This is a clarifying moment for all of us. We will be forced to confront our real values. Will deep attachment to American power and white supremacy trump our belief in the rule of law, of justice for all? Image: Solidarity
COMMENTARY: By Eugene Doyle
Could the final act of the US Global War on Terror (GWOT) be the conviction of a US President for terrorism? Tantalising but implausible? Read on.
The International Criminal Court (ICC) request for arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and others is only the beginning. Around the world evidence is being gathered and cases are being prepared, including against British, American and EU politicians and officials for complicity in genocide and other crimes against humanity.
Last week the ICC received a request from jurists and human rights groups to investigate European Union chief Ursula von der Leyen for complicity in genocide.
Tayab Ali, a human rights lawyer and director of the International Centre of Justice for Palestinians told journalist Owen Jones that a tremendous amount of preparation is underway out of sight of the public.
“I’ve spent a significant amount of time this year travelling the world meeting with heads of state, meeting with foreign ministers, meeting with justice ministers, and I’ll tell you: the appetite, particularly in the Global South, to prosecute people complicit in war crimes, is high.”
South Africa has been a leader in this regard.
The reality is Benjamin Netanyahu and US President Joe Biden are guilty of far worse crimes than Osama Bin Laden, Ismail Haniyeh, Marwan Barghouti or Nelson Mandela.
I don’t condone Bin Laden or minimise what he did; a good friend of mine John Lozowski was killed in the Twin Towers on 9/11. He didn’t deserve to die.
Murdered far more innocents
The current US President and the PM of Israel, however, just happen to have murdered far more innocent men, women and children — and, unlike Bin Laden and the others, are clearly guilty of the crime of crimes: genocide. The game changer, however, is the looming presence of the combined legal and moral authority of the ICC and ICJ.
Bearing down like angels of justice, they will pursue Israel, and, ultimately even top US officials, to the ends of the earth. In the case of the ICC, no signatory nation to the Rome Statute can provide a safe haven once the arrest warrants go out.
Which is why the ICC seeking Netanyahu’s arrest has triggered something approaching a nervous breakdown, a shattering of the psyche for the Western elites. Impunity is in the job description.
Josep Borrell, the EU’s foreign policy chief, told Deutsche Welle this week that some European countries had been trying to intimidate the International Court of Justice following its decision, under the Genocide Convention, to order Israel to halt its onslaught on Rafah, Gaza.
He said the court’s ruling poses a dilemma for the EU.
“We will have to choose between our support of international institutions and the rule of law – or our support to Israel.” Borrell said. Ponder those words and, depending on the choice, where they lead.
Could the US and Europe be on the cusp of walking away from the decades-long charade that they stand for justice, law and order?
Which gets to the next Gordian dilemma that is impossible to cut through: terrorism.
US war theory lies in mangled ruins Like the Twin Towers that came tumbling down in 2001, the architectural framing of the American theory of war now lies in mangled ruins. After Gaza, where is the Global War on Terror, launched by George W Bush, and supported by countries like Australia and New Zealand to this very day?
It was based on the argument that while terrorists like Al Qaeda deliberately kill innocents, America and its allies deliver justice. In response to the charge that America, or Israel or the UK have killed countless more innocents than any “terrorist” organisation, the answer always came back: but we never meant to . . . our intentions were noble, they just died as a result of collateral damage, unforeseen or unintended consequences, or that hoary old chestnut: the lesser of two evils.
On the death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children as a result of US sanctions, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright sighed: “This is a very hard choice but we think the price is worth it.” Israel trots out the same argument in respect to incinerating men, women and children in Gaza.
This is the Doctrine of Double Effect — which goes all the way back to St. Thomas Aquinas. It argues that there is a moral difference between consequences that you intend and those that you merely foresee.
“The moral basis of the distinction evaporates as consequences become ever more horrific and approach certainty,” says Ramon Das, senior lecturer in moral and political philosophy at Victoria University of Wellington.
“Consider a pilot who drops a hydrogen bomb on a city. Afterwards, he claims that although he foresaw that he would kill the city’s inhabitants, his intention was merely to destroy a weapons factory. We would not be impressed.
“Yet when we consider Israel’s indiscriminate bombing and medieval-like siege of Gaza, its claim that it does not intentionally target civilians has about as much moral credibility as the hydrogen bomb pilot.”
Volumes of evidence
Enter the ICC and ICJ: volumes of evidence have been presented that Israel’s military and civilian leaders deliberately targeted civilians, aid workers, journalists and civilian infrastructure, and that Israel is using starvation as an instrument of war. The US — the Arsenal of Genocide — is fully aware of this, yet has continued to send billions of dollars of bombs and other instruments of death to continue both the slaughter and the destruction of everything necessary to sustain social, economic, political and physical existence.
It calculates it can get away with mass murder — until now a pretty safe bet.
John V Whitbeck, a Paris-based lawyer who has spent much of his distinguished career on Middle East issues, has written that “the poor, the weak and the oppressed rarely complain about ‘terrorism’. The rich, the strong and the oppressors constantly do.
“While most of mankind has more reason to fear the high-technology violence of the strong than the low-technology violence of the weak, the fundamental mind-trick employed by the abusers of the word ‘terrorism’ is essentially this: The low-technology violence of the weak is such an abomination that there are no limits on the high-technology violence of the strong that can be deployed against it.”
Have we now come to an epoch-making tipping point? The recent actions by the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court could shatter the Shield of Impunity – the idea that international institutions are there as tools for the West to attack their enemies and can never be used against the US and its allies. Until the past week the ICC was considered by many progressives as the International Caucasian Court; the idea that the Prime Minister of Israel could have an arrest warrant issued against him broke the unspoken rule that the court was there to pursue Africans and Slavs.
I think this is a clarifying moment for all of us. We will be forced to confront our real values — a bit like Josep Borrell. Will deep attachment to American power and white supremacy trump our belief in the rule of law, of justice for all?
If we think a British foreign secretary, or an EU president or even the US president himself is above the law, we really are back to what Thrasymachus argued when he wrangled with Socrates thousands of years ago: Justice is a scam — an elaborate set of rules, conjured up by the powerful to control the weak.
This was certainly the conclusion Nelson Mandela made when he formed Umkhonto We Sizwe, the Spear of the Nation — the ANC’s military wing — in the wake of the Sharpeville massacre by police in 1960. It was certainly the conclusion Hamas came to after the West ignored countless massacres and land thefts against the Palestinians.
Is international law a scam? Make up your own mind.
Eugene Doyle is a Wellington-based writer and community activist who publishes the Solidaritywebsite. His first demonstration was at the age of 12 against the Vietnam War. This article was first published at Solidarity.
The Kanak flag of independence (and West Papua Morning Star flag inset) . . . The average French citizen in Paris is not fully aware of the decolonisation process in Kanaky New Caledonia and why the electoral roll has been restricted to Kanaks and “citizens”, as per the Nouméa Accord. Image: Kanaky Online
COMMENTARY: By Jimmy Naouna in Nouméa
The unrest that has gripped Kanaky New Caledonia is the direct result of French President Emmanuel Macron’s partisan and stubborn political manoeuvring to derail the process towards self-determination in my homeland.
The deadly riots that erupted two weeks ago in the capital, Nouméa, were sparked by an electoral reform bill voted through in the French National Assembly, in Paris.
Almost 40 years ago, Kanaky New Caledonia made international headlines for similar reasons. The pro-independence and Kanak people have long been calling to settle the colonial situation in Kanaky New Caledonia, once and for all.
FLNKS Political Bureau member Jimmy Naouna . . . The pro-independence groups and the Kanak people called for the third independence referendum to be deferred due to the covid pandemic and its high death toll. Image: @JNaouna
Kanak people make up about 40 percent of the population in New Caledonia, which remains a French territory in the Pacific.
The Kanak independence movement, the Kanak National and Socialist Liberation Front (FLNKS), and its allies have been contesting the controversial electoral bill since it was introduced in the French Senate by the Macron government in April.
Relations between the French government and the FLNKS have been tense since Macron decided to push ahead with the third independence referendum in 2021. Despite the call by pro-independence groups and the Kanak people for it to be deferred due to the covid pandemic and its high death toll.
Ever since, the FLNKS and supporters have contested the political legitimacy of that referendum because the majority of the indigenous and colonised people of Kanaky New Caledonia did not take part in the vote.
Peaceful rallies
Since the electoral reform bill was introduced in the French Senate in April this year, peaceful rallies, demonstrations, marches and sit-ins gathering more than 10,000 people have been held in the city centre of Nouméa and around Kanaky New Caledonia.
But that did not stop the French government pushing ahead with the bill — despite clear signs that it would trigger unrest and violent reactions on the ground.
The tensions and loss of trust in the Macron government by pro-independence groups became more evident when Sonia Backés, an anti-independence leader and president of the Southern province, was appointed as State Secretary in charge of Citizenship in July 2022 and then Nicolas Metzdorf, another anti-independence representative as rapporteur on the proposed electoral reform bill.
Macron can deploy thousands of troops and military arsenals. France will never silence Kanaky aspirations for freedom ✊🇳🇨 https://t.co/GJcXFCDvLY
This clearly showed the French government was supporting loyalist parties in Kanaky New Caledonia — and that the French State had stepped out of its neutral position as a partner to the Nouméa Accord, and a party to negotiate toward a new political agreement.
Then last late last month, President Macron made the out-of-the blue decision to pay an 18 hour visit to Kanaky New Caledonia, to ease tensions and resume talks with local parties to build a new political agreement.
It was no more than a public relations exercise for his own political gain. Even within his own party, Macron has lost support to take the electoral reform bill through the Congrès de Versailles (a joint session of Parliament) and his handling of the situation in Kanaky New Caledonia is being contested at a national level by political groups, especially as campaigning for the upcoming European elections gathers pace.
Once back in Paris, Macron announced he may consider putting the electoral reform to a national referendum, as provided for under the French constitution; French citizens in France voted to endorse the Nouméa Accord in 1998.
“To me Kanak independence is inevitable” /
“I think France is prolonging the inevitable.” Sir Collin Tukuitonga
New Caledonia’s fires for freedom https://t.co/PB0edo9XWg
More pressure on talks
For the FLNKS, this option will only put more pressure on the talks for a new political agreement.
The average French citizen in Paris is not fully aware of the decolonisation process in Kanaky New Caledonia and why the electoral roll has been restricted to Kanaks and “citizens”, as per the Nouméa Accord. They may just vote “yes” on the basis of democratic principles: one man, one vote.
Yet others may vote “no” as to sanction against Macron’s policies and his handling of Kanaky New Caledonia.
Either way, the outcome of a national referendum on the proposed electoral reform bill — without a local consensus — would only trigger more protest and unrest in Kanaky New Caledonia.
After Macron’s visit, the FLNKS issued a statement reaffirming its call for the electoral reform process to be suspended or withdrawn.
It also called for a high-level independent mission to be sent into Kanaky New Caledonia to ease tensions and ensure a more conducive environment for talks to resume towards a new political agreement that sets a definite and clear pathway towards a new — and genuine — referendum on independence for Kanaky New Caledonia.
A peaceful future for all that hopefully will not fall on deaf ears again.
Jimmy Naouna is a member of Kanaky New Caledonia’s pro-independence FLNKS Political Bureau. This article was first published by The Guardian and is republished here with the permission of the author.
Asia Pacific Media Network's Professor David Robie . . . "The other big challenge facing the Pacific is the climate crisis and consequently that's the biggest issue for journalists in the region and they deal with this every day." Image: Alyson Young/APMN
This King’s Birthday today, the New Zealand Order of Merit recognises Professor David Robie’s 50 years of service to Pacific journalism and Asia-Pacific media.
He says he is astonished and quite delighted, and feels quite humbled by it all.
“However, I feel that it’s not just me, I owe an enormous amount to my wife, Del, who is a teacher and designer by profession, but she has given journalism and me enormous support over many years and kept me going through difficult times,” he said.
“There’s a whole range of people who have contributed over the years so it’s sort of like a recognition of all of us. So, yes, it is a delight and I feel quite privileged,” he said.
Starting his career at TheDominion in 1965, Dr Robie has been “on the ground” at pivotal events in regional history, including the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior in 1985 (he was on board the Greenpeace ship on the voyage to the Marshall Islands and wrote the book Eyes of Fire about it), the 1997 Sandline mercenary scandal in Papua New Guinea, and the George Speight coup in Fiji in 2000.
In both PNG and Fiji, Dr Robie and his journalism students covered unfolding events when their safety was far from assured.
David Robie standing with Kanak pro-independence activists and two Australian journalists at Touho, north-eastern New Caledonia, while on assignment during the FLNKS boycott of the 1984 New Caledonian elections. (Robie is standing with cameras strung around his back). Image: Wiken Books/RNZ
As an educator, Dr Robie was head of journalism at the University of Papua New Guinea (UPNG) 1993-1997 and then at the University of the South Pacific (USP) in Suva from 1998 to 2002.
Started Pacific Media Centre
In 2007 he started the Pacific Media Centre, while working as professor of Pacific journalism and communications at Auckland University of Technology (AUT). He has organised scholarships for Pacific media students, including scholarships to China, Indonesia and the Philippines, with the Asia New Zealand Foundation.
Running education programmes for journalists was not always easy. While he had a solid programme to follow at UPNG, his start at USP was not as easy.
He described arriving at USP, opening the filing cabinet to discover “…there was nothing there.” It was a “baptism of fire” and he had to rebuild the programme, although he notes that currently UPNG is struggling whereas USP is “bounding ahead.”
Dr Robie recalled the enthusiasm of his Pacific journalism students in the face of significant challenges. Pacific journalists are regularly confronted by threats and pressures from governments, which do not recognise the importance of a free media to a functioning democracy.
He stated that while resources were being employed to train quality regional journalists, it was really politicians who needed educating about the role of the media, particularly public broadcasters — not just to be a “parrot” for government policy.
Another challenge Robie noted was the attrition of quality journalists, who only stay in the mainstream media for a year or two before finding better-paying communication roles in NGOs.
Independence an issue
He said that while resourcing was an issue the other most significant challenge facing media outlets in the Pacific today was independence — freedom from the influence and control of the power players in the region.
While he mentioned China, he also suggested that the West also attempted to expand its own influence, and that Pacific media should be able set its own path.
“The other big challenge facing the Pacific is the climate crisis and consequently that’s the biggest issue for journalists in the region and they deal with this every day, unlike Australia and New Zealand,” he said.
Dr Robie stated his belief that it was love of the industry that had kept him and other journalists going, that being a journalist was an important role and a service to society, more than just a job.
He expressed deep gratitude for having been given the opportunity to serve the Pacific in this capacity for so long.
Kanak activist Jessie Ounei . . . trying to balance the skewed information in New Zealand media and "shed light" on the independence struggle in Kanaky New Caledonia. Image: Photo: RNZ/Angus Dreaver
By Pretoria Gordon
Jessie Ounei is following in her mum’s footsteps as a Kanak pro-independence activist.
“It is depicting us as savages, as violent, and not giving proper context to what has actually happened, and what is happening in New Caledonia,” Ounei said.
Her mum, Susanna Ounei, was born in Ouvéa in New Caledonia, and was a founding member of the Kanak independence movement, now the umbrella group FLNKS (Kanak and Socialist National Liberation Front).
More power to Kanaks In 1988, an agreement, the Matignon Accord, between the French and the Kanaks was signed, which proposed a referendum on independence to be held by 1998. Instead, a subsequent agreement, the Nouméa Accord, was signed in 1998, which would give more power to Kanaks over a 20-year transition period, with three independence referenda to be held from 2018.
Jessie Ounei (left), her mum Susanna Ounei, and her brother Toui Jymmy Jinsokuna Burēdo Ounei in Ouvéa, New Caledonia. Image: Jessie Ounei/RNZ
In 2018, the first of the three referenda were held with 57 percent voting against, and 43 voting for independence from France.
In 2020, there was a slight increase in the “yes” votes with 47 percent voting for, and 53 percent voting against independence.
The third referendum however was mired in controversy and is at the centre of the current political unrest in New Caledonia.
The date for the vote, 12 December 2021, was announced by France without consensus and departed from the two-year gap between the referenda that had been held previously This drew the ire of pro-independence parties.
The parties called for the vote to be delayed by six months saying they were not able to campaign and mobilise voters during the pandemic and appealed for time to observe traditional mourning rites for the 280 Kanak people who died during a covid-19 outbreak.
France refused new referendum
France refused and Kanak leaders called for a boycott of the vote in December which resulted in a record low voter turnout of 44 percent, compared to 86 percent in the previous referendum, and the mostly pro-French voters registering an overwhelming 96 percent vote against New Caledonia becoming an independent country.
But France and pro-independent French loyalists in New Caledonia insist the vote was held legally and the decision of Kanak people not to participate was their own and therefore the result was legitimate.
Because of this, for the past several years New Caledonia has been stuck in a kind of political limbo with France and the pro-French loyalists in New Caledonia pushing the narrative that the territory has voted “no” to independence three times and therefore must now negotiate a new permanent political status under France.
While on the other hand, pro-independence Kanaks insisting that the Nouméa accord which they interpreted as a pathway to decolonisation had failed and therefore a new pathway to self-determination needs to be negotiated.
Paris has made numerous attempts since 2021 to bring the two diametrically opposed sides in the territory together to decide on a common future but it has all so far been in vain.
“Free Kanaky” . . . pro-Kanak independence protesters outside the French Embassy in Wellington last week. Image: RNZ/Angus Dreaver
New Caledonia’s ‘frozen’ electoral rolls Despite the political impasse in the territory, France earlier this year proposed a constitutional amendment that would change the electoral roll in the territory sparking large scale protests on the Kanak side which were mirrored by support rallies organised by pro-French settlers.
But what is so controversial about a constitutional amendment?
Under the terms of the Nouméa Accord, voting in provincial elections was restricted to people who had resided in New Caledonia prior to 1998, and their children. The measure was aimed at giving greater representation to the Kanaks who had become a minority population in their own land and to prevent them becoming even more of a minority.
The French government’s proposed constitutional amendment would allow French residents who have lived in New Caledonia continuously for more than 10 years to vote. It is estimated this would enable a further 25,000 non-indigenous people, most of them pro-French settlers, to vote in local elections which would weaken the indigenous Kanak vote.
Despite multiple protests from indigenous Kanaks, who called on the French government to resolve the political impasse before making any electoral changes, Paris pressed ahead with the proposed legislation passing in both the Senate and the National Assembly.
On Monday 13 May, civil unrest erupted in the capital of Nouméa, with armed clashes between Kanak pro-independence protesters and security forces. Seven people have been killed, including two gendarmes, and hundreds of others have been injured.
Last Wednesday, Jessie Ounei organised a rally outside the French Embassy in Wellington to raise awareness of the violence against Kanak in New Caledonia.
“For decades, the Kanak independence movement has persevered in their pursuit of autonomy and self-determination, only to be met with broken promises and escalating violence orchestrated by the French government,” she said.
A Kanak flag raised high at the New Caledonia protest outside the French Embassy in Wellington last week. Image: RNZ/Angus Dreaver
‘Time to stand in solidarity’
“It is time to stand in solidarity with the Kanak people and demand an end to this cycle of oppression and injustice.”
Ounei said she was very sad, and very angry, because it could have been prevented.
“This was not something that was a surprise, it was something that was foreseen, and it was warned about,” she said.
Ounei was also born in Ouvéa, and moved to Wellington in 2000 with her mum and her brother, Toui Jymmy Jinsokuna Burēdo Ounei. Susanna Ounei died in 2016, but had never gone back to New Caledonia, because she was disappointed in the direction of the independence movement.
“Ouvéa has a staunch history of taking a stand against French imperialism, colonialism,” Jessie Ounei said.
“I have grown up hearing, seeing and feeling the struggle of our people.”
She said her mum, and a group of activists, were the original people who had reclaimed Kanak identity.
“If I can stand here and say that I’m Kanak, it is because of those people,” she said.
Now Ounei has picked up the baton, and is following in her mum’s footsteps.
She said after spending her entire life watching her mum give herself to the cause, it was important for her to do the same.
“I have two daughters, I have family, if I don’t do this, I don’t know who else will,” she said.
“And I can’t just stand back. It’s not the way that I grew up. My mum wouldn’t have stood back. She never stood back.
“And even though I feel quite under-qualified to be here, I want to honour all the sacrifices that the activists, including my mum, made.”
Pretoria Gordon is a RNZ News journalist. This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
"Peace in Kanaky is independence" from France . . . a sprinkling of Palestinian banners was among the sea of Kanak flags at the protests in Nouméa this month. Image: FB @Tishphotographer
COMMENTARY: By Teanau Tuiono
There is an important story to be told behind the story Aotearoa New Zealand’s mainstream media has been reporting on in Kanaky New Caledonia. Beyond the efforts to evacuate New Zealanders lies a struggle for indigenous sovereignty and self-determination we here in Aotearoa can relate to.
Aotearoa is part of a whānau of Pacific nations, interconnected by Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa. The history of Aotearoa is intricately woven into the broader history of the Pacific, where cultural interactions have shaped a rich tapestry over centuries.
The whakapapa connections between tangata whenua and tagata moana inform my political stance and commitment to indigenous rights throughout the Pacific. What happens in one part of the South Pacific ripples across to all of us that call the Pacific Ocean home.
Since the late 1980s the Kanak independence movement showed itself to be consistently engaging with the Accords with Paris process in their struggle for self-determination.
The Nouméa Accord set out a framework for transferring power to the people of New Caledonia, through a series of referenda. It was only after France moved to unilaterally break with the accords and declare independence off the table that the country returned to a state of unrest.
Civil unrest in and around the capital Nouméa which has continued for two weeks, was prompted by Kanak anger over Paris changing the constitution to open up electoral rolls in its “overseas territory” in a way that effectively dilutes the voting power of the indigenous people.
Coming after the confused end of the Nouméa Accord in 2021, which left New Caledonia’s self-determination path clouded with uncertainty, it was inevitable that there would be trouble.
Flew halfway across world
That France’s President Emmanuel Macron flew across the world to Noumea last week for one day of talks in a bid to end the civil unrest underlines the seriousness of the crisis.
But while the deployment of more French security forces to the territory may have succeeded in quelling the worst of the unrest for now, Macron’s visit was unsuccessful because he failed to commit to pulling back on the electoral changes or to signal a meaningful way forward on independence for New Caledonia.
Green MP Teanau Tuiono (left) with organiser Ena Manuireva at the Mā’ohi Lives Matter solidarity rally at Auckland University of Technology in 2021. Image: David Robie/APR
Paris’ tone-deafness to the Kanaks’ concerns was evident in its refusal to postpone the last of the three referendums under the Nouméa Accord during the pandemic, when the indigenous Melanesians boycotted the poll because it was a time of mourning in their communities. Kanaks consider that last referendum to have no legitimacy.
But Macron’s government has simply cast aside the accord process to move ahead unilaterally with a new statute for New Caledonia.
As the Kanaky Aotearoa Solidarity group said in a letter to the French Ambassador in Wellington this week, “it is regrettable that France’s decision to obstruct the legitimate aspirations of the Kanak people to their right to self-determination has led to such destruction and loss of life”.
Why should New Zealand care about the crisis? New Caledonia is practically Aotearoa’s next door neighbour — a three-hour flight from Auckland. Natural disasters in the Pacific such as cyclones remind us fairly regularly how our country has a leading role to play in the region.
But we can’t take this role for granted, nor choose to look the other way because our “ally“ France has it under control. And we certainly shouldn’t ignore the roots of a crisis in a neighbouring territory where frustrations have boiled over in a pattern that’s not unusual in the Pacific Islands region, and especially Melanesia.
There is an urgent need for regional assistance to drive reconciliation. The Pacific Islands Forum, as the premier regional organisation, must move beyond words and take concrete actions to support the Kanak people.
Biketawa Declaration provides a mechanism
The forum’s Biketawa Declaration provides a mechanism for regional responses to crisis management and conflict resolution. The New Caledonian crisis surely qualifies, although France would be uncomfortable with any forum intervention.
But acting in good faith as a member of the regional family is what Paris signed up to when its territories in the Pacific were granted full forum membership.
Why is a European nation like France still holding on to its colonial possessions in the Pacific? Kanaky New Caledonia, Maohi Nui French Polynesia, and Wallis & Futuna are on the UN list of non-self-governing territories for whom decolonisation is incomplete.
However, in the case of Kanaky, Paris’ determination to hold on is partly due to a desire for global influence and is also, in no small way, linked to the fact that the territory has over 20 percent of the world’s known nickel reserves.
Failing to address the remnants of colonialism will continue to devastate lives and livelihoods across Oceania, as evidenced by the struggles in Bougainville, Māo’hi Nui, West Papua, and Guåhan.
New Zealand should be supportive of an efficient and orderly decolonisation process. We can’t rely on France alone to achieve this, especially as the unrest in New Caledonia is the inevitable result of years of political and social marginalisation of Kanak people.
The struggle of indigenous Kanaks in New Caledonia is part of a broader movement for self-determination and anti-colonialism across the Pacific. By supporting the Kanak people’s self-determination, we honour our shared history and whakapapa connections, advocating for a future where indigenous rights and aspirations are respected and upheld.
Kanaky Au Pouvoir.
Teanau Tuiono is a Green Party MP in Aotearoa New Zealand and its spokesperson for Pasifika peoples. This article was first published by The Press and is republished by Asia Pacific Report with the author’s permission.
Indigenous Kanaks in Kanaky (New Caledonia) have sprung into revolt in the last two weeks in response to moves by the colonial power France to undermine moves towards independence in the Pacific territory.
Journalist David Robie from Aotearoa New Zealand spoke to the Green Left Show today about the issues involved.
“We acknowledge that this video was produced on stolen Aboriginal land. We express solidarity with ongoing struggles for justice for First Nations people and pay our respects to Elders past and present.”
Author Angelina Hurley was caught up in the Kanak protests in New Caledonia, sparked by a controversial voting "reform" imposed from Paris. Image: NITV montage
“In the aftermath of the ‘No’ denying an Indigenous Voice to Parliament in Australia, I deeply sympathise with the Kanak people’s frustration, fear, and anger at being outvoted and dismissed,” writes Angelina Hurley.
COMMENTARY: By Angelina Hurley
After the trauma of completing a PhD on decolonising Australian humour, I needed a well-deserved break.
I always avoid places with throngs of patriotic Aussies, so I chose Nouméa, in New Caledonia, over Bali, settling on a small outer island.
One night, a smoke alarm jolted me awake. I went to the balcony and smelled smoke, seeing fires and smoke clouds from the mainland. The next morning, I learned from the only English-speaking news channel that riots had erupted there.
Author Angelina Hurley was caught up in the Kanak protests in New Caledonia, sparked by a controversial voting “reform” imposed from Paris. Image: NITV montage
Protests against French control of New Caledonia have resulted in seven dead — five Kanaks, and two police officers (one by accodent) — and a state of emergency
I woke to a fleet of sailboats, houseboats, and catamarans anchoring near the island, ready to offer a quick escape for the rich (funny how the privileged are always the first to leave before things are handed back to them on return).
Travelling from hotel to hotel, I reached a quiet and desolate Nouméa in the late afternoon. Finding transport was difficult, but a kind French taxi driver picked me up, and we bypassed barricaded streets.
At the hotel, an atmosphere of anxiety and confusion lingered among tourists and staff, although I felt safe.
The staff worked tirelessly, maintaining normalcy while locals lined up for food outside supermarkets. With reports of deaths, I constantly scanned the internet for news from both French and Kanak perspectives. As days passed, the Aussie tourist twang grew louder and more restless.
Amusing, strange, disappointing: the reactions of the privileged The airport closed, and flights were cancelled indefinitely, fuelling frustration among Australians (and New Zealanders) who couldn’t access the consulate.
Australian government representatives eventually arrived to update us on the situation, leading to a surge of complaints.
Despite concerns about being stuck, I didn’t feel significantly inconvenienced beyond travel delays and added expenses. We were being well taken care of.
Not everyone agreed. Some found the answers insufficient.
The reactions of the privileged are amusing, strange, and disappointing: while anxiety about the unknown is understandable, some people need to get a grip.
Complaints poured in about the lack of access to information from Australia, despite the State of Emergency. There were debates and demands for updates via text (sorry, Gill Scott Heron, this revolution will be broadcast on WhatsApp).
It was amusing to hear people discussing social media information sharing while claiming lack of access, despite the readily available internet, English news on TV, and information from hotel staff.
As I listened, I humorously observed the gradual rise of White Aussie Privilege.
Their perception of disadvantage was very different to mine: an elderly migaloo woman requested daily personal phone updates to her room, while boomers threw tantrums over not being called on quickly enough.
There’s always the outspoken sheila, interrupting whenever she feels like it, and the experts proclaiming knowledge exceeding that of all the officials.
A rude collective sigh followed a man’s inquiry about the wellbeing of those handling the crisis outside, with someone retorting, ‘It’s their bloody job.’
The highlight was GI Joe informing the French, as if they didn’t know, of the presence of a helicopter pad attached to the hotel, angrily suggesting Chinook helicopters from Townsville should evacuate everyone.
What?! I burst out laughing, but no one seemed to find it as hilarious as I did.
The irony eluded him: the helicopters, named after the Chinook people, a Native American tribe Indigenous to the Pacific Northwest USA, would have First Nations saviours flying in to rescue the Straylians.
Despite the severity of the emergency situation, white travellers still found cause to complain about a lack of WhatsApp updates. Image: NITV
Despite the severity of the emergency situation, white travellers still found cause to complain about a lack of WhatsApp updates.
The Australian consulate rep patiently reminded everyone of the serious State of Emergency, with lives lost and the focus on safety and unblocking roads, making our evacuation less of a priority for the French at that time.
When crises hit, White people often react uncomfortably towards the only Black person in the room (which I was, besides an African couple).
They either look at you suspiciously, avoid eye contact, ignore you, or become overly ally-friendly.
The White Aussie Privilege resembled narcissistic behaviour — the selfishness, lack of empathy, and entitlement was gross.
The First Nations struggle around the world
Sitting safely in the hotel, the juxtaposition as an Indigenous person felt bizarre.
This isn’t my first such travel experience; I’ve been the bystander before in North America, Mexico, Belize, South America, South Africa, and India.
As a First Nations traveller, I’m always aware of the First Nations situation wherever I go.
Recently, the French National Assembly adopted a bill expanding voting rights for newer residents of Kanaky (New Caledonia), primarily French nationals.
It’s a move likely to further disenfranchise the Kanak people, impacting local political representation and future decolonisation discussions.
At least at home, we have representation in the government.
There are currently no representatives from Kanaky New Caledonia sitting in the French National Assembly.
No consultation with the First Nations people took place (sounds familiar).
In 1998, the Nouméa Accord was established between French authorities and the local government to transition towards greater independence and self-governance while respecting Kanak indigenous rights.
Since 2018, three referendums on independence have been held, with the latest in 2021 boycotted by Indigenous voters due to the covid-19 pandemic’s impact on Kanaks.
With the Accord now lapsed, there is no clear process for continuing the decolonisation efforts.
As stated by Amnesty International (Schuetze, 2024), “The response must be understood through the lens of a stalled decolonisation process, racial inequality, and the longstanding, peacefully expressed demands of the Indigenous Kanak people for self-determination.”
An all-too familiar story
Relaying the story back to mob in Australia, conversations often turn to the behaviour of the colonisers.
We compare our predominantly passive and conciliatory approach as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, offering the hand of reconciliation only to be slapped away.
Despite not promoting violence, we note the irony of colonisers condoning violence as retaliation, considering it was their primary tactic during invasion.
As my cousin aptly put it, “French hypocrisy. So much for a nation that modelled itself on a revolution against an oppressive monarchy, now undermining local democracy and self-determination for First Nations people.”
After the overwhelming “No” vote denying an Indigenous Voice to Parliament in Australia, following decades of tireless campaigning by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples, I deeply sympathise with the Kanak people’s frustration, fear, and anger at being outvoted and dismissed.
In French Polynesia, there are both movements for and against decolonisation.
As I sit amid this beautiful place, observing locals on the beaches and tourists enjoying their luxuries, I know things will return to the settler norm of control — and First Nations people are told they should be grateful.
Dr Angelina Hurley is a Gooreng Gooreng, Mununjali, Birriah, and Gamilaraay writer from Meanjin Brisbane, a Fulbright Scholar and recent PhD graduate from Griffith University’s Film School. This article was first published by NITV (National Indigenous Television).
The International Court of Justice has ordered Israel to halt its military offensive in Rafah. The court ruled on Friday that Israel must immediately cease its military actions and other operations in the area, citing the immediate risk to the Palestinian people.
South Africa sought additional measures from the court following Israel’s ground defensive into Rafah. Following a case brought by South Africa accusing Israel of genocide, the court issued provisional measures in January, which stopped short of ordering a ceasefire.
For more, Democracy Now! presenter Amy Goodman is joined by two people. In their New York studio is Hossam Bahgat, Egyptian human rights activist, founder and executive director of the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights (EIPR) in Cairo. And the programme is joined by Reed Brody, human rights attorney, war crimes prosecutor, author of To Catch a Dictator.
Democracy Now! Headline news on 24 May 2024. Video: DN
AMY GOODMAN:Reed, we’re going to begin with you. Can you talk about the significance of the International Court of Justice’s ruling today [24 May 2024]?
REED BRODY: Well, this is just huge. You know, the International Court of Justice, South Africa has been asking the court to order Israel to halt its military activities since the first attempt in January.
And the court has never wanted to do that, because Hamas is not before the court. You don’t want to order one side to do something. And the situation has gotten so bad, and particularly in Rafah, that the court has risen to the occasion, and the court has given very, very specific orders this time.
In the past, the court said, “Don’t do anything that’s going to violate the Genocide Convention. You know, don’t — preserve everybody’s rights.” And here, this time, they have said very clearly that Israel must immediately halt its military offensive in the Rafah governorate. Very clear.
It also said, “You must open the Rafah crossing. You must allow in international fact-finding missions approved by official bodies.” So these are very clear orders. The court really has stepped up to the plate here.
And, you know, these are almost unanimous rulings — 13 to 2 — including all the West . . . including the US judge, Sarah Cleveland, including all of the Western judges.
And this is going to be very difficult for Israel, and particularly for Israel’s allies, who are — you know, Israel has not been impressed so far by what the ICJ has ordered them to do, but it’s increasingly going to isolate Israel, particularly this one-two punch we have.
AMY GOODMAN: But what kind of enforcement does the International Court of Justice have?
REED BRODY: Well, these are binding orders, and the court made it very clear. They didn’t need to, because it’s in the statute, but the court made it clear that these are binding legal orders. Israel is under an international binding legal obligation to halt its military offensive in the Rafah governorate.
Now, the only enforcement mechanism available in the entire international community is the Security Council. And, of course, we know that the United States has a veto at the Security Council. But that veto is going to be hard.
That’s going to — there’s going to be a huge political cost to the United States to exercise this veto. I mean, all of this, this entire situation, is exacting a huge political cost to Israel and to the United States as they become increasingly, increasingly isolated, as they try to seek countries to stand up to Russian aggression in Ukraine and Russian crimes in Ukraine, to be defending Israel.
And particularly, more and more — I mean, we saw this week, of course, three European countries recognise — say that they were going to recognise Palestine. The US is becoming increasingly isolated here.
AMY GOODMAN: Hossam Bahgat, you are a leading human rights advocate in Egypt, just released after an eight-year travel ban there. You’re sitting with me here in New York. You watched the court decision. What most struck you?
HOSSAM BAHGAT: I am struck, of course, by the majority, including judges that we know have been on the fence. This is 13 out of 15, really. And . . .
AMY GOODMAN: Israel and Uganda ruling against.
HOSSAM BAHGAT: Yes. But also, as Reed just said, the specificity this time. I mean, these are not open for interpretation. I mean, we have basically the court, in its reasoning, saying the situation has changed since January, the situation has changed since the last measures in March, in the last two months, that everything the court said it had feared has actually come to be materialised right now, that there is a risk of irreparable harm to Palestinians and that the situation is urgent, and that the previous provisional measures need to be modified.
So, they basically considered, I mean, on all of these . . . I mean, endorsed all of these arguments put forward by South Africa.
But then, when we see the modifications, the new provisional measures, it is — again, it is not just — we have to look carefully at the wording. It is not just for Israel to immediately halt its Rafah military offensive, but its military offensive and any other action that could contribute to the genocide, the destruction of Palestinians, or to situation of life that could lead to the destruction of life in Palestinians.
That is key. And it is important not just for Israel, but also for the United States, because we have seen this dance that the Biden administration and the National Security Council keep giving us for the last couple of weeks, which is that Biden’s red line has not been crossed, because it’s not a comprehensive offensive in Rafah, right?
The court is saying that it doesn’t need to reach the level of a military offensive. Any other action in the Rafah area, including the evacuations, including the bombing of shelters, including the nonexistent, you know, protected or safe areas, but including also the denial of aid and access to the area, all of this would constitute a violation of the Genocide Convention, to which both Israel and the United States are parties.
And this is the ICJ, so they cannot say, “We don’t recognise this court,” or that, you know, it’s one-sided, or that, you know, it’s the moral equivalency and all of this. This is a court that not only has a US judge, but that had the full participation of the Israeli government in all its proceedings.
And when it comes to the aid question, it is just as specific. It is not to, you know, allow or even increase humanitarian aid. It is for Israel to take effective measures to maintain the crossings open, specifically the Rafah crossing. And the wording here is “unimpeded, at-scale” provision of humanitarian aid.
So, Israel cannot just, you know, allow in the 100 trucks a day and say, you know, “We’re letting it in.” It has to be unimpeded, and it has to be at scale, for us to reverse the famine that has already started in parts of Gaza and now risks the entirety of Gaza.
And on the entirety of Gaza — this is the third important point — is that the court reaffirmed all its previous provisional measures that apply to all of Gaza, not just to the Rafah.
So, while these new measures are specifically linked to the military offensive or any other action on the ground in Gaza and the Rafah crossing, the previous ones, that have just been reaffirmed, again, by a majority of the court, including the US judge and all of the Western judges, apply to the entirety of Gaza and are binding to Israel, as well as any other governments that have been and continue to be in complicity, like the United States and Germany. So, this is really important.
And what I expect in terms of enforcement, I expect, you know, a group of countries to immediately call an emergency session of the Security Council, without waiting for the report in one month by Israel on its measures of implementation, to really call on Israel to immediately implement those new measures.
And many of them are actually in line with what the U.S. government is publicly saying. So, let’s see what the US government does this time, because I think this veto is going to be more costly than any of the previous ones for the United States. This is not one that the United States is going to easily exercise its veto power over.
AMY GOODMAN: Hossam, talk about Egypt. You’ve just come from Egypt. What should Egypt be doing at this point, from your perspective as a leading human rights advocate there?
HOSSAM BAHGAT: This is the moment for Egypt to change course. They have to seize this moment, because the new provisional measures, you know, whether or not the Egyptian government wanted it, they just made Egypt a party to the case. The measures are about keeping the Rafah crossing open, are about unimpeded and at-scale provision of humanitarian aid.
These are measures that can only be implemented if the Egyptian government does not give Israel an exit, does not give Israel the appearance of, really, you know, partial opening of Rafah or, you know, the trickling of aid into Gaza, as we have seen in the last seven months.
For the first seven months of the war, we have been calling on Egypt to not accept those terms imposed by Israel on, you know, people coming out of Gaza or into Gaza, on allowing journalists and investigators into Gaza, or accepting the so-called inspection mechanism that the US and Israel have created in order — that have led to this manmade famine in Gaza.
Only recently, when Netanyahu and his Cabinet ordered the operation into Rafah, crossing Egypt’s so-called red line, did Egypt announce that it was going to stop its coordination with Israel on the access of military aid, therefore giving the responsibility — putting the responsibility entirely on the shoulders of the Israeli government when it comes to the humanitarian situation.
Egypt needs to stand by this position and really act as if it is party to this case, and work with South Africa, with a group of countries, a coalition of countries, to the Security Council, to make sure that these measures are implemented immediately.
The halt is not just on a military offensive, but any actions on Rafah that could contribute to this partial or full destruction of Palestinian lives in Rafah, but also all the previously announced provisional measures.
Egypt must immediately announce that it will allow investigators, fact-finding missions, commissions of inquiries from all UN organs, including the ICC, to cross into Gaza, in implementation of today’s provisional measures.
And then it is on the Israeli army whether or not to let them — to allow them access, to turn them back, to impede their access. Egypt must fulfill its part of these provisional measures, because they can only be fulfilled with Egypt’s cooperation for geographical reasons.
AMY GOODMAN: I’m just looking at Reuters. And, you know, this is all breaking news as we’re doing this interview. Israel’s Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich said that those who demand Israel stop the war are demanding it should decide to cease to exist, and Israel will not agree to that.
An Israeli government spokesperson said, on the eve of Friday’s decision, that no power on Earth will stop Israel from protecting its citizens and going after Hamas in Gaza. Your response, Hossam?
HOSSAM BAHGAT: Well, the court has spoken unanimously This is the world’s top court. If these measures, if the military offensive or any other action in Gaza, if the policy of impeding humanitarian aid — if they continue, they would plausibly constitute a violation of the Genocide Convention. That is the international crime of genocide.
This is now the legal reality. It will certainly affect the ongoing ICC investigation, which has so far fell short of charging the crime of genocide when it comes to both Israel and Hamas. It is now up to not just the Israeli government, but also all its Western backers, to really show on which side they are going to stand, but also carry the legal responsibility that will come with aiding and abetting the crime of genocide, which the court reaffirmed today was plausibly being committed in Palestine.
AMY GOODMAN: I should also quote the Israeli Cabinet minister Itamar Ben-Gvir. In the past, of course, he himself was convicted of aiding a terrorist group and of inciting anti-Palestinian hatred.
He said, “The order of the antisemitic court in The Hague should have only one answer — the occupation of Rafah, the increase of military pressure and the crushing of Hamas, until the complete victory in the war is achieved.”
Your response to not a fringe government official in Israel, but a member of the Cabinet and the war cabinet, a key to Prime Minister Netanyahu remaining prime minister?
HOSSAM BAHGAT: OK, two points here. Of course, the continuing and revolting weaponisation of the charge of antisemitism when it comes to describing — again, this is not the ICC. This is the world’s top court, part of the UN, the highest legal body of the United Nations, with judges nominated by their governments, from the United States, from Germany. All the Western judges joined today’s decision and today’s provisional measures.
And secondly, I refuse — I’ve been hearing this, especially on this trip, all the time. This is not a Netanyahu problem. This is not a Smotrich and Ben-Gvir problem. There is just, you know, this — I mean, they are the ones that maybe these two ministers, you know, call it like it is and, like, say the quiet part loudly.
But we have to look also at the Israeli political landscape, all the political parties that are currently represented in the Knesset, and, you know, see, like, how many of them are opposed to the current conduct of the war, how many of these parties are officially, you know, endorsing the two-state solution.
It takes one look to see that, you know, if the Netanyahu government falls, if these two ministers quit and this coalition is changed, who do you think is going to form the new Israeli government? And what are going to be their views?
And apart from this, I mean, we can just look at the Israeli public opinion, you know, the polls conducted by reputable Israeli pollsters and public opinion survey organisations, to show that also Israeli public opinion is opposed currently to a ceasefire. So, yes, of course, we need to point the crazies, but only because they say the quiet part loudly, but this is a problem that goes far beyond them.
AMY GOODMAN: Hossam Bahgat, if you can talk about the fact-finding mission they have demanded be allowed into Rafah right now? Who exactly are they talking about? International reporters are banned from Gaza by the Israeli government.
HOSSAM BAHGAT: The language the court used is quite broad. They said any commission of inquiry, any fact-finding mission, any investigation commissions that are mandated by any UN organs must be allowed in for the specific purpose of the preservation of evidence, so that the court or any other investigation in the future can establish on the merits whether the crime of genocide or other grave violations of international humanitarian law have been committed.
There is, of course, an International Commission on Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories that was formed by the Human Rights Council and is led by, you know, the South African judge, Navi Pillay, who is the former high commissioner for human rights.
And, of course, the Israeli government has refused to collaborate with that international commission. There is, of course, the UN special rapporteur on human rights and the entire system of UN human rights rapporteurs. But then, most importantly, there are the teams of the ICC Office of the Prosecutor, who have visited Israel but have not yet, to our knowledge, visited Gaza or been allowed access to Gaza.
The ICC prosecutor, Karim Khan, early in the war, visited the Rafah area, held a press conference there, and, again, did not go in, was not allowed in. For his investigation to continue and to succeed, his team needs to be on the ground and needs to be not just collecting evidence, but making sure the evidence is preserved.
And now he has the ICJ court order today to guarantee this right, and it is binding to the state of Israel.
And again, it is an opportunity for Egypt to seize this moment and announce that, you know, on the Egyptian side, the border is open, Rafah is open, the international investigative teams are welcome to come in and go into Gaza.
AMY GOODMAN: Could Egypt open up other crossings into Gaza?
HOSSAM BAHGAT: Rafah is the only crossing that Egypt has with Gaza. I mean, the Kerem Shalom crossing is with the state of Israel and under Israeli control.
AMY GOODMAN: We just saw another report. This is from Middle East Eye, and it says, “Egyptian army turns to Sinai tribes to prepare for influx of Palestinians from Rafah.” Do you know anything about this?
HOSSAM BAHGAT: This is, of course, a very worrying development. This is a new body composed of Sinai tribes that had in the past cooperated with the Egyptian Army in its operation against the ISIS in Sinai. And, of course, they were engaged in some documented acts of extrajudicial killings, but also the conscription of children in armed conflict.
The problem is, these are the same people that have been also behind the, again, very widely documented and reported now, war profiteering. These are, you know, the people running the front companies that are charging exorbitant amounts of, you know, thousands of dollars from each Palestinian member of a Palestinian family in order to be allowed access to Egypt.
And now these are the people that, you know, have been — have received sort of the official endorsement to form something called the Union of Arab Tribes. And, of course, everyone is concerned about the risk of creating this type of, you know, militia-like body in Sinai.
And we have seen, of course, what that led to in other countries and in different situations. And many political parties and political activists and civil society voices have spoken out and to raise serious concern about, like, any endorsement, official endorsement, or acceptance of such a militia-like presence in Egypt.
AMY GOODMAN:Reed Brody, the war crimes prosecutor, talked about the one-two punch this week. It started with the International Criminal Court chief prosecutor Karim Khan announcing that he’s pursuing arrest warrants for the Israeli prime minister, the defence minister, as well as three Hamas leaders.
And again, just to be clear who Karim Khan is, he was Israel’s choice in 2021 to be the chief war crimes prosecutor.
HOSSAM BAHGAT: Officially, of course, Israel does not accept the jurisdiction of this court. But, of course, there were serious concerns raised at the time about, you know, where the new prosecutor, or, back then, the candidate, Karim Khan, would stand on two very sensitive investigations that were active situations before the court.
One is Afghanistan, and the other was Palestine.
It’s important to know that when it comes to the ICC, the mandate it has, the investigation that is open right now is not just linked to Gaza and was not just opened after October 7. The court accepted Palestine as a member state and accepted to look into the Palestine-Israel situation for the period starting from 2014, from Operation Cast Lead, you know, including the violence related to the Right of Return marches.
And then, of course, that, you know, included — was expanded to include the actions after October 7.
So, yes, of course. I mean, the timing is very important to have these two processes yield these concrete results, although, of course, the ICC arrest warrants only remain a request, an application right now, that has to be accepted by the pretrial chamber. But it’s important to note that the ICC investigation has been open for years.
AMY GOODMAN:And then you have Antony Blinken, the Biden administration — of course, Blinken, secretary of state — suggesting he’s working with lawmakers in the US on potential sanctions against Karim Khan and the International Criminal Court for saying they’re bringing these charges against Netanyahu.
HOSSAM BAHGAT: Yes, and Lindsey Graham telling the Senate, you know, “If we allow these arrest warrants, we are next.” And, you know, again, this is the quiet part being said out loud. And it’s really a sad moment, but also a revealing moment, when you have people in this administration, the Blinken State Department, which has an ambassador at large for global criminal justice, whose only job is to promote global accountability and, you know, the ICC and the kind of protections and investigations from these mass atrocities.
You know, I mean, that we see this public and blatant disregard for international norms, and even an openness, a willingness to work on punishing ICC judges — and, you know, as some members of Congress said, and their families — for really doing their jobs, is just a sad moment for this country.
AMY GOODMAN: So, Hossam, as we wrap up this interview, once again, the significance of the court’s ruling, the International Court of Justice, and what you expect to see in the coming weeks?
HOSSAM BAHGAT: First of all, we expect like every country in the world to come out forcefully to endorse these new provisional measures and emphasise that they are legally binding, effective immediately. And that should include, you know, the governments of Germany and the United States, because that is what the court laid down clearly today.
I expect a group of countries to move to urgently convene the Security Council to, you know, discuss and debate these new provisional measures. You know, that may or may not include a new draft resolution, given, of course, the chances of the United States yielding its veto again.
But what is important to watch right now is also what Egypt is going to do in terms of its part of these provisional measures, specifically related to allowing the unimpeded access of United Nations investigators and fact-finders for the preservation of evidence and the unhindered, at-scale provision of humanitarian aid through an open Rafah crossing.
These are the signs, really, to watch on the ground. But again, the emphasis should be that the court did not only say immediately halt the Rafah military offensive, but also any other action in Rafah that could lead to the worsening conditions and the destruction of the Palestinian lives in Gaza, in part or in full.
AMY GOODMAN: Hossam Bahgat, we want to thank you so much for being with us, founder, executive director of the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights (EIPR), based in Cairo. And I want to thank Reed Brody, at the top of this discussion, human rights attorney, war crimes prosecutor, author of To Catch a Dictator.
This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org. I’m Amy Goodman. Thanks so much for joining us.
A young Kanak boy carries the flag of independence as his elders carry the body of Jybril who was shot dead last week . . . he was bound for a sea voyage home to Nengone in the Loyalty Islands. Image: @LDinclaux screenshot APR
OPEN LETTER: By a Kanak from Aotearoa New Zealand in Kanaky New Caledonia
I’ve been trying to feel cool and nice on this beautiful sunny day in Kanaky. But it has already been spoiled by President Emmanuel Macron’s flashy day-long visit on Thursday.
Currently special French military forces are trying to take full control of the territory. Very ambitously.
They’re clearing all the existing barricades around the capital Nouméa, both the northern and southern highways, and towards the northern province.
Today, May 25, after 171 years of French occupation, we are seeing the “Lebanonisation” of our country which, after only 10 days of revolt, saw many young Kanaks killed by bullets. Example: 15 bodies reportedly found in the sea, including four girls.
[Editor: There have been persistent unconfirmed rumours of a higher death rate than has been reported, but the official death toll is currently seven — four of them Kanak, including a 17-year-old girl, and two gendarmes, one by accident. Lebanonisation is a negative political term referring to how a prosperous, developed, and politically stable country descends into a civil war or becomes a failed state — as happened with Lebanon during the 1975-1990 Lebanese Civil War.]
One of the bodies was even dragged by a car. Several were caught, beaten, burned, and tortured by the police, the BAC and the militia, one of whose leaders was none other than a loyalist elected official.
With the destruction and looting of many businesses, supermarkets, ATMs, neighbourhood grocery stores, bakeries . . . we see that the CCAT has been infiltrated by a criminal organisation which chooses very specific economic targets to burn.
Leaders trying to discredit our youth
At the same time, the leaders organise the looting, supply alcohol and drugs (amphetamines) in order to “criminalise” and discredit our youth.
A dividing line has been created between the northern and southern districts of Greater Nouméa in order to starve our populations. As a result, we have a rise in prices by the colonial counters in these dormitory towns where an impoverished Kanak population lives.
President Macron came with a dialogue mission team made up of ministers from the “young leaders” group, whose representative in the management of high risks in the Pacific is none other than a former CIA officer.
The presence of DGSE agents [the secret service involved in the bombing of the Greenpeace flagship Rainbow Warrior in 1985] and their mercenaries also gives us an idea of what we are going to endure again and again for a month.
The state has already chosen its interlocutors who have been much the same for 40 years. The same ones that led us into the current situation.
Therefore, we firmly reaffirm our call for the intervention of the BRICS, the Pacific Islands Forum members, and the Melanesian Spearhead group (MSG) to put an end to the violence perpetrated against the children of the indigenous clans because the Kanak people are one of the oldest elder peoples that this land has had.
There are only 160,000 individuals left today in a country full of wealth.
New Caledonia police kill Kanak protester https://t.co/7fnNPlx5W8
A day after president Macron’s visit..
Food and medical aid needed
Each death represents a big loss and it means a lot to the person’s clan. More than ever, we need to initiate the decolonisation process and hold serious discussions so that we can achieve our sovereignty very quickly.
Today we are asking for the intervention of international aid for:
The protection of our population;
food aid; and
medical support, because we no longer trust the medical staff of Médipôle (Nouméa hospital) and the liberals who make sarcastic judgments towards our injured and our people.
This open letter was written by a long-standing Kanak resident of New Zealand who has been visiting New Caledonia and wanted to share his dismay at the current crisis with friends back here and with Asia Pacific Report. His name is being withheld for his security.
A masked Kanak protester near Nouméa . . . back in the 1980s masks were rare, but surveillance methods have now forced changes among militants for protection. Image: Al jazeera screenshot APR
COMMENTARY: By Eugene Doyle
“Only the struggle counts . . . death is nothing.” Éloi Machoro — “the Che Guevara of the Pacific” — said this shortly before he was gunned down by a French sniper on 12 January 1985.
Machoro, one of the leaders of the newly-formed FLNKS (Kanak and Socialist National Liberation Front) — today the main umbrella movement for New Caledonia’s indigenous Kanak people — slowly bled to death as the gendarmes moved in.
The assassination is an apt metaphor for what France is doing to the Kanak people of New Caledonia and has been doing to them for 150 years.
As the New Zealand and Australian media fussed and bothered over tourists stranded in New Caledonia over the past week, the Kanaks have been gripped in an existential struggle with a heavyweight European power determined to keep the archipelago firmly under the control of Paris. We need better, deeper reporting from our media — one that provides history and context.
According to René Guiart, a pro-independence writer, moments before the sniper’s bullets struck, Machoro had emerged from the farmhouse where he and his comrades were surrounded. I translate:
“I want to speak to the Sous-Prefet! [French administrator],” Machoro shouted. “You don’t have the right to arrest us. Do you hear? Call the Sous-Prefet!”
The answer came in two bullets. Once dead, Machoro’s comrades inside the house emerged to receive a beating from the gendarmes. Standing over Machoro’s body, a member of the elite mobile tactical unit said: “He wanted war, he got it!”
Photographed Machoro
Weeks earlier, New Zealand journalist David Robie had photographed Machoro shortly before he smashed open a ballot box with an axe and burned the ballots inside. “It was,” says Robie, “symbolic of the contempt Kanaks had for what they saw as France’s manipulated voting system.”
Every year on January 12, the anniversary of Machoro’s killing, people gather at his grave. Engraved in stone are the words: “On tue le révolutionnaire mais on ne tue pas ses idées.”You can kill the revolutionary but you can’t kill his ideas. Why don’t most Australians and New Zealanders even know his name?
Decades after his death and 17,000 km away, the French are at it again. Their National Assembly has shattered the peace this month with a unilateral move to change voting rights to enfranchise tens of thousands of more recent French settlers and put an end to both consensus building and the indigenous Kanak people’s struggle for self-determination and independence.
Thanks to French immigration policies, Kanaks now number about 40 percent of the registered voters. New Zealand and Australia look the other way — New Caledonia is France’s “zone of interest”.
But what’s not to like about extending voting rights? Shouldn’t all people who live in the territory enjoy voting rights?
“They have voting rights,” says David Robie, now editor of Asia Pacific Report, “back in France.” And France, not the Kanaks, control who can enter and stay in the territory.
Back in 1972, French Prime Minister Pierre Messmer argued in a since-leaked memo that if France wanted to maintain control, flooding the territory with white settlers was the only long-term solution to the independence issue.
Robie says the French machinations in Paris — changing the boundaries of citizenship and voting rights – and the ensuing violent reaction, is effectively a return to the 1980s — or worse.
The violence of the 1980s, which included massacres, led to the Matignon Accords of 1988 and the Nouméa Accords of 1998 which restricted the voting to only those who had lived in Kanaky prior to 1998 and their descendents. Pro-independence supporters include many young whites who see their future in the Pacific, not as a white settler colonial outpost of France.
Most whites, however, fear and oppose independence and the loss of privileges it would bring.
After decades of calm and progress, albeit modest, things started to change from 2020 onwards. It was clear to Robie and others that French calculations now saw New Caledonia as too important to lose; it is a kind of giant aircraft carrier in the Pacific from which to project French power. It is also home to the world’s third-largest nickel reserves.
How have the Kanaks benefitted from being a French colony? Kanaks were given citizenship in their own country only after WWII, a century after Paris imposed French rule. According to historian David Chappell:
“In practice, French colonisation was one of the most extreme cases of native denigration, incarceration and dispossession in Oceania. A frontier of cattle ranches, convict camps, mines and coffee farms moved across the main island of Grande Terre, conquering indigenous resisters and confining them to reserves that amounted to less than 10 percent of the land.”
It was a pattern of behaviour similar to France’s colonies in Africa, Asia and the Caribbean. Little wonder the people of Niger have recently become the latest to expel them.
Deprived of education — the first Kanak to qualify for university entrance was in the 1960s — socially and economically marginalised, subjected to what historians describe as among the most brutal colonial overlordships in the Pacific, the Kanaks have fought to maintain their languages, their cultures and their identities whilst the whites enjoy some of the highest standards of living in the world.
“There was no consultation — except with the anti-independence groups. Any new constitutional arrangement needs to be based around consensus. France has now polarised the situation so much that it will be virtually impossible to get consensus.”
Author Dr David Robie . . . warned for years that France is pushing New Caledonia down a slippery slope. Image: Alyson Young/PMC
Macron also pushed ahead with a 2021 referendum on independence versus remaining a French territory. This was in the face of pleas from the Kanak community to hold off until the covid pandemic that had killed thousands of Kanaks had passed and the traditional mourning period was over.
Having created the problem with actions like the disputed referendum and the current law changes, Macron now condemns today’s violence in New Caledonia. Éloi Machoro rebukes him from the grave: “Where is the violence, with us or with them?” he asked weeks before his killing. “The aim of the [law changes] is to destroy the Kanak people in their own country.” That was 1985; as the French say: “Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose. The more things change, the more they stay the same thing.
Kanaky and Palestine . . . “the same struggle” against settler colonialism. Image: Solidarity/APR
Young people are at the forefront of opposing Paris’s latest machinations. Hundreds have been arrested. Several killed. The White City, as Nouméa is called by the marginalised Melanesians, is lit by arson fires each night. Thousands of French security forces have been rushed in.
Leaders who have had nothing to do with the violence have been arrested; an old colonial manoeuvre.
“What happened was clearly avoidable,” Robie says “ The thing that really stands out for me is: what happens now? It is going to be really extremely difficult to rebuild trust — and trust is needed to move forward. There has to be a consensus otherwise the only option is civil war.”
Nadia Abu-Shanab, an activist and member of the Wellington Palestinian community, sees familiar behaviour and extends her solidarity to the people of Kanaky.
“We Palestinians know what it is for people to choose to ignore the context that leads to our struggle. Indigenous and native people have always been right to challenge colonisation. We are fighting for a world free from the racism and the theft of resources and land that have hurt and harmed too many indigenous peoples and our planet.”
Eugene Doyle is a Wellington-based writer and community activist who publishes the Solidaritywebsite. His first demonstration was at the age of 12 against the Vietnam War. This article was first published at Solidarity under the title “The French are at it again: New Caledonia is kicking off”. For more about Éloi Machoro, read Dr David Robie’s 1985 piece “Éloi Machoro knew his days were numbered”.
