thanks, again, Wikileaks.

President Biden, like Netanyahu, says that his country played a vital role in bringing down the Assad regime.  Fair enough: then apply the Pottery Barn Rule: If you break it, you own it — and you should fix it.

Several hundred billion dollars in reparations, and the return of the oil and wheat fields would be a start. In reality, I think peace will only come to the region once the Americans and Europeans are driven out.

I hope Hayʼat Tahrir al-Sham lives up to its promise to respect other ethnic and religious groups. I hope Israel withdraws. I hope for lots of good things for Syria but I’m not optimistic, despite being told daily by BBC, The Guardian, The New York Times and others that something wonderful has just happened.

Balkanisation — the fragmenting of the country into hostile statelets —  is the great risk for Syria. Let’s hope for something better for the Syrian people — that they are allowed to form a state that is united, sovereign and free.

Eugene Doyle is a writer based in Wellington. He has written extensively on the Middle East, as well as peace and security issues in the Asia Pacific region. He hosts the public policy platform solidarity.co.nz and contributes to Café Pacific.

This article was first published on Café Pacific.

Vanuatu’s special envoy to climate change says their case to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is based on the argument that those harming the climate are breaking international law.

The case seeks an advisory opinion from the court on the legal responsibilities of countries in relation to climate change, and dozens of countries are making oral submissions.

Hearings started in The Hague with Vanuatu — the Pacific island nation that initiated the effort to obtain a legal opinion — yesterday.

Vanuatu’s Special Envoy for Climate Change and Environment  Ralph Regenvanu told RNZ Morning Report they are not just talking about countries breaking climate law.

He outlined their argument as: “This conduct — to do emissions which cause harm to the climate system, which harms other countries — is in fact a breach of international law, is unlawful, and the countries who do that should face legal consequences.”

He said they were wanting a line in the sand, even though any ruling from the court will be non-binding.

“We’re hoping for a new benchmark in international law which basically says if you pollute with cumulative global greenhouse gas emissions, you cause climate change, then you are in breach of international law,” he said.

“I think it will help clarify, for us, the UNFCCC (UN Framework Convention on Climate Change) process negotiations for example.”

Regenvanu said COP29 in Baku was frustrating, with high-emitting states still doing fossil fuel production and the development of new oil and coal fields.

What Vanuatu youth Vepaiamele Trief said… https://t.co/5cFNHhh5rd

— Ralph Regenvanu (@RRegenvanu) December 3, 2024

He said a ruling from the ICJ, though non-binding, will clearly say that “international law says you cannot do this”.

“So at least we’ll have something, sort of a line in the sand.”

Oral submissions to the court are expected to take two weeks.

Another Pacific climate change activist says at the moment there are no consequences for countries failing to meet their climate goals.

Pacific Community (SPC) director of climate change Coral Pasisi said a strong legal opinion from the ICJ might be able to hold polluting countries accountable for failing to reach their targets.

The court will decide on two questions:

• What are the obligations of states under international law to protect the climate and environment from greenhouse gas emissions?
• What are the legal consequences for states that have caused significant harm to the climate and environment?

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Palau’s President Surangel Whipps Jr is inviting US President-elect Donald Trump to “visit the Pacific” to see firsthand the impacts of the climate crisis.

Palau is set to host the largest annual Pacific leaders meeting in 2026, and the country’s leader Whipps told RNZ Pacific he would “love” Trump to be there.

He said he might even take the American leader, who is often criticised as a climate change denier, snorkelling in Palau’s pristine waters.

Whipps said he had seen the damage to the marine ecosystem.

“I was out snorkelling on Sunday, and once again, it’s unfortunate, but we had another heat, very warm, warming of the oceans, so I saw a lot of bleached coral,” he said.

“It’s sad to see that it’s happening more frequently and these are just impacts of what is happening around the world because of our addiction to fossil fuel.”

“I would very much like to bring [Trump] to Palau if he can. That would be a fantastic opportunity to take him snorkelling and see the impacts. See the islands that are disappearing because of sea level rise, see the taro swamps that are being invaded.”

Americans experiencing the impacts
Whipps said Americans were experiencing the impacts in states such as Florida and North Carolina.

“I mean, that’s something that you need to experience. I mean, they’re experiencing [it] in Florida and North Carolina.

“They just had major disasters recently and I think that’s the rallying call that we all need to take responsibility.”

However, Trump is not necessarily known for his support of climate action. Instead, he has promised to “drill baby drill” to expand oil and gas production in the US.

Palau International Coral Reef Center researcher Christina Muller-Karanasos said surveying of corals in Palau was underway after multiple reports of bleaching.

She said the main cause of coral bleaching was climate change.

“It’s upsetting. There were areas where there were quite a lot of bleaching.

