Professor Pal Ahluwalia on his deportation flight from Fiji in 2021 . . . treatment by the previous Fiji government was "unreasonable and inhumane". Image: Fiji Sun
By Josefa Babitu in Suva
The greenlight has been given to University of the South Pacific vice-chancellor, Professor Pal Ahluwalia, and Dr Padma Lal, to return to Fiji by Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka.
Rabuka has made it clear today that both of them are free to enter the country.
“I am ready to meet Dr Lal and Professor Ahluwalia personally,” he said.
“I will apologise on behalf of the people of Fiji for the way they were treated.”
Dr Lal had been prevented from coming to Fiji with her husband’s ashes for them to be taken to his birthplace at Tabia, near Labasa.
First anniversary
Today marks the first anniversary of Professor Lal’s death.
Rabuka said prohibition orders against Professor Brij Lal and Dr Lal, as well as Professor Ahluwalia, were “unreasonable and inhumane” and should never have been made.
He had promised his government would bring to an end the injustices suffered by Professor Ahluwalia, and Professor Lal.
“I received a clarification today from the Department of Immigration that neither Dr Padma Lal nor Professor Ahluwalia were the subject of written prohibition orders,” he said.
Josefa Babitu is a Fiji Sun reporter. Republished from the Fiji Sun.
West Papuan leader Benny Wenda speaking recently at Queen Mary University of London . . . "The struggle for West Papuan liberation is a struggle for humanity, dignity, and fundamental rights." Image: ULMWP/Asia Pacific Report
CHRISTMAS MESSAGE: By Benny Wenda
As 2022 draws to a close, I would like to thank everyone who has supported the West Papuan struggle this year. To our worldwide solidarity groups, including those within Indonesia, to Alex Sobel and the International Parliamentarians for West Papua (IPWP), the International Lawyers for West Papua, to our friends in the Basque Country and Catalonia, the Pacific Conference of Churches, the government of Vanuatu and all our supporters in the Pacific: my deepest thanks.
The struggle for West Papuan liberation is a struggle for humanity, dignity, and fundamental rights. By supporting us, you are making history in the fight against modern day colonialism.
2022 was a difficult year for West Papua. We lost great fighters and leaders like Filep Karma, Jonah Wenda, and Jacob Prai. Sixty-one years since the fraudulent Act of No Choice, our people continue to suffer under Indonesian’s colonial occupation.
Indonesia continues to kill West Papuans with impunity, as shown by the recent acquittal of the only suspect tried for the “Bloody Paniai’” massacre of 2014.
Every corner of our country is now scarred by Indonesian militarisation. This month, nearly 100 West Papuans on Yapen Island were displaced from their villages by a sudden wave of military operations. Along with tens of thousands of West Papuans displaced since 2019, they will be forced to spend Christmas in the forest, as refugees in their own lands.
We continue to demand that Indonesia withdraw their military from West Papua in order to allow civilians to peacefully return to their homes.
In July, we signed an historic Memorandum of Understanding with our Melanesian brothers and sisters in Kanaky, strengthening the bonds of friendship and solidarity that have always connected our two movements.
In October, countries including Australia, Canada, and the US called for immediate investigation of rights abuses in West Papua at the UN, while the Marshall Islands called for West Papuan self-determination. Throughout the year, we have continued to build up our infrastructure on the ground.
We are ready to reclaim the sovereignty that was stolen from us and govern our own affairs.
To all West Papuans, whether in exile, prison, in the bush or the refugee camps, I say your day will come. Though the road to freedom is long and hard, we are making incredible progress at all levels.
One day soon we will celebrate Christmas in an independent West Papua. Until then, we must be strong and united in our struggle. As our national motto says, we are One People with One Soul.
To everyone around the world reading this message, I urge you to remain steadfast in your support for West Papua. Please pray for all West Papuans who cannot celebrate this Christmas, whether in Yapen Island, Nduga, Puncak Jaya, or elsewhere. Until we win our freedom, we need your solidarity.
On behalf of the ULMWP and the people of West Papua, thank you and Merry Christmas.
Benny Wenda Interim President ULMWP Provisional Government
United Liberation Movement for West Papua (ULMWP) solidarity workers in London, United Kingdom. Image: ULMWP
This time, Sitiveni Rabuka (pictured, blue bula shirt) and Voreqe Bainimarama — both former military leaders and coup makers — have used Fiji's democratic electoral system rather than guns and force to try to win to power. Image: TVNZ screenshot APR
When the final election results were announced around 4pm on Sunday, many Fijians, at home and around the world, breathed a collective sigh of relief: the government of coup-maker Voreqe Bainimarama looked like it had finally been defeated at the ballot box.
Could it be that the militarised political culture, pervasive in Fiji since the 1987 coups, was finally being effectively challenged — peacefully?
Bainimarama’s FijiFirst Party (FFP) collected 42.55 percent of votes, well short of the majority needed to return to power. The closest rival, the People’s Alliance Party (PAP), led by 1987 coup leader Sitiveni Rabuka, won 35.82 percent, followed by the National Federation Party (NFP) on 8.89 pecent and the Social Democratic Liberal Party (Sodelpa) with 5.14 percent of the votes.
Total voter turnout was 68.28 percent, less than the 71.92 percent at the 2018 election. With the Unity Fiji and Fiji Labour parties not reaching the required 5 percent threshold to gain seats under Fiji’s proportional representation system, the maths indicated a dead heat –– and some anxious coalition horsetrading.
The vote shares mean FFP will have 26 seats in the new 55-seat Parliament, the PAP 21, NFP 5 and SODELPA 3. The PAP and NFP had already signed a pre-election agreement to form a coalition, meaning they are tied with the FFP on 26 seats.
Led by Viliame Gavoka, Sodelpa was suddenly thrust into the role of kingmaker. Given its fraught history with both FFP and PAP, the stage was set for some hard bargaining on all sides this week.
Family ties The PAP, in fact, is a breakaway faction of Sodelpa. The divorce was bitter and littered with bruised souls. A faction within Sodelpa wanted nothing to do with Rabuka and the PAP.
On the other hand, Sodelpa’s relationship with FijiFirst has been equally strained. The founding leader of Sodelpa, the late prime minister Laiseni Qarase, was deposed, arrested and jailed following Bainimarama’s 2006 coup.
But there is a personal link between Sodelpa and the FFP, whose secretary general (as well as Attorney-General and Minister for the Economy in the previous government) is Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum. An Indo-Fijian Muslim, Sayed-Khaiyum is the son-in-law of Sodelpa leader Viliame Gavoka, an indigenous Fijian (Taukei).
Sodelpa party leader Viliame Gavoka . . . his son-in-law is the outgoing Attorney-General and Minister for the Economy Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum, an Indo-Fijian Muslim. Image: RNZ Pacific
While this multiracial connection may have its political advantages, the reality is that many in Sodelpa vehemently oppose Sayed-Khaiyum for what they view as his imposing and arrogant style.
Return of Rabuka There were early indications that Sodelpa might go with the PAP and NFP partnership to form a grand coalition, and that played out as by Friday the party’s management board had carried out two votes, both giving a very narrow margin in support of the grand coalition (16-14 then 13-12). Ideologically and politically, Sodelpa and PAP share the same basic vision and strategies regarding indigenous Fijian issues — after all, they were once the same party.
#LATEST Fiji’s kingmaker, Sodelpa has announced it’s joining Sitiveni Rabuka-led People’s Alliance-National Federation (PA-NFP) coalition to form the next government.https://t.co/57wLytvuHf
Gavoka and Rabuka are similar in various ways. They both have ethno-nationalist tendencies and embrace fundamentalist evangelical Christian doctrines. Gavoka has advocated setting up a Fijian embassy in Jerusalem, and Rabuka has been known as an admirer of Israel since he was commander of Fijian peacekeepers in the Middle East in the 1980s.
Furthermore, Sodelpa has been under pressure from its international and local branches (which fund the party) not to entertain any FFP coalition proposals. The message coming through from supporters is that their votes for Sodelpa were also votes against FFP.
There have also been fears that an alliance between Sodelpa and FFP could provoke old grievances and escalate into wider political instability.
Lastly, “non-negotiables” laid down by Sodelpa include enacting policies that promote indigenous Fijian interests (including the reinstatement of the Great Council of Chiefs (which Bainimarama abolished), forgiving scholarship debt and setting up a Fiji embassy in Jerusalem.
These are similar to the PAP policies in the party manifesto but quite different from the FFP positions.
Culture change If the election sees FijiFirst finally leave power, there is the potential for democratic progress. One of the major challenges for an incoming new government will be reform of the country’s civil service, judiciary, education and health systems, and the economy in general.
Over the years, Fiji society has been configured in ways that suit the narrow ideological interests and centralised control of the FFP. Security, public order and media laws have been used to undermine democratic debate, free expression and public engagement.
Democratising the institutions of state and making them more relevant will be a huge task. It will require significant financial, political and intellectual resources. It also has ramifications in the wider Pacific region, given Fiji’s role as an economic, communications and political hub.
Many Pacific leaders, including in Australia and New Zealand, have been unhappy with Fiji under the Bainimarama-Kaiyum axis. Actions such as the government’s refusal to release more than FJ$80 million in funding for the University of the South Pacific — creating a major crisis at the regional institution — only reinforce such perceptions.
Tense times, sense of Déjà vu in Fiji. As I wrote in ‘Anticipation & Apprehension in Fiji’s 2022 Election’ historically elections are riskiest period in Fiji. Anticipation of election turning into Apprehension about its outcome. The backgrounder is here:https://t.co/g3cxFhHyxohttps://t.co/rivuVf1fGA
This time, Rabuka and Bainimarama — both former military leaders and coup makers — have used the democratic electoral system rather than guns and force to try to win to power. But behind them sits a culture of command and control that will be difficult to dislodge.
This is subtly woven into various aspects of the 2013 Constitution, such as the role of the military as the nation’s constitutional security watchdog. But there is growing confidence that the chances of another military coup following this election are virtually nil.
Fiji’s civil service and operations of state have incorporated micromanagement, authoritarianism and coercion as part of the institutional culture. The test will be to ensure that a coalition of parties can rule together in a way that expands political participation and enhances democracy.
Chief Sodelpa negotiator Anare Jale (middle), former MP Ro Teimumu Kepa (left) and former Sodelpa leader, Ratu Manoa Rorogaca, now party president, announce Sodelpa's choice of coalition partner in Suva on Tuesday. Image: Kelvin Anthony/RNZ Pacific
By Arieta Vakasukawaqa in Suva
Tight police security will greet the Sodelpa management board meeting in Suva tomorrow when it will again decide the political party it will form a coalition with to run the Fiji government for the next four years.
The decision came after hours of deliberation today by the Sodelpa working committee — headed by party acting deputy leader Aseri Radrodro — where members discussed the “anomalies” in the previous board meeting held at the Yue Lai Hotel in Suva on Tuesday.
That meeting of the 30-member board decided by a margin of 16-14 to form a coalition with the People’s Alliance party of former prime minister Sitiveni Rabuka and the National Federation Party. This would give the coalition a slender majority of 29 in the 55-seat Parliament.
However, some issues were identified by the Registrar of Political Parties, Mohammed Saneem, after that Sodelpa board meeting.
Speaking to news media today, Radrodro said the agenda of the new meeting was to decide which party they would join.
The meeting will be held at the Southern Cross Hotel in Suva at 10am tomorrow.
Sodelpa’s negotiating team will be headed by party vice-president Anare Jale.
Arieta Vakasukawaqais a Fiji Times journalist. Republished with permission.
Military forces deployed
Meanwhile, RNZ Pacific reports that Fiji’s military forces are being deployed to maintain security and stability in the country following reports of threats made against minority groups.
In a statement yesterday afternoon, Fiji Police Commissioner Sitiveni Qiliho announced the move, calling it a joint decision with the commander of Fiji’s military forces, Major-General Jone Kalouniwai.
Fiji Police Commissioner Sitiveni Qiliho . . . reports and intelligence received of planned civil unrest and the targeting of minority groups. Image: Fiji police/RNZ Pacific
As of 3pm Fiji time, RNZ Pacific’s correspondent in Suva, Kelvin Anthony, reported there were no visible signs of increased police or military presence.
Commissioner Qiliho said the decision was based on official reports and intelligence received of planned civil unrest and the targeting of minority groups.
Party secretary-general Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum said they respected the outcome of the election, but did not recognise the validity of the opposition coalition and would not concede defeat.
Sayed-Khaiyum said under the country’s constitution, the FijiFirst government remained in place and Voreqe Bainimarama was still the prime minister of Fiji.
He said this could only be changed once the vote for prime minister was held on the floor of Parliament.
Under section 131 (2) of Fiji’s constitution, the military has the “overall responsibility” to ensure the security, defence and wellbeing of Fiji and all Fijians.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
The Social Democratic Liberal Party (Sodelpa) has emerged as the kingmaker in Fiji’s contentious 2022 general election and its leader Viliame Gavoka is in no rush to punch his golden ticket.
After a nightmare leadup to the election, with infighting resulting in a massive split in the party, many punters had all but written Sodelpa off ahead of last week’s polls.
The major opposition political party in the last Parliament, Sodelpa is now a shadow of its former self, just scraping through the electoral system’s 5 percent threshold by the skin of its teeth.
Its three Parliamentary seats are the lowest number of any party in the new Parliament and its leadership will be all too aware that the kingmaker position it now finds itself in — courted by parties on all sides — is probably the most leverage it will have for the coming four-year-term.
Speaking to media in the capital Suva yesterday, Gavoka said the party had 14 days to consider its options.
“We are not in any hurry, we understand the importance of this but we’re not gonna rush. We are going to do this properly but with urgency,” he said.
Gavoka said they were speaking to all parties but he was keeping his distance from the process.
“I am not part of the negotiating team. We set the parameters for negotiations, and we have redefined what is non-negotiable and what is negotiable and that is handed over to the negotiating team to talk to both parties,” he said.
“All those policies were collectively framed by the management board.”
So, what are Sodelpa’s non-negotiables? Given that Sodelpa’s campaign slogan was “Time for change”, Gavoka is going to have to come up with something better than “we will make the best decision for Fiji” to convince his hardcore followers to swallow the pill of a partnership with FijiFirst.
Gavoka has provided assurance to Sodelpa’s supporters that whatever coalition it agrees to, its iTaukei policies will prevail:
Reestablishment of the Great Council of Chiefs;
Education policy — free tertiary and forgiveness of the student loan (TELS); and
Set up an embassy in Jerusalem. “Fiji being a very Christian country, we want our presence in the Holy Land.”
When Gavoka was pressed by media on his close family ties to FijiFirst’s general secretary – his son-in-law, Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum, his response appeared non-committal.
“You know, we’ve been political rivals in Parliament for eight years and that’s pretty clear. In the form of Parliament, there’s no family but outside Parliament you’re family.”
On the other hand, there is lingering distrust between Sodelpa and its former leader Sitiveni Rabuka, whose new People’s Alliance Party has emerged the runner-up in its election debut with 21 parliamentary seats, just behind FijiFirst’s 26.
Rabuka believes a partnership with Sodelpa is the best fit.
‘Natural for us’
“I think it’s natural for us to forge a coalition because when we look at our manifestos and policies, and vision statements, etc. they are in harmony and all of them individually and collectively are diametrically opposed to the FijiFirst policy reforms,” Rabuka said.
No agreement has yet been signed by either but talks are underway.
“We’ve taken it as far as they gave us the opportunity for yesterday, we provided our team to talk with the team, and the result of that has not come back to us,” said Rabuka.
Rabuka has confirmed that he has not spoken directly to the Sodelpa leader.
“I’m in the process of doing so.”
Gavoka, however has said he would rather not.
“You don’t want to insert yourself into the negotiations. Our people are negotiating with their people. The two leaders are best to stay apart. That’s the way I’d like to do it,” said Gavoka.
The other potential coalition partner should Sodelpa go with Rabuka over Bainimarama is the National Federation Party, led by Professor Biman Prasad.
‘A reasonable man’
Sodelpa and NFP have spent the past two parliamentary terms in the opposition.
“I’ve had a talk with the Sodelpa team, and also met the leader Bill.
“Bill and I have worked together before and he has always been a reasonable man,” Professor Prasad said.
“I think he understands the enormity of why people have voted us from the opposition and voted for a new government. And I’m sure he understands it, we understand it, and Mr Rabuka understands it and I think it looks very positive.”
The Sodelpa management board will be meeting today to consider both coalition proposals.
Meanwhile, despite RNZ Pacific attempts to get comments from FijiFirst it has not received a response.
Koroi Hawkins is a RNZ Pacific journalist. This article is republished under a community partnership agreement between Asia Pacific Report and RNZ.
Final results of the Fiji general election showing just the four parties that met the 5 percent threshold. Image: Fijivillage
The Fiji general election 2022 . . . featured tonight on Television New Zealand One News. Image: TV1 screenshot APR
By Talebula Kate in Suva
Former opposition Sodelpa member Mick Beddoes has appealed to the party’s management board to end the 16-year rule of Voreqe Bainimarama’s FijiFirst government.
In an open letter on his official Facebook page to Sodelpa vice-president Ro Teimumu Kepa, president Ratu Manoa Roragaca, leader Viliame Gavoka and the management board today, Beddoes said: “After many years of inner turmoil, you have the entire country holding their breath to hear your decision, which will either deliver to our people a Christmas gift unlike any we have had for the past 16 years or you will knowingly condemn us all to another four more years of undeserved vindictive, bullying, corrupt, self serving, self enriching and uncaring governance.”
He added that the decision to stay with the people was a “no brainer” to avoid a “hung” parliament.
The official results indicated that FijiFirst had lost its majority with just 26 members of the expanded 55-seat Parliament — the same combined number as the opposition coalition of the People’s Alliance led by former 1987 coup leader Sitiveni Rabuka (21 members) and the National Federation Party (5 seats).
Former leading member of the opposition Sodelpa Mick Beddoes . . . “Please give our people the Christmas gift they all deserve.” Image: The Fiji Times
Soldelpa – the only other party of nine contesting the general elections to get across the 5 percent threshold — hold the balance of power with three seats.
“While the decision to stay with the greater interest of all our people, is a ‘no brainer’ I do appreciate the need for the party to take into account the interests and aspirations of its membership,” Beddoes said.
“However, in doing so it has to be weighed against the greater interest of our nation given we have all witnessed in broad daylight and experienced over the past 16 years the greed and self enrichment by the narrow interests of the favored few and as the voting thus far has very clearly indicated por people want change and we as opposition political leaders are ‘obliged to deliver this’ as this is what we promised.”
‘Theft’ of the Fijian name
“Need I remind you that this is the very same government who raided your home at night and took you in for interrogation because you offered to host the Methodist Church Conference, this is the same government who from 2007 to 2013 imposed more than 17 derogatory decrees against your own people, which among other things included the ‘theft’ of the name Fijian from your people by a stroke of a pen, and they banned the right of educated iTaukei students from attending and supporting their respective provincial councils.
FIJI ELECTIONS 2022
“They have excluded your own people from chair positions and board appointments by a margin of 80 percent from all government entities under the guise of ‘merit based’ appointments.
“When they had the opportunity to remove all these oppressive and discriminatory decrees at the time they drafted and imposed their 2013 constitution prior to the 2014 elections, they did not and it remains the law against your people today and they built in provision into the constitution that makes amendments to the constitution near impossible.
“This government’s policies and deliberate discrimination against your own people has resulted your people accounting for 75 percent of our 208,256 absolute poorest citizens, which means more than 156,192 of your own people live in absolute poverty despite owning 89 percent of all the land and you want to even ‘consider’ talking to them?”
Beddoes said Ro Teimumu led Soldelpa in the first opposition challenge that resulted in their first national platform from which to speak out and he was part of the team then.
“In that first effort in 2014, Sodelpa and its opposition colleagues received 202,650 votes to FijiFirst’s 293,714, we were 91,064 short. In our second effort in 2018, we increased our support level to 227,094 vs FijiFirst’s 227,241 and reduced their advantage to just 147 votes.
“Today while we are all still trying to figure out where all the extra votes came from the latest vote tally show we are at this time 58,635 votes ahead and you, Marama, are once again in a position with Bill and your management board to complete the mission we all started back in 2007 and remove the cruel, vindictive, bullying, arrogant, disrespectful and uncaring government that FijiFirst is.
“I beg you Marama, Ratu Manoa and you Bill and your management board, please do not waiver from our initial promise of change and finish the mission we started 15 years ago and end our 16 years of suffering and please give our people the Christmas gift they all deserve.”
Final results of the Fiji general election today showing just the four parties that met the 5 percent threshold. Image: Fijivillage
Sodelpa in negotiations with both sides SBS News reports that Sodelpa is in negotiations with both the FijiFirst government and People’s Alliance over which it will support with its balance of power.
Bainimarama’s FijiFirst party is the largest single party with 42.5 per cent of the vote while People’s Alliance and the NFP — which have already said they would join forces — sit at 36 and nine percent respectively.
Sodelpa holds just over five percent of the vote.
Sodelpa general secretary Lenaitasi Duru said today it would enter a second round of negotiations with both parties.
Talebula Kateis a Fiji Times reporter. Republished with permission.
PNG Foreign Minister Justin Tkatchenko speaking at the West Papuan Independence Day event in Port Moresby on December 1. West Papuan representative Frank Makanuey (with a green and purple bilum) is at his right shoulder. Image: EMTV screenshot APR
ANALYSIS:By Yamin Kogoya
“We are part of them and they are part of us,” declared politician Augustine Rapa, founder and president of the PNG Liberal Democratic Party, on the 61st anniversary of the struggle for West Papuan independence earlier this month.
Rapa’s statement of West Papua at Gerehu, Port Moresby, on December 1 was in response to Papua New Guinean police who arrived at the anniversary celebration and tried to prevent Papuans from the other side of the colonial border from commemorating this significant national day.
According to Rapa, the issue of West Papua’s plight for liberation should be at the top of the agenda in PNG. Rapa also urged PNG’s Foreign Affairs Minister Justin Tkatchenko to take the plight of West Papuans to the United Nations.
Frank Makanuey, a senior West Papuan representative, also appealed to the PNG government to alter its foreign policy and law so Papuans from the other side of the border could continue to freely express their opinions peacefully, akin to the opinions and rights inscribed in the UN Charter of Indigenous People.
According to Makanuey, 7000 West Papuans living in PNG will continue to fight for their freedom for as long as they live, and when they die will pass on the torch of resistance to their children.
On the day of the commemoration, Minister Tkatchenko appeared in a short video interview reiterating the same message as Rapa.
“These West Papuans are part of our family; part of our members and are part of Papua New Guinea. They are not strangers,” the minister reminded the crowd.
‘Separated by imaginary lines’
“We are separated only by imaginary lines, which is why I am here.”
He added: “I did not come here to fight, to yell, to scream, to dictate, but to reach a common understanding — to respect the law of Papua New Guinea and the sovereignty of Indonesia.”
Foreign Affairs Minister Justin Tkatchenko says PNG will “respect Indonesian sovereignty”. Video: EMTV Onlne
The minister then explained how West Papuans in PNG should be accommodated under PNG’s immigration law through an appropriate route.
A few days after this speech, the same minister attended bilateral meetings with countries and international organisations in the Pacific, including Papua New Guinea, Timor-Leste, Vanuatu along with the Director General of the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG), ahead of the Indonesia-Pacific Forum for Development (IPFD) in Bali on December 6.
Following a ministerial meeting with the Indonesian Foreign Minister, Retno Marsudi, Tkatchenko said: “As Papua New Guineans, we must support and respect Indonesia’s sovereignty.”
Tkatchenko said Port Moresby would work with Indonesia to resolve any issues that arose with West Papuans living in the country.
One of the most critical and concerning developments of this visit was the announcement of the defence cooperation agreement between Papua New Guinea and Indonesia.
“We are moving forward in the process of signing a defence cooperation agreement between PNG and Indonesia. We will work harder and partner on a common goal to achieve security along both countries’ borders,” Tkatchenko said.
Sllencing Melanesian leaders?
In January 2022, there was a meeting in Jakarta at the office of the state intelligence agency. It was intended to silence all Melanesian leaders who supported West Papua’s independence and bring them under Jakarta’s sphere of influence, with an allocation of roughly 450 billion rupiahs (about A$42.5 million).
A couple of months later, on March 30, the Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea led a large delegation to Indonesia for bilateral discussions.
Forestry, Fisheries, Energy, Kumul companies, and the Investment Promotion Authority were among the key sectors represented in the delegation. Apparently, this 24 hour trip in an Air Niugini charter from Port Moresby to Jakarta cost K5 million kina (A$2 million).
Considering such a large sum of money was spent on such a brief visit; this must have been a significant expedition with a considerable agenda.
Visits of this kind are usually described with words such as, “trade and investment”, but the real purpose for spending so much money on such a brief trip before an election, are facts the public will never know.
In this case, the “public” is ordinary Papuans on both sides of the border, that the foreign minister himself stated were separated by “imaginary lines”.
It is those imaginary lines that have caused so much division, destruction, and dislocation of Papuans from both sides to become part of Western and Asian narratives of “civilising” primitive Papuans.
Imaginary to real lines
Could the proposed defence agreement remove these imaginary lines, or would it strengthen them to become real and solid lines that would further divide and eliminate Papuans from the border region?
A “colonisation” map of Papua New Guinea and West Papua. Image: File
Prime Minister Marape grew up in the interior Papuan Highlands region of Tari, of the proud Huli nation, which shares ancient kinship with other original nations such as Yali, Kimyal, Hubula, Dani and Lani on the West Papuan side of the border.
As a custodian of this region, the Prime Minister may have witnessed some of the most devastating, unreported, humanitarian crises instigated by ruthless Indonesian military in this area, in the name of sovereignty and border protection.
Why does his government in Port Moresby boast about signing a defence agreement in Jakarta? Is this a death wish agreement for Papuans — his people and ancestral land, specially on the border region?
Which entity poses an existential threat to Papuans? Is it China, Australia, Indonesia, or the Papuans themselves?
There is nothing unusual or uncommon about countries and nations making bilateral or multilateral agreements on any matter concerning their survival, no matter what their intentions may be. Especially when you share a direct border like Indonesia and Papua New Guinea, which has been stained by decades of protracted war waged against Papuans.
Why now for defence pact?
However, what is particularly interesting and concerning about the development between these two countries is, why now is the time to discuss a defence agreement after all these years?
What are the objectives of this initiative? Is it to serve the imperial agenda of Beijing, the United States, Jakarta, or is it to safeguard and protect the island of New Guinea? What is the purpose of a defence agreement, who is protected and who from?
Exactly like the past 500 years, when European vultures circled the island of New Guinea and sliced it up into pieces, new vultures are now encroaching upon us as the global hegemonic power structure shifts from West to East.
Responding to these developments, James Marape warned that his country would not be caught up in a geopolitical standoff with the US, Australia, or China, saying the global powers should “keep your fights to yourselves”.
But does the prime minister have a choice in this matter? Does he have the power to stop war if or when it breaks out in the Pacific like the past?
Let‘s be honest and ask ourselves, when did Papuans from both sides of this imaginary line have the power to say no to all kinds of brutal, exploitative behaviour exhibited by foreign powers?
From World War I to II, then to Pacific nuclear testing, and to foreign international bandits currently exploiting papua New Guinea’s natural resources?
Brutality of Indonesia
Since its independence, when has the PNG government been able to halt the brutality and onslaught of the Indonesians against their own people on the other side of these imaginary lines?
Why does PNG’s foreign affairs minister sit in Jakarta negotiating a defence deal with an entity that threatens to annihilate West Papuans, after he himself conveyed a heartfelt message to them on December 1?
Can both the prime minister and the foreign affairs minister avoid being caught in the middle of a looming war as the Pacific becomes yet another gift for strategic war space between the Imperial West and the Imperial East?
Benny Wenda, an international icon for the liberation of West Papua, made the following statement on his Facebook page in response to the defence agreement: “Let’s not make this happen, please, our PNG brothers and sisters open your eyes! Can’t you see they’re trying to take over our ancestors Land.”
While the PNG government gambles on West Papua’s fate with Jakarta, West Papuans are marginalised, chased, or hunted by establishing unlawful settler colonial administrative divisions across the heartland of New Guinea and direct military operations.
As Wenda warned in his latest report, “mass displacements are occurring in every corner of West Papua”.
Whatever the philosophical approach underlying Papua New Guinea’s foreign policies in relation to West Papua’s fate — realist or idealist, traditional or transcendental — what matters most to West Papuans is whether they will survive under Indonesian settler colonialism over the next 20 years.
A reverse situation
What if the situation is reversed, where Papuans in PNG were being slaughtered by Australian settler colonial rule, while the government of West Papua continues to sneak out across the border to Canberra to keep making agreements that threaten to annihilate PNG?
Papuans face a serious existential threat under Indonesia settler colonial rule, and the PNG government must be very careful in its dealings with Jakarta. Every single visit and action taken by both Papua New Guinea and Indonesia will leave a permanent mark on the wounded soul of West Papua.
The only question is will these actions destroy Papuans or rescue them?
The government and people of Papua New Guinea must consider who their neighbours will be in 100 years from now. Will they be a majority of Muslim Indonesians or a majority of Christian West Papuans?
It is a critical existential question that will determine the fate of the island, country, nation, as well as languages, culture and existence itself in its entirety.
Will the government and the people of Papua New Guinea view West Papuans as their brothers and sisters and restructure their collective worldview in the spirit of Rapa’s words, “we are part of them, and they are part of us”, or will they continue to sign agreements and treaties with Jakarta and send their secret police and army to chase and threaten West Papuans seeking protection anywhere on New Guinea’s soil?
West Papua is bleeding. The last thing West Papua needs is for the PNG government apparatus and forces to harass and chase them as they seek refuge under your roof.
Papua New Guinea is not the enemy of West Papua; the enemy of PNG is not West Papua.
The enemies are those who divide the island into pieces, exploit its resources and sign defence agreements to further solidify imaginary lines while leaving its original custodians of the land stranded on the streets and slums like beggars.
Papuans have lived in this ancient and timeless land from Sorong to Samarai for thousands of years. The actions we take today will determine whether the descendants of these archaic autochthons will survive in the next thousands of years to come.
Yamin Kogoya is a West Papuan academic who has a Master of Applied Anthropology and Participatory Development from the Australian National University and who contributes to Asia Pacific Report. From the Lani tribe in the Papuan Highlands, he is currently living in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Fiji political rivals Sitiveni Rabuka (left), a former prime minister, and Voreqe Bainimarama, the current Prime Minister . . . both former military coup leaders. Image: Vanguard/IDN
By Ravindra Singh Prasad in Suva
It is an ironic fact in Fiji, a multiethnic Pacific nation of under one million people, that coups don’t work and ultimately lead to constitutional reforms and democratic elections.
As Fiji goes to the polls this Wednesday, the choice is between choosing one former coup leader or another to govern Fiji for the next five years.
Both fought the same battle in 2018, and the incumbent Prime Minister Josaia Voreqe Bainimarama won in an election considered largely free and fair.
The two combatants are Prime Minister Bainimarama and his challenger Sitiveni Rabuka, a former prime minister.
Bainimarama staged a coup in 2006 when he was the commander of the Republic of Fiji Military Forces (RFMF), and after changing the constitution, he was elected as prime minister twice in 2014 and 2018 in national elections.
Rabuka, at the time a lieutenant colonel in the Fiji Military, staged two coups in 1987, claiming to reassert ethnic Fijian supremacy.
Following the adoption of a constitution in 1990 that guaranteed indigenous Fijian domination of the political system, he formed the Soqosoqo ni Vakavulewa ni Taukei (SVT) political party of indigenous Fijians and won two elections in 1992 and 1994 to become prime minister.
Rabuka lost power
Rabuka lost power at the 1999 election, and he was succeeded ironically by the Fijian Labour Party leader Mahendra Chaudhry who fought the elections on a nonethnic platform and became Fiji’s first Indo-Fijian Prime Minister.
A few months later, in May 2000, he was ousted by businessman George Speight with the help of rogue troops.
Significantly, Speight was not a soldier and was backed by only one faction of the army. He was sentenced to life imprisonment and remains in jail. Both Bainimarama and Rabuka were clever and powerful enough after their coups to ensure that Fiji’s constitution was rewritten to absolve them of any legal wrongdoing.
Fiji is a unique country where a Hindu Indian population known here as “Indo-Fijians” have established themselves as part and parcel of the country.
Their ancestors were brought to the islands as indentured labour by the British to work in the new sugar cane plantations. But now they have established themselves in the business sector and in politics, so much so that the economic czars of both political camps are Indo-Fijians.
The four coups of the 1980s and 1990s led to a massive out-migration of Indo-Fijians and their ratio of the population has now dropped from 50 per cent in 1987 to about 35 per cent. Ethnic tensions have in recent years diluted with the Bainimarama government’s “One Fiji” policy and the recognition of the role Indo-Fijians have played in building modern Fiji.
Though race politics is still in the background, Bainimarama and Rabuka are fighting the forthcoming elections on mainly an economic platform, with the incumbent government arguing that they have protected Fiji better than many other countries of its size from global economic currents of recent years.
Economic ‘volcano’
However, Rabuka’s opposition alliance is arguing that Fiji is in the grip of an economic volcano about to erupt.
The December 14 general election is being contested by 342 candidates from nine political parties. Bainimarama’s ruling FijiFirst Party (FFP) and Rabuka’s Peoples’ Alliance Party (PAP) will each contest 55 seats, while the National Federation Party (NFP) led by former University of the South Pacific’s economics professor Biman Prasad will field 54 candidates.
Rabuka and Prasad have formed a strong political alliance and have been campaigning together for months leading up to this election. If the PAP-NFP alliance wins, Prasad is expected to be Rabuka’s Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister.
Meanwhile, Bainimarama’s Deputy Prime Minister, Attorney-General and Minister for the Economy, Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum — an Indo-Fijian Muslim — has been accused of running the government for Bainimarama and expanding the influence of Indo-Fijian Muslims with money from Arabs at the expense of the Hindu Indo-Fijians.
Rabuka and Prasad have been campaigning across the country, asking the people to vote out the FijiFirst government to rid Fiji of the “damaging legacy of Voreqe Bainimarama and Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum”.
They are offering a “consultative government” and a democracy — as opposed to Sayed-Khaiyum’s “dictatorship”.
The message seems to have hit a chord, even though the Fiji economy has not been doing badly compared to many other countries, and Rabuka is strongly tipped to win a close election.
‘Unstoppable’, claims leader
“We are unstoppable all over the land,” Rabuka said at a recent election rally in Lautoka, an Indo-Fijian stronghold.
“We are ready to make history on December 14,” he added, “tell the people about our plans and keep emphasising that they are the centre of our mission.”
In an interview with Fiji Live, Professor Prasad revealed that if his party forms the next government with the PAP, Sitiveni Rabuka would be the Prime Minister, despite any party having more seats than the other after the election.
He confirmed that the two parties have decided that between the two of them, they will form the government, and that is the bottom line. Prasad is optimistic that they will win substantially more seats in this election and will be in a very strong position when they form the government with their partners, the PAP.
Something that is worrying Fijians is whether an unfavourable result for the government would trigger another coup. Bainimarama’s 2013 constitution has given the Fijian military constitutional rights to be its custodian:
“It shall be the overall role of the Republic of Fiji Military Forces to ensure at all times the security, defence and wellbeing of Fiji and all Fijians.”
It goes on to say the armed forces will perform its “Constitutional Role locally and also ready to tackle the modern-day security challenges brought about by Climate Change, Radicalism and Transnational Crime”.
Honouring democracy
In an address on December 5, the RFMF commander, Major-General Jone Kalouniwai, ordered his soldiers to honour the democratic process by respecting the outcome of the votes in the 2022 general election. This comment has been widely welcomed across the political spectrum.
Fiji Labour Party Leader Mahendra Chaudhry says the statement by Major-General Kalouniwai is reassuring for the party.
He told Fiji Broadcasting Corporation that FLP was twice robbed of its mandate to govern by coups executed or supported by the military.
People’s Alliance deputy party leader Manoa Kamikamica said: “Major-General Ro Jone Kalouniwai has voiced what the bulk of Fiji want to hear — which is, we wait for the ballot box to decide.”
Professor Prasad said: “That’s an absolutely fantastic statement from the commander, and I want to thank him because everybody who believes in democracy, who believes in good governance, who believes in a free and fair election, will respect the outcome of the election.”
In a commentary published by The Fiji Times, Professor Wadan Narsey, a senior economist and political analyst in Fiji, expressed some views that reflective many of the voters, which may ultimately tip the scales of who governs after next week.
He argues that under the 2013 Constitution, the government has been able to stifle freedom of expression by the public and the media, with a large section of the taxpayer-funded public media being brought under the control of the government, effectively acting as government propaganda and to attack opposition parties and MPs.
Proper dialogue promised
“There were no such restrictions or control in the Rabuka government era, and these are unlikely to happen in the Rabuka/Prasad era,” argues Professor Narsey.
He points out that “in his recent public statements, Rabuka has promised to govern through discussion, dialogue, proper debate and compromise when necessary”.
He points out that the views of the people are not respected, even though Fiji is functioning under a “democracy”.
The government has arrested those who express views that the government does not like.
Pointing out to the MOU between PAP and NFF, Professor Narsey believes “they would not rule by fear or imposition of two men’s views on the whole country.
“They would focus on providing good health services, education, water and infrastructure like roads and electricity, which have all been failures under the current government, despite massive expenditures using borrowed money”.
“Whether it is a yearning for improvements to infrastructure, construction and allocation of school quarters, assistance to construct a bridge, issues on education, or discussions over manifestos, it is encouraging to note that many Fijians are actually making an effort to be part of the voting process,” The Fiji Times noted in an editorial last week.
“Now, as we look ahead to next Wednesday, there is a sense of ownership in the air. There appears to be a willingness to cast a ballot. There is a willingness to be part of the process,” The Fiji Times added.
Ravindra Singh Prasadis a correspondent of InDepth News (IDN), the flagship agency of the International Press Syndicate. This article is republished with permission.
Peace Action: Struggles for a decolonised and demilitarised Oceania and East Asia
Reviewed by Dr David Robie
As the editor, American-Kiwi anarchist, dissident and activist Valerie Morse notes in the preface to Peace Action, this practical treatise on the struggle for Moana liberation, justice and peace has a clear target. It is aimed at “deepening connections and amplifying impact for the urgent work of building a radically different ‘new world in the shell of the old’ (p. 11).”
Peace Action cover
However, it is the opening chapter, “Setting the Scene”, by researcher and environmental advocate Tina Ngata (Ngāti Porou), which sets the tone for this indictment of settler colonialism with an introduction to the 11th-12th century Crusades and the following notorious Doctrine of “Discovery”. She lays the blame on Pope Urban II for unleashing the seizure of lands for Christendom and converting people living there “by force if necessary (p. 13).”
In the name of the Roman Catholic Church, the Pope “excused” people from the punishments of mortal sins carried out as “acts of war” on behalf of God and the Bible. He issued Papal Bulls — church laws — that gave divine authority for “not just murder, not just theft, not just dispossession, not just rape” in church-ordained crusades in the Holy Lands against the Muslim Saracens (p. 13).
Following in the 15th century, Pope Nicholas granted three Papal Bulls giving permission to “invade, to subdue, to dispossess and to commit to perpetual slavery any people that the crusaders encountered” for profit. These Papal Bulls became known as the Doctrine of Christian “Discovery” and led to the transatlantic slave trade that claimed the lives of 30 million Africans (p. 14).
It was the application of these three Papal Bulls — Dum Diversas, Romanus Pontifex and then Inter Caetera — beyond West Africa to the New World and so-called Age of Discovery that eventually reached the Pacific. Not only did these laws “give permission”, but they imposed a Christian duty on European royalty to “acquire land and souls”.
When Ferdinand Magellan “discovered” Te Moana-Nui-A-Kiwa in 1519 and rebranded it the “Pacific”, the Doctrine of Discovery had arrived in this part of the world and explains the context of James Cook’s first voyage in 1768 and the two others that followed. Ngata writes:
“Cook’s modus operandi was to abduct the leaders of communities to force the local people into doing something for him as a means of collective punishment. In Tahiti, he abducted Poetua, the young pregnant daughter of the local ariki [chief], Oreo, in order to force the local people into bringing back two of his men who ad absconded of their own free will to evade Cook’s increasingly irrational behaviour. (p. 17)
Ngata stresses that Cook carried out these kidnappings numerous times across the three voyages until he was “murdered while trying to abduct Kalani’ōpu’u, the high chief of the island of Hawai’i” (p. 17).
This introductory chapter about the “toxic, imperial masculinity and infection” (p. 18) of the Palagi and resistance by Moana people leads seamlessly into the third chapter, “Protecting Ihumātao”, by Qiane Matata-Sipu, Pania Newton and Frances Hancock, an inspirational account of how a 1100 acre “food bowl for the developing city of Tāmaki Makaurau [Auckland]” was unjustly seized in 1863 by the colonial government under the New Zealand Settlement Act (p. 37).
“Our tūpuna [ancestors] were exiled to the Waikato, their homes destroyed and their whenua [traditional lands] granted to settlers. Upon their return to Ihumātao, effectively landless and reduced to subsistence living, our tūpuna took up the struggle to reclaim their whenua.” (p. 38)
Subsequent injustices followed with the ancestral lands being subjected to quarrying for roads, pollution of moana for Auckland’s wastewater treatment plant, and industrial encroachments, including a chemical dye spill. “We were told these were our sacrifices for the greater good of Auckland,” lament the co-authors (p. 37).
In 2015, the Indigenous and youth-led, community supported campaign with peaceful, passive and positive resistance “touched hearts and called tens of thousands of New Zealanders to action” (p. 49).
Seven years on, the #ProtectIhumātao campaign has thwarted the property development scheme of a multinational, and achieved the highest heritage listing status for the contested lands and Ōtuataua Stonefields Historic Reserve. A feature of this chapter is the articulated campaign strategy plan — a recipe for activist success.
However, these are just two of the 13 chapters by 23 contributors and a photoessay, “Reclaiming the whenua at Ihumātao”, by social justice photographer Jos Wheeler in this wide-ranging Pacific peace activism manifesto. In addition, there are two superb colour plates, Arama Rata’s “Watery Grave” and Marylou Mahe’s “Te Temps Kanak/Kanak Time”. Topics range from French, Indonesian and US colonialism and militarism, feminist resistance, peace gardening at Parihaka, and climate crisis action.
Some of the chapters feature anti-militarism in South Korea (Jungmin Choi); stories of “heartbreak and hope” in Hawai’i (Emalani Case); weaving an ‘upena [fishing net] of Oceanic solidarity in response to the imperial militarisation of Hawai’i (Kyle Kajihiro); and Takae residents struggling against US militarisation of Yanbaru forest in Japan’s Okinawa by Mizuki Nakamura, who quotes a fellow activist saying, “when the pandemic is over, we must not go back to destroying the environment but try to build a different world” (p. 97).
For me, three of the highlights are the essays “Standing with Ma’ohi Nui: Practising Moana solidarity in Aotearoa” (Tony Fala, Tokelauan/Palagi); “Papuaphobia: Colonial mythology behind Papuan holocaust” (Yamin Kogoya, Yikwa/Lani); and “Forever fighting France: the coloniser par excellence” (Ena Manuireva, Mangarevian/Aotearoa). All three authors are regular contributors to the independent Asia Pacific Report.
Writing about how “Ma’ohi Lives Matter”, Manuireva outlines the strategies of Oscar Temaru’s Tavini Huira’atira — the only Tahitian political party “still standing against French colonial governance”, including an appeal to the International Court of Justice in The Hague. He concludes:
“Colonisation is a deadly virus that spreads through the social, cultural and economic and above all political arenas of Indigenous societies to gain control of our vital resources. France has been doing this to the Ma’ohi people since November 1843. Fighting against colonialism/neocolonialism is an extension of our ancestors’ battle: they wanted to be their own masters and to decide their own future for themselves. So do we.” (p. 104)
While this book’s target audience is primarily Aotearoa New Zealand, many of the essays have a wide Asia-Pacific relevance and there is an extensive glossary of Māori words and phrases. It is an invaluable and beautifully illustrated handbook of “peace action”, summing up the mahe (work) that needs doing for decolonisation and demilitarisation.
It is very well timed too having been published just weeks before a “reborn again” Nuclear Free and Independent Pacific (NFIP) conference at Otago University in November (Ōtepoti Declaration, 2022). The fight for Te Moana is in good guardianship hands with a new generation of activists and advocates.
The Pacific Media Centre project . . . 13 years of achievement and then gutted by an AUT management decision. Image: Asia Pacific Report/PMC
SPECIAL REPORT:By Dr Lee Duffield
The launch of a New Zealand project to produce more Pacific news and provide a “voice for the voiceless” on the islands has highlighted the neglect of that field by Australia and New Zealand — and also problems in universities.
The new development is the non-government, non-university Asia Pacific Media Network (APMN), a research base and publishing platform.
Its opening followed the cleaning-out of a centre within the Auckland University of Technology (AUT) — in an exercise exemplifying the kind of micro infighting that goes on hardly glimpsed from outside the academic world.
Cleaning out media centre The story features an unannounced move by university staff to vacate the offices of an active journalism teaching and publishing base, the Pacific Media Centre, in early February 2021.
Seven weeks after the retirement of that centre’s foundation director, Professor David Robie, staff of AUT’s School of Communication Studies turned up and stripped it, taking out the archives and Pacific taonga — valued artifacts from across the region.
Staff still based there did not know of this move until later.
The centre had been in operation for 13 years — it was popular with Pasifika students, especially postgrads who would go on reporting ventures for practice-led research around the Pacific; it was a base for online news, for example prolific outlets including a regular Pacific Media Watch; it had international standing especially through the well-rated (“SCOPUS-listed”) academic journal Pacific Journalism Review; and it was a cultural hub, where guests might receive a sung greeting from the staff, Pacific-style, or see fascinating art works and craft.
Its uptake across the “Blue Continent” showed up gaps in mainstream media services and in Australia’s case famously the backlog in promoting economic and cultural ties.
The PMC Project — a short documentary about the centre by Alistar Kata in 2016. Video: Pacific Media Centre
Human rights and media freedom The centre was founded in 2007, in a troubled era following a rogue military coup d’etat in Fiji, civil disturbances in Papua New Guinea, violent attacks on journalists in several parts, and endemic gender violence listed as a priority problem for the Pacific Islands Forum.
Through its publishing and conference activity it would take a stand on human rights and media freedom issues, social justice, economic and media domination from outside.
The actual physical evacuation was on the orders of the communications head of school at AUT, Dr Rosser Johnson, a recently appointed associate professor with a history of management service in several acting roles since 2005. He told the Australia Asia Pacific Media Initiative (AAPMI) in response to its formal complaint to AUT that it was “gutting” the centre that the university planned to keep a centre called the PMC and co-locate its offices with other centres — but that never happened.
His intervention caused predictable critical responses, as with this comment by a former New Zealand Heraldeditor-in-chief Dr Gavin Ellis, on dealing with corporatised universities, in “neo-liberal” times:
“For many years I thought universities were the ideal place to establish centres of investigative journalism excellence … My views have been shaken to the core by the Auckland University of Technology gutting the Pacific Media Centre.”
Conflicts over truth-telling The “PMC affair” has stirred conflicts that should worry observers who place value on truth-finding and truth-telling in university research, preparation for the professions, and academic freedom.
The Independent Australia report on the fate of the PMC last weekend. Image: Asia Pacific Report
The centre along with its counterpart at the University of Technology Sydney, called the Australian Centre for Independent Journalism (ACIJ), worked in the area of journalism as research, applying journalistic skills and methods, especially exercises in investigative journalism.
The ACIJ produced among many investigations, work on the reporting of climate policy and climate science, and the News of the World phone hacking scandal. It also was peremptorily shut-down, three years ahead of the PMC.
Both centres were placed in the journalism academic discipline, a “professional” and “teaching” discipline that traditionally draws in high achieving students interested in its practice-led approach.
All of which is decried by line academics in disciplines without professional linkages but a professional interest in the hierarchical arrangements and power relations within the confined space of their universities.
There the interest is in theoretical teaching and research outputs, often-enough called “Marxist”, “postmodern”, “communications” or “cultural studies”, angled at a de-legitimisation of “Western-liberal” mass media. Not that journalism education itself shies away from media criticism, as Dr Robie told Independent Australia:
“The Pacific Media Centre frequently challenged ‘ethnocentric journalistic practice’ and placed Māori, Pacific and indigenous and cultural diversity at the heart of the centre’s experiential knowledge and critical-thinking news narratives.”
Yet it can be seen how conflict may arise, especially where smaller journalism departments come under “takeover” pressure. It is a handy option for academic managers to subsume “journalism”, and get the staff positions that can be filled with non-journalists; the contribution the journalists may make to research earnings (through the Australian Excellence in Research process, or NZ Performance Based Research Fund), and especially government funding for student places.
There, better students likely to excel and complete their programmes can be induced to do more generalised courses with a specialist “journalism” label.
Any such conflict in the AUT case cannot be measured but must be at least lurking in the background.
The head of school, Dr Johnson, works in communication studies and cultural studies, with publications especially about info-advertising. He indicates just a lay interest in journalism listing three articles published in mass media since 2002.
What is ‘ideology’? Another problem exists, where a centre like the former PMC will commit to defined values, even officially sanctioned ones like inclusivity and rejection of discrimination.
Undertakings like the PMC’s “Bearing Witness” projects, where students would deploy classic journalism techniques for investigations on a nuclear-free Pacific or climate change, can irritate conservative interests.
The derogatory expression for any connection with social movements is “ideological”. This time it is an unknown, but a School moving against an “ideological” unit, might get at least tacit support from higher-ups supposing that eviscerating it might help the institution’s “good name”.
What implications for future journalism, freedom and quality of media? Hostility towards specific professional education for journalism exists fairly widely. The rough-housing of the journalism centre at AUT is indicative, where efforts by the out-going director to organise succession after his retirement, five years in advance, received no response.
The position statement was changed to take away a requirement for actual Pacific media identity or expertise, and the job left vacant, in part a covid effect. The centre performed well on its key performance indicators, if small in size, which brought in limited research grants but good returns for academic publications:
“On 18 December 2020 – the day I officially retired – I wrote to the [then] Vice-Chancellor, Derek McCormack … expressing my concern about the future of the centre, saying the situation was “unconscionable and inexplicable”. I never received an acknowledgement or reply.”
Pacific futures Journalism education has persisted through an adverse climate, where the number of journalists in mainstream media has declined, in New Zealand almost halved to 2061, (2006 – 2018). AUT celebrated 50 years of journalism teaching this week.
The latest Pacific Journalism Review . . . published for 28 years. Image: PJR
However new media are expanding, new demands exist for media competency across the exploding world “mediascape”, schools cultivating conscionable practices are providing an antidote to floods of bigotry and lies in social media.
The new NGO in Auckland, the APMN, has found a good base of support across the Pacific communities, limbering up for a future free of interference, outside of the former university base.
It will be bidding for a share of NZ government grants intended to assist public journalism, ethnic broadcasting and outreach to the region. While several products of the former centre have closed, the successful 28-year-old research journal Pacific Journalism Review has continued, producing two editions under its new management.
The operation is also keeping its production-side media strengths, such as with the online title Asia Pacific Report.
Independent Australia media editor Dr Lee Duffield is a former ABC correspondent and academic. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Pacific Journalism Review. This article is republished with the author’s permission.
