FLNKS president Christian Tién . . . the "pseudo-accord" is "incompatible" with what the FLNKS envisages as Kanaky's "decolonisation path". Image: Julien Mazzoni/LNC
By Patrick Decloitre
The signing of a new agreement on New Caledonia’s political and financial future has triggered a fresh wave of reactions from across the French territory’s political chessboard.
The Elysée-Oudinot agreement was signed on Monday, January 19, in the presence of French President Emmanuel Macron as well as most of New Caledonia’s politicians.
But the pro-independence FLNKS (Kanak and Socialist National Liberation Front), the largest component of the pro-independence movement, had chosen not to travel to Paris.
PALIKA and UPM are formed into a Parliamentary caucus called “UNI” (Union Nationale pour l’Indépendance).
The Elysée-Oudinot text was described as being a “complement” bearing “clarifications” to a previous agreement project, signed in July 2025 in the small city of Bougival, west of Paris.
They said the Bougival text and all related documents were in substance “lures” of independence and that they regarded the French state as being responsible for a “rupture of dialogue”.
As the Bougival initial text, its Elysée-Oudinot complement maintains the notion of creating a “state of New Caledonia”, its correlated “nationality” and introduces a new set of commitments from France, including a package to re-launch the local economy, severely damaged as a result of the riots that broke out in May 2024.
The new text also mentions granting more powers to each of New Caledonia’s three provinces (North, South and the Loyalty Islands group), including in terms of revenue collection by way of taxes.
This, the FLNKS protested, could erode the powers of New Caledonian provinces and reinforce economic and social inequalities between them.
Reacting to the signing in Paris in their absence, the FLNKS, in a media release on Wednesday, condemned and rejected the new text “unequivocally”.
New Caledonia’s territorial President Alcide Ponga signs the Elysée-Oudinot agreement in Paris . . . endorsed by most parties but minus the pro-independence FLNKS. Image: Jean Tenahe Faatau/Outremers360/LNC
FLNKS President Christian Téin, in the release, said the new agreement endorses a “passage en force” (forceful passage) and is “incompatible” with the way the FLNKS envisages Kanaky’s “decolonisation path”, including in the way it is defined under the United Nations decolonisation process.
It also criticises a document signed “without the Indigenous people” of New Caledonia.
The pro-independence party also expressed its disapproval of what it calls a “pseudo-accord”.
“We will use every political tool available to us to re-alert, again and again the public”, FLNKS politburo member Gilbert Tyuienon told public broadcaster Nouvelle-Calédonie La Première at the weekend.
French Minister for Overseas Naïma Moutchou had reiterated, even after the signing in Paris, that the door remained open to FLNKS.
In reaction to the signing, other parties have also expressed their respective points of view.
“Why didn’t they come [to Paris] to defend their positions, since they were invited?” Southern Province President (pro-France) Sonia Backès wrote on social networks.
“Does UNI not represent the Kanak people too?” she added.
French Minister for Overseas Naïma Moutchou said this new set of agreements reflected a “shared will to look at the future together”.
“Now the territory can walk on its two legs”.
Some of the pro-France parties, who want New Caledonia to remain a part of France, have however acknowledged that even though the new documents were signed, the road ahead remained rocky in terms of its implementation in the French Parliament, through a local referendum and related constitutional amendments.
‘We’ve done the easiest part’ — Metzdorf New Caledonia’s MP at the French National Assembly, Nicolas Metzdorf said a huge challenge still remained ahead.
“We’ve done the easiest, the hardest part remains . . . This is to obtain the [French] Parliament’s support, both Houses, to enact the accords in the French Constitution.”
Following a very tight schedule in the coming weeks, the texts will be submitted to the vote of both Parliament Houses, first separately, then in a joint chamber format (the Congress, for constitutional amendment purposes).
Then the text is also to be submitted to New Caledonia’s population for approval through a referendum-like “consultation”.
In a way of foretaste of what promises to be heated debates in coming weeks, with a backdrop of strong divisions in the French Parliament, Moutchou and far-left MP Bastien Lachaud (La France Insoumise, LFI) waged a war of words on Tuesday in the National Assembly.
Responding to Lachaud’s accusations which echoed those from FLNKS, Moutchou denounced the “passage en force” claim and the absence of “consensus”.
“FLNKS was never excluded from anything. It was invited, it was approached, it was awaited, just like the other ones. It chose not to turn up,” Moutchou said.
“The politics of empty chair was never conducive to a compromise,” she said as Assembly Speaker Yaël Braun-Pivet had to call the LFI caucus back to order.
Strong financial component Some of the financial aspects of the deals include a five-year “reconstruction” plan for New Caledonia, for a total of 2.2 billion euros (NZ$4 billion), presented to New Caledonia’s politicians by French Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu.
This chapter also comes with revisiting previous French loans for more than 1 billion euros, which New Caledonia found almost impossible to repay (with an indebtedness rate of 360 percent).
The loans, under the agreement’s financial chapter, would be renegotiated, re-scheduled and possibly converted into non-refundable grants.
Meanwhile a two-year repayment holiday (2026-2027) would be applied, while a far-reaching reform programme is expected to be pursued.
“What people really expected was [economic] prospects. This is the main part of this accord, the economic refoundation,” commented Vaimu’a Muliava, from Wallis-based Eveil Océanien party after the Paris talks.
The new financial arrangements would also provide a much-needed lifebuoy to critically threatened mechanisms in New Caledonia, such as its retirement scheme or the power supply company.
More injections for the nickel industry Another 200 million euros is also earmarked to bail out several nickel mining companies facing critical hardships.
This includes assistance aimed at supporting business and employment for French historical Société le Nickel (SLN), Prony Resources and NMC (Nickel Mining Company, which has ties to Korea’s POSCO).
The French government has also pledged to follow-up on a request to New Caledonia’s nickel mining and refining declared a “strategic” sector by the European Union.
“The agreement’s economic chapter was as necessary as the political one,” said New Caledonia’s President Alcide Ponga after the signing.
Another cash injection was directed to this year’s budget for New Caledonia, which benefits from a direct cash injection of 58 million euros.
Patrick Decloitre is the RNZ Pacific correspondent French Pacific desk. This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
I can’t get over the fact that people were casting bets on whether the US would bomb Iran the other day. It just says such dark things about the type of civilization we are living in.
In this dystopia, Americans are never given the option to vote for a president who won’t bomb foreign countries in wars of aggression. But they do have the option to gamble on when those bombs will be dropped.
They’re not allowed to vote against war, militarism and imperialism, but they can go to an app on their smartphone and place bets on how the war, militarism and imperialism will unfold.
Preventing your government from raining military explosives onto foreign countries full of civilians who are just trying to live their lives? No. Thumbs down. You don’t get to do that.
Pouring money into “prediction market” scams like Kalshi and Polymarket with bets on when those military explosives will end the lives of those foreign civilians? Yes. Thumbs up. You are encouraged to do that.
You’re allowed to get rich making an app which lets Westerners gamble on military atrocities of immense humanitarian consequence.
In this dystopia . . . Video: Caitlin Johnstone
You’re allowed to get rich starting a company that manufactures missiles, sells those missiles to the US government, and then pays think tanks and lobbyists to convince US decision makers to use those missiles in gratuitous acts of mass military violence.
You’re allowed to get rich buying stocks in the arms industry and then funding the political campaigns of politicians who pledge to help start wars.
As long as it’s profitable and sits within the extremely broad parameters of acceptable liberal norms, it’s perfectly legal.
But when it comes to doing anything that might eat into those profits by making the world a less violent place, there’s not even a viable option at the ballot box.
Our world looks the way it looks because our entire civilisation is driven by the mindless pursuit of profit.
It’s profitable to start wars, so the wars never end.
It’s profitable for corporations to destroy the ecosystem and offload the costs of industry onto the environment, so it keeps happening.
It’s profitable for capitalists to keep wages down and worker’s rights at a minimum, so wealth inequality gets worse and worse.
It’s profitable for plutocrats to manipulate legislation and government policy using campaign funding and corporate lobbying, so the government gets more and more corrupt and oligarchic while society gets more and more unjust and oppressive.
As long as we have systems in place which cause mass-scale human behaviour to be driven by the pursuit of profit, things are going to keep getting more and more violent, abusive, poisoned, polluted, unjust, unhappy, and dystopian.
This will continue until we as a collective decide we’ve had enough and force new systems into place. Until then the object in motion shall remain in motion.
Young people celebrate Bougainville Patriotism Day in Buka on 1 September 2025 . . . more needs to be done to win hearts and minds in the rest of Papua New Guinea. Image: DevPolicy/Facebook/AROB
ANALYSIS:By Anna Kapil and Stephen Howes
It is well known that the people of Bougainville want independence. In the 2019 referendum, 98.3 percent of them voted for it.
And in 2025, Ishmael Toroama, a strong advocate of independence, was re-elected to the position of President of the Autonomous Region of Bougainville, further confirmation of the widespread support for independence among the people of Bougainville.
When asking the question, we reminded the students we surveyed of the strong support in Bougainville for independence, and told them that, as mentioned above, “in a recent referendum, an overwhelming majority (98.31 percent) of voters in Bougainville chose to have full independence from PNG over greater autonomy.”
We then asked the students to consider this outcome when selecting from one of four options that we presented to them.
They could say that Bougainville should be granted full independence, that it should remain in PNG with greater autonomy, that they oppose any changes in Bougainville’s current status, or that they were unsure.
Only 27 percent of the 389 School of Business and Public Policy students who took the survey supported full independence. The majority, 59 percent said that Bougainville should remain part of PNG but with greater autonomy. Of the balance, 11 percent said they were unsure and 3 percent said that they supported no change in the current status.
Opposition to independence was widespread across all four regions of PNG, but was slightly stronger among students from the Momase and Highlands regions, and lower among students from the Islands and Southern regions.
However, these differences are not statistically significant. Even in the Islands region, which might be expected to be more sympathetic to Bougainville independence, a majority of students were in fact opposed.
The most supportive was the Southern region, but even there 51 percent of students were opposed to independence.
Female students were slightly more supportive of independence (25 percent male vs 30 percent female). Male students were more likely to support greater autonomy (62 percent vs 52 percent) and women were more likely to be unsure (15 percent vs 9 percent). Again these differences were not statistically significant.
In summary, this survey of some almost 400 UPNG students found widespread opposition to Bougainville independence. We want to stress that we are not endorsing these views, nor criticising them. We are just reporting them.
The opposition we find among students is probably reflective of views more generally in PNG, at least among the elite, and might help explain why PNG’s political leaders are dragging their feet on the issue if not “fundamentally opposed” to independence.
Few, such as the former prime minister Peter O’Neill, have come out openly to express their opposition to independence. But few, such as the late Morobe Premier Luther Wenge, have been openly supportive either.
There seems to be a general reluctance among PNG’s political leadership to respond to the 2019 referendum result, much to the frustration of Bougainville’s political leadership.
On the one hand, it seems that no-one wants a confrontation. On the other, PNG’s political leadership, like UPNG’s student body, doesn’t seem to find the 2019 referendum result a convincing reason to support the cause of Bougainville independence.
If our survey is anything to go by, the PNG elite is willing to compromise (to allow Bougainville greater autonomy) but not to support its break away from the nation.
If Bougainville wants independence, it will have to do more to win hearts and minds in the rest of PNG. Our survey shows that it is not enough to simply reiterate the overwhelming support that independence has within Bougainville.
The students were explicitly reminded of this and still only one-quarter supported independence. If Bougainville is to succeed in its independence aspirations, it will need to do more to convince PNG’s elite, or at least its future elite, why it should be allowed to break away.
Anna Kapil is a Lecturer at the University of Papua New Guinea. She completed a Master of International and Development Economics at the Australian National University. Anna was a Greg Taylor Scholar at the Development Policy Centre.
Dr Stephen Howes is director of the Development Policy Centre and professor of economics at the Crawford School of Public Policy at the Australian National University.
For other findings from the 2025 survey, see this article series and the 2025 PNG Update presentation. The results of the first survey, conducted in 2024, are reported here. Statistical significance was judged using the Chi-square test. Republished from the DevPolicy blog under Creative Commons.
A pro-Palestian campaigner today accused the Israeli military forces of “once again trying to sanitise its” image in Aotearoa New Zealand, condemning a “shameful” visa programme enabling soldiers to holiday in this country.
Leeann Wahanui-Peters branded the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) “more accurately as the Israeli Offence Force (IOF) because it is the illegal occupier of Palestine” at an Auckland rally condemning the ongoing genocide in Gaza in spite of the “ceasefire” declared last October.
“For the next two months, members of this military force, including reservists, will be in Aotearoa under a visa programme that shamefully grants 200 working holiday visas to Israeli soldiers annually,” the Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA) activist told the crowd at Te Komititanga Square.
Palestine advocate Leeann Wahanui-Peters . . . “Accountability is the cornerstone of justice. When states fail to act — as our own government has by welcoming these suspects — the people must.” Image: Asia Pacific Report
“These are not tourists. They are individuals complicit in a military apparatus that enforces a brutal apartheid and perpetrates genocide against the Palestinian people.
“They are war criminal suspects seeking to rest and relax after their crimes, welcomed with open arms by a New Zealand government that has chosen to be complicit.”
Israeli forces have killed more than 71,000 Palestinians — 84 percent of them civilians, mostly women and children — since the onslaught on Gaza began in October 2023.
The country is under investigation by the world’s top judicial body, the International Court of Justice, for “plausible genocide” — while United Nations agencies and global human rights watchdogs have already accused Tel Aviv of genocide.
The influx of Israeli soldiers into New Zealand was not a simple cultural exchange, Wahanui-Peters said.
“From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” . . . the rally at Auckland’s Te Komititanga Square today. Image: Asia Pacific Report
“It is a calculated public relations exercise by a desperate and isolated rogue state.
“Israel, condemned globally for its war crimes and crimes against humanity, is desperate to maintain a facade of normalcy and international acceptance.”
Wahanui-Peters said that by embedding its soldiers within New Zealand communities as “tourists,” “workers,” or even as “athletes” in sports teams and competitions, Israel sought to “whitewash its crimes” and forge political connections with what it viewed as “fellow colonial-settler states”.
It was an attempt to use Aotearoa New Zealand as a stage — whether a beach, a tennis court, or a volleyball court — to “pretend it remained a legitimate member of the international community”.
Wahanui-Peters recalled that Israel was being investigated for genocide by the ICJ and its leaders under the ICC.
How the Hind Rajab Foundation seeks justice against Israeli soldiers. Video: Democracy Now!
‘Tool of genocide PR’
“We must see this entire [holiday] effort for what it is — a tool of genocide PR, and we must reject it utterly.”
She said the demand for accountability was non-negotiable.
“Accountability is the cornerstone of justice. When states fail to act — as our own government has by welcoming these suspects — the people must.
“The principle of universal jurisdiction means that crimes against humanity concern all of humanity,” Wahanui-Peters said.
“These soldiers and reservists are part of a chain of command carrying out a documented genocide; their presence here, in any capacity, is an affront to every victim, every survivor and every advocate for human rights — and especially Palestinian rights.
“We will not allow Aotearoa to be a holiday resort, a sporting venue, or a training ground for war criminal suspects. We will not allow our country to be used to launder the reputation of a murderous military.”
She referred to how four coalition government leaders — Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour, Foreign Minister Winston Peters and Defence Minister Judith Collins — had been referred along with the CEOs of Rocket Lab and Rakon by PSNA to the ICC for alleged complicity in July last year.
PSNA advocate Achmat Esau . . . “No normal sport in an abnormal society” – this should apply to genocidal Israel. Image: Asia Pacific Report
Hind Rajab Foundation example
Wahanui-Peters praised the Hind Rajab Foundation for its an “excellent example” of direct legal action “holding these deranged sick individuals accountable”.
This week, for example, the foundation had filed a criminal complaint in Austria against an Israeli soldier accused of war crimes.
Yonatan Akriv of the 8717th “Alon” Battalion was accused on January 13 of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and acts contributing to genocide during Israel’s military campaign in Gaza.
“The Israeli military’s PR campaign takes many forms. Watch for them not only as tourists but also as purported ‘athletes’,” Wahanui-Peters said.
Other speakers also condemned the “genocide sportswashing”.
Another PSNA activist, Achmat Esau, originally from South Africa, reminded the crowd of New Zealand’s “proud opposition” to the 1981 Springbok tour to help break apartheid.
“No normal sport in an abnormal society” was the powerful slogan of the South African Council on Sport (SACOS) at the time, he said.
It highlighting that sport in apartheid South Africa could not be separated from racial segregation, leading to international boycotts against the country until apartheid ended in 1994.
Normal sports could not exist under such discrimination and he said the same applied to Israel, where many of the football teams came from illegal settlements in occupied West Bank.
“No normal sport in an abnormal society,” he said, adding that it should apply to Israel.
The “Boycott Israeli goods” message at the Commercial Bay shopping centre in the heart of Auckland today. Image: Asia Pacific Report
Is there anything more undignified than “leftists” and “anarchists” who cheer on the fall of empire-targeted governments even as the empire moves war machinery into place?
Ooh look at me, I’m sticking it to the man by supporting the same agendas as the US State Department. I’m being punk rock by regurgitating the same war propaganda talking points as John Bolton.
I’m fighting the power by backing the foreign policy objectives of the most powerful empire that has ever existed.
Anarchists, again, fail to understand that overthrowing the existing state infrastructure would create a power vacuum. And currently, there does not exist a revolutionary vanguard that can occupy that space with the mass line.
If you want to have a serious political outlook it is necessary to have a more layered understanding of the world than “tyranny bad”, because as Westerners we ourselves are ruled by the most tyrannical power structure on earth.
That power structure ceaselessly targets the few remaining states that have successfully resisted being absorbed into its globe-spanning power umbrella like Iran, Russia, China, North Korea, and Cuba.
Those states have successfully resisted being absorbed into the imperial blob exactly because they have strong governments that don’t hesitate to exert control to stomp out all the imperial operations and infiltrations which would otherwise have overthrown them.
This doesn’t mean these governments are wonderful and flawless, it just means they possess the qualities that enable a state to resist the empire’s coups, proxy conflicts, color revolutions and foreign influence operations.
If your only analysis of state power dynamics is “tyranny bad”, then you will naturally find yourself in opposition to the unabsorbed states and (whether you admit it or not) on the side of the most tyrannical regime on earth — namely the US-centralised Western empire.
No other power structure has spent the 21st century slaughtering people by the millions in wars of aggression around the world, attacking civilian populations with deadly starvation sanctions, staging coups, instigating proxy conflicts, and circling the planet with hundreds of military bases.
Only the US empire is doing that. Dominating the entire planet with murderous brute force is as tyrannical as it gets. If this isn’t true, then nothing is.
If you want to have a serious political worldview, you need to get real about this. The premise that the fall of an authoritarian government is always inherently positive has no place in the understanding of a grown adult, especially if that grown adult happens to live in the core of the Western empire, and especially if that empire is presently working to orchestrate the overthrow of the government in question.
The more power structures are absorbed into the empire, the larger and more powerful the empire becomes. Desiring their absorption is desiring more power for the US empire.
And you can lie to yourself and say that you don’t want Iran to be absorbed into the control of the US empire, you just want its people to live in a free and democratic country. But we both know that’s not going to happen.
Once the strength of the Iranian government has been collapsed there will be a power vacuum that is filled by whatever faction is able to secure control, and the strongest faction will be whichever one is backed by the US and its allies. There is no organic faction within Iran that is strong enough to stand against the installation of a US puppet regime at this time, besides the one that presently exists.
That’s the reality of the situation. It’s not ideal, but it is reality. You can choose to be real about reality, or you can choose to psychologically compartmentalise away from it and tell yourself a bunch of fairly tales about a global people’s revolution which just coincidentally happens to be starting in all the countries the US empire hates most. I personally find the latter undignified, self-debasing, and power-serving.
A potential pathway for transformative change in Indonesia, aiming to forge a new social contract for Papuans built on justice, partnership, and genuine autonomy. Image: Laurens Ikinia/APMN
Indonesia needs a fundamental shift in perspective: seeing Papuans not as a problem to be managed, but as equal partners and full subjects of their own destiny within the Republic, writes Laurens Ikinia.
COMMENTARY:By Laurens Ikinia in Jakarta
The island of Papua is a land of profound paradox. Beneath its ancient, cathedral-like forests and within its mineral-rich mountains lies a narrative of staggering contrast.
It is a place where immense natural wealth exists alongside some of Indonesia’s most acute human development challenges.
This dissonance poses a central riddle: why does a land of such abundance host populations grappling with persistent poverty, gaps in education and healthcare, and a deep sense of political marginalisation?
A principle found in Papuan wisdom offers a starting point: the past is a mirror for gazing upon tomorrow.
A potential pathway for transformative change in Indonesia, aiming to forge a new social contract for Papuans built on justice, partnership, and genuine autonomy. Image: Laurens Ikinia/APMN
To understand Papua’s present and navigate its future, we must look honestly into that mirror. Yet, when the reflection shows recurring patterns of inequality and unfulfilled promises, we are compelled to ask what kind of future is being built.
The story of Papua is not merely one of resources; it is fundamentally about people, their rights, and their place within the Indonesian nation.
This reflection need not occur in isolation. Looking east across the Pacific, two nations — Australia and New Zealand — have embarked on their own complex, painful, and unfinished journeys of reconciling with their Indigenous peoples.
Their experiences are not blueprints, but they offer invaluable mirrors in which Indonesia might glimpse reflections of its own challenges and potential pathways forward.
The central, reflective question is this: Amidst Indonesia’s unique historical and political complexity, is there room to learn from these Pacific neighbours? Can Jakarta find a distinctive, yet equally courageous, path to reconciliation with Papua?
Unsettled foundation: A history demanding to be heard Any discussion of Papua must begin by acknowledging the fractured foundation upon which its relationship with Jakarta is built. Unlike New Zealand, where the Treaty of Waitangi (1840) provides a contested but acknowledged founding document for Crown-Māori relations, Indonesia and Papua have no mutually agreed foundational treaty.
Papua’s integration was solidified through the Act of Free Choice (Pepera) in 1969, a process whose legitimacy remains internationally debated and is remembered with bitterness by many Papuans.
This unresolved historical grievance is the DNA of the conflict. It infects every policy, fuels distrust, and allows security-centric approaches to dominate.
Jakarta’s apparent reluctance to engage in open, high-level dialogue about this history keeps the wound open. New Zealand’s experience, though painful and expensive, demonstrates that confronting a dark past is not a threat to national unity, but a prerequisite for building a common future on a clearer moral and legal foundation.
The first lesson from the Pacific is that sustainable solutions cannot be built on unacknowledged history.
The Australian mirror: Pillars of incremental recognition Australia’s relationship with its Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples represents a protracted and painful journey from the brutal realities of colonisation toward a fragile, imperfect process of recognition and repair.
The historical backdrop is one of profound trauma, marked by dispossession, assimilation policies, and the devastating legacy of the Stolen Generations. Yet, in recent decades, a discernible — though inconsistent — policy shift has emerged, built upon several key pillars that provide a structured, if unfinished, framework for addressing historical wrongs.
These pillars offer critical points of comparison for other contexts, such as that of West Papua under Indonesian administration, illuminating stark contrasts in both philosophy and outcome.
Political recognition: From absence to acknowledgment The 1967 Referendum, which allowed Aboriginal people to be counted in the census and gave the federal government power to make laws for them, stands as a symbolic turning point in Australian political consciousness. Today, the lexicon of recognition is embedded in official discourse, with terms like “First Nations People” and “Traditional Custodians” routinely used in parliamentary speeches and public ceremonies.
The establishment of the National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA) represents a systematic, though often criticised, effort to coordinate policy across government. This reflects a tangible, if uneven, move toward recognising Aboriginal peoples not merely as citizens, but as original inhabitants with a unique historical and cultural status deserving of specific acknowledgment.
Papuan Special Autonomy: Otsus in stark contrast
In stark contrast, Jakarta’s primary instrument for Papua is Special Autonomy (Otsus), a policy centered on fiscal transfers and nominal political affirmation. While Otsus mandates native Papuan leadership in provincial governments, its essence is consistently stifled by centralised security policies, the dominance of national political parties, and the imposition of territorial divisions with minimal deep consultation.
Consequently, Otsus feels less like a partnership born of genuine historical recognition and more like a technical administrative concession granted — and tightly controlled — from the centre. The core Papuan struggle remains one for existential recognition: an acknowledgment of their distinct identity as Indigenous peoples with inherent political rights, rather than merely as beneficiaries of state-administered policy.
Economic rights: Land and resource sovereignty Australia’s Native Title Act of 1993 was a revolutionary legal development, overturning the doctrine of terra nullius and recognising the persistence of Aboriginal traditional ownership and connection to land. Although the claims process is notoriously arduous and contested, it has resulted in the return of millions of hectares of land.
Complementing this are land handback programmes and innovative co-management models for national parks and cultural sites, such as Uluru-Kata Tjuta.
Furthermore, nascent royalty-sharing schemes from mining on Indigenous-held land aim to provide an independent economic base, positioning communities not as passive recipients but as stakeholders with property rights.
The contrast with Papua is profound. The region functions as Indonesia’s primary economic engine, with megaprojects like the Freeport copper and gold mine and the Tangguh LNG facility driving national exports. Yet, this extractive model is intensely centralised, with profits flowing to Jakarta and global corporate headquarters while Indigenous communities near these operations often live in stark deprivation.
Otsus funds, while substantial, are funneled through government mechanisms and do not alter this fundamental, exploitative structure. Critically, Papuan customary land rights (hak ulayat) are routinely overridden by state-issued business permits. There exists no large-scale, legally empowered mechanism for reparations or asset restitution to Papuan tribes, leaving them economically marginalised on their own land.
Social policy: Closing the gap Since 2008, Australia has formally adopted the Closing the Gap Strategy, a framework establishing specific, measurable targets for improving Indigenous life outcomes in health, education, and employment.
This strategy represents an explicit, if imperfect, admission that historical marginalization requires targeted, accountable, and data-driven intervention by the state. It acknowledges a collective responsibility to address disparities directly, even as critiques of its implementation and pace persist.
Indonesia lacks an equivalent national policy framework specifically tailored to address Papua’s acute and unique disparities. Development indicators and programs are largely standardized, failing to account for Papua’s distinct geography, history, and cultural context. As a result, health and education systems suffer from severe infrastructure deficits, critical staffing shortages, and a curriculum that ignores local knowledge.
Maternal mortality and malnutrition rates remain among the highest in Southeast Asia. The fundamental gap lies in agency: for meaningful progress, Papuans must be transformed from objects of development into its active, designing subjects.
Cultural recognition: Beyond symbolism In Australia, Aboriginal cultural expression has increasingly moved beyond tokenism toward a more integrated, though still contested, national presence. Indigenous languages are being documented and revitalised, customary law receives limited recognition within the justice system, and Aboriginal art is celebrated as central to the nation’s identity.
The practice of acknowledging Traditional Custodians at the outset of official events, while symbolic, performs a daily act of cognitive recognition.
In Papua, the situation is different. The region’s stunning cultural diversity, encompassing over 250 distinct languages, is often treated as an intangible treasure or tourist asset rather than a living foundation for governance.
Local languages are not mediums of formal instruction, and customary norms are easily overridden by narratives of national unity and acculturation. While Papuan art and ritual are occasionally showcased, they are seldom integrated into substantive policymaking for cultural preservation and transmission, leaving this profound heritage vulnerable to erosion.
New Zealand mirror: A framework for courageous reconciliation If Australia demonstrates a fitful journey toward recognition, New Zealand presents a more advanced, treaty-based model of reconciliation. The 1840 Treaty of Waitangi, despite its contested translations and history of breaches, is the accepted foundational document of the modern state. This has provided a crucial platform for building concrete mechanisms to address historical grievances and partnership.
The Waitangi Tribunal and reparations Established in 1975, the Waitangi Tribunal is a permanent commission of inquiry that investigates Crown actions alleged to breach the Treaty’s principles. Its recommendations have fueled a massive, ongoing process of historical settlement involving land restitution, financial compensation, and formal Crown apologies.
This process, while not without controversy, provides a formal channel for redressing historical wrongs and transferring resources back to Māori iwi (tribes).
Guaranteed political voice Māori have had dedicated parliamentary seats since 1867, ensuring a direct voice in the national legislature. This has been complemented by the rise of a dedicated Te Pati Māori political party and the establishment of the Ministry for Māori Development (Te Puni Kōkiri), which advocates for Māori interests within the government apparatus.
This structural presence ensures that Indigenous perspectives are embedded in political discourse.
Biculturalism as national policy Biculturalism is woven into New Zealand’s institutional fabric. Te reo Māori is an official language, supported by Māori-language immersion schools (Kura Kaupapa Māori), a dedicated television channel (Māori Television), and prominent university faculties.
The national curriculum incorporates Māori history, knowledge, and perspectives, fostering a broader public understanding.
Socio-culturally, while Papua’s languages are celebrated in folkloric terms, there is no nationally broadcast, Papuan-led television channel or a system of dedicated higher education institutes focused on Melanesian studies and leadership. Image: Laurens Ikinia/APMN
Comparison with Papua For Papua, the absence of any such foundational agreement or framework leaves a profound vacuum. There is no equivalent to the Waitangi Tribunal to investigate historical grievances or restore resources.
Politically, there are no guaranteed mechanisms for Papuan representation at the national level in Indonesia. Socio-culturally, while Papua’s languages are celebrated in folkloric terms, there is no nationally broadcast, Papuan-led television channel or a system of dedicated higher education institutes focused on Melanesian studies and leadership.
New Zealand’s lesson is the transformative power of a framework — however contested — that creates institutional channels for grievance, voice, and cultural revitalization.
Deep Pacific connection: Why New Zealand cares New Zealand’s sustained attention on Papua transcends standard diplomatic concern; it is rooted in profound connections that resonate deeply with the New Zealand public and polity, creating a unique sense of obligation.
First, a demographic kinship creates relatability: New Zealand’s population of approximately 5.1 million is nearly equivalent to the population of Indonesia’s six Papuan provinces (around 5.6 million). This similar scale makes the challenges faced by Papuans feel immediate and comprehensible.
More profoundly, there are undeniable historical and anthropological links. Scientific research in population genetics traces Polynesian ancestry, including that of Māori, back through Melanesia.
Culturally, the social structures of Papuan highlands tribes, with their complex clan and confederation systems, closely mirror the traditional Māori hapu (clan) and iwi (tribe) organisations. Similarities extend to concepts of customary governance, spirituality, and reciprocal exchange, suggesting shared ancestral roots.
This connection is cemented by modern history. Papuan people provided crucial aid to Australian and New Zealand troops during the Pacific War in thd Second World War. Furthermore, as documented by historians like Maire Leadbeater, New Zealand was indirectly involved in the territory’s mid-century fate, initially supporting Dutch efforts to prepare Papua for independence before acquiescing to the controversial Act of Free Choice that facilitated Indonesian integration.
For many New Zealanders, particularly Māori, advocating for Papuans is viewed as a Tangata Moana (People of the Ocean) responsibility — a moral, cultural, and spiritual call to support fellow Pacific indigenes facing adversity.
This deeply felt public and civic sentiment ensures the issue remains persistently alive in New Zealand’s parliament, churches, universities, and civil society, constantly applying pressure and challenging any government inclination toward a “business as usual” foreign policy approach toward Indonesia regarding Papua.
This unique solidarity, born of shared identity and history, makes New Zealand a distinct and vocal stakeholder in Papua’s ongoing struggle.
Forging a distinctive path: Strategic recommendations for Indonesia Indonesia’s engagement with the Pacific region offers a reservoir of wisdom, yet the fundamental lesson is that adaptation, not adoption, is key. The nation’s immense diversity, complex history, and unique political architecture mean that solutions cannot be copy-pasted.
However, the perennial fear of national disintegration must not become a paralysing force that stifles the bold policy innovation required to address the root causes of discord, particularly in Papua. Moving beyond rhetorical commitments to tangible action demands significant political will and courage.
The following recommendations outline a potential pathway for transformative change, aiming to forge a new social contract built on justice, partnership, and genuine autonomy:
The journey must begin with a profound act of historical reckoning and political courage. The President should personally initiate a high-level National Reconciliation Framework for Papua.
This would be a landmark political initiative, potentially involving the establishment of an independent Papuan Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Its mandate must be coupled with an official, unambiguous state acknowledgment of past human rights violations.
This process would create a structured and equal dialogue platform, moving past cycles of recrimination. Addressing this historical wound is not an end in itself but a necessary precondition to cleanse the poisoned well of present-day interactions and build a foundation of trust for all subsequent reforms.
Concurrently, the policy of Special Autonomy must be radically reimagined. The concept of “Otsus Plus” should evolve from a mechanism of fiscal devolution into a genuine political and economic partnership. This entails granting local governments conditional veto rights over major investments affecting customary land (ulayat), ensuring development is not imposed but negotiated.
Furthermore, the legislative and cultural authority of the Papuan People’s Assembly (MRP) as the authentic voice of indigenous institutions must be constitutionally strengthened.
Finally, granting full autonomy over education and cultural policy, including locally relevant curricula and language instruction, is essential for preserving Papuan identity and fostering endogenous development.
True partnership is impossible without a fundamental restructuring of the economic model in Papua. The economy must shift from a centralised, extractive paradigm to one based on community sovereignty and benefit.
This requires legalising and strengthening customary land rights (hak ulayat) as a supreme legal principle, not a secondary consideration. Building on this, transparent and direct royalty-sharing mechanisms from natural resource projects must be established, ensuring proceeds flow to indigenous land-owning communities.
Complementing this, a Papuan-led “Closing the Gap” strategy with clear, measurable targets for health, education, and employment should be developed, with progress annually reported to the national parliament to ensure accountability.
Security and political representation form the twin pillars of stability and dignity. The prevailing security approach must be recalibrated to prioritise dialogue, community engagement, and human security over militarized confrontation. In parallel, to ensure Papuan voices are substantively embedded in national lawmaking, permanent seats for indigenous Papuan representatives should be constitutionally created in the Indonesian House of Representatives (DPR RI).
Following the precedent set for Aceh, this guaranteed political representation would ensure Papuan perspectives directly influence national legislation that affects their lives, transforming them from subjects of policy to active architects of their future within the Republic.
Finally, Indonesia should strategically reframe its external engagement regarding Papua. Rather than viewing the Pacific’s cultural and political solidarity with Melanesian Papuans as a point of friction, Indonesia should embrace it as an opportunity for cultural diplomacy.
By proactively encouraging and funding robust academic, cultural, and civil society exchanges between Papuan and Māori/Pacific Island communities, Indonesia can build powerful bridges of people-to-people understanding. This initiative would acknowledge shared heritage while showcasing Indonesia’s commitment to inclusive development, thereby transforming a diplomatic challenge into a channel for soft-power connection and regional leadership.
In conclusion, this pathway is neither simple nor quick, but it is necessary. It calls for a series of courageous, interconnected leaps from the status quo toward a system predicated on acknowledgment, partnership, and substantive self-determination.
By addressing historical grievances, redesigning autonomy, restructuring the economy, reforming security, guaranteeing political voice, and leveraging cultural diplomacy, Indonesia has the potential to resolve its most persistent internal conflict. The result would be a stronger, more unified nation, where stability is built not on force but on justice and the full recognition of its diverse peoples’ aspirations.
Hope for the Land of Papua The fate of Papua is the ultimate test of Indonesia’s inclusive nationhood. It can no longer be managed through a narrow security lens or obscured by macroeconomic statistics. This is about people, identity, history, and a shared future.
Hope endures. It shines in the eyes of Papuan children, the dedication of local health workers and teachers, and the voices of community and religious leaders calling for peace. It is also present among those in Jakarta who recognise the need for a new approach.
Australia and New Zealand, with their colonial burdens, have begun their imperfect journeys. Indonesia, with its experience of resolving the Aceh conflict through dialogue, can do the same. The condition is a fundamental shift in perspective: seeing Papuans not as a problem to be managed, but as equal partners and full subjects of their own destiny within the Republic.
A just and prosperous Papua is not a threat to Indonesia. It would be the fulfilment of the nation’s founding ideals of unity in diversity, and the pinnacle of a truly inclusive national project.
The mirror from the Pacific shows both the depth of the challenge and the possibility of a different reflection. It is now a matter of choosing to look and having the courage to act.
Laurens Ikinia is a Papuan lecturer and researcher at the Institute of Pacific Studies, Indonesian Christian University, Jakarta. He is also an honorary member of the Asia Pacific Media Network (APMN) in Aotearoa New Zealand and an occasional contributor to Asia Pacific Report.
The Sydney Harbour Bridge "March for Humanity" on 3 August 2025 . . . organised by the Palestine Action Group, an estimated 300,000 protesters against Israel's Gaza genocide took part. Image: Paul Catts/Michael West Media
Australia is being told it faces an unprecedented wave of antisemitism — a crisis requiring extraordinary measures, including a Royal Commission. But police data, court findings, and parliamentary evidence tell a very different story.
This is not a story about denying antisemitism. It is about how inflated claims are being used to silence criticism of Israel, criminalise protest, and narrow democratic space.
Australia is being told it faces a moral emergency so grave it justifies extraordinary measures.
A sweeping wave of antisemitism, unprecedented in scale, is said to be engulfing the country, demanding heightened policing, vast public funding, and now a Commonwealth Royal Commission.
A manufactured narrative?
The claim has been repeated so often it has hardened into common sense. But when examined against evidence rather than repetition, the crisis begins to dissolve. What remains is not a surge in antisemitic violence, but the manufacture of a narrative
and its rapid elevation into state doctrine.
This is not denial of antisemitism. Antisemitism is real, dangerous, and must always be confronted where it occurs.
What is being challenged here is the scale, the framing, and the political use of the claim. When slogans replace evidence, the alleged crisis collapses.
Start with the numbers. Australians are repeatedly told there were around 1200 antisemitic incidents in New South Wales and more than 2000 nationally. These figures are treated as settled fact by politicians and the media.
They are nothing of the sort.
They are not police statistics. They are not court outcomes.
They are self-reported incident logs compiled by advocacy organisations using expansive definitions that collapse political speech into racial hatred. Protest slogans, Palestinian flags, stickers, online criticism of Israel, opposition to Zionism, and support for Boycott Divestment and Sanctions are all counted alongside genuinely hateful conduct.
Dissent counted as hate Once dissent is counted as hate, the number grows and its meaning evaporates.
When these claims were tested against formal state processes, the picture changed radically. Evidence to the New South Wales Upper House antisemitism inquiry showed that only around 13 to 14 incidents met the threshold for potential criminal prosecution.
New South Wales Police did not dispute this.
From 1200 incidents to low double digit chargeable cases is not a rounding error. It is a categorical difference. If Australia were facing a genuine wave of antisemitic violence, police data and court proceedings would reflect it. They do not.
“Australia is told [of] an unprecedented wave of antisemitism, a crisis requiring extraordinary measures, including a Royal Commission. But police data, court findings, and parliamentary evidence tell a very different story”#auspolhttps://t.co/ooKp2MqJz0
Fake terror plots The panic has been sustained by a series of high profile incidents that do not survive scrutiny.
In Sydney, the so called caravan plot and multiple graffiti and vehicle fire cases were initially framed as antisemitic attacks. Later reporting revealed hoaxes, staged events, or criminal activity unrelated to antisemitism as a social phenomenon.
Corrections arrived quietly, long after the alarm had done its work.
The Melbourne Synagogue fire was, we are told, the work of Iran, so it too cannot be seen as a result of local antisemitism.
More damning still was evidence from police inquiries that hundreds of antisemitic incident reports were generated by a single individual, identified as a Jewish teenager who made more than 500 calls alleging threats and attacks. These reports were logged, counted, and publicly relied upon as indicators of a statewide and national surge before being identified as false or self-generated.
This is not a footnote. It exposes a systemic failure.
A reporting framework that allows one person to materially inflate incident figures is not measuring social harm. It is manufacturing it. When that data is amplified by media and cited by politicians as “proof” of crisis, the error ceases to be technical. It becomes political.
Political amplification has been decisive. Senior leaders talked up early claims before facts were settled. Media followed. Initial allegations raced into headlines. Clarifications barely whispered.
Public memory retained the fear, not the correction.
What is unfolding follows a pattern of “manufacturing consent” described decades ago by Noam Chomsky who observed that modern democracies rarely suppress dissent through force. Instead, they manage perception by narrowing the range of acceptable opinion while preserving the appearance of open debate.
Australians are still permitted to speak. They are encouraged to condemn antisemitism in the abstract.
But questioning the scale of the alleged crisis, interrogating the numbers, or insisting on a distinction between hatred of Jews and criticism of Israel is treated as suspect. This is not censorship. It is calibration.
‘Fake protesters’ narrative
The consequences have been most visible in the treatment of protest. Australia has seen one of the largest sustained protest movements in its modern history, with weekly demonstrations in support of Palestine drawing tens of thousands.
Jewish Australians march openly.
Jewish speakers address crowds. Jewish banners appear alongside Palestinian ones. The focus is ceasefire and accountability.
Yet these protests are relentlessly framed as incubators of antisemitism.
The misrepresentation following the October 8 gathering near the Sydney Opera House was emblematic. Claims of genocidal chanting were broadcast nationally and internationally. Those present publicly disputed the account.
The disputed version was amplified. The disavowals were marginalised. A contested moment was frozen at its most inflammatory interpretation and reused as an origin myth.
Sydney Harbour Bridge propaganda The fracture became impossible to ignore after the Harbour Bridge march, one of the largest demonstrations in Australian history. No violence. No arrests. Jewish Australians marching openly.
Yet the event was branded a hate march by the government’s antisemitism envoy.
If a peaceful protest of that scale can be declared hate without evidence, antisemitism is no longer being identified. It is being declared. And once it can be declared, it can be weaponised.
That weaponisation has a clear objective: to shut down criticism of Israel.
As Israel’s war in Gaza has intensified and the occupation of the West Bank has deepened, the international conversation has shifted toward allegations of genocide, apartheid, and war crimes.
Rather than answer those charges, Israel’s defenders have sought to redefine the debate itself. The problem is no longer what Israel is doing. The problem is those who are talking about it.
Criticism of Israel is reframed as antisemitism. Opposition to Zionism is reframed as racial hatred. Support for Palestinian rights is reframed as extremism. Pro-Palestinian protest is recast as a domestic security problem rather than a human rights movement responding to mass civilian harm.
The endgame This brings us to the endgame. The government’s mandate for a Commonwealth Royal Commission into antisemitism has now been released. It does not ask whether a nationwide antisemitism wave exists. It assumes one.
From its opening premises, the mandate proceeds on the basis that antisemitism is prevalent across Australian society and institutions and that protest, education, and political expression warrant scrutiny. These are not hypotheses to be tested. They are conclusions already reached.
This is not a fact-finding exercise. It is an implementation exercise.
Many Jewish Australians reject this strategy and stand openly with Palestinians. The issue is not Jewish identity. It is the instrumentalisation of antisemitism claims to silence dissent, suppress protest, and shield a foreign state from accountability.
Antisemitism must always be confronted where it exists.
But evidence must precede power.
Anything less is theatre.
Andrew Brown is a Sydney businessman in the health products sector, former deputy mayor of Mosman and Palestine peace activist. This article was first published by Michael West Media and is republished by Asia Pacific Report with permission.
Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has finally bowed to pressure from the Murdoch News Corp’s relentless media campaign and advocacy by political critics and victim’s families to announce a royal commission of inquiry into “antisemitism and social cohesion”.
One of the two allegedly ISIS-aligned terrorist gunmen was also killed at the scene of the tragedy and the other was wounded and arrested. He has been charged with 59 counts, including 15 charges of murder and committing a terrorist act.
Albanese held a press conference in Canberra yesterday and confirmed that former High Court justice Virginia Bell would lead the national inquiry.
While the royal commission has been mostly welcomed by survivors, victims’ families and Jewish community groups that have been lobbying for a national inquiry, some advocacy organisations have criticised the time it has taken before being called.
However, even more serious criticisms have emerged over the terms of reference and a widespread belief that the real objective is to mute criticism of Israel and its brutal policies of genocide and ethnic cleansing.
“The terms of reference for the Royal Commission should put aside any doubt: this is an inquiry designed to castigate critics of Israel.”
In the media release yesterday that Albanese, Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke and Attorney-General Michelle Rowland confirmed the four main areas to be covered, they stated:
Tackling antisemitism by investigating the nature and prevalence of antisemitism in institutions and society, and its key drivers in Australia, including ideologically and religiously motivated extremism and radicalisation.
Making recommendations that will assist law enforcement, border control, immigration and security agencies to tackle antisemitism, including through improvements to guidance and training within law enforcement, border control, immigration, and security agencies to respond to antisemitic conduct.
Examining the circumstances surrounding the antisemitic Bondi terrorist attack on December 14, 2025.
Making any other recommendations arising out of the inquiry for strengthening social cohesion in Australia and countering the spread of ideologically and religiously motivated extremism in Australia.
Missing from the terms of reference is anything related to the rise of Islamophobia in Australia. The brief is far too narrowly framed compared with what many had hoped for.
The Australian Government has announced the establishment of a Royal Commission following the antisemitic Bondi terror attack. This devastating event deeply affected the victims, their families, the Jewish community, first responders and the broader Australian public.
— Australian Human Rights Commission (@AusHumanRights) January 9, 2026
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had cynically jumped in within hours of the Bondi shootings to lambast Albanese and connect the massacre to the massive protests against the Gaza genocide — including 300,000 on the Sydney Harbour Bridge — even though there was no evidence of this.
He blamed the deadly Bondi attack on Albanese, accusing the Australian prime minister of pouring “fuel on the antisemitism fire” by recognising a Palestinian state. (The State of Palestine is recognised as a sovereign nation by 157 UN member states, representing 81 percent of membership).
“You took no action. You let the disease spread and the result is the horrific attacks on Jews we saw today,” said Netanyahu, who is wanted on an International Criminal Court (ICJ) warrant to answer charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Israeli authorities have a pattern of blaming criticism of the Israeli government and military’s over its genocidal actions in Gaza for fuelling antisemitism.
Globally popular phrases such as ‘Globalise the intifada’, ‘From the river to the sea Palestine will be free’, and ‘Death to the IDF’ have frequently been targeted by Israeli officials and lobbyists seeking to shield their government’s atrocities.
Jewish-Australian author and journalist Antony Loewenstein, who wrote the 2023 bestselling book The Palestine Laboratory with powerful insights into Israel’s cruel military machine of repression against Palestinians, has been scathing in his television and newspaper commentaries, accusing Tel Aviv of “outrageous lies” that endangered Jews worldwide.
“Within hours of the horrific, antisemitic attack at Bondi Beach in Sydney [last] month, the Israeli government and its proxies started pushing false narratives, outright lies and racism to a grieving nation,” he wrote in Middle East Eye.
“Netanyahu and senior Israeli ministers blamed an Australian government that ‘normalised boycotts against Jews’, recognised the state of Palestine this year, and refused to shut down pro-Palestine marches.
“Former Israeli government spokesperson Eylon Levy posted on X (formerly Twitter): ‘Jews around the world live in fear because we are being hunted. October 7 inspired millions around the world and launched a global war against Jews.’
“There was no logic or sense to this verbal onslaught at a time when the dead bodies were still warm on Bondi Beach. At that point, and still now, there’s no clear picture of the motives of the father and son accused in the slaughter of mostly Jews who had gathered to mark the first night of Hanukkah, although a link to Islamic State has been explored.
“It was an outrageous intervention from a disgraced Israeli government accused of committing genocide in Gaza — and yet too many in the Australian and global media treated Netanyahu and his cronies as credible commentators, deferring to their supposed wisdom.”
“Israel’s propaganda machine endangers every Jew on the planet – including me”
In an earlier interview with Al Jazeera, Loewenstein denounced the “swift political weaponisation” in the wake of the Bondi attack.
He criticised Australian and Israeli officials for linking the attack to pro-Palestine protests, arguing this falsely conflated antisemitism with legitimate criticism of Israel’s atrocities in Gaza.
Indeed, what has been shocking for this New Zealand journalist holidaying in Australia for the past month — in Adelaide, South Australia — is the blatant way Israel has been allowed to “shape” the public discourse and in the media. Remember, Netanyahu himself, has resisted a full Israeli inquiry into the 7 October 2023 Hamas attack, including his own alleged security failings, for more than two years.
One of the most recent cudgels being used to beat the Albanese Labor government was an open letter signed by 100+ “business leaders” supporting the royal commission call.
Part of one of the series of full page business open letter advertisements calling for a royal commission carried across the nation in the Murdoch News Corp titles such as The Australian and The Adelaide Advertiser and other newspapers. Image: Asia Pacific Report
But what they wanted was a probe into the alleged “antisemitism” in Australia. What about the other forms of racism and harassment such an Islamophobia?
Signatories included billionaire businessman James Packer, News Corp Australasia executive chairman Michael Miller, and a whole bunch of banking and industry executives.
Editorials and cartoons in The Australian and other Murdoch media, such as The Advertiser in Adelaide, parroted each other in calling on Albanese to “serve the nation, not yourself.”
For almost four weeks none of the countless pages of articles canvassed other perspectives; to gain some balance it was necessary to turn to credible independent sources on social media. The job of the media is to serve the public interest, not themselves.
Take “serial inventor and entrepreneur” Jaqueline Outram posting on X for a counter view.
“More than 100 ‘business leaders’ signed a letter?
“Whoop-de-frickin-doo.
“Hundreds of thousands of Australians marched and will continue to march against genocide.
“Some capitalist opportunists signed a letter.
“Pfft …”
She added in a separate post, “Stop treating business leaders like they’re some kind of moral authority . . . Nobody cares what they think.”
More than 100 “business leaders” signed a letter?
Really? More than 100? Signed a letter?
Whoop-de-frickin-doo.
Hundreds of thousands of Australians marched, and will continue to march, against genocide.
Commenting on the royal commission decision, prominent Brisbane journalist and media educator Kasun Ubayasiri questioned the “privileged” status of one section of the multicultural Australian society.
“So the government announces a royal commission on antisemitism when we have never had a Racism Royal Commission. Why the privileged status for one type of racism over others?”
The Jewish community in Australia numbers about 117,000 in a total population of 28 million – the ninth largest globally, and the biggest in the Indo-Pacific region. The Muslim community is about 815,000.
“More worryingly, the royal commission terms of reference seem problematic,” added Ubayasiri. “It makes no real attempt to untangle the morally repugnant antisemitism from anti-Zionism.
“The latter is easily defendable especially in its current format. The terms of reference particularly note the acceptance of the IHRA [International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance] definition of antisemitism as a working definition, suggesting this distinction between antisemitism and anti-Zionism is unlikely to be made by the royal commission.
“IHRA is already widely seen as chilling legitimate criticism of Israel. Arguably allowing the royal commission to draft its own definitional framing would have made more sense.”
Associate Professor Joseph Fernandez, a media law scholar and journalist, added: “Be very afraid of this exercise being hijacked to produce outcomes that will serve narrow and dubious interests — at the expense of the public interest generally, in a sound democracy.”
Apart from the royal commission issue, controversy has also blown up over an invitation by Albanese to the Israeli President, Isaac “Bougie” Herzog, the first head of state born in Israel since its founding in 1948, to make an official visit. Mounting calls are being made to drop the invite over Herzog’s implication in incitement to genocide.
A poster condemning Australia’s invitation to Israeli President Isaac Herzog next month. Image: Asia Pacific Report
The move was welcomed by Jewish community groups and February was touted for a likely date. However, his visit would be certain to attract protests from pro-Palestinian groups condemning Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza, which has killed at least 71,000 Palestinians, mostly women and children.
Such a trip would require a heavy security commitment and the Labor Friends of Palestine, a party group supporting the creation of a Palestinian state, has appealed to Albanese to call off the invitation.
Miles Franklin winners Michelle de Kretser and Melissa Lucashenko declared they would boycott the event in protest over featured Randa Abdel-Fattah being cancelled.
Others, including journalism professor and former foreign correspondent Peter Greste who was jailed by the Egyptian government for the “crime of being a journalist”, have also pulled out.
“We do not help social cohesion by silencing voices,” Greste posted on X.
“The Adelaide Writers Festival Board has stripped me of my humanity and agency, reducing me to an object onto which others can project their racist fears and smears.”
She had been expected to discuss her novel Discipline, which raises ethical issues about whose voices are allowed to be heard.
Hot off the press . . . copies of the inaugural Pacific Media journal arrive at Asia Pacific Media Network. Image: Asia Pacific Report
By Monika Singh of Wansolwara News
Pacific media are facing one of their most challenging reporting environments in their history, marked by governance issues, political instability, geopolitical pressures and escalating climate threats, while simultaneously grappling with declining revenue streams and threats to their financial survival.
This is highlighted in the inaugural edition of the Pacific Media academic journal, by co-editors, associate professor and head of the University of the South Pacific (USP) Journalism Programme, Dr Shailendra Singh, and co-founder of The Australia Today, Dr Amit Sarwal.
In their editorial, Dr Singh and Dr Sarwal say Pacific media systems — already vulnerable due to their small scale — continue to be hit by the collapse of traditional advertising models that once kept legacy media afloat.
Pacific news reporting is becoming increasingly complex and contentious while newsrooms face unprecedented financial and editorial pressures, reports the new Pacific Media journal. Image: Wansolwara News/RNZ Pacific
They point out that although small and geographically isolated, the regional media have not been spared the ravages of digital disruption, which continues to pose a threat to the media’s traditional advertising-based revenue model. This was compounded by losses from the covid-19 pandemic.
Inaugural edition coeditors Dr Shailendra Singh (from left) and Dr Sarwal, and Pacific Media founder Asia Pacific Media Network’s Dr David Robie. Image: Wansolwara News
These issues, and more, re-surfaced at the 2024 Pacific International Media Conference in Suva, Fiji. The conference, the first of its kind in 20 years, was hosted by the USP’s School of Pacific Arts, Communication and Education (Journalism), in partnership with the Pacific Islands News Association (PINA), the United States Embassy in Suva and Asia Pacific Media Network.
Selected blind peer reviewed conference papers published in Pacific Media highlight how Pacific news reporting is becoming increasingly complex and contentious, even as newsrooms face unprecedented financial and editorial pressures.
A key question explored at the conference, and a recurring theme in the journal, is how Pacific media are responding to and reporting on the overlapping challenges in the region, which have compounded the long-standing struggles to achieve sustainable development.
In his paper, Frontline media faultlines: How critical journalism can survive against the odds, the journal’s production and managing editor, veteran Pacific journalist and educator Dr David Robie warned that Pacific media face a “plethora of emerging and entrenched problems” — from collapsing business models to the rise of fake news, leadership failures, and political corruption.
Despite reporting on these issues for decades, little progress has been made even as new challenges emerge.
In The History of the Pacific Islands News Association (PINA) 1972–2023, Marsali Mackinnon and Kalafi Moala, while paying tribute to the region’s media pioneers, explore enduring questions about the state of Pacific media, especially in the context of digital disruption and revenue losses. They ask whether the industry has lost its vitality and if journalists and media workers still uphold core values like freedom of speech and impartial reporting.
Marsali Mackinnon and Kalafi Moala . . . examining whether the principles established by postcolonial journalism pioneers in the 1970s have been compromised. Image: Wansolwara News/RNZ Pacific
The article, based on their forthcoming book chronicling PINA’s 50-year history, looks at the challenges facing Pacific media — economic, political, technological, and cultural pressures — and examines whether the principles established by postcolonial pioneers in the 1970s have been compromised.
Another paper, Women’s political empowerment in the Asia-Pacific region: The role of social media, by associate professor Baljeet Singh, Dr Singh, Nitika Nand and Shasnil Chand, examines how social media positively influences women’s political empowerment across 20 Asia-Pacific countries. Based on their findings, the authors recommend that regional governments and development partners prioritise improved connectivity and online access in deprived areas as a key strategy to empower women and strengthen their participation in politics and political leadership.
In his paper, Reporting the nuclear Pacific: Facing new geopolitical challenges, journalist and researcher Nic Maclellan revisits the Pacific’s nuclear testing legacy, highlighting the crucial role of journalists in preserving survivors’ stories. He argues that the nuclear threat in the Pacific is far from over and has re-emerged in new forms, requiring sustained media attention and critical reporting.
In his commentary, Behind the Mic: How Sashi Singh’s Talking Point helped shape Fiji’s political landscape, Sashimendra Singh reflects on the impact of his Sydney-based podcast in the lead-up to Fiji’s 2022 General Election. The former Fiji-based broadcaster interviewed key political figures, including Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka and the three Deputy Prime Ministers, while they were still in opposition.
Singh’s podcast tackled issues that Fiji’s suppressed national media were reluctant to address and went on to attract a large following. The article demonstrates the growing importance of diaspora media and new media technologies, showing how social media can positively circumvent censorship imposed by national authorities.
In The “Coconut Wireless”: Ways that community news endures and spreads in a news desert, Krista Rados and Brett Oppegaard address the concept of “news deserts” in the Pacific — areas where communities urgently need local information but lack trustworthy sources. This paper highlights the enduring strengths of social media in fostering journalism in remote, sparsely populated, and underdeveloped communities.
The cover of the first edition of Pacific Media. Image: PM
Pacific Media, launched last year, succeeds the long-running Pacific Journalism Review, which began at the University of Papua New Guinea in 1994 and was archived after 30 years of publication. PJR is now a public database for research.
The journal is designed by Del Abcede and the series editor is Khairiah A Rahman.
This inaugural edition is a collaboration between USP, the Asia Pacific Media Network (APMN), and Tuwhera Open Access platform, aimed at documenting the rapid transformations shaping journalism in the region — and how Pacific media can navigate an increasingly turbulent future.
Blood on the Tracks: Countering symbolic violence — A case study in reciprocal investigative journalism practice by Bonita Mason. In this paper, she examines a six-year investigation by Australian journalist and First Nations man Allan Clarke into the suspicious death of First Nations teenager Mark Haines. Haines’s family never accepted police claims of suicide. On the 25th anniversary of the death, Clarke, moved by the injustices suffered by the dead man’s family, reignited the investigation.
This article was first published by Wansolwara News and is republished by Asia Pacific Report as a collaboration between The University of the South Pacific and Asia Pacific Media Network.
What have we become if to survive in our so-called “free world” we must turn a blind eye to cold-blooded genocide, must arm ourselves to oppose our major trading partner, must support a contrived war to defeat an adversary that no longer exists, (lest its new form otherwise achieves its potential) must sanction some and not others, trade with some and not others — and now must, yet again, be silent as another sovereign nation is brazenly plundered for its wealth.
US President Donald Trump’s attack on Venezuela is not a “police operation” against a criminal “fugitive,” nor is it part of an “escalating pressure campaign” against a hostile regime.
It’s none of the things that the White House and our media claims, faithfully copying and pasting stories supplied by The New York Times, CNN and The Washington Post.
Blithely asserting the right to “run” Venezuela and “take” the country’s vast oil reserves, in a textbook example of the 19th century colonialism, Trump’s actions brazenly violate international law and numerous entrenched conventions. And all of it whitewashed by our media in euphemistic pseudo-legalese, to impress those gullible enough.
With Trump not only flouting the US Constitution but no longer even pretending that this is about anything other than the theft of another country’s resources, bragging that US oil companies will begin “taking a tremendous amount of wealth out of the ground,” what does it say about us that we accept such brigandry?
How, in God’s name, have we allowed ourselves to be swayed by the dribblings of a scurrilous misogynist, the associate of a convicted paedophile and a creature so altogether odious that, in any other context, we wouldn’t be seen dead with him?
Brandishing his big black marker, Trump, the unabashed narcissist, has changed the US Constitution from; “We the People . . . ” to now read: “ME the People”!
When can we expect those we have entrusted to defend the principles we claim to represent, to stand up and say something?
Or is it simply a matter of us being too gutless ourselves, too intimidated, too craven, to break ranks, step forward and say: “The Emperor has no clothes!”
Malcolm Evans is an independent New Zealand award-winning cartoonist and commentator.