Most beautiful, pristine reef
“The most beautiful and pristine reef and amount of fish and species of fish that I’ve ever seen. It’s so important for the health of the reef. The healthy reef also supports healthy fish populations, and that’s really important for Palau.”

University of Hawai’i Manoa’s Dr Tarcisius Tara Kabutaulaka suspects Trump will focus on the Pacific, but for geopolitical gains.

“It will be about the militarisation of the climate change issue that you are using climate change to build relationships so that you can ensure you do the counter China issue as well.”

He believed Trump has made his position clear on the climate front.

“He said, and I quote, ‘that it is one of the great scams of all time’. And so he is a climate crisis denier.”

It is exactly the kind of comment President Whipps does not want to hear, especially from a leader of a country which Palau is close to — or from any nation.

“We need the United States, we need China, and we need India and Russia to be the leaders to make sure that we put things on track,” he said.

For the Pacific, the climate crisis is the biggest existential and security threat.

Leaders like Whipps are considering drastic measures, including the nuclear energy option.

“We’ve got to look at alternatives, and one of those is nuclear energy. It’s clean, it’s carbon free,” he told RNZ Pacific.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Australia’s government is being condemned by climate action groups for discouraging the International Court of Justice (ICJ) from ruling in favour of a court action brought by Vanuatu to determine legal consequences for states that fail to meet fossil reduction commitments.

In its submission before the ICJ at The Hague yesterday, Australia argued that climate action obligations under any legal framework should not extend beyond the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement.

It has prompted a backlash, with Greenpeace accusing Australia’s government of undermining the court case.

“I’m very disappointed,” said Vepaiamele Trief, a Ni-Van Save the Children Next Generation Youth Ambassador, who is present at The Hague.

“To go to the ICJ and completely go against what we are striving for, is very sad to see.

“As a close neighbour of the Pacific Islands, Australia has a duty to support us.”

RNZ Pacific reports Vanuatu’s special envoy to climate change says their case to the ICJ is based on the argument that those harming the climate are breaking international law.

Special Envoy Ralph Regenvanu told RNZ Morning Report they are not just talking about countries breaking climate law.

Republished from ABC Pacific Beat with permission.

Climate @CIJ_ICJ hearings day 1 recap:
🇻🇺called for climate justice, self-determination & accountability
🇩🇪 talks of climate leadership but argues against binding human rights
🇦🇬 exposed polluters hiding behind the #ParisAgreement to dodge accountability.https://t.co/PB86XFpwzA pic.twitter.com/KI1hOKAM0G

— Center for International Environmental Law (@ciel_tweets) December 3, 2024

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Vanuatu’s special envoy to climate change says their case to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is based on the argument that those harming the climate are breaking international law.

The case seeks an advisory opinion from the court on the legal responsibilities of countries in relation to climate change, and dozens of countries are making oral submissions.

Hearings started in The Hague with Vanuatu — the Pacific island nation that initiated the effort to obtain a legal opinion — yesterday.

Vanuatu’s Special Envoy for Climate Change and Environment  Ralph Regenvanu told RNZ Morning Report they are not just talking about countries breaking climate law.

He outlined their argument as: “This conduct — to do emissions which cause harm to the climate system, which harms other countries — is in fact a breach of international law, is unlawful, and the countries who do that should face legal consequences.”

He said they were wanting a line in the sand, even though any ruling from the court will be non-binding.

“We’re hoping for a new benchmark in international law which basically says if you pollute with cumulative global greenhouse gas emissions, you cause climate change, then you are in breach of international law,” he said.

“I think it will help clarify, for us, the UNFCCC (UN Framework Convention on Climate Change) process negotiations for example.”

Regenvanu said COP29 in Baku was frustrating, with high-emitting states still doing fossil fuel production and the development of new oil and coal fields.

What Vanuatu youth Vepaiamele Trief said… https://t.co/5cFNHhh5rd

— Ralph Regenvanu (@RRegenvanu) December 3, 2024

He said a ruling from the ICJ, though non-binding, will clearly say that “international law says you cannot do this”.

“So at least we’ll have something, sort of a line in the sand.”

Oral submissions to the court are expected to take two weeks.

Another Pacific climate change activist says at the moment there are no consequences for countries failing to meet their climate goals.

Pacific Community (SPC) director of climate change Coral Pasisi said a strong legal opinion from the ICJ might be able to hold polluting countries accountable for failing to reach their targets.

The court will decide on two questions:

• What are the obligations of states under international law to protect the climate and environment from greenhouse gas emissions?
• What are the legal consequences for states that have caused significant harm to the climate and environment?

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

As the curtain fell at the UN climate summit in Baku last Sunday, frustration and disappointment engulfed Pacific delegations after another meeting under-delivered.

Two weeks of intensive negotiations at COP29, hosted by Azerbaijan and attended by 55,000 delegates, resulted in a consensus decision among nearly 200 nations.

Climate finance was tripled to US $300 billion a year in grant and loan funding from developed nations, far short of the more than US $1 trillion sought by Least Developed Countries and Small Island Developing States.

“We travelled thousands of kilometres, it is a long way to travel back without good news,” Niue’s Minister of Natural Resources Mona Ainu’u told BenarNews.

Three-hundred Pacific delegates came to COP29 with the key demands to stay within the 1.5-degree C warming goal, make funds available and accessible for small island states, and cut ambiguous language from agreements.

Their aim was to make major emitters pay Pacific nations — who are facing the worst effects of climate change despite being the lowest contributors — to help with transition, adaptation and mitigation.

“If we lose out on the 1.5 degrees C, then it really means nothing for us being here, understanding the fact that we need money in order for us to respond to the climate crisis,” Tuvalu’s Minister for Climate Change Maina Talia told BenarNews at the start of talks.

PNG withdrew
Papua New Guinea withdrew from attending just days before COP29, with Prime Minister James Marape warning: “The pledges made by major polluters amount to nothing more than empty talk.”

Fiji’s lead negotiator Dr Sivendra Michael told BenarNews that climate finance cut across many of the committee negotiations running in parallel, with parties all trying to strategically position themselves.

“We had a really challenging time in the adaptation committee room, where groups of negotiators from the African region had done a complete block on any progress on (climate) tax,” said Dr Michael, adding the Fiji team was called to order on every intervention they made.

He said it’s the fourth consecutive year adaptation talks were left hanging, despite agreement among the majority of nations, because there was “no consensus among the like-minded developing countries, which includes China, as well as the African group.”

Pacific delegates told BenarNews at COP they battled misinformation, obstruction and subversion by developed and high-emitting nations, including again negotiating on commitments agreed at COP28 last year.

Pushback began early on with long sessions on the Global Stock Take, an assessment of what progress nations and stakeholders had made to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees C.

“If we cannot talk about 1.5, then we have a very weak language around mitigation,” Tuvalu’s Talia said. “Progress on finance was nothing more than ‘baby steps’.”

Pacific faced resistance
Pacific negotiators faced resistance to their call for U.S.$39 billion for Small Island Developing States and U.S.$220 billion for Least Developed Countries.

“We expected pushbacks, but the lack of ambition was deeply frustrating,” Talia said.

Greenpeace Pacific lead Shiva Gounden accused developed countries of deliberately stalling talks — of which Australia co-chaired the finance discussions — including by padding texts with unnecessary wording.

“Hours passed without any substance out of it, and then when they got into the substance of the text, there simply was not enough time,” he told BenarNews.

In the final week of COP29, the intense days negotiating continued late into the nights, sometimes ending the next morning.

“Nothing is moving as it should, and climate finance is a black hole,” Pacific Climate Action Network senior adviser Sindra Sharma told BenarNews during talks.

“There are lots of rumours and misinformation floating around, people saying that SIDS are dropping things — this is a complete lie.”

COP29 presidency influence
Sharma said the significant influence of the COP presidency — held by Azerbaijan — came to bear as talks on the final outcome dragged past the Friday night deadline.

The Azeri presidency faced criticism for not pushing strongly enough for incorporation of the “transition away from fossil fuels” — agreed to at COP28 — in draft texts.

“What we got in the end on Saturday was a text that didn’t have the priorities that smaller island states and least developed countries had reflected,” Sharma said.

COP29’s outcome was finally announced on Sunday at 5.30am.

“For me it was heartbreaking, how developed countries just blocked their way to fulfilling their responsibilities, their historical responsibilities, and pretty much offloaded that to developing countries,” Gounden from Greenpeace Pacific said.

Some retained faith
Amid the Pacific delegates’ disappointment, some retained their faith in the summits and look forward to COP30 in Brazil next year.

“We are tired, but we are here to hold the line on hope; we have no choice but to,” 350.org Pacific managing director Joseph Zane Sikulu told BenarNews.

“We can very easily spend time talking about who is missing, who is not here, and the impact that it will have on negotiation, or we can focus on the ones who came, who won’t give up,” he said at the end of summit.

Fiji’s lead negotiator Dr Michael said the outcome was “very disappointing” but not a total loss.

“COP is a very diplomatic process, so when people come to me and say that COP has failed, I am in complete disagreement, because no COP is a failure,” he told BenarNews at the end of talks.

“If we don’t agree this year, then it goes to next year; the important thing is to ensure that Pacific voices are present,” he said.

Republished from BenarNews with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz