I watched US President Donald Trump’s joint press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu last week in utter disbelief. Not that the idea, or indeed the practice, of ethnic cleansing of Palestine is new.

But at that press conference the mask has fallen. Recently, fascism has been on the march everywhere, but that press conference seemed to herald an age of naked fascism.

So the Palestinians have just been “unlucky” for decades.

“Their lives have been made hell.” Thank God for grammar’s indirect speech. Their lives have been made hell. We do not know who made their lives hell. Nothing to see here.

Trump says of Gaza: “We’ll own it and be responsible for dismantling all of the dangerous unexploded bombs and other weapons on the site, level the site, and get rid of the destroyed buildings — level it out and create an economic development that will supply unlimited numbers of jobs and housing for the people of the area . . . ”

I wonder who are those lucky “people of the area” he has in mind, once those “unlucky” Palestinians have been “transferred” out of their homeland.

Trump speaks of transforming Gaza into a magnificent “Riviera of the Middle East”. Obviously, the starved amputees of Gaza do not fit his image of the classy people he wants to see in the Riviera he wants to build, on stolen Palestinian land.

No ethnic cleansing questions
After the press conference, I did not hear a single question about ethnic cleansing, genocide, occupation or international law.

Under the new fascist leaders, just like under the old ones, those words have become old-fashioned and are to be expunged from the lexicon.

The difference has never been more striking between the meek who officially hold the title “journalist” and the brave who actually work to hold the powerful to account.

Now, more than ever, independent journalists are a threatened species. We should treasure them, support them and protest every attempt to silence them.

Gaza is now the prototype. We can forget international laws and international organisations. We have the bombs. You do as we wish or you will be obliterated.

Who now dares say that the forced transfer of a population by an occupying power is a war crime under the Geneva Convention? But then again, Trump and Netanyahu are not really talking about “forced transfer”. They are talking about “voluntary transfer”.

Once the remaining Israeli hostages have been freed, and water and food have been cut off again, those unlucky Palestinians will climb voluntarily onto the buses waiting to transport them to happiness and prosperity in Egypt and Jordan.

Or to whatever other client state Trump manages to threaten or bribe.

Can the International Criminal Court (ICC) command a shred of respect when Netanyahu is sharing the podium with Trump? Or indeed when Trump is at the podium?

Dismantling the international order
Recently, fascist leaders have been dismantling the international order by accusing its organisations and officials of being “antisemitic” or “working with terrorists”. Tomorrow they will defund and delegitimise these organisations without the need for an excuse.

I listen to Trump speak of combatting antisemitism and deporting Hamas sympathisers and I hear, “We will combat anti-Israel views and we will deport those who protest Israel’s crimes.

“And we will continue to conflate antisemitism and anti-Israel’s views in order to silence pro-Palestinian voices.”

I watch Trump and Netanyahu, the former reading the thoughts of a real estate developer turned into a president’s speech and the latter grinning like a Cheshire cat — and I am gripped by fear. Not just for the Palestinians, but for all humanity.

If we think fascism is only coming for people on a distant shore, we ought to think again.

I watch Netanyahu repeating lies that investigative journalists have spent months debunking. Why would he care? The truth about his lies will not make it to mainstream media and the consciousness of the majority of people.

Hamas suspends the release of Gaza captives, accusing Israel of violating the ceasefire by continuing to kill Palestinians and blocking humanitarian aid.

🔴 Follow our LIVE coverage: https://t.co/OXOBADdF6T pic.twitter.com/h4vf4GM9W7

— Al Jazeera English (@AJEnglish) February 11, 2025

Lies taking hold, enduring
And the more he repeats those lies, the more they take hold and endure.

I wonder how our political leaders will spin our allies’ new, illegal and immoral plans. For years, they have clung to the mantra of the two-state solution while Israel continued to make every effort to render this solution unfeasible.

What will they say now? With what weasel words will they stay on the same page as our friends in the US and Israel?

Netanyhu praises Trump for thinking outside the box. Here is an idea that Israel has spent billions on arms and propaganda to persuade people that it is dangerously outside the box.

Instead of asking Egypt and Jordan to take the Palestinians, why not make Israel end the occupation and give Palestinians equal rights in their own homeland?

Sawsan Madina is former head of Australia’s SBS Television. This article was first published by John Menadue’s public policy journal Pearls and Irritations and is republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

But Papua New Guinea is also challenged with socio-economic developments that do not reach the rural majority despite the presence of numerous extractive industries.

The Pontiff in his remarks at the APEC Haus said Papua New Guinea besides consisting of islands and languages, was also rich in natural resources.

“These goods are destined by God for the entire community.

Needs of local people a priority
“Even if outside experts and large international companies must be involved in the harnessing of these resources, it is only right that the needs of local people are given due consideration when distributing the proceeds and employing workers, to improve their living conditions.

“These environmental and cultural treasures represent at the same time a great responsibility, because they require everyone, civil authorities and all citizens, to promote initiatives that develop natural and human resources in a sustainable and equitable manner,” said Pope Francis.

Governor-General Sir Bob Dadae, in acknowledging the work of the Catholic Church in the country, also requested the Pope in his capacity as a world leader to help advocate on climate change and its impacts that was being felt by island nations like PNG.

“Climate change is real and is affecting the lives of our people in the remote islands of Papua New Guinea.

“Across the Pacific, islands are sinking and are affected and displaced.

“We seek your prayers and support for global action and advocacy on climate change, we need to let the world know that there is no more time.

“What the world needs is commitment for action,” Sir Bob said.

Republished with permission from Inside PNG.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Tuesday’s boarding-house fire in Wellington was a tragedy of lost lives, and failure to supply safe housing and adequately resourced emergency services. But it was much more, and so far the socio-demographic revelations have barely been touched upon in mainstream media commentary.

Losers and Winners

Clearly the residents of the unfortunately named ‘Loafers Lodge’ were mostly single white adult males aged over 40; not a fashionable demographic in today’s public policy discourse. (Most likely a significant number of the lodge’s residents will have been Māori as well as Pakeha, though not to the extent that this could be presented as a Māori issue in the way that many of our other healthcare issues are being presented.) We note also that suicides are unacceptably high among this demographic, though – unlike youth suicide – rarely presented as an issue that deserves to be addressed by public policy.

While we cannot claim that all the residents of that lodge were marginalised or otherwise ‘cancelled’ men, we can say that many marginalised men – men regarded as ‘losers’ in the popular middle-class mind (though never called this, it’s not a politically correct term) – do and will end up reliant on boarding-houses of this type for accommodation.

(We note that the central proposition of contemporary liberalism – ‘equality of opportunity’ – pictures idealised life as a running race in which all 18-year-olds are on the starting line as equals. Outcomes thus depend on the life ‘choices’ that people make. In this liberal view, being a loser is a consequence of making ‘poor choices’ – such as choices to take drugs, be violent, commit crimes, loaf instead of work – than the choices made by the winners. This is a key reason why we purport to be so much more concerned by child poverty than adult poverty, because children have not yet participated in this adult race; unlike adults, children cannot be undeserving. Contemporary liberals also use words and phrases such as ‘colonisation’ and ‘historical slavery’ to exempt people of mainly but not only indigenous ethnicities from the consequences of making bad choices as adults. [Of course the liberal ‘bad-choice’ presupposition is nonsense. Life is not analogous to a running race; and all races have losers, bad choices or not.])

We need to fess up to the realities that life under all forms of economic liberalism is necessarily difficult for large minorities of our populations, and that many of the ‘survivors’ of life’s difficulties are neither young nor indigenous nor female nor trans. Many have histories as perpetrators or alleged perpetrators of crimes and abuse; others as victims of crimes and abuse. Some as both perpetrators and victims; as Barrack Obama said, “life is messy”. Do we simply pretend that such people do not exist because they are safely hidden away in places like Loafers Lodge? Have the righteous mentally euthanised them?

There was nothing in the 2023 ‘Wellbeing Budget’ for people like the residents of Loafers Lodge.

Post-Budget Commentary

There is a growing sense that the government, its officials, the wider elite, and the mainstream commentariat are living in an ‘alternative universe’. (While in Australia recently, I saw a commentator – on a commercial television station – refer to the ABC worldview as an “alternative universe”.)

I must say, and largely for that reason, that I only followed the Budget and subsequent commentary in small doses. Two of those doses were particularly interesting, however, both on RNZ’s The Panel show (3:45pm to 5:00pm weekdays).

The first segment here The Pre-Panel with Mark Knoff-Thomas and Ruth Money (18 May 2023), featured political economist Susan St John, long associated with the Child Poverty Action Group. Among other things, she discussed the ways in which we increasingly entrench families in poverty traps, and how our political class has never shown much interest in addressing the issue of income traps and how they structure non-participation and under-participation in the labour force. Of course, poverty traps affect single adults as well, not just families.

The comment which ruffled most feathers was that by Mark Knoff-Thomas (CEO of Newmarket Business Association), who – recognising that on the ground New Zealand is in such a parlous state that he pretty much called us a ‘failed state’ – suggested, albeit rhetorically, that New Zealand’s problems would be best resolved by New Zealand becoming a state of Australia. While the initial reaction to the suggestion was shock and horror, later a surprising amount of feedback came into the show in support of Knoff-Thomas’s viewpoint. There is clearly a substantial audience deeply frustrated with the state of denial which characterises mainstream public policy discourse in these islands.

After 4pm, in The Panel with Mark Knoff-Thomas and Ruth Money (Part 1), we heard a ‘retired real estate agent’ (Kristina or Christina) put the blame for New Zealand’s housing crisis fairly and squarely on landlords. While here comments were slightly garbled – she said there were too many landlords while arguing that no landlord should have more than three properties – her meaning was clear, and she noted that too many policymakers had a vested interest in perpetuating the problem. Mark Knoff-Thomas obliquely dismissed her policy proposal as tantamount to communism. But again, listeners sent in huge amounts of feedback in support of her comments. At last, an uncensored comment got through about ‘landlords’ – aka ‘investors’ – gaming the system to their advantage but to the disadvantage of people in need of a place to call home.

My comments about these comments are that, to the rest of the world, Aotearoa is an exceptionally successful political state. (That’s largely because foreigners uncritically buy New Zealand’s story, broadcast to the world, of utopian exceptionalism.) Yet New Zealand is largely a failed nation state, though not necessarily one that should cede its sovereignty to a foreign neighbour. It’s hard to imagine anyone making similar claims of Finland or Norway, both with similar populations, population-to-land ratios, infrastructure challenges, and also facing inclement weather.

Re the housing issue, the solution is not a ‘capital-gains tax’. It’s to recognise that the private rental market is at the core of any capitalist society’s housing sector. The solution is to subsidise ‘good landlords’ while simultaneously taxing ‘bad landlords’ out of existence. Bad landlords are people who own ‘rentals’ which are not made available as other people’s homes. Typically these misnamed ‘rentals’ – in reality, houses played as financial assets held by speculator ‘investors’ – are functionally empty (often under disguise as ‘short-term rentals’) if not actually empty.

While housing poverty (along with personal debt, and the income traps that entrench underclass living – expressed particularly in the form of food insecurity, in practice as malnutrition and illness – as Susan St John emphasised [see also Anti-Poverty advocates ‘shocked’ by Budget, Morning Report, RNZ 19 May], and the infrastructure problems Knoff-Thomas was especially concerned about) are the central indications that New Zealand may be a failed state, different housing solutions are required for different people. Older marginalised single people are not necessarily best housed as sole-occupants of privately rented one-bedroom units. There is an important role for hostels and boarding houses, as there always has been. It’s up to the rest of us to ensure that these can be safe and companionable places in which to reside, and to ensure that there are enough subsidies to ensure that ‘losers’ as well as winners can be adequately housed.

New Zealand’s failure in one hyphenated word: ‘Top-Heavy’.

Recently on RNZ I heard a discussion about the failings in conservation, and of DOC (Department of Conservation). The pertinent comment to that discussion was that DOC is “top-heavy”; too much of the payroll goes to people who are not on the frontline of conservation.

‘Top-heavy’ is a metaphor that applies well to the whole of New Zealand’s socio-economy. Too few people doing – indeed too few able to do – the work that keeps our society going. Like workers carrying an increasingly overladen sedan-chair, labour in New Zealand – actual labour, much of it foreign-sourced – must support two sets of beneficiaries: a burgeoning (albeit ‘progressive’) elite class and a trapped burgeoning underclass. The elite class represents the heavier load.

*******

Keith Rankin (keith at rankin dot nz), trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.

Older persons are highly visible across Asia and the Pacific: they work in agricultural fields producing our food supplies, peddle their wares as street vendors, drive tuk-tuks and buses, exercise in our parks, lead some of the region’s most successful companies and form an integral part of our families.

Indeed, population ageing is one of the megatrends greatly affecting sustainable development. People now live longer than ever and remain active because of improved health. We must broaden the narrow view of older persons as requiring our care to recognize that they are also agents of development. With many parts of the Asia-Pacific region rapidly ageing, we can take concrete steps to provide environments in which our elders live safely, securely and in dignity and contribute to societies.

To start with, we must invest in social protection and access to universal healthcare throughout the life-course. Currently, it is estimated that 14.3 per cent of the population in Asia and the Pacific are 60 years or older; that figure is projected to rise to 17.7 per cent by 2030 and to one-quarter in 2050. Moreover, 53.1 per cent of all older persons are women, a share that increases with age. Therefore, financial security is needed so older persons can stay active and healthy for longer periods. In many countries of the region, less than one-third of the working-age population is covered by mandatory pensions, and a large proportion still lacks access to affordable, good quality health care.

Such protection is crucial because older persons continue to bolster the labour force, especially in informal sectors. In Thailand, for example, a third of people aged 65 years or over participate in the labour force; 87 per cent of working women aged 65 or over work in the informal sector, compared to 81 per cent of working men in the same cohort. This general trend is seen in other countries of the region.

Older persons, especially older women, also make important contributions as caregivers to both children and other older persons. This unpaid care enables younger people in their families to take paid work, often in metropolitan areas of their own country or abroad. 

Older persons should also have lifelong learning opportunities. Enhanced digital literacy, for example, can close the grey digital divide. Older women and men need to stay abreast of technological developments to access services, maintain connections with family and friends and remain competitive in the labour market. Through inter-generational initiatives, younger people can train older people in the use of technology.

We must also invest in quality long-term care systems to ensure that older persons who need it can receive affordable quality care. With the increase in dementia and other mental health conditions, care needs are becoming more complex. Many countries in the region still rely on family members to provide such care, but there may be less unpaid care in the future, and care by family members is not always quality care. 

Finally, addressing age-based discrimination and barriers will be crucial to allow the full participation of older persons in economies and societies. Older women and men actively volunteer in older persons associations or other organizations. They help distribute food and medicine in emergency situations, including during the COVID-19 pandemic, monitor the health of neighbours and friends, or teach each other how to use digital devices. Older persons also play an active role in combatting climate change by sharing knowledge and techniques of mitigation and adaptation. Ageism intersects and exacerbates other disadvantages, including those related to sex, race, and disability, and combatting it will contribute to the health and well-being of all.

This week, countries in Asia and the Pacific will convene to review and appraise the Madrid International Plan of Action on Ageing (MIPAA) on the occasion of its 20^th anniversary. MIPAA provides policy directions for building societies for all ages with a focus on older persons and development; health and well-being in old age; and creating enabling environments. The meeting will provide an opportunity for member States to discuss progress on the action plan and identify remaining challenges, gaps and new priorities.

While several countries in the region already have some form of policy on ageing, the topic must be mainstreamed into all policies and action plans, and they must be translated into coherent, cross-sectoral national strategies that reach all older persons in our region, including those who inhabit remote islands, deserts or mountain ranges.

Older persons are valuable members of our societies, but too often they are overlooked. Let us ensure that they can fully contribute to our sustainable future.

*******

Armida Salsiah Alisjahbana is an Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations and Executive Secretary of the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP)

The President of the Federated States of Micronesia says he has serious concerns about the details of two leaked Chinese government documents to be tabled at a meeting next week.

President David Panuelo warns the sovereignty of the Pacific Island countries is at stake, and that the outcome of one of the documents could result in a cold war or even a world war.

Panuelo has written to 18 Pacific leaders — including New Zealand, Australia, and the Secretary-General of the Pacific Islands Forum — specifically about the China-Pacific Island Countries Common Development Vision.

The other document is a five-year plan to implement the outcomes into action.

In his letter he said the Common Development Vision and Monday’s meeting was a “smokescreen” for a larger agenda, and further warned that China was looking to exert more control over Pacific nations’ sovereignty and that this document threatened to bring at the very least a new Cold War era but in the worst-case scenario, a world war.

He has urged leaders in the region to look at it carefully before making any decisions.

In particular, Panuelo noted that the Vision sought to “fundamentally alter what used to be bilateral relations with China into multilateral issues”.

Ensuring ‘Chinese control’
The Vision he added sought to “… ensure Chinese control of ‘traditional and non-traditional security” of our islands, including through law enforcement training, supplying, and joint enforcement efforts, which can be used for the protection of Chinese assets and citizens.

It suggests “cooperation on network and governance” and “cybersecurity” and “equal emphasis on development and security”, and that there shall be “economic development and protection of national security and public interests”.

“The Common Development Vision seeks to ensure Chinese influence in government through ‘collaborative’ policy planning and political exchanges, including diplomatic training, in addition to an increase in Chinese media relationships in the Pacific …,” he said.

“The Common Development Vision seeks Chinese control and ownership of our communications infrastructure, as well as customs and quarantine infrastructure …. for the purpose of biodata collection and mass surveillance of those residing in, entering, and leaving our islands, ostensibly to occur in part through cybersecurity partnership.”

The Vision he said “… seeks Chinese control of our collective fisheries and extractive resource sectors, including free trade agreements, marine spatial planning, deep-sea mining, and extensive public and private sector loan-taking through the Belt and Road Initiative via the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.”

Panuelo said the proposed China-Pacific leaders meeting on Monday in Fiji was intended to “shift those of us with diplomatic relations with China very closely into Beijing’s orbit, intrinsically tying the whole of our countries and societies to them.

“The practical impacts, however, of Chinese control over our communications infrastructure, our ocean territory and the resources within them, and our security space, aside from impacts on our sovereignty is that it increases the chances of China getting into conflict with Australia, Japan, the United States, and New Zealand, on the day when Beijing decides to invade Taiwan.

China’s goal – ‘take Taiwan’
“To be clear, that’s China’s goal: to take Taiwan. Peacefully, if possible; through war, if necessary.”

Panuelo said the FSM would attend Monday’s meeting and would reject both documents “on the premise that we believe the proposed agreement needlessly heightens geopolitical tensions, and that the agreement threatens regional stability and security, including both my country’s Great Friendship with China and my country’s Enduring Partnership with the United States.”

He said the Vision and meeting were a “smokescreen for a larger agenda”.

“Despite our ceaseless and accurate howls that Climate Change represents the single-most existential security threat to our islands, the Common Development Vision threatens to bring a new Cold war era at best, and a World War at worst.”

He said the only way to maintain the relationship with Beijing was to focus exclusively on economic and technical cooperation.

Panuelo hoped that by alerting his Pacific colleagues of developments that “… we can collectively take the steps necessary to prevent any intensified conflict, and possible breakout of war, from ever happening in the first place”.

“I believe that Australia needs to take climate change more seriously and urgently. I believe that the United States should have a diplomatic presence in all sovereign Pacific Islands Countries, and step-up its assistance to all islands, to include its own states and territories in the Pacific.”

Not a justification
Panuelo summed up: “However, it is my view that the shortcomings of our allies are not a justification for condemning the leaders who succeed us in having to accept a war that we failed to recognise was coming and failed to prevent from occurring.

“We can only reassert the rightful focus on climate change as our region’s most existential threat by taking every single possible action to promote peace and harmony across our Blue Pacific Continent.”

Panuelo said his cabinet has suggested the FSM resist the objectives of the documents and the nation maintain its own bilateral agenda for development and engagement with China.

He also said the documents would open up Pacific countries to having phone calls and emails intercepted and overheard.

China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi is currently visiting several Pacific countries.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Since the Indian Ocean tsunami of 2004, disaster recovery plans are almost always framed with aspirational plans to “build back better”. It’s a fine sentiment – we all want to build better societies and economies.

But, as the Cheshire Cat tells Alice when she is lost, where we ought to go depends very much on where we want to get to.

The ambition to build back better therefore needs to be made explicit and transparent as countries slowly re-emerge from their covid-19 cocoons.

READ MORE: Recession hits Māori and Pasifika harder. They must be part of planning New Zealand’s COVID-19 recovery

The Asian Development Bank attempted last year to define build-back-better aspirations more precisely and concretely. The bank described four criteria: build back safer, build back faster, build back potential and build back fairer.

The first three are obvious. We clearly want our economies to recover fast, be safer and be more sustainable into the future. It’s the last objective – fairness – that will inevitably be the most challenging long-term goal at both the national and international level.

Economic fallout from the pandemic is already being experienced disproportionately among poorer households, in poorer regions within countries, and in poorer countries in general.

Some governments are aware of this and are trying to ameliorate this brewing inequality. At the same time, it is seen as politically unpalatable to engage in redistribution during a global crisis.

Broad-brush policies
Most governments are opting for broad-brush policies aimed at everyone, lest they appear to be encouraging class warfare and division or, in the case of New Zealand, electioneering.

In fact, politicians’ typical focus on the next election aligns well with the public appetite for a fast recovery. We know that speedier recoveries are more complete, as delays dampen investment and people move away from economically depressed places.

Speed is also linked to safety. As we know from other disasters, this recovery cannot be completed as long as the covid-19 public health challenge is not resolved.

The failure to invest in safety, in prevention and mitigation, is now most apparent in the United States, which has less than 5 percent of the global population but a third of covid-19 confirmed cases. Despite the pressure to “open up” the economy, recovery won’t progress without a lasting solution to the widespread presence of the virus.

Economic potential also aligns with political aims and is therefore easier to imagine. A build-back-better recovery has to promise sustainable prosperity for all.

The emphasis on job generation in New Zealand’s recent budget was entirely the right primary focus. Employment is of paramount importance to voters, so it has been a logical focus in public stimulus packages everywhere.

Fairness, however, is more difficult to define and more challenging to achieve.

Rising economic tide
While a rising economic tide doesn’t always lift all boats – as the proponents of growth-at-any-cost sometimes argue – a low tide lifts none. Achieving fairness first depends on achieving the other three goals.

Economic prosperity is a necessary precondition for sustainable poverty reduction, but this virus is apparently selective in its deadliness.

Already vulnerable segments of our societies – the elderly, the immuno-compromised and, according to some recent evidence, ethnic minorities – are more at risk. They are also more likely to already be economically disadvantaged.

As a general rule, epidemics lead to more income inequality, as households with lower incomes endure the economic pain more acutely.

This pattern of increased vulnerability to shocks in poorer households is not unique to epidemics, but we expect it to be the case even more this time. In the covid-19 pandemic, economic devastation has been caused by the lockdown measures imposed and adopted voluntarily, not by the disease itself.

These measures have been more harmful for those on lower wages, those with part-time or temporary jobs, and those who cannot easily work from home.

Many low-wage workers also work in industries that will be experiencing longer-term declines associated with the structural changes generated by the pandemic: the collapse of international tourism, for example, or automation and robotics being used to shorten long and complicated supply chains.

Poorer countries in worst position
Poorer countries are in the worst position. The lockdowns hit their economies harder, but they do not have the resources for adequate public health measures, nor for assisting those most adversely affected.

In these places, even if the virus itself has not yet hit them much, the downturn will be experienced more deeply and for longer.

Worryingly, the international aid system that most poorer countries partially rely on to deal with disasters is not fit for dealing with pandemics. When all countries are adversely hit at the same time their focus inevitably becomes domestic.

Very few wealthy countries have announced any increases in international aid. If and when they have, the amounts were trivial – regrettably, this includes New Zealand. And the one international institution that should have led the charge, the World Health Organisation, is being defunded and attacked by its largest donor, the US.

Unlike after the 2004 tsunami, international rescue will be very slow to arrive. One would hope most wealthy countries will be able to help their most vulnerable members. But it looks increasingly unlikely this will happen on an international scale between countries.

Without global empathy and better global leadership, the poorest countries and poorest people will only be made poorer by this invisible enemy.

Dr Ilan Noy is professor and chair in the Economics of Disasters and Climate Change, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

As the numbers of casualties and displaced people in Papua’s Highlands pile up, prospects for an end to armed conflict in the Indonesian-ruled region appear dim.

Humanitarian concern is growing for villagers who have been displaced by conflict in the Highlands between Indonesia’s military and the West Papua Liberation Army.

But even elected Papuan leaders in government pushing for a de-escalation of military operations risk a reprimand or threat of prosecution from Indonesia’s military.

READ MORE: The Trans-Papua Highway and other ‘development’ projects

In the latest bout of clashes last week, Indonesia’s military says between 50 and 70 Liberation Army fighters descended on soldiers guarding the construction of a bridge in Nduga’s Yigi district.

Indonesia’s military said three members died before the military was able to drive the rebels back. It also claimed that between seven and ten Liberation Army fighters were killed.

According to the Liberation Army, the violence on Thursday was sparked when Indonesian soldiers interrogated a local villager and then set fire to five houses.

Indonesian military and police operations intensified in the remote Highlands regency of Nduga in December after the Liberation Army massacred at least 16 road construction workers.

Military engineers
The Indonesian government’s major Trans-Papua Road project was already controversial among Papuan Highlands communities without the involvement of military engineers on the job adding to mistrust among Papuans.

However, as military operations to pursue the Liberation Army’s guerilla fighters ramped up, thousands of Nduga villagers caught in the middle of hostilities fled to the bush or neighbouring regencies such as Jayawijaya.

Since the latter part of 2017, fighters with the West Papuan Liberation Army, or TPN, have intensified hostilities with Indonesia’s military and police in Tembagapura and its surrounding region in Papua’s Highlands.

An Indonesian academic, Hipolitus YR Wangge of Jakarta’s Marthinus Academy, has been working on research in Papua and found himself volunteering help for Nduga’s refugees streaming into Jayawijaya’s main town of Wamena.

He said the people were traumatised and short on basic needs, having come from a regency which is extremely isolated. According to him, more than 2000 Nduga people have sought refuge in the Wamena area, including over six hundred children.

“Those refugees are coming down from the jungle, from Nduga, and they have nothing here, even the local (Jayawijaya) government here say ‘these are not our people, these are not Jayawijaya people, it is Nduga regency people, so let their government deal with this one’,” he said.

“On the other hand, Nduga’s government, their focus is mainly on those Nduga people who are running away and staying in the (local) jungle.”

Displaced children
The impact of displacement was also seen by Peter Prove, a member of a delegation from the World Council of Churches which was last month permitted to visit Papua.

“And in particular in Wamena we met with a group of more than 400 children and adolescents who were displaced, and who were being provided with refuge in the compound of the Roman Catholic Church there,” he explained.

“And we heard very alarming stories about the circumstances under which they had fled from their territory, including indications of a very strong-armed military response.”

An emergency makeshift school was established by volunteer groups in Wamena for the displaced children. However last month when Indonesian military and police personnel came to the school, a number of children reportedly ran away in fear.

Concerned for the displaced communities, governor of Papua, Lukas Enembe, recently called for Indonesia’s president to withdraw troops to allow villagers to return home and access basic needs.

His call was echoed by local parliamentarians, customary leaders, church and civil society organisations who continue to press for a de-escalation of military operations in the region.

However Indonesia’s military spokesman in Papua, Colonel Muhammad Aidi, has warned that the governor had violated state law and should be prosecuted.

‘Defending sovereignty’
“A governor is an extension of the state in the region and is obliged to defend the sovereignty of the republic of Indonesia,” Colonel Aidi explained.

“A governor must support all national strategic programs. But on the contrary the governor through his statement actually inhibited the national development process.”

A West Papuan anthropologist based in Australia, Yamin Kogoya, worries that telling the truth in his homeland has become an act of treason.

He said that by practically labelling Governor Enembe a supporter of the Free West Papua Movement, Colonel Aidi had added to the sense of threat over this leading elected official who is already being investigated by Indonesian anti-corrution investigators.

“This is a very, very harsh statement by the military spokesperson in Papua against the governor of Papua province who has every right to express his concerns and worries about the welfare of the people under his care,” Kogoya said.

“He never, ever expressed publicly that he supports the independence of Papua.”

Following the Liberation Army’s massacre of road construction workers, the chairman of the Papua People’s Assembly, Timotius Murib, said he and his colleagues condemned the violence. He added that security approaches rarely helped in Papua.

Rights violations
“This does not solve the problem in Papua, but instead creates human rights violations and trauma for indigenous Papuans,” Munib said.

Indonesian police and military posts are common in every town and most villages throughout Papua. Internal security is ostensibly the domain of the police, except when it involves armed insurgencies, which is the responsibility of the military.

The military is also mandated to play a role in counter-terrorism and in protecting strategic assets. Violent attacks by the Liberation Army against civilians, police or army personnel only perpetuate the continuing involvement of Indonesia’s military in Papua.

“There are many accusations and counter-accusations as to who is responsible for specific instances of violence. But I think the military approach to securing and stabilising the territory evidently hasn’t worked not in terms of improving the human rights situation in the region,” Prove said.

Armed conflict between the Liberation Army and Indonesian security forces is mainly confined to the Highlands region. The Papuan guerillas are outnumbered and outgunned by Indonesia’s military forces, yet are also difficult to totally defeat, as they easily move in and out of the bush in their rugged home terrain.

But as the Papuan guerilla fighters retreat to the mountainous bush, sometimes Papuan villagers considered Liberation Army supporters end up being targetted by the Indonesian security forces.

The presence of Indonesia’s military, special forces, police, and intelligence agents throughout Papua have added to a climate of fear for Papuans.

Security approach
According to Wangge, the Indonesian government appears to favour the security approach as the most effective way of containing Papuan resistance, even though it does not win hearts and minds of Papuans.

He said that Jakarta had long since identified core problems in Papua – related to historical grievances, politics, human rights abuses and economic development. But apart from its promotion of economic development through its major infrastructure drive, Wangge said the government had not openly addressed these core problems in a wholehearted way that involved Papuan participation.

While it was difficult to pinpoint why the problems hadn’t been confronted Wangge said the military was still a powerful political entity within the Indonesian republic.

“If human rights or historical problems will be discussed both by central and local governments, the military will face some legal consequences for this one,” he said.

Wangge, who has been involved with efforts to build temporary schools for the children displaced in Wamena, was doubtful whether President Joko Widodo’s economic development approach was a lasting solution either for Papuans’ grievances.

“To some point, yes, it can benefit some Papuans,” he said, “but the benefits of the economic approach, it’s only for outsiders, non-Papuans, immigrants – that’s how many Papuans see it.”

Murib said that he and other representatives of indigenous Papuans “have never been involved in discussing the Trans-Papua road project”.

Papuans eliminated
“Papuans are eliminated from their own land, lose their rights as indigenous people and face depopulation problems. Papuans want life, not roads and companies.”

He said if the central government respected Papua’s Autonomy Law, and indigenous Papuans, it should “sit down to talk with us for all forms of policy in Papua”.

Meanwhile, Colonel Aidi has confirmed an extra 600 highly skilled troops from combat units have been deployed to Nduga region to secure conditions for construction of the Trans Papua road to proceed.

Since December, dozens of people have died in escalating clashes in Nduga. The Liberation Army has indicated it was willing to negotiate a peaceful settlement of the conflict, but Colonel Aidi suggested this would be not be possible.

“The aim of Indonesia’s military is to preserve the sovereignty of the Republic of Indonesia. If the purpose of the “armed criminal group” is to be independent from Indonesia, surely the dialogue or negotiation will never be realised.”

Armed conflict continues in Papua, intractable as ever.

This article is republished under the Pacific Media Centre’s content partnership with Radio New Zealand.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Large landscapes of intact tropical forests will figure prominently in global strategies to avert catastrophic climate change and conserve biodiversity.

In this context, the extensive forests of Papua and West Papua provinces in Indonesia are now becoming the focus of international conservation efforts. There are many inherent perils to this new boom in conservation in the provinces, which could repeat past mistakes that have deprived and dispossessed indigenous Papuans from their lands.

Here we briefly outline the challenges of conservation, development and the recognition of indigenous land rights in West Papua province*, based on our ongoing collaborative applied research projects in the province that began in 2013.

READ MORE: The denial of traditional land rights in West Papua

West Papua Province, located in the Bird’s Head region of Papua (New Guinea) with a total area of 9.7 million hectares, retains more than 90 percent of its forest cover (Figure 1).

West Papua Province was created in 2003 by splitting the province previously known as Papua into two provinces. As one of the youngest provinces in Indonesia, West Papua is under pressure to accelerate socio-economic development.

The poverty rate in West Papua is high, although declining. In 2016, one fourth of West Papuans (225,800 people) lived under the regional poverty line, defined as 475 thousand Indonesian rupiah (about US$31) per month (Badan Pusat Statistik, 2017).

The rural areas of West Papua, which are mostly populated by indigenous Papuans, are poorer than urban areas.

Extensive forests
Although lagging behind in its socio-economic development, West Papua is one of few provinces with extensive native forests.

The total forest cover in West Papua is approximately 90 percent of the total area, for a total of 8.9 million hectares. This figure includes all forest cover within both state forests and non-forest areas.

Due to the biological diversity of the province as well its high proportion of forest cover, civil society organisations and international conservation organisations have advocated for the government to declare the province a conservation province.

The provincial government declared in 2015 that it would become a Conservation Province, and the supporting provincial regulation for the conservation province, now retitled as a “Sustainable Development Province”, has been drafted (Note 1).

There are many inherent dangers to the designation of West Papua as a conservation province. The province is rich in its natural environment but also has one of Indonesia’s highest rates of poverty.

Indonesian planning processes have historically not formally acknowledged customary ownership of land or zoned as forest areas.

By zoning areas as part of the forest estate, they fall under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Environment and Forestry, with conservation areas managed by the central government. There are several types of conservation areas under Indonesian law, including national parks, wildlife sanctuaries and hunting parks.

People displaced
Within the core areas of national parks and also the entire area of wildlife sanctuaries, no land uses are permitted. The establishment of conservation areas in Indonesia has historically led to the significant displacement of indigenous peoples from the core areas, restricting their access to both land and livelihoods.

The provincial government of West Papua, with the support of the Papuan People’s Council (Majelis Rakyat Papua) and civil society organisations (Note 2), have developed a draft provincial regulation on the recognition of customary land rights.

The regulation builds on the momentum of the Indonesian constitutional court decision in 2012, 35/PUU-X/2012, which recognised the rights of indigenous groups to lands within the Indonesian forest estate.

At present, there is uncertainty about how the sustainable development and customary land rights draft regulations would affect one other, once implemented.

Finally, in parallel to these initiatives, the administration of President Joko Widodo, which came into office in 2015, has been focusing on reducing poverty in regional areas of Indonesia, with a particular focus on the Indonesian portion of the island of New Guinea.

The main element of his policy has been to increase spending on infrastructure development as well as driving agricultural development. Previously remote and inaccessible areas of Papua are now finally getting access to roads and electricity, increasing their access to markets and other opportunities.

Can these three policy initiatives — for conservation, development and the recognition of indigenous land rights — be balanced in a way that benefits both indigenous Papuans and the environment?

Balanced solution
From our research in West Papua, undertaken through various initiatives since 2013, we highlight several challenges to finding a balanced solution:

• A systematic lack of spatial and socio-economic data on West Papuans, in particular their land ownership systems;
• Limited markets and low prices for commodities or crops produced by Papuans coupled with missing downstream industries that could add value to these products; and
• Spatial planning and land allocation processes that do not fully consider the rights and distribution of benefits to indigenous communities.

These challenges are all evident in the district of Fakfak, located in the central-western part of the province (Figure 1).

Fakfak District faces the Maluku Islands and historically, has long been integrated into the spice trade, especially for its local variety of nutmeg. Nutmeg and mace have been historically used worldwide for culinary purposes and can be processed further to produce essential oil and oleoresin.

Although Indonesia has been the center of nutmeg production for over a thousand years, the full potential of the nutmeg market remains untapped. One of the main undervalued nutmeg varieties is Papuan nutmeg (Myristica argentea Warb) or locally known as Pala Tomandin.

Papuan nutmeg is commercially grown in Fakfak and Kaimana districts in West Papua, with most of the production concentrated in Fakfak district. Nutmeg is cultivated in wild and semi-wild forests by indigenous farmers, in lands owned and managed under customary laws.

Diversified livelihoods
Despite being registered as a geographical indication in 2014 as Pala Tomandin, the demand and price for Papuan nutmeg remains low. Consequently, nutmeg farmers often have diversified livelihoods such as fishing and seaweed cultivation or farming other crops.

Deforestation has remained relatively limited in Fakfak District, although the period of 2010 to 2016 saw a spike in clearing related to forestry concessions and the allocation of an oil palm concession, according to data from the Ministry of Environment and Forestry (Figure 2).

Concessions, where logging companies not owned by local communities extract timber, remain the main driver of deforestation, which is a trend that has been increasing. Forest degradation, which is the conversion of primary forests to secondary forest, has primarily been driven by forestry concessions and spiked dramatically during the period of 2000 to 2010.

The rate of forest degradation declined significantly after this period, with the majority of degradation now occurring outside of forestry concessions. Currently, indigenous land owners receive compensation payments for timber harvested by the concessionaires, although the amount and distribution of benefits may vary.

From our case studies in Fakfak District, local people have described localised processes of demographic expansion and increasing financial pressures, such as the costs of paying for secondary and tertiary education for their children, as the causes of this expansion into primary forest areas.

The case of Fakfak district reveals the complexity of solving the intertwined challenges of poverty, indigenous land rights and conservation. Recognising indigenous land rights should be prioritized, to achieve both social justice and environmental conservation.

In the Amazon region, for example, formal recognition of indigenous territories inhibits deforestation just as much as conservation areas do. The recognition of land rights requires maps that delineate the boundaries of indigenous territories.

Social taboos
There are social taboos, however, in delineating these boundaries as historically boundaries between different tribes and clans were established through wars and conflict. Without proper and legitimate mediation processes in place, mapping customary boundaries has the potential to reignite these conflicts.

In the absence of conflict mediation mechanisms and institutions, there are other methods available for delineating indigenous land ownership. INOBU, together with AKAPE, a Fakfak based NGO, has trialed mapping lands based on land use instead of ownership rights, particularly focused on nutmeg forest gardens in Fakfak district.

Thus far, we have mapped 263 farmers with a total area of 792 hectares in 20 villages. These maps provide indicative maps of customary use of forest areas, which will later serve as the basis for discussion on ownership rights between clans and tribes, and with the government.

Recognising the land rights will not be sufficient to solve the problem of deforestation and forest degradation, although it will help. Improving the value and markets for locally important forest commodities is crucial.

In Fakfak, we have been working on improving the markets and value of Papuan nutmeg while strengthening alternative livelihoods in order to alleviate the economic pressures on indigenous Papuan households.

We have been engaging with nutmeg exporters to ensure that the product meets the standards required by international markets. We have also been working with an Indonesian cosmetics company to help develop local industries for processed nutmeg products.

All these interventions, in turn, should be counterbalanced by strengthening customary institutions for sustainably managing forest resources. Finally, a district level, multi-stakeholder platform will guide the sustainable production of nutmeg in Fakfak district.

Broader application
The lessons from Fakfak district can be applied more broadly to the province of West Papua. We propose that the recognition of the land and resource rights of indigenous Papuans should be the immediate priority of the provincial government, donors and conservation and development organisations.

Conservation should be viewed through the prism of strengthening customary systems and institutions, including village (kampung) administrations, for managing the environment rather than the expansion of protected areas.

The recognition of indigenous land and resource rights should not, however, extinguish their rights to develop in accordance with their own aspirations. Rather, indigenous groups should be supported through interventions that help them to develop profitable and sustainable industries, as well as support for accessing health and education.

An essential part of this should be developing economic alternatives for indigenous people that increase the value of standing, well-managed forests. Strict conservation, where necessary, should be supported through adequate financial and other incentives, with the benefits distributed equitably.

Prior to establishing or expanding conservation areas, governments should also assess the potential effects on indigenous peoples, including how it will contribute to, or impede, poverty reduction targets and the likelihood of future conflicts.

The Jokowi administration’s proposed investments in roads and electrification could help improve the economic viability of new community-based enterprises in West Papua if designed and implemented with the participation of local stakeholders, especially indigenous communities.

Participatory planning
Without effective participatory planning, investments like these can lead to a natural resource-grabbing free-for-all.

The goals of both social justice and conservation are best served by recognition of land rights plus the development of economic alternatives for forest communities that enhance their livelihoods by increasing the value of their forests.

First and foremost, West Papuan’s indigenous peoples need to have a prominent seat at the table as the future of the province is planned.

*West Papua generally refers to all of the western half of Papua New Guinea island administered by Indonesia. West Papua, as referred to in this article, also applies to the smaller western province of the island as opposed to the larger Papua province.  This article article is republished from Mongabay – “News and inspiration from nature’s frontline”. Bernadinus Steni is secretary of the Institut Inovasi Bumi and Daniel Nepstad is the executive director of Earth Innovation Institute.

Notes:
1. As part of the draft regulation for a Sustainable Development Province (Ranperdasus Provinsi Pembangunan Berkelanjutan), the government has established the following targets: 1. Local governments and stakeholders ensure that the use of clean, renewable energy reaches 50 percent with the period of 20 years from the enactment of this local regulation; 2. Local governments commit to reduce the rate of deforestation by 80 percent of the average rate of deforestation and degradation in 2009; 3. With a minimum period of 20 years from the enactment of this special autonomy regulation, as much as 50 percent of forests will be managed sustainably; 4. Local governments are obliged to protect a minimum of 80 percent of important habitats and 50 percent of every type of ecosystem; and for coastal and marine areas: Local governments are obliged to preserve a minimum of 30 percent of coastal areas and waters as Water Conservation Areas that include a minimum of 20 percent of the area as No Take Zones within a specific period considering ecological attributes.

2. Inovasi Bumi (INOBU) and Earth Innovation Institute, supported by the Norad-financed Forest, Farms and Finance Initiative, supported the drafting and initial consultations for the draft special autonomy regulation on the recognition of indigenous peoples (Ranperdasus Pengakuan Masyarakat Hukum Adat Papua di Provinsi Papua Barat). The regulation is the first step towards recognizing the land rights of indigenous peoples, as the existence of customary groups must be acknowledged first.

Acknowledgement:
John Watts (INOBU, EII), Silvia Irawan (INOBU, EII) and Triyoga Widiastomo (INOBU) contributed to this Commentary; funding was provided by NORAD and the David and Lucille Packard Foundation.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz