The West is in turmoil over countries’ top legal minds declaring the US-Israel attack on Iran to be illegal, as China did.

But Israel-friendly Western politicians, including Starmer, von der Leyen, Albanese, and others are desperately blocking their ears as they try to justify actual war crimes.

Here’s what the specialists say:

1. The European Journal of International Law is very clear that “this use of force by the US and Israel is manifestly illegal. It is as plain a violation of the prohibition on the use of force in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter as one could possibly have.”

2. Other top European bodies have agreed. “Trump’s strikes on Iran are an illegal war of choice—and Europeans should say so,” said a report published by the European Council of Foreign Relations.

It said leaders must “communicate clearly that this is a war of choice by America, in contravention of the same UN charter the Europeans have themselves invoked to condemn Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine and insist on Greenland’s sovereignty.”

3. Arguably even more telling was a statement from the former legal chief at US Central Command, literally the people who are carrying out the bombings on Iran:

“Not only does this violate international law in numerous respects, it clearly violates the US Constitution and the War Powers Resolution,” said retired Air Force Lieutenant-Colonel Rachel Van Landingham.

Her entire career has been about establishing the difference between legal and illegal attacks by US Centcom, the people doing the attacking.

4. “Trump and Netanyahu’s attack on Iran is an illegal act of aggression” was the title of an essay by Kenneth Roth in the UK Guardian: “Their actions are no different from Putin’s invasion of Ukraine…”

This is interesting as Roth is best known as the former head of Human Rights Watch, a US foreign policy tool thinly disguised as an NGO (evidence for that is in a separate report).

5. The same argument, with arguably even more fire, is erupting in the UK. Unpopular Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, known for his pro-Trump and pro-Israel positions, is being taken to task by people speaking for the British people, who tend to be anti-war and are generally not fans of Trump.

Jeremy Corbyn, elder statesman of the UK left, described the US-Israel attack as “illegal, unprovoked and unjustifiable”.

“Peace and diplomacy was possible,” he added. “Instead, Israel and the United States chose war. This is the behaviour of rogue states — and they have jeopardised the safety of humankind around the world with this catastrophic act of aggression.”

6. Even people on Starmer’s own team were clear. Labour MP Emily Thornberry, chairperson of the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, told the Press Association: “There is no legal basis for this attack.”

Israel loyalist Starmer pointedly chose not to repeat this point.

7. Patrick Harvie, Scottish parliamentarian, said: “It is part of a pattern of reckless and destructive behaviour from a White House that has shown total contempt for human rights, international law and negotiations… From arming Israel’s genocide against Palestinians to his illegal and immoral coup in Venezuela and his threats against Europe, Trump has acted like a gangster on the world stage.”

8. Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, a strong backer of the Israeli government, is also in trouble.

Legal experts in Australia have been pointing out the illegality of the attacks on Iran since last year. “Why the US strikes on Iran are illegal and can set a troubling precedent,” was the title of a report by Professor Donald Rothwell of the ANU College of Law, after earlier attacks on Iran.

Many Australians are anti-war, but prominent politicians and the media are pushing a strongly pro-war line.

9. “Israel said the strikes were ‘preventive’, meaning they were to prevent Iran from developing a capacity to be a threat. But preventive war has no legal basis under international law,” said a statement from two political specialists at the University of the Sunshine Coast, Shannon Brincat and Juan Zahir Naranjo Caceres.

Marko Milanovic, editor of the European Journal of International Law (mentioned above), made the same point. “Even if the broadest possible understanding of anticipatory self-defence was taken as correct, Israel’s use of force against Iran would be illegal,” he said.

10. The point is echoed by multiple experts. “The possibility of acting in self-defence in view of an attack that might be coming is illegal in international law and we’re all very, very clear about that,” said Maria Gavouneli, a professor of international law at Athens University, in an interview with Al-Jazeera.

11. Even in the US, lawmakers on both sides have criticised the attack on Iran as being against the law. Senator Ed Markey called the actions “illegal and unconstitutional”.

12. Former US Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes declared the attack to be an illegal war, ‘A war that has no domestic or international legal basis. A war that Americans do not support. A war in response to no imminent threat. A pointless war,’ he wrote on X.

Conclusion
Immediately after the US-Israel attack began, China’s Foreign Ministry said it was “a grave violation of Iran’s sovereignty and security”.

Legal experts across the Western nations agree.

There is no doubt that the US-Israel attacks on Iran are illegal, as numerous voices from around the world are saying.

Equally, there is also no doubt that the pro-Israel Western elite, who dominate politics and the media, will try to cover up this fact: Trump, von der Leyen, Starmer, Merz, and others.

Trouble is brewing in the West, as people realise just how controlled their rulers are.

Nury Vittachi is a Sri Lankan-born author based in Hong Kong and an independent writer. This article was first published on his X page.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A new Pacific Media research publication and outlet for academics and community advocates has now been added to the Informit database for researchers.

Two editions of the new journal, published by the Aotearoa-based independent Asia Pacific Media Network (APMN) and following the traditions of Pacific Journalism Review, have been included in the database’s archives for institutional access.

Most university and polytech journalism schools in Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific subscribe to Informit which delivers expert-curated and extensive information from sectors such as health, engineering, business, humanities, science and law — and also journalism and media.

Informit also offers an Indigenous Collection with a broad scope of scholarship related to Indigenous culture, health, human geography in Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific.

Pacific Media offers journalists, journalism academics and community activists and researchers an outlet for quality research and analysis and more opportunities for community collaborative publishing in either a journal or monograph format.

While associated with Pacific Journalism Review, the new publication series provides a broader platform for longer form research than has generally been available in the PJR, featured here at ANU’s Development Policy Centre. The full 30-year archive of PJR is on the Informit database.

Earlier editions of Pacific Journalism Monographs have included a diverse range of journalism research from media freedom and human rights in the Asia-Pacific to Asia-Pacific research methodologies, climate change in Kiribati, vernacular Pasifika media research in New Zealand, and post-coup self-censorship in Fiji.

Managing editor Dr David Robie, who founded both the PJR and PM, welcomed the Informit initiative and also praised the Tuwhera DOJ platform at AUT University.

“There is a real need for Pacific media research that is independent of vested interests and we are delighted that our APMN partnership developed with Informit is continuing with our new Pacific Media journal,” he said

The first edition, themed on “Pacific media challenges and futures”, was partnered with the The University of the South Pacific and edited by Associate Professor Shailendra Singh and Dr Amit Sarwal and published last year.

The second edition, themed on “Media construct, constructive media”, was partnered with the Asian Congress for Media and Communication (ACMC) and edited by Khairiah A Rahman and Dr Rachel E Khan, and was also recently published.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

As Waitangi Day commemorations continue drawing people from across Aotearoa and around the world to the Bay of Islands, Te Tii Marae has become a gathering point for Indigenous ocean leadership from across the Pacific.

Taiātea: Gathering of the Oceans held its public forum yesterday, uniting more than 20 Indigenous leaders, marine scientists and researchers from Australia, Canada, Cook Islands, Hawai’i, Niue, Rapa Nui and Aotearoa.

The forum forms part of a wider 10-day wānanga taking place across Te Ika a Māui (North Island).

With a focus on the protection and restoration of Te Moana Nui a Kiwa, the Pacific Ocean, kōrero throughout the day centred on the exchange of knowledge, marine protection, ocean resilience and the accelerating impacts of climate change.

A key message remained prevalent throughout the day – the moana is not separate from the people, but a living ancestor, and a responsibility carried across generations.

‘Continue that path of conservation, preservation’
Hawaiʻi’s Solomon Pili Kaho’ohalahala, co-founder of One Oceania, a former politician, and a respected elder, framed his kōrero around the belief that there is no separation between human and nature — “we are all one”.

For Kaho’ohalahala, being present at Waitangi has been a powerful reminder of the links between past, present, and future.

“Waitangi is a very historical place for the Māori people,” he said. “It is where important decisions were made by your elders.

“So to be here in this place, for me, is significant.”

“We are talking about historical events that have happened to our people across Oceania, preserved by the elders who had visions to create treaties . . .  decisions that were going to be impactful to the generations to follow,” Kaho’ohalahala said.

“It brings the relevancy of these conversations. They are what we need to negotiate and navigate the challenges we face in the present. The purpose for this is, ultimately, no different to the kupuna (Hawai’ian elder), that this was intended for the generations yet unborn,” he added.

Kaho’ohalahala also reflected on the enduring connections between indigenous communities across oceans.

“To be a part of this conversation from across the ocean that separates us, our connection by our culture and canoes is to help us understand that we are still all connected as the people of Oceania.

“But we need to be able to reiterate that, and understand why we need to emerge from that past to bring it to our relevancy to these times and issues, to continue that path of conservation, preservation, for those unborn.”

She said Waitangi was the perfect backdrop to encourage these discussions. While different cultures face individual challenges, there is a collective sense of unity.

“One of our key pillars is nurturing our future tamariki, and the ways of our peu tupuna, and nurturing stewardship and guardianship with them as our future leaders,” Castledine said.

“It’s about reclaiming how we perceive our ocean as being an ancestor, as a living organism, as whānau to us. We’re here at Waitangi to stand in solidarity of our shared ancestor and the responsibility we all have for its protection,” Castledine said.

She said people must be forward-thinking in how they collectively navigate environmental wellbeing.

“We all have a desire and a love for our moana, our indigenous knowledge systems of our oceans are critical to curating futures for our tamariki and mokopuna,” she said.

“We want to ensure that generations that come after us will continue to be able to feed generations beyond all of us. It’s about safeguarding their inheritance.”

“This is [an] opportunity to learn about common challenges we may have, and how other nations and indigenous leaders are facing those challenges, and what successes they’ve been having,” she said.

“It just makes sense that we have a relationship, and that we build that relationship.”

She noted the central role of the marine environment for her people.

“It’s not lost on me that my people are ocean-going people as well. We rely on the marine environment.

“Our salmon is the foundation and the backbone of our livelihood and the livelihood of all other beings in which we live amongst. I’m a world away, and yet I’m still sitting within the Pacific Ocean.

“So the work I do at home and how we take care of our marine environment impacts the people of Aotearoa as well, and vice versa. And so it just makes sense that we have a relationship, and that we build that relationship, because traditionally we did,” she added.

Following the public forum, indigenous leaders will visit haukāinga in the Tūwharetoa and Whanganui regions for further knowledge exchanges and to discuss specific case studies.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A new paper by women scholars warns colonial power structures are still shaping health systems across the Pacific region.

They are calling for a radical shift in global health leadership and decision-making.

The call comes from a new paper published this month in The Lancet Regional Health – Western Pacific, led by researchers from Waipapa Taumata Rau, the University of Auckland, alongside Pacific collaborators.

The paper argues that while global health is framed around fairness and inclusion, Pacific knowledge and leadership are often marginalised in practice.

Dr Sainimere Boladuadua, lead author from the University of Auckland’s Department of Paediatrics: Child and Youth Health, said these power imbalances directly impacted on communities.

“Global Health must stop undervaluing Pacific expertise,” Dr Boladuadua said in a statement.

“When overseas consultants are paid more than local experts, and research extracts knowledge without building local capacity, colonial patterns are reinforced.”

Colonisation inequities
The researchers have traced current inequities to the history of colonisation in the Pacific, driven by commercial, religious, and military interests.

While many Pacific nations have since achieved political independence, the paper argues that colonial structures persist through unequal trade relationships, labour migration schemes, and externally controlled funding.

Dr Boladuadua said these systems limited Pacific control over health research, policy priorities, and resources, even as communities face growing burdens from non-communicable diseases and climate change.

“Global Health, at its core, is about health equity for all,” she said. “That means prioritising the most pressing problems faced by communities with the least resources.”

A plan for change
The paper outlines four action areas to transform global health in the Pacific: strengthening sovereignty through Pacific-led decision-making; integrating Indigenous and Western knowledge systems; building genuine and reciprocal partnerships; and ensuring fair pay, recognition, and leadership opportunities for Pacific professionals.

The authors argue Pacific Island countries must be supported to set their own priorities, including control over funding, research management, data sovereignty, and workforce training.

The researchers also highlight language as a source of power. They say English is often treated as the default in global health, but its use “should not come at the expense of Indigenous Pacific languages and knowledge systems”.

The research places Pacific women at the centre of decolonisation efforts, noting that while colonisation was deeply patriarchal, Indigenous women historically held major leadership roles in island societies.

“Contrary to the control of white women during colonisation, Indigenous women held powerful positions in Island societies,” the research states.

Growing Pacific leadership
Dr Boladuadua said change was already underway, pointing to the establishment of the Fiji Institute of Pacific Health Research and the launch of the Pacific Academy of Sciences in Sāmoa as signs of growing Pacific leadership.

At the academy’s opening ceremony, then-prime minister Fiamē Naomi Mata’afa said the launch marked an important milestone for regional collaboration and would “give voice to science in and from the Pacific Islands”.

The authors argue Pacific-led approaches offer a blueprint not only for the region, but for building fairer and more resilient global health systems worldwide.

Republished from Pacific Media Network News with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

It is well known that the people of Bougainville want independence. In the 2019 referendum, 98.3 percent of them voted for it.

And in 2025, Ishmael Touroma, a strong advocate of independence, was re-elected to the position of President of the Autonomous Region of Bougainville, further confirmation of the widespread support for independence among the people of Bougainville.

But what do the people of PNG think about Bougainville independence? Much less is known about this. As a start, we included a question about Bougainville independence in the 2025 annual survey of University of Papua New Guinea (UPNG) students.

When asking the question, we reminded the students we surveyed of the strong support in Bougainville for independence, and told them that, as mentioned above, “in a recent referendum, an overwhelming majority (98.31 percent) of voters in Bougainville chose to have full independence from PNG over greater autonomy.”

We then asked the students to consider this outcome when selecting from one of four options that we presented to them.

They could say that Bougainville should be granted full independence, that it should remain in PNG with greater autonomy, that they oppose any changes in Bougainville’s current status, or that they were unsure.

Only 27 percent of the 389 School of Business and Public Policy students who took the survey supported full independence. The majority, 59 percent said that Bougainville should remain part of PNG but with greater autonomy. Of the balance, 11 percent said they were unsure and 3 percent said that they supported no change in the current status.

Opposition to independence was widespread across all four regions of PNG, but was slightly stronger among students from the Momase and Highlands regions, and lower among students from the Islands and Southern regions.

However, these differences are not statistically significant. Even in the Islands region, which might be expected to be more sympathetic to Bougainville independence, a majority of students were in fact opposed.

The most supportive was the Southern region, but even there 51 percent of students were opposed to independence.

Female students were slightly more supportive of independence (25 percent male vs 30 percent female). Male students were more likely to support greater autonomy (62 percent vs 52 percent) and women were more likely to be unsure (15 percent vs 9 percent). Again these differences were not statistically significant.

In summary, this survey of some almost 400 UPNG students found widespread opposition to Bougainville independence. We want to stress that we are not endorsing these views, nor criticising them. We are just reporting them.

The opposition we find among students is probably reflective of views more generally in PNG, at least among the elite, and might help explain why PNG’s political leaders are dragging their feet on the issue if not “fundamentally opposed” to independence.

Few, such as the former prime minister Peter O’Neill, have come out openly to express their opposition to independence. But few, such as the late Morobe Premier Luther Wenge, have been openly supportive either.

There seems to be a general reluctance among PNG’s political leadership to respond to the 2019 referendum result, much to the frustration of Bougainville’s political leadership.

On the one hand, it seems that no-one wants a confrontation. On the other, PNG’s political leadership, like UPNG’s student body, doesn’t seem to find the 2019 referendum result a convincing reason to support the cause of Bougainville independence.

If our survey is anything to go by, the PNG elite is willing to compromise (to allow Bougainville greater autonomy) but not to support its break away from the nation.

If Bougainville wants independence, it will have to do more to win hearts and minds in the rest of PNG. Our survey shows that it is not enough to simply reiterate the overwhelming support that independence has within Bougainville.

The students were explicitly reminded of this and still only one-quarter supported independence. If Bougainville is to succeed in its independence aspirations, it will need to do more to convince PNG’s elite, or at least its future elite, why it should be allowed to break away.

Anna Kapil is a Lecturer at the University of Papua New Guinea. She completed a Master of International and Development Economics at the Australian National University. Anna was a Greg Taylor Scholar at the Development Policy Centre.

Dr 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.

For other findings from the 2025 survey, see this article series and the 2025 PNG Update presentation. The results of the first survey, conducted in 2024, are reported here. Statistical significance was judged using the Chi-square test. Republished from the DevPolicy blog under Creative Commons.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Pacific media are facing one of their most challenging reporting environments in their history, marked by governance issues, political instability, geopolitical pressures and escalating climate threats, while simultaneously grappling with declining revenue streams and threats to their financial survival.

This is highlighted in the inaugural edition of the Pacific Media academic journal, by co-editors, associate professor and head of the University of the South Pacific (USP) Journalism Programme, Dr Shailendra Singh, and co-founder of The Australia Today, Dr Amit Sarwal.

In their editorial, Dr Singh and Dr Sarwal say Pacific media systems — already vulnerable due to their small scale — continue to be hit by the collapse of traditional advertising models that once kept legacy media afloat.

They point out that although small and geographically isolated, the regional media have not been spared the ravages of digital disruption, which continues to pose a threat to the media’s traditional advertising-based revenue model. This was compounded by losses from the covid-19 pandemic.

These issues, and more, re-surfaced at the 2024 Pacific International Media Conference in Suva, Fiji. The conference, the first of its kind in 20 years, was hosted by the USP’s School of Pacific Arts, Communication and Education (Journalism), in partnership with the Pacific Islands News Association (PINA), the United States Embassy in Suva and Asia Pacific Media Network.

Selected blind peer reviewed conference papers published in Pacific Media highlight how Pacific news reporting is becoming increasingly complex and contentious, even as newsrooms face unprecedented financial and editorial pressures.

A key question explored at the conference, and a recurring theme in the journal, is how Pacific media are responding to and reporting on the overlapping challenges in the region, which have compounded the long-standing struggles to achieve sustainable development.

In his paper, Frontline media faultlines: How critical journalism can survive against the odds, the journal’s production and managing editor, veteran Pacific journalist and educator Dr David Robie warned that Pacific media face a “plethora of emerging and entrenched problems” — from collapsing business models to the rise of fake news, leadership failures, and political corruption.

Despite reporting on these issues for decades, little progress has been made even as new challenges emerge.

In The History of the Pacific Islands News Association (PINA) 1972–2023, Marsali Mackinnon and Kalafi Moala, while paying tribute to the region’s media pioneers, explore enduring questions about the state of Pacific media, especially in the context of digital disruption and revenue losses. They ask whether the industry has lost its vitality and if journalists and media workers still uphold core values like freedom of speech and impartial reporting.

The article, based on their forthcoming book chronicling PINA’s 50-year history, looks at the challenges facing Pacific media — economic, political, technological, and cultural pressures — and examines whether the principles established by postcolonial pioneers in the 1970s have been compromised.

Another paper, Women’s political empowerment in the Asia-Pacific region: The role of social media, by associate professor Baljeet Singh, Dr Singh, Nitika Nand and Shasnil Chand, examines how social media positively influences women’s political empowerment across 20 Asia-Pacific countries. Based on their findings, the authors recommend that regional governments and development partners prioritise improved connectivity and online access in deprived areas as a key strategy to empower women and strengthen their participation in politics and political leadership.

In his paper, Reporting the nuclear Pacific: Facing new geopolitical challenges, journalist and researcher Nic Maclellan revisits the Pacific’s nuclear testing legacy, highlighting the crucial role of journalists in preserving survivors’ stories. He argues that the nuclear threat in the Pacific is far from over and has re-emerged in new forms, requiring sustained media attention and critical reporting.

In his commentary, Behind the Mic: How Sashi Singh’s Talking Point helped shape Fiji’s political landscape, Sashimendra Singh reflects on the impact of his Sydney-based podcast in the lead-up to Fiji’s 2022 General Election. The former Fiji-based broadcaster interviewed key political figures, including Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka and the three Deputy Prime Ministers, while they were still in opposition.

Singh’s podcast tackled issues that Fiji’s suppressed national media were reluctant to address and went on to attract a large following. The article demonstrates the growing importance of diaspora media and new media technologies, showing how social media can positively circumvent censorship imposed by national authorities.

In The “Coconut Wireless”: Ways that community news endures and spreads in a news desert, Krista Rados and Brett Oppegaard address the concept of “news deserts” in the Pacific — areas where communities urgently need local information but lack trustworthy sources. This paper highlights the enduring strengths of social media in fostering journalism in remote, sparsely populated, and underdeveloped communities.

Pacific Media, launched last year, succeeds the long-running Pacific Journalism Review, which began at the University of Papua New Guinea in 1994 and was archived after 30 years of publication. PJR is now a public database for research.

This inaugural edition is a collaboration between USP, the Asia Pacific Media Network (APMN), and Tuwhera Open Access platform, aimed at documenting the rapid transformations shaping journalism in the region — and how Pacific media can navigate an increasingly turbulent future.

Some other key papers include:

This article was first published by Wansolwara News and is republished by Asia Pacific Report as a collaboration between the University of the South Pacific and Asia Pacific Media Network.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

As the world’s largest Indigenous education conference (WIPCE) closed last night in Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland, a shared sentiment emerged — despite arriving with different languages, lands, and traditions, attendees across the board felt the kotahitanga (unity).

The gathering — held in partnership with mana whenua Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei, brought together more than 3000 participants from around the globe.

Many reflected that, despite being far from home, the event felt like one.

WIPCE officials also announced that Hawai’i would host the 2027 conference.

Throughout the week, the kaupapa — while centered on education — entailed themes of climate, health, language, politics, wellbeing, and more.

‘Being face-to-face is the native way’     Video: RNZ

Delegates travelled from across Moana-nui-a-Kiwa (Pacific Ocean), Canada, Hawai’i, Alaska, Australia and beyond to share their own stories, cultures, and aspirations for indigenous futures.

Among those reflecting on the gathering was renowned Kanaka Maoli educator, cultural practitioner and native rights activist Dr Noe-Noe Wong-Wilson.

She coordinated the 1999 conference, the fifth WIPCE, and has served on the council ever since.

Scale and spirit unique
Dr Wong-Wilson, a Hawai’ian culture educator, retired University of Hawaiʻi-Hilo and Hawaiʻi Community College educator, and former programme leader supporting Native Hawai’ian student success, now serves on the WIPCE International Council.

She believes the scale and spirit of WIPCE remains unique.

“Most of the WIPCE conferences have included over 3000 of our members that come from all over the world . . .  as far away as South, and our Sāmi cousins who come from Greenland, Iceland, and Norway,” Dr Wong-Wilson said.

Wong-Wilson described WIPCE as a multigenerational gathering of educators, scholars, and community knowledge holders.

“We always acknowledge our community knowledge holders, our chiefs, our grandmothers, our aunties, who hold the culture and the knowledge and the language in their communities,” Dr Wong-Wilson said.

“WIPCE is unique because it’s largely a gathering of indigenous people . . .  a lot different than a conference hosted strictly by a Western academic institution.”

She emphasised that WIPCE thrives on being in-person, especially in a climate where technology has largely replaced in-person gatherings.

Face-to-face communication
“Technology is the new way of communicating . . .  but there’s nothing that can replace the face-to-face communication and relationship building, and that’s what WIPCE offers,” she said.

“Being face to face with people is really the native way . . . I think we all know what it’s like when we live in villages and when we live in communities, and that’s what WIPCE is.

“We’re a large community of indigenous, native people who bring our ancestors with us and sit in the joy of being with each other.”

The group travelled to WIPCE to speak on topics of ‘awa biopiracy, and the experiences of Kanak scholars at the University of Hawai’i at Mānoa.

“My mana is being reignited in this space, and being around so many amazing scholars and people to learn from . . . there’s been so much aloha, reaffirming our hope and our healing. This is the type of space we really need,” Taitague-Laforga said.

She added that the power of events like WIPCE lay in seeing global relationships strengthened.

“Especially as a centre for all Indigenous communities globally to connect. Oftentimes . . . colonial tools work to divide us . . .

“it’s just been beautiful to be at a centre where everybody is here to connect and create that relationality and cultivate that,” Taitague-Laforga said.

Vā Pasifika Taunga from AUT Momo’e Fatialofa said it was special to soak up culture from Indigenous communities across the world — including First Nations Canadians, Aboriginal Australians, and Hawai’ians.

‘Sharing our stories’
“I think this kaupapa is important because it allows us to share our stories, to share what is similar between our different indigenous people. And how often can you say that you can be surrounded by over 3000 people from all over the world who are indigenous in their spaces?” Fatialofa said.

“We all face similar problems . . . especially in education,” Anderson said. “We enjoy being here with the rest of the nations, you know.”

“When you look around . . .  in culture, there are differences, but we all have a shared culture, it doesn’t matter where we come from.

“We still have a culture, we still have our language, we still have our knowledge, traditional knowledge, that connects us to our land.”

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

University of the South Pacific’s Associate Professor Shailendra Singh, who edited the inaugural edition of Pacific Media journal along with co-editor Dr Amit Sarwal, has responded to the publication with a Q and A.

The new journal has replaced the Pacific Journalism Review, which was founded by Professor David Robie at the University of Papua New Guinea and published for 30 years.

This new publication, supported by Tuwhera Open Access at Auckland University of Technology, was also founded by Dr Robie and the Asia Pacific Media Network and it is hoped that it will offer greater community media access and flexibility.

What does this new publication, Pacific Media, signal?

Dr Shailendra Singh: It signals an ongoing commitment to research on Pacific media, development, and democracy — just when such research is most urgently needed to understand the impact of multiple forces reshaping the region. These include artificial intelligence, misinformation and disinformation, the intensifying geopolitical contest between China and the West, the drugs and HIV epidemic, and the existential threat of climate change. With the world on track for a three-degree Celsius temperature rise, some reports describe this as a “death sentence” for Pacific reefs, food security, and livelihoods.

Yet, even as Pacific media confront one of the most complex and challenging reporting environments in history, they remain financially fragile, due to the impacts of digital disruption and covid-19.

The 2024 Pacific Media International Conference was quite an innovative step — bringing media academics and the industry together. How has that helped the region?

It created greater awareness of the challenges facing Pacific news media and exposed some of the industry’s structural weaknesses. Importantly, it fostered a better understanding — and hopefully, greater empathy — among the public toward the difficult conditions under which Pacific journalists operate. The conference underscored the importance of ongoing research, provided direction for future studies, and demonstrated the power of regional collaboration by amplifying Pacific voices and ideas.

How does the partnership between the USP Journalism Programme and the Pacific Media publishers, Asia Pacific Media Network, contribute to journalism excellence in the region?

Research on Pacific media is as scarce as it is vital for the development of Pacific journalism. The USP Journalism Programme and the Asia Pacific Media Network are the only two entities consistently conducting dedicated research on Pacific media, democracy, and development. Historically, both have been vocal about threats to media freedom and the welfare of journalists. They have documented the impact of coups and other forms of repression, while advocating for journalist safety, ethical standards, and media independence through awareness and education.

What next?

The next step is to consolidate and expand research, and training and development. This means deepening partnerships between academia and industry, mentoring a new generation of Pacific media researchers and journalists, and securing sustainable funding for long-term studies.

It also involves strengthening regional collaboration so that Pacific voices lead the global conversation about the region — rather than being spoken to and for. Ultimately, the goal is to ensure that Pacific media remain resilient, independent, and equipped to serve their communities in the face of profound social, technological, and environmental change.

The next edition of Pacific Media, edited by Khairiah A Rahman and Dr Rachel Khan, will also be published shortly.

Republished from Pacific Media journal’s website.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Pacific Media, a new regional research journal, made its debut today with a collection of papers on issues challenging the future, such as independent journalism amid “intensifying geostrategic competition”.

The papers have been largely drawn from an inaugural Pacific International Media conference hosted by The University of the South Pacific in the Fiji capital Suva in July last year.

“It was the first Pacific media conference of its kind in 20 years, convened to address the unprecedented shifts and challenges facing the region’s media systems,” said conference coordinator and edition editor Dr Shailendra Singh, associate professor in journalism at USP.

“These include pressures arising from governance and political instability, intensifying geostrategic competition—particularly between China and the United States—climate change and environmental degradation, as well as the profound impacts of digital disruption and the COVID-19 pandemic.”

Topics included in the volume include “how critical journalism can survive” in the Pacific; “reporting the nuclear Pacific”; “Behind the mic” with Talking Point podcaster Sashi Singh, the “coconut wireless” and community news in Hawai’i,; women’s political empowerment in the Asia Pacific; “weaponising the partisan WhatsApp group in Indonesia; and “mapping the past to navigate the future” in a major Pacific Islands News Association (PINA) publishing project.

Other contributors include journalists and media academics from Australia and New Zealand featuring a “Blood on the tracks” case study in investigative journalism practice, and digital weather media coverage in the Pacific.

This inaugural publication of Pacific Media has been produced jointly by The University of the South Pacific and the New Zealand-based Asia Pacific Media Network (APMN), with Dr Amit Sarwal, one of the conference organisers, joining Dr Singh as co-editor.

Designer is Pacific Journalism Review’s Del Abcede.

APMN managing editor Dr David Robie welcomed the new publication, saying “this journal will carry on the fine and innovative research mahi (work) established by Pacific Journalism Review during a remarkable 30 years contributing to the region”.

It ceased publication last year, but is still ranked as a Q2 journal by SCOPUS.

The new journal will open up some new doors for community participation.

Both the PJR and PM research archives are in the public domain at the Tuwhera digital collection at Auckland University of Technology.

Khairaih A Rahman has been appointed by APMN as Pacific Media editor and her first edition with a collection of papers from the Asian Congress for Media and Communication (ACMC) conference in Vietnam last October will also be published shortly.

Published with permission from Asia Pacific Media Network.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

More than 700 academics have this week sent an open letter demanding the university retirement savings scheme UniSaver immediately divest from companies directly linked to Israel and genocide.

This latest letter, organised by University Workers for Palestine (UW4P), has been signed by 715 people – almost double the number of 400 staff in a similar plea in August 2024.

UniSaver failed to respond to the previous letter.

The default retirement scheme for most university staff has come under mounting scrutiny for investing in companies complicit in human rights violations.

UW4P is a nationwide collective of university staff, including academics and administrators.

Its letter argues that any investment in Israeli companies renders UniSaver complicit in Israel’s occupation, apartheid, and genocide in Palestine.

“Our research shows such companies include weapons manufacturer Elbit Systems, ICL Group, linked to highly-toxic white phosphorus supply chains, Caterpillar, Hewlett Packard, and Palantir Technologies,” Dr Amanda Thomas of Te Herenga Waka Victoria University, spokesperson for the collective, said in a statement.

Israeli bonds and banks
Distinguished Professor Robert McLachlan of Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa Massey University, strongly supported the call: “Profiting from companies known to be complicit in genocide is wrong and shameful.”

UniSaver is also understood to have investments in Israeli government bonds and Israeli banks which finance illegal settlements.

Dr Rand Hazou, a Palestinian senior lecturer at Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa Massey University, said: “With the destruction of Gaza’s 12 universities and killing of hundreds of academics and students, global solidarity is urgent.

“This call is a nonviolent, rightsbased approach to pressure Israel to abide by international law.”

“The letter, signed by some of Aotearoa New Zealand’s most prominent scholars, is
being released on the 108th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration,” Dr Thomas
said.

The declaration, issued by Britain, the colonising power, unilaterally — and without
consultation — advocated the imposition of a Zionist state in historic Palestine.

Professor Richard Jackson, who holds the Leading Thinker Chair in Peace Studies at
Ōtākou Whakaihu Waka Otago University, said: “It is deeply troubling that Aotearoa
New Zealand’s universities are participating in a pension scheme profiting from
genocide.

Academic boycott ended apartheid
“Academic boycott helped end apartheid in South Africa: we must follow that
example.”

The letter asks for a response by end November on two demands that UniSaver:

• Immediately divests from all companies complicit in the genocide of Palestinians; and
• Develops a divestment policy to prevent future unethical investments.

Professor Virginia Braun, Waipapa Taumata Rau University of Auckland psychologist and co-author of the world’s third most cited academic paper this century, said: “Continued investment in funds that support Israel’s genocide is unconscionable.

“Other pension funds, like Norway’s, have divested; UniSaver must follow suit.”

The open letter warns: “If you don’t withdraw our funds from genocide, we will support a campaign to get universities in Aotearoa New Zealand to sever ties with you and seek an ethical alternative retirement scheme.”

‘Morality where our mouths are’
Tertiary Education Union incoming presidents Ti Lamusse and Garrick Cooper have endorsed the letter.

Dr Lamusse, of Te Herenga Waka Victoria University, said: “We need to put our morality where our mouths are — that means ensuring our savings scheme isn’t funding an illegal occupation.”

Associate Professor Garrick Cooper (Ngāti Ranginui, Ngāti Whanaunga) of Te Whare
Wānanga o Waitaha Canterbury University, said: “We must hold our own financial institutions accountable to stop this genocide by reducing the flow of money to the Israeli economy and military-industrial complex.”

Drawing on composite data from Palestine government sources and the media, estimates indicate almost 200 academics have been killed since the escalation of genocidal tactics in October 2023.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The Ministry for Pacific Peoples (MPP) repeatedly warned its minister that replacing the traditional population-wide survey with administrative data would have negative consequences for data on Pasifika communities.

They cautioned that this change would undercount Pacific people and lead to poor policy decisions, yet the changes proceeded.

In records obtained under the Official Information Act (OIA) by PMN News, Pacific Minister Dr Shane Reti was advised in February that the alteration to data-collection methods would have adverse effects on information relating to Pacific people.

Reti was warned that this could lead to flawed decisions based on that data.

Despite these warnings, the government announced in June that it would replace the conventional paper-based census with a new approach that relies on administrative data, supported by a smaller annual survey and targeted data collection. The new system is set to begin in 20230.

Reti, who is also the Minister of Statistics, says the new approach aims to save time and money.

“Relying solely on a nationwide census day is no longer financially viable. In 2013, the census cost $104 million. In 2023, costs had risen astronomically to $325 million and the next was expected to come in at $400 million over five years,” Reti says.

“Despite the unsustainable and escalating costs, successive censuses have been beset with issues or failed to meet expectations.”

Data expert concerns
The response letter from the MPP expressed concerns raised by data experts who believe the reforms could further degrade data quality for Pacific people.

“Administrative data are largely based on who can access services and are therefore known to undercount Pacific peoples,” the letter states.

The MPP stresses that the proposed changes by Stats NZ are likely to further damage the quality of data on Pacific people, households, and populations.

It pointed out that Pacific people have unique family characteristics and public service needs that are not adequately captured in administrative data.

The letter goes on to say that the transformation could shift the burden of data compliance and costs to other government agencies, which may not be well-equipped to manage these changes.

It also warned that costs associated with collecting population data might increase rather than decrease due to the new approach.

In a statement to PMN News, a spokesman for Reti defended the changes, saying, “By using information already collected by the government, we will deliver more relevant, useful and timely data to help inform quality planning and decision making, which will deliver benefits for Pacific communities.”

PMN News video report.

Working with communities
Alongside the new annual sample survey, Stats NZ plans to work with communities, including Pacific people, to develop tailored solutions, such as targeted surveys, that address their specific data needs.

Administrative data will also be improved to include variables such as ethnicity, age distribution (younger and older people), and new immigrants to New Zealand.

Advancements will be made in other areas, such as languages spoken, housing quality, and family data.

“Data accuracy, detail, and coverage will improve over time, as admin data improvements are implemented, and more data is collected through the annual survey and tailored data collection solutions.”

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

RNZ Pacific

Papua New Guinea’s population has passed the 10 million mark, according to the final figures from the 2024 Population Census released by the country’s statistics office.

The PNG census began on 16 June 2024 and concluded in late October, more than three months after its original deadline. The process was marred by a host of administrative and logistical issues.

A PNG academic said in October 2024 that the 2024 Census, which included only six questions, failed to meet the United Nations benchmark standards for reliable census data.

“Without timely and accurate census data, it will be impossible to create a reliable common roll or implement the planned biometric voting system by 2027 for the national election, which will require even greater coordination and efficiency,” wrote Michael Kabuni, a PhD student at the Australian National University and a former lecturer at the University of PNG.

The PNG National Statistical Office reported that there were 10,185,363 people in the country on census night.

According to the 2024 National Population Census Final Figures booklet, this represents a 40 percent increase compared with the previous population count in 2011, when the population was 7,275,324.

The report stated the average population annual growth rate since the 2011 Census was 2.6 percent.

“Annual growth rate since the 2011 Census is higher (3.1 percent) but is likely to be artificially inflated because of non-demographic factors such as higher undercounting in 2000 and improvements to the 2011 and 2024 Census coverage methods.”

The census figures also reveal that there are more males (5,336,546) than females (4,848,546), representing approximately 110 males for every 100 females.

The average household in PNG was five people.

“Since the first official census in 1980, five years after independence, there have been an additional 7.2 million people added from 3.0 million in the last 44 years.”

The census found that, of the 22 provinces that make up PNG, Morobe recorded the highest population with almost a million people, followed by the Eastern Highlands province with 800,072 people.

Of PNG’s four regions, Highlands account for 35.7 percent of the total population, followed by Momase (27 percent), then the Southern and Islands regions.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

November 5 marks the day that has been set aside to acknowledge Parihaka and the courageous and peaceful resistance of the people against the armed militia that invaded their village in 1881.

This year, Parihaka will be the focus of an international conference held in New Plymouth Ngā Motu on November 5 – 8.

Entitled Peace, Resistance and Reconciliation Te Ronga i Tau, Te Riri i Tū, Te Ringa i Kotuia, this is 30th biannual conference of the International Peace Research Association (IPRA) formed in 1964.

This is the first time that an IPRA conference has been held in Aotearoa New Zealand, and the first time it has had the theme of “Indigenous peacebuilding”.

The conference will begin with a pōwhiri and hāngī at Ōwae Marae, the traditional home of the Te Atiawa iwi, one of the Taranaki tribes that has a close association with Parihaka.

Tribal leaders such as Wharehoka Wano, Ruakere Hond, Puna-Wano Bryant, and Tonga Karena from Parihaka will be among the welcoming speakers at the marae.

Other keynote speakers for the conference will include Rosa Moiwend, an independent researcher and human rights activist from West Papua; Professor Asmi Wood, who works on constitutional rights for Aboriginal people; Akilah Jaramoji, a Caribbean Human Rights Activist; Bettina Washington, a Wampanoag Elder working with Indigenous Sharing Circles; Vivian Camacho with her knowledge of ancestral Indigenous health practices in Boliva and Professor Kevin Clements from the Toda Institute.

Throughout the five-day conference, academic papers will be presented related to both Indigenous and general issues on peace and conflict.

Some of those deal with resistance by women through the music of steelpan in Trinidad and Tobago; collaborative Indigenous research from Turtle Island and the Philippines towards building peace; disarmament and peace education in Aotearoa; cultural violence experienced by minority women in Thailand; permaculture and peace in Myanmar; resistance and peacebuilding of Kankaumo Indigenous people in Colombia; intercultural dialogue for peace in Nigeria; Aboriginal Australian and Tsalagi principles of balance and harmony; the resistance of Roma people through art; auto-ethnographical poetry by Black, Indigenous, and People of Color communities around the world; and community-led peacebuilding in Melanesia.

Plenary panels include nuclear justice and African negotiations of peace and social justice through non-violent pathways.

Professor Kelli Te Maihāroa (Waitaha, Ngāti Rārua Ātiawa, Taranaki, Tainui Waikato) of the Otago Polytechnic Te Kura Matatini ki Ōtakou, is the co-general secretariate for Asia Pacific Peace Research Association and co-chair of the IPRA conference, along with Professor Matt Mayer who is co-secretary-general of IPRA.

Dr Heather Devere is chair of the Asia Pacific Media Network (APMN) and one of the organisers of the IPRA conference.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Had Israel not launched its unprovoked attack on Iran on Friday night, in direct violation of the UN Charter, Iran would now be taking part in the sixth round of negotiations concerning the future of its nuclear programme, meeting with representatives from the United States in Muscat, the capital of Oman.

Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu claimed he acted to prevent Iran from building a nuclear bomb, saying Iran had the capacity to build nine nuclear weapons. Israel provided no evidence to back up its claims.

On 25 March 2025, Trump’s own National Director of Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard said: 

Even if Iran had the capability to build a bomb, it is quite another thing to have the will to do so.

Any such bomb would need to be tested first, and any such test would be quickly detected by a series of satellites on the lookout for nuclear detonations anywhere on the planet.

It is more likely that Israel launched its attack to stop US and Iranian negotiators from meeting on Sunday.

Only a month ago, Iran’s lead negotiator in the nuclear talks, Ali Shamkhani, told US television that Iran was ready to do a deal. NBC journalist Richard Engel reports:

Shamkhani died on Saturday, following injuries he suffered during Israel’s attack on Friday night. It appears that Israel not only opposed a diplomatic solution to the Iran nuclear impasse: Israel killed it directly.

A spokesperson for the Iranian Foreign Ministry, Esmaeil Baghaei, told a news conference in Tehran the talks would be suspended until Israel halts its attacks:

“It is obvious that in such circumstances and until the Zionist regime’s aggression against the Iranian nation stops, it would be meaningless to participate with the party that is the biggest supporter and accomplice of the aggressor.”

On 1 April 2024, Israel launched an airstrike on Iran’s embassy in Syria, killing 16 people, including a woman and her son. The attack violated international norms regarding the protection of diplomatic premises under the Vienna Convention.

Yet the UK, USA and France blocked a United Nations Security Council statement condemning Israel’s actions.

It is worth noting how the The New York Times described the occupation of the US Embassy in November 1979:

Now it is Israel conducting a “war on diplomacy itself”, first with the attack on the embassy, followed by Friday’s surprise attack on Iran. Scuppering a diplomatic resolution to the nuclear issue appears to be the aim. To make matters worse, Israel’s recklessness could yet cause a major war.

Trump: Inconsistent and ineffective
In an interview with Time magazine on 22 April 2025, Trump denied he had stopped Israel from attacking Iran’s nuclear sites.

In the same interview Trump boasted “I think we’re going to make a deal with Iran. Nobody else could do that.” Except, someone else had already done that — only for Trump to abandon the deal in his first term as president.

In July 2015 Iran signed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) alongside the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and the European Union. Iran pledged to curb its nuclear programme for 10-15 years in exchange for the removal of some economic sanctions. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) also gained access and verification powers.

Iran also agreed to limit uranium enrichment to 3.67 per cent U-235, allowing it to maintain its nuclear power reactors.

Despite clear signs the nuclear deal was working, Donald Trump withdrew from the JCPOA and reinstated sanctions on Iran in November 2018. Despite the unilateral American action, Iran kept to the deal for a time, but in January 2020 Iran declared it would no longer abide by the limitations included in JCPOA but would continue to work with the IAEA.

By pulling out of the deal and reinstating sanctions, the US and Israel effectively created a strong incentive for Iran to resume enriching uranium to higher levels, not for the sake of making a bomb, but as the most obvious means of creating leverage to remove the sanctions.

As a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Iran is allowed to enrich uranium for civilian fuel programmes.

Iran’s nuclear programme began in the 1960s with US assistance. Prior to the Islamic Revolution of 1979, Iran was ruled by the brutal dictatorship of the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahavi.

American corporations saw Iran as a potential market for expansion. During the 1970s the US suggested to the Shah he needed not one but several nuclear reactors to meet Iran’s future electricity needs. In June 1974, the Shah declared that Iran would have nuclear weapons, “without a doubt and sooner than one would think”.

In 2007, I wrote an article for Peace Researcher where I examined US claims that Iran does not need nuclear power because it is sitting on one of the largest gas supplies in the world. One of the most interesting things I discovered while researching the article was the relevance of air pollution, a critical public health concern in Iran.

In 2024, health officials estimated that air pollution is responsible for 40,000 deaths a year in Iran. Deputy Health Minister Alireza Raisi said the “majority of these deaths were due to cardiovascular diseases, strokes, respiratory issues, and cancers”.

Sahimi describes levels of air pollution in Tehran and other major Iranian cities as “catastrophic”, with elementary schools having to close on some days as a result. There was little media coverage of the air pollution issue in relation to Iran’s energy mix then, and I have seen hardly any since.

An energy research project, Advanced Energy Technologies provides a useful summary of electricity production in Iran as it stood in 2023.

With around 94.6 percent of electricity generation dependent on fossil fuels, there are serious environmental reasons why Iran should not be encouraged to depend on oil and gas for its electricity needs — not to mention the prospect of climate change.

One could also question the safety of nuclear power in one of the most seismically active countries in the world, however it would be fair to ask the same question of countries like Japan, which aims to increase its use of nuclear power to about 20 percent of the country’s total electricity generation by 2040, despite the 2011 Fukushima disaster.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi stated that Iran’s uranium enrichment programme “must continue”, but the “scope and level may change”. Prior to the talks in Oman, Araghchi highlighted the “constant change” in US positions as a problem.

Trump’s rhetoric on uranium enrichment has shifted repeatedly.

So with Iran seemingly willing to accept reasonable conditions, why was a deal not reached last month? It appears the US changed its position, and demanded Iran cease all enrichment of uranium, including what Iran needs for its power stations.

One wonders if Zionist lobby groups like AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) influenced this decision. One could recall what happened during Benjamin Netanyahu’s first stint as Israel’s Prime Minister (1996-1999) to illustrate the point.

In April 1995 AIPAC published a report titled ‘Comprehensive US Sanctions Against Iran: A Plan for Action’. In 1997 Mohammad Khatami was elected as President of Iran. The following year Khatami expressed regret for the takeover of the US embassy in Tehran in 1979 and denounced terrorism against Israelis, while noting that “supporting peoples who fight for their liberation of their land is not, in my opinion, supporting terrorism”.

The threat of improved relations between Iran and the US sent the Israeli government led by Netanyahu into a panic. The Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz reported that “Israel has expressed concern to Washington of an impending change of policy by the United States towards Iran” adding that Netanyahu “asked AIPAC . . . to act vigorously in Congress to prevent such a policy shift.”

20 years ago the Israeli lobby were claiming an Iranian nuclear bomb was imminent. It didn’t happen.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A new report on the United States nuclear weapons testing legacy in the Marshall Islands highlights the lack of studies into important health concerns voiced by Marshallese for decades that make it impossible to have a clear understanding of the impacts of the 67 nuclear weapons tests.

The Legacy of US Nuclear Testing in the Marshall Islands, a report by Dr Arjun Makhijani of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, was released late last month.

The report was funded by Greenpeace Germany and is an outgrowth of the organisation’s flagship vessel, Rainbow Warrior III, visiting the Marshall Islands from March to April to recognise the 40th anniversary of the resettlement of the nuclear test-affected population of Rongelap Atoll.

Dr Mahkijani said that among the “many troubling aspects” of the legacy is that the United States had concluded, in 1948, after three tests, that the Marshall Islands was not “a suitable site for atomic experiments” because it did not meet the required meteorological criteria.

“Yet testing went on,” he said.

“Also notable has been the lack of systematic scientific attention to the accounts by many Marshallese of severe malformations and other adverse pregnancy outcomes like stillbirths. This was despite the documented fallout throughout the country and the fact that the potential for fallout to cause major birth defects has been known since the 1950s.”

Dr Makhijani highlights the point that, despite early documentation in the immediate aftermath of the 1954 Bravo hydrogen bomb test and numerous anecdotal reports from Marshallese women about miscarriages and still births, US government medical officials in charge of managing the nuclear test-related medical programme in the Marshall Islands never systematically studied birth anomalies.

Committed billions of dollars
The US Deputy Secretary of State in the Biden-Harris administration, Kurt Cambell, said that Washington, over decades, had committed billions of dollars to the damages and the rebuilding of the Marshall Islands.

“I think we understand that that history carries a heavy burden, and we are doing what we can to support the people in the [Compact of Free Association] states, including the Marshall Islands,” he told reporters at the Pacific Islands Forum leaders’ meeting in Nuku’alofa last year.

“This is not a legacy that we seek to avoid. We have attempted to address it constructively with massive resources and a sustained commitment.”

Among points outlined in the new report:

• Gamma radiation levels at Majuro, the capital of the Marshall Islands, officially considered a “very low exposure” atoll, were tens of times, and up to 300 times, more than background in the immediate aftermaths of the thermonuclear tests in the Castle series at Bikini Atoll in 1954.
• Thyroid doses in the so-called “low exposure atolls” averaged 270 milligray (mGy), 60 percent more than the 50,000 people of Pripyat near Chernobyl who were evacuated (170 mGy) after the 1986 accident there, and roughly double the average thyroid exposures in the most exposed counties in the United States due to testing at the Nevada Test Site.

Despite this, “only a small fraction of the population has been officially recognised as exposed enough for screening and medical attention; even that came with its own downsides, including people being treated as experimental subjects,” the report said.

Women reported adverse outcomes
“In interviews and one 1980s country-wide survey, women have reported many adverse pregnancy outcomes,” said the report.

“They include stillbirths, a baby with part of the skull missing and ‘the brain and the spinal cord fully exposed,’ and a two-headed baby. Many of the babies with major birth defects died shortly after birth.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz