Based on my reading of the latest upscaling of US rhetoric, one of the military options being considered by the Israeli-American axis is the nuclear option. Refer Trump says a ‘whole civilization will die tonight’ if deal isn’t reached, One News, 8 April 2026.

The possibility of Netanyahu and Trump thinking this way would reflect a widely-held understanding that World War Two ended not only with the atomic bomb, but because of those nuclear strikes on Japan. In particular, the prevailing American narrative is that Little Boy and Fat Man saved the United States from having to make a ground invasion of Japan.

My sense is that if Israel and/or the United States go for a nuclear strike, soon or sooner, it will be on a city or some other quasi-military site in the northeast of Iran, closer to Afghanistan than to the present Persian Gulf warzone; away from the energy infrastructure of the Gulf.

Not only is the northeast the birthplace of the late Ayatollah Ali Khamanei, it is also the part of Iran which gave least support to President Masoud Pezeshkian in the 2024 presidential election. Pezeshkian, a former heart surgeon, was elected as a moderniser. In 2024 and 2025 he was committed to evolving Iran away from being a Shia theocracy and towards being a typical BRICS’ middle-range geopolitical power. (See my The Enigma of the Iranian President, Scoop, 27 March 2026.)

If we look at the map here – the second round of the 2024 Iranian presidential election – we see that Pezeshkian’s support was most in the more secular northwest and least in the more Islamist northeast. I suspect that the Axis’ military planning will be to inflict as much damage as possible – in one or a few dramatic strikes – on the present Iranian civilisation which draws heavily on Shia Islam; hence focussing on the Shia heartland.

Finally, here, I draw attention to the movie Don’t Look Up. In that movie, the threat was an asteroid, not a nuclear war. The key theme was the widespread dispassion that prevailed, especially in the mainstream media, towards a known and imminent catastrophe. In the case of a nuclear strike on Iran away from Tehran or the Gulf or the Pakistan border, the present lack of mainstream outrage at the aggressions of the last month will probably continue on and beyond the day after.

————-

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.

One of the United States’ navy ships heading towards the Persian Gulf is the USS Tripoli. (USS = United States Ship.) How the heck did it get that name? (Will the next two United States’ naval ships be called the USS Abbottabad and the USS Santo Domingo?)

The answer will be a surprise to many. The American Revolution which began in 1776 was completed in 1783, with the British capitulation to the American patriotic forces. So, the history of the United States as an independent sovereign state goes back to 1783. The British and Americans fought again from 1812 to 1815, during the Napoleonic Wars (what I suggest is better called either World War Zero or Great World War One, and my favoured dates are 1798 to 1815, with Waterloo being the final battle; Great World War One contextualises 1914 to 1945 as Great World War Two). Wikipedia describes the outcome of the War of 1812 as ‘inconclusive’.

We may note that Encounter Bay, in South Australia, is named after a World War Zero encounter between British and French naval ships – Investigator and Géographe. The encounter was in 1802. The name Tripoli dates from another encounter (a much more violent encounter) within World War Zero, in this case a war between Libya (then known as Ottoman Tripolitania) and the United States. That encounter, a war within a war, was the First Barbary War (1801-1805).

The genesis of the Barbary Wars (see this famous picture of the USS Philadelphia in Tripoli Harbour, depicting the saving-from-capture of that ship in February 1804) was an earlier war. The American-Algerian War of 1785 to 1795was the first foreign military adventure of the United States since its independence in 1783. Wikipedia lists the ‘result’ of this war as an ‘Algerian victory’. It will be a surprise to many people that America’s first foreign war was so soon after independence, and in the Mediterranean rather than somewhere close to home; independent America has a long history of violence in the ‘Middle East’. It will be no surprise that, in 1795, the United States lost that war.

The context of the 1785-1795 war was that Great Britain, piqued by the loss of its American colonies, refused the United States the ‘protection’ of the British Navy.

We note here that imperial nations traditionally extracted ‘tribute’ from both their subjugated territories, and other populated territories which might otherwise be candidates for subjugation. Further, smaller maritime states traditionally extracted rent from passing ships.

These ‘clipping-the-ticket’ relationships still exist, of course. Egypt, for example, extracts monopoly rents from its possession of the Suez Canal; as does Panama re the Panama Canal. As would New Zealand if South American merchant ships were to transit through Cook Strait on their way to Australia. Indeed, as international airports charge landing fees. Further, the extraction of imperial tribute has become apparent once again, as the American president tries to use import taxes – tariffs – and bilateral ‘deals’ as ways of ‘making lots of money’; as a way of leveraging imperial power. This is extortion through protection money, in the very worst sense of that concept of power.

In the 1780s, and before, Britain and Algeria ‘scratched each other’s backs’. Britain let Algeria – literally a ‘pirate state’ – do its thing, so long as it did not charge rents from ships under the protection of the British Empire. Thus, after 1783, American ships ceased to benefit from British protection. The conflict ended in 1795, with the United States agreeing to pay rents to Algeria, and – by implication – to other ‘pirate kingdoms’ on the North African Barbary Coast.

The Barbary Wars began when newly elected president – Thomas Jefferson – refused to pay rents to Tripolitania, aka Libya. As a result, Tripolitania declared war on the United States. The United States sent a number of frigates, including the USS Philadelphia.

To this day, the United States commemorates the 1804 burning of the USS Philadelphia by Stephen Decatur as a heroic rescue, an act of derring do which Lord Nelson reputedly claimed was “the most bold and daring act of the Age”. It was this action which led to the naming of three United States naval ships, including the current ship, as ‘Tripoli’. Decatur went on to become a hero, once again, in the 1812 to 1815 war with Britain. And many American towns came to be named after him. (We may note that, in another ‘heroic’ action in World War Zero, in 1812, the Russian military burned the city of Moscow in order to save it from Napoleon’s invading army. One significant aftermath was a literary novel: War and Peace.)

This war was not an American victory; importantly for the United States, it was not the ignominious defeat that it might otherwise have been. The United States – or at least mercenaries in the pay of the United States – did win the subsequent 1805 Battle of Derna, which the USS Tripoli officially commemorates.

The First Barbary War ended inconclusively in 1805, with a deal. Wikipedia says: “In agreeing to pay a ransom of $60,000 (equivalent to $1.3 million in 2025) for the American prisoners, the Jefferson administration drew a distinction between paying tribute and paying ransom.” Jefferson agreed to pay a ransom. We should note that the Second Barbary War of 1815, also involving Decatur, lasted just two days, and was an American victory (under President Madison).

Another reason for the naming of the USS Tripoli, which is essentially the same reason.

In 2011, the United States (as NATO), under President Obama, fought in another war against Libya. This was a successful war of ‘regime change’, this time through air power rather than sea power; though few would say that the replacement regimes have improved either the stability of Libya or of the Eastern Mediterranean. This war of ‘decapitation’ of Libya was Obama’s dress rehearsal for an even more ambitious attempt to do the same in Syria. The subsequent Syrian Civil War was another distressing failure of United States’ foreign bellicosity. At least Obama asked Congress, and as a result he was unable to escalate; Obama was thwarted in his further attempts to become a decapitating conqueror (noting Abbottabad as well as Tripoli). Much of Syria descended into anarchy, until Russia intervened.

The USS Tripoli was commissioned in 2012, as much in commemoration of recent American adventurism as it was in commemoration of that country’s earliest acts of violence in a land far far away.

*******

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.

Two New Zealand companies were condemned at a pro-Palestinian rally in Auckland today  for their alleged complicity in Israel-US military industrial complex roles linked to Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

The rally in Auckland’s Te Komititanga Square was themed “NZ has blood on its hands” and speakers heavily criticised the conduct of Rocket Lab and Rakon with their alleged “opaque” link to IDF targeting during the more than two-year war on the besieged enclave.

Although a ceasefire was declared last October 10, critics have condemned Israel for repeatedly violating the truce, killing at least a further 463 Palestinians out of the total of more than 71,000, mainly women and children.

The rally was organised by the Palestine Solidarity Network of Aotearoa (PSNA) in the 120th week of demonstrations and focused discussion on New Zealand’s complicity.

“I don’t want to ruin your day,” began PSNA organising committee member Brendan Corbett, “but as we gather here there is another group of people in a quiet Mt Wellington street staring at computer screens in the mission control office of a US Department of War contractor, Rocket Lab.”

He said they were launching spy satellites for Blacksky that ultimately fed data to Palantir, the notorious company that supplies AI-powered data, then to the IDF for the “targeted killing of Palestinians”.

“The US Department of War loves Rocket Lab so much they they have given them a US$2.4 billion contract shared with another American company to convert the rocket that they build at Warkworth into a hypersonic, 700 kg payload, missile.

“Rocket Lab have got the gall to call their rocket the ‘Hypersonic Accelerator Suborbited Test Electron’.

A first launch this year of the Electron due on Thursday was delayed by high winds.

“How the hell have we got to this stage that the US Department of War is active at this level in our community?” Corbett asked.

From ‘link to chain’
He said Rocket Lab had gone from being a “link in the Gaza kill chain” to now “being the chain”.

Corbett told the crowd to “go back a bit” — to 2006 — for background.

Rocket Lab was the product of some “clever New Zealand rocket tech enthusiasts” who had an idea for a cheap, small rocket delivery service taking satellites into orbit.

The company was “commercialised” and then sold to American interests.

“By reassuring sceptical iwi that Rocket Lab would never carry military payloads they got approval for a launch facility in Māhia, near Gisborne, and a tracking facility on Rēkohu, Chatham Island.

“Fast forward 20 years to April 2025, Peter Beck, the founder and major shareholder in Rocket Lab announced: ‘It’s an honour to be selected by the American Space Systems Command to partner in delivering the Victus Haze mission and demonstrate the kind of advanced technically responsive capabilities critical to evolving national security needs.’”

Victus Haze is an American military research programme experimenting with hypersonic space vehicles.

War in space?
The United States has been assessing New Zealand capability to help with rapid rocket and satellite launches if “war breaks out in space”.

After outlining Rocket Lab’s activities, including its production plant in Warkworth, Corbett said: “You get the picture. Rocket Lab has fully embedded itself in the US Department of War . . . and their share price is rocketing up.”

“War is still one hell of a racket.”

Corbett concluded by saying: “This open disregard that Rocket Lab has for the people of New Zealand, dragging us into complicity with genocide must be challenged and confronted.”

in a speech by Christchurch peace activist Will Alexander, read out by PSNA’s Leeann Wahanui-Peters, another company, world-leading technology outfit Rakon, and its “unsettling path its products may be taking” was criticised.

Rakon manufactures crystal oscillators as dual-use components — “the same technology that guides a civilian drone to capture a beautiful landscape can guide an Israeli drone to a journalist’s tent.”

Alexander referred to a statement from Rakon in May 2024: “Rakon does not design or manufacture weapons. We do not supply products to Israel for weapons, and we are not aware of our products being incorporated into weapons which are provided to Israel.”

He responded: “I am not alleging that Rakon ships directly to the Israeli military.”

Compelling scenario
However, his speech spelt out a compelling scenario of how a supply chain was “more opaque, and that is by design.”

His argument was that in Auckland “we have a company producing a critical component” that was likely to “enable airstrikes that have killed tens of thousands of Palestinians including journalists, destroyed hospitals, universities, and homes, and caused famine”.

Alexander said that while Rakon operated within the law, the situation posed a “profound ethical question”.

“As New Zealanders, we have a proud history of standing for peace, for nuclear-free principles, and for international law. We rightly feel horror when we see the mass killing in Gaza.

“But are we comfortable knowing that a critical piece of that war machine, however small and unseen, might have a ‘Made in New Zealand’ signature etched into its circuitry?”

Israel is on trial with the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for “plausible genocide” on a case brought by South Africa and supported by more than 30 countries and international organisations.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant are wanted on International Criminal Court (ICC) warrants for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The signing of the Papua New Guinea-Australia Mutual Defence Treaty — officially known as the Pukpuk Treaty — marks a defining moment in the modern Pacific order.

Framed as a “historic milestone”, the pact re-casts security cooperation between Port Moresby and Canberra while stirring deeper debates about sovereignty, dependency, and the shifting balance of power in the region.

At a joint press conference in Canberra, PNG Prime Minister James Marape called the treaty “a product of geography, not geopolitics”, emphasising the shared neighbourhood and history binding both nations.

“This Treaty was not conceived out of geopolitics or any other reason, but out of geography, history, and the enduring reality of our shared neighbourhood,” Marape said.

Described as “two houses with one fence,” the Pukpuk Treaty cements Australia as PNG’s “security partner of choice.” It encompasses training, intelligence, disaster relief, and maritime cooperation while pledging full respect for sovereignty.

“Papua New Guinea made a strategic and conscious choice – Australia is our security partner of choice. This choice was made not out of pressure or convenience, but from the heart and soul of our coexistence as neighbours,” Marape said.

For Canberra, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese cast the accord as an extension of “family ties” – a reaffirmation that Australia “will stand shoulder-to-shoulder with PNG to ensure a peaceful and secure Pacific family.”

Intensifying competition
It comes amid intensifying competition for influence across the Pacific, where security and sport now intersect in Canberra’s broader regional strategy.

The Treaty promises to bolster the Papua New Guinea Defence Force (PNGDF) through joint training, infrastructure upgrades, and enhanced maritime surveillance. Marape conceded that the country’s forces have long struggled with under-resourcing.

“The reality is that our Defence Force needs enhanced capacity to defend our sovereign territorial integrity. This Treaty will help us build that capacity – through shared resources, intelligence, technology, and training,” he said.

Yet, retired Major-General Jerry Singirok, former PNGDF commander, has urged caution.

“Signing a Defence Pact with Australia for the purposes of strengthening our military capacity and capabilities is most welcomed, but an Act of Parliament must give legal effect to whatever military activities a foreign country intends,” Singirok said in a statement.

He warned that Sections 202 and 206 of PNG’s Constitution already define the Defence Force’s role and foreign cooperation limits, stressing that any new arrangement must pass parliamentary scrutiny to avoid infringing sovereignty.

The sovereignty debate
Singirok’s warning reflects a broader unease in Port Moresby — that the Pukpuk Treaty could re-entrench post-colonial dependency. He described the PNGDF as “retarded and stagnated”, spending just 0.38 percent of GDP on defence, with limited capacity to patrol its vast land and maritime borders.

“In essence, PNG is in the process of offloading its sovereign responsibilities to protect its national interest and sovereign protection to Australia to fill the gaps and carry,” he wrote.

“This move, while from face value appeals, has serious consequences from dependency to strategic synergy and blatant disregard to sovereignty at the expense of Australia.”

Former leaders, including Sir Warren Dutton, have been even more blunt: “If our Defence Force is trained, funded, and deployed under Australian priorities, then whose sovereignty are we defending? Ours — or theirs?”

Canberra views the NRL deal not simply as a sporting venture but as “soft power in action” — embedding Australian culture and visibility across the Pacific through a sport already seen as a regional passion.

Marape called it “another platform of shared identity” between PNG and Australia, aligning with the spirit of the Pukpuk Treaty: partnership through shared interests.

However, critics argue the twin announcements — a defence pact and an NRL team — reveal a coordinated Australian effort to strengthen influence at multiple levels: security, economy, and society.

The US factor and overall strategy
The Pukpuk Treaty follows last year’s Defence Cooperation Agreement (DCA) signed between Papua New Guinea and the United States, which grants US forces access to key PNG military facilities, including Lombrum Naval Base on Manus Island.

That deal drew domestic protests over transparency and the perception of external control.

The Marape government insisted the arrangement respected PNG’s sovereignty, but combined with the new Australian treaty, it positions the country at the centre of a US-led security network stretching from Hawai’i to Canberra.

Analysts say the two pacts complement each other — with the US providing strategic hardware and global deterrence, and Australia delivering regional training and operational partnership.

Together, they represent a deepening of what one defence analyst called “the Pacific’s most consequential alignment since independence”.

PNG’s deepening security ties with the United States also appear to have shaped its diplomatic posture in the Middle East.

As part of its broader alignment with Washington, PNG in September 2023 opened an embassy in Jerusalem — becoming one of only a handful of states to do so, and signalling strong support for Israel.

In recent UN votes on Gaza, PNG has repeatedly voted against ceasefire resolutions, siding with Israel and the US. Some analysts link this to evangelical Christian influence in PNG’s politics and to the strategic expectation of favour with major powers.

China has been one of PNG’s longest and most consistent diplomatic partners since formal relations began in 1976.

China’s role in Papua New Guinea is not limited to diplomatic signalling — it remains a major provider of loans, grants and infrastructure projects across the country, even as the strategic winds shift. Chinese state-owned enterprises and development funds have backed highways, power plants, courts, telecoms and port facilities in PNG.

In recent years, PNG has signed onto China’s Belt and Road Initiative, and observers count at least 40 Chinese SOEs currently operating in Papua New Guinea, many tied to mining, construction, and trade projects.

While Marape has repeatedly said PNG “welcomes all partners,” the growing web of Western defence agreements has clearly shifted regional dynamics. China views the Pukpuk Treaty as another signal of Canberra and Washington’s determination to counter its influence in the Pacific — even as Port Moresby maintains that its foreign policy is one of “friends to all, enemies to none”.

A balancing act
For Marape, the Treaty is not about choosing sides but strengthening capacity through trust.

“Our cooperation is built on mutual respect, not dominance; on trust, not imposition. Australia never imposed this on us – this was our proposal, and we thank them for walking with us as equal partners,” he said.

He stressed that parliamentary ratification under Section 117 of the Constitution will ensure accountability.

“This is a fireplace conversation between neighbours – Papua New Guinea and Australia. We share this part of the earth forever, and together we will safeguard it for the generations to come,” he added.

The road ahead
Named after the Tok Pisin word for crocodile — pukpuk, a symbol of endurance and guardianship — the Treaty embodies both trust and caution. Its success will depend on transparency, parliamentary oversight, and a shared understanding of what “mutual defence” means in practice.

As PNG moves to ratify the agreement, it stands at a delicate crossroads — between empowerment and dependency, regional cooperation and strategic competition.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Marshall Islands defence provisions could “fairly easily” be considered to run against the nuclear-free treaty that they are now a signatory to, says a veteran Pacific journalist and editor.

The South Pacific’s nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament treaty, known as the Treaty of Rarotonga, was signed in Majuro last week during the observance of Nuclear Victims Remembrance Day.

RNZ Pacific’s Marshall Islands correspondent Giff Johnson, who is also editor of the weekly newspaper Marshall Islands Journal, said many people assumed the Compact of Free Association — which gives the US military access to the island nation — was in conflict with the treaty.

However, Johnson said the signing of the treaty was only the first step.

“The US said there was no issue with the Marshall Islands signing the treaty because that does not bring the treaty into force,” he said.

“I would expect that there would not be a move to ratify the treaty soon . . . with the current situation in Washington this is going to be kicked down the road a bit.”

He said the US military routinely brought in naval vessels and planes into the Marshall Islands.

“Essentially, the US policy neither confirms nor denies the presence of nuclear weapons on board aircraft or vessels or whether they’re nuclear powered.

‘Clearly spelled out defence’
“The US is allowed to carry out its responsibility which is very clearly spelled out to defend and provide defence for the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia and Palau.

“So yes, I think you could fairly easily make the case that the activity at Kwajalein and the compact’s defence provisions do run foul of the spirit of a nuclear-free treaty.”

Johnson said the US and the Marshall Islands would need to work out how it would deliver its defence and security including the Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Defence Test Site, where weapon systems are routinely tested on Kwajalein Atoll.

Meanwhile, the Greenpeace flagship Rainbow Warrior will be visiting the Marshall Islands next week to support the government on gathering data to support further nuclear compensation.

“What we are hoping to do is provide that independent science that currently is not in the Marshall Islands,” the organisation’s Pacific lead Shiva Gounden told RNZ Pacific Waves.

“Most of the science that happens in on the island is mostly been funded or taken control by the US government and the Marshallese people, rightly so, do not trust that data. Do not trust that sample collection.”

Top-secret lab study
The Micronesian nation experienced 67 atmospheric nuclear tests between 1946 and 1958, resulting in an ongoing legacy of death, illness, and contamination.

In 2017, the Marshall Islands government created the National Nuclear Commission to coordinate efforts to address the impacts from testing.

Gounden said Project 4.1 — which was the top-secret medical lab study on the effects of radiation on human bodies — has caused distrust of US data.

“The Marshallese people do not trust any scientific data or science coming out from the US,” he said.

“So they have asked us to see if we can assist in gathering samples and collecting data that is independent from the US that could assist in at least giving them a clear picture of what’s happening right now in those atolls.”

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The thing I hate about Western electoral politics in general and US presidential races in particular is that they take the focus off the depravity of the US-centralised Empire itself, and run cover for its criminality.

In the coming months you’re going to be hearing a lot of talk about the two leading presidential candidates and how very very different they are from each other, and how one is clearly much much worse than the other.

But in reality the very worst things about both of them will not be their differences — the worst things about them will be be the countless ways in which they are both indistinguishably in lockstep with one another.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

An Australian author and advocate, Jim Aubrey, today led a national symbolic one minute’s silence to mark the “blood debt” owed to Papuan allies during the Second World War indigenous resistance against the invading Japanese forces.

“A promise to most people is a promise,” Aubrey said in his open letter marking the debt protest — “unless that promise is made by the Australian government.”

After the successes of Australian and US troops against the Japanese in New Guinea, the Allies continued the advance through what was then Dutch New Guinea then on to the Philippines.

The first landing was at Hollandia (now Jayapura) in April 1944, which involved the Australian navy and air force.

Aubrey said in his letter:

“The Australian government’s WWII remembrance oath to Papuan and Timorese allies by the RAAF in flyers dropped over East Timor and the island of New Guinea — ‘FRIENDS, WE WILL NEVER FORGET YOU!’ — is in reality one of history’s most heinous bastard acts in war
and diplomacy.

“Betrayal is the reality of this blood debt and includes consecutive Australian governments’ treachery and culpability as a criminal accomplice and accessory to six decades of the Indonesian government’s crimes against humanity.

“Barbarity that shames us! Genocide, ethnocide, infanticide, and relentless ethnic cleansing.

Aubrey, spokesperson for Genocide Rebellion and the Free West Papua International Coalition, said that he and supporters were commemorating the Second World War “Papuan sacrifice for us” — Australian and American servicemen and women — four days before ANZAC Day without inviting Prime Minister Anthony Albanese or any government minister [and] without inviting US President Biden.

“To have them with us on this special solemn occasion, while honouring the fact that many of us — children and grandchildren – would not be here if it were not for Papuan courage, loyalty, and sacrifice so steadfastly given to our forebears, would be dishonourable.

‘Heartless complicity’
“We condemn outright their heartless complicity and premeditated exploitation of Papuans in their time of peril. A blood debt not honoured by a single Australian government or US administration!

“Lest We Forget . . .  six decades of providing the Republic of Indonesia with an environment of impunity for crimes against humanity — 500,000 victims in Western New Guinea, 250,000 in East Timor [now Timor-Leste after the 1999 liberation].

“Future historians will teach their undergraduates that Australian governments did forget! That Australian governments also contravened Commonwealth and State criminal codes by helping the Indonesian government prevent the legal decolonisation of Western New Guinea and achieve their subsequent unlawful annexation; and by concealing and destroying evidence of the 1998 Biak Island Massacre.

“It is not only a matter of honour and truth, it’s personal. I have only just discovered that my father and my uncle were Australian servicemen in the Pacific Theatre campaigns across New Guinea.

“Honourable Australians and Americans, however, only need to know our duty of care and our international obligations cannot be compromised for political and economic plunder. The victims of crimes against humanity deserve the support and the protection they are by law, by right, and decency entitled to.

“Pacific Island nations look to the East for a relationship of integrity in their international affairs. Who can blame them with Australian governments track record of treachery, dishonour, and their demeaning elitism and history in the genocide of indigenous peoples.”

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

An Australian author and advocate, Jim Aubrey, today led a national symbolic one minute’s silence to mark the “blood debt” owed to Papuan allies during the Second World War indigenous resistance against the invading Japanese forces.

“A promise to most people is a promise,” Aubrey said in his open letter marking the debt protest — “unless that promise is made by the Australian government.”

After the successes of Australian and US troops against the Japanese in New Guinea, the Allies continued the advance through what was then Dutch New Guinea then on to the Philippines.

The first landing was at Hollandia (now Jayapura) in April 1944, which involved the Australian navy and air force.

Aubrey said in his letter:

“The Australian government’s WWII remembrance oath to Papuan and Timorese allies by the RAAF in flyers dropped over East Timor and the island of New Guinea — ‘FRIENDS, WE WILL NEVER FORGET YOU!’ — is in reality one of history’s most heinous bastard acts in war
and diplomacy.

“Betrayal is the reality of this blood debt and includes consecutive Australian governments’ treachery and culpability as a criminal accomplice and accessory to six decades of the Indonesian government’s crimes against humanity.

“Barbarity that shames us! Genocide, ethnocide, infanticide, and relentless ethnic cleansing.

Aubrey, spokesperson for Genocide Rebellion and the Free West Papua International Coalition, said that he and supporters were commemorating the Second World War “Papuan sacrifice for us” — Australian and American servicemen and women — four days before ANZAC Day without inviting Prime Minister Anthony Albanese or any government minister [and] without inviting US President Biden.

“To have them with us on this special solemn occasion, while honouring the fact that many of us — children and grandchildren – would not be here if it were not for Papuan courage, loyalty, and sacrifice so steadfastly given to our forebears, would be dishonourable.

‘Heartless complicity’
“We condemn outright their heartless complicity and premeditated exploitation of Papuans in their time of peril. A blood debt not honoured by a single Australian government or US administration!

“Lest We Forget . . .  six decades of providing the Republic of Indonesia with an environment of impunity for crimes against humanity — 500,000 victims in Western New Guinea, 250,000 in East Timor [now Timor-Leste after the 1999 liberation].

“Future historians will teach their undergraduates that Australian governments did forget! That Australian governments also contravened Commonwealth and State criminal codes by helping the Indonesian government prevent the legal decolonisation of Western New Guinea and achieve their subsequent unlawful annexation; and by concealing and destroying evidence of the 1998 Biak Island Massacre.

“It is not only a matter of honour and truth, it’s personal. I have only just discovered that my father and my uncle were Australian servicemen in the Pacific Theatre campaigns across New Guinea.

“Honourable Australians and Americans, however, only need to know our duty of care and our international obligations cannot be compromised for political and economic plunder. The victims of crimes against humanity deserve the support and the protection they are by law, by right, and decency entitled to.

“Pacific Island nations look to the East for a relationship of integrity in their international affairs. Who can blame them with Australian governments track record of treachery, dishonour, and their demeaning elitism and history in the genocide of indigenous peoples.”

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A pair of Chinese scam artists wanted to turn a radiation-soaked Pacific atoll into a future metropolis. They ended up in an American jail instead.

How they got there is an untold tale of international bribery and grifting that stretched to the very heart of the United Nations.

The stakes could scarcely have been higher for Hilda Heine, the former president of the Marshall Islands.

A new OCCRP investigation reveals details of how Chinese-born fraudsters Cary Yan and Gina Zhou paid more than US$1 million to UN diplomats to gain access to its headquarters in New York, before embarking on a controversial plan to set up an autonomous zone near an important US military facility in the Pacific Ocean.

For years, Hilda Heine’s remote archipelago nation of just 40,000 people was best known to the world for Cold War nuclear testing that left scores of its islands poisoned.

Sitting in the centre of the Pacific Ocean, the country was a strategic but forgotten US ally.

But the arrival of a couple of mysterious strangers threatened to change all that. With buckets of cash at their disposal, the Chinese pair, Cary Yan and Gina Zhou, had grand plans that could have thrust the Marshall Islands into the growing rivalry between China and the West, and perhaps fracture the country itself.

Public controversy
First proposed in 2017, while Heine was still president, Yan and Zhou’s idea raised public controversy.

With backing from foreign investors, the couple planned to rehabilitate one irradiated atoll, Rongelap, and turn it into a futuristic “digital special administrative region.”

The new city of artificial islands would include an aviation logistics center, wellness resorts, a gaming and entertainment zone, and foreign embassies.

Thanks in part to the liberal payment of bribes, Yan and Zhou had managed to gain the support of some of the Marshall Islands’ most powerful politicians. They then lobbied for a draft bill that would have given the proposed zone, known as the Rongelap Atoll Special Administrative Region (RASAR), its own separate courts and immigration laws.

Heine was opposed. The whole thing reeked of a Chinese effort to gain influence over the strategically located Marshall Islands, she told OCCRP.

The plan was unconstitutional and would have created a virtually “independent country” within the Marshall Islands’ borders, she said.

The new Chinese investor-backed zone would also have occupied a geographically sensitive spot just 200 km of open water away from Kwajalein Atoll, where the US Army runs facilities that test intercontinental ballistic missiles and track foreign rocket launches.

Became a target
But when President Heine argued against the draft law, she became a target herself. In November 2018, pro-RASAR politicians backed by Yan and Zhou pushed a no-confidence motion to remove her from power.

She survived by one vote.

Even then, the president said she had no idea who this influential duo really were. Although they seemed to be Chinese, they carried Marshall Islands passports, which  gave them visa free access to the United States. Nobody seemed to know how they had obtained them.

“We looked and looked and we couldn’t find when and how they got [the passports],” Heine said. “We didn’t know what their connections were or if they had any connections with the Chinese government.

“But of course we were suspicious.”

The plan came to an abrupt end in November 2020, when Yan and Zhou were arrested in Thailand on a US warrant. After being extradited to face trial in New York, they pleaded guilty to a single count of conspiracy to bribe Marshallese officials.

Both were sentenced earlier this year. Zhou was deported to the Marshall Islands shortly after her sentencing, while Yan is due for release this November.

But although the federal case led to a brief burst of media attention, it left key questions unanswered.

Who really were Yan and Zhou? Who helped them in their audacious scheme? Were they simply crooks? Or were they also working to advance the interests of the Chinese government?

OCCRP spent nearly a year trying to find answers, conducting interviews around the world and poring through thousands of pages of documents.

What reporters uncovered was a story more bizarre — and with far broader implications — than first expected.

Aubrey Belford, Kevin G. Hall and Martin Young are investigative writers for the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP). Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Barely a day passes without a story in the British or Australian media that ramps up fear about the rulers in Beijing, reports the investigative website Declassified Australia.

According to an analysis by co-editors Antony Loewenstein and Peter Cronau, the Australian and British media are ramping up public fear, aiding a major military build-up — and perhaps conflict — by the United States and its allies.

The article is a warning to New Zealand and Pacific media too.

Citing a recent article in the Telegraph newspaper in Britain headlined, “A war-winning missile will knock China out of Taiwan – fast”, says the introduction.

“Written by David Axe, who contributes regularly to the outlet, he detailed a war game last year that was organised by the US think-tank, the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

“It examined a Chinese invasion of Taiwan and concluded that the US Navy would be nearly entirely obliterated. However, Axe wrote, the US Air Force ‘could almost single-handedly destroy the Chinese invasion force’.

“‘How? With the use of a Lockheed Martin-made Joint Air-to-Surface Strike Missile (JASSM).

“‘It’s a stealthy and highly accurate cruise missile that can range hundreds of miles from its launching warplane,’ Axe explained.

“‘There are long-range versions of the JASSM and a specialised anti-ship version, too — and the USAF [US Air Force] and its sister services are buying thousands of the missiles for billions of dollars.’

“Missing from this analysis was the fact that Lockheed Martin is a major sponsor of the CSIS. The editors of The Telegraph either didn’t know or care about this crucial detail.

“One week after this story, Axe wrote another one for the paper, titled, ‘The US Navy should build a robot armada to fight the battle of Taiwan.’

“‘The US Navy is shrinking,’ the story begins. ‘The Chinese navy is growing. The implications, for a free and prosperous Pacific region, are enormous.’”

Branding the situation as “propaganda by think tank”, the authors argue that some sections of the news media are framing a massive military build-up by the US and its allies as necessary in the face of Chinese aggression.

“These repetitive media reports condition the public and so allow, or force, the political class to up the ante on China,” Loewenstein and Cronau write.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

As an officer of the Department of Foreign Affairs in the Papua New Guinea government, I have to write anonymously to secure my safety.

I am writing to reveal interference by the United States in PNG’s internal affairs which is undermining the bilateral relationship between Australia and PNG.

As China’s influence rises in the Pacific Islands, PNG Prime Minister James Marape is worried that the China-Solomon Islands Security Agreement will lead to the Solomon Islands surpassing PNG’s dominant position in Melanesia.

So the Marape government decided to negotiate separately with the US and Australia on two separate agreements they wished to conclude.

The US rapidly resolved negotiations and the PNG-US Defence Cooperation Agreement was officially signed before Australia had even concluded its draft Bilateral Security Treaty.

Marape has defended the US-PNG agreement several times in Parliament, while raising some constitutional concerns on an Australia-PNG treaty during his meeting with Australian Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles.

PNG has chosen the US to be the first defence partner, although Australia is PNG’s closest neighbour and long-time partner.

Advance draft of treaty
To its advantage, the US had acquired an advance draft of the Bilateral Security Treaty and knew Australia intended to be PNG’s first security partner.

The US discovered that PNG would not cooperate with other countries in the Pacific Islands security area without Australia’s approval.

So the US then made adjustments to the Defence Cooperation Agreement, revising or deleting articles that concerned PNG in order to settle the agreement ahead of its treaty with Australia.

It was planned that the negotiation between Australia and PNG would be finished in April, but the US intervened and asked PNG to pause the talks with Australia and work on its own Defence Cooperation Agreement first.

The US made commitments during the negotiation with PNG to step up its security support and assistance and cover shortfalls in assistance that Australia had not fulfilled.

Marape and his cabinet had arrived at the belief that Australia was not fully committed to assisting PNG develop its defence force.

There was apparently an internal report revealing that Australia’s intent was not to enhance and elevate some areas of security cooperation but to ensure PNG continued to rely on Australia for all its security needs.

Australia’s process paused
In its negotiation, considering that Australia was trying to prevent US dominance in the Pacific Islands region, the US asked PNG not to share the Defence Cooperation Agreement with Australia.

As a result, Australia’s negotiation process with PNG was paused.

The PNG government, frustrated by empty promises, considered the PNG Defence Force would never be developed in cooperation with Australia, so decided instead to work with a more powerful partner.

PNG knows that its own geopolitical position is becoming of increasing importance, but believes Australia has never respected its position. So PNG decided to use this opportunity to reduce its dependence on Australia.

It also seems the US has supported the Marape government in stifling opposition in PNG to assure the Defence Cooperation Agreement can be implemented smoothly.

For example, Morobe Governor Luther Wenge was initially opposed to the agreement but joined Marape’s Pangu Party and supported it after Marape gave K50 million to his electorate development fund.

Wenge later publicly criticised Australia, saying it did not want PNG to develop its own defence force.

Long mutual history
Australia is PNG’s long-term partner and closest neighbour and we have a long mutual history in economic, political and security cooperation.

My colleagues and I believe that Marape should not betray Australia because it has been tempted by the US, which seems to have intervened to dilute or even ruin our bilateral relationship.

Even though Marape explained to Australia that the Defence Cooperation Agreement would not affect the bilateral relationship, there is no doubt that the relationship with the US will have priority.

So Marape has tightened his control over the mainstream media, social media posts have been deleted for no reason and voices opposing the Defence Cooperation Agreement cannot be heard.

We hope some influential media and Australian friends will help us to protect PNG’s national interest and our bilateral relationship with Australia.

This correspondent’s anonymous article was first published by Keith Jackson’s PNG Attitude website and is republished here with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A Papua New Guinean academic says the new security deals with the United States will militarise his country and anyone who thinks otherwise is naïve.

In May, PNG’s Defence Minister Win Barki Daki and US Secretary of State Antony Blinken signed the Defence Cooperation Agreement and the Shiprider Agreement.

Last week they were presented to PNG MPs for ratification and made public.

The defence cooperation agreement talks of reaffirming a strong defence relationship based on a shared commitment to peace and stability and common approaches to addressing regional defence and security issues.

Money that Marape ‘wouldn’t turn down’
University of PNG political scientist Michael Kabuni said there was certainly a need for PNG to improve security at the border to stop, for instance, the country being used as a transit point for drugs such as methamphetamine and cocaine.

“Papua New Guinea hasn’t had an ability or capacity to manage its borders. So we really don’t know what goes on on the fringes of PNG’s marine borders.”

But Kabuni, who is completing his doctorate at the Australian National University, said whenever the US signs these sorts of deals with developing countries, the result is inevitably a heavy militarisation.

“I think the politicians, especially PNG politicians, are either too naïve, or the benefits are too much for them to ignore. So the deal between Papua New Guinea and the United States comes with more than US$400 million support. This is money that [Prime Minister] James Marape wouldn’t turn down,” he said.

The remote northern island of Manus, most recently the site of Australia’s controversial refugee detention camp, is set to assume far greater prominence in the region with the US eyeing both the naval base and the airport.

US fighter jets now (21.06.23) at Jacksons International Airport, Port Moresby.

📷 Walen Parange pic.twitter.com/EVrOV7CWZ3

— Bobby Jr (@tambijr_4rmPNG) June 21, 2023

Kabuni said Manus was an important base during World War II and remains key strategic real estate for both China and the United States.

“So there is talk that, apart from the US and Australia building a naval base on Manus, China is building a commercial one. But when China gets involved in building wharves, though it appears to be a wharf for commercial ships to park, it’s built with the equipment to hold military naval ships,” he said.

Six military locations
Papua New Guineans now know the US is set to have military facilities at six locations around the country.

These are Nadzab Airport in Lae, the seaport in Lae, the Lombrum Naval Base and Momote Airport on Manus Island, as well as Port Moresby’s seaport and Jackson’s International Airport.

According to the text of the treaty the American military forces and their contractors will have the ability to largely operate in a cocoon, with little interaction with the rest of PNG, not paying taxes on anything they bring in, including personal items.

Prime Minister James Marape has said the Americans will not be setting up military bases, but this document gives them the option to do this.

Marape said more specific information on the arrangements would come later.

Antony Blinken said the defence pact was drafted by both nations as ‘equal and sovereign partners’ and stressed that the US will be transparent.

Critics of the deal have accused the government of undermining PNG’s sovereignty but Marape told Parliament that “we have allowed our military to be eroded in the last 48 years, [but] sovereignty is defined by the robustness and strength of your military”.

The Shiprider Agreement has been touted as a solution to PNG’s problems of patrolling its huge exclusive economic zone of nearly 3 million sq km.

Another feature of the agreements is that US resources could be directed toward overcoming the violence that has plagued PNG elections for many years, with possibly the worst occurrence in last year’s national poll.

But Michael Kabuni said the solution to these issues will not be through strengthening police or the military but by such things as improving funding and support for organisations like the Electoral Commission to allow for accurate rolls to be completed well ahead of voting.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Former Papua New Guinean prime minister Peter O’Neill says the controversial US-PNG Defence Cooperation Agreement threatens the country’s sovereignty.

He said the agreement negotiation was started in 2016 by his government but it was different in content from the one signed with the US.

O’Neill said the agreement encroached into sovereignty of Papua New Guinea, particularly Article 3 of the Agreement that relates to giving immunity to US military personnel.

He said this section stated that PNG was conceding its jurisdiction over to the visiting forces and it further stated that the US forces would have exclusive rights over criminal jurisdictions against US military personnel.

“Bear in mind the Australian ECP that was challenged by the Morobe Governor Luther Wenge and the Supreme Court nullified the agreement and this agreement is similar in nature.

“By when we are adopting in this Parliament, we are conceding our jurisdiction over to the US government so we just need to be careful about what we are saying.

“Additionally [the] agreement says that the US government has exclusive rights to exercise civil and administrative jurisdiction over the US personnel for all their acts while on duty.

Notification of arrest
“Any act done outside of duty will come under PNG jurisdiction but PNG authorities will immediately notify the US authorities, and properly transfer the personnel over to the US authorities, that the US authorities will be notified of the detention or arrest and that their properties will be inviolable.

“This is not in line with the provisions of our Constitution. That was tested by the Wenge challenge so I think Parliament and government need to take heed of this,” he said.

O’Neill said Paragraph 4 stated that US personnel would have the authority to impose discipline measures in the territory of PNG in accordance with US laws and regulations.

He said Manus, Jackson International Airport, Nazab Airport, Lae Port, Lombrum, and Momote Airport were areas the US would have “unlimited access” to and control over these facilities and areas.

“This is what we have agreed to and they will not pay one single toea and, according to Article 5 Paragraph 2, these properties will be given access without rental and charges to the US.

“And further on Article 6, US forces can position their equipment, their personnel, supplies and materials at any of these places.”

O’Neill said that when talking about “ownership” of infrastructure, nothing would be fixed to the ground and they would remove them and go away with them.

Exempt from all fees
He said the agreement, according to Article 9 paragraph 2, said that all the people that would come to PNG (US military personnel and contractors) would be exempted from all other immigration requirements — including payment of fees, taxes and duties — for entry or exiting the country.

He said that under Article 12 Paragraph 4, the US personnel would be exempted from paying taxes, including on income, salary and emoluments.

“So there will be no revenues from salary and wages tax and in Paragraph 5 [it] states that includes their contractors [that] they engaged [who] will be also exempted,” O’Neill said.

“I can’t see any agreement about training of our personnel, I can’t see any of our personnel being engaged with the US Army and I can’t see any specific investment in the infrastructure in the country.

“So what are we doing this agreement for?

“There is no specifics of what benefit is coming as it is not mentioned in the agreement.

“In the Ship Rider Agreement, we are giving almost exclusive rights to our waters. Therefore we need to be careful.

“I know our lawyers are having a look at it, and probably see [if] that it is in compliance with our Constitution, but I think there needs to be further clarity into this agreement,” he said.

Jeffrey Elapa is a PNG Post-Courier reporter. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Papua New Guinea Prime Minister James Marape says the increased United States security involvement in Papua New Guinea is driven primarily by the need to build up the Papua New Guinea Defence Force and not US-China geopolitics.

Last night, despite calls for more public consultation, the US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Papua New Guinea’s Minister for Defence, Win Bakri Daki, penned the Bilateral Defence Cooperation and Shiprider agreements at APEC house in Port Moresby.

Prime Minister Marape said the milestone agreements were “important for the continued partnership of Papua New Guinea and the United states.”

“It’s mutually beneficial, it secures our national interests,” he said.

He said the penning of the new defence pact elevated prior security arrangements with the US under the 1989 Status of Forces Agreement.

Despite public criticism, Marape maintains the agreements are constitutional and will benefit PNG.

He said it had taken “many, many months and weeks” and passed through legal experts to reach this point.

The Shiprider agreement will act as a vital mechanism to tackle illegal fishing and drug trafficking alongside the US, which is a big issue that PNG faces in its waters, Marape said.

“I have a lot of illegal shipping engagements in the waters of Papua New Guinea, unregulated, unmonitored transactions take place, including drug trafficking,” he said

“This new Shiprider agreement now gives Papua New Guinea’s shipping authority, the Defence Force and Navy ‘full knowledge’ of what is happening in waters, something PNG has not had since 1975 [at independence],” Marape said.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken echoed those sentiments and stressed that the US was committing to the growing of all aspects of the relationship.

“Papua New Guinea is playing a critical role in shaping our future,” Blinken told the media.

He said the defence pact was drafted by both nations as “equal and sovereign partners”.

It was set to enhance PNG’s Defence Force capabilities, making it easy for both forces to train together.

He too stressed the US would be transparent.

For all their reassurances, both leaders steered clear of any mention of US troop deployments in PNG despite Marape having alluded to it in the lead up to the signing.

Reactions to the security pact
Although celebrated by the governments of the US and PNG as milestone security agreements the lead up to the signings was marked by a day of university student protests across the country calling for greater transparency from the PNG government around the defence pact.

The students’ president at the University of Technology in Lae, Kenzie Walipi, had called for the government to explain exactly what was in the deal ahead of the signing.

“If such an agreement is going to affect us in any way, we have to be made aware,” Walipi said.

Just before the pen hit the paper last night, Marape again sought to reassure the public.

“This signing in no way, state or form terminates us from relating to other defence cooperations we have or other defence relationships or bilateral relationships that we have,” Marape said.

He added “this is a two-way highway”.

Students at the University of Papua New Guinea ended a forum late last night and blocked off the main entrance to the campus as Prime Minister Marape and State Secretary Blinken signed the Defence Cooperation agreement.

They are maintaining a call for transparency and for a proper debate on the decision.

Hours before the signing, they presented a petition to the Planning Minister, Renbo Paita, who received their demands on behalf of the Prime Minister.

Students at the University of Technology in Lae met late into the night. Students posted live videos on Facebook of the forum as the signing happened in Port Moresby.

The potential impact of the agreements signed in Port Moresby overnight on Papua New Guinea and the Pacific will become more apparent once the full texts are made available online as promised by both the United States and Papua New Guinea.

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

Extending my heartfelt thanks to Prime Minister Marape and the people of Papua New Guinea for hosting me. I am grateful to have met with Pacific Islands leaders and to demonstrate our commitment to working together with our Pacific neighbors to address our shared challenges. pic.twitter.com/mpVCnIGDAT

— Secretary Antony Blinken (@SecBlinken) May 22, 2023

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Thousands of students at the University of Papua New Guinea staged a protest at the Waigani campus Forum Square today against the US-PNG Defence Cooperation Agreement that is scheduled for signing this afternoon.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken is already in the country to sign the defence pact and also the Ship Rider Agreement with PNG.

The students claimed that the agreements between PNG and the United States concerned national security and their content must be made known for public scrutiny and transparency before signing takes place.

However, Prime Minister James Marape had earlier insisted that the agreements to be signed were transparent.

Marape added that not all agreements signed should be presented to Parliament earlier.

He said the country’s State Solicitor, who represents PNG’s legal checks and balances, had been involved “every step of the way” and had given clearance over the laws of this country.

Marape said that as soon as it is stable for transparency the country would be privy to those agreements and they would be tabled in Parliament.

‘Almost there for signing’
“I just wish to assure everyone, that Parliament will be privy to what we are about to sign and at the moment our Foreign Affairs team has been leading the negotiations. We are at the stage where we are almost there for signing,” he said.

“I want to give assurance to our country, it is nothing to be sceptical about,” said Marape.

Marape further elaborated that similar agreements and cooperation had been reached with other countries and that PNG could reach out to other bilateral partners with similar agreements as stipulated in the Constitution.

Also, the country’s foreign policy was: “Friends to all and enemies to none”.

The US and PNG already had a Status of Forces Agreement, or SOFA.

A SOFA is an agreement between a host country and a foreign nation stationing military forces in that country.

SOFAs are often included, along with other types of military agreements, as part of a comprehensive security arrangement.

Corporations allowed
Marape briefly stated that the SOFA agreement did allow US defence corporations and others to be involved in PNG.

PNG was just elevating this specific one with the USA.

Deputy Prime Minister John Rosso also clarified that once the agreement was agreed by the National Executive Council (NEC) and signed off by the Prime Minister and Defence Minister it would be brought before Parliament and debated before it became law.

On behalf of the government, Finance Minister Rainbo Paita adressed the protesting students at the UPNG Forum Square and received the petition presented by the Student Representative Council president Luther Kising.

Other tertiary institution’s student bodies, such as the University of Goroka and the University of Technology at Lae, have also protested against the defence cooperation agreement.

Meanwhile, there was a high presence of police reinforcements at the entrance to UPNG preventing the protest from escalating further.

Stella Martin and Rose Amos are NBC reporters. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz