The NGO Coalition on Human Rights in Fiji has sharply criticised the Fiji government’s stance over Israel’s genocide in Gaza, saying it “starkly contrasts” with the United Nations and international community’s condemnation as a violation of international law and an impediment to peace.

In a statement today, the NGO Coalition said that the way the government was responding to the genocide and war crimes in Gaza would set a precedent for how it would deal with crises and conflict in future.

It would be a marker for human rights responses both at home and the rest of the world.

• READ MORE: Macron says France will recognise Palestinian state in September
• Saudi Arabia and France to lead UN push for recognising Palestinian statehood
• Al Jazeera live-tracker

“We are now seeing whether our country will be a force that works to uphold human rights and international law, or one that tramples on them whenever convenient,” the statement said.

“Fiji’s position on the genocide in Gaza and the occupation of Palestinians starkly contrasts with the values of justice, freedom, and international law that the Fijian people hold dear.

“The genocide and colonial occupation have been widely recognised by the international community, including the United Nations, as a violation of international law and an impediment to peace and the self-determination of the Palestinian people.”

Last week, French President Emmanuel Macron announced that France would formally recognise the state of Palestine — the first of G7 countries to do so — at the UN general Assembly in September.

142 countries recognise Palestine
At least 142 countries out of the 193 members of the UN currently recognise or plan to recognise a Palestinian state, including European Union members Norway, Ireland, Spain and Slovenia.

However, several powerful Western countries have refused to do so, including the United States, the United Kingdom and Germany.

At the UN this week, Saudi Arabia and France opened a three-day conference with the goal of recognising Palestinian statehood as part of a peaceful settlement to end the war in Gaza.

Last year, Fiji’s coalition government submitted a written statement in support of the Israeli genocidal occupation of Palestine, including East Jerusalem, noted the NGO coalition.

Last month, Fiji’s coalition government again voted against a UN General Assembly resolution that demanded an immediate, unconditional, and permanent ceasefire in Gaza.

Also recently, the Fiji government approved the allocation of $1.12 million to establish an embassy “in the genocidal terror state of Israel as Fijians grapple with urgent issues, including poverty, violence against women and girls, deteriorating water and health infrastructure, drug use, high rates of HIV, poor educational outcomes, climate change, and unfair wages for workers”.

Met with ‘indifference’
The NGO coalition said that it had made repeated requests to the Fiji government to “do the bare minimum and enforce the basic tenets of international law on Israel”.

“We have been calling upon the Fiji government to uphold the principles of peace, justice, and human rights that our nation cherishes,” the statement said.

“We campaigned, we lobbied, we engaged, and we explained. We showed the evidence, pointed to the law, and asked our leaders to do the right thing.

“We’ve been met with nothing but indifference.”

Instead, said the NGO statement, Fiji leaders had met with Israeli government representatives and declared support for a country “committing the most heinous crimes” recognised in international law.

“Fijian leaders and the Fiji government should not be supporting Israel or setting up an embassy in Israel while Israel continues to bomb refugee tents, kill journalists and medics, and block the delivery of humanitarian aid to a population under relentless siege.

“No politician in Fiji can claim ignorance of what is happening.”

62,000 Palestinians killed
More than 62,000 Palestinians have been killed in the war on Gaza, most of them women and children.

“Many more have been maimed, traumatised, and displaced. Starvation is being used by Israel as weapon to kill babies and children.

“Hospitals, churches, mosques,, refugee camps, schools, universities, residential neighbourhoods, water and food facilities have been destroyed.

“History will judge how we respond as Fijians to this moment.

“Our rich cultural heritage and shared values teach us the importance of always standing up for what is right, even when it is not popular or convenient.”

Members of the Fiji NGO Coalition on Human Rights are Fiji Women’s Crisis Centre (chair), Fiji Women’s Rights Movement, Citizens’ Constitutional Forum, femLINKpacific, Social Empowerment and Education Programme, and Diverse Voices and Action (DIVA) for Equality Fiji.

Also, Pacific Network on Globalisation (PANG) is an observer.

The NGO coalition said it stood in solidarity with the Palestinian people out of a shared belief in humanity, justice, and the inalienable human rights of every individual.

“Silence is not an option,” it added.

Fijians for Palestine Solidarity Network said it supported this NGO coalition statement.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

Ken Klippenstein (Substack, 5/22/25) published a statement, ostensibly from embassy shooting suspect Elias Rodriguez, “citing the war in Gaza as its central grievance and framing the killings as an act of political protest.”

Elias Rodriguez is the suspect in the murder of two Israeli embassy workers in Washington, DC, outside a diplomatic reception at the Capital Jewish Museum. Journalist Ken Klippenstein (Substack, 5/22/25) has posted what he believes to be an authentic manifesto of the alleged shooter, a story that was subsequently reported on in the Jewish and Israeli press (Forward, 5/22/25; Israel Hayom, 5/22/25; Jewish Chronicle, 5/22/25). If the document is authentic, it appears the alleged gunman was violently opposed to the bloodbath in Gaza and the actions of the Israeli government.

Invoking the Palestinian death toll, the statement said, “The impunity that representatives of our government feel at abetting this slaughter should be revealed as an illusion.” It referenced the 1964 attempt on the life of Robert McNamara, Defense secretary in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, saying McNamara’s attacker was “incensed at the same impunity and arrogance he saw in that butcher of Vietnam.”

Rodriguez (AP, 5/22/25) reportedly told police, “I did it for Palestine, I did it for Gaza.”

‘Part of global surge’

Details are still emerging about how and why the shooter chose these two people at this particular event. The Washington Post (5/25/25) noted that the victims were both employees of the Israeli Embassy who had attended the Young Diplomats Reception, an annual event hosted by the American Jewish Committee, a Zionist organization. There is nothing in the public record that suggests Rodriguez harbored antisemitic sentiments or targeted his victims for being Jews. Rodriguez’ reported statements suggest that the assassinations were motivated by opposition to the Israeli invasion of Gaza. The words “Jew” or “Jewish” do not appear in his purported manifesto.

The Jewish Telegraphic Agency (5/22/25) reported that Rodriguez’ Chicago apartment had many political signs, including one that said “‘Tikkun Olam means FREE PALESTINE.’” The wire explained, “Tikkun olam is a Hebrew phrase meaning ‘repair the world’ that has come to reflect a shorthand for social justice.” It’s a phrase commonly used by progressive Jews, and dubious decor for an antisemite. (FAIR readers might remember the progressive Jewish magazine Tikkun, which recently closed—Forward, 4/15/24).

The New York Times (5/22/25) framed the embassy murders as “an extreme example of what law enforcement officials and others call a global surge in antisemitic incidents that emerged after Hamas terrorists killed more than 1,200 people and seized 250 hostages on October 7, 2023.”

But a New York Times report (5/22/25) asserted definitively that Rodriguez’ violent action was antisemitic and must be understood in the context of global anti-Jewish hate. “Slaying Outside DC Jewish Museum Is Part of Global Surge in Antisemitism,” announced the headline over the piece by White House correspondent Michael Shear. Its first paragraph implicitly attributed rising antisemitism to the Hamas attack of October 7, describing “a global surge in antisemitic incidents that emerged after Hamas terrorists killed more than 1,200 people and seized 250 hostages on October 7, 2023.”

The Times quoted a number of politicians and activists who labeled the shooting antisemitic. Shear wrote, for instance:

The shooting prompted fresh outcries from political leaders around the world, including President Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, both of whom expressed outrage at what they called evidence of antisemitic hatred. Mr. Trump wrote on his social media platform that “these horrible DC killings, based obviously on antisemitism, must end, NOW!”

Another key passage pinned rising antisemitism in the United States on the pro-Palestinian movement:

In the United States, the war and the pro-Palestinian movement have amped up tensions and fears about antisemitism. The shooting at the museum is the type of development that many Jews, as well as some Jewish scholars and activists, have been worried about and warning about. They argue that the explosion of antisemitic language has already led to violent personal attacks.

“You can’t draw a direct line from the campus to the gun,” said David Wolpe, who’s the emeritus rabbi of Sinai Temple in Los Angeles and who was a visiting scholar at Harvard Divinity School as campus protests broke out there last year.

“But the campuses normalized hate and anathematized Jews,” Rabbi Wolpe said. “Against that backdrop, violence is as unsurprising as it is appalling. After all, ‘globalize the intifada’ looks a lot like this.”

‘Corrosive to America’

The New York Post (5/22/25) said the embassy shooting was “antisemitic terrorism, as is nearly all ‘anti-Zionist’ action.”

None of these statements were ever countered or questioned in the piece, which more or less presented their viewpoint as unchallenged fact. While the Times prolifically cited those quick to conflate antisemitism and anti-Zionism, it failed to acknowledge that a great many American Jews have been protesting against the Israeli government’s attacks on civilians in Gaza, or to cite scholarship like that of Yael Feinberg, who has found that “there is no more important factor in explaining variation in antisemitic hate crimes in this country than Israel being engaged in a particularly violent military operation.”

This Times news story fits neatly into the message of the right’s editorials on the shooting. The Wall Street Journal editorial board (5/22/25) said that, in light of the shooting,

anti-Zionism, including enthusiasm for the total destruction of Israel and efforts to ostracize its domestic supporters, is corrosive to America and is stirring up old dangers for Jews.

Calling the killings “antisemitic terrorism,” the New York Post editorial board (5/22/25) said, “Rodriguez did just what all those college protesters have been demanding: ‘Globalize the intifada.’”

The Times jumped in on this Murdoch media rhetoric in a news article by Sharon Otterman (5/23/25), saying the killings

cast a harsh spotlight on the pro-Palestinian movement in the United States and the impact even peaceful protests might be having on attitudes against people connected to Israel.

It included this nugget:

Oren Segal, senior vice president of counter-extremism and intelligence at the Anti-Defamation League, said that while attending a rally or being a member of pro-Palestinian groups does not predict violence, the broader ecosystem being created, particularly online, by groups strongly opposed to Israel, “created an environment that made the tragedy last night more likely.”

Guilt by association

The New York Times (5/18/25) described the Heritage Foundation’s Project Esther as an effort  at “branding a broad range of critics of Israel as ‘effectively a terrorist support network,’ so that they could be deported, defunded, sued, fired, expelled, ostracized and otherwise excluded from what it considered ‘open society.’” (It dubiously calls this “an ambitious plan to fight antisemitism.”) 

The Times‘ Shear joined the right-wing Post and Journal in framing the attack as an act of antisemitism, as well as building a “guilt by association” narrative, implicating peaceful pro-Palestinian protesters rather than acknowledging any responsibility on the part of Israel’s war and its US backers. They suggest that, to stem antisemitism and acts of political violence against Israel, the logical solution is not to end the genocide, but to suppress and punish pro-Palestinian protest—something that the Trump administration will almost certainly use the embassy worker killings to do even more harshly (Jewish Currents, 5/23/25).

His reporting might have been better informed if he had read the piece by his Times colleague Katie J.M. Baker (New York Times, 5/18/25) about the Heritage Foundation’s agenda to destroy pro-Palestine activism. Baker wrote of Heritage’s “Project Esther“:

It singled out anti-Zionist groups that had organized pro-Palestinian protests, such as Jewish Voice for Peace and Students for Justice in Palestine, but the intended targets stretched much further. In pitch materials for potential donors, Heritage presented an illustration of a pyramid topped by “progressive ‘elites’ leading the way,” which included Jewish billionaires such as the philanthropist George Soros and Gov. JB Pritzker of Illinois.

Times columnist Michelle Goldberg (5/19/25) followed up to note that Project Esther targets “the majority of Jewish House Democrats who declined to censure their colleague Rashida Tlaib for anti-Israel language.” It “describes the Jewish congresswoman Jan Schakowsky as part of a ‘Hamas caucus’ in Congress, one that’s also supported by the Jewish senator Bernie Sanders.” Goldberg observed that “there’s something off about Project Esther’s definition of antisemitism,” because it so often “tags Jews as perpetrators.”

Antisemitic Zionists

Jewish Council for Public Affairs CEO Amy Spitalnick told NPR (5/14/25): “If the administration were serious about countering antisemitism, first and foremost they wouldn’t be appointing people with antisemitic and other extremist ties to senior roles within the administration.”

These passages in the Times allude to a point pro-Palestine advocates have made for a long time, which is that anti-Zionism not only isn’t antisemitism (many Jews are not Zionists, just as many Zionists are not Jews), but that a large part of the right-wing Zionist movement is inherently antisemitic. It’s often rooted in Christian apocalyptic fantasies in which Israel’s creation brings about the End Times.

The book One Palestine, Complete, by Israeli historian and journalist Tom Segev makes the case that under British rule in Palestine, between World War I and the founding of the Jewish state in 1948, the imperialists sided with Zionist forces against the Arabs not despite their Christian antisemitism, but because of it. In a fiery assessment of the recently deceased Jerry Falwell, journalist Christopher Hitchens told CNN’s Anderson Cooper (Anderson Cooper 360°, 5/15/07) that the minister spent his life “fawning on the worst elements in Israel, with his other hand pumping antisemitic innuendos into American politics,” along with other right-wing evangelists like Pat Robertson and Billy Graham. The white nationalist Richard Spencer admitted that he looked to Israel as a model of the white, gentile Xanadu he desired (Haaretz, 10/19/17).

Here at FAIR (5/1/05, 6/6/18, 11/6/23, 8/9/24, 2/19/25), we grow tired of having to point out that media, in the allegiance to the Israeli government narrative over Palestinian voices, use the insult of “antisemitism” to discredit criticism of Israel. Rodriguez’ alleged actions, of course, are not criticism but violence—murder is murder. But the Times’ evidence-free assertion that this attack was antisemitic adds to the false narrative that support for Palestine is inherently tied to bigotry against Jews.

In fact, news coverage of Jew-hatred should focus on the growing power of the racist right. The worst recent antisemitic incident in the United States was the Tree of Life synagogue shooting in Pittsburgh (Axios, 6/16/23), carried out by a shooter obsessed with right-wing media tropes about Jews and immigration (FAIR.org, 10/30/18).

That case was often linked to Dylann Roof, the Charleston church killer. While Roof targeted Black Christians, his manifesto “railed against Jews, Hispanics, African-Americans, gays and Muslims”; Roof said that Adolf Hitler would someday “be inducted as a saint” (New York Times, 1/5/17). In short, anti-Jewish vigilantes put antisemitic ideas in their manifestos, which it appears Rodriguez didn’t do.

By contrast, these chilling ideas are widespread on the right. The QAnon movement, a proximate cohort to MAGA Trumpism, is enmeshed with antisemitic conspiracism (Guardian, 8/25/20; Just Security, 9/9/20; Newsweek, 6/28/21). NPR (5/14/25) reported that its investigation “identified three Trump officials with close ties to antisemitic extremists, including a man described by federal prosecutors as a ‘Nazi sympathizer,’ and a prominent Holocaust denier.” Though the Jewish Democratic Council of America (5/21/25) lists the numerous antisemitic offenses of the Trump administration, that doesn’t seem to steer the coverage of the politics of antisemitism in the Times the way ADL’s spurious equation of pro-Palestinian with anti-Jewish does.

‘A much wider smear campaign’

Guardian (10/3/24): “Among the most violent incidents of the last year were the fatal Chicago stabbing of six-year-old Wadea al-Fayoume and a Vermont shooting of three Palestinian college students that left one of them, 21-year-old Hisham Awartani, paralyzed.”

It’s worth mentioning that anti-Muslim and anti-Arab sentiment has also increased since the October 7 attacks of 2023 (NBC News, 4/13/24; Guardian, 10/3/24; Al Jazeera, 3/11/25). An Illinois man was convicted earlier this year of “fatally stabbing a Palestinian-American child in 2023 and severely wounding his mother,” who reported him saying, “You, as a Muslim, must die” (BBC, 2/28/25). ABC affiliate WLS (5/24/25) reported that in the window of Rodriguez’ home in Chicago, law enforcement found a photo of Wadee Alfayoumi, the 6-year-old victim in this crime.

In New York City, a pro-Israel mob terrorized a random woman mistaken for a pro-ceasefire activist; in addition to hurling rape threats, the crowd was heard chanting “death to Arabs” (PBS, 4/28/25; Battleground, 5/2/25). No arrests have been made at this time (Hell Gate, 5/23/25).

Benjamin Balthaser, an associate professor of English at Indiana University/South Bend who writes widely on Jewish subjects, told FAIR:

Over the past year and a half, we have seen an intensification of claims that all criticism and protest against Israel’s ongoing war crimes in Gaza are just masked antisemitism, culminating with the deportation of students, the defunding of major universities, and the banning of lawful student organizations. The Heritage Foundation, as part of its “Project 2025,” has gone further, to claim that Palestine solidarity organizations such as Jewish Voice for Peace are directly connected to armed militant organizations such as Hamas, despite JVP’s commitment to nonviolence and a peaceful solution to the now nearly century-long conflict between Israel and Palestine.

Equating a lone gunman with campus protest not only lacks evidence, it is part of a much wider smear campaign with the sole intent to criminalize legitimate, legal protest for peace and human rights. It not only runs afoul of cherished American principles of the First Amendment, it also cheapens and hollows out any attempt to hold antisemites, such as in Trump’s cabinet, accountable.

What happened in DC was alarming news that needed to be reported. But Shear’s piece, along with propaganda in the Murdoch press, added to the false Israeli line that all the people condemning genocide in Palestine are violent Jew-haters—or, in the case of Jewish activists for Palestine, self-hating Jews.

Featured image: Embassy shooting suspect Elias Rodriguez, interviewed by Scripps News (1/23/18) at an anti-Amazon protest in 2018.

This content originally appeared on FAIR and was authored by Ari Paul.

The killing of Israeli embassy staffers Sarah Milgrim and Yaron Lischinsky as they were leaving an event at the Capital Jewish Museum located in downtown Washington, D.C. was such a chance. According to Yechiel Leitner, the Israeli ambassador to the US, the couple were to be engaged.

The suspect gunman, Elias Rodriguez, was arrested at the scene and taken away shouting: “Free Palestine!” In court documents submitted by the FBI, the suspect, in handing himself to the officers, stated his rationale for the shootings: “I did it for Palestine, I did it for Gaza, I am unarmed.” He also professed admiration for US Air Force member Aaron Bushnell, who immolated himself outside the Israeli embassy in February 2024 declaring that he would “no longer be complicit in genocide.” Rodriguez has been charged by the US attorney’s office in Washington with two counts of first-degree murder.

A grave, reflective response might have been in order. But the Netanyahu government has always been on the hunt for the political justification, and the political expedient. Given Netanyahu’s own political travails, be they corruption charges and his own unpopularity, this quest has become habitual. So it came to pass that Milgrim and Lischinsky could become a convenient platform to attack countries allied to Israel yet taking issue with the levelling and starving of Gaza.

The mood was set during a press conference given by Israel’s Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar on May 21. The slaying of Milgrim and Lischinsky was “the direct result of toxic antisemitic incitement against Israel and Jews around the world that has been going on since the October 7 massacre.” Israel’s missions and representatives across the globe had become “targets of antisemitic terrorism that has crossed all red lines.”

In suggesting “a direct line connecting antisemitic and anti-Israeli incitement to this murder”, Sa’ar accused “leaders and officials of many countries and international organizations, especially from Europe”, for being central instigators. They had resorted to “modern blood libels” in accusing Israel of “genocide, crimes against humanity and murdering babies”.

While not expressly mentioning them, the Foreign Minister was clearly referring to France, Britain and Canada and their joint statement of May 19 warning about the murderous implications of Operation Gideon’s Chariots. The statement affirmed the trio’s opposition to “the expansion of Israel’s military operations in Gaza.” Israel’s permission of “a basic quantity of food into Gaza” was condemned as wholly inadequate, while denying essential humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian population in the Strip was “unacceptable and risks breaching International Humanitarian Law.” The three countries further condemned “the abhorrent language used recently by members of the Israeli Government, threatening that, in their despair at the destruction of Gaza, civilians will start to relocate.”

The statement went on to warn that, were Israel not to cease pursuing such “egregious actions”, cease the ongoing military operation, and lift restrictions on humanitarian aid, “we will take further concrete actions in response.”

On May 20, in his address to the House of Commons, UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy noted the “abominable” situation of threatened “starvation hanging over hundreds of thousands of civilians.” He grimly noted the words of Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, who had spoken of “cleansing Gaza” and “destroying what’s left”, with the intention of relocating Palestinians to third countries. Such measures, for Lammy, were “morally unjustifiable, wholly disproportionate and utterly counter-productive.”

In light of such developments, negotiations with Israel over a new free trade agreement were to be suspended. A further three individuals and four entities involved in Israel’s illegal settler program in the West Bank were also to be sanctioned.

Israel’s Foreign Ministry was dismissive of the British position, calling the sanctions “regrettable”. “If, due to anti-Israel obsession and domestic political considerations, the British government is willing to harm the British economy – that is its own prerogative.”

It was Netanyahu, however, who pulled out all the stops. In a video address, he noted the words uttered by Rodriquez as he was taken away: “Free Palestine.” Finding such a statement obscene, he recalled that it was “the same chant we heard on October 7 [2023]”, when “thousands of terrorists stormed into Israel from Gaza”, proceeding to behead men, rape women and burn babies. To take “Free Palestine” as a serious proposition was “today’s version of ‘Heil Hitler.’” It was a “simple truth” that had evaded “the leaders of France, Britain, Canada and others.” In their proposals for establishing a Palestinian state, they were rewarding “these murderers with the ultimate price.”

French President Emmanuel Macron, British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and the Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney were roundly condemned for being on “the wrong side of justice”, “humanity” and “history”. They had been praised by “mass murderers, rapists, baby killers and kidnappers”. The PM’s objective was simple: avoiding the establishment of any Palestinian state, as it was bound to be vulnerable to seizure by “radicals”. It was axiomatic that such an entity would wish for the destruction of the Jewish state. The picture becomes complete: Israel’s operations, totally justified on national security grounds; critics, abominated as hateful antisemites; the Palestinians, radicals current or in embryo needing to be rubbed out.

No one doubts that the reserves of antisemitism run deep, clouded by miasmic, millennial hatreds. Few can also doubt that a dislike of policies driven by ethno-religious fanaticism contemptuous of human rights is a valid ground of protest. That this should end up in killings of individuals attending an event about humanitarian aid that would have otherwise appalled Netanyahu, Ben Gvir, et al., is another, disturbing irony. Fanaticism diminishes the horizon, leaving human beings bare, and hollow, and naked. And that baring is currently underway with remorseless intensity in Gaza.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Binoy Kampmark.

We speak with Israeli journalist Gideon Levy after a young Israeli couple was shot dead in Washington, D.C. Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Lynn Milgrim both worked at the Israeli Embassy and were killed by a gunman after leaving the Capital Jewish Museum Wednesday night. The couple were dating and about to get engaged, the embassy said. Police identified Elias Rodriguez of Chicago as the suspect in custody. Video shows Rodriguez shouting “Free Palestine” during his arrest, and authorities are investigating the incident as a potential hate crime.

“This incident can be only condemned. Nothing that Israel is doing can justify such a murder,” says Levy. He adds that incidents like the Washington killings are adding to a growing sense inside Israel that “because of the war in Gaza, Israel is turning into a pariah state.”

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

Meanwhile, a note verbale (a diplomatic message or memo) signed by former Israeli ambassador to India Naor Gilon was shared on social media. In the note, Israel has seemingly accused an unnamed Indian Army officer of sexually abusing Israeli Defense Force female soldier Tzipi Cohen during a military exercise in Jammu and Kashmir. It is also mentioned that the incident marked a violation of India’s obligations under customary international law and called for a prompt, transparent and impartial investigation.

Pakistani X handle @commandeleven claimed that the Embassy of Israel had issued a note of formal diplomatic protest (Note Verbale) to the Indian ministry of external affairs accusing Indian Army Colonel Kamaldeep Singh, Commanding Officer of 6 Para (SF) of sexually assaulting IDF Sergeant Tzipi Cohen during a joint military exercise in the Jammu region of Kashmir. (Archived link)

Pakistani propaganda handle @MaddyViews also made a similar claim on X. (Archived link)

Pakistani website ‘The Pakistan Frontier’ made a similar claim by sharing a poster on its official Facebook page and Instagram. (Archived link 1, link 2)

Fact Check

Alt News noticed that the viral Note Verbale is signed by former Israeli Ambassador to India Naor Gilon, who was serving as Israel’s Ambassador to India until 2024, while the current ambassador is Reuven Azar.

A “Note Verbale” is a diplomatic communication sent from one government to another, and it is officially delivered through the embassy. It is a kind of formal communication that is usually written in the third person and not signed.

We performed a customised keyword search using terms from the Israeli Embassy’s Note Verbale, as per the viral claim, but could not find any credible media reports that could confirm this viral claim.

Next, Alt News came across a post by the Israeli Embassy in India on X (formerly Twitter). In this post, the screenshot of the viral ‘Note Verbale’ has been posted and the alleged claims have been denied and this ‘Note Verbale’ has also been called fake. The accompanying caption reads, “Unbelievable, the relationship between Israel and India is so solid, haters resort to fake news to try to harm it. It will not work.”

Unbelievable!
The bond between Israel and India is so solid, haters resort to fake news to try to harm it.
It won’t work.
#FakeNews #FactCheck #Pahalgam pic.twitter.com/KgX9HQe3Lh

— Israel in India (@IsraelinIndia) April 30, 2025

In other words, the Embassy of Israel has not issued any ‘Note Verbale’ to the Union ministry of external affairs of India. Furthermore, the viral claim that an Indian Army officer sexually harassed an Israeli female soldier is also false.

The post Israel embassy refutes claims of IDF soldier’s sexual assault by Indian Army colonel amplified by Pak accounts appeared first on Alt News.

This content originally appeared on Alt News and was authored by Pawan Kumar.

Filipo Tarakinikini has been appointed as Fiji’s Ambassador-designate to Israel.

This has been stated on two official X, formerly Twitter, handle posts overnight.

“#Fiji is determined to deepen its relations with #Israel as Fiji’s Ambassador-designate to Israel, HE Ambassador @AFTarakinikini prepares to present his credentials on 28 April, 2025,” stated the Fiji at UN twitter account.

• READ MORE: Israel accused at ICJ of using aid as ‘weapons of war’ and trying to ‘destroy’ Palestinian people
• Israel’s restrictions on UN agencies in Gaza highlighted at world court
• Other Israeli war on Palestine reports

Tarakinikini is also Fiji’s current Ambassador to the United Nations.

In a separate post, Deputy Director-General Eynat Shlein of Israel’s international development cooperation agency said she was “honoured” to meet Tarakinikini.

“We discussed the vast cooperation opportunities, promoting & enhancing sustainable development, emphasizing investment in capacity building & human capital,” she said on X.

Fiji is only the seventh country in the world to open an embassy in Israel.

Republished from The Fiji Times with permission.

Centre of controversy
Pacific Media Watch reports that Lieutenant-Colonel Tarakinikini was at the centre of controversy in Fiji in 2005 when he was declared a “deserter” by the Fiji military.

However, from 1979 to 2002, he served in the Fiji Military Forces, including eight years in United Nations peacekeeping missions, among them, south Lebanon and the Multinational Force in Sinai, Egypt.

Great honor to have have this timely briefing @EynatShlein, Ambassador Roi @IsraelMFA #Fiji is determined to deepen its relations with #Israel as Fiji’s Ambassador-designate to Israel, HE Ambassador @AFTarakinikini prepares to present his credentials on 28 April, 2025 … https://t.co/mGPKjYM5Qc

— Fiji at the UN (@FijiMissionUN) April 27, 2025

Beginning in 2003, he was the UN Department for Security and Safety’s (UNDSS) Chief Security Adviser in Jerusalem, as well as in Kathmandu, Nepal, from 2006 to 2008.

From 2008 to 2018, he served in numerous United Nations integrated assessment missions, programme working groups, restructuring and redeployments and technical assessment missions.

‘Weapons of war’
Yesterday, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) began week-long hearings at The Hague into global accusations of Israel using starvation and humanitarian aid as “weapons of war” and failing to meet its obligations to the Palestinian people in Gaza as the occupying power in its genocidal war on the besieged enclave.

Forty countries are expected to give evidence.

The ICJ has been tasked by the UN with providing an advisory opinion “on a priority basis and with the utmost urgency”.

Although the ICJ judges’ opinion is not binding, it provides clarity on legal questions.

In January 2024, the ICJ ruled that Israel must take “all measures” to prevent a genocide in Gaza.

Then in June, it said in an advisory opinion that Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza was illegal.

Both Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant are wanted on arrest warrants by the International Criminal Court (ICC) to face charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

A Fiji-based Pacific solidarity group supporting the indigenous Palestine struggle for survival against the Israeli settler colonial state has today issued a statement condemning Fiji backing for Israel.

In an open letter to the “people of Fiji”, the Fijians for Palestine Solidarity Network (F4P) has warned “your government openly supports Israel despite its genocidal campaign against Palestinians”.

“It is directly complicit in Israel’s genocide against Palestinians and history will not forgive their inaction.”

• READ MORE: Global watchdog condemns Fiji for ‘blocking’ protest marches over Gaza genocide
• Other Fiji support for Israel reports

The group said the struggle resonated with all who believed in justice, equality, and the fundamental rights of every human being.

Fijians for Palestine has condemned Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka’s coalition government plans to open a Fijian embassy in Jerusalem with Israeli backing and has launched a “No embassy on occupied land” campaign.

The group likened the Palestine liberation struggle to Pacific self-determination campaigns in Bougainville, “French” Polynesia, Kanaky and West Papua.

Global voices for end to violence
The open letter on social media said:

“Our solidarity with the Palestinian people is a testament to our shared humanity. We believe in a world where diversity, is treated with dignity and respect.

“We dream of a future where children in Gaza can play without fear, where families can live without the shadow of war, and where the Palestinian people can finally enjoy the peace and freedom they so rightly deserve.

“We join the global voices demanding a permanent ceasefire and an end to the violence. We express our unwavering solidarity with the Palestinian people.

“The Palestinian struggle is not just a regional issue; it is a testament to the resilience of a people who, despite facing impossible odds, continue to fight for their right to exist, freedom, and dignity. Their struggle resonates with all who believe in justice, equality, and the fundamental rights of every human being.

“The images of destruction, the stories of families torn apart, and the cries of children caught in the crossfire are heart-wrenching. These are not mere statistics or distant news stories; these are real people with hopes, dreams, and aspirations, much like us.

“As Fijians, we have always prided ourselves on our commitment to peace, unity, and humanity. Our rich cultural heritage and shared values teach us the importance of standing up for what is right, even when it is not popular or convenient.

“We call on you to stand in solidarity with the Palestinian people this Thursday with us, not out of political allegiance but out of a shared belief in humanity, justice, and the inalienable human rights of every individual.

“There can be no peace without justice, and we stand in unity with all people and territories struggling for self-determination and freedom from occupation. The Pacific cannot be an Ocean of Peace without freedom and self determination in Palestine, West Papua, Kanaky and all oppressed territories.

“To the Fijian people, please know that your government openly supports Israel despite its genocidal campaign against Palestinians. It is directly complicit in Israel’s genocide against Palestinians and history will not forgive their inaction.”

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

Today I attended a demonstration outside both Aotearoa New Zealand’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Israeli Embassy in Wellington.

The day before, the Israelis had blown apart 174 children in Gaza in a surprise attack that announced the next phase of the genocide.

About 174 Wellingtonians turned up to a quickly-called protest: they are the best of us — the best of Wellington.

• READ MORE: Israel kills 71 in predawn attacks on Gaza — Netanyahu warns of ‘fierce’ war
• Netanyahu commits a new ‘bloodbath in Gaza’ to save himself
• Other Gaza genocide reports

In 2023, the City made me an Absolutely Positively Wellingtonian for service across a number of fronts (water infrastructure, conservation, coastal resilience, community organising) but nothing I have done compares with the importance of standing up for the victims of US-Israeli violence.

What more can we do?  And then it crossed my mind: “Declare Wellington Genocide Free”.  And if Wellington could, why not other cities?

Wellington started nuclear-free drive
The nuclear-free campaign, led by Wellington back in the 1980s, is a template worth reviving.

Wellington became the first city in New Zealand — and the first capital in the world — to declare itself nuclear free in 1982.  It followed the excellent example of Missoula, Montana, USA, the first city in the world to do so, in 1978.

These were tumultuous times. I vividly remember heading into Wellington harbour on a small yacht, part of a peace flotilla made up of kayakers, yachties and wind surfers that tried to stop the USS Texas from berthing. It won that battle that day but we won the war.

This was the decade which saw the French government’s terrorist bomb attack on a Greenpeace ship in Auckland harbour to intimidate the anti-nuclear movement.

Also, 2025 is the 40th anniversary of the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior and the death of Fernando Pereira. Little Island Press will be reissuing a new edition of my friend David Robie’s book Eyes of Fire later this year. It tells the incredible story of the final voyage of the Rainbow Warrior.

Standing up to bullies
Labour under David Lange successfully campaigned and won the 1984 elections on a nuclear-free platform which promised to ban nuclear ships from our waters.

This was a time when we had a government that had the backbone to act independently of the US. Yes, we had a grumpy relationship with the Yanks for a while and we were booted out of ANZUS — surely a cause for celebration in contrast to today when our government is little more than a finger puppet for Team Genocide.

In response to bullying from Australia and the US, David Lange said at the time:  “It is the price we are prepared to pay.”

With Wellington in the lead, nuclear-free had moved over the course of a decade from a fringe peace movement to the mainstream and eventually to become government policy.

The New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act 1987 was passed and remains a cornerstone of our foreign policy.

New Zealand took a stand that showed strong opposition to out-of-control militarism, the risks of nuclear war, and strong support for the international movement to step back from nuclear weapons.

It was a powerful statement of our independence as a nation and a rejection of foreign dominance. It also reduced the risk of contamination in case of a nuclear accident aboard a vessel (remember this was the same decade as the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in Ukraine).

The nuclear-free campaign and Palestine
Each of those points have similarities with the Palestinian cause today and should act as inspiration for cities to mobilise and build national solidarity with the Palestinians.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

Fijian Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka’s announcement this week that the island nation will open a diplomatic mission in Jerusalem has been labelled “an act of aggression” by Palestine.

On Tuesday, the Fiji government revealed that Cabinet had decided to locate its consulate in Jerusalem, which remains at the centre of the Palestine-Israel decades-long conflict.

According to an overwhelming United Nations General Assembly Resolution ES‑10/19 on 21 December 2017 (128-9), Israel’s claim to Jerusalem as capital of Israel is “null and void”.

• READ MORE: Palestine condemns Fiji’s decision to open embassy to Israel in Jerusalem
• Palestine and Gaza’s Hamas resistance condemn Fiji over embassy plan
• Other Israel’s war on Gaza reports

Previous UN Security Council resolutions demarcated Jerusalem as the capital of the future state of Palestine.

The Fijian government said in a statement: “Necessary risk assessments will be undertaken by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Defence, in consultation with relevant agencies, prior to and during the establishment process.”

Fiji and Israel established diplomatic relations in 1970 and have partnerships in security and peacekeeping, agriculture, and climate change.

In a Facebook post on Wednesday, Rabuka said he “received a phone call from my friend Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, expressing his gratitude for Fiji’s decision to open a diplomatic mission in Jerusalem.”

“Even though very brief, we reaffirmed our commitment to strengthening Fiji-Israel ties,” he said.

I commend the Republic of Fiji’s government for its historic decision to open an embassy in Jerusalem, the eternal capital of the Jewish people. Thank you, Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka @slrabuka, friend of Israel. Thank you Fiji! pic.twitter.com/IxCkjPnhQ6

— Gideon Sa’ar | גדעון סער (@gidonsaar) February 18, 2025

“I also took the opportunity to express my deepest condolences for the tragic events of October 7, 2023, when Hamas attacked innocent lives in Israel.

Palestine’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs condemned Rabuka’s decision and is demanding the Fijian government “immediately reverse this provocative decision.”

‘Violating international law’
“With this decision, Fiji becomes the seventh country to violate international law and UN resolutions regarding the city’s legal and political status and the rights of the Palestinian people,” it said in a statement.

The seven countries include Papua New Guinea.

The Palestinian Ministry of Foreign Affairs strongly condemns the decision of PM @slrabuka to relocate Fiji’s embassy to occupied #Jerusalem.

This move blatantly violates international law and UN resolutions, and places #Fiji on the wrong side of history. https://t.co/5x1bCECNXO

— Palestine Australia, Aotearoa NZ and Pacific (@PalestineAusNZ) February 19, 2025

“This decision is an act of aggression against the Palestinian people and their rights.

“It places Fiji on the wrong side of history, harms the chances of achieving peace based on the two-state solution, and represents unacceptable support for the occupation and its crimes.”

The statement added that Fiji’s move “blatantly defies UN resolutions at a time when the occupying power is escalating its attacks against Palestinians across all of the Palestinian Territory, attempting to displace them from their homeland.”

The ministry said that it would continue to take political, diplomatic, and legal action against countries that opened or moved their embassies to Jerusalem.

“It will work to hold them accountable for their unjustified actions against the Palestinian people and their rights.”

In September 2024, Fiji was one of seven Pacific Island nations that voted against a United Nations resolution to end Israel’s occupation of Palestine.

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

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

Palestine has strongly condemned Fiji’s decision to open a Fiji embassy in Jerusalem, calling it a violation of international law and relevant United Nations resolutions.

The Palestinian Foreign Ministry and the Hamas resistance group that governs the besieged enclave of Gaza issued separate statements, urging the Fiji government to reverse its decision.

According to the Palestinian Foreign Ministry, the Fijian decision is “an act of aggression against the Palestinian people and their inalienable rights”.

• READ MORE: UN rights expert calls for Gaza medical director Dr Abu Safia’s release
• Other Israel’s war on Gaza reports

The Palestinian group Hamas said in a statement that the decision was “a blatant assault on the rights of our Palestinian people to their land and a clear violation of international law and UN resolutions, which recognise Jerusalem as occupied Palestinian territory”.

Fiji will become the seventh country to have an embassy in Jerusalem after the US, Guatemala, Honduras, Kosovo, Papua New Guinea, and Paraguay.

• The United Nations General Assembly voted overwhelmingly on 18 September 2024 (124-14) to adopt a resolution that demands Israel “brings to an end without delay its unlawful presence” in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

Republished from The Fiji Times with permission.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

Fiji has reaffirmed its commitment to establishing an embassy in Israel, with plans to open the embassy in Jerusalem, despite global condemnation of Tel Aviv over the war in Gaza.

This announcement came as the Coalition Cabinet prepared to discuss the matter in Suva next week, reports Fiji One News.

Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka made these remarks during a bilateral meeting with Israeli Foreign Affairs Minister Sa’ar Gideon Moshe on the sidelines of the 61st session of the Munich Security Conference, which opened yesterday in Germany.

• READ MORE: Hamas, PIJ free three Israeli captives in Gaza’s Khan Younis – 369 Palestinians to be freed
• Fiji human rights group condemns ‘troubling’ support for Israel at ICJ
• Fiji’s position over Israeli war on Gaza – international blunder or a domestic strategy? — Richard Naidu
• Other Fiji and Israel reports

The discussions between the two leaders focused on deepening the partnership in various areas of mutual interest, including agriculture, security and peacekeeping, and climate action initiatives.

Prime Minister Rabuka expressed gratitude to the Israeli government for their continued support over the years.

Fiji and Israel have maintained diplomatic relations since 1970, and their cooperation has spanned areas such as security, peacekeeping, and climate change.

In recent years, Israeli technology has played a crucial role in Fiji’s efforts to combat climate change.

Invitation to Rabuka to visit Israel
During the meeting, Minister Moshe extended an invitation to Prime Minister Rabuka to visit Israel as part of ongoing efforts to strengthen diplomatic ties.

The Israeli government also expressed readiness to assist Fiji in its plans to establish an embassy in Jerusalem.

Additionally, in response to a request from Prime Minister Rabuka, Minister Moshe offered support for providing patrol boats to enhance Fiji’s fight against illicit drugs.

The last time Israel provided patrol boats to Fiji was in 1987, when four Dabur-class boats were supplied to the Fiji Navy.

Both leaders acknowledged significant opportunities for collaboration and expressed optimism about further strengthening bilateral relations in the future.

Fiji defies UN, global condemnation of Israel
Asia Pacific Report comments: Fiji has been consistently the leading Pacific country supporting Israel, in defiance of United Nations resolutions and global condemnation of Tel Aviv in the 15-month war on Gaza that has killed at least 47,000 Palestinians — mostly women and children.

Israel currently faces allegations of genocide in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) by South Africa and a growing number of other countries, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minster Yoav Gallant are wanted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Last September, the UN General Assembly voted overwhelmingly in a resolution (124-43) that Israel end its “unlawful presence” in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and demanded that it withdraw without delay.

Vanuatu was the only Pacific island country to vote for this resolution.

East Jerusalem is planned to become the capital of an independent Palestinian state.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

Life is often hard for overseas North Korean workers. As much as 80% of their earnings are thought to be handed over to their government. They are forced to surrender their passports, leaving the workers vulnerable to abuse. They spend long stretches away from their families. 

But in some instances living beyond North Korea’s borders can bring comparatively greater freedoms and luxuries, although workers are still closely monitored, according to Ryu Hyun-woo, a former North Korean ambassador to Kuwait who now lives in South Korea. 

SEE RELATED STORIES

100,000 North Korean work abroad, earning $500 million a year

North Korean companies scrambling to send workers to Chinese factories

North Korea orders return of workers in China stranded by the pandemic

The white, two-story embassy in Dakar had a pool, a rooftop deck and a large room for hosting guests. Among the litter left were wrappings for Chinese noodles and an empty DVD box. 

One poster still on the wall warned of a potential threat: mixing the wrong type of foods. Beef and spinach can cause a stomach ache; pork and ginger a sore throat. Hyun-woo said he created a similar list when he was in Kuwait before he defected. 

“Since we’re not always familiar with the types of food in a place like Senegal, or whether they suit our tastes, it’s sensible to be aware of food that shouldn’t be eaten together,” Hyun-woo said in an interview with RFA Korean.

Edited by Jim Snyder.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Jaewoo Park and Hyung Jun You for RFA Korean.

By Laraswati Ariadne Anwar in Suva

The Pacific Island countries are Indonesia’s neighbours. However, so far they are not very familiar to the ears of the Indonesian people.

One example is Fiji, the largest country in the Pacific Islands. This country, which consists of 330 islands and a population of 924,000 people, has actually had relations with Indonesia for 50 years.

In the context of regional geopolitics, Fiji is the anchor of Indonesian diplomacy in the Pacific.

• READ MORE:  When media freedom as the ‘oxygen of democracy’ and hypocrisy share the same Pacific arena — Pacific Media Watch
• Other Pacific Media Conference reports

Fiji is known as a gateway to the Pacific. This status has been held for centuries because, as the largest country and with the largest port, practically all commodities entering the Pacific Islands must go through Fiji.

Along with Papua New Guinea, Vanuatu, and the Front de Libération Nationale Kanak et Socialiste (FLNKS) of New Caledonia, Fiji forms the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG).

Indonesia now has the status of a associate member of the MSG, or one level higher than an observer.

For Indonesia, this closeness to the MSG is important because it is related to affirming Indonesia’s sovereignty.

Human rights violations
The MSG is very critical in monitoring the handling of human rights violations that occur in Papua. In terms of sovereignty, the MSG acknowledges Indonesia’s sovereignty as recorded in the Charter of the United Nations.

The academic community in Fiji is also highlighting human rights violations in Papua. As a Melanesian nation, the Fijian people sympathise with the Papuan community.

In Fiji, some individuals hold anti-Indonesian sentiment and support pro-independence movements in Papua. In several civil society organisations in Suva, the capital of Fiji, the Morning Star flag of West Papuan independence is also raised in solidarity.

Even so, Fijian academics realise that they lack context in examining Indonesian problems. This emerged in a talanoa or focused discussion with representatives of universities and Fiji’s mainstream media with a media delegation from Indonesia. The event was organised by the Indonesian Embassy in Suva.

Academics say that reading sources about Indonesia generally come from 50 years ago, causing them to have a limited understanding of developments in Indonesia. When examined, Indonesian journalists also found that they themselves lacked material about the Pacific Islands.

Both the Fiji and Indonesian groups realise that the information they receive about each other mainly comes from Western media. In practice, there is scepticism about coverage crafted according to a Western perspective.

“There must be open and meaningful dialogue between the people of Fiji and Indonesia in order to break down prejudices and provide space for contextual critical review into diplomatic relations between the two countries,” said Associate Professor Shailendra Singh, a former journalist who is now head of the journalism programme at the University of the South Pacific (USP). He was also chair of the 2024 Pacific International Media Conference Committee which was attended by the Indonesian delegation.

‘Prejudice’ towards Indonesia
According to experts in Fiji, the prejudice of the people in that country towards Indonesia is viewed as both a challenge and an opportunity to develop a more quality and substantive relationship.

In that international conference, representatives of mainstream media in the Pacific Islands criticised and expressed their dissatisfaction with donors.

The Pacific Islands are one of the most foreign aid-receiving regions in the world. Fiji is among the top five Pacific countries supported by donors.

Based on the Lowy Institute’s records from Australia as of October 31, 2023, there are 82 donor countries in the Pacific with a total contribution value of US$44 billion. Australia is the number one donor, followed by China.

The United States and New Zealand are also major donors. This situation has an impact on geopolitical competition issues in the region.

Indonesia is on the list of 82 countries, although in terms of the amount of funding contributed, it lags behind countries with advanced economies. Indonesia itself does not take the position to compete in terms of the amount of funds disbursed.

Thus, the Indonesian Ambassador to Fiji, Nauru, Kiribati, and Tuvalu, Dupito Simamora, said that Indonesia was present to bring a new colour.

“We are present to focus on community empowerment and exchange of experiences,” he said.

An example is the empowerment of maritime, capture fisheries, coffee farming, and training for immigration officers. This is more sustainable compared to the continuous provision of funds.

Maintaining ‘consistency’
Along with that, efforts to introduce Indonesia continue to be made, including through arts and culture scholarships, Dharmasiswa (a one-year non-degree scholarship programme offered to foreigners), and visits by journalists to Indonesia. This is done so that the participating Fiji community can experience for themselves the value of Bhinneka Tunggal Ika — the official motto of Indonesia, “Unity in diversity”.

Indonesia has also offered itself to Fiji and the Pacific Islands as a “gateway” to Southeast Asia. Fiji has the world’s best-selling mineral water product, Fiji Water. They are indeed targeting expanding their market to Southeast Asia, which has a population of 500 million people.

The Indonesian Embassy in Suva analysed the working pattern of the BIMP-EAGA, or the East ASEAN economic cooperation involving Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei Darussalam and the Philippines. From there, a model that can be adopted which will be communicated to the MSG and developed according to the needs of the Pacific region.

In the ASEAN High-Level Conference of 2023, Indonesia initiated a development and empowerment cooperation with the South Pacific that was laid out in a memorandum of understanding between ASEAN and the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF).

At the World Water Forum (WWF) 2024 and the Island States Forum (AIS), the South Pacific region is one of the areas highlighted for cooperation. Climate crisis mitigation is a sector that is being developed, one of which is the cultivation of mangrove plants to prevent coastal erosion.

For Indonesia, cooperation with the Pacific is not just diplomacy. Through ASEAN, Indonesia is pushing for the ASEAN Outlook on the Indo-Pacific (AOIP). Essentially, the Indo-Pacific region is not an extension of any superpower.

All geopolitical and geo-economic competition in this region must be managed well in order to avoid conflict.

Indigenous perspectives
In the Indo-Pacific region, PIF and the Indian Ocean Rim Association (IORA) are important partners for ASEAN. Both are original intergovernmental organisations in the Indo-Pacific, making them vital in promoting a perception of the Indo-Pacific that aligns with the framework and perspective of indigenous populations.

On the other hand, Indonesia’s commitment to the principle of non-alignment was tested. Indonesia, which has a free-active foreign policy policy, emphasises that it is not looking for enemies.

However, can Indonesia guarantee the Pacific Islands that the friendship offered is sincere and will not force them to form camps?

At the same time, the Pacific community is also observing Indonesia’s sincerity in resolving various cases of human rights violations, especially in Papua. An open dialogue on this issue could be evidence of Indonesia’s democratic maturity.

Republished from Kompas in partnership with The University of the South Pacific.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

The occasion was whether the UK High Court of Justice would grant Assange leave to appeal his extradition to the United States to face 18 charges, 17 hewn from the monstrous quarry that is the Espionage Act of 1917.  He is wanted for receiving and publishing classified US government materials comprising diplomatic cables, the files of those detained in Guantanamo Bay, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Any computed sentence, glacially calculated at 175 years, would effectively spell his end.

News on the legal front has often been discomforting for Assange and his supporters.  The US has been favoured, repeatedly, in various appeals, chalking up the lion’s share of victories since successfully overturning the decision by Judge Vanessa Baraitser to bar extradition in January 2021 on mental health grounds.  But Justice Johnson and Dame Victoria Sharp of the High Court of Justice in London promised to keep matters interesting.

A key sticking point in the proceedings has been whether the First Amendment would protect Assange’s publishing activity in the course of any trial in the US.  The attitude from the central US prosecutor in the extradition proceedings, Gordon Kromberg, and former Secretary of State and ex-CIA director Mike Pompeo, has been one of hearty disapproval that it should.

Pompeo’s remarks in an infamous April 2017 address as CIA director to the Center for Strategic and International Studies openly branded WikiLeaks “a hostile intelligence service” that proselytised in the cause of transparency and aided such powers as Russia.  Assange “and his kind” were “not in the slightest bit interested in improving civil liberties or enhancing personal freedom.  They have pretended that America’s First Amendment freedom shield them from justice.”  They were “wrong” to have thought so.

On January 17, 2020, Kromberg submitted an affidavit to the UK district court that was eye opening on the subject.  The following remains salient: “Concerning any First Amendment challenge, the United States could argue that foreign nationals are not entitled to protections under the First Amendment, at least as it concerns national defense information, and even were they so entitled, that Assange’s conduct is unprotected because of his complicity in illegal acts and in publishing the names of innocent sources to their grave and imminent risk of harm.”

In March 2024, the High Court curtly dismissed six of the nine arguments submitted by Assange in part of his effort to seek a review of the entire case.  The judges, anchoring themselves in the initial reasoning of the district court judge, refused to accept that he was being charged with a political offence, something barred by the US-UK Extradition Treaty, or that the CIA had breached lawyer-client privilege in having spied on him in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, not to mention the serious thought given to abduction and assassination.

The judges gave the prosecution a heavy olive branch, implying that the case for extradition would be stronger if a number of assurances could be made by the US prosecution.  These were, in turn, that Assange be offered First Amendment protections, despite him not being deemed a journalist; that he not be prejudiced, both during the trial and in sentence, on account of his nationality, and that he not be subject to the death penalty. The insistence on such undertakings had a slightly unreal, woolly-headed air to them.

On April 16, the US State Department filed the fangless assurances in a diplomatic note to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).  “Assange will not be prejudiced by reason of nationality with respect to which defenses he may seek to raise at trial and at sentencing.”  If extradited, he could still “raise and seek to rely upon at trial (which includes any sentencing hearing) the rights and protections given under the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.  A decision as to the applicability of the First Amendment is exclusively within the purview of the US Courts.”

The US authorities further undertook to avoid seeking or imposing the death sentence. “The United States is able to provide such assurance as Assange is not charged with a death-penalty eligible offense, and the United States assures that he will not be tried for a death-eligible offense.”  This can only be taken as conjecture, given the latitude the prosecution has in laying further charges that carry the death penalty should Assange find himself in US captivity.

In court, Edward Fitzgerald KC, representing Assange, explained with cold sobriety that such an assurance made no guarantee that Assange could rely on the First Amendment at trial. “It does not commit the prosecution to take the point, which gave rise to this court’s concerns, i.e. the point that as a foreign citizen he is not entitled to rely on the First Amendment, at least in relation to a national security matter.”  In any case, US courts were hardly bound by it, a point emphasised in the statement given by defence witness and former US district judge, Professor Paul Grimm.  It followed that the assurance was “blatantly inadequate” and “would cause the applicant prejudice on the basis of his nationality.”

Written submissions to the court from Assange’s legal team also argued that discrimination “on grounds that a person is a foreigner, whether on the basis that they are a foreign national or a foreign citizen, is plainly within the scope of the prohibition [against extradition under the UK Extradition Act 2003].  ‘Prejudice at trial’ must include exclusion on grounds of citizenship from fundamental substantive rights that can be asserted at trial.  On the US argument, trial procedures could discriminate on grounds of citizenship.”

In response, the US submitted arguments of a headshaking quality.  Through James Lewis KC, it was submitted that the High Court had erred in its March judgment in equating “prejudice on grounds of foreign nationality with discrimination on grounds of foreign citizenship”.  The UK Extradition Act mentions “nationality” in preference to “citizenship”.  These terms were not “synonymous”.

According to Lewis, Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) protecting journalists and whistleblowers was qualified by conduct “within the tenets of reasonable and responsible journalism”. One factor in this context “whether it is reasonable and responsible is where the publication took place – inside a member state’s territory or outside a member state’s territory.”

The prosecution’s written submissions summarise the points.  The First Amendment’s applicability to Assange’s case depended on “the components of (1) conduct on foreign (outside the United States of America) soil; (2) non-US citizenship; and (3) national defense information”. Assange, Lewis elaborated, “will be able to rely on it but that does not mean the scope will cover the conduct he is accused of.”

The prosecution suggested that former US Army whistleblower Chelsea Manning, a vital source for WikiLeaks, had been unable to rely on the First Amendment, limiting the possibility that its protections could extend to covering Assange.

Mark Summers KC, also representing Assange, was bemused. “The fact that Chelsea Manning was found in the end to have no substantial First Amendment claims tells you nothing at all.  She was a government employee, not a publisher.”

He also made the point that “You can be a national without being a citizen [but] you cannot be a citizen without nationality.”  It followed that discrimination arising out of citizenship would result in discrimination based on nationality, and nothing adduced by the prosecution in terms of case law suggested otherwise.

Unconvinced by the prosecution’s contorted reasoning, Dame Victoria Sharp agreed to grant leave to Assange to appeal on the grounds he is at risk of discrimination by virtue of his nationality, in so far as it affects his right to assert protections afforded by Article 10 of the ECHR and the First Amendment.

It remains to be seen whether this legal victory for the ailing Australian will yield a sweet harvest rather than the bitter fruit it has.  He remains Britain’s most prominent political prisoner, held in unpardonable conditions, refused bail and subject to jailing conditions vicariously approved by those in Washington.  In the meantime, the public campaign to drop the indictment and seek his liberation continues to ripen.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Binoy Kampmark.

“Twenty-five years ago today, NATO flagrantly bombed the Chinese Embassy in Yugoslavia, killing three Chinese journalists,” Xi wrote in the Serbian daily Politika prior to his arrival on a flight from Paris.

“This we should never forget,” Xi wrote. “The Chinese people cherish peace, but we will never allow such tragic history to repeat itself.”

Three Chinese journalists were killed and 20 Chinese nationals were wounded in the May 7, 1999, attack during the Kosovo War, which prompted outrage in China and an apology from then-U.S. President Bill Clinton.

The embassy was hit during a campaign against the then Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to force late Serbian strongman Slobodan Milosevic to end a crackdown on ethnic Albanians in Kosovo.

The United States blamed the bombing on a CIA mapping error.

Xi’s warnings about the “flagrant” NATO aggression come as Beijing steadfastly stands by Moscow amid its invasion of Ukraine.

China has repeatedly amplified Russian claims its invasion of Ukraine was forced by the expansion into Eastern Europe of NATO, which the United States and other NATO members insist is a defensive pact but Moscow slams as a threat to its “legitimate security interests.”

European tour

Xi’s visit to Serbia is the second stop of three in Europe – after France and before Hungary – as Beijing tries to cleave off the continent from decades of geopolitical alliance with Washington.

In Politika, Xi also hailed the “iron-clad friendship” between China and Serbia, which he said was “forged with the blood of our compatriots.”

China has poured billions into Serbia and neighboring Balkan countries – in particular into mining and manufacturing sectors – and last year Beijing and EU-applicant Belgrade signed a free trade agreement.

On Monday in Paris, Xi met French President Emmanuel Macron, who has publicly promoted the idea of France and the European Union pursuing geopolitical “strategic autonomy” from the United States.

Last year, speaking about a potential dispute over Taiwan between Beijing and Washington, Macron said Europe should not allow itself to become a U.S. “vassal” and be drawn into any conflict.

In Paris, crowds of protesters turned out on the streets to greet Xi, wave flags and express their anger over China’s persecution of Tibetans and Uyghurs as well as its clampdown on freedoms in Hong Kong. 

Xi next travels to Hungary, whose authoritarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has been a thorn in the side of NATO as it attempts to support Ukraine’s defense against the invasion by Russian forces.

Unlike Serbia, Hungary is also a member of the European Union and NATO, and has blocked several EU resolutions critical of China in recent years, including about Beijing’s crackdown in Hong Kong.

Edited by Alex Willemyns and Malcolm Foster.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By RFA Mandarin.

Last week’s leaked New York Times staff directive, as to what words can and cannot be used to describe the carnage Israel is raining on Palestinians, is proof positive, since those reports are published verbatim here in New Zealand, that our understanding of the conflict is carefully managed to always reflect a pro-Israel bias.

Forget the humanity of 120,000 dead and wounded Palestinians and countless others facing famine and disease sheltering in tents or what’s left of destroyed buildings, even internationally recognised terms and phrases such as “genocide,” “occupied territory,” “ethnic cleansing” and even “refugee camps” are discouraged, along with “slaughter”, “massacre” and “carnage”.

Though such language restrictions are claimed to be in the interests of “fairness”, an earlier investigation showed that between October 7 and November 14, The Times used the word “massacre” 53 times when it referred to Israelis being killed by Palestinians and only once in reference to Palestinians being killed by Israel.

• READ MORE: Donors urged to re­sume UN­R­WA fund­ing as re­view finds no Is­raeli ev­i­dence
• Media bias over Palestine
• Other War on Gaza reports

By that date, thousands of Palestinians had perished, the vast majority of whom were women and children, and most of them were killed inside their own homes, in hospitals, schools or United Nations shelters.

This carefully managed use of words is deliberate and insidious and, as Jack Tame’s interview with Israel’s ambassador on last Sunday’s Q&A programme showed, even our most experienced media people are not immune to its effects.

Here is our interview with Israel Ambassador, Ran Yaakoby. From this morning’s @NZQandA https://t.co/pSHdxpccre

— Jack Tame (@jacktame) April 20, 2024

From his introduction, “establishing” that the genocide taking place in Gaza had its genesis in the October 7 attack by Hamas, and not in the Nakba of 1948, Jack Tame and TVNZ facilitated an almost hour-long presentation of pro-Israel propaganda, justifying its atrocities.

For its appalling lack of balance, including Tame’s obsequious allowance and nodding agreement with the Israeli ambassador’s thoroughly discredited claims of Hamas atrocities; “beheadings” “necrophilia” and for describing Israelis’ as being “butchered” (five times he used the word) while Palestinians were merely “killed”, this was a new low in our media’s record of bias when it comes to the presentation of the facts about the Palestine/Israel conflict.

In the very week that we prepare to remember the horrific sacrifices made in previous wars and even as Israel‘s genocidal slaughter of Palestinians brings us closer to World War Three than at any time since the Cuban missile crisis, that TVNZ should have, pre-recorded and so had time to edit, such a disgraceful presentation is simply appalling — and heads should roll.

Republished from The Daily Blog with permission.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

The consul, Roberto Canseco, was filmed as he tried to chase after the car but was bundled to the ground by police. Visibly shaken, he told an interviewer that this ‘can’t be happening’, that officials were injured in the attack and that Glas’s life may be in danger. Shortly afterwards, another video shows a handcuffed Glas, barely able to walk, being led onto a plane to be transported to a maximum security prison in Ecuador’s second city, Guayaquil. Yesterday he was taken to hospital after an apparent suicide attempt and was reported to be in a coma.

Glas was a key member of Rafael Correa’s left-wing government, which lost power in 2017. Both men were charged with corruption, in what many regard as an ongoing case of ‘lawfare’ – a tactic used by some Latin American governments to remove their opponents from political life (Lula’s imprisonment in Brazil was the most notorious example). While Correa was given asylum in Belgium, where he now lives, Glas spent several years in prison.

Last year, facing new charges, Glas fled to the Mexican embassy and appealed for asylum. Granting his request last week, Mexico’s president, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, said he considered Glas to be a victim of political persecution. In response, Ecuador’s government declared Mexico’s ambassador persona non grata. Conseco was left in charge of the embassy, but by Sunday all its staff had left the country and Mexico had broken off diplomatic relations.

Ecuador’s violation of the Vienna Convention, which protects embassies and their staff, had no precedent in Latin America. Even in Chile under Pinochet, foreign embassies which gave asylum to the regime’s opponents were respected. Officials in Quito cited an incident in Havana in 1981, when Cuban troops entered Ecuador’s embassy to capture a number of armed dissidents who had taken its ambassador hostage, but the events were hardly comparable.

Correa’s government had relied on the protection offered by the convention when, for almost seven years, it gave asylum to Julian Assange in London. The British government reportedly considered the option of forcing entry to the Ecuadorian embassy to arrest Assange but never did. When he was eventually arrested in April 2019, it was only after a right-wing administration in Quito had revoked his asylum status.

In a rare display of unity, almost all Latin American governments condemned last Friday’s attack, though Washington merely called on both parties to resolve their differences ‘according to international norms’. Perhaps US officials recalled how, four years ago, armed police had forced their way into the Venezuelan embassy in Washington.

A drug-related crime wave has made Ecuador one of the most violent countries in the hemisphere. The president, Daniel Noboa, resorting to militarised solutions, is being aided by the head of the US Southern Command, General Laura Richardson. It is inconceivable that he would have launched the embassy raid without advising US officials first. He may also have felt more confident about doing so less than a week after Israel blew up the Iranian consulate in Damascus, killing sixteen people. At the UN Security Council the next day, the Ecuadorian representative denounced Israel for violating the Vienna Convention.

• Original article for the London Review of Books blog

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by John Perry.

The leader of a New Zealand solidarity group of Palestinian self-determination supporters has accused the country’s Foreign Minister Winston Peters of making a “bluff and bluster” speech at the United Nations that was misleading about inaction at home.

National chair John Minto of the Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA) said in a statement today the Peters speech at the UN General Assembly yesterday was “bluff and bluster . . . [and] a classic case of doing one thing at home and saying another for overseas audiences”.

He said the speech “fooled nobody” in New Zealand.

• READ MORE: Israel’s war on Gaza live: Rafah threat raises questions about truce talks
• NZ’s Peters criticises Security Council at UN, says Gaza ‘a wasteland’
• Other War on Gaza reports

In his UNGA speech, Peters described Israel’s war on Gaza as an “utter catastrophe” and labelled the besieged enclave a “wasteland”.

He went on to say Israel could “not be under any misconceptions as to its legal obligations”.

Peters also condemned the use of the veto in the UN Security Council five times to block ceasefire resolutions, and Israel’s continued building of illegal settlements on Palestinian land, saying the “misguided notion” and forced displacement of Palestinians “imperil the two-state solution”.

Minto admitted that “these were strong words” but he added that they were “meaningless in the context of what the government has failed to do at home”.

The PSNA chair said Peters had not told his international audience that the New Zealand government had:

• Refused to stop New Zealand military exports which support Israel’s war on Gaza;
• Refused (and still refuses) to condemn Israel for any of its war crimes such as collective punishment, the mass slaughter of over 33,000 Palestinians — mostly women and children — the targeting of aid workers and deliberate starvation of Gaza’s Palestinian population;
• Refused (and still refuses) to call for an immediate permanent ceasefire in Gaza;
• Refused (and still refuses) to reinstate funding for UNRWA (let alone doubling its funding and bringing forward payments which the government has been urged to do);
• Refused (and still refuses) to withdraw from the US war to target Yemen which is acting to oppose Israel’s genocide of Palestinians;
• Refused (and still refuses) to support or join South Africa’s genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice;
• Refused (and still refuses) to shut down the Israeli Embassy; and
• Refused (and still refuses) to grant humanitarian visas for Palestinians with family in New Zealand

“Winston Peters stands with the US/Israel on Gaza in every important respect but has tried to give a different impression to the United Nations,” Minto said.

“There was nothing in his speech which holds Israel to account for its war crimes — not even a single punctuation mark.

“It was a Janus-faced performance at the United Nations.”

UN considers Palestine membership bid
Meanwhile, Palestine’s ambassador at the United Nations, speaking earlier than Peters, was optimistic about the occupied territory’s bid for full membership at the UN. The bid has been referred to a Security Council committee.

“This is a historic moment again,” said Ambassador Riyad Mansour.

The committee is expected to make a decision about Palestine’s status later this month, said Vanessa Frazier, Malta’s UN ambassador.

Al Jazeera’s Gabriel Elizondo is monitoring the latest developments at UN headquarters.

He said the last time Palestine’s bid for full UN membership got this far in 2011, it failed primarily because the US threatened to veto it.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

Those supporting the WikiLeaks publisher, who faces extradition to the United States even as he remains scandalously confined and refused bail in Belmarsh Prison, had hoped for a clear decision from the UK High Court on March 26.  Either they would reject leave to appeal the totality of his case, thereby setting the wheels of extradition into motion, or permit a full review, which would provide some relief.  Instead, they got a recipe for purgatorial prolongation, a tormenting midway that grants the US government a possibility to make amends in seeking their quarry.

A sinking sense of repetition was evident.  In December 2021, the High Court overturned the decision of the District Court Justice Vanessa Baraitser to bar extradition on the weight of certain assurances provided by the US government.  Her judgment had been brutal to Assange in all respects but one: that extradition would imperil his life in the US penal system, largely due to his demonstrated suicidal ideation and inadequate facilities to cope with that risk.

With a school child’s gullibility – or a lawyer’s biting cynicism – the High Court judges accepted assurances from the Department of Justice (DOJ) that Assange would not face the crushing conditions of detention in the notorious ADX Florence facility or suffer the gagging restrictions euphemised as Special Administrative Measures.  He would also receive the appropriate medical care that would alleviate his suicide risk and face the prospect of serving the balance of any sentence back in Australia.  The refusal to look behind the mutability and fickle nature of such undertakings merely passed the judges by.  The March 26 judgment is much in keeping with that tradition.

The grounds for Assange’s team numbered nine in total entailing two parts.  Some of these should be familiar to even the most generally acquainted reader.  The first part, comprising seven grounds, argues that the decision to send the case to the Home Secretary was wrong for: ignoring the bar to extradition under the UK-US Extradition Treaty for political offences, which Assange is being sought for; that his prosecution is for political opinions; that the extradition is incompatible with article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) noting that there should be no punishment without law; that the process is incompatible with article 10 of the ECHR protecting freedom of expression; that prejudice at trial would follow by reason of his non-US nationality; that the right to a fair trial, protected by article 6 of the ECHR, was not guaranteed; and that the extradition is incompatible with articles 2 and 3 of the ECHR (right to life, and prohibiting inhuman and degrading treatment).

The second part of the application challenged the UK Home Secretary’s decision to approve the extradition, which should have been barred by the treaty between the UK and US, and on the grounds that there was “inadequate specialty/death penalty protection.”

In this gaggle of imposing, even damning arguments, the High Court was only moved by three arguments, leaving much of Baraitser’s reasons untouched.  Assange’s legal team had established an arguable case that sending the case to the Home Secretary was wrong as he might be prejudiced at trial by reason of his nationality.  Following from that “but only as a consequence of that”, extradition would be incompatible with free speech protections under article 10 of the ECHR.  An arguable case against the Home Secretary’s decision could also be made as it was barred by inadequate specialty/death penalty protection.

What had taken place was a dramatic and savage pruning of a wholesome challenge to a political persecution garishly dressed in legal drag.  On the issue of whether Assange was being prosecuted for his political opinions, the Court was happy to accept the woeful finding by Baraitser that he had not.  The judge was “entitled to reach that conclusion on the evidence before her, and on the unchallenged sworn evidence of the prosecutor (which refutes the applicant’s case).”  While accepting the view that Assange “acted out of political conviction”, the extradition was not being made “on account of his political views.”  Again, we see the judiciary avoid the facts staring at it: that the exposure of war crimes, atrocities, torture and various misdeeds of state are supposedly not political at all.

Baraitser’s assessment on the US Espionage Act of 1917, that cruel exemplar of war time that has become peacetime’s greater suppressor of leakers and whistleblowers, was also spared necessary laceration.  The point missed in both her judgment and the latest High Court ruling is a seeming inability to accept that the Act is designed to circumvent constitutional protections, a point made from the outset by the brave Wisconsin Republican Senator Robert M. La Follette.

On the issue of whether Assange would be denied due process in that he could not foresee being prosecuted for publishing classified documents in 2010, the view that US courts are “alive to the issues of vagueness and overbreadth in relation” to the Act misses the point.  It hardly assures Assange that he would not be subject “to a real risk of a flagrant denial” of rights protected by article 7 of the ECHR, let alone the equivalent Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution.

The matter of Assange being denied a fair trial should have been obvious, evidenced by such prejudicial remarks by senior officials (that’s you Mike Pompeo) on his presumed guilt, tainted evidence, a potentially biased jury pool, and coercive plea bargaining.  He could or would also be sentenced for conduct he had not been charged with “based on evidence he will not see and which may have been unlawfully obtained.”  Instead, Baraitser’s negative finding was spared its deserved flaying.  “We, like the judge, consider the article 6 objections raised by the applicants have no arguable merit, from which it follows that it is not arguable that his extradition would give rise to a flagrant denial of his fair trial rights.”

Of enormous, distorting significance was the refusal by the High Court to accept “fresh evidence” such as the Yahoo News article from September 2021 outlining the views of intelligence officials on the possible kidnapping and even assassination of Assange. To this could be added a statement from US attorney Joshua Dratel who pertinently argued that designating WikiLeaks a “non-state hostile intelligence service” was intended “to place [the applicant] outside any cognizable legal framework that might protect them from the US actions based on purported ‘national security’ imperatives”.

A signed witness statement also confirmed that UC Global, the Spanish security firm charged by the CIA to conduct surveillance of Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, had means to provide important information for “options on how to assassinate” Assange.

Instead of considering the material placed before them as validating a threat to Assange’s right to life, or the prospect of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the High Court justices speculated what Baraitser would have done if she had seen it.  Imaginatively, if inexplicably, the judges accepted her finding that the conduct by the CIA and UC Global regarding the Ecuadorian embassy had no link with the extradition proceedings.  With jaw dropping incredulity, the judges reasoned that the murderous, brutal rationale for dealing with Assange contemplated by the US intelligence services “is removed if the applicant is extradited.”  In a fit of true Orwellian reasoning, Assange’s safety would be guaranteed the moment he was placed in the custody of his would-be abductors and murderers.

The High Court was also generous enough to do the homework for the US government by reiterating the position taken by their brother judges in the 2021 decision.  Concerns about Assange’s mistreatment would be alleviated by granting “assurances (that the applicant is permitted to rely on the First Amendment, that the applicant is not prejudiced at trial (including sentence) by reason of his nationality, that he is afforded the same First Amendment protection as a United States citizen, and that the death penalty not be imposed).”  Such a request is absurd for presuming, not only that the prosecutors can be held to their word, but that a US court would feel inclined to accept the application of the First Amendment, let alone abide by requested sentencing requirements.

The US government has been given till April 16 to file assurances addressing the three grounds, with further written submissions in response to be filed by April 30 by Assange’s team, and May 14 by the Home Secretary.  Another leave of appeal will be entertained on May 20.  If the DOJ does not provide any assurances, then leave to appeal will be granted.  The accretions of obscenity in the Assange saga are set to continue.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Binoy Kampmark.

The Guardian – which has a mammoth, undeclared conflict of interest in its coverage of the extradition proceedings against Assange (you can read about that here and here) – headlined the ruling by the UK High Court today as a “temporary reprieve” for Assange. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Five years on, Assange is still caged in Belmarsh high-security prison, convicted of absolutely nothing.

Five years on, he still faces a trial in the US on ludicrous charges under a century-old, draconian piece of legislation called the Espionage Act. Assange is not a US citizen and none of the charges relate to anything he did in the US.

Five years on, the English judiciary is still rubber-stamping his show trial – a warning to others not to expose state crimes, as Assange did in publishing details of British and US war crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Five years on, judges in London are still turning a blind eye to Assange’s sustained psychological torture, as the former United Nations legal expert Nils Melzer has documented.

The word “reprieve” is there – just as the judges’ headline ruling that some of the grounds of his appeal have been “granted” – to conceal the fact that he is prisoner to an endless legal charade every bit as much as he is a prisoner in a Belmarsh cell.

In fact, today’s ruling is yet further evidence that Assange is being denied due process and his most basic legal rights – as he has been for a decade or more.

In the ruling, the court strips him of any substantive grounds of appeal, precisely so there will be no hearing in which the public gets to learn more about the various British and US crimes he exposed, for which he is being kept in jail. He is thereby denied a public-interest defence against extradition. Or in the court’s terminology, his “application to adduce fresh evidence is refused”.

Even more significantly, Assange is specifically stripped of the right to appeal on the very legal grounds that should guarantee him an appeal, and should have ensured he was never subjected to a show trial in the first place. His extradition would clearly violate the prohibition in the Extradition Treaty between the UK and the US against extradition on political grounds.

Nonetheless, in their wisdom, the judges rule that Washington’s vendetta against Assange for exposing its crimes is not driven by political considerations. Nor apparently was there a political factor to the CIA’s efforts to kidnap and assassinate him after he was granted political asylum by Ecuador, precisely to protect him from the US administration’s wrath.

What the court “grants” instead are three technical grounds of appeal – although in the small print, that “granted” is actually subverted to “adjourned”. The “reprieve” celebrated by the media – supposedly a victory for British justice – actually pulls the legal rug from under Assange.

Each of those grounds of appeal can be reversed – that is, rejected – if Washington submits “assurances” to the court, however worthless they may end up being in practice. In which case, Assange is on a flight to the US and effectively disappeared into one of its domestic black sites.

Those three pending grounds of appeal on which the court seeks reassurance are that extradition will not:

• deny Assange his basic free speech rights;
• discriminate against him on the basis of his nationality, as a non-US citizen;
• or place him under threat of the death penalty in the US penal system.

The judiciary’s latest bending over backwards to accommodate Washington’s intention to keep Assange permanently locked out of view follows years of perverse legal proceedings in which the US has repeatedly been allowed to change the charges it is levelling against Assange at short notice to wrong-foot his legal team. It also follows years in which the US has had a chance to make clear its intention to provide Assange with a fair trial but has refused to do so.

Washington’s true intentions are already more than clear: the US spied on Assange’s every move while he was under the protection of the Ecuadorian embassy, violating his lawyer-client privilege; and the CIA plotted to kidnap and assassinate him.

Both are grounds that alone should have seen the case thrown out.

But there is nothing normal – or legal – about the proceedings against Assange. The case has always been about buying time. To disappear Assange from public view. To vilify him. To smash the revolutionary publishing platform he founded to help whistleblowers expose state crimes. To send a message to other journalists that the US can reach them wherever they live should they try to hold Washington to account for its criminality.

And worst of all, to provide a final solution for the nuisance Assange had become for the global superpower by trapping him in an endless process of incarceration and trial that, if it is allowed to drag on long enough, will most likely kill him.

Today’s ruling is most certainly not a “reprieve”. It is simply another stage in a protracted, faux-legal process designed to provide constant justifications for keeping Assange behind bars, and never-ending postponements of judgment day, when either Assange is set free or the British and US justice systems are exposed as hand servants of brutish, naked power.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Jonathan Cook.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

The Iranian government "bears responsibility" for the physical violence that led to the death of Mahsa Amini, the 22-year-old Iranian-Kurdish woman who died in police custody in 2022, and for the brutal crackdown on largely peaceful street protests that followed, a report by a United Nations fact-finding mission says.

The report, issued on March 8 by the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Islamic Republic of Iran, said the mission “has established the existence of evidence of trauma to Ms. Amini’s body, inflicted while in the custody of the morality police."

It said the mission found the "physical violence in custody led to Ms. Amini’s unlawful death.... On that basis, the state bears responsibility for her unlawful death.”

Amini was arrested in Tehran on September 13, 2022, while visiting the Iranian capital with her family. She was detained by Iran's so-called "morality police" for allegedly improperly wearing her hijab, or hair-covering head scarf. Within hours of her detention, she was hospitalized in a coma and died on September 16.

Her family has denied that Amini suffered from a preexisting health condition that may have contributed to her death, as claimed by the Iranian authorities, and her father has cited eyewitnesses as saying she was beaten while en route to a detention facility.

The fact-finding report said the action “emphasizes the arbitrary character of Ms. Amini’s arrest and detention, which were based on laws and policies governing the mandatory hijab, which fundamentally discriminate against women and girls and are not permissible under international human rights law."

"Those laws and policies violate the rights to freedom of expression, freedom of religion or belief, and the autonomy of women and girls. Ms. Amini’s arrest and detention, preceding her death in custody, constituted a violation of her right to liberty of person,” it said.

The New York-based Center for Human Rights in Iran hailed the findings and said they represented clear signs of "crimes against humanity."

“The Islamic republic’s violent repression of peaceful dissent and severe discrimination against women and girls in Iran has been confirmed as constituting nothing short of crimes against humanity,” said Hadi Ghaemi, executive director of the center.

“The government’s brutal crackdown on the Women, Life, Freedom protests has seen a litany of atrocities that include extrajudicial killings, torture, and rape. These violations disproportionately affect the most vulnerable in society, women, children, and minority groups,” he added.

The report also said the Iranian government failed to “comply with its duty” to investigate the woman’s death promptly.

“Most notably, judicial harassment and intimidation were aimed at her family in order to silence them and preempt them from seeking legal redress. Some family members faced arbitrary arrest, while the family’s lawyer, Saleh Nikbaht, and three journalists, Niloofar Hamedi, Elahe Mohammadi, and Nazila Maroufian, who reported on Ms. Amini’s death were arrested, prosecuted, and sentenced to imprisonment,” it added.

Amini's death sparked mass protests, beginning in her home town of Saghez, then spreading around the country, and ultimately posed one of the biggest threats to Iran's clerical establishment since the foundation of the Islamic republic in 1979. At least 500 people were reported killed in the government’s crackdown on demonstrators.

The UN report said "violations and crimes" under international law committed in the context of the Women, Life, Freedom protests include "extrajudicial and unlawful killings and murder, unnecessary and disproportionate use of force, arbitrary deprivation of liberty, torture, rape, enforced disappearances, and gender persecution.

“The violent repression of peaceful protests and pervasive institutional discrimination against women and girls has led to serious human rights violations by the government of Iran, many amounting to crimes against humanity," the report said.

The UN mission acknowledged that some state security forces were killed and injured during the demonstrations, but said it found that the majority of protests were peaceful.

The mission stems from the UN Human Rights Council's mandate to the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Islamic Republic of Iran on November 24, 2022, to investigate alleged human rights violations in Iran related to the protests that followed Amini's death.

This content originally appeared on News - Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty and was authored by News - Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty.

In the annual State of the Union address, Biden came out swinging from the get-go against Putin and Trump -- whom he called "my predecessor" without mentioning him by name -- and on behalf of Ukraine, as he sought to win over undecided voters ahead of November’s election.

The March 7 address to a joint session of Congress this year carried greater significance for the 81-year-old Biden as he faces a tough reelection in November, mostly likely against Trump. The president, who is dogged by questions about his physical and mental fitness for the job, showed a more feisty side during his hourlong speech, drawing a sharp contrast between himself and Trump on a host of key foreign and domestic issues.

Live Briefing: Russia's Invasion Of Ukraine

RFE/RL's Live Briefing gives you all of the latest developments on Russia's full-scale invasion, Kyiv's counteroffensive, Western military aid, global reaction, and the plight of civilians. For all of RFE/RL's coverage of the war in Ukraine, click here.

Biden denounced Trump for recent remarks about NATO, the U.S.-led defense alliance that will mark its 75th anniversary this year, and compared him unfavorably to former Republican President Ronald Reagan.

"Bowing down to a Russian leader, it is outrageous, dangerous, and unacceptable," Biden said, referring to Trump, as he recalled how Reagan -- who is fondly remembered by older Republicans -- stood up to the Kremlin during the Cold War.

At a campaign rally last month, Trump said that while serving in office he warned a NATO ally he "would encourage" Russia "to do whatever the hell they want" to alliance members who are "delinquent" in meeting defense-spending goals.

The remark raised fears that Trump could try to pull the United States out of NATO should he win the election in November.

Biden described NATO as "stronger than ever" as he recognized Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson in the audience. Earlier in the day, Sweden officially became the 32nd member of NATO, ending 200 years of nonalignment. Sweden applied to join the defense alliance after Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Finland became a NATO member last year.

Biden called on Congress to pass a Ukraine aid bill to help the country fend off a two-year-old Russian invasion. He warned that should Russia win, Putin will not stop at Ukraine's border with NATO.

A group of right-wing Republicans in the House of Representatives have for months been holding up a bill that would allocate some $60 billion in critical military, economic, and humanitarian aid to Ukraine as it defends its territory from Russian invaders.

The gridlock in Washington has starved Ukrainian forces of U.S. ammunition and weapons, allowing Russia to regain the initiative in the war. Russia last month seized the eastern city of Avdiyivka, its first victory in more than a year.

"Ukraine can stop Putin if we stand with Ukraine and provide the weapons it needs to defend itself," Biden said.

"My message to President Putin...is simple. We will not walk away. We will not bow down. I will not bow down," Biden said.

Trump, who has expressed admiration for Putin, has questioned U.S. aid to Ukraine, though he recently supported the idea of loans to the country.

Biden also criticized Trump for the former president's attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election, saying those efforts had posed a grave threat to democracy at home.

"You can't love your country only when you win," he said, referring not just to Trump but Republicans in Congress who back the former president's claim that the 2020 election was rigged.

Biden "really strove to distinguish his policies from those of Donald Trump," said Kathryn Stoner, a political-science professor at Stanford University and director of its Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law.

By referencing Reagan, Biden was seeking "to appeal to moderate Republicans and independents to remind them that this is what your party was -- standing up to Russia," she told RFE/RL.

The State of the Union address may be the biggest opportunity Biden has to reach American voters before the election. More than 27 million people watched Biden’s speech last year, equivalent to about 17 percent of eligible voters.

Biden's address this year carries greater importance as he faces reelection in November, most likely against Trump. The speech may be the biggest opportunity he has to reach American voters before the election.

Trump won 14 of 15 primary races on March 5, all but wrapping up the Republican nomination for president. Biden beat Trump in 2020 but faces a tough reelection bid amid low ratings.

A Pew Research poll published in January showed that just 33 percent of Americans approve of Biden's job performance, while 65 percent disapprove. Biden's job-approval rating has remained below 40 percent over the past two years as Americans feel the pinch of high inflation and interest rates.

Biden, the oldest U.S. president in history, has been dogged by worries over his age. Two thirds of voters say he is too old to effectively serve another term, according to a recent Quinnipiac poll.

Last month, a special counsel report raised questions about his memory, intensifying concerns over his mental capacity to run the country for four more years.

As a result, Biden's physical performance during the address was under close watch. Biden was animated during the speech and avoided any major gaffes.

"I thought he sounded really strong, very determined and very clear," Stoner said.

Instead of avoiding the subject of his age, Biden took it head on, saying the issue facing our nation "isn’t how old we are, it’s how old our ideas are."

He warned Trump was trying to take the country back to a darker period.

"Some other people my age see a different story: an American story of resentment, revenge, and retribution," Biden said, referring to the 77-year-old Trump.

This content originally appeared on News - Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty and was authored by News - Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty.

Aaron Bushness moments before lighting himself on fire to protest the genocide in Gaza.

The live-streaming and subsequent videos of US active duty airman Aaron Bushnell’s extreme sacrifice in front of the Israeli Embassy in Washington, D.C. on Sunday 25 February 2024 should make us reflect on the complicity of our governments in the on-going genocide being perpetrated by Israel on the hapless Palestinian people.  30,000 dead – overwhelmingly civilians, women and children.

The self-immolation brings back memories of the Vietnamese monks who self-immolated in the 1960s in protest against the oppressive Saigon government and the US aggression of their country. Further self-immolations took place in the United States, including on 16 March 1965, Alice Herz, an 82-year old peace activist, in front of the Federal Department Store in Detroit, Norman Morrison, a 31-year old Quaker pacifist, who poured kerosene over himself and set himself alight outside the Pentagon, and Robert LaPorte in front of the United Nations.

It reminds us of the Tunisian street vendor Mohamed Bouazizi who in 2010 self-immolated in protest against the police brutality of the Tunisian government, and whose sacrifice was the occasion that triggered what came to be known as the “Arab spring”, and which I consider more like a neo-colonial effort on the part of the US and Europe to cement their control in the MENA region. Of course, there were real home-grown grievances against authoritarian and corrupt governments, but the US-driven “colour revolutions” made a chill come over the region, an Arab winter with perpetual wars in Libya, Syria, Yemen, etc.

Aaron Bushnell, a young man of 25 with all of his life before him, performed the ultimate protest to make the point against the indifference of the world in the face of the Israeli genocide in Gaza, a continuing tragedy which Professor Norman Finkelstein has documented in his comprehensive book GAZA[1] and in his numerous articles and television appearances.

On the video, minutes before setting himself ablaze, Bushnell said with a quiet, measured, resolute voice:  “I am about to engage in an extreme act of protest, but compared to what people have been experiencing in Palestine at the hands of their colonizers, it’s not extreme at all.”  Bushnell was a respected and loved cyber defence operations specialist with the 531st intelligence support squadron at Joint Base San Antonio, Texas.

In an interview with Newsweek Senator Bernie Sanders said “It’s obviously a terrible tragedy, but I think it speaks to the depths of despair that so many people are feeling now about the horrific humanitarian disaster taking place in Gaza, and I share those deep concerns…. The United States has got to stand up to Netanyahu and make sure this does not continue.”[2]

Yes, a genocide is unfolding before our eyes.  Articles 2 and 3 of the Genocide Convention are clearly engaged, and the issue of “intent” is overwhelmingly established in pages 57-69 of the legal brief submitted by South Africa to the ICJ.  On television and the internet we watch the bombardments of hospitals, schools, UN shelters.

While the entire world is clamouring for a cease-fire, the U.S. government abused the veto power in the Security Council three times to block the three draft resolutions on a cease-fire.  The United States and other countries that continue delivering lethal weapons to Israel, weapons that have been used and are being used to perpetrate the genocide, are complicit in genocide under article III e of the Convention.  Any state party to the Convention can refer the matter directly to the ICJ pursuant to article 9 of the Convention.  Accordingly, not only Israel, but also the US, UK, France and Germany should be on the dock[3].

On 26 January 2024 the International Court of Justice issued a comprehensive order of “provisional measures”[4] of protection, an injunction, which is legally binding under article 41 of the Statute of the ICJ, and which Israel has systematically violated, as it violated the ICJ’s earlier Advisory Opinion on the Wall, dated 9 July 2004[5].

On 16 February the ICJ published a decision on the South African second request for additional measures of protection:

“The Court notes that the most recent developments in the Gaza Strip, and in Rafah in particular, ‘would exponentially increase what is already a humanitarian nightmare with untold regional consequences’, as stated by the United Nations Secretary-General (Remarks to the General Assembly on priorities for 2024 (7 Feb. 2024)). This perilous situation demands immediate and effective implementation of the provisional measures indicated by the Court in its Order of 26 January 2024, which are applicable throughout the Gaza Strip, including in Rafah, and does not demand the indication of additional provisional measures. The Court emphasizes that the State of Israel remains bound to fully comply with its obligations under the Genocide Convention and with the said Order, including by ensuring the safety and security of the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.”[6]

Notwithstanding the ICJ proceedings and the proceedings before the International Criminal Court, Israel’s onslaught on 2.3 million Palestinians continues.

While I understand Aaron Bushnell’s motivation and his noble hope that his self-immolation would make an impact on our politicians, I fear that the deep-seated cynicism in the US and Israeli governments and the cavalier attitude of the mainstream media will effectively give carte blanche to Biden and Netanyahu, who will continue ignoring all calls for a cease-fire and will very soon “cancel” the memory of Bushnell’s sacrifice.

In our modern world, Aaron Bushnell’s extreme protest appears to be anachronistic, from a distant bygone era.  We read about it, and it almost sounds like fiction.  It may not accomplish anything, because our politicians are committed to war – in Gaza as in Ukraine — no matter what the majority of the world thinks, no matter what the International Court of Justice will rule on the 1948 Genocide Convention and its concrete application in the case of the Gaza genocide.

It is rare to see someone today actually following his principles and going through to the ultimate (and excruciatingly painful) sacrifice.  In my opinion, and in that of many peace activists, it would have been more sensible to live for the cause of peace and not to die in protest against a criminal war.  Peace-making is work-in-progress, a daily commitment.

The deconstruction and desacralization of Western society have made gestures as Aaron Bushnell’s harder to relate to than in the past, because our society has lost its moral compass, its capacity for empathy. Indeed, Western society is impregnated with cynicism to such a degree that a sacrifice for a cause greater than oneself seems incomprehensible, a far harder concept to grasp intellectually — let alone feel — for modern rootless materialists.

Ms. Lupe Barboza of the Care Collective in Texas said that Bushnell had developed deep friendships with people living in encampments and would regularly purchase blankets, sweaters and snacks from a store on base to give out. In the days before his death, Bushnell wrote his will detailing his final wishes that he shared with close friends. “He took all the steps he needed to make sure that everything he had would be cared for, like his cat, he designated that to his neighbour. … So yeah, that to me is all the sense of someone who was measured and knew what he was doing.”[7]

I urge fellow Americans and the US military, especially Bushnell’s Air Force comrades,  to demand that the US government stop supplying arms to Israel immediately and that the US cease blocking the Security Council when a resolution is tabled by Algeria or any other country.

We know that the world stood and watched when Pol Pot massacred his own people in Cambodia in the 1970s, the world did nothing to stop the Rwandan genocide of 1994.  Today it is up to us to demand accountability.  We must all stand together against the genocide in Gaza.

And if we really mean it, we should also pray for the victims of this senseless slaughter in Gaza, we should pray for the soul of Senior Airman Bushnell.  I would like to see a bronze monument erected to him, exactly where he self-immolated himself.  His extreme sacrifice must not be forgotten.

As a practising Catholic, I will have Masses read for his soul.  I also extend my deepest sympathies to his family and friends.  God bless his soul.  Requiescat in pace.

Notes.

[1] https://www.normanfinkelstein.com/books/gaza-an-inquest-into-its-martyrdom/

[2] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/bernie-sanders-breaks-silence-on-aaron-bushnell-self-immolation/ar-BB1iWaYf

[3] https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.1_Convention%20on%20the%20Prevention%20and%20Punishment%20of%20the%20Crime%20of%20Genocide.pdf?ref=readthemaple.com

[4] https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240126-sum-01-00-en.pdf

[5] https://www.icj-cij.org/case/131

[6] https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240216-pre-01-00-en.pdf

[7] https://www.npr.org/2024/02/25/1233810136/fire-man-israeli-embassy-washington

The post US Airman Aaron Bushnell’s Self-Immolation Outside the Israeli Embassy In Washington D.C. appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Alfred de Zayas.

The appeal to the High Court, comprising Justice Jeremy Johnson and Dame Victoria Sharp, challenges the extradition order by the Home Secretary and the conclusions of District Judge Vanessa Baraitser who, despite ordering his release on risks posed to him on mental health grounds, fundamentally agreed with the prosecution.  He was, Varaitser scorned, not a true journalist.  (Absurdly, it would seem for the judge, journalists never publish leaked information.)  He had exposed the identities of informants.  He had engaged in attempts to hack computer systems.  In June 2023, High Court justice, Jonathan Swift, thought it inappropriate to rehear the substantive arguments of the trial case made by defence.

Assange’s attorneys had informed the court that he simply could not attend in person, though it would hardly have mattered.  His absence from the courtroom was decorous in its own way; he could avoid being displayed like a caged specimen reviled for his publishing feats.  The proceedings would be conducted in the manner of appropriate panto, with dress and procedure to boot.

Unfortunately, as things chugged along, the two judges were seemingly ill versed in the field they were adjudicating.  Their ignorance was telling on, for instance, the views of Mike Pompeo, whose bilious reaction to WikiLeaks when director of the Central Intelligence Agency involved rejecting the protections of the First Amendment of the US Constitution to non-US citizens.  (That view is also held by the US prosecutors.)  Such a perspective, argued Assange’s legal team, was a clear violation of Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

They were also surprised to be informed that further charges could be added to the indictment on his arrival to the United States, including those carrying the death penalty.  To this could be added other enlightening surprises for the judicial bench: the fact that rules of admissibility might be altered to consider material illegally obtained, for instance, through surveillance; that Assange might also be sentenced for an offence he was never actually tried for.

Examples of espionage case law were submitted as precedents to buttress the defence, with Edward Fitzgerald KC calling espionage a “pure political offence” which barred extradition in treaties Britain had signed with 158 nation states.

The case of David Shayler, who had been in the employ of the British domestic intelligence service MI5, saw the former employee prosecuted for passing classified documents to The Mail on Sunday in 1997 under the Official Secrets Act.  These included the names of various agents, that the agency kept dossiers on various UK politicians, including Labour ministers, and that the British foreign intelligence service, MI6, had conceived of a plan to assassinate Libya’s Colonel Muammar Gaddafi.  When the UK made its extradition request to the French authorities, they received a clear answer from the Cour d’Appel: the offence charged was found to be political in nature.

Mark Summers KC also emphasised the point that the “prosecution was motivated to punish and inhibit the exposure of American state-level crimes”, ample evidence of which was adduced during the extradition trial, yet ignored by both Baraitser and Swift.  Baraitser brazenly ignored evidence of discussions by US intelligence officials about a plot to kill or abduct Assange.

For Summers, chronology was telling: the initial absence of any prosecution effort by the Obama administration, despite empanelling a grand jury to investigate WikiLeaks; the announcement by the International Criminal Court that it would be investigating potential crimes committed by US combatants in Afghanistan in 2016, thereby lending gravity to Assange’s disclosures; and the desire to kill or seek the publisher’s extradition after the release of the Vault 7 files detailing various espionage tools of the CIA.

With Pompeo’s apoplectic declaration that WikiLeaks was a hostile, non-state intelligence service, the avenue was open for a covert targeting of Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy in London.  The duly hatched rendition plan led to the prosecution, which proved “selective” in avoiding, for instance, the targeting of newspaper outlets such as Freitag, or the website Cryptome.  In Summer’s view, “This is not a government acting on good faith pursuing a legal path.”

When it came to discussing the leaks, the judges revealed a deep-welled obliviousness about what Assange and WikiLeaks had actually done in releasing the US State Department cables.  For one thing, the old nonsense that the unredacted, or poorly redacted material had resulted in damage was skirted over, not to mention the fact that Assange had himself insisted on a firm redaction policy.   No inquiry has ever shown proof that harm came to any US informant, a central contention of the US Department of Justice.  Nor was it evident to the judges that the publication of the cables had first taken place in Cryptome, once it was discovered that reporters from The Guardian had injudiciously revealed the password to the unredacted files in their publication.

Two other points also emerged in the defence submission: the whistleblower angle, and that of foreseeability.  Consider, Summers argued hypothetically, the situation where Chelsea Manning, whose invaluable disclosures WikiLeaks published, had been considered by the European Court of Human Rights.  The European Union’s whistleblower regime, he contended, would have considered the effect of harm done by violating an undertaking of confidentiality with the exposure of abuses of state power.  Manning would have likely escaped conviction, while Assange, having not even signed any confidentiality agreements, would have had even better prospects for acquittal.

The issue of foreseeability, outlined in Article 7 of the ECHR, arose because Assange, his team further contends, could not have known that publishing the cables would have triggered a lawsuit under the Espionage Act.  That said, a grand jury had refused to indict the Chicago Times in 1942 for publishing an article citing US naval knowledge of Japanese plans to attack Midway Island.  Then came the Pentagon Papers case in 1971.  While Summers correctly notes that, “The New York Times was never prosecuted,” this was not for want for trying: a grand jury was empanelled with the purpose of indicting the Times reporter Neil Sheehan for his role in receiving classified government material.  Once revelations of government tapping of whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg was revealed, the case collapsed.  All that said, Article 7 could provide a further ground for barring extradition.

February 21 gave lawyers for the US the chance to reiterate the various, deeply flawed assertions about Assange’s publication activities connected with Cablegate (the “exposing informants” argument), his supposedly non-journalistic activities and the integrity of diplomatic assurances about his welfare were he to be extradited.  The stage for the obscene was duly set.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Binoy Kampmark.

Listen to the Talking China In Eurasia podcast

Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Google | YouTube

Welcome back to the China In Eurasia Briefing, an RFE/RL newsletter tracking China's resurgent influence from Eastern Europe to Central Asia.

I'm RFE/RL correspondent Reid Standish and here's what I'm following right now.

As Huthi rebels continue their assault on commercial shipping in the Red Sea, the deepening crisis is posing a fresh test for China’s ambitions of becoming a power broker in the Middle East – and raising questions about whether Beijing can help bring the group to bay.

Finding Perspective: U.S. officials have been asking China to urge Tehran to rein in Iran-backed Huthis, but according to the Financial Times, American officials say that they have seen no signs of help.

Still, Washington keeps raising the issue. In weekend meetings with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi in Bangkok, U.S. national-security adviser Jake Sullivan again asked Beijing to use its “substantial leverage with Iran” to play a “constructive role” in stopping the attacks.

Reuters, citing Iranian officials, reported on January 26 that Beijing urged Tehran at recent meetings to pressure the Huthis or risk jeopardizing business cooperation with China in the future.

There are plenty of reasons to believe that China would want to bring the attacks to an end. The Huthis have disrupted global shipping, stoking fears of global inflation and even more instability in the Middle East.

This also hurts China’s bottom line. The attacks are raising transport costs and jeopardizing the tens of billions of dollars that China has invested in nearby Egyptian ports.

Why It Matters: The current crisis raises some complex questions for China’s ambitions in the Middle East.

If China decides to pressure Iran, it’s unknown how much influence Tehran actually has over Yemen’s Huthis. Iran backs the group and supplies them with weapons, but it’s unclear if they can actually control and rein them in, as U.S. officials are calling for.

But the bigger question might be whether this calculation looks the same from Beijing.

China might be reluctant to get too involved and squander its political capital with Iran on trying to get the Huthis to stop their attacks, especially after the group has announced that it won’t attack Chinese ships transiting the Red Sea.

Beijing is also unlikely to want to bring an end to something that’s hurting America’s interests arguably more than its own at the moment.

U.S. officials say they’ll continue to talk with China about helping restore trade in the Red Sea, but Beijing might decide that it has more to gain by simply stepping back.

Three More Stories From Eurasia

1. ‘New Historical Heights’ For China And Uzbekistan

Uzbek President Shavkat Mirziyoev made a landmark three-day visit to Beijing, where he met with Xi, engaged with Chinese business leaders, and left with an officially upgraded relationship as the Central Asian leader increasingly looks to China for his economic future.

The Details: As I reported here, Mirziyoev left Uzbekistan looking to usher in a new era and returned with upgraded diplomatic ties as an “all-weather” partner with China.

The move to elevate to an “all-weather comprehensive strategic partnership” from a “comprehensive strategic partnership” doesn’t come with any formal benefits, but it’s a clear sign from Mirziyoev and Xi on where they want to take the relationship between their two countries.

Before going to China for the January 23-25 trip, Mirziyoev signed a letter praising China’s progress in fighting poverty and saying he wanted to develop a “new long-term agenda” with Beijing that will last for “decades.”

Beyond the diplomatic upgrade, China said it was ready to expand cooperation with Uzbekistan across the new energy vehicle industry chain, as well as in major projects such as photovoltaics, wind power, and hydropower.

Xi and Mirzoyoev also spoke about the long-discussed China-Kyrgyzstan-Uzbekistan railway, with the Chinese leader saying that work should begin as soon as possible, athough no specifics were offered and there are reportedly still key disputes over how the megaproject will be financed.

2. The Taliban’s New Man In Beijing

In a move that could lay the groundwork for more diplomatic engagement with China, Xi received diplomatic credentials from the Taliban’s new ambassador in Beijing on January 25.

What You Need To Know: Mawlawi Asadullah Bilal Karimi was accepted as part of a ceremony that also received the credential letters of 42 new envoys. Karimi was named as the new ambassador to Beijing on November 24 but has now formally been received by Xi, which is another installment in the slow boil toward recognition that’s under way.

No country formally recognizes the Taliban administration in Afghanistan, but China – along with other countries such as Pakistan, Russia, and Turkmenistan – have appointed their own envoys to Kabul and have maintained steady diplomatic engagement with the group since it returned to power in August 2021.

Formal diplomatic recognition for the Taliban still looks to be far off, but this move highlights China’s strategy of de-facto recognition that could see other countries following its lead, paving the way for formal ties down the line.

3. China’s Tightrope With Iran and Pakistan

Air strikes and diplomatic sparring between Iran and Pakistan raised difficult questions for China and its influence in the region, as I reported here.

Both Islamabad and Tehran have since moved to mend fences, with their foreign ministers holding talks on January 29. But the incident put the spotlight on what China would do if two of its closest partners entered into conflict against one another.

What It Means: The tit-for-tat strikes hit militant groups operating in each other’s territory. After a tough exchange, both countries quickly cooled their rhetoric – culminating in the recent talks held in Islamabad.

And while Beijing has lots to lose in the event of a wider conflict between two of its allies, it appeared to remain quiet, with only a formal offer to mediate if needed.

Abdul Basit, an associate research fellow at Singapore's S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, told me this approach reflects how China “shies away from situations like this,” in part to protect its reputation in case it intervenes and then fails.

Michael Kugelman, the director of the Wilson Center's South Asia Institute, added that, despite Beijing’s cautious approach, China has shown a willingness to mediate when opportunity strikes, pointing to the deal it helped broker between Iran and Saudi Arabia in March.

“It looks like the Pakistanis and the Iranians had enough in their relationship to ease tensions themselves,” he told me. “So [Beijing] might be relieved now, but that doesn't mean they won't step up if needed.”

Across The Supercontinent

China’s Odd Moment: What do the fall of the Soviet Union and China's slowing economy have in common? The answer is more than you might think.

Listen to the latest episode of the Talking China In Eurasia podcast, where we explore how China's complicated relationship with the Soviet Union is shaping the country today.

Invite Sent. Now What? Ukraine has invited Xi to participate in a planned “peace summit” of world leaders in Switzerland, Reuters reported, in a gathering tied to the second anniversary of Russia’s invasion.

Blocked, But Why? China has suspended issuing visas to Lithuanian citizens. Foreign Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis confirmed the news and told Lithuanian journalists that “we have been informed about this. No further information has been provided.”

More Hydro Plans: Kyrgyzstan’s Ministry of Energy and the China National Electric Engineering Company signed a memorandum of cooperation on January 24 to build a cascade of power plants and a new thermal power plant.

One Thing To Watch

There’s no official word, but it’s looking like veteran diplomat Liu Jianchao is the leading contender to become China’s next foreign minister.

Wang Yi was reassigned to his old post after Qin Gang was abruptly removed as foreign minister last summer, and Wang is currently holding roles as both foreign minister and the more senior position of director of the Chinese Communist Party Central Committee Foreign Affairs Commission Office.

Liu has limited experience engaging with the West but served stints at the Communist Party’s anti-corruption watchdog and currently heads a party agency traditionally tasked with building ties with other communist states.

It also looks like he’s being groomed for the role. He recently completed a U.S. tour, where he met with top officials and business leaders, and has also made visits to the Middle East.

That’s all from me for now. Don’t forget to send me any questions, comments, or tips that you might have.

Until next time,

Reid Standish

If you enjoyed this briefing and don't want to miss the next edition, subscribe here. It will be sent to your inbox every other Wednesday.

This content originally appeared on News - Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty and was authored by News - Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty.

China’s interference and moves to control the media in the Solomon Islands have been exposed in leaked emails In-depth Solomons has obtained.

On Monday last week [15 January 2024], Huangbi Lin, a diplomat working at the Chinese Embassy in Honiara, called the owner of Island Sun newspaper, Lloyd Loji, and expressed the embassy’s “concern” in a viewpoint article that the paper published on page 6 of the day’s issue.

The article, which appeared earlier in an ABC publication, was about Taiwan’s newly-elected president William Lai Ching-te, and what his victory means to China and the West.

• READ MORE: China and the Solomon Islands media
• Other Pacific Media Watch reports
• In-Depth Solomons website

Lin’s phone call and his embassy’s concern was revealed in an email Loji wrote to the editorial staff of Island Sun, which In-depth Solomons has cited. Loji wrote:

“I had received a call this morning from Lin (Chinese Embassy) raising their concern on the ABC publication on today’s issue, page 6.

“Yesterday, he had sent us a few articles regarding China’s stance on the elections taking place in Taiwan which he wanted us to publish.

“Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Solomon Islands) made a press release (as attached) reaffirming Solomon Island’s position with regards to the Taiwan elections (recognition of one China principle).

“Let us align ourselves according to the position in which our country stands.

“Be mindful of our publication since China is also a supporter of Island Sun.

“Please collaborate on this matter and (be) cautious of the news that we publish especially with regards to Taiwan’s election.”

Loji has not responded to questions In-depth Solomons sent to him for comments.

The day before on Sunday, Lin sent an email to owners and editors of Solomons Islands’ major news outlets, asking for their cooperation in their reporting of the Taiwanese election outcome. His email said:

“Dear media friends.

“As the result of the election in the Taiwan region of the People’s Republic of China being revealed, a few media reports are trying to cover it from incorrect perspectives.

“The Embassy of the People’s Republic of China would like to remind that both inappropriate titles on newly-elected Taiwan leaders and incorrect name on the Taiwan region are against the one-China policy and the spirit of UN resolution 2758.”

In the same email, he also sent two articles from the State Council Taiwan Affairs Office and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China on the results of the Taiwan elections.

He requested that the articles be published in the next day’s papers.

None of the two articles appeared in the Island Sun the next day, but the paper eventually published them on Tuesday.

The Solomon Star featured both articles, along with a government statement issued at the behest of the Chinese Embassy, on its front page.

Lin failed to respond to questions In-depth Solomons sent to him for comments.

Taiwan has been Solomons Islands’ diplomatic ally until 2019 when Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare ditched Taiwan for China.

In the last two years, China has provided both financial support and thousands of dollars’ worth of office and media equipment to the Island Sun and Solomon Star.

China’s reported manipulation of news outlets around the Pacific has been a topic of discussion in recent years. The communist nation is one of the worst countries in the world for media freedom. It ranks 177 on the Reporters Without Borders World Press Freedom Index.

Responding to the incident, the Media Association of Solomon Islands (MASI) has urged China to respect the independence of the media.

“This incident is regrettable,” MASI President Georgina Kekea told In-depth Solomons.

“Any attempts to control or manipulate the media compromise the public’s right to information,” Kekea added.

“Despite the one-China Policy, China must respect the rights of Solomon Islanders in their own country.

“The situation shows the big difference between the values of the Solomon Islands and China. Respect goes both ways.

“Chinese representatives working in Solomon Islands must remember that Solomon Islands is a democratic country with values different to that of their own country and no foreign policy should ever dictate what people can and cannot do in their own country.”

Kekea further added that it was disheartening to hear interference by diplomatic partners in the day-to-day operations of an independent newsroom.

She said in a democratic country like Solomon Islands, it was crucial that the autonomy of newsrooms remained intact, and free from any external government influence on editorial decisions.

Kekea also urged Solomon Islands newsroom leaders to be vigilant and not allow outsiders to dictate their news content.

“There are significant long-term consequences if we allow outsiders to dictate our decisions.

“Solomon Islands is a democratic country, with the media serving as the fourth pillar of democracy.

“It is crucial not to permit external influences in directing our course of action.”

Kekea also highlighted the financial struggles news organisations in Solomon Islands face and the financial assistance they’ve received from external donors.

She pointed out that this sort of challenge arose when news organisations lacked the financial capacity to look after themselves.

“The concern is not exclusive to China but extends to all external support.

“It is essential to acknowledge and appreciate the funding support received but there should be limits.

“We must enable the media to fulfil its role independently. Gratitude for funding support should not translate into allowing external entities to exploit us for their own agenda or geopolitical struggles.

“Media is susceptible to the influence of major powers. Thus, we must try as much as possible to not get ourselves into a position that we cannot get out of.

“It is important to keep our independence. We must try as much as possible to be self-reliant. To work hard and not rely solely on external partners for funding support.

“If we are not careful, we might lose our freedom.”

Republished by arrangement with In-Depth Solomons.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

UFA, Russia -- A court in Ufa, the capital of Russia's Republic of Bashkortostan, has sentenced eight men to up to 14 days in jail for taking part in an unprecedented rally earlier this week to support the former leader of the banned Bashqort movement, Fail Alsynov, who has criticized Russia's full-scale aggression against Ukraine.

The Kirov district court on January 18 sentenced activists Salavat Idelbayev and Rustam Yuldashev to 14 and 13 days in jail, respectively, after finding them guilty of taking part in "an unsanctioned rally that led to the disruption of infrastructure activities and obstructed the work of a court" on January 15.

A day earlier, the same court sentenced Ilnar Galin to 13 days in jail, and Denis Skvortsov, Fanzil Akhmetshin, Yulai Aralbayev, Radmir Mukhametshin, and Dmitry Petrov to 10 days in jail each on the same charges.

The sentences were related to a January 15 rally of around 5,000 people in front of a court in the town of Baimak, where the verdict and sentencing of Alsynov, who was charged with inciting ethnic hatred, were expected to be announced. But the court postponed the announcement to January 17 to allow security forces to prepare for any reaction to the verdict in the controversial trial.

On January 17, thousands of supporters gathered in front of the court again, and after Alsynov was sentenced to four years in prison, clashes broke out as police using batons, tear gas, and stun grenades forced the protesters to leave the site. Several protesters were injured and at least two were hospitalized.

Dozens of protesters were detained and the Investigative Committee said those in custody from the January 17 unrest will face criminal charges -- organizing and participating in mass disorder and using violence against law enforcement.

Separately on January 18, police detained two young men in Baimak on unspecified charges. Friends of the men said the detentions were most likely linked to the rallies to support Alsynov.

The head of Bashkortostan, Radiy Khabirov, made his first statement on January 18 about the largest protest rally in Russia since Moscow launched its ongoing invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, saying he "will not tolerate extremism and attempts to shake up the situation," and promising to find the "real organizers" of the rallies.

It was Khabirov who initiated the investigation of Alsynov, accusing him of inciting ethnic hatred as well as calling for anti-government rallies and extremist activities and discrediting Russia's armed forces.

In the end, Alsynov was charged only with inciting hatred, which stemmed from a speech he gave at a rally in late April 2023 in the village of Ishmurzino in which he criticized local government plans to start mining gold near the village, as it would bring in migrant laborers.

Investigators said Alsynov's speech "negatively assessed people in the Caucasus and Central Asia, humiliating their human dignity." Alsynov and his supporters have rejected the charge as politically motivated.

Bashkortostan's Supreme Court banned Alsynov's Bashqort group, which for years promoted Bashkir language, culture, and equal rights for ethnic Bashkirs, in May 2020, declaring it extremist.

Bashqort was banned after staging several rallies and other events challenging the policies of both local and federal authorities, including Moscow's move to abolish mandatory indigenous-language classes in the regions with large populations of indigenous ethnic groups.

With reporting by RusNews

This content originally appeared on News - Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty and was authored by News - Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty.

This matter has cropped up in the US courts in what has become an international affair, namely, the case of WikiLeaks founder and publisher, Julian Assange.  While the US Department of Justice battles to sink its fangs into the Australian national for absurd espionage charges, various offshoots of his case have begun to grow.  The issue of CIA sponsored surveillance during his stint in the Ecuadorian embassy in London has been of particular interest, since it violated both general principles of privacy and more specific ones regarding attorney-client privilege.  Of particular interest to US Constitution watchers was whether such actions violated the reasonable expectation of privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment.

Four US citizens took issue with such surveillance, which was executed by the Spanish security firm Undercover (UC) Global and its starry-eyed, impressionable director David Morales under instruction from the CIA.  Civil rights attorney Margaret Ratner Kunstler and media lawyer Deborah Hrbek, and journalists John Goetz and Charles Glass, took the matter to the US District Court of the Southern District of New York in August last year.  They had four targets of litigation: the CIA itself, its former director, Michael R. Pompeo, Morales and his company, UC Global SL.

All four alleged that the US Government had conducted surveillance on them and copied their information during visits to Assange in the embassy, thereby violating the Fourth Amendment.  In doing so, the plaintiffs argued they were entitled to money damages and injunctive relief.  The government moved to dismiss the complaint as amended.

On December 19, District Judge John G. Koeltl delivered a judgment of much interest, granting, in part, the US government’s motion to dismiss but denying other parts of it.  Before turning to the relevant features of Koeltl’s reasons, various observations made in the case bear repeating.  The judge notes, for instance, Pompeo’s April 2017 speech, in which he “‘pledged that his office would embark upon a ‘long term’ campaign against WikiLeaks.’”  He is cognisant of the plaintiffs’ claims “Morales was recruited to conduct surveillance on Assange and his visitors on behalf of the CIA and that this recruitment occurred at a January 2017 private security industry convention at the Las Vegas Sands Hotel in Las Vegas, Nevada.”

From that meeting, it is claimed that “Morales created an operations unit, improved UC Global’s systems, and set up live streaming from the United States so that surveillance could be accessed instantly by the CIA.”  The data gathered from UC Global “was either personally delivered to Las Vegas; Washington, D.C.; and New York City by Morales (who travelled to these locations more than sixty times in the three years following the Las Vegas convention) or placed on a server that provided external access to the CIA”.

Koeltl preferred to avoid deciding on the claims that Morales and UC Global were, in fact, “acting as agents of Pompeo and the CIA”.  Such matters were questions of fact “that cannot be decided on a motion to dismiss.”

A vital issue in the case was whether the plaintiffs had standing to sue the CIA in the first place.  Citing the case of ACLU v Clapper, which involved a challenge to the National Security Agency’s bulk telephone metadata collection program, Koeltl accepted that they did.  In doing so, he rejected a similar argument made by the government in Clapper – that the injuries alleged were simply “too speculative and generalized” and that the information gathered via surveillance would necessarily even be used against them.  “In this case, the plaintiffs need not allege, as the Government argues, that the Government will imminently use their information collected at the Ecuadorean Embassy in London.”   If the search of the conversations and electronic devices along with the seizure of the contents of the electronic devices “were unlawful, the plaintiffs have suffered a concrete and particularized injury fairly traceable to the challenged program and redressable by favorable ruling.”

Less satisfactory for the plaintiffs was the finding they had no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding their conversations with the publisher given that “they knew Assange was surveilled even before the CIA’s alleged involvement.”  The judge thought it significant that they did “not allege that they would not have met Assange had they known their conversations would be surveilled.”  Additionally, it “would not be recognized as reasonable by society” to have expected conversations held with Assange at the embassy in London to be protected, given such societal acceptance of, for instance, video surveillance in government buildings.

This reasoning is faulty, given that the visits by the four plaintiffs to the embassy did not take place with their knowledge of the operation being conducted by UC Global with CIA blessing.  In a general sense, anyone visiting the embassy could not help but suspect that Assange might be the object of surveillance, but to suggest something akin to a waiver of privacy rights on the part of attorneys and journalists aiding a persecuted publisher is an odd turn.

The US Government also succeeded on the point that the plaintiffs had no reasonable expectation to privacy regarding their passports or their devices they voluntarily left at the Embassy reception desk.  In doing so, they “assumed the risk that the information may be conveyed to the Government.”  Those visiting embassies must, it would seem, be perennially on guard.

That said, the plaintiffs convinced the judge that they had “sufficient allegations that the CIA and Pompeo, through Morales and UC Global, violated their reasonable expectation to privacy in the contents of their electronic devices.”  The government even went so far as to concede that point.

Unfortunately for the plaintiffs, the biggest fish was let off the hook.  The plaintiffs had attempted to use the 1971 US Supreme Court case of Bivens to argue that the former CIA director be held accountable and liable for violating constitutional rights.  Koeltl thought the effort to extend the application of Bivens inappropriate in terms of the high standing nature of the defendant and the context.  “As a presidential appointee confirmed by Congress […] Defendant Pompeo is in a different category of defendant from a law enforcement agent of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics.”  More’s the pity.

Leaving aside some of the more questionable turns of reasoning in Koeltl’s judgment, public interest litigants and activists can take heart from the prospect that civil trials against the CIA for violations of the US Constitution are no longer unrealistic.  “We are thrilled,” declared Richard Roth, the plaintiffs’ attorney, “that the court rejected the CIA’s efforts to silence the plaintiffs, who merely seek to expose the CIA’s attempt to carry out Pompeo’s vendetta against WikiLeaks.”  The appeals process, however, is bound to be tested.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Binoy Kampmark.

However, the claim is false. Germany’s foreign ministry told AFCL that its post was to condemn some online users who inappropriately used the symbol to glorify the Nazi regime – which used the symbol – or combined it with the Israeli flag. 

The swastika is an ancient symbol that has been used in many different cultures, not just as a symbol for Buddhism. 

The claim was shared here on Weibo, China’s popular social media platform, on Oct. 25.

“Germany insulted Chinese online users with its official Weibo post. It banned the manja [the swastika]. The German Embassy must apologize!” reads the claim in part. 

A number of Chinese internet personalities and legal bloggers later derided the embassy’s announcement as inappropriate for using foul language and mistaken in its use of the upright version of the swastika, insisting that Buddhist uses of the symbol were always upright, while Nazi was always tilted. 

German expressions of support for Israel following the outbreak of the Israel-Hamas war has caused Chinese netizens to leave disparaging comments on the German Embassy official social media accounts, including pictures of an Israeli flag combined with a swastika.

In response, the German Embassy in China urged Chinese online users on Oct. 24 to avoid glorifying Nazism, posting an image of the Swastika with a red cross mark on it. 

The identical claim was shared in other Chinese social media posts that also claimed that the photo released by the German Embassy shows an upright swastika, which solely symbolizes Buddhism, unlike the tilted swastika used by the Nazis.

However, the claim is false. 

The swastika

The swastika is an ancient symbol that has been used in many different cultures going back at least 5,000 years. To this day, it is a sacred symbol in Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Odinism. 

The symbol took on a variety of meanings throughout history before being chosen by Adolf Hitler as a symbol of National Socialism. 

While this was the most infamous appropriation of the symbol, the swastika was also used on the flags of many other radical far-right political parties from the early 20th century. 

It is true that most Nazi flags feature tilted swastikas, but historical photos of others such as the personal standard of Hitler and the flag used by his personal bodyguards clearly show the symbol in an upright position. 

‘Not a ban for Chinese online users’

Keyword searches found no official statements or credible reports to show that the German Embassy banned Chinese online users from using the swastika.

Use of the swastika in Germany, regardless of its position, is prohibited by law due to its use by the Nazis and its clear anti-Semitic connotations, according to a spokesperson for Germany’s Federal Foreign Office.

The spokesperson told AFCL that its Weibo post was designed to “condemn posts by some users who inappropriately used this symbol to glorify the Nazi regime or combined it with the Israeli flag.”

Translated by Shen Ke. Edited by Taejun Kang and Malcolm Foster. 

Asia Fact Check Lab (AFCL) is a branch of RFA established to counter disinformation in today’s complex media environment. Our journalists publish both daily and special reports that aim to sharpen and deepen our readers’ understanding of public issues.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Zhuang Jing for Asia Fact Check Lab.

The referendum on the indigenous Voice in Australia last Saturday was an historic event. Australians were asked to vote on whether to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia in the Constitution through an indigenous Voice.

The voters were asked to vote “yes” or “no” on a single question:

“A Proposed Law: to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.

“Do you approve this proposed alteration?”

• READ MORE: Other reports on the Voice

The Voice was proposed as an independent, representative body for First Nations peoples to advise the Australian Parliament and government, giving them a voice on issues that affect them.

Here are some key points:

• The proposal was to recognise Indigenous Australians in the Constitution by creating a body to advise Parliament, known as the “Voice”.
• The “Voice” would be an independent advisory body. Members would be chosen by First Nations communities around Australia to represent them.
• The “Voice” would provide advice to governments on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, such as health, education, and housing, in the hope that such advice will lead to better outcomes.
• Under the Constitution, the federal government already has the power to make laws for Indigenous people. The “Voice” would be a way for them to be consulted on those laws. However, the government would be under no obligation to act on the advice.
• Indigenous people have called for the “Voice” to be included in the Constitution so that it can’t be removed by the government of the day, which has been the fate of every previous indigenous advisory body. It is also the way indigenous people have said they want to be recognised in the constitution as the First Nations with a 65,000-year connection to the continent — not simply through symbolic words.

It was necessary for a majority of voters to vote “yes” nationally, as well as a majority of voters in at least four out of six states, for the referendum to pass.

Unfortunately, it was rejected by the majority with more than 60 percent with the vote still being counted. In all six states and the Northern Territory, a “No” vote was projected.

According to the ABC, a majority of voters in all six states and the Northern Territory voted against the proposal.

New South Wales
81.2 percent counted, 1.81 million voted yes (40.5 percent) and 2.67M million voted no (59.5 percent).

Victoria
78.5 percent counted, 1.56 million voted yes (45.0 percent), and 1.91 million voted no (55.0 percent).

Tasmania
82.7 percent counted, 134,809 voted yes (40.5 percent), and 198,152 voted no (59.5 percent).

South Australia
79.1 percent counted, 355,682 voted yes (35.4 percent), 648,769 voted no (64.6 percent).

Queensland
74.3 percent counted, 835,159 voted yes (31.2 percent), 1.84 million voted no (68.8 percent).

Western Australia
75.3 percent counted, 495,448 voted yes (36.4 percent), and 866,902 voted no (63.6 percent).

Northern Territory
63.4 percent counted, 37,969 voted yes (39.5 percent), and 58,193 voted no (60.5 percent).

ACT
82.8 percent counted, 158,097 voted yes (60.8 percent), and 102,002 voted no (39.2 percent).

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has said the next steps after the failed Indigenous Voice to Parliament referendum are yet to be decided and called the expectation of having a plan just days after the vote “not respectful”.

For the latest news, visit: https://t.co/X6qtu24rNp pic.twitter.com/smgqgeV55Y

— SBS News (@SBSNews) October 17, 2023

In addition to being viewed as divisive along racial lines, concerns about how the Voice to Parliament would work (whether indigenous Australians would be given greater power) and uncertainties about how the new body would result in meaningful change for indigenous Australians contributed to the rejection.

Australia has held 44 referendums since its founding in 1901. However, the referendum on the Indigenous Voice to Parliament in 2023 was the first of its kind to focus specifically on Indigenous Australians.

As part of a broader push to establish constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians, the Voice proposal was seen as a significant step towards reconciliation and was the result of decades of indigenous advocacy and work.

A key turning point came in 2017 when 250 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander delegates from across the country met at Uluru for the First Nations’ National Constitutional Convention. The proposal, known as the Voice, sought to recognise Indigenous people in Australia’s constitution and establish a First Nations body to advise the government on issues affecting their communities.

However, the Voice proposal was not unanimously accepted. In the course of the campaign, intense conflict and discussion ensued between supporters and opponents, resulting in what supporters viewed as a tragic outcome, while the victorious opponents celebrated their victory.

The support of Oceania’s indigenous leaders
Pacific Islanders expressed their views before the referendum on the Voice to Parliament.

Henry Puna, Secretary-General of the Pacific Islands Forum, said that Australia’s credibility would be boosted on the world stage if the yes vote won the Indigenous voice referendum. He stated that it would be “wonderful” if Australia were to vote yes, because he believed it would elevate Australia’s position, and perhaps even its credibility, internationally.

The former Foreign Minister of Vanuatu (nd current Climate Change Minister), Ralph Regevanu, warned Australia’s reputation would plummet among its allies in the Pacific if the Voice to Parliament was defeated.

These views indicate the potential impact of the voice referendum on Australia’s relationship with Pacific Island nations, which it often refers to as “its own backyard”.

The “No” camp claimed the Voice was an “elite” idea, that “real” Indigenous people didn’t want it, because Peter Dutton had spoken to “shoppers”. Even with the results, they still insist communities did not want one – taking away what little voice they gothttps://t.co/kWt0hjDHEC

— Rachel Withers (@rachelrwithers) October 17, 2023

Division, defeat and impact
A tragic aspect of the Voice proposal is the fact that not only were Australian settlers divided about it, but even worse, indigenous leaders themselves, who were in a position to bring together a fragmented and tormented nation, were at odds with each other — including full-on verbal wars in media.

While their opinions on the proposal were divided, some had practical and realistic ideas to address the problems faced by indigenous communities in remote towns. Others proposed a treaty between settlers and original indigenous people.

There are also those who advocate for a strong political recognition within the nation’s constitutional framework.

Despite these divisions among indigenous leaders, the referendum on Voice represents a significant milestone in the ongoing indigenous resistance that spans over 200 years.

It is a resistance that began on January 26, 1788, when the invasion began (Pemulwuy’s War), and continued through various milestones such as the 1937 Petition for citizenship, land rights, and representation, the 1938 Day of Mourning, the 1963 Yirrkala bark petitions, the 1965 Freedom Rides, and the establishment of the Aboriginal Tent Embassy in Canberra in 1972.

It further extended to 1990-2005 with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC), the 1991 Song Treaty by Yothu Yindi, Eddie Mabo overturning terra nullius in 1992, Kevin Rudd’s 2008 apology, and the Uluru Statement from the Heart until the recent defeat of the Voice Referendum in 2023.

A dangerous settlers’ myth and its consequences
The modern nation of Australia (aged 244 years) has been shaped by one of European myths: “Terra Nullius”, the Latin term for “nobody’s land”. This myth was used to describe the legal position at the time of British colonisation.

Accordingly, the land had been deemed as terra nullius, which implies that it had belonged to no one before the British Crown declared sovereignty over it.

Eddy Mabo: A Melanesian Hero
An indigenous Melanesian, Eddy Mabo, overturned this myth in 1992, known as “the Mabo Case,” which recognised the land rights of the Meriam people and other indigenous peoples.

The Mabo Case resulted in significant changes in Australian law in several areas. One of the most notable changes was the overturning of the long-standing legal fiction of “terra nullius,” which posited that Australia was unpopulated (no man’s land) at the time of British colonisation.

In this decision, the High Court of Australia recognized the legal rights of Indigenous Australians to make claims to lands in Australia. It marked a historic moment, as it was the first time that the law acknowledged the traditional rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. In addition, the Mabo Case contributed directly to the establishment of the Native Title Act in 1993.

Even though these changes are significant, debates persist regarding the state of indigenous Australians under colonial settlement.

Indigenous Affairs reporter Isabella Higgins says the No victory in the Indigenous Voice to Parliament Referendum could change the way Indigenous Australians will want to interact with the rest of the country going forward. pic.twitter.com/g5CxBaU0Op

— ABC News (@abcnews) October 15, 2023

Indigenous leaders need to see a big picture
The recent referendum on the Voice sparked heated debates on a topic that has long been a source of contention: the age-old battle of “my country versus your country, my mob versus your mob, I know best versus you know nothing.”

While it’s important to celebrate and protect cultural diversity and the unique perspectives it brings, it’s equally important to recognise that British settlers didn’t just apply the myth of terra nullius to a select few groups or regions — they applied it to all areas inhabited by indigenous peoples, treating them as a single, homogenous entity.

This means that any solution to indigenous issues must be rooted in a collective, unified voice, rather than a patchwork of fragmented groups.

Indigenous leaders need to prioritise the creation of a unified front among themselves and mobilise their people before seeking support from Australians. Currently, they are engaging in competition, outdoing each other, and fighting over the same issue on mainstream media platforms, indigenous-run media platforms, and social media.

This approach is reminiscent of the “divide, conquer, and rule” strategy that the British effectively employed worldwide to expand and maintain their dominion. This strategy has historically caused harm to indigenous nations worldwide, and it is now harming indigenous people because their leaders are fighting among themselves.

It is important to note that this does not imply a rejection of every distinct indigenous language group, clan, or tribe. However, it is crucial to recognise that indigenous peoples throughout Oceania were viewed through a particular European lens, which scholars refer to as “Eurocentrism”.

This “lens” is a double-edged sword, providing semantic definition and dissection power while also compartmentalising based on a hierarchy of values. Melanesians and indigenous Australians were placed at the bottom of this hierarchy and deemed to be of no historical or cultural significance.

This realisation is of utmost importance for the collective attainment of redemption, unity and reconciliation.

The larger Australian indigenous’ cause
From Vasco Núñez de Balboa’s momentous crossing of the Isthmus of Panama to Ferdinand Magellan’s pioneering Spanish expedition across the Pacific Ocean in 1521, and Abel Janszoon Tasman’s remarkable exploration of Tasmania, Australia, New Zealand, and Fiji, to James Cook’s renowned voyages in the Pacific Ocean between 1768 and 1779, the indigenous peoples of Oceania have endured immense suffering and torment as a consequence of the European scramble for these territories.

The indigenous peoples of Oceania were forever scarred by the merciless onslaught of European maritime marauders. When the race for supremacy over these unspoiled regions unfolded, their lives were shattered, and their communities torn asunder.

The web of life in Australia and Oceania was severely disrupted, devalued, rejected, and subjected to brutality and torment as a result of the waves of colonisation that forcefully impacted their shores.

The colonisers imposed various racial prejudices, civilising agendas, legal myths, and the Discovery doctrine, all of which were conceived within the collective conceptual mindset of Europeans and applied to the indigenous people.

These actions have had a lasting and fatalistic impact on the collective indigenous population in Australia and Oceania, resulting in dehumanisation, enslavement, genocide, and persistent marginalisation of their humanity, leading to unwarranted guilt for their mere existence.

The European collective perception of Oceania, exemplified by the notion of terra nullius, has resulted in numerous transgressions of indigenous laws, customs, and cosmologies, affecting every aspect of life within the entire landscape. These violations have led to the loss of land, destruction of language, erasure of memories, and imposition of British customs.

Furthermore, indigenous peoples were forcibly relocated to concentration camps, missions, and reserves.

The Declaration received support from a total of 144 countries, with only four countries (which have historically displaced indigenous populations through settler occupation) voting against it — Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States.

However, all four countries subsequently reversed their positions and endorsed the Declaration. It should be noted that while the Declaration does not possess legal binding force, it does serve as a reflection of the commitments and responsibilities that states have under international law and human rights standards.

The challenges and concerns confronting indigenous communities are undeniably more severe and deplorable than the current “yes or no” referendum. It is imperative for the entire nation, including indigenous leaders, to acknowledge the profound extent of the Indigenous human tragedy that extends beyond the divisive binary.

Old and new imperial vultures
Similar to the European vultures that once encircled Oceania centuries ago, partitioned its territories, subjugated its people, conducted bomb experiments, and eradicated its population in Tasmania, the present-day vultures from the Eastern and Western regions exhibit comparable behaviours.

It is imperative for indigenous leaders hailing from Australia, Melanesia, Polynesia, and Micronesia to unite and demand that the colonial governments be held responsible for the multitude of crimes they have perpetrated.

Message to divided indigenous leaders
Simply assigning blame to already fragmented, tormented, and highly marginalised Indigenous communities, and endeavouring to empower them solely through a range of government handouts and community-based development programs, will not be adequate.

Because the trust between indigenous peoples and settlers has been shattered over centuries of abuse, deeply impacting the core of Indigenous self-image, dignity, and respect.

My personal experience in remote indigenous communities
I am a Papuan who came to Australia over 20 years ago to study in the remote NSW town of Bourke. I lived, studied, and worked at a small Christian College called Cornerstone Community.

During my time there, I was adopted by the McKellar clan of the Wangkumara Tribe in Bourke and worked closely with indigenous communities in Bourke, Brewarrina, Walgett, Cobar, Wilcannia, and Dubbo.

Unfortunately, my experiences in these places left me traumatised.

These communities have become so broken. I found myself succumbing to depression as a result of the distressing experiences I witnessed. It dawned upon me being “blackfella” — Papuan indigenous descent — was and still consistently subjected to similar mistreatment regardless of location.

This realisation instilled within me a sense of guilt for my own identity, as I was constantly made feel guilty of who I was. Tragically, a significant number of the young indigenous whom I endeavoured to aid and guide through diverse community and youth initiatives have either been incarcerated or committed suicide.

West Papua, my home country, is currently experiencing a genocide due to the Indonesian settler occupation, which is supported by the Australian government. This is similar to what indigenous Australians have endured under the colonial system of settlers.

Indigenous Australians in every region, town, and city face a complex and diverse set of issues, which are unique, tragic, and devastating. These issues are a result of how the settler colony interacted with them upon their arrival in the country.

Nevertheless, the indigenous people were not subjected to centuries of abuse and mistreatment solely based on their tribal affiliations. Rather, they were targeted by the settler government as a collective, disregarding the diversity among indigenous groups.

This included the indigenous people from Oceania, who have endured dehumanisation and racism as a result of colonisation.

It is imperative to acknowledge that the resolution of these predicaments cannot be attained by a solitary leader representing a particular group. The indigenous leaders need a unified vision and strategy to combat these issues.

All indigenous individuals across the globe, including Australia, New Zealand, Oceania, and West Papua, are afflicted by the same affliction. The only distinguishing factor is the degree of harm inflicted by the virus, along with the circumstances surrounding its occurrence.

A statement from Indigenous Australians who supported the Voice referendum. https://t.co/UlW2kvd9oa pic.twitter.com/1159uz3bxk

— ulurustatement (@ulurustatement) October 15, 2023

A paradigm shift
Imagine a world where indigenous peoples in Australia and Oceania reclaim their original languages and redefine the ideas, myths, and behaviours displayed on their land with their own concepts of law, morality, and cosmology. In this world, I am confident that every legal product, civilisational idea, and colonial moral code applied to these peoples would be deemed illegal.

It is time to empower indigenous voices and perspectives and challenge the oppressive systems that have silenced them for far too long.

Commence the process of renaming each island, city, town, mountain, lake, river, valley, animal, tree, rock, country, and region with their authentic local languages and names, thereby reinstating their original significance and worth.

However, in order to accomplish this, it is imperative that indigenous communities are granted the necessary authority, as it is ultimately their power that will reinforce such transformation. This power does not solely rely on weapons or monetary resources, but rather on the determination to preserve their way of life, restore their self-image, and demand the recognition of their dignity and respect.

Last Saturday’s No Vote tragedy wasn’t just about the majority of Australians rejecting it. It was a heartbreaking moment where indigenous leaders, who should have been united, found themselves fiercely divided.

Accusations were flying left and right, targeting each other’s backgrounds, positions, and portfolios. This bitter divide ended up gambling away any chance of redemption and reconciliation that had reached such a high national level.

It was a devastating blow to the hopes and aspirations for a better world for one of the most disadvantaged originals continues human on this ancient timeless continent — Australia.

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.

• Other Yamin Kogoya articles

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

Many labour organisations have protested in front of the US Embassy in Central Jakarta, calling for an end to the Hamas-Israeli war — as protests in their tens of thousands have spread across the world.

The workers gathered across the street from the US Embassy with a command vehicle being used to give speeches.

Protesters could be seen putting up large banners with the message “Stop the Palestine-Israeli war”.

• READ MORE: Al Jazeera live news blog on the Hamas-Israel conflict

“Today, the Labour Party and the KSPI (Confederation of Indonesian Trade Unions) are holding an action in front of the United States Embassy and later it will be continued at the United Nations offices in the context of calling for an end to the Palestine and Israeli war”, Labour Party president Said Iqbal told the protesters.

Iqbal said they were asking US President Joe Biden not to send troops to Israel.

They gave speeches in front of the US Embassy so that the message they are conveying is immediately implemented by the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council.

“The Labour Party and trade unions in Indonesia reject the presence of American troops entering Israel, and the American aircraft carrier that has already entered the Mediterranean,” said Iqbal.

Heavy death toll
A heavy police presence was deployed around the event and the officers redirected traffic when it became too congested.

The Israel-Hamas conflict has been heating up since Saturday, October 7, when Hamas attacked Israel and since then the Israeli Defence Forces have been bombing the Gaza Strip enclave.

From Ireland to South Africa and from the U.S. to Pakistan, tens of thousands of people all around the world are taking to the streets to demand an end to Israel’s attacks on occupied Gaza. pic.twitter.com/CKlNMVWXlT

— AJ+ (@ajplus) October 14, 2023

In Israel, the death toll stands at some 1300 killed and more than 3400 wounded since last weekend’s attack by Hamas.

Translated by James Balowski for IndoLeft News. The original title of the article was “Buruh Demo di Depan Kedubes AS, Serukan Hentikan Perang Hamas-Israel”.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

Cuba has released footage showing an individual throwing two Molotov cocktails inside the Cuban Embassy compound in Washington, D.C., last Sunday, condemning it as a terrorist attack. An investigation is underway, but no arrests have been made. Cuba’s Deputy Foreign Minister Carlos Fernández de Cossío says the country is demanding a speedy investigation, adding that it is the latest in a series of attacks against Cuban diplomatic missions in recent years. Meanwhile, international pressure continues to grow for the Biden administration to lift the embargo on Cuba and remove it from a list of state sponsors of terrorism. “Cuba’s relationship with terrorism is as a victim,” Fernández de Cossío says of the terror designation. “The reason is not very clear to us, beyond the wish of trying to make life as unbearable as possible for the people of Cuba as a way of trying to extract from Cuba political concessions.”

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

“Could it be more ironic? A country being accused of terrorism by the U.S. once again suffers a terrorist attack on U.S. soil. It’s time to stop the senseless aggression against this small island nation of 11 million and normalize relations,” said CODEPINK co-founder Medea Benjamin.

The United States continues to falsely label Cuba a state sponsor of terror, despite the fact that Cuba does not engage in any terrorist activity. This act of violence against the embassy comes on the heels of a series of impactful meetings by Cuban President Diaz Canel at the United Nations, as well as successful meetings with Cuban Americans, businesspeople, and U.S. artists and activists.

Tonight, CODEPINK, along with other allies, will be out in front of the Cuban Embassy to show love and solidarity to the people of Cuba in the face of this act of hate and aggression, and to demand justice for this attack and to call for an end to the blockade on Cuba.

“The attacks against the Embassy of Cuba last night are the product of intolerance and hatred rooted in false accusations of terrorism suffered by the Cuban people. It’s time to get Cuba off the list and promote peace and understanding among our peoples.” said Michelle Ellner, CODEPINK’s Latin America Team organizer.

The event will take place at 5:00pm at the Cuban Embassy, located at 2630 16th Street NW, Washington D.C. We urge all those who stand for peace and justice to join us in solidarity with the Cuban people.

For more information regarding the event, please contact Medea Benjanmin at medea@codepink.org

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Newswire Editor.

Prime Minister James Marape has made two foreign policy gaffes in the space of a week that may come back to bite him as Papua New Guinea prepares for its 48th anniversary of independence this Saturday.

Critics have been stunned by the opening of a PNG embassy in Jerusalem in defiance of international law – when only three countries have done this other than the United States amid strong Palestinian condemnation — and days later a communique from his office appeared to have indicated he had turned his back on West Papuan self-determination aspirations.

Marape was reported to have told President Joko Widodo that PNG had no right to criticise Indonesia over human rights allegations in West Papua and reportedly admitted that he had “abstained” at the Port Vila meeting of the Melanesian Spearhead Group last month when it had been widely expected that a pro-independence movement would be admitted as full members.

• READ MORE: MSG throws away golden chance to reset peace and justice for West Papua
• Other West Papua reports

The membership was denied and the United Liberation Movement for West Papua (ULMWP) remained as observers — as they have for almost a decade, disappointing supporters across the Pacific, while Indonesia remains an associate member.

Although Marape later denied that these were actually his views and he told PNG media that the statement had been “unauthorised”, his backtracking was less than convincing.

In the case of Papua New Guinea’s diplomatic relations with Israel, they were given a major and surprising upgrade with the opening of the embassy on September 5 in a high-rise building opposite Malha Mall, Israel’s largest shopping mall.

Marape was quoted by the PNG Post-Courier as saying that the Israeli government would “bankroll” the first two years of the embassy’s operation.

Diplomatic rift with Palestine
This is bound to cause a serious diplomatic rift with Palestine with much of the world supporting resolutions backing the Palestinian cause, especially as Marape also pledged support for Israel with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu attending the inauguration ceremony.

Papua New Guinea has now joined Guatemala, Honduras, Kosovo and the United States as the “pariah” countries willing to open embassies in West Jerusalem. Most countries maintain embassies instead in Tel Aviv, the country’s commercial centre.

Israel regards West Jerusalem as its capital and would like to see all diplomatic missions established there. However, 138 of the 193 United Nations member countries do not recognise this.

Palestine considers East Jerusalem as its capital for a future independent state in spite of the city being occupied by Israel since being captured in the 1967 Six Day War and having been annexed in a move never recognised internationally.

As Al Jazeera reports, Israel has defiantly continued to build illegal settlements in East Jerusalem and in the Occupied West Bank.

“Many nations choose not to open their embassies in Jerusalem, but we have made a conscious choice,” Marape admitted at the embassy opening.

“For us to call ourselves Christian, paying respect to God will not be complete without recognising that Jerusalem is the universal capital of the people and the nation of Israel,” Marape said.

Law as ‘Christian state’
According to PNG news media, Marape also plans to introduce a law declaring the country a “Christian state” and this has faced some flak back home.

In an editorial, the Post-Courier said Marape had officially opened the new embassy in Jerusalem in response to PNG church groups that had lobbied for a “firmer relationship” with Israel for so long.

“When PM Marape was in Israel,” lamented the Post-Courier, “news broke out that a Christian prayer warrior back home, ‘using the name of the Lord, started performing a prayer ritual and was describing and naming people in the village who she claimed had satanic powers and were killing and causing people to get sick, have bad luck and struggle in finding education, finding jobs and doing business’.

“Upon the prayer warrior’s words, a community in Bulolo, Morobe Province, went bonkers and tortured a 39-year-old mother to her death. She was suspected of possessing satanic powers and of being a witch.

“It is hard to accept that such a barbaric killing should occur in Morobe, the stronghold of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, which has quickly condemned the killing.”

The Post-Courier warned that the country would need to wait and see how Palestine would react over the embassy.

“Australia and Britain had to withdraw their plans to set up embassies in Jerusalem, when Palestine protested, describing the move as a ‘blatant violation of international law’.

Indonesian ‘soft-diplomacy’ in Pacific
The establishment of the new embassy coincides with news that the Indonesian government plans a major boost in its diplomatic offensive in Oceania in an attempt to persuade Pacific countries to fall in line with Jakarta over West Papua.

Security, Politics and Legal Affairs Minister Wiranto – a former high-ranking Indonesian general with an unsavoury reputation — has asked for an additional budget of 60 million rupiah (US$4 million) to be used for diplomatic efforts in the South Pacific

“We are pursuing intense soft-diplomacy. I’m heading it up myself, going there, coordinating, and talking to them,” he told a working meeting with the House of Representatives (DPR) Budget Committee on September 5.

“We’re proposing an additional budget of 60 billion rupiah.”

Wiranto is annoyed that seven out of 13 Pacific countries back independence for West Papua. He claims that this is because of “disinformation” in the Pacific and he wants to change that.

“We’ve been forgetting, we’ve been negligent, that there are many countries there which could potentially threaten our domination — Papua is part of our territory and it turns out that this is true,” said Wiranto.

But for many critics in the region, it is the Indonesian government and its officials themselves that peddle disinformation and racism about Papua.

Wiranto lacks credibility
Wiranto has little credibility in the Pacific.

According to Human Rights Watch: “The former general Wiranto was chief of Indonesia’s armed forces in 1999 when the Indonesian army and military-backed militias carried out numerous atrocities against East Timorese after they voted for independence.

“On February 24, 2003, the UN-sponsored East Timor Serious Crimes Unit filed an indictment for crimes against humanity against Wiranto and three other Indonesian generals, three colonels and the former governor of East Timor.

“The charges include[d] murder, arson, destruction of property and forced relocation.

“The charges against Wiranto are so serious that the United States has put Wiranto and others accused of crimes in East Timor on a visa watch list that could bar them from entering the country.”

Australian human rights author and West Papuan advocate Jim Aubrey condemned Wiranto’s “intense soft-diplomacy” comment.

“Yeah, right! Like the soft-diplomatic decapitation of Tarina Murib! Like the soft-diplomatic mutilation and dismemberment of the Timika Four villagers! Like Indonesian barbarity is non-existent!,” he told Asia Pacific Report.

“The non-existent things in Wiranto’s chosen words are truth and justice!”

Conflicting reports on West Papua
When the PNG government released conflicting reports on Papua New Guinea’s position over West Papua last weekend it caused confusion after Marape and Widodo had met in a sideline meeting in in Jakarta during the ASEAN summit.

According to RNZ Pacific, Marape had said about allegations of human rights violations in West Papua that PNG had no moral grounds to comment on human rights issues outside of its own jurisdiction because it had its “own challenges”.

He was also reported to have told President Widodo Marape that he had abstained from supporting the West Papuan bid to join the Melanesian Spearhead Group because the West Papuan United Liberation Movement (ULMWP) “does not meet the requirements of a fully-fledged sovereign nation”.

“Indonesia’s associate membership status also as a Melanesian country to the MSG suffices, which cancels out West Papua ULM’s bid,” Marape reportedly said referring to the ULMWP.

Reacting with shock to the report, a senior PNG politician described it to Asia Pacific Report as “a complete capitulation”.

“No PNG leader has ever gone to that extent,” the politician said, saying that he was seeking clarification.

The statements also caught the attention of the ULMWP which raised their concerns with the Post-Courier.

Marape statement ‘corrected’
Three days later the Post-Courier reported that Marape had “corrected” the original reported statement.

In a revised statement, Marape said that in an effort to rectify any misinformation and alleviate concerns raised within Melanesian Solidarity Group (MSG) countries, West Papua, Indonesia, and the international community, he had addressed “the inaccuracies”.

“Papua New Guinea never abstained from West Papua matters at the MSG meeting, but rather, offered solutions that affirmed Indonesian sovereignty over her territories and at the same time supported the collective MSG position to back the Pacific Islands Forum Resolution of 2019 on United Nations to assess if there are human right abuses in West Papua and Papua provinces of Indonesia.”

He also relayed a message to President Widodo that the four MSG leaders of Melanesian countries – [Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Solomon islands and Vanuatu] — had resolved to visit him at his convenience to discuss human rights.

But clarifications or not, Prime Minister Marape has left a lingering impression that Papua New Guinea’s foreign policy is for sale with chequebook diplomacy, especially when relating to both Indonesia and Israel.

Dr David Robie, editor and publisher of Asia Pacific Report, has written on West Papuan affairs since the 1983 Nuclear Free and Independent Pacific (NFIP) conference in Port Vila and is author of Blood on their Banner: Nationalist Struggles of the South Pacific.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

The Palestinian Authority has called the opening of Papua New Guinea’s Israeli embassy in Jerusalem an “aggression” and a “violation” of international law.

In a statement, Palestine’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates termed the embassy opening as “an aggression against the Palestinian people and their rights” and “a blatant violation of international law and United Nations resolutions”.

On Tuesday, PNG Prime Minister James Marape inaugurated the embassy in West Jerusalem, becoming only the fifth country to set up a diplomatic mission in the city.

• READ MORE: Palestine slams Papua New Guinea’s embassy in Jerusalem as ‘aggresion’
• Papua New Guinea opens Israel embassy in West Jerusalem
• Citing ‘God of Israel,’ PNG becomes 5th nation to open Jerusalem embassy

In 2018, the US moved its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem in a move that was followed by Honduras, Guatemala and Kosovo.

The Palestinian ministry said it would use all political, diplomatic and legal means to “pursue these countries over their unjustified aggression against the Palestinian people and their rights.”

The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and Jordan have also condemned the move.

Religion behind the move
According to the Times of Israel, Marape was explicit that the opening of the embassy was down to religious motivations.

The country opened its embassy “because of our shared heritage, acknowledging the creator God, the Yahweh God of Israel, the Yahweh God of Isaac and Abraham,” the newspaper quoted Marape as saying.

“You have been the great custodian of the moral values that were passed for humanity,” Marape told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who attended the ceremony opening.

“Many nations choose not to open their embassies in Jerusalem but we made the conscious choice. This has been the universal capital of the nation and people of Israel.

For us to call ourselves Christians, paying respect to God will not be complete without recognising that Jerusalem is the universal capital of the people and nation of Israel.”

Marape also asked Israel to open an embassy in Port Moresby, and offered to provide the land for the mission.

Earlier this week, it was revealed that Israel would bankroll the embassy.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

The Palestinian Authority has called the opening of Papua New Guinea’s Israeli embassy in Jerusalem an “aggression” and a “violation” of international law.

In a statement, Palestine’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates termed the embassy opening as “an aggression against the Palestinian people and their rights” and “a blatant violation of international law and United Nations resolutions”.

On Tuesday, PNG Prime Minister James Marape inaugurated the embassy in West Jerusalem, becoming only the fifth country to set up a diplomatic mission in the city.

• READ MORE: Palestine slams Papua New Guinea’s embassy in Jerusalem as ‘aggresion’
• Papua New Guinea opens Israel embassy in West Jerusalem
• Citing ‘God of Israel,’ PNG becomes 5th nation to open Jerusalem embassy

In 2018, the US moved its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem in a move that was followed by Honduras, Guatemala and Kosovo.

The Palestinian ministry said it would use all political, diplomatic and legal means to “pursue these countries over their unjustified aggression against the Palestinian people and their rights.”

The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and Jordan have also condemned the move.

Religion behind the move
According to the Times of Israel, Marape was explicit that the opening of the embassy was down to religious motivations.

The country opened its embassy “because of our shared heritage, acknowledging the creator God, the Yahweh God of Israel, the Yahweh God of Isaac and Abraham,” the newspaper quoted Marape as saying.

“You have been the great custodian of the moral values that were passed for humanity,” Marape told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who attended the ceremony opening.

“Many nations choose not to open their embassies in Jerusalem but we made the conscious choice. This has been the universal capital of the nation and people of Israel.

For us to call ourselves Christians, paying respect to God will not be complete without recognising that Jerusalem is the universal capital of the people and nation of Israel.”

Marape also asked Israel to open an embassy in Port Moresby, and offered to provide the land for the mission.

Earlier this week, it was revealed that Israel would bankroll the embassy.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

RNZ Pacific

France is upping its “cultural diplomacy” in the Pacific with the launch of its free French language classes for Fijian journalists and social innovators.

The French Embassy in Suva said the fully-funded “landmark initiative” would “foster linguistic and cultural ties between France and Fiji”.

“This initiative reflects France’s commitment to education, collaboration and cultural diplomacy,” it said.

• READ MORE: Other France in the Pacific reports

There are 300 million French speakers across five continents, and the International Organisation of La Francophone consists of 88 countries.

The free language classes “recognises Fiji’s unique position in the Pacific and aims to align it to the broader Francophone community”.

“Fiji’s geographical location positions it near a nexus of Francophone influence in the Pacific.”

According to the embassy, there are around 500 French speakers in Fiji and France aims to increase that number,” a spokesperson said.

“Neighbouring New Caledonia, a French overseas collectivity, and Vanuatu, a Francophone nation, represent strong regional ties to French culture and language,” it said.

“Wallis and Futuna, a French territory, further illustrates the deep connections in the area. These connections highlight the importance of strengthening the Francophone presence in Fiji, aligning with shared interests, historical bonds, and common values.

“This initiative is a bridge-building exercise in the vein of the new era of Franco-Fijian collaboration.”

Offer hard to knock back
The Fiji Times business reporter Aisha Azeemah said the embassy’s offer to learn French was hard to turn down because of her passion to learn new languages, adding “this way we’ll at least have a reporter or two that’s able to better engage with and publicise the long-standing and ever-growing bond between Fiji and France”.

A member of the Social Innovators group of the French Embassy to Fiji, Temesia Tuicaumia, said: “The hearts of the Fijians chosen for this cohort will see the wider picture, which is that this is only the beginning for many Fijians to comprehend our French family through language, and that it is a bridge of hope, understanding, and many ties.”

The embassy said France, as a Pacific nation, sees these classes as a natural extension of the existing affinities and relationships with Fiji, underscoring France’s commitment to positive social change and innovation.

Embassy chargée d’affaires Laurence Brattin-Nerrière said the embassy was eager to see the success that the initiative would bring and strengthening the relationships between the two nations.

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

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

The post Uneasy Locations: The Russian Embassy Site in Canberra appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Binoy Kampmark.

Regarding the business of the Russian embassy site in Canberra, this is all the more stunning. Australia’s parliamentarians rarely pass bills and motions at such speed, but the measure to ensure that the Russian embassy would not have a bit of real estate 500 metres from the people’s assembly was odd, at best. On June 15, legislation was whizzed through, effectively extinguishing Russia’s lease.

It was also prompted by a rather bruising matter: the Russians had already been triumphant in the Federal Court. They had been granted the lease for the Yarralumla site in December 2008 by the National Capital Authority. But the 99-year lease was cancelled by the same body on the basis that “ongoing unfinished works detract from the overall aesthetic, importance, and dignity of the area reserved for diplomatic missions.”

Russia duly challenged the cancellation and won. In May, the court found in its favour, negating the cancellation of the lease. This seemed to have a curiously unifying effect in Parliament: agents of the Kremlin would be a mere stone’s throw away from the elected chamber.

Members of the Albanese government were tediously, predictably, on message, claiming that their intelligence services were all cognisant of a threat no one else could possibly take seriously. According to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, the government had “received very clear security advice as to the risk presented by a Russian presence close to Parliament House.” The whole parliamentary measure had taken place “to ensure the lease site does not become a formal diplomatic presence.”

The cabinet’s most eager of beavers, Home Affairs Minister Clare O’Neil, affirmed the Prime Minister’s concerns. “The principal problem with the proposed second Russian embassy in Canberra is its location,” she suggested. “The government has received clear national security advice that this would be a threat to our national security and that is why the government is acting decisively to bring this longstanding matter to a close.”

This entire comic episode also led Albanese to anticipate Russian stroppiness and reference to precedents in international law. This prompted the remark that Russia was not “in a position to talk about international law, given their rejection of it so consistently and so brazenly with their invasion of Ukraine.”

Over stiffening, proud vodkas at the eventual Russian embassy site, Australian officials will be able to do a merry jig and say that they have been tearing strips off international law for decades. From race relations to illegal invasions, the good guys have been wondrously bad. Remember Iraq in 2003, when we deviously and cowardly subverted the United Nations Charter and aided the destruction of a sovereign country? (Oh, the laughter!) Or those negotiations with an impoverished East Timor over its access to natural resources? (We almost got away with bugging the negotiators – but for those insufferable whistleblowers well read in international law and principle!)

Such officials will also be able to recall the efforts of Australian intelligence agents to undermine international law during the Cold War, playing a starring role in overthrowing Chile’s democratically elected Allende government in the 1970s, at the very same time the Central Intelligence Agency was conferencing on how to get rid of that pesky Australian Prime Minister Gough Whitlam. It was beautifully, if diabolically symmetrical.

Saliently stunning in this splutter of rage from Australia’s politicians is that any embassy position near Parliament House, notably from Russia, would make any difference at all. Two issues spring to mind.

The first is that Australia’s all commanding superior, the US government, tends to privilege technology to the point of childish obsession. For all their technological genius in specific, idiosyncratic areas, the Russians have tended towards the craft, cut and cultivation of human contacts in intelligence. The embassy’s proximity would not matter one jot.

The other aspect of the embassy debate is cringingly odd. Why bother listening to anything Australia’s Parliament has to say that might influence the events of the world? Vassal states are poor fare in the marketplace of intelligence and policy; their returns for any foreign power are junk food quality, limp cold chips and hardly worth bothering about. (Recently, the politicisation of sexual assault is all the rage – there is, what might be politely called in diplomatic channels, a woman problem in the great chambers of the capital.)

The true clearance stores for Australian intelligence lie in the bowels of the US State Department, the Pentagon and the National Security Agency. Yes, the fallback position is always that Australia is a “Five Eyes” member in the sacred Anglophone intelligence sharing agreement that makes it a target. But why go for the inferior imitation if you can get the original?

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Binoy Kampmark.

The opening of the U.S. embassy in the Tongan capital Nuku’alofa follows the reopening of the U.S. embassy in the Solomon Islands in February after a three decade absence. The United States also has said it wants embassies in Vanuatu and Kiribati in addition to its existing missions in countries such as Fiji and Papua New Guinea.

“We are proactively engaging the people of the Pacific,” said Tony Grubel, deputy chief of mission for the U.S. embassy in Fiji, at a flag raising ceremony in Tonga’s capital. “Addressing your priorities, with you, on your terms.”

China’s influence in the Pacific has burgeoned over several decades through a combination of increased trade, infrastructure investment and aid as it seeks to isolate Taiwan diplomatically and gain allies in international institutions. The Solomon Islands and Kiribati switched their diplomatic recognition to China from Taiwan in 2019.

Beijing signed a security pact with the Solomon Islands last year, alarming the U.S. and allies such as Australia who fear it could pave the way for a Chinese military presence in the region. 

Tonga’s Acting Prime Minister Samiu Vaipulu said the opening of a U.S. embassy in the Polynesian kingdom of some 100,000 people was a welcome development. It comes ahead of President Joe Biden’s planned stopover in Papua New Guinea on May 22 and meeting with Pacific island leaders.

"Today is a historic day for us all and one, which we have long awaited,” he said. The embassy opening “represents an important milestone in Tonga’s history and one which His Majesty’s government warmly welcomes.” 

Present at the ceremony were the high commissioners of the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Australia and representatives of Japan’s embassy. China’s embassy didn’t send a representative.

Tonga’s government debt to China — as a percentage of the island country’s total government debt — is the highest among Pacific island countries followed by Samoa and Vanuatu. 

In 2018, Tonga’s then prime minister ‘Akilisi Pohiva publicly urged other Pacific island countries to collectively lobby Beijing for debt forgiveness.

Like the Solomon Islands embassy opening in Honiara, the Tongan embassy event appeared to be a soft launch. 

A Department of State statement said it would pave the way for the U.S. to send more diplomats and resources to Tonga “including the potential appointment of a resident Ambassador to Tonga.”

In the Solomon Islands, the United States renamed the small office of its consular services agency as an embassy and hasn’t named an ambassador yet.

Grubel said development agency USAID is working on programs relevant to Tonga.

"USAID continues to address the existential threat posed by climate change as a top priority, along with facing the challenges related to water security, infectious diseases, economic development, and safeguarding of maritime resources,” he said.

BenarNews is an RFA-affiliated news service.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Marian Kupu for BenarNews.

The statement from Embassy spokesperson Stephanie Arzate on Thursday followed a public warning from Prime Minister Hun Sen earlier this week of a break in diplomatic relations if “Cambodia’s foreign friends” support opposition party groups and politicians. 

“Promoting democracy and respect for human rights is central to U.S. foreign policy in Cambodia and around the world,” Arzate said in response to an inquiry from Radio Free Asia. “We support the Cambodian people and their sustained aspirations for an inclusive, multi-party democracy that protects human rights as enshrined in the Kingdom’s constitution.”

Speaking at a hospital inauguration in Tbong Khmum province on Monday, Hun Sen alluded to recent lawsuits and criminal court verdicts against prominent opposition party politicians. 

“You have to choose between an individual group that breaks the laws and the government,” he said. “Please choose one. If you need those who were penalized by law, please do so, and you can then break diplomatic relations from Cambodia.”

In recent months, the ruling Cambodian People’s Party and Hun Sen have been working to silence and intimidate opposition figures ahead of the July general elections through a series of arrests and lawsuits.

In the same remarks on Monday, Hun Sen said he would continue to hunt and eliminate opposition groups – who he accused of committing treason – out of the political arena. 

In one high-profile example, opposition party leader Kem Sokha was sentenced to 27 years for treason last month in a decision widely condemned as politically motivated. 

The charges stemmed partly from a 2013 video in which he discusses a strategy to win power with the help of American experts. The United States Embassy has rejected any suggestion that Washington was trying to interfere in Cambodian politics.

Ammo, fuel, explosives

Defense Minister Tea Banh laid down his own challenge to foreign countries, saying that if any nation wants to hold joint military exercises with Cambodia, they should invite Cambodia to do so and should also cover the costs.

Cambodia and China are currently holding joint military exercises – focusing on security operations during major events and humanitarian relief – at the Military Police Training Center in Kampong Chhnang province. The Golden Dragon exercises run from March 23 to April 8.

Earlier in March, the two nations staged their first-ever joint naval drills in waters off Sihanoukville in southwest Cambodia. The province is home to the Ream Naval Base that China is helping Cambodia to develop. 

Tea Banh said the Chinese military has provided ammunition, explosives, gasoline and other military equipment for the joint drills. Additionally, the Chinese military will hand over all military equipment to Cambodia once the drills have been completed, he said. 

China has been the only country to reach out to Phnom Penh about joint exercises, the minister said at a ceremony on Wednesday. Other countries have only complained about Cambodia’s military, but have taken no action, he said.

“If you truly have a genuine intent, please come have a real discussion about this,” he said. “How much would you responsibly be able to cover for the costs of expenses of a joint exercise?”

Military ties between China and Cambodia have deepened in recent years, with Beijing providing aid, equipment and training. In 2021, the United States imposed an arms embargo on Cambodia over concerns about “deepening Chinese military influence” in the country.

Wei Wenhui, China’s southern regional commander, said at Wednesday’s ceremony that China and Cambodia are important countries in the region with responsibility for safeguarding security and prosperity.

He added that China promotes the development of peace in the world and pursues a policy of defense – not hegemony, or perpetual expansion or influence.

The United States is committed to working with partners in the region to support a common vision for freedom and openness in the Indo-Pacific, Arzate told RFA via email on Thursday when asked about Tea Banh’s remarks. 

Translated by Sok Ry Sum. Edited by Matt Reed and Malcolm Foster.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By RFA Khmer.

South African lawmakers voted Tuesday to downgrade the country's embassy in Israel in response to its apartheid, illegal occupation, and other crimes against Palestinians—a move welcomed by human rights advocates around the world.

The resolution to downgrade the status of South Africa's embassy in Ramat Gan, just east of Tel Aviv, to a liaison office was introduced by the center-left National Freedom Party (NFP), which hailed the measure's passage as "a historic moment for our country and a demonstration of our unwavering commitment to justice, human rights, and freedom."

Holding just two seats in the Parliament, the NFP secured the resolution's passage with the support of parties including the dominant African National Congress (ANC), Economic Freedom Fighters, United Democratic Movement, African Independent Congress, Al-Jama-ah, and Pan-Africanist Congress of Azania.

"We can no longer stand by while Palestinian human rights are being trampled on."

While Israel's Foreign Ministry called the vote "shameful and disgraceful," NFP Member of Parliament Ahmed Munzoor Shaik Emam, who introduced the resolution, said after its passage that "this is a moment Madiba would be proud of."

Emam was referring to former South African president and anti-apartheid icon Nelson Mandela, who advocated for Palestinian rights and for Israel's right to exist as a Jewish and democratic state.

"He always said our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of Palestinians," Emam said of Mandela, who died in 2013. "Today we took a step closer to the attainment of that freedom for Palestinians."

"We can no longer stand by while Palestinian human rights are being trampled on," Emam asserted. "By passing this resolution, we are sending a powerful message to the world that South Africa remains a beacon of hope and a shining example of what is possible when we come together in pursuit of a more just and equitable world."

Emam continued:

This resolution demands accountability from Israel. It is a courageous move that demonstrates our commitment as a country to justice, human rights, and freedom. The state of Israel was built through the displacement, murder, and maiming of Palestinians. And to maintain their grip on power, they have instituted apartheid to control and manage Palestinians. This institution of apartheid by the state of Israel contravenes international law and is a violation of the human rights of Palestinians.

"As South Africans," he added, "we refuse to stand by while apartheid is being perpetrated again."

Israel—like the United States, United Kingdom, and other Western democracies—supported South Africa's apartheid regime and even helped it develop nuclear weapons. After the fall of South African apartheid and the return to majority rule, the ruling ANC has vocally opposed Israeli crimes against Palestine.

For example, in May 2018 the party responded to Israeli forces' killing of scores of Palestinian protesters by excoriating the actions of "people who continuously remind us all about the hate and prejudice Jews went through during Hitler's anti-Semitism reign [and yet] exhibit the same cruelty less than a century later."

More recently, the ANC last month cheered the expulsion of a senior Israeli diplomat from the African Union summit in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Senior South African officials have consistently condemned Israeli apartheid, which is being acknowledged by a growing number of human rights groups around the world, including in Israel.

Echoing former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, Baleka Mbete—who served as South Africa's deputy president, National Assembly speaker, and head of the ANC—in 2012 called Israel "far worse than apartheid South Africa."

Like Carter and other Nobel Peace laureates including Mairead Maguire, Rigoberta Menchú, Jody Williams, Betty Williams, and Adolfo Pérez Esquivel, the late South African anti-apartheid activist and religious leader Desmond Tutu condemned Israeli apartheid.

The new NFP-led resolution follows last year's call by the South African government for the United Nations General Assembly to declare Israel an apartheid state.

The measure was also passed on the same day that the Palestinian National Authority called on the world "to take immediate, concrete measures to hold Israeli officials accountable for their crimes and continual incitement and threats to commit crimes against the Palestinian people."

"Only the end of Israel's occupation and the dismantling of its apartheid regime will end this violence, racism, and fascism against the Palestinian people," the Palestinian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates said in a statement.

"If not accompanied by action, statements of condemnation will not suffice," the ministry added. "Urgent international intervention is needed to curb Israel's dangerous aggressions against the Palestinian people and to provide necessary protection."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Brett Wilkins.

NIAMEY, Niger — “We’re not going to let you into the embassy,” Willie told me. “We’re going to have to ask you to leave the premises.”

I watched Willie’s eyes dart about like they were following a mosquito. I had come for a simple background briefing, the type of service that U.S. diplomats have provided to journalists since time immemorial. The meeting at the U.S. Embassy had been confirmed, by phone and email, and the chief spokesperson had even promised to buy me a coffee. Now Willie, a member of the embassy’s security team, wanted me to disappear.

The head of Willie’s department, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, is a vocal advocate for press freedom. “The United States’ commitment to freedom of expression, freedom of the press, is unwavering, and it’s unwavering because it’s the bedrock of a healthy democracy,” Blinken said at a “freedom of expression roundtable” on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly last fall. Here in Niger, the U.S. State Department portrays itself as a staunch defender of journalists, funding programs to teach the basics of the craft to aspiring reporters and bloggers, providing training for established journalists, and even handing out awards on World Press Freedom Day.

In Niger, journalists are judicially harassed, brought upon charges, and jailed. Activists are arrested and do hard time.

“If they want to kill you,” Nani said of the government, “they put you in jail.”

“Willie,” a member of the security team at the U.S. Embassy in Niamey, Niger. The embassy failed to provide his full name or facilitate an interview with him.

Photo: Nick Turse

Related

▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​

This content originally appeared on The Intercept and was authored by Nick Turse.

Pro-independence rebels in Indonesia’s Papua province have seized a New Zealand pilot as hostage after setting a small commercial plane on fire when it landed in a remote Highlands airstrip earlier today, say news agency reports.

A police spokesperson in Papua province, Senior Commander Ignatius Benny Adi Prabowo, said authorities were investigating the incident claimed by a militant West Papuan group at Paro airstrip in Nduga.

Police and military personnel have been sent to the area to locate the pilot and five passengers, the news agencies report.

• READ MORE: Other West Papuan conflict reports

“We cannot send many personnel there because Nduga is a difficult area to reach. We can only go there by plane,” Commander Prabowo said.

AP reports that rebel spokesperson Sebby Sambom said independence fighters from the West Papua National Liberation Army (TPNPB), the military wing of the Free Papua Organisation (OPM), had stormed the plane shortly after it landed.

“We have taken the pilot hostage and we are bringing him out,” Sambom said in a statement.

“We will never release the pilot we are holding hostage unless Indonesia recognises and frees Papua from Indonesian colonialism.”

Unclear about passengers
A military spokesperson in Papua, Lieutenant-Colonel Herman Taryaman, said it was unclear if the five accompanying passengers had also been abducted.

The plane, operated by Susi Air, landed safely early this morning, before being attacked by the rebel fighters, authorities said.

The TPNPB made no mention of the passengers in its statement, but said this was the second time the group had taken a hostage. The first incident was in 1996.

The New Zealand embassy in Jakarta and the Indonesian Foreign Ministry did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

A struggle for independence in the resource-rich Indonesia’s Melanesian provinces has been waged since Indonesian gained control in a vote overseen by the United Nations in 1969, but condemned by many West Papuans as a “sham”.

New Zealand pilot taken hostage in Indonesia, say Papua rebel group https://t.co/1JGHhNHKou

— ST Foreign Desk (@STForeignDesk) February 7, 2023

The conflict has escalated significantly since 2018 with a build-up of Indonesian forces and  with pro-independence fighters mounting deadlier and more frequent attacks.

Susi Air founder and former Indonesian Fisheries Minister Susi Pudjiastuti said on Twitter she was praying for the safety of the pilot and passengers.

Mohon dukungan & dia semoga pilot kami di Nduga Paro diberikan lindungan Alloh SWT .. bisa kami jemput selamat https://t.co/iR71EzAjnL

— Susi Pudjiastuti (@susipudjiastuti) February 7, 2023

RNZ has approached the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in New Zealand for comment.

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

West Papua National Liberation Army claims kidnapping of NZ pilot #terrorism https://t.co/nOZZN1E5xo

— Phil Gurski (@borealissaves) February 7, 2023

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

The United States opened an embassy in the Solomon Islands after a three-decade absence, attempting to signal a commitment to a Pacific island country that has become a focus of U.S.-China rivalry in the region.

The embassy, a modest building in the capital Honiara, was previously the U.S. consular agency for the Solomon Islands and lacks a resident ambassador. It is dwarfed in size and staffing by China’s embassy, which occupies one of the largest official buildings in Honiara. 

“Becoming an embassy is really the first step as we hasten the process of establishing more permanent facilities and deploying additional diplomatic personnel,” said Russell Comeau, U.S. Chargé d’Affaires ad interim – a deputy temporarily serving as head of a diplomatic mission. 

“I hope to get a bit of a bigger team out here to help deliver on many of the initiatives we are working in partnership with around the region,” Comeau said at a press conference in Honiara on Thursday.

The Solomon Islands, a country of some 700,000 people, has become a hot spot for the U.S.-China competition for influence with economically lagging Pacific island nations. 

Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare’s government switched its diplomatic recognition to China from Taiwan in 2019 and signed a security pact with Beijing last year that has been followed by a Chinese police presence in Honiara, training for local police and the donation of vehicles and water cannons. Neither country has released the text of the agreement. 

China, along with countries such as Australia and Indonesia, is helping to bankroll the Pacific Games in Honiara in November this year. It is also funding a new hospital for the Solomon Islands, which struggles to provide basic healthcare for its people.

Jeeney Robert, a Solomon Islands businessman, said he welcomes a U.S. embassy in his country, but is skeptical about the U.S. government’s motivation

“My question to the U.S. government is why now? Do they genuinely want to really be present in Solomon Islands or do they have their own vested interest because of China’s presence in the country,” he said.

A Department of State statement said Comeau will continue as U.S. Chargé d’Affaires ad interim. He has been a U.S. diplomat in the Solomon Islands since October 2021.

“The U.S. embassy in the Solomon Islands will serve as a key platform from which the U.S. government will continue to develop the Indo-Pacific partnership with our critical partner here in the Solomon Islands, one that is based on shared values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law,” Comeau said at the press conference.

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said in a statement that the embassy “symbolizes a renewal of our relationship” and is part of plans to station more diplomats in the Pacific.

The U.S. embassy in Papua New Guinea, which also served as the embassy for the Solomon Islands and Vanuatu, moved into a new U.S.$250 million building in the capital Port Moresby in November last year.

American involvement with Pacific island nations diminished after the breakup of the Soviet Union, with a reduction in embassies and U.S. development assistance through its Peace Corps agency.  

China, over the past two decades, has become an important source of infrastructure, loans and aid for Pacific island nations as it seeks to isolate Taiwan diplomatically and gain allies in international organizations such as the United Nations.

Honiara resident Esther Poratee said U.S. involvement in the Solomon Islands has not been felt by its people for a long time. 

She said she hopes the embassy opening will mean there is more collaboration between the countries that are aid donors to the Solomons.

BenarNews is an RFA-affiliated news service.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Gina Maka’a for BenarNews.

Washington has announced plans to reopen the United States Embassy in Solomon Islands.

Inside the Games reports that the move is a bid to counter China’s increasing assertiveness in the region, which has seen Beijing fund infrastructure for this year’s Pacific Games which take place later this year.

The US Department of State has informed Congress that it plans to establish an interim embassy in Honiara on the site of a former consular property.

• READ MORE: Other China-Solomon Islands geopolitics reports
• Fiji recalling all ambassadors and global staff

It said it would at first be staffed by two American diplomats and five local employees at a cost of US$1.8 million a year.

A more permanent facility with larger staffing will be established eventually.

The US closed its embassy in Honiara in 1993 as part of a post-Cold War global reduction in diplomatic posts and priorities.

The State Department warned in February 2022 that China’s growing influence in the region made reopening the embassy in the Solomon Islands a priority.

In October 2020, the Solomons and China signed an agreement for China to help build venues for the Pacific Games.

Last year, Honiara and Beijing signed a security pact after Chinese President Xi Jinping upgraded relations for a second time following a meeting with Solomons Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare.

The agreement could allow Solomon Islands to request China send police and military personnel if required, while China could deploy forces to protect “Chinese personnel and major projects”.

Sogavare has assured the US and other Western allies that he would not allow China to establish a naval base in his country, but concern about Chinese intentions has not eased.

Solomons and Chinese police visit Games stadium
Representatives from the Royal Solomon Islands Police Force have met with Chinese officials and police to visit the 2023 Pacific Games stadium which is still under construction.

The stadium is being built by the China Civil Engineering Construction Corporation, while a dorm at the National University is being built by JiangSu Provincial Construction.

The police force acknowledged the work of the companies in providing employment opportunities to local residents.

Assistant Commissioner Simpson Pogeava said police assistance would be reaffirmed, instructing Central police and Guadalcanal police to provide security support to keep the projects safe.

• The Games are scheduled to take place from November 19 to December 2.

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

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

Palestinian officials and supporters welcomed leftist Chilean President Gabriel Boric's announcement this week that his country will open an embassy in the West Bank, which has been illegally occupied by Israeli apartheid forces for 55 years.

"We are going to raise our official representation in Palestine from having a charge d'affaires," Boric said at a Wednesday evening Christmas tree-lighting ceremony with Palestinian Christians.

"It always makes me very angry to look at the Middle East and not see Palestine on the map."

"Now we are going to open an embassy of our government to give it the corresponding representation, to demand in all spaces something so basic, so simple that today is not being done, which is that international law is respected," the president added. "Nothing more and nothing less."

"It always makes me very angry to look at the Middle East and not see Palestine on the map," Boric said.

As incoming right-wing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu joins the long line of Israeli leaders and their boosters who deny the existence of the Palestinian people, Boric asserted that Palestine "exists [and] resists."

"We cannot forget a community that is suffering from an illegal occupation, a community that is resisting, a community that is seeing its rights and dignity violated every day," he said.

The Palestinian Ministry of Foreign Affairs applauded Boric's plan, saying in a statement that it "affirms the principled position of Chile and its president in support of international law and the right of the Palestinian people to establish their independent state."

Chile has been officially represented by an office in the Palestinian Authority since 1998. In 2011 the Chilean government recognized Palestine as a "free, independent, and sovereign state" and backed its entry into UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization.

Palestine, meanwhile, has an embassy in Santiago, the Chilean capital. Palestine has established bilateral ties with nearly 140 nations.

Relations between Chile and Israel have been strained. In September, Boric delayed acceptance of the new Israeli ambassador's credentials after Israeli occupation forces fatally shot 17-year-old Odai Trad Salah in the head during a raid outside Jenin.

Chile boasts the largest Palestinian community outside of the Middle East. Its 300,000 members live peacefully with Chile's 30,000 Jews.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Brett Wilkins.

Nearly five years after President Donald Trump broke with decades of U.S. policy and international consensus to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and move the U.S. Embassy there, the Biden administration is moving ahead with plans to build a permanent embassy compound in the city. Israel’s government has its headquarters in Jerusalem, but, because Palestinians also claim the city as their capital and because the city’s status remains disputed under international law, the U.S. Embassy, like those of most other countries, was previously based in Tel Aviv.

The plans for a new embassy, which the administration has quietly advanced in recent weeks, would consolidate Trump’s abrupt policy reversal and violate U.S. precedent both on the status of Jerusalem and on Israel’s ongoing illegal appropriation of Palestinian land. The new embassy would also make the U.S. government an active participant in that appropriation: The planned compound is to be built on land illegally expropriated from Palestinians, whose descendants, including several U.S. citizens, still have a claim to.

“The descendants of the landowners are all entitled to these properties under international law,” Suhad Bishara, legal director of the Israel-based human rights group Adalah, told The Intercept. “By moving forward with the plan to build the embassy at the Allenby site, the U.S. are taking an active part in the illegal confiscation of these properties, including infringing on their own citizens’ rights.”

“Ordinary Americans should have a chance to decide: Do we want our government to take property stolen from U.S. citizens for a U.S. Embassy?”

Plans submitted by the U.S. State Department for a new U.S. embassy compound in Jerusalem.

Source: Israeli planning authorities

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, left, his wife Sara Netanyahu, Ivanka Trump, and Jared Kushner take a selfie at the opening of the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem on May 14, 2018.

Photo: Israel Press Office /Getty Images

Related

▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​

A view of the border fence between the Israel-annexed Golan Heights and Syria, on Sept. 19, 2022 .

Photo: Jalaa Marey/AFP via Getty Images

“The question is, is this going to be made permanent by this administration’s policy?”

This content originally appeared on The Intercept and was authored by Alice Speri.

Kry Masphal, director of Cambodia's Department of Wildlife and Biodiversity, was arrested at New York’s Kennedy International Airport on Nov. 16 while on his way to a conference in Panama on the illicit trade in endangered species. He has been charged by U.S. prosecutors with facilitating the smuggling of endangered long-tailed macaques. Also accused was Kry’s boss, Forestry Administration Director General Keo Omaliss, who remains free in Cambodia.

Kry’s lawyer, Dakota Kann works at Akin Gump, a Washington, D.C.-based firm that has been a registered lobbyist for the Cambodian government on a $60,000-a-month retainer since January.

In a motion submitted to New York Eastern District Federal Court on Wednesday, Kann laid out proposed bail conditions for Kry. 

The proposal, which is supported by a signed letter from Cambodian Ambassador Keo Chhea, centers on Kry’s spending 24 hours a day within the grounds of the Cambodian Embassy in Washington, unless summoned to court. U.S. government officials would be permitted to enter the embassy to confirm Kry’s presence under the deal.

To guarantee compliance, Keo Chhea has taken the highly unusual step of offering to waive the embassy’s diplomatic immunity, the guarantee under international law that embassy staff and premises will not be subjected to searches, arrest or interference from the authorities in their host country.

“For this purpose, the embassy irrevocably waives all diplomatic and other immunities that would otherwise prevent entry of agents of the U.S. government upon the premises of the embassy for such purpose,” the ambassador wrote in his letter to the court. “The promises, assurances and commitments conveyed in this letter are irrevocable and are made to the court without reservation or limitation.”

The offer is backed, he wrote, by “the full authority” of the Cambodian government.

Reached for comment, Foreign Ministry spokesperson Chum Sounry asked RFA to direct its inquiries to the Cambodian Embassy in Washington, which had not responded to a request for comment as of publication.

‘Poor conditions of confinement’

Since his arrest, Kry has been detained at the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) in Brooklyn, New York, where his lawyers claim he is facing “poor conditions of confinement” alongside a “language barrier and cultural differences” that they say are making his detention “more challenging than is typical.” A memo filed by U.S. Attorney Breon Peace notes that Kry received unspecified medical treatment while detained on Nov. 18.

According to Kry’s bail application, his “limited English-speaking abilities,” coupled with the lack of a Khmer-language interpreter, “make it difficult to effectively represent Mr. Kry while he is in custody.”

An individual who has previously worked with Kry told RFA that while he was not totally fluent, Kry could conduct professional conversations in English. The person is not authorized to speak about the matter publicly and asked not to be named.

Prosecutors meanwhile are asking that Kry be transferred to Florida, where he was originally indicted.

Lead prosecutor Thomas Watts-Fitzgerald did not respond to emailed questions about whether he planned to oppose Kry’s proposed transfer to the Cambodian Embassy.

Firm denials

Cambodia’s Ministry of Agriculture, which includes the Forestry Administration, said in a statement after Kry’s arrest that the Cambodian government “will make our utmost efforts in order to seek justice for our officials, especially those on official duty representing the country according to international conventions.”

At the heart of the charges against Kry is the distinction between long-tailed macaques bred in captivity and those caught in the wild. International trade in bred macaques is legal. The export of wild-caught macaques. however, is prohibited by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, whose triennial conference of parties Kry was traveling to when he was arrested.

U.S. prosecutors allege that Kry, along with his superior Keo, aided Hong Kong-based macaque breeding firm Vanny Bio Research in acquiring wild-caught monkeys and laundering them through the company’s Cambodian breeding centers into the U.S. market disguised as captive-bred specimens.

The Agriculture Ministry statement was adamant that none of the macaques exported from Cambodia were caught in the wild.

“They are not caught from the wilderness and smuggled out, but farmed in decent manners with respect to good hygiene and health standards so as to preserve their gene pool,” the ministry said.

Vanny Bio Research said in a Nov. 23 statement that it “strongly denies any wrongdoing(s) in the operation of its businesses.”

Kann, the Akin Gump attorney, wrote in her application for a bail hearing that Kry “is committed to defending himself against these charges and does not represent a flight risk.”

“Mr. Kry does not have extravagant wealth, giving him the ability to flee the country. He spends most of his salary on his monthly liabilities. He has also lived a stable life,” she added. “He’s worked for the Cambodian government for 24 years and has a wife and three children. There is nothing in his personal background that suggests he is a flight risk.”

Flight risk

That claim did not ring true for Phil Robertson, deputy Asia director for Human Rights Watch, who told RFA the embassy’s offer should be met with caution.

“The U.S. should recognize the defendant’s right to bail but also set it quite high enough that it acknowledges this official is a very serious potential flight risk, especially if the Cambodian Embassy gets involved,” Robertson wrote in an email. “The Cambodian government shouldn’t be rushing forward to defend an official accused of undermining protection of wildlife that it was his job to protect. 

“But it is no surprise to anyone that there’s a massive corruption problem in the Cambodian government, and this move by the embassy raises red flags about just how high up the criminal smuggling enterprise reaches in the higher echelons of the government,” Robertson said.

Kry and Keo are the only Cambodian officials that have been charged in the case so far. However, the indictment against them appears to implicate the ruling Cambodian People’s Party. It cites a $10,000 payment allegedly flagged in internal Vanny Bio Research records as a “donation for CPP Party” to guarantee monkey exports, along with messages about needing to provide Keo with funds in light of Cambodian officials needing funds to finance campaigning during the 2018 elections.

Internal correspondence allegedly also describes the need to delay the collection of monkeys until after the elections “to avoid unnecessary attention from the public and non-governmental organizations.”

Elsewhere the indictment appears to implicate other Agriculture Ministry officials. Unnamed ministry officials are repeatedly alleged to have assisted Kry in delivering wild-caught monkeys to Vanny Bio Research.

The indictment also includes two references to what appear to be former Agriculture Minister Veng Sakhon, who was removed from his post just over a month prior to Kry’s arrest and appointed as minister attached to the prime minister. 

It alleges that in May 2018 Keo promised to “try to persuade his superior to allow the collection of the needed monkeys” when Vanny Bio Research was short hundreds of specimens for export. As head of the Forestry Administration, Keo’s immediate superior is the agriculture minister. The following month, Keo is alleged to have told the company that “the minister had approved and issued the collection quota and final payment should be made” to the ministry.

“I suspect there may be many in Cambodia who are implicated in this scheme who are already urging Kry Masphal to find a way to flee overseas,” Robertson of Human Rights Watch wrote in his email. “So, the U.S. prosecutors and court need to be doubly careful to make sure this person remains in the country to stand trial.”

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Jack Adamović Davies.

The 26 were handed over to Vietnamese authorities at the Tinh Bien International Border Gate between Vietnam’s An Giang province and Cambodia’s Takeo province.

They came from Vietnam’s northern and central provinces, the Central Highlands and the southwest region, according to Lt. Col. Tran Hoa Hiep, head of the Border Guard Station

Border guards handed the 26 over to An Giang Provincial Police’s Immigration Department for further investigation.

State media said the Vietnamese Embassy in Phnom Penh helped secure the return of the 26 citizens.

The embassy said that more than 600 Vietnamese had been tricked into going to Cambodia on the promise of "light work and a high salary." In reality they were sold into forced labor and exploited, leading many to seek outside help or try to escape.

The Consular Department of Vietnam’s Foreign Affairs Ministry said the number of applications for consular certification to allow its citizens to work abroad rose by as much as 300% in recent months, state media reported.

The department warned people to be wary of “scammers and fraud.”

Cambodian casino escape

Last month a video showing more than 40 Vietnamese workers escaping from the Rich World casino complex in Cambodia’s Kandal province went viral.

The video, posted on Vietnamese news site VnExpress on Aug. 18, showed men and women jumping into a river bordering the two countries, chased by guards swinging metal rods. A 16-year-old from Vietnam’s Gia Lai province was found dead in the river the online site reported.

At a news conference on Aug. 18 Cambodia’s Interior Minister Sar Kheng said the government’s mission was to rescue the victims and bring the ringleader to justice,” adding that authorities had arrested “a ringleader or manager.”

However, he claimed allegations of human trafficking and forced labor at the casino were only “partly true,” saying the workers ran away after “arguing over salary or other issues.”

Two of the workers who escaped told VnExpress they were tricked into working at the casino. One woman said employees had to create fake social media profiles and persuade people to pay to join a bogus dating site or face beatings.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By RFA Vietnamese.

Twitter user Anjali Jain also tweeted this video with a similar claim. (Archived link)

सऊदिया डिफेंस मिनिस्टर हैं, चीनी नववर्ष के जश्न में शरीक होने #China की एम्बेसी आए थे चीनी अफसरों ने उनके #Welcome को आतिशबाज़ी का इंतज़ाम किया था लेकिन ये मिनिस्टर साहब को नहीं पता था। फिर क्या हुआ आप भी मजे लीजिए।#Viral #viralvideo #TejRan #NFFC #NFTGiveaway #Giveaway #Crypto pic.twitter.com/oiyrjFSdbT

— Anjali Jain (@AnjaliJain1999) August 25, 2022

Journalist Vivek Tripathi of ABP Ganga also amplified the visuals and accompanying claim. However, he later deleted the tweet. (Archived link)

Twitter user Jaiky Yadav also promoted the video with the same claim. (Archived link)

Fact-check

At first glance, this video seems a bit odd. When the sound of the firecrackers is heard, none of the bystanders move at all. Apart from this, even when the military personnel take the pair away, the people standing there do not move. Rather, they continue recording the festivities on their phones without concern.

Alt News performed a reverse image search using a frame taken from the video. This led us to an article covering this video on Aos Fatos, a fact-checking website from Brazil. The report refutes the claim made with the video and also contains a tweet dated December 12, 2019, posted by Kuwait’s Al-Hadith news channel. The tweet features a recording of the viral video taken from a different angle. It also states that this is a video of a fake military show by the Amiri guards at the Gulf Defense and AVSON exhibition.

معرض الخليج للدفاع والطيران | عرض عسكري وهمي لهيئة الحرس الأميري pic.twitter.com/fRWuYgN0Dh

— الحدث الإخبارية (@AlhadathQ8) December 12, 2019

According to the information available on the Government of Kuwait’s website, a three-day Gulf Arms and Aerospace Exhibition was held on December 10, 2019, in which 31 countries participated.

One user also uploaded this video on YouTube on December 12, 2019. It is titled, “Amiri Guard Training at the Fairgrounds. This is how they handle when the character is shot.” It is worth noting that the date of upload of this video on YouTube coincides with the date the exhibition was being held i.e., from December 10 till December 12.

We compared the frames of the viral video with images of the Kuwait International Fairground on Google Maps and found that it was indeed shot at the same location.

Several other fact-checking portals such as The Observers, Boatos, hoax OR fact, and AFP also debunked the viral video.

To sum it up, social media users falsely shared a video of a mock military drill at an exhibition in Kuwait as a video of Saudi Arabia’s defence ministers panicking after hearing fireworks. 

The post Fact-check: Saudi Defence Minister panicking after hearing fireworks at Chinese Embassy? appeared first on Alt News.

This content originally appeared on Alt News and was authored by Abhishek Kumar.

Lawyers and journalists sued the CIA and former CIA Director Mike Pompeo Monday for spying on them while they met Julian Assange when he was living in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where he had political asylum. The lawsuit is being filed as Britain prepares to extradite the WikiLeaks founder to the United States, where he faces up to 175 years in prison for violating the Espionage Act by publishing classified documents exposing U.S. war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan. We speak with the lead attorney in the case, Richard Roth, who details how a private security company stationed at the London Embassy unknowingly sent images from Assange’s visitors’ cellphones and laptops as well as streamed video from inside meetings to American intelligence. He says the offenses breach a range of client privileges and could sway a U.S. judge to dismiss the case if Assange is successfully extradited.

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

President Biden is in Israel as part of a four-day trip to the Middle East, where he reaffirmed his support for Israel despite growing disapproval among members of the Democratic Party over the state’s brutal treatment of Palestinians. The Biden administration faces criticism over plans to build a U.S. embassy in Jerusalem on land that was illegally confiscated by Israel from Palestinians in 1948, as well as the State Department’s whitewashed investigation of Shireen Abu Akleh’s killing, which multiple other independent investigations have determined was caused by an Israeli bullet. “By not engaging in dismantling the structures of discrimination and oppression … that Israel maintains, the United States is in fact supporting those structures,” says historian Rashid Khalidi, whose family is among the Palestinians whose seized lands are set to be used for the embassy.

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

Fiji police have evicted two Chinese defence attaches from a Pacific Islands Forum summit in Suva while US Vice-President Kamala Harris was delivering a virtual address, reports The Guardian Australia.

Kate Lyons, editor of The Guardian’s Pacific Project, reported that the the men were present at a session of the Forum Fisheries Agency when Harris announced the step-up of US engagement in the region, “believed to be in response to China’s growing influence”.

According to The Guardian, the officials had been sitting with the media contingent, but one was identified as a Chinese embassy officer by Lice Movono, an independent Fiji journalist who has been covering the forum for the Australian edition of the newspaper.

• READ MORE: US announces major Pacific push, embassies in Tonga, Kiribati
• Climate crisis top Pacific agenda item and it’s a security issue, says Ardern
• $10m climate funding to support Pacific seed crops
• More Pacific Islands Forum summit leaders pull out as crisis grows
• Pacific Islands Forum ‘on course’ as China issue casts shadow
• Kiribati exit from Pacific forum ‘out of order’, says founding president
• Other Pacific Islands Forum reports

“Movono said she ‘recognised him because I’ve interacted with him at least three times already’, including during the visit of the Chinese foreign minister, Wang Yi, to Suva last month, at which journalists were removed from events and blocked from asking questions,” The Guardian report said.

“‘He was one of the people that was removing us from places and directing other people to remove us,’ she said. ‘So I went over to him and asked: “Are you here as a Chinese embassy official or for Xinhua [Chinese news agency], because this is the media space. And he shook his head as if to indicate that he didn’t speak English”.’

Movono alerted Fijian protocol officers, who told her to inform Fijian police, who then escorted the two men from the room. They did not answer questions from media, reported The Guardian.

Diplomatic sources later confirmed that the men were a defence attache and a deputy defence attache from China, and part of the embassy in Fiji, The Guardian said.

The report highlighted the intense geopolitical rivalry over growing Chinese influence in the region.

• Full report on The Guardian’s Pacific Project pages

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

Students from West Papua desperate to stay in New Zealand after having their scholarships cut are pinning their hopes on finding an employer to sponsor new working visas.

About 40 students from the Indonesian province of Papua have been studying at different tertiary institutions in New Zealand.

In December they received a letter from the provincial government of Papua saying their living allowances, travel and study fees were stopping and they had to return home because their studies had not met expectations.

• READ MORE: West Papuan students face ‘hardship and stress’ over scholarship loss
• Open letter to Minister Faafoi – an appeal to help 34 abandoned Papuan students
• Other West Papuan student reports

About 12 have returned home, but the rest fear for their future.

The Papuan provincial government has not responded to requests for comment.

Laurens Ikinia, an Auckland-based West Papua student, is advocating for the group.

He said eight of the students had finished their carpentry course at Palmerston North polytech UCOL last week.

Hopeful for work
Those students were hopeful of securing work for a company that would sponsor them to get work visas and provide them with jobs.

Ikinia said there were more job opportunities in New Zealand.

“Every one of us, we have that dream and we came here, apart from studying, hoping to get two or three years’ experience,” he said.

Ikinia said the mental wellbeing of the students who had lost their scholarships was a concern, and they were fighting for their rights in education.

“The students are unstable. After having met students and hearing from them, they are really concerned about visas and living expenses because it really stresses them.”

Some tertiary institutions have been supporting the affected students, including UCOL, which has been assisting 15 students with living costs.

Humanitarian aid requested
Ikinia has asked the New Zealand government for humanitarian support.

“If we get experience we can go back home, we contribute to our families and communities.”

One of the students, Roy Towolom, has been in New Zealand since 2016, having attended high school and has now completed his carpentry course at UCOL.

He said it was not an option to go home and wanted to stay in New Zealand.

Immigration New Zealand’s general manager of border and visa operations Nicola Hogg said officials from the Indonesian Embassy in Wellington had met with the students and provided care packages.

An immigration options sheet has been distributed to the affected students.

“There is nothing preventing the students from applying for a new visa if they are lawfully in New Zealand,” she said.

‘No restriction in instructions’
“There is no restriction in immigration instructions requiring foreign government-sponsored students to return home if their scholarship ceases, or if they have completed their scholarship.”

Some of the students have applied for subsequent visas, including work visas, which would be assessed according to the immigration policy instructions.

Hogg said the students would need to meet the requirements of the new visa they applied for, including financial, health and character.

If their visa was declined because they did not meet the instructions, they should leave New Zealand voluntarily. The provincial government of Papua would cover repatriation costs.

Immigration is working with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade on the issue and both agencies have met with the Indonesian ambassador.

A spokesperson for the Indonesian Embassy told Stuff earlier in May the decision to repatriate some Papuan students overseas was based on academic performance and the time of their scholarships.

Only those who had exceeded the allocated time for the scholarship and those who could not meet the academic requirements were being recalled, they said.

George Heagney is a Stuff reporter. Republished with permission.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

A group of students from West Papua, the Melanesian Pacific region in Indonesia, are fearful about their futures in New Zealand after their scholarships were cut off.

A group of about 40 students have been studying at different tertiary institutions in New Zealand, but in December received a letter from the provincial government of Papua saying their living allowances, travel and study fees were stopping and they had to return home because their studies had not met expectations.

Auckland-based West Papua student Laurens Ikinia is part of a group advocating for the students. He said some students had gone home, but about 25 remained at Auckland, Waikato and Canterbury universities, as well as Palmerston North polytech UCOL and the tertiary institution IPU New Zealand.

• READ MORE: Pax Christi helps Papuan students stranded in NZ with $1000 grant in study plea
• West Papuan student discovers new passion and career path in Manawatū
• Open letter to Immigration Minister Kris Faafoi
• Pax Christi assistance for Papuan students
• The Papuan student givealittle appeal
• Other Papuan student scholarship reports

“The reason the government used was because we were not making any progress on our studies. We have actually requested from the provincial government about how did they come up with that?

“All the students on the list are halfway through completing their studies. All the information they put in is completely wrong.”

Ikinia said the letter had been a shock and many of the students were uncertain about whether they could stay in New Zealand.

Many were struggling without the scholarship, unable to focus on their studies and “mentally and emotionally unstable”.

Plea for help
The group had asked Immigration Minister Kris Faafoi and the Green Party for help.

Roy Towolom, 21, came to New Zealand in 2016 from Tolikara and attended Awatapu College in Palmerston North.

He is one of 11 Papuan students in his carpentry course at UCOL and he has about a week left before he completes his studies. UCOL and his church have been supporting him since his living allowance stopped.

Towolom said the affected students were confused about being asked to leave and the government letter did not make sense and was out of date.

“It was pretty shocking. There was no specific reason why the funds were cut. We didn’t know what the reason was.”

His student visa expires next month, but he wants to stay in New Zealand and is thinking about becoming a builder. He hopes to get a work visa.

Run by provincial government
A spokesperson for the Indonesian Embassy said the scholarship programme in New Zealand was run by the provincial government of Papua and 593 students were receiving the scholarship.

The decision to repatriate some Papuan students overseas was “based on evaluation regarding academic performance, the time allocation of the relevant scholarships”.

“It is also important to highlight that only those who have exceeded the allocated time of the scholarship and those who cannot meet the academic requirements are being recalled.”

The spokesperson said most scholarship recipients had been studying in New Zealand since 2015 and were yet to finish their tertiary education as planned.

“The decision to repatriate certain students does not impact on those students who remain on track with regards to their studies abroad.

“The assessment is also conducted to ensure that other eligible students from Papua province also obtain the same opportunity in pursuing their studies.”

The embassy had been in contact with the affected students.

Encouraged to leave ‘voluntarily’
A spokesperson for Immigration Minister Faafoi said students who did not meet requirements to stay in New Zealand would be encouraged to leave voluntarily.

None of the students were at risk of being deported and Immigration New Zealand had discussed the situation with them.

“Students who do not meet requirements to stay in New Zealand will be encouraged to depart voluntarily.”

The Papuan provincial government would cover their repatriation costs, the spokesperson said.

A UCOL spokesperson said the institution was supporting the 15 students at UCOL with living costs.

The University of Canterbury’s international partnership and support manager Monique van Veen said the university’s student care team was working with the affected students.

“It has definitely created hardship and stress for these scholars. We have been in touch with Education New Zealand to let them know what’s going on.”

A spokesperson for the University of Waikato said they were unable to comment due to privacy reasons.

IPU and the University of Auckland did not respond to a request for comment.

The Papuan provincial government has been contacted for comment.

George Heagney is a Stuff reporter. Republished with permission.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

OPEN LETTER to the Foreign Minister of Aotearoa New Zealand, Nanaia Mahuta:

Kia ora Nanaia,

We have been informed that the Wellington City Council has been advised by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs not to light up the Michael Fowler Centre in the colours of the Palestinian flag tomorrow — which has been arranged through councillor Tamatha Paul and approved by council — because Aotearoa New Zealand does not recognise a Palestinian state and this will cause offence to the Israeli Embassy in Wellington.

This is outrageous advice. We want you to intervene and immediately override this advice from your ministry officials so the Fowler Centre can be lit up tomorrow.

• READ MORE:  RSF calls for independent probe into Al Jazeera reporter’s West Bank killing
• John Minto: NZ government and media must own up to their silence over Shireen Abu Akleh
• Behind the tears for Shireen, more evidence of Israel’s daily crimes with impunity
• Photos: Israeli forces attack Shireen Abu Akleh’s funeral
• Other Shireen Abu Akleh reports

Firstly New Zealand’s official policy is to support a “two-state” solution in historic Palestine and this policy in effect recognises a Palestinian state. You cannot have a “two-state solution” with just one state.

Secondly it is deeply insulting to Palestinians to have official recognition of their national day — Nakba Day — effectively vetoed by ministry officials and the “sensitivities” of the Israeli embassy. It is Israel which is refusing to allow a Palestinian state to be formed.

The current Israeli Prime Minister, Naftali Bennett, has said he refuses to meet with Palestinian leaders, refuses to negotiate a peace deal and will refuse to recognise a Palestinian state while he is Prime Minister.

Why should Israel’s veto over a Palestinian state dictate Aotearoa New Zealand’s support for Palestinians?

Why would we take any notice of the “sensitivities” of an embassy which is supporting and promoting what every international human rights organisation has declared to be an apartheid state?

Parliament has flown the Ukrainian flag in recent weeks over Russia’s invasion and occupation of Ukraine so why shouldn’t New Zealand fly the Palestinian flag in recognition of Israel’s ongoing brutal military occupation of the entire area of historic Palestine?

Within the last 10 days an Israeli court has approved the eviction of 1000 more Palestinians from their land and homes in the occupied West Bank of Palestine and the Israeli regime has announced it is ready to approve the building of 4000 more Jewish-only homes in illegal settlements on Palestinian land.

And just this last week we have seen the brutal “cold-blooded murder” of Palestinian journalist Shireen Abu Akleh and the shocking sight of pall bearers and mourners at her funeral being brutally attacked by Israeli state forces.

Aotearoa New Zealand is bigger than the venal, self-serving advice of cowardly MFAT officials.

Please direct your ministry officials to approve Wellington City Council lighting up the Fowler Centre tomorrow in the colours of the Palestinian flag.

Asia Pacific Report

Asia Pacific Report editors join the Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA) in solidarity with the protest over the Nakba Day censorship and in memory of the Palestinian journalist Shireen Abu Akleh assassinated by Israeli troops last Wednesday.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

As a child, Efika Kora remembers watching planes glide over her remote village in the Pacific.

Transfixed, she imagined that one day she would be the one flying them.

Now, just two semesters away from completing a diploma of aviation at an Adelaide school, the 24-year-old has been told by Indonesian authorities she must return to her home country.

• READ MORE: Open letter to NZ immigration Minister Kris Faafoi and other reports
• Other Papuan scholarship reports

It came as a complete shock to Kora, who is among a group of more than 140 Indigenous West Papuan students in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States who had their Papuan government scholarships terminated without warning.

It means they would have to return home part way through their degrees or diplomas, a situation that has been described as highly unusual.

“To be honest, I cried,” Kora said.

“In a way, [it’s] like your right to education has been stripped away from you.”

16 students ordered home
In Australia, 16 students have been told to return home.

A letter to the Indonesian embassy in Canberra, dated February 8, from the Papuan provincial government said the students were to be repatriated because they had not finished their studies on time.

The letter said they had to return to West Papua by February 15, but it wasn’t until a month later — on March 8 — that the students were first told about the letter in a meeting with the Indonesian embassy.

“I was very, very shocked. And my mind just went blank,” Kora said.

The Indonesian Embassy and the Papuan provincial government have not responded to the ABC’s questions, including about the delay in relaying the message.

Students told ‘you have to take turns’
When the students asked for more details, they were told by the Indonesian Embassy that the five-year duration of their scholarships had now lapsed.

The ABC has seen text messages from an embassy official to one of the students, saying the decision was final.

“There will be no extension of the scholarship because there are still many Papuan students who also need scholarships. So you have to take turns,” one message read.

Kora said she wasn’t aware of a five-year limit to her scholarship.

“We never had like a written letter [saying] our scholarship will be going for five years,” she said.

She said she was told, verbally, she had been awarded the scholarship in 2015, and began her aviation diploma in 2018 after completing language studies.

A number of students have told the ABC they were also not given a formal offer letter or contract stipulating the conditions and duration of their scholarship.

Some students signed contract
Some students said they signed a contract in 2019 — well after their scholarships had commenced — which outlined durations for certain degrees, but Kora said she didn’t sign this document.

Business student Jaliron Kogoya said he also didn’t sign any such agreements.

A sponsorship letter from the Papuan government, issued in 2020, guarantees funding for his degree at the University of South Australia until July this year.

He has also been cut off.

“They just tell us to go home and then there is no hope for us,” Kogoya said.

The University of South Australia said it had been working closely with the students and the Papuan government since they began studying at the university two years ago.

“We are continuing to provide a range of supports to the students at this challenging time,” a spokeswoman said.

About 84 students in the United States and Canada, plus 41 in New Zealand, have also been told by the Papuan government that their scholarships had ended and they must return home.

Programme plagued with administrative issues
While the Papuan government scholarship aims to boost education for Indigenous students, the programme has been plagued with administrative problems.

Several students told the ABC their living allowances, worth $1500 per month, and tuition fees, were sometimes paid late, meaning they could not enrol in university courses and struggled to pay rent.

Kora said late payments held back her academic progression.

Her aviation degree takes approximately four semesters to complete, but Kora said there were certain aspects of her training that she could not do because of unpaid fees.

The ABC has seen invoices from her aviation school, Hartwig Air, that were due in 2018 but were not paid until two years later.

Fees for her current semester, worth $24,500, were paid more than three months late, in October last year.

Kora said there were moments when she felt like giving up.

‘What’s the point?’
“What’s the point of even studying if these things are delaying my studies?” she said.

Kora believes she may have been able to graduate sooner if her fees had been paid on time.

Hartwig Air would not comment on her situation.

But an academic report issued by the school in February this year said Kora was “progressing well with her flying” and getting good results on most of her exams.

Kora said it did not make sense to send her home now because her fees for the current semester had already been paid.

“It’s a waste of investment,” she said.

“If we’re not bringing any qualifications back home, it’s a shame not just for us, but also for the government in a way.”

Students turn to food banks, churches
In the United States, Daniel Game has faced similar struggles.

He was awarded a Papuan government scholarship in 2017.

Game said he was told the scholarship would last five years but did not receive a formal offer letter or contract at the time.

After completing a general science degree, he was accepted into Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Oregon, to begin studying aeronautical science in 2019.

It is a prestigious institution and he was proud to get in.

But, when it came time to enrol, he couldn’t because the government did not issue a sponsorship letter to guarantee his funding.

Game sent multiple emails and made calls to the government’s human resources department requesting the document.

The letter never came
He said he was told the letter would be issued, but that never happened.

During this time, Game continued to receive a living allowance from the Papuan government and was told his scholarship was still valid.

In 2020, Game paid for his own flight back to West Papua in the middle of the pandemic to try to resolve the issue in person.

When he visited the department office, his sponsorship letter was issued immediately.

The ordeal set Game’s studies back more than 18 months.

His sponsorship letter, seen by the ABC, guarantees his funding until July 2023 but now he’s also been told to return home.

“Most of us, we spend our time and energy and work really hard … it’s not fair,” Game said.

Staying in the US
With just a few months until he’s due to graduate, Game has decided to stay in the US.

His family are funding his university tuition, but without a living allowance, Game said he was struggling to make ends meet.

“It’s really hard, especially being in the US,” he said.

“For food, I usually go out searching local churches and food pantries where I’ll be able to get free stuff.”

‘It doesn’t make sense’

Back in Australia, students are also in financial strife.

Kora has started picking fruit and vegetables on local farms to make ends meet since her living allowance was cut off in November last year.

Tried to find part-time jobs
“We tried to find part-time jobs here and there to just cover us for our rent,” she said.

She and other students are hoping to stay in Australia and finish their degrees.

From a low-income family, Kora cannot rely on her parents, so she is calling on Australian universities and the federal government for support.

“I just want to make my family proud back home to know that actually, someone like me, can be something,” she said.

The Australian West Papua Association of South Australia has launched a fundraising campaign to pay some students’ university fees and rent.

Kylie Agnew, a psychologist and association member, said she was concerned for their wellbeing.

“Not being able to finish your studies, returning to a place with very low job prospects … there’s a lot of stress that the students are under,” she said.

Perplexing decision
Jim Elmslie is co-convenor of the West Papua Project at the University of Wollongong, which advocates for peace and justice in West Papua.

He said the decision to send students home so close to finishing their degrees was perplexing.

“After having expended probably in excess of $100,000, or maybe considerably more, in paying multiple years’ university fees and living allowances … it doesn’t make sense,” Dr Elmslie said.

In a text message to one student in Australia, an Indonesian Embassy official said the students could seek alternative funding for their studies, but they were “no longer the responsibility” of the Papuan provincial government.

The text message also said the students would receive help to transfer to relevant degrees at universities in Indonesia when they returned home.

But Dr Elmslie said the alternatives were not ideal.

“If you start a degree course in Australia, to me, it’s much better … to finish that degree course,” he said.

“And then you have a substantial academic qualification.”

President of the Council of International Students Australia Oscar Ong said the situation was highly unusual.

He said that, while some international students weren’t able to graduate within the duration of their scholarship, for so many to be recalled at once was unprecedented.

Legislative change and redistribution of funding
The Papuan provincial government did not respond to the ABC’s detailed questions about the scholarship program.

Local media reports suggest the issue may be linked to a redistribution of funding.

The scholarship programme was set up by the Papuan provincial government, with money from the Indonesian central government under a Special Autonomy Law.

Passed in 2001, the bill granted special autonomy to the West Papua region, following a violent and decades-long fight for independence.

The old law expired in November and new legislation was passed, with an overall boost in finance to the region but with certain funds, including support for education, going towards districts and cities instead of provincial governments.

That revised law has sparked protests in West Papua, with critics claiming it is an extension of colonial rule that denies Indigenous peoples’ rights to self-determination.

An Interior Ministry official from the Indonesian government is quoted in local media as saying there needed to be a joint conversation between the Papuan provincial government and the region’s districts and cities about the future of scholarship funding.

The ABC has been unable to independently verify whether the students’ scholarship terminations are linked to this legislative change.

Additional reporting for Pacific Beat by Hellena Souisa and Erwin Renaldi. Republished with permission.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

Indigenous students from West Papua studying at universities across Aotearoa are defying an order from the Indonesian government to return home.

In January, more than 40 students were told that Indonesia would no longer be funding autonomous West Papuan scholarships so they had to pack up and leave.

Laurens Ikinia of the Hubula tribe and fellow student Esniel Mirin of the Kimyal tribe, both from the central highlands of West Papua, say they have been stripped of their dream for a brighter future.

• READ MORE: Overcoming trauma, Papuan students in NZ now face new challenge
• Other West Papuan student articles
• WATCH: Te Ao Māori News video

“The government has terminated about 42 students here in Aotearoa New Zealand who are the recipients of Papua provincial government scholarships and I am one of the students who was terminated and this is really worrying me,” Ikinia said.

Ikinia and Mirin have both been struggling to support themselves since the scholarship decision was made. Living costs are rising and tuition fees are high for overseas students here.

“What we are trying to do just to survive is do some part-time jobs as long as we can but, unfortunately, some students cannot work because of their visa conditions. I don’t know how long it’s going to take us but that’s what we are doing just to survive,” Ikinia said.

Mirin said he found it hard to talk about the issue as he was not able to support himself and not able to work.

“I’m trying to communicate with my close friends from the campus or the churches I attend and they help me a lot,” he said.

“We are calling the Indonesian President, Joko Widodo, to respond to our request so in the future we can continue our programmes and success because this is kind of Indonesians trying to manipulate our education rights.”

The Indonesian embassy gave a written response to Māori Television’s request for comment, stating that the scholarships were wholly managed by Papua’s democratically elected provincial government. The embassy also said:

“These students are part of a total of 593 students from Papua province receiving the ‘Papua Special Autonomy Scholarship’… only those who have exceeded the allocated time of the scholarship and those who cannot meet the academic requirements are being recalled.

“The decision to repatriate certain students does not impact on those students who remain on track with regards to their studies abroad.

“The assessment is also conducted to ensure other eligible students from Papua province also obtain the same opportunity in pursuing their studies.”

The embassy also said it had tried to resolve various aspects of the issue including possible outstanding tuition and living fees.

But for students such as Ikinia the suggestion he is being sent home because he has been failing, has no foundation.

“I came to New Zealand in 2016, I did my New Zealand language programme for five months and then I studied my international contemporary studies, bachelor programme, I studied in 2017 and then I finished in 2019 in three years and then I studied for my master’s programme in 2020,” he says.

“I’m just about to finish and then they put my name on the list and then they claim that I’m not making any progress, which is baseless. This is something that we have written a letter to the government to clarify — the evidence that the government used to categorise all these 42 students not making progress.”

Ikinia is reaching out to institutions, organisations and communities for their support on behalf of the Papuan Students Association of Oceania.

“We humbly request the people of Aotearoa, New Zealand to open your arms to welcome us as a Pacific family.

“It’s been a long, long time where West Papuans, indigenous peoples have not spoken about our education rights and we are calling for the sake of humanity.”

• For more information, readers can visit the Papuan Students Association Oceania social media pages to learn how to offer support:
• Facebook
• Instagram
• Email: papuanstudentsoceania@gmail.com

Marena Mane is a Te Ao Māori News reporter. Republished with permission.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Xiaoshan Huang, Chingman and Qiao Long..

Ukrainians and their supporters at a protest on the New Zealand capital Wellington say it’s agonising not being able to help those at home, but are unimpressed at a request to merge protests with supporters of the Parliament grounds occupation.

The presence of two different protest groups at Wellington’s Civic Square yesterday produced an uncomfortable situation, as supporters of Ukraine and the Destiny Church-backed anti-covid-19 mandate Freedom and Rights Coalition group found their timing had clashed.

Some of the Ukrainian protest supporters were offended when asked to merge protests with the much smaller coalition group and march to Parliament together.

• READ MORE: Putin ‘will not stop at Ukraine’ – NZ protesters condemn Russian invasion
• LISTEN TO RNZ CHECKPOINT: ‘Sanctions aren’t going to save our lives’ – Tanya Harper
• PM condemns Russia’s Ukraine invasion which will claim many ‘innocent lives’
• Russia-Ukraine live updates: Battle for Kyiv intensifies
• Ukraine attack: Hundreds arrested in anti-war protests in Russia

It was the group’s second protest in the capital in as many days, as they oppose Russia’s invasion of the eastern European nation.

Only about 100 people were at the anti-vaccine coalition’s protest yesterday, despite more than 1000 people attending their previous two marches in the capital late last year.

This march had been planned to start at the square at 11am, and the Ukrainian protest was advertised for midday, but the coalition march did not vacate until about 12.15pm.

One of the Ukrainian protest coordinators, Tetiana Zhurba, said it would not be right to mix their protests. She came dressed in a yellow dress, with blue ribbon in her hair, to match the Ukrainian flag she was carrying.

‘It’s real war’
“We are here to support our families who are dying now and it’s terrible. It’s war — it’s real war — and this one [the Freedom and Rights Coalition march] is just batshit, I’m sorry.”

Zhurba, who is from Ukraine, said they decided to protest at Civic Square because it was a more public space than the Russian Embassy in Karori and Ukrainians were wanting to share stories with New Zealanders about what was happening to their family members in their home country.

Tanya Harper had lived in New Zealand about 20 years but her mum, brother and two nephews are still in Ukraine.

Harper had to beg her 74-year-old mother to flee her house in Kyiv.

“I said you don’t have a choice, none of us want to go. I said think of my kids, this is the only way you’re going to get through it; you can’t just lie down and decide you’re not going,” she said.

“It’s awful, awful telling your mother to do that.”

The last time Harper heard from any of them was Friday night, but she trusted her brother and nephews were still alive by checking the “last active” timestamp of messaging platforms Whatsapp and Viber.

‘He’s still alive’
“So you know an hour ago he’s still alive but you don’t know if he’s going to be alive by morning.”

Like Harper, Olena Pokydko felt “helpless” being in New Zealand. Both were wearing traditional Ukrainian shirts — vyshyvanka — and Pokydko explained the embroidery traditionally represented different regions of the country.

Pokydko was worried about her family, but particularly her sister who was a doctor at a hospital in Kyiv.

“All I can do is talk to them on the phone when they’re scared,” she said. Her sister rang her on Thursday while at work and could hear bombs.

“She needs to be thinking about how to rescue people, not about what to do and how to hide, and where to find the nearest bomb shelter … she doesn’t know what’s going to happen to her any second.”

Pokydko felt protesting was “the best we can do while living in New Zealand”.

However, she hoped the government would recognise the support they were receiving and put tighter sanctions in place against Russia.

The Ukrainian protest group planned to move to the Russian embassy, where they also protested on Friday.

Zhurba said this was to communicate their anger to Russia.

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

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has been met with despair and anger in New Zealand.

Nearly 100 people gathered at the Russian embassy in the capital Wellington today, at a protest organised by the Ukrainian Gromada of Wellington.

Fake blood was plastered over the gate and driveway, and protesters were shouting the likes of “blood on your hands” and “hands off Ukraine”.

• LISTEN TO RNZ CHECKPOINT: ‘Sanctions aren’t going to save our lives’ – Tanya Harper
• PM condemns Russia’s Ukraine invasion which will claim many ‘innocent lives’
• Russian troops advance on Kyiv as Ukrainian leader pleads for help
• Ukraine attack: Hundreds arrested in anti-war protests in Russia

Tanya Harper has family in Ukraine and did not know if her nephew was still alive.

“I spoke [to him] this morning, he sent a message saying they’re not evacuating, they’re not allowed to leave the building.They can see fighting on the streets from the apartment where he is and it’s very scary.”

Sanctions have come thick and fast from Western nations — but it was cold comfort for Harper.

“Sanctions aren’t going to save our lives, they know it’s too late for sanctions again – I want to see my Mum again, I want to see my brother.”

Lana, who did not give her last name, said she was afraid for her community.

“I can’t tell you how scared we are – my Mum almost ended up in the hospital this morning, she’s at home, she couldn’t even come here. I didn’t sleep last night, she didn’t sleep last night, I don’t think anyone in the Ukrainian community had one hour of sleep last night — we are constantly in contact because of our relatives and friends back there.”

Igor Titov had been speaking to his family back in Kyiv.

‘He will not stop at Ukraine’ – Dozens protest Putin at embassy https://t.co/BknNIqHwHV

— RNZ News (@rnz_news) February 25, 2022

“Yesterday, I was on the phone with my Mum, I was preparing her to evacuate from her own apartment, I was waking up my friends from the shelling.”

Tetiana Zhurba and Nataliya Stepuroi wrapped the colours of the Ukraine flag around a brick post by the entrance of the embassy.

“Why we did it here near Russian embassy, [is] because Russia — everywhere in our territory — when they come … they [put] up their flags in every village,” Zhurba said.

“I want [the embassy staff] to see our colours when they wake up in the morning, and go to dinner in the evening — I want them to see those colours when they leave and they’re coming back,” Stepuroi said.

Elsewhere in New Zealand, Ukrainians told RNZ they were horrified.

Inga Tokarenko spent all morning on the phone to her family who were sheltering underground.

“Yesterday, they woke up to a bombing, because of the hit of the wave from the bomb – it shook their windows. So they woke up I called them this morning and they were already heading off to the underground facility. They can feel the shockwaves.”

Northland woman Olya Tolpyhina said what was happening in her home country felt surreal.

Her parents live in the west of the country and chose to stay and fight — offering up their home to those who have been displaced.

“So they’re waiting for people to arrive and they keep safe — but they have a lot of people stuck in traffic, because all major airports were bombed.”

She said people in New Zealand and around the world needed to protest against Russia’s attacks and she did not believe they would stop with Ukraine.

“My biggest desire is no World War III. I don’t know what sick thoughts Putin has in his mind, but he will not stop at Ukraine when he gets it.”

Protests condemning Russia’s actions will continue over the weekend across the country.

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

Russian troops advance on Kyiv as Ukrainian leader pleads for help https://t.co/0nIEdvZIAH

— RNZ News (@rnz_news) February 25, 2022

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.