The submission details a sharp decline in media freedom in Georgia since the last review in 2021, as well as an ongoing crackdown on journalists and their newsrooms that appears designed to muzzle independent reporting.

Georgia, previously regarded as a democratic forerunner in post-Soviet Eurasia, is taking an authoritarian turn under the ruling Georgian Dream party, with mass protests against the country’s suspension of its European Union (EU) accession talks.

CPJ identified the following key areas of concern:

• Jailing of journalists on politically motivated charges. This includes the unwarranted pre-trial detention and trial of media manager Mzia Amaglobeli, who faces up to seven years in prison on charges widely condemned as excessive and retaliatory. A verdict is expected on August 1.

• Numerous large-scale incidents of apparently organized violence against journalists, particularly by law enforcement officers. For example, on July 5, 2021, more than 50 journalists covering a LGBTQ+ pride event in the capital Tbilisi were attacked by anti-LGBTQ+ protesters.

Between November 28, 2024, and May 1, 2025, rights organizations documented 145 incidents of attacks and other violations against 193 journalists reporting on protests against the suspension of EU accession talks, mostly by police. No police officers have yet been held accountable.

• The enactment of a raft of repressive laws targeting independent media.

These include:

-A 2024 “foreign agent” law and even harsher 2025 Foreign Agents Registration Act, with penalties of up to five years in prison;

-Amendments to the broadcasting law expanding the parliament-appointed regulator’s power to fine broadcasters and suspend their licenses;Amendments to the law on grants, requiring foreign donors to obtain government permission for grants. This adversely impacts online news outlets in particular, given their heavy reliance on foreign funding to ensure editorial independence;A “family values” law banning broadcasters from reporting on LGBTQ+ issues;

-Amendments to free speech laws abolishing key protections and facilitating defamation suits against the press.

–At least 16 foreign journalists have been denied entry since 2022. These denials appear to be in retaliation for critical reporting or views that conflict with Georgian Dream priorities.

–A significant increase in defamation lawsuits brought by politically influential individuals against critical media and journalists, with more than 40 such cases since 2021. These lawsuits, often referred to as Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs), aim to silence journalists.

–A sharp deterioration in access to public information and institutions. For example, in 2023 new regulations restricted journalists’ rights to film and conduct interviews in Parliament and granted Parliament the power to suspend their accreditation for violations. Since then, at least 15 journalists have had their accreditation suspended, all from critical media outlets.

–A marked rise in disinformation and hate speech.

Read the full 18-page report here.

Please send press inquiries to press@cpj.org.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

“Despite its timid wording, the European Commission finally states the obvious: Israel is breaching its human rights obligations under the Agreement. This is an indisputable fact that Amnesty International, international courts, UN bodies, independent experts, prominent Palestinian, Israeli and international NGOs, scholars, commentators and former diplomats have been saying for years.

“It is unforgivable that it took the EU so long to launch this review and disturbing to see the EU fail to set out any measures it plans to take against Israel. Every day the EU delays meaningful action, is a greenlight for Israel to continue its genocide in the Gaza Strip and unlawful occupation of the whole Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT).

“The EU and its member states have an obligation to ban trade and investment that could contribute to Israel’s genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and other grave violations of international law, including the crime against humanity of apartheid against all Palestinians whose rights it controls.

“Now that they have determined there are ‘indications’ that Israel is breaching human rights, there is no excuse for inaction or delays. Every deal that EU member states do with Israel in the meantime, leaves them at risk of being complicit in Israel’s grave violations of international law, including genocide.

“Member states in favour of suspending the agreement must use all their diplomatic weight to ensure that opponents of the suspension, including Germany, fully understand the risk of complicity and the cruel toll on Palestinian lives of continued EU inaction. If the EU fails to live up to these obligations as a bloc, and seeks to shield itself from its clear legal obligations, its member states must unilaterally suspend all forms of cooperation that may contribute to violations of international law.”

Background

On 23 June 2025, the European Commission presented its review of the EU-Israel Association Agreement to EU foreign ministers. The review found ‘indications’ that Israel is breaching its human rights obligations but did not present any measures for the EU to take in response.

Amnesty International has long called for a thorough, comprehensive, and credible review the Association Agreement in line with EU member states’ obligations to prevent trade and investment that contributes to maintaining Israel’s unlawful occupation of the OPT, as set out by the International Court of Justice’s Advisory Opinion of 19 July 2024 and obligations not to render aid or assistance to the commission of crimes under international law.

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

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up for Dispatches, a newsletter that spotlights wrongdoing around the country, to receive our stories in your inbox every week.

Watch ABC15 Arizona's series "Seeking Death," based on our joint investigation into Maricopa County's handling of death penalty cases.

In 2010, Vikki Valencia’s 24-year-old brother, Triny Rey Lozano, died in an almost unimaginably brutal way. He was shot in the head multiple times, dumped on a remote road outside Phoenix and set on fire.

Valencia saw only one way prosecutors could bring her family justice: The killer should get the death penalty.

Maricopa County prosecutors built a capital murder case against the man they say killed Lozano, Victor Hernandez.

Valencia knew it would take a long time but believed it would be worth it. Over nearly 10 years, she visited the courthouse hundreds of times, frequently missing work to attend hearings where she revisited traumatic images of the crime scene.

“The death penalty was the thing that we wanted most because we thought it was going to give us justice,” she said in a recent interview.

During jury selection, the case stalled because of a potential conflict of interest involving a prosecutor who had previously represented Hernandez. Years later, a second trial followed. As that jury was deliberating, prosecutors dropped the death penalty. Nine years after he was charged with killing Lozano, Hernandez was found guilty and sentenced to life in prison.

Although the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office has historically pursued the death penalty at high rates, its efforts rarely result in a death sentence.

ProPublica and ABC15 Arizona reviewed nearly 350 cases over a 20-year period in which Maricopa County prosecutors decided the crimes warranted the death penalty, and found that 13% ended in a death sentence. In most of the cases, defendants either pleaded guilty and received a lesser sentence or prosecutors changed course, ending their pursuit of the death penalty.

In 76 trials in which Maricopa County juries deliberated a death sentence, 41, or 54%, yielded one.

By comparison, an analysis of death penalty cases initiated in Harris County, Texas, from 2004 through 2023, found prosecutors took fewer cases, 24, to trial and were more successful, obtaining a death sentence 75% of the time, according to figures provided by a local advocacy group. Data over a longer time period also shows that federal prosecutors nationwide have obtained death sentences at a higher rate than in Maricopa County, according to the Federal Death Penalty Resource Counsel Project.

Pursuing the death penalty is among the most consequential decisions that prosecutors make. Each case can be litigated across the tenures of multiple county attorneys and can cost more than a million dollars. In the hundreds of Maricopa County death penalty cases that prosecutors have pursued since 2007, the cost of furnishing the accused with an adequate defense has totaled $289 million. But the outcomes in the county raise questions about the office’s judgment in its pursuit of the ultimate punishment, according to court records and interviews with more than three dozen people including lawyers, former prosecutors, family members of victims and defendants, jurors and experts.

Former County Attorney Rick Romley said there should be a review of capital charging decisions after ProPublica and ABC15 shared the newsrooms’ findings with him. Romley wondered whether prosecutors are seeking death “in the appropriate cases.”

“The jury is kind of a barometer of whether or not you’re doing a good job,” he said. “And quite frankly … if it was a school grade, that’s called an F.”

The office, now headed by Rachel Mitchell, a Republican, declined our request for an interview. A spokesperson responded to written questions, emphasizing that “only one” person in Maricopa County — Mitchell — makes the decision to seek the death penalty and that each case is reviewed throughout the process, as information changes.

Maricopa County’s and the state of Arizona’s handling of the death penalty have been questioned for years. A 2016 report by the now-defunct Fair Punishment Project, a legal and educational research group at Harvard University, cited the county, among other places, as having a history of “overzealous prosecutors, inadequate defense and a pattern of racial bias and exclusion.”

In addition, defense attorneys for a death row prisoner in 2018 petitioned unsuccessfully to the U.S. Supreme Court, claiming that Arizona’s statute was overly broad because almost every murder can be charged as a capital case. And two former prosecutors and appeals court judges wrote in a 2022 law journal article that state officials, rather than individual counties, should make all death penalty decisions to ensure the process is “less arbitrary.”

Maricopa County prosecutors’ handling of death penalty cases is newly relevant as Arizona has resumed executions after a two-year pause. The state, which has 111 people on death row, halted executions in 2014, after Joseph Wood was injected repeatedly over two hours, gasping more than 600 times before dying, according to a reporter’s account. The state executed three people in 2022 but paused after the newly elected Gov. Katie Hobbs ordered a review of the lethal injection process. Hobbs dismissed the retired federal magistrate she had appointed to conduct the review after he concluded there is no humane way to execute people.

Valencia and her family felt the case had put their lives on hold. Looking back, she said it seemed odd that the prosecution, which had pursued death for so long, decided not to once the outcome was close. (Prosecutors declined to comment on the case.)

But as Valencia learned, there’s little transparency around the process in Maricopa County. Although the final decision to seek death is made by the county attorney, each case is vetted by a little known panel, the Capital Review Committee. The county attorney’s office refused to disclose to ProPublica and ABC15 who sits on the panel, how they vote on the cases being considered for the death penalty or even which cases they review.

The office said in a statement that the process ends not with the county attorney’s office but with a trial, which is “all done in public, in an open courtroom.” The office also said that it is successful in prosecuting capital cases and comparisons to Harris County could be misleading because they ignore the “details and intricacies of individual cases.”

Establishing a committee is generally better than individual judgments, but the quality of the decisions depends on the individuals involved, said Robert Dunham, former director of the Death Penalty Information Center, a group that shares data and analysis on capital punishment and frequently highlights issues with the system.

“Anyone who says that they have a fair process and is unwilling to say what that process is, is somebody who doesn’t have a fair process,” Dunham said.

When Romley, a Republican, was first elected Maricopa County attorney in 1989, deputy prosecutors in one of the nation’s largest counties decided whether to seek the death penalty on their own.

Among the first changes Romley made was to foster more deliberation. He created the Capital Review Committee to evaluate cases and recommend whether to pursue the death penalty. He still had the final say, but he believed that a group of veteran prosecutors would apply the law more consistently and recommend only cases that warranted the ultimate punishment.

“Seeking the death penalty is a momentous decision that you’ve got to make,” Romley said. “I wanted to make sure that we were ferreting out all the facts, that we made sure that judgment wasn’t being skewed by personal biases.”

Romley served four terms and decided not to seek a fifth, leaving office in 2004. His successor was Andrew Thomas, a Republican attorney and author, who ran as a law-and-order conservative vowing to crack down on illegal immigration and impose tougher sentences. After two years, Thomas had nearly doubled the number of death penalty prosecutions, earning Maricopa County the distinction of seeking death more than almost any other jurisdiction in the nation.

Critics said Thomas sought the death penalty for crimes that didn’t warrant it — including a case of vehicular homicide. The defendant in that case, David Szymanski, had a blood-alcohol content nearly twice the legal limit and cocaine in his system when he drove the wrong way on a freeway and killed a 22-year-old man.

A police review found that officers had violated department policy while pursuing Szymanski. Thomas relented more than a year later, and the Capital Review Committee recommended the capital charge be withdrawn. Szymanski pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and was sentenced to 22 years in prison.

The victim’s mother told the Arizona Republic, “We’ve never wanted the death penalty.”

Kenneth Everett, who was a defense attorney on capital cases for the Maricopa County Office of the Legal Advocate during Thomas’ tenure, told the American Bar Association’s ABA Journal in 2010 that it was clear decisions on the cases were made solely by Thomas. “When I begged for a deal, all of the prosecutors would say, ‘I have to run it by the man,’” he said. “Thomas certainly had the ultimate power. And if he said no, you were going to trial. And he usually said no.”

The Arizona Supreme Court convened a task force to address case delays amid a shortage of qualified capital defense attorneys.

Thomas responded to criticism of the delays by blaming defense attorneys for drawing out proceedings and the courts for failing to enforce speedy trial rules. He wrote in an Arizona Republic opinion piece, “I’ve sought the death penalty in appropriate cases knowing juries make the ultimate decision and believing they should have this option.”

Thomas won a second term but resigned in 2010 to pursue an unsuccessful bid for state attorney general. He was later disbarred for misconduct and political prosecutions of county officials. Thomas, who did not respond to requests for comment, said at the time that he was “working to fight corruption.”

After Thomas’ resignation, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors appointed Romley to serve out the term. Back in his old job, Romley reviewed the 120 capital cases the office was pursuing at the time. He decided not to seek the death penalty in 11 of them, including a case in which a 4-month-old child was found dead at an in-home day care. The medical examiner had concluded the child died of blunt force trauma, but Romley said he brought in medical experts who disputed that and found the injuries the child suffered could have been caused by an illness.

In court minutes of a hearing to drop the death penalty in the case, the Capital Review Committee is noted as having voted 8-0 to dismiss the case, which was never refiled. But the weight of the charge on the defendant, Lisa Randall, is evident in court documents. Over the three years she was in and out of jail, her marriage fell apart and she lost her house, according to court documents. Randall couldn’t be reached for comment.

“Once you allege death, the whole game changes,” Romley said. “So many more resources go into that particular case.”

Once a prosecutor decides to seek the death penalty, the stakes rise. The courts and victims’ families face a lengthier process, and jurors can face intense scrutiny.

The court appoints two defense lawyers, along with an investigator and a mitigation specialist. (In other cases, defendants have only one lawyer.) The defense is also given more time to prepare, to allow for an examination of the defendant’s background to find sympathetic factors that could mitigate a death sentence.

Capital trials consume more time because they consist of three parts: A jury first decides if the defendant is guilty; then jurors consider aggravating circumstances that could make the defendant eligible or ineligible for a death sentence. Finally, the jury decides if the sentence should be death or life in prison.

It’s unclear how much the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office spends prosecuting capital cases. When ProPublica and ABC15 asked the office for a breakdown, a spokesperson said that the office doesn’t track spending on death penalty cases.

But since 2007, the county has spent nearly $289 million on defense for capital cases. Last year, the county spent $26 million, more than any year since 2007, according to the Maricopa County Office of Public Defense Services.

In Oklahoma, a study released in 2017 found that capital cases cost, on average, three times more than noncapital cases.

Jodi Arias made headlines in 2013 when she was convicted of killing her ex-boyfriend. Prosecutors sought the death penalty twice, and jurors deadlocked both times. Arias was ultimately sentenced to life in prison. The two trials cost $3.2 million, including the defense and prosecution, according to officials at the time.

During the 20 years examined by ProPublica and ABC15, juries in 35 cases either voted for life, deadlocked, determined the cases didn’t qualify for death or found the defendant not guilty. In 41 cases, jurors recommended the death penalty.

Frank Baumgartner, a University of North Carolina political science professor, was surprised Maricopa County juries disagreed with prosecutors 46% of the time in capital cases. Prosecutors would save taxpayers money by exercising more discretion over which cases they pursue, Baumgartner said. They also appear to be out of step with public opinion in the county, given that juries disagree with them so frequently on the death penalty. “They’re not in sync with their local community,” he said.

People who served on capital juries in the county told ProPublica and ABC15 that they had traumatic experiences. During the selection process, potential jurors are asked personal questions in open court, making them feel vulnerable. Some have had their identities revealed by jurors who disagree with them.

A juror in a high-profile Maricopa County murder case who asked not to be named because of safety concerns called the experience “one of the worst of my life.” Once the juror learned it was a death penalty case, the stress triggered intense stomach pain. “It’s the highest penalty in the land, and I don’t think that it should be applied lightly,” the former juror said.

Given what jurors go though, prosecutors should be transparent about their decision-making, the juror said.

“They should show some of the bravery that they expect us to show,” the former juror said of the secretive committee. “You ask us to do this, to put our life on hold, to go through this, not share it with anybody. Then show some of the bravery that you hold us to, and be accountable like we would be accountable if we were caught not following any of the rules.”

In 2019, Myla Fairchild served as a juror in a case against the man accused of murdering Gilbert police Lt. Eric Shuhandler, who was killed after pulling over a pickup truck. Christopher Redondo, a passenger in the truck, shot Shuhandler in the face, setting off a 50-mile chase, prosecutors said. Fairchild said she voted against the death penalty because of Redondo’s mental capacity and long history of mental illness. Redondo was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison. Afterwards, frustrated jurors told the media Fairchild’s name.

She wasn’t afforded the same privacy as the prosecutors on the review committee who recommended the death penalty in the first place, she said.

“You’re not protected,” she said.

ProPublica and ABC15 asked the largest prosecutorial offices in Arizona and across the nation how they decide whether to seek the death penalty. The newsrooms found that no two counties handle decision-making the same way, but Maricopa County is an outlier for obscuring nearly every aspect of its committee’s work.

The ACLU sued the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office in 2019 for access to the committee’s membership and other records. Jared Keenan, the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona’s legal director, said the organization considered the records important to the public’s understanding of the death penalty.

“Prosecuting agencies have an incredible amount of power, and that power is at its height when they make life-and-death decisions,” Keenan said. “The public needs to know who is involved in making those decisions to be able to ensure that those decisions are made responsibly, constitutionally, ethically.”

The county opposed releasing the information. “They were fighting to keep this specific information from the public for years and years,” Keenan said. A judge did not order the county to release the committee records to the public.

At ProPublica and ABC15’s request, the county attorney’s office shared a policy document listing the composition of the Capital Review Committee but said the document is “significantly out of date.” It listed as committee members: the deputy chief of the Criminal Division; the division chiefs from the Capital Litigation Bureau, Major Offenders Division and Special Victims Division; and the Community Based Prosecution Division chiefs. The policy allows the county attorney to designate other committee members.

In a statement, the county attorney’s office reiterated that Mitchell makes the final decision after considering a wide range of information.

Still, the decision can feel opaque to victims’ family members.

When prosecutors sought the death penalty against Octavia Rogers in the killing of her three young children in the summer of 2016, they went against the family’s wishes, according to Rogers’ aunt, Sherry Spooney. Spooney and her family had lost three young relatives in the killing and didn’t want to lose Rogers to the death penalty, too. “What would it solve? How would it help the situation?” she said.

Prosecutors never spoke to the family about how they arrived at their decision, Spooney said.

The Maricopa County Attorney’s Office said it reached out to the family.

Spooney called their secrecy “disheartening” and said it caused her to wonder if the office had its own agenda in pursuing the death penalty. “It’s a total disservice, to not just the family, but the victims of the family. And in this case, we’re both, we’re one and the same, and if they’re going to make decisions for someone else, it should be known.”

Last year, after Rogers was found incompetent to stand trial, she pleaded “guilty except insane,” meaning she did not know at the time of her crime that the act was wrong. Rogers is being held at the Arizona State Hospital.

Valencia recalled that when the case against her brother’s killer was delayed, she initially blamed defense attorneys for dragging out the proceedings, but the committee’s secrecy was also contributing to the delay. Attorneys for Hernandez, the defendant, had discovered a member of the Capital Review Committee had a potential conflict of interest: A former defense attorney for Hernandez in an unrelated case had since become a prosecutor and was on the committee that voted to reject a plea deal for Hernandez. (The plea deal included the noncapital case as well.)

Prosecutors fought for nearly three years to keep the committee’s membership and its votes secret in a case that reached the Arizona Supreme Court. A judge eventually determined there was no conflict of interest in the Hernandez case.

Years later, when prosecutors withdrew the death penalty charge against Hernandez, Valencia said she agreed with the decision even though she’d once thought it would be the only just outcome.

“It took such a toll on our family, at that point, I was just ready for it to be done,” she said.

This content originally appeared on ProPublica and was authored by by Nicole Santa Cruz, ProPublica, and Dave Biscobing, ABC15 Arizona.

That is exactly where the government of Sir Keir Starmer finds itself. Despite a mammoth majority and a dramatically diminished Tory opposition, the Prime Minister acts like a man permanently besieged, his Labour Party seemingly less popular than Typhoid Mary. His inability to be unequivocal to questions of whether he will contest the next election suggest as much.

The same cannot be said about his enthusiasm for the sword and sabre. There are monsters out there to battle, and Sir Keir is rising to the plate. Sensing this, the military mandarins, most prominently General Sir Roland Walker, head of the Army, have been more than encouraging, seeing the need to ready the country for war by 2027. Given the military’s perennial love affair with astrology, that state of readiness could only be achieved with a doubling of the Army’s fighting power and tripling it by 2030.

Given that background, the UK Strategic Defence Review (SDR) was commissioned in July 2024. Led by former Labour Defence Secretary and NATO Secretary General Lord George Robertson, the freshly released report promises a fat boon for the military industrial complex. Like all efforts to encourage war, its narrative is that of supposedly making Britain safer.

Starmer’s introduction is almost grateful for the chance to out the blood lusting enemy. “In this new era for defence and security, when Russia is waging war on our continent and probing our defences at home, we must meet the danger head on.” The placing of noble Ukraine into the warming fraternity of Europe enables a civilisational twist to be made. The Russian military efforts in Ukraine are not specific to a murderous family affair and historical anxieties but directed against all Europeans. Therefore, all Europeans should militarise and join the ranks, acknowledging that “the very nature of warfare is being transformed” by that conflict.

In pursuing the guns over butter program, Starmer recapitulates the sad theme of previous eras that led to global conflict. As Europe began rearming in the 1930s, a prevalent argument was that people could have guns and butter. Greater inventories of weaponry would encourage greater prosperity. So, we find Starmer urging the forging of deeper ties between government and industry and “a radical reform of procurement”, one that could only be economically beneficial. This would be the “defence dividend”, another nonsense term the military industrial complex churns out with such disconcerting ease.

The foreword from the Defence Secretary, John Healey, outlines the objectives of the SDR. These include playing a leading role in NATO “with strengthened nuclear, new tech, and updated conventional capabilities”; moving the country to a state of “warfighting readiness”; nourishing the insatiable military industrial Moloch; learning the lessons of Ukraine (“harnessing drones, data and digital warfare”); and adopting a “whole-of-society approach”, a sly if clumsy way of enlisting the civilian populace into the military enterprise.

The review makes 62 recommendations, all accepted by the grateful government. Some £15 billion will go to the warhead programme, supporting 9,000 jobs, while £6 billion will be spent on munitions over the course of the current Parliament. A “New Hybrid Navy” is envisaged, one that will feature Dreadnought and the yet to be realised SSN-AUKUS submarines, alongside “support ships” and “autonomous vessels to patrol the North Atlantic and beyond.” Submarine production is given the most optimistic assessment: one completion every 18 months.

The Royal Air Force is not to miss out, with more F-35s, modernised Typhoons, and the next generation of jets acquired through the Global Combat Air Programme. To his splurge will be added autonomous fighters, enabling global reach.

Mindless assessments are abundant in the Review. The government promises a British army 10 times “more lethal to deter from the land, by combining more people and armoured capability with air defence, communications, AI, software, long-range weapons, and land drone swarms.” Some 7,000 new long-range weapons will be built and a New CyberEM Command established “to defend Britain from daily attacks in the grey zone.” Keeping those merchants of death happy will be a new Defence Exports Office located in the Ministry of Defence, one intended “to drive exports to our allies and growth at home.”

The fanfare of the report, festooned with fripperies for war, conceals the critical problems facing the British armed forces. The ranks are looking increasingly thinned. (In 2010, regular troop numbers stood at 110,000; the current target of 73,000 soldiers is being barely met.) Morale is ebbing. The state of equipment is embarrassingly poor. The UK’s celebrated submarine deterrent is somewhat less formidable in the deterrence department, with its personnel exhausted and subject to unpardonably lengthy stints at sea. The 204-day patrol by HMS Vanguard is a case in point.

Whether the SDR’s recommendations ever fructify remains the hovering question. It’s all very good to make promises about weapons programmes and boosting a country’s readiness to kill, but militaries can be tardy in delivery and faulty in execution. What saves the day may well be standard ineptitude rather than any firebrand conviction in war. To the unready go the spoils.

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

The UPR, a United Nations mechanism that conducts a peer review of each member state’s human rights record every 4 ½ years, assesses progress made since the previous review cycle and provides recommendations on how countries can better meet their human rights obligations.

The joint report highlights an escalating crackdown on journalists, bloggers, and press freedom in Kuwait. It also raises serious concerns about the repression of the stateless Bedoon community and increasing restrictions on the rights to free expression, association, and peaceful assembly. The report documents harassment and attacks targeting journalists, human rights defenders, and former members of parliament.

CPJ’s UPR submission on Kuwait is available in English here and Arabic here.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

The report, sent to the UPR on April 7, alerts of laws restricting freedom of expression and press freedom in Honduras; murders and attacks against journalists and indigenous media; threats to academic freedom and the limitation of equal participation of women journalists and authors in the media and publishing houses as well as violence against women journalists and historically marginalized communities.

Among 13 recommendations include the revision of the Protection Law and its regulations to strengthen the institutional protection mechanism; the repeal of crimes against honor to prevent further violations of the media and journalists; and the application of the necessary measures to ensure that an inclusive gender and diversity perspective is fully integrated into public and private cultural, journalistic and editorial programs.

Read the joint statement in English here and in Spanish here.

Read the full report in Spanish here.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

Nicaragua’s final UPR report was scheduled for adoption on March 26, during the 58th session of the UN Human Rights Council. However, the Nicaraguan State did not submit its report nor attend the session, leading to the suspension and postponement of the procedure. This comes after Nicaragua’s withdrawal from the UN Human Rights Council in February 2025.

The joint statement warns that Nicaragua’s failure to complete the review process is a troubling sign of its ongoing disregard for international human rights standards and urges the Human Rights Council to adopt the necessary measures to ensure that the evaluation process can move forward.

Read the full statement here.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

Image by Getty and Unsplash+.

Malcolm Harris’ latest book, What’s Left, presents a stark assessment of the climate crisis and a serious consideration of what political options have the potential to meaningfully reduce carbon emissions. While the Harris’ focused proposals—marketcraft, public ownership of utilities, and communism— are not options American leaders currently take seriously, Harris makes the case these alternatives will become all the more vital as climate catastrophes intensify. What’s Left reimagines what climate discourse could be if by identifying steps must be taken to decarbonize and working backwards to see how these solutions may come about. In face of serious climate proposals continuing to be discarded. salvaging What’s Left of our environment is the guiding force trying to motivate action along whatever method will achieve these aims.

In the months after it’s been written, What’s Left has already seemed prescient in foreseeing the failure of mainstream climate politics. The Biden administration’s paradox of increasing and oil production alongside green investments and ESG disclosures has been quickly undone by the Trump administration as if the Democratic Party has been in any way restrictive to fossil fuels. California, despite facing more frequent wildfires, has responded by reducing environmental building standards in the disaster zones too dangerous even for insurers. Against these contradictions and failures, a realpolitik approach to achieving sustainability goals is refreshing.

To make any meaningful progress, climate proposals need to start with confronting what Harris terms the “Oil-Value Life chain”—the system of production that maximizes profit at the expense of any other social goal. This is something Harris, who has spoken at Shell’s corporate retreat in the past, has more experience with than most. No matter how green consumption may be, dirty productive systems will continue to wreak damage unabated. Big change—big enough to dislodge our dependence on oil for our economic systems—will needed to address this. For Harris, the three options with the power to do replace the oil-value-life chain are 1) marketcraft — government regulating a green market into existence, 2) public power — collective ownership of the energy sector, and 3) Communism — where people seize the means of production. While the stated intent is to review what each option may look like, these economic questions naturally raise questions about what we owe to society and how we should relate to each other.

In his analysis of these movements, marketcraft draws the most contemporaneous practical examples—as well as downfalls. Because markets are social projects to achieve societal goals, these markets can often be the most expedient methods to deliver reform through green incentives, taxing polluters, and investing in long-term projects. While the Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act was the US’ most serious effort at green incentives, this also showed the incoherence of applying incentives to stimulate green production without reducing pollution to reduce emissions. For what good marketcraft looks like, we are still left looking at other countries such as China’s ability to continue investing in renewable energy generation and transmission.

Public power offers a second alternative where public ownership of power generation could invest in forms of energy generation to serve the public good. Instead of the current system where municipalities grant utility monopolies to extract rent for delivering power, communities could invest directly in power generation—both cutting out the middleman and empowering communities to make utility decisions aligned to their goals. When the US has invested in public utilities, such as the Tennessee Valley, the social advancement has been phenomenal despite the US refusing to back similar New Deal-style investments for several decades. Freed from the need to finance sustainable power profitably, China has been able to make significant increases in the last decades.

Lastly, communism is the final and most transformative option—to address not just the contradictions of the an economy undermining global livability but also addressing the core assumptions of capitalist resource distribution. Community-based uprisings against capitalism from the Zapatistas or other indigenous resistance movements have been some of the most effective ways to advance social planning that embeds their participants in their local environment. In a world where we can expect systems to continue to failing, this bulwark is something groups need to be prepared for.

Given the urgency of these challenges, no strategy alone can be expected to address these needs. Harris takes each vein of thought seriously, but thankfully not on its own terms. What’s Left presents a practical exploration of how these movements can work together to advance climate goals. This topical overview covers a wide range of productive methods to decarbonize industrial manufacturing and reduce carbon’s impact on the atmosphere. These tactics as well as their social ramifications, both successful and not, that have been attempted with the potential to leverage wider-scale change. While at this moment, as the any semblance of environmental consciousness is razed from federal government, lax environmental regulations are gutted, and milquetoast incentives are rolled back any of these options appear far fetched. However, this does not change the facts that these are the actions necessary to mitigate the worst effects of the climate crisis. The climate fight will live on and we will win, because we must.

The post Climate Realpolitik: Review of “What’s Left” by Malcolm Harris appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Mitchell Best.

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up for Dispatches, a newsletter that spotlights wrongdoing around the country, to receive our stories in your inbox every week.

In 2021, the number of people in Illinois killed from acts of domestic violence was growing at an alarming pace, and state legislators acted with a sense of urgency.

In a near-unanimous vote, they passed legislation designed to blunt the trend. The state would establish a network of panels to review killings related to domestic violence and identify whether existing strategies for preventing them fell short.

But since then the state has made only meager progress in implementing the plans laid out in that law, and the number of domestic violence killings continues to increase.

The bill called for building the network over six years, but nearly four years after Gov. JB Pritzker signed it, only seven of the state’s 102 counties have helped establish fatality case review teams.

The first reviews began only late last year, and key deadlines have been missed. An initial report of statewide policy recommendations based on reviews by the panels was expected to be delivered to lawmakers in April 2024. But that has yet to happen.

The most glaring absence from the program is Cook County, which is home to Chicago and accounts for nearly 40% of the state’s population. Discussions between organizers of the initiative and agencies that could take charge of a local review panel in the county have failed to yield a commitment.

People familiar with the effort say a lack of funding and a gap in leadership have slowed the initiative’s progress. The law does not provide money to staff the local review panels, hampering recruitment of people to serve. Moreover, a top state administrator in charge of developing the network abruptly left the project and was only recently replaced.

Illinois Sen. Celina Villanueva, one of several sponsors of the bill creating the initiative, acknowledged the delays but expressed confidence in the overall direction. “My hope is that once everything is fully established, that it’s a strong working mechanism to be able to address the larger issues of why we passed this bill to begin with,” she said.

Cristin Evans, spokesperson for the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, the state agency that oversees the review effort, said that “the amount of time it has taken for teams to conduct their first review is not unexpected given the structure and complexity of the initiative.”

The current teams are on track to complete a minimum of two cases in 2025, she added.

Recent killings underscore the urgency of addressing breakdowns in the systems designed to protect people from domestic violence. In November, Chicago police found Lacramioara Beldie stabbed to death in an apparent murder-suicide at the hands of her estranged husband, Constantin. Court records that surfaced after Beldie’s death detailed a disturbing timeline.

Six weeks before he allegedly killed his wife, Constantin Beldie appeared inside a Cook County court to face accusations he’d assaulted and held her inside a car against her will. Prosecutors did seek to detain Beldie ahead of his trial over the incident but failed to submit evidence of his alleged prior abuse. Judge Thomas E. Nowinski denied the state’s petition, noting that state prosecutors had failed to establish Beldie’s alleged history of violence toward his wife and concluded he was a “medium-low risk.” The judge released him on electronic monitoring.

In a letter to the chief judge of the Circuit Court of Cook County, nearly 30 Chicago-area elected officials, including several city alderpersons, blasted the “multiple systemic failures” that led to Beldie’s killing and called for Nowinski to be removed from domestic violence court.

He was later transferred to municipal court, where he will oversee traffic and misdemeanor cases. But the chief judge has defended Nowinski, emphasizing prosecutors’ role in the hearing’s outcome.

With the goal of learning from past failures, the fatality review legislation calls for a two-tiered approach, with county-based review teams and oversight from a statewide committee.

The county teams are supposed to review the circumstances surrounding certain killings to assess how systems designed to intervene and prevent domestic violence performed. Just a few counties have joined review teams since 2021: Kankakee, Lake and Will, with joint teams operating in Madison and Bond counties as well as Winnebago and Boone counties. Those teams represent five of the state’s 25 judicial circuits.

The statewide committee consists of representatives of law enforcement, academics and social service providers. Drawing on the local teams’ reviews, it is supposed to submit a report every two years outlining specific recommendations for “legislative, systemic, policy, and any other changes to reduce domestic violence and domestic violence related fatalities.”

In its first report, in 2024, the committee revealed it could not yet provide recommendations because none of the local teams had been formed.

Fatality review committees first appeared around 1995, as advocates and lawmakers around the United States began searching for new ways to stem the tide of domestic violence. In the years since, all but five states have established processes for reviewing fatal cases of domestic or intimate partner violence, according to the National Domestic Violence Fatality Review Initiative, an Arizona nonprofit that helps states develop review boards.

Those who back these efforts say they’re a tool that can improve outcomes for the vulnerable people domestic violence prevention policies are intended to protect.

A 2013 University of Washington study of outcomes in states that had established fatality reviews found that recommendations made by the panels had successfully prioritized issues related to their work. But prioritization alone “may not translate into organizational and institutional changes,” the study found.

Other states have experienced similar difficulties to Illinois’, not only in establishing a review process but maintaining it over time.

In South Carolina, implementation of the 2016 law establishing a review process of those killings has been “uneven,” said Sara Barber, executive director of the South Carolina Coalition Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault.

The state’s apparatus is overseen by a central committee, with local teams operated by county-based district attorneys. But similar to Illinois’ law, the South Carolina law does not include new funding. With resources already stretched thin, that has led to spotty participation among local groups.

Many of the local teams meet only infrequently, Barber said. “I don’t want to say that there hasn’t been progress, but there’s more that could be done,” she said.

Even with all the attention the issue has received, not all states compile tallies of domestic violence-related killings. Tracking those numbers is notoriously difficult. Federal law requires law enforcement agencies to report general crime statistics. But determining whether there was domestic violence leading up to a killing requires collecting and analyzing records from disparate sources, something advocates say not all city or state governments require.

That said, estimates made by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from death certificates, police reports and other sources reveal a steady increase in domestic violence killings across the nation.

In 2017, 1,070 people were killed in the United States in circumstances involving domestic or intimate partner violence. By 2021, the most recent year for which statistics are available, that number had skyrocketed to 1,800.

Illinois’ own tally reflects the national pattern. The total rose from 34 killings to 49 over that same period, according to the CDC tallies.

Lawmakers and advocates in Illinois continue to look for ways to address the problems. Last month, after three failed attempts, the Illinois General Assembly passed Karina’s Law, which will require police to confiscate firearms from anyone whose Illinois gun permit has been revoked because a judge issued an emergency order of protection against them. Pritzker signed the bill into law earlier this month.

The bill is named after Karina Gonzalez, who in 2023 was shot to death along with her 15-year-old daughter in their Chicago home. Her estranged husband has been charged with the killings and has pleaded not guilty.

Jesus Alvarez, Gonzalez’s son, said he believes it’s important not only to pass laws aimed at domestic violence, but to make sure they work as intended. There are obviously flaws in the system, Alvarez said. “But if you get these laws right, it should hopefully be a little bit easier for people, and they won’t have to face the same kind of situation that I faced.”

With so many horrific examples of domestic violence taking place in Chicago and Cook County suburbs, the county’s omission from the review effort remains glaring.

Nonetheless, it was not an initial target as the statewide program launched, said Sara Block, a managing director at the nonprofit social service provider Ascend Justice and volunteer co-chair of the statewide effort.

“There’s just more dynamics to consider in Cook,” she said. “It’s not that it’s not a priority. We very much hope that every single circuit will have one in the end. But some just aren’t ready yet, and it will take more groundwork, it takes more education, more relationship building, before they are.”

The law enforcement and social service agencies asked to lead efforts in Cook County and elsewhere are already stretched for time and resources, said Jennifer Greene, advocacy director for nonprofit service provider Life Span and a member of the statewide overseeing committee.

“You have to have someone who can run that team — who can handle administration and making contact, and there’s just not any funding attached to it to do those things,” she said.

Officials and advocates in Winnebago County, in northwest Illinois, have found a way to overcome those and other obstacles.

When state lawmakers passed legislation calling for the review panels, the city of Rockford’s Office of Domestic and Community Violence Prevention saw an opportunity and took a leadership role.

Forming a local committee wasn’t a hard sell, said Jennifer Cacciapaglia, director of that Rockford office, which is in Winnebago County. A foundation grant to pay for staff and research time helped ease concerns about capacity.

“I think countywide there was a recognition that this could really create positive outcomes for people, so support has been wide,” she said.

Last month, she joined a small group of county advocates and officials to conduct the county’s first reviews of domestic violence killings, focusing on two cases. Cacciapaglia said the panel’s goal is to continue examining cases through the end of the year and submit findings to the statewide committee.

In early February, the statewide committee came together for its bimonthly virtual meeting. These gatherings begin with a moment of reflection, to pause and be reminded of what’s at stake by recalling a recent victim.

“We do this simply to keep survivors and those who have died due to domestic violence in the forefront of our minds,” said Andrea Wilson, recently installed director of the committee, to the assembled group.

The committee’s attention turned to Tanisha Weeks. A judge had granted the 41-year-old mother an order of protection against her ex-boyfriend last December. She was shot dead in January in an apparent murder-suicide in Chicago involving an ex-boyfriend.

Because the killing occurred in Cook County, there is no panel to review the circumstances.

This content originally appeared on ProPublica and was authored by by Vernal Coleman.

Foreign Minister Winston Peters has confirmed New Zealand’s aid for Kiribati is being reviewed after its President and Foreign Minister cancelled a meeting with him last week.

Terms of Reference for the review are still being finalised, and it remains unclear whether or not funding will be cut or projects already under way would be affected, with Peters’ office saying no decisions would be made until the review was complete.

His office said Kiribati remained part of the RSE scheme and its eligibility for the Pacific Access Category was unaffected — for now.

• READ MORE: Other Kiribati aid reports

Peters had been due to meet with President Taneti Maamau last Tuesday and Wednesday, in what was to be the first trip by a New Zealand foreign minister to Kiribati in five years, and part of his effort to visit every Pacific country early in the government’s term.

Kiribati has been receiving increased aid from China in recent years.

In a statement, a spokesperson for Peters said he was informed about a week before the trip President Maamau would no longer be available.

“Around a week prior to our arrival in Tarawa, we were advised that the President and Foreign Minister of Kiribati, Taneti Maamau, was no longer available to receive Mr Peters and his delegation,” the statement said.

‘Especially disappointing’
“This was especially disappointing because the visit was to be the first in over five years by a New Zealand Minister to Kiribati — and was the result of a months-long effort to travel there.”

The spokesperson said the development programme was being reviewed as a result.

“New Zealand has been a long-standing partner to Kiribati. The lack of political-level contact makes it very difficult for us to agree joint priorities for our development programme, and to ensure that it is well targeted and delivers good value for money.

“That’s important for both the people of Kiribati and for the New Zealand taxpayer. For this reason, we are reviewing our development programme in Kiribati. The outcomes of that review will be announced in due course.

“Other aspects of the bilateral relationship may also be impacted.”

New Zealand spent $102 million on the development cooperation programme with Kiribati between 2021 and 2024, including on health, education, fisheries, economic development, and climate resilience.

Peters’ office said New Zealand deeply valued the contribution Recognised Seasonal Employer workers made to the country, and was committed to working alongside Pacific partners to ensure the scheme led to positive outcomes for all parties.

Committed to positive outcomes
“However, without open dialogue it is difficult to meet this commitment.”

They also said New Zealand was committed to working alongside our Pacific partners to ensure that the Pacific Access Category leads to positive outcomes for all parties, but again this would be difficult without open dialogue.

The spokesperson said the Kiribati people’s wellbeing was of paramount importance and the terms of reference would reflect this.

New Zealand stood ready “as we always have, to engage with Kiribati at a high level”.

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.

This article was produced for ProPublica’s Local Reporting Network in partnership with The Connecticut Mirror. Sign up for Dispatches to get stories like this one as soon as they are published.

The Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles said Monday the agency would undertake a “comprehensive review” of towing practices in response to an investigation by The Connecticut Mirror and ProPublica. The reporting found that some low-income residents were losing their cars because they couldn’t afford the recovery fees and had a short window to pay before towing companies were allowed to sell their vehicles.

The review comes as the 2025 legislative session opens Wednesday. The leader of the state House of Representatives said he will support efforts this session to lengthen the time period that tow truck companies have to wait before requesting the DMV’s permission to sell people’s vehicles.

“This will be a priority,” said House Speaker Matt Ritter, D-Hartford. “I mean, we are all pretty shocked by it.”

State law allows tow companies to seek permission from the DMV to sell a vehicle worth $1,500 or less just 15 days after towing it — one of the shortest such periods in the country, CT Mirror and ProPublica found.

The investigation, which was published Sunday, detailed how Connecticut’s laws have come to favor tow companies at the expense of owners. In many cases, people’s cars were towed from their apartment complexes not for violating the law, but because their complex-issued parking sticker had expired or they weren’t properly backed into a space.

As towing and storage charges mount, some towing companies set up additional barriers, like only taking cash. Others won’t release cars until they are registered in the person’s name, even if the driver just bought the vehicle and wasn’t required to register it yet under DMV rules.

The investigation found that the 15-day window was sometimes less time than it takes to get a DMV registration appointment and less than the time it takes to get a hearing for a complaint challenging a tow.

When presented with the findings, DMV Commissioner Tony Guerrera said that the 15-day window “strikes the right balance for consumers and towers.”

But on Monday, Guerrera said in a statement that his agency will propose changes to the Legislature to ensure that policies are updated and clear.

“We will undertake a comprehensive review of the issues highlighted in the article and engage in substantive discussions with legislative advocates,” Guerrera said. “Our proactive approach will involve actively participating in the legislative development of proposals to modernize the regulation of tow companies.”

In a statement, a spokesperson for Gov. Ned Lamont said he is “open to reviewing proposed changes to the law.”

Legislative leaders said they are concerned about the impact of the towing law on low-income residents particularly.

“It’s not a friendly system for people who have probably the least amount of time and resources to navigate a tricky system,” said Ritter. “So it really is a double whammy. It’s an unfair policy, and then the only way to undo it requires an inordinate amount of effort and time and resources that a lot of these individuals don’t have.”

State Rep. Roland Lemar, D-New Haven, the upcoming co-chair of the General Law Committee, said he’s already spoken with the DMV, Democratic leadership and the governor’s office about legislation he is drafting that would lengthen the 15-day window before a sale, expand the forms of payment that towing companies are required to take, and prohibit companies from patrolling private parking lots looking for cars to tow. Instead, they would be required to wait for a complaint.

“The tow trucks are just driving around looking for a problem,” he said.

A bill that Lemar proposed in 2023 to require tow companies to accept credit cards, in addition to other measures, passed the legislature’s Transportation Committee. But facing opposition from towing companies and property owners, it wasn’t called on the House floor.

Timothy Vibert, president of the Towing and Recovery Professionals of Connecticut, said towing companies are willing to talk about changes to the laws but that legislators don’t want to address the underlying reason for tows — lots of people driving unregistered and uninsured cars.

“The reason they’re being towed is because they’ve done something wrong,” Vibert said. “Yes, there are some unscrupulous towers out there, and that’s just the way they are, OK? But you can’t change every piece of legislation to push on and make the towers be the fall guy.”

John Souza, president of the Connecticut Coalition of Property Owners, said that 15 days seems like a short window, particularly for some of his tenants who get paid each month through Social Security, but allowing towers to patrol parking lots is helpful for larger apartment buildings. He doesn’t live at the rental properties he owns, he said, so it would be hard for him to call towing companies at all hours of the day.

“As a landlord, I get it,” Souza said. “You have to have rules, and people unfortunately take advantage. If the rules are too slack, people take advantage of them. There’s nothing worse than coming home after a long, hard day and someone’s in your parking space.”

House Majority Leader Jason Rojas, D-East Hartford, said his office quickly researched the issue following the story’s publication and found there’s a longer window for reclaiming minibikes before sale than there is for some vehicles.

“Fifteen days seems like a very short amount of time for anybody to be able to react and kind of do whatever they have to do to try to secure their vehicle before there’s an opportunity for it to be sold,” Rojas said. “For those reasons, and perhaps others too, it merits a look for sure.”

He said the issue “struck a nerve” with him and others because of how important it is to have reliable access to transportation.

House Minority Leader Vincent Candelora, R-North Branford, said he is willing to consider changes to the state’s towing law.

“I’m concerned about the potentially predatory nature of towing practices in Connecticut,” Candelora said. “A number of years ago, I thought we had addressed this issue by requiring the posting of signs and the cost of towing prior to allowing the towing of vehicles, but obviously there seems to be an issue that still needs to be addressed.”

Leadership in the state Senate said they were interested in exploring the issue. Senate President Pro Tempore Martin Looney, D-New Haven, said there’s an “issue here about fairness” that should be examined.

Has Your Car Been Towed in Connecticut? Share Your Story and Help Us Investigate.

This content originally appeared on ProPublica and was authored by by Ginny Monk and Dave Altimari, The Connecticut Mirror.

The submission, dated July 16, 2024, was made ahead of Angola’s January 2025 Universal Periodic Review (UPR), during which the U.N. member states on the council will assess its human rights record and make recommendations for improvement in keeping with its human rights obligations under international law.

In the submission, CPJ, the Angolan Journalists’ Syndicate, and the Angolan chapter of the Media Institute of Southern Africa document four years of judicial harassment of journalists through criminal defamation and insult laws, suspension of broadcasts and broadcast permissions, harassment and detention of members of the press, and the enactment of new laws that will further restrict media freedom. The three organizations recommend that Angola improve its press freedom record, including by freeing journalist Carlos Raimundo Alberto, who has been detained since 2023, desisting from imprisoning journalists for their work, as well as abolishing criminal defamation and repealing other laws that criminalize journalism.

The full UPR submission is available in English here.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

COMMENTARY: By Tess Newton Cain

Vanuatu’s devastating earthquake and dramatic political developments in Tonga and New Caledonia at the end of 2024 set the tone for the coming year in the Pacific.

The incoming Trump administration adds another level of uncertainty, ranging from the geostrategic competition with China and the region’s resulting militarisation through to the U.S. response to climate change.

And decolonisation for a number of territories in the Pacific will remain in focus as the region’s largest country celebrates its 50th anniversary of independence.

The deadly 7.3 earthquake that struck Port Vila on December 17 has left Vanuatu reeling. As the country moves from response to recovery, the full impacts of the damage will come to light.

The economic hit will be significant, with some businesses announcing that they will not open until well into the New Year or later.

Amid the physical carnage there’s Vanuatu’s political turmoil, with a snap general election triggered in November before the disaster struck to go ahead on January 16.

On Christmas Eve a new prime minister was elected in Tonga. ‘Aisake Valu Eke is a veteran politician, who has previously served as Minister of Finance. He succeeded Siaosi Sovaleni who resigned suddenly after a prolonged period of tension between his office and the Tongan royal family.

Eke takes the reins as Tonga heads towards national elections, due before the end of November. He will likely want to keep things stable and low key between now and then.

Fall of New Caledonia government
In Kanaky New Caledonia, the resignation of the Calédonie Ensemble party — also on Christmas Eve — led to the fall of the French territory’s government.

After last year’s violence and civil disorder – that crippled the economy but stopped a controversial electoral reform — the political turmoil jeopardises about US$77 million (75 million euro) of a US$237 million recovery funding package from France.

In addition, and given the fall of the Barnier government in Paris, attempts to reach a workable political settlement in New Caledonia are likely to be severely hampered, including any further movement to secure independence.

In France’s other Pacific territory, the government of French Polynesia is expected to step up its campaign for decolonisation from the European power.

Possibly the biggest party in the Pacific in 2025 will be the 50th anniversary of Papua New Guinea’s independence from Australia, accompanied hopefully by some reflection and action about the country’s future.

Eagerly awaited also will be the data from the country’s flawed census last year, due for release on the same day — September 16. But the celebrations will also serve as a reminder of unfinished self-determination business, with its Autonomous Region of Bougainville preparing for their independence declaration in the next two years.

The shadow of geopolitics looms large in the Pacific islands region. There is no reason to think that will change this year.

Trump administration unkowns
A significant unknown is how the incoming Trump administration will alter policy and funding settings, if at all. The current (re)engagement by the US in the region started with Trump during his first incumbency. His 2019 meeting with the then leaders of the compact states — Federated States of Micronesia, Palau, Republic of Marshall Islands — at the White House was a pivotal moment.

Under Biden, billions of dollars have been committed to “securitise” the region in response to China. This year, we expect to see US marines start to transfer in numbers from Okinawa to Guam.

However, given Trump’s history and rhetoric when it comes to climate change, there is some concern about how reliable an ally the US will be when it comes to this vital security challenge for the region.

The last time Trump entered the White House, he withdrew the US from the Paris Agreement and he is widely expected to do the same again this time around.

In addition to polls in Tonga and Vanuatu, elections will be held in the Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru, New Caledonia and for the Autonomous Bougainville Government.

There will also be a federal election in Australia, the biggest aid donor in the Pacific, and a change in government will almost certainly have impacts in the region.

Given the sway that the national security community has on both sides of Australian politics, the centrality of Pacific engagement to foreign policy, particularly in response to China, is unlikely to change.

Likely climate policy change
How that manifests could look quite different under a conservative Liberal/National party government. The most likely change is in climate policy, including an avowed commitment to invest in nuclear power.

A refusal to shift away from fossil fuels or commit to enhanced finance for adaptation by a new administration could reignite tensions within the Pacific Islands Forum that have, to some extent, been quietened under Labor’s Albanese government.

Who is in government could also impact on the bid to host COP31 in 2026, with a decision between candidates Turkey and Australia not due until June, after the poll.

Pacific leaders and advocates face a systemic challenge regarding climate change. With the rise in conflict and geopolitical competition, the global focus on the climate crisis has weakened. The prevailing sense of disappointment over COP29 last year is likely to continue as partners’ engagement becomes increasingly securitised.

A major global event for this year is the Oceans Summit which will be held in Nice, France, in June. This is a critical forum for Pacific countries to take their climate diplomacy to a new level and attack the problem at its core.

In 2023, the G20 countries were responsible for 76 percent of global emissions. By capitalising on the geopolitical moment, the Pacific could nudge the key players to greater ambition.

Several G20 countries are seeking to expand and deepen their influence in the region alongside the five largest emitters — China, US, India, Russia, and Japan — all of which have strategic interests in the Pacific.

Given the increasingly transactional nature of Pacific engagement, 2025 should present an opportunity for Pacific governments to leverage their geostrategic capital in ways that will address human security for their peoples.

Dr Tess Newton Cain is a principal consultant at Sustineo P/L and adjunct associate professor at the Griffith Asia Institute. She is a former lecturer at the University of the South Pacific and has over 25 years of experience working in the Pacific islands region. The views expressed here are hers, not those of BenarNews/RFA. Republished from BenarNews with permission.

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

These and others are among the top video news moments of 2024:

China, Philippines clash in South China Sea

Tensions escalated in the South China Sea in June with a clash between Chinese Coast Guard and Philippine Navy ships at Second Thomas Shoal. One Filipino sailer lost a finger.

The United States condemned the “escalatory and irresponsible actions” by the Chinese Coast Guard and Beijing accused the Philippine side of deliberately causing a collision.

PRC citizens disrupt pro-Hong Kong protest in Taiwan

An exclusive video by RFA Cantonese shows two citizens of the People’s Republic of China disrupting an anti-China protest organized by Hong Kongers in Taipei.

Taiwan’s Mainland Affairs Council identified the couple by their surname Yao, saying they had entered Taiwan under the pretense of visiting relatives. They were found to have no relatives currently in Taiwan, and were deported.

Dam submerges former site of Tibetan monastery

Rising waters from a new dam in central China have submerged the area where a 135-year-old Tibetan Buddhist monastery once stood, as well as a nearby village, according to experts who viewed satellite photos and two sources inside Tibet.

The Atsok Monastery, built in 1889, was demolished earlier this year to make way for the expansion of the Yangqu hydropower station in Qinghai province.

READ MORE YEAR IN REVIEW

Most compelling people of 2024

Video: Voices of resilience and protest in 2024

Photos: Defining moments from Asia’s stories

Vietnamese asylum seekers cross US-Mexico border

Tempted by rumors of a better life abroad and unwilling to wait out a sluggish visa process, Vietnamese have begun crossing into the U.S. on foot in unprecedented numbers, an RFA investigation has found.

Just 263 Vietnamese crossed into the United States via its border with Mexico between October 2021 and October 2022, but nearly 3,300 made that crossing a year later, according to figures from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection. That number is certain to be surpassed in 2024.

Putin and Kim go for a drive

In June, Russian President Vladimir Putin arrived in North Korea for a two-day visit with Kim Jong Un, promising hours before the visit that the two nations will develop an “alternative settlement system” to facilitate commercial cooperation outside the control of the West and fight its sanctions.

What stood out from the usual pageantry was the photo op with both leaders driving in an Aurus sedan — the “Russian equivalent of Rolls-Royce” — which Putin introduced to Kim during a 2023 visit to Russia.

China changes names of 630 Uyghur villages

China has changed the names of about 630 Uyghur villages to Mandarin words such as “Harmony” and “Unity” to promote ethnic harmony in Xinjiang, a report by a human rights group found,

The move is “part of Chinese government’s efforts to erase the cultural and religious expression” of the more than 11 million predominantly Muslim Uyghurs living in China’s far-western Xinjiang region, New York-based Human Rights Watch, or HRW, said in its June 18 report.

Typhoon Yagi

Scores killed by Typhoon Yagi, Asia’s most powerful storm of the year. Images from northern Laos and central Myanmar show the extent of flooding from torrential rains.

Scores of people are dead or missing in several countries in Southeast Asia since roaring across northern Vietnam, northern Laos and Thailand in early September, causing landslides and flooding, and destroying homes, bridges and roads.

North Korean worker in Senegal

Despite a de facto global ban on doing business with North Korean entities or individuals, commerce continues under the table. As of December 2023, as many as 100,000 North Koreans were thought to be living outside the country as laborers under the control of Kim Jong Un’s regime.

In Dakar, a North Korean laborer who works in construction told RFA Korean that he had been stuck in the country for more than six years, separated from his wife and two children.

“It was not supposed to be this long,” the man said. “But I can’t go back because of the coronavirus. The North Korean authorities need to approve my return.”

Myanmar junta and rebels clash at Thai border

April saw an escalation of fighting between the junta and rebel forces in Myawaddy, along the Thai-Myanmar border displacing thousands into Thailand.

Residents told RFA Burmese that the Karen National Liberation Army and other rebel forces, including the anti-junta People’s Defense Force, advanced on government soldiers, who were “dug in” at the Thai-Myanmar friendship bridge border crossing.

Dalai Lama arrives in New York

The Dalai Lama was greeted by a large crowd of chanting and flag-waving Tibetans and other supporters upon his arrival in New York for knee surgery.

It was the first trip to the United States for the 88-year-old Tibetan Buddhist spiritual leader in seven years and his first overseas trip since November 2018.

After six weeks of recovery in the U.S., he addressed 17,000 devotees in a New York arena before returning home to Dharamsala, India.

Forever 13 years old

Nyah Mway was a 13-year-old Karen refugee from Myanmar living in Utica, New York.

On a Friday night in June, one day after his middle school graduation, local police officers on patrol stopped to question Nyah and his friend. What happened next? Nyah fled and the police say as he ran, he pulled out what looked like a gun. Moments later, he was tackled to the ground and shot.

A community already haunted by war and violence struggles to cope.

‘Korean Wave’ has already crashed in Cuba

Even before South Korea and Cuba established bilateral relations earlier this year, K-pop had gained a following in the communist-ruled island.

When RFA Korean traveled to Cuba to gauge reactions to Seoul and Havana redefining their relationship, they also found that K-pop had already made inroads into the country.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Roya Shadravan for RFA.

Here are Asia Fact Check Lab’s top five fact checks of the year:

Did Taiwan’s president complain about his predecessor in a leaked audio recording?

Verdict: False

(AFCL)

In January 2024, Taiwan held its presidential election, during which a significant amount of false information emerged before and after the voting.

Following the inauguration of Taiwanese President Lai Ching-te on May 20, a claim emerged that Lai complained about his predecessor, Tsai Ing-wen, in a leaked audio.

What makes this particular case noteworthy is that it likely involves the use of AI-generated human voices for deception, marking the first time AFCL has encountered such a case for fact-checking.

Does a video show Putin sending his son to Ukraine?

Verdict: False

(AFCL)

A video emerged in Chinese-language social media posts that claimed it showed Russian President Vladimir Putin sending off his son to fight in the war against Ukraine.

But the claim is false. The video shows Putin awarding a Gold Star to a Russian soldier named Stepan Belov. Details about Putin’s family remain largely private, but he has previously confirmed having two daughters from his first marriage, which ended in divorce in 2014.

The year 2024 is certainly not short of false narratives surrounding the Russia-Ukraine war, and this is a typical example.

Taiwanese YouTubers’ visit to Xinjiang, genuine or propaganda?

(AFCL)

The Chinese government has invited Taiwanese influencers to travel to Xinjiang, home to 12 million Uyghurs who have been persecuted for years, and create promotional videos.

The Taiwanese YouTubers have faced scrutiny for creating videos about Xinjiang that align with China’s official stance on the region, where the United States and other Western parliaments have declared China to be committing a genocide against the Uyghurs.

AFCL also found several YouTubers who promoted the message that Xinjiang was a safe place to travel and there were “no concentration camps” there because they didn’t see them.

Did Taylor Swift say the US couldn’t prevent an invasion of Taiwan?

Verdict: False

A claim emerged in Chinese-language social media posts that Taylor Swift had recently said on a talk show that the U.S. lacked the ability to prevent an invasion of Taiwan. The posts cited several screenshots purportedly taken from the episode of the show.

But the claim is false. The screenshots were from an interview with Swift on “Late Night with Seth Meyers” that aired in 2021. During the show, she made no mention of the United States, Taiwan or an invasion.

Yet another instance of disinformation using AI-driven deepfake technology, with prominent figures being particularly susceptible as targets.

Did a Chinese documentary prove China’s sovereignty over the South China Sea?

(AFCL)

The Chinese government produced a documentary, broadcast in multiple languages, presenting its historical claim to the South China Sea.

Titled “Sovereignty at Stake: A documentary on the South China Sea,” it has drawn criticism for potentially misrepresenting key aspects of the dispute between China and several of its Southeast Asian neighbors.

AFCL fact-checked the Chinese government’s claims one by one.

Asia Fact Check Lab (AFCL) was established to counter disinformation in today’s complex media environment. AFCL publishes fact-checks, media-watches and in-depth reports that aim to sharpen and deepen our readers' understanding of current affairs and public issues. Follow on Facebook, Instagram and X .

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

Michael Leunig — who died in the early hours of Thursday December 19, surrounded by “his children, loved ones, and sunflowers” — was the closest thing Australian cartooning had to a prophet. By turns over his long career, he was a poet, a prophet and a provocateur.

The challenge comes in attempting to understand Leunig’s significance: for Australian cartooning; for readers of The Age and other newspapers past; and for the nation’s idea of itself.

On this day, do you remember the gently philosophical Leunig, or the savagely satirical one? Do you remember a cartoon that you thought absolutely nailed the problems of the world, or one you thought was terribly wrong-headed?

• READ MORE: ‘The pen has run dry’: Acclaimed cartoonist Michael Leunig dies
• Gallery: Michael Leunig’s life in cartoons

Leunig’s greatness lay in how intensely he made his audiences think and feel.

There is no one straightforward story to tell here. With six decades of cartooning at least weekly in newspapers and 25 book-length collections of his work, how could there be?

The light and the dark
One thread is an abiding fondness for the whimsical Leunig. Mr Curly and Vasco Pyjama live on in the imaginations of so many readers.

Particularly in the 1980s and 1990s, Leunig’s work seemed to hold a moral and ethical mirror up to Australian society — sometimes gently, but not without controversy, such as his 1995 “Thoughts of a baby lying in a childcare centre”.

Another thread is the dark satirist.

In the 1960s and 1970s, he broke onto the scene as a wild man in Oz, the Sunday Observer and the Nation Review who deplored Vietnam and only escaped the draft owing to deafness in one ear.

Then he apparently mellowed to become the guru of The Age, still with a capacity to launch the occasional satirical thunderbolt. Decidedly countercultural, together with Patrick Cook and Peter Nicholson, Leunig brought what historian Tony Moore has called “existential and non-materialist themes to the Australian black-and-white tradition”.

By 1999, he was declared a “national living treasure” by the National Trust, and was being lauded by universities for his unique contributions to the national culture.

But to tell the story of Leunig’s significance from the mid 90s on is to go beyond the dreamer and the duck. In later decades you could see a clear distinction between some cartoons that continued to console in a bewildering world, and others that sparked controversy.

Politics and controversy
Leunig saw 9/11 and the ensuing “War on Terror” as the great turning point in his career. He fearlessly returned to the themes of the Vietnam years, only to receive caution, rebuke and rejection from editors and readers.

He stopped drawing Mr Curly and Vasco Pyjama. The world was no longer safe for the likes of them.

Then there was a cartoon refused by The Age in 2002, deemed by editor Michael Gawenda to be inappropriate: in the first frame, a Jew is confronted by the gates of the death camp: “Work Brings Freedom [Arbeit Macht Frei]”; in the second frame an Israeli viewing a similar slogan “War Brings Peace”.

Rejected, it was never meant to see the light of day, but ABC’s Media Watch and Crikey outed it because of the constraint its spiking represented to fair media comment on the Middle East.

That the cartoon was later entered, without Leunig’s knowledge, in the infamous Iranian “Holocaust Cartoon” competition of 2006, has only added to its infamy and presaged the internet’s era of the uncontrollable circulation of images.

A decade later, from 2012, he reworked Martin Niemöller’s poetic statement of guilt over the Holocaust. The result was outrage, but also acute division within the Australian Jewish community.

Dvir Abramovich (chairperson of the Anti-Defamation Commission) made a distinction between something challenging, and something racist, believing it was the latter.

Harold Zwier (of the Australian Jewish Democratic Society) welcomed the chance for his community to think critically about Israel’s policies in Gaza and the West Bank.

From 2019 — a mother, distracted, looking at her phone rather than her baby. Cries of “misogyny”, including from Leunig’s very talented cartoonist sister, Mary.

Then from 2021 — a covid-19 vaccination needle atop an armoured tank, rolling towards a helpless citizen.

Leunig’s enforced retirement (it is still debated whether he walked or was pushed) was long and drawn-out. He filed his last cartoon for The Age this August. By then, he had alienated more than a few of his colleagues in the press and the cartooning profession.

Support of the downtrodden
Do we speak ill of the dead? We hope not. Instead, we hope we are paying respect to a great and often angry artist who wanted always to challenge the consumer society with its dark cultural and geopolitical secrets.

Leunig’s response was a single line of argument: he was “Just a cartoonist with a moral duty to speak”.

You don’t have to agree with every provocation, but his purpose is always to take up the cause of the weak, and deploy all the weaponry at his disposal to support the downtrodden in their fight.

“The role of the cartoonist is not to be balanced”, said Leunig, but rather to “give balance”.

For Leunig, the weak were the Palestinian civilians, the babies of the post-iPhone generation, and those forced to be vaccinated by a powerful state; just as they were the Vietnamese civilians, the children forced to serve their rulers through state-sanctioned violence, the citizens whose democracy was undercut by stooges of the establishment.

That deserves to be his legacy, regardless of whether you agree or not about his stance.

The coming year will give a great many people pause to reflect on the life and work of Leunig. Indeed, he has provided us with a monthly schedule for doing just that: Leunig may be gone, but 2025 is already provided for, via his last calendar.

Dr Richard Scully, professor in modern history, University of New England; Dr Robert Phiddian, professor of English, Flinders University, and Dr Stephanie Brookes, senior lecturer, School of Media, Film and Journalism, Monash University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

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

Uyghur Youth Initiative #ofcourse TikTok challenge

A TikTok video by three Uyghur women living in Germany goes viral, mixing humor with human rights abuses and genocide.

“The Uyghur crisis is a very urgent and serious topic,” Muqeddes Memet, 18, one of the women in the video, told RFA Uyghur.

“If we add a little humor content, people will watch it. If we always talk about an urgent topic, people will get tired. If we add some jokes, they will pay better attention.”

Wang Shujun — historian, activist, convicted Chinese spy?

Wang Shujun, 76, lived for the last 30 years in New York as a scholar working in an insular community of pro-democracy advocates fighting for change in China.

A series of reports by RFA Investigative reveals a life turned upside-down when the FBI accused Wang of spying for Beijing. He vigorously denied it but in August was found guilty on four espionage charges. Wang will be sentenced in January 2025.

Tibetan monks and residents protesting China’s dam project

Police arrested more than 1,000 Tibetans, including Buddhist monks, in southwestern China’s Sichuan province on Feb. 23, after they protested the construction of a dam expected to destroy six monasteries and force the relocation of two villages, two sources from inside Tibet told Radio Free Asia.

Exclusive RFA Tibetan video showed the protests which began on Feb. 14, and subsequent arrests, prompting global reaction.

Some of the protesters were beaten so badly that they required medical attention, three sources told Radio Free Asia.

Popular ‘monk’ Thich Minh Tue worries Vietnamese officials

A 43-year-old Vietnamese man became an internet hit in May when several influencers began documenting his barefoot pilgrimage across Vietnam. He amassed legions of supporters who were drawn to his simple lifestyle and humble attitude.

But the attention Tue was getting appeared to worry the authorities, leading to his detention and prompted international calls for his release.

In November, RFA Vietnamese obtained a copy of a letter purportedly written by Tue renouncing his vow of poverty. Supporters question its authenticity, saying authorities may be trying to isolate him from the public.

Moe Pyae Sone, Karen National Liberation Army fighter

“I’ve gained combat experience,” she says. “I’ve participated in quite a few battles.”

RFA spoke with Moe Pyae Sone, 18, at an internally displaced people’s camp just south of Myawaddy, where ethnic rebels overran military junta positions in April.

Wearing camouflage pants, a tactical vest, braided hair, pink plastic clogs and a wide grin, she recalls participating in protests against Myanmar’s military junta after the Feb. 2021 coup before joining rebel forces a year later.

Pyongyang to Manhattan: Escaping North Korea for the Big Apple

Born into a wealthy, elite family, siblings Lee Hyunseung, 38, and Seohyun, 32, fled North Korea a decade ago with their parents.

Before graduating from Columbia University in May, they witnessed campus demonstrations against Israel’s military strikes on Gaza.

“The fact that the United States truly respects freedom of expression strikes a chord in my heart,” Hyunseung told RFA Korean. “In North Korea or China, it’s unimaginable to even think about such things.”

Ly Chandaravuth, environmental activist, Mother Nature Cambodia

Before returning to Cambodia to stand trial in May, Ly Chandaravuth shared a series of videos with RFA Khmer.

“Currently, we are living in fear,” he said. “For example we have a house but we are afraid of losing it,” referring to Cambodia’s natural resources. “We have ore mining but we are still poor. Those who benefit from ore mining are foreigners, foreign companies or powerful people.”

Chandaravuth was among 10 Mother Nature Cambodia activists who were handed six-year sentences and taken into custody after being convicted of plotting against the government on July 2.

Hong Kong exiles rebuilding their lives

Five years ago, a million Hong Kong residents took to the streets to protest a plan to extradite Hong Kongers to mainland China.

A crackdown followed. Thousands were arrested, news outlets were shut down and civil society groups were disbanded. In March, the reins were tightened further with Hong Kong’s Article 23 security law.

Many Hong Kongers have fled in the years since. RFA spoke with four exiles about their old lives in Hong Kong and their new ones in the United States, the things they miss about home and what they worry about.

Lao content creators detained for comical pothole fishing video

Graphic artists using the names Dai James and James Famor uploaded an AI-generated video to Facebook, showing them fishing in water-filled potholes on a street, surrounded by crocodiles – a video that went viral in Laos. The police came knocking.

A friend who produces and posts videos to social media confirmed the arrest and release to RFA Lao.

Police required Famor to attend a “re-education” class, forcing him to confess and apologize before freeing him.

Edited by Paul Eckert

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

Richard Wiles, president of the Center for Climate Integrity, released the following statement:

“The Justice Department has affirmed again that communities deserve their day in court to put Big Oil companies on trial for their climate lies and the resulting harms. Big Oil companies are desperate to avoid facing the evidence of their deception in a courtroom, but wanting to escape the consequences for your actions is not the same thing as having the law on your side.”

Alyssa Johl, vice president of legal and general counsel for the Center for Climate Integrity, released the following statement:

“As the Solicitor General makes clear, there is no legal basis for the Supreme Court to intervene in these cases. State and local governments are seeking to hold corporations accountable for lying about their harmful products, and state courts have the authority to hear those claims. The justices should reject these meritless requests and allow communities to have their day in court to hold Big Oil accountable.”

Background on City and County of Honolulu v. Sunoco, et al.

Oil companies are asking the justices to review a ruling from the Hawai`i Supreme Court in City and County of Honolulu v. Sunoco, et al. which seeks to make major oil and gas companies — including ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, and BP — pay for the costs of local climate damages caused by the companies’ decades-long campaign of deception about the dangers of their fossil fuel products. The fossil fuel industry and its backers have run a widespread media campaign in recent months in an attempt to influence the court to take the case. Justice Alito has recused himself from the case.

In its brief yesterday urging the Supreme Court to reject Big Oil’s petition, the Justice Department agreed with the Hawai`i Supreme Court that “the Clean Air Act does not categorically preempt respondents’ claims” in part because Honolulu’s claims “target only the [fossil fuel] products’ deceptive marketing.”

Background on Alabama, et al. v. California, et al.

In a separate petition, 19 state attorneys general are asking the Supreme Court to stop climate deception lawsuits filed against Big Oil companies by five states — California, Connecticut, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Rhode Island — in their respective state courts. Legal scholars have called Alabama, et al. v. California, et al. “highly unusual,” and the attorneys general of Minnesota, Connecticut, and New Jersey separately called the effort “absurd,” “pure partisan political theater,” and a “desperate stunt.”

In its brief yesterday urging the Supreme Court to reject the state attorneys general request, the Justice Department wrote that “determining the reach of state law is the province of state courts … And there is no reason for this Court to address the constitutionality of the defendant States’ claims before their courts have addressed those state-law matters.”

Background on U.S. Climate Accountability Lawsuits Against Big Oil:

Eleven attorneys general — in California, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico — and dozens of city, county, and tribal governments in California, Colorado, Hawai`i, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Washington, and Puerto Rico, have filed lawsuits to hold major oil and gas companies accountable for deceiving the public about their products’ role in climate change. These cases collectively represent more than 1 in 4 people living in the United States. Earlier this year, the attorney general of Michigan announced plans to take fossil fuel companies to court.

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

CPJ’s submission, together with Austria-based human rights group Freedom for Eurasia and the Free Russia Foundation, highlights the sharp deterioration in media freedom in Kyrgyzstan, once vaunted as a relative Central Asian safe haven for free press, since the country’s 2020 UPR review.

Following current President Sadyr Japarov’s rise to power, Kyrgyz authorities have launched an unprecedented assault on independent reporting, imprisoning journalists on retaliatory charges, blocking and shuttering key media, and introducing a Russian-style “foreign agents” law.

Read the full report here.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

The UPR is a peer review mechanism of the United Nations Human Rights Council, through which the human rights records of the Council’s member states are reviewed every 4.5 years, and recommendations are made for improvement.

Since January 2020, authorities in Guinea-Bissau have undermined press freedom through physical and verbal attacks, arbitrary detention of journalists, and legal harassment, according to the October 2024 submission by CPJ, the local journalists’ union (Sinjotecs), and the Media Foundation for West Africa (MFWA). 

The three organizations recommend that Guinea-Bissau improve its press freedom record by investigating and ensuring accountability for past attacks on the press, ending arbitrary detentions and media shutdowns, repealing laws that criminalize journalism, and allowing the press to establish self-regulatory mechanisms.

The UPR submission is available in English here.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

The letter is a response to a September report by the State of Nicaragua asserting that there have been no violations of freedom of expression during the U.N. evaluation period (2019-2023). But reports from press freedom and human rights groups and international bodies show that press freedom in the country is nearly nonexistent.

The coalition of organizations calls on the Nicaraguan government to stop persecuting and criminalizing journalists and other dissenting voices, and urges the UNRHC to support press freedom and adopt measures to protect it.

Read the letter in English here.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

Earlier this year, CPJ submitted a report assessing Ethiopia’s press freedom and journalist safety record from 2019, as part of the country’s Universal Periodic Review (UPR) scheduled for November 12. During the UPR, the United Nations Human Rights Council peer reviews the human rights record of a country, and considers recommendations on how a country can better fulfill its international human rights obligations.

CPJ’s report to the U.N. detailed the arbitrary detention, physical violence, harassment, and severe legal restrictions Ethiopian journalists face. CPJ made several recommendations including promptly releasing detained journalists, investigating attacks on the press, ensuring accountability for violence against journalists, and amending repressive laws to align with international human rights standards.

CPJ’s UPR submission on Ethiopia is available in English here.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

In our latest Gaslit Nation 'Come As You Are' Political Salon, we explored the MSNBC documentary From Russia with Lev, diving into its revelations and the critical context it missed. This is an excerpt from Andrea's review, which then goes deeper, highlighting what to watch for in the film and what’s conspicuously absent. In the documentary, Lev Parnas apologizes to Hunter Biden for his role in the scheme to fabricate a scandal aimed at derailing Biden’s 2020 campaign to help keep Trump in power. Andrea also shares a list of others to whom Parnas owes an apology—starting with her sister, Alexandra Chalupa, the former DNC consultant who risked her life to sound the alarm to both Democratic and Republican leaders, as well as the media and public, about Russia’s interference in our democracy to install Trump in 2016, part of a Kremlin-led campaign of state capture.

Join us every Monday at 4 p.m. ET for our Gaslit Nation political salons on Zoom, exclusively for Truth-teller level patrons and higher. It’s a chance to vent, ask questions, and connect with fellow listeners. We’re also hosting a special VP debate night watch party in our Victory group chat. Don’t miss out—discounted annual subscriptions are available! To join, visit us at Patreon.com/Gaslit.

This content originally appeared on Gaslit Nation and was authored by Andrea Chalupa.

“Just this week, my brother’s apartment building in Gaza was completely destroyed– the second time he lost his home, after our family house was obliterated in 2009,” said Ayman Nijim, a plaintiff in the case. “The U.S. is providing the bombs for this genocide. I have lost countless friends and neighbors, so many that I couldn’t know where to start to grieve. When will the courts uphold the law and stop the horror?”

If the Ninth Circuit grants the petition for en banc rehearing, the case would be heard by an eleven-judge en banc court. A case needs to meet at least one of two requirements for en banc review: it must involve a matter of “exceptional importance” or have resulted in inconsistency with other court rulings. The plaintiffs’ petition, filed on their behalf by the Center for Constitutional Rights and Van Der Hout LLP, argues that their case fulfills both.

One indication of the case’s “exceptional importance,” the petition says, is the scale of the ongoing violence. With unconditional U.S. support, Israel has killed about 40,000 Palestinians – injured more than 90,000, forcibly displaced 2 million, and pushed large segments of Gaza into famine. Israel’s actions, which followed numerous expressions of eliminationist intent by its leaders, have led many legal experts and scholars to conclude that it is committing genocide, the most serious human rights crime. In January, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that Israel’s assault “plausibly” amounted to genocide and ordered it to take provisional measures to prevent further harm to civilians.

The following week, the federal judge in this case echoed the ICJ but ruled that the “political question” doctrine prevented courts from ruling on executive branch decisions that touch on foreign policy. Yet courts have repeatedly rejected the executive’s invocation of the political question doctrine when policy decisions cross over into violations of the law. From the founding-era to the post-9/11 “enemy combatant” cases, courts have determined whether foreign policy decisions violated domestic and international law. This failure to uphold Supreme Court precedent also qualifies the case for en banc review, the petition says.

“For almost eleven months we have witnessed the intentional destruction of the Palestinian people in Gaza made possible by these officials,” said Pam Spees, a senior staff attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights. “With this ruling, the panel has said our courts are too small to do the job they were assigned at the founding – to be a co-equal branch in our government and a check and balance on presidential power. If the Ninth Circuit doesn’t course correct here, it will be giving this and future presidents license to violate the law at will in the realm of foreign relations.”

The lawsuit, filed in November, claims Biden, Secretary of State Blinken, and Secretary of Defense Austin violated international and federal law when they failed to prevent and were complicit in Israel’s genocide. It asked the court to enjoin the administration from supporting the assault on Gaza with weapons or other means. The case featured rare testimony from victims of the genocide, and plaintiff lawyers pointed to evidence of the massive current and historical U.S. support for Israel – including an affidavit from former State Department official Josh Paul – to make the case that Israel could not be committing genocide without its chief benefactor.

The three-judge panel consisted of Consuelo M. Callahan, Jacqueline H. Nguyen, and Daniel Aaron Bress. Judge Ryan Nelson was slated to be on the panel, but recused himself following the plaintiffs’ motion highlighting his participation in a World Jewish Congress delegation to Israel that was explicitly designed to influence U.S. judges’ opinions on the legality of Israeli military action against Palestinians. Alongside the en banc petition, plaintiffs are also filing an unopposed motion to disqualify Judge Patrick Bumatay and Judge Lawrence VanDyke from participating in any deliberation in the case because they participated in the same delegation to Israel.

The organizational plaintiffs in the case are Defense for Children International – Palestine and Al-Haq. The individual plaintiffs from Gaza are Dr. Omar Al-Najjar, Ahmed Abu Artema, and Mohammed Ahmed Abu Rokbeh; and Mohammad Monadel Herzallah, Laila Elhaddad, Waeil Elbhassi, Basim Elkarra, and Ayman Nijim, U.S. citizens with family in Gaza.

For more information, see the Center for Constitutional Rights’ case page.

The San Francisco law firm of Van Der Hout LLP is co-counsel in the case.

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

The U.N. mechanism is a peer review of each member state’s human rights record. It takes place every 4 ½ years and includes reports on progress made since the previous review cycle and recommendations on how a country can better fulfill its human rights obligations.

CPJ’s submission, together with the MENA Rights Group, a Geneva-based advocacy organization, and the local human rights groups Press Freedom Advocacy Association in Iraq and Community Peacemaker Teams Iraq, shows that journalists face threats, online harassment, physical violence, and civil and criminal lawsuits.

The submission notes an escalating crackdown on civic space in Iraq where crimes against journalists are rarely investigated, fueling a cycle of violence against the press, while public officials have voiced anti-press rhetoric and attempted to limit access to information.

Iraq is ranked 6th in CPJ’s Global Impunity Index 2023, with 17 unsolved murders of journalists, and is one of the few countries to have been on the Index every year since its inception in 2007.

CPJ’s UPR submission on Iraq is available in English here.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

The submission, prepared for Nicaragua’s Universal Periodic Review in 2024, documents the government’s use of various tactics to silence journalists, including media shutdowns, property confiscations, and the suppression of independent reporting. The report highlights how press freedom has been systematically dismantled during the 2019-2023 review cycle.

The coalition of organizations aims to bring these ongoing violations of free expression and access to information to the attention of the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva. The submission’s findings are based on data collected and analyzed by the signatory groups, emphasizing that these abuses continue without consequence.

Read the full submission here.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

Vice-President Kamala Harris speaking at the Democratic National Convention, August 22, 2024, Canadian Broadcasting Company (Screenshot).

The not-so-good ones

The just concluded Democratic National Convention at the United Center in Chicago was by most accounts a success. On Monday, the first night, Joe Biden gave his valedictory address, after which the audience breathed a sigh of relief. Not just because the long, self-indulgent peroration was over, but because Biden was finally out: one geezer down, one more to go. Two days later, state delegates conducted a celebratory roll-call vote, formally designating Kamala Harris and Tim Walz the Democratic Party nominees for president and vice-president.

On Tuesday, there were not-so-good speeches by their Royal Majesties the Obamas and Clintons. Michelle spoke glowingly and interminably about her mother and all mothers. (Like dogs, there are no bad mothers.) But she also delivered the best zinger of the convention. Reminding listeners of Trump’s gaffe at the conference of the National Association of Black Journalists, she said: “Who’s gonna tell him that the job he is currently seeking might just be one of those ‘Black jobs’”. Barak’s address, which immediately followed his wife’s, was ponderous and unfocussed. (He should study the cadences and inflections of Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro.) His only attention-getting line concerned Trump’s peculiar (not to say “weird”) preoccupation with comparing his crowd size to Harris’s. At one point, Obama brought his hands close together to indicate Trump’s comparatively small size. He undercut the punch line by embarrassment at his own vulgarity.

Bill Clinton was avuncular but confusing – no more “Secretary of “Splainin’ Stuff”, as Obama called him in 2012. Hilary was pompous as expected and mangled her metaphors: “As vice president, Kamala sat in the situation room and stood for American values.” Did anybody hold the veep’s chair as she did all that sitting and standing? “Together,” Hilary continued, self-referentially and prayerfully, “we put a lot of cracks in the highest, hardest glass ceiling.” She went on in the same vein: “Tonight, we are so close to breaking through, once and for all.” And still more: “I want to tell you what I see through all those cracks. I see freedom.” Why did she need to look through the cracks to see it? Was the glass dirty – didn’t anybody tell her about Windex? But Hilary wasn’t done: Kamala could finally “break through” at which point she’d be “on the other side of that glass ceiling.” Was it the sitting down and quickly standing up – and bumping her head — that finally broke the ceiling? Who repaired he floor above, and can you please get me his number? It’s hard to fine good contractors.

Oprah spoke with earnestness but little substance. She emphasized unity and decried those who would “divide and conquer us.” She spoke in favor of books, abortion rights, and “adult conversations” in place of ridiculous tweets. She wound up being the only person in the five days to mention animal rights, when she said: “When a house is on fire, we don’t ask about the homeowner’s race or religion, we don’t wonder who their partner is or how they voted. No, we just do the best we can to save them. And if the place happens to belong to a childless cat lady, well, we try to get that cat out too.”

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, another Democratic grandee, gave a six-minute address highlighting Biden and the Democrats’ achievements during the previous four years including the Inflation Reduction Act, Infrastructure Bill and legislative and executive actions on behalf of veterans, seniors and students. It was boilerplate, memorable for just one thing: the rapturous ovation Pelosi received on her way to the podium. The diminutive, 84-year-old legislator from the Bay Area was, by all accounts, the person most responsible for giving Joe the boot. No amount of “Thank you Joes” will wash away the stain of that act of political benevolence.

Two other disappointing performances were delivered by the leading Democratic Party progressives, 34-year-old Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and 82-year-old Senator Bernie Sanders. The former thanked Biden, blessed Harris, and energetically cut the air with hands and index fingers. She spoke euphemistically, at first, like American politicians do, about the American middle-class. Just as there are no bad mothers, there’s no American working class, only a middle class stifled in its aspiration to become…middle class. (In fact, nearly 70% of the U.S. population is working class; excluding home ownership, they have no other assets than their wages.) AOC then confusingly shifted gears and began speaking about the American working class, but never got beyond generalities. United Auto Workers President Shawn Fain was more direct and more internationalist in his short address. He began it by saying: “Good evening to the people that make this world move, the working class!” I half expected him to sing the Internationale.

Bernie was better than AOC, though plodding – he sounds less and less, these days, like Larry David’s impersonation of him. As usual, Sanders spoke in lists, calling for an activist government that increased the minimum wage, expanded Medicare and Medicaid, and increased Social Security payments to the elderly. He also supported legislation to increase union membership, create public financing of elections, and raise taxes on corporations and the billionaire class. One reason the address was so boring, paradoxically, is that these positions are now uncontroversial among Democratic voters and politicians. That they remain aspirational however, reveals the gap between party rhetoric and Democratic legislative priorities.

I might have missed somebody, but so far as I could tell, the only artist or literary figure given time at the convention podium was Amanda Gorman. At the Biden inauguration in 2021, she performed a sentimental and much-lauded hip-hop poem titled “The Hill We Climb.” For the DNC, she read “This Sacred Scene,” which began: “We gather at this hallowed place because we believe in the American Dream.” The United Center? The only deity she could be invoking is Michael Jordan, whose Bulls won six NBA championships between 1991 and 1998. But if Jordan is God, I worry for Harris and Walz; the Bulls finished 9^th in their division in 2023-4.

The better speeches

The best speeches at the convention, in my view, were not given by the A-listers, but the B-listers. Senator Raphael Warnock started his address by saying that Georgia made history on Jan. 5, 2020, by electing him, a Black man, and Jon Ossoff, a Jewish man, as U.S. Senators; but that history was tarnished the next day by a Trump-inspired insurrection to overturn the results of the presidential election. He meandered a bit in the middle of his 15-minute speech – there was the inevitable and deflating encomium for Biden — but Warnock regained his groove when he said: “Donald Trump is a plague on the American conscience.” That was a new epithet. Then he launched into a series of claims – would that they were true — that the Democrats were quickly moving forward on reproductive rights, worker’s rights, and voting rights. Then he spoke about the kindness of fathers, in particular his own, now deceased, “a preacher and a junkman who, Monday through Fridays lifted old broken cars and put ‘em on the back of an old rig. But on Sunday morning, the man who lifted broken cars lifted broken people…and told them they were God’s somebody.” He followed up by saying: “I’m convinced we can lift the broken even when we climb…we can heal sick bodies, we can heal the wounds that divide us, we can heal a planet in peril….” Great stuff from a preacher turned senator.

In his brief but rousing address, Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro invoked Philadelphia, his state’s biggest city and site of the first, Continental Congress (1774-81), to tell a story of continued American progress in the advancement of freedom and justice. All that was thwarted, he said, by Donald Trump in his single term in office and would be again if he was elected once more. Trump and the Republicans, Shapiro said, wrap themselves up in the rhetoric of freedom, but undermine it at every turn. “It’s not freedom to tell our children what books to read” he said, with Obama’s former cadence and a Black English inflection. “And it’s not freedom to tell women what they can do with their bodies.” Pausing briefly for cheers from the audience, he tightened his lips and shook his head, adding “No, it’s not.”

Then, mixing the rhetoric of the Baptist preacher–Shapiro is Jewish – and the union leader, he continued, pointing at the camera: “And hear me on this, it’s sure as hell not freedom to say: ‘You get to vote, but he picks the winner.” “Real freedom” he continued, is “when a child can walk to and from school and get home safely to her mama.” Shapiro then expertly deployed what rhetoricians call anaphora. He repeated the phrase “real freedom is” followed by a series of positive liberties: the freedom to “join a union,” marry “who you love”, start a family “on your own terms,” “breath clean air, drink pure water…and live a life of purpose in which [you] are respected for who [you are].” Shapiro understood that an effective speaker doesn’t pause after applause, but speaks over it, building up to a crescendo. Though he treated anti-Israeli protesters on Pennsylvania campuses shamefully, he sure gives a good speech.

And finally, there was Kamala Harris’s acceptance speech. On the plus side, it was short and well-delivered. She began by discussing her mother Shaymala, an Indian immigrant and later, cancer researcher. Harris said little about her father, the prominent, Jamaica-born Marxist economist Donald J. Harris, except that he and her mother created a home environment of love and support. After saying that she proudly accepted her party’s nomination for president, she went on to describe the fundamental characteristics of a good president, including common sense and the ability to listen, and said that she possessed them, while Donald Trump lacked them.

From there, like the prosecutor she was, Harris proceeded to build the case for her presidency block by block. In the courtrooms of Oakland, she stood up against predators who abused women and children. As California Attorney General, she “took on” the banks that were illegally foreclosing on poor tenants and homeowners, and supported laws protecting consumers. She however omitted from her story the fact that as prosecutor and AG, she defended manifestly wrongful convictions, supported the forensic work of lab technicians convicted of corruption, upheld the death penalty, opposed a bill requiring state investigations of police shootings, and challenged a law mandating correct use of police body cameras.

Harris spent the middle of her address attacking Trump – there’s no need to recite the litany here – and then moved to close the argument in favor of her own election. To be sure, the case is for me open and shut. But there were several passages in her speech, that should temper everyone’s enthusiasm for her candidacy. The first was her strong support for the “bipartisan border security law” proposed by Biden and backed by leading Republicans until it was nixed by Trump – it might rob him of his signature issue. She said she would bring it back to Congress and when passed, sign it into law. The bill is a sop to the far right; it would among other things, set arbitrary caps on asylum claims in contravention of existing U.S. and international law.

The second was her unconditional support for Israel’s security, regardless of its leadership or policies. She spoke about Gaza in the passive voice, as if the genocide were a natural disaster: “At the same time, what has happened in Gaza over the past ten months is devastating. Too many innocent lives lost. Desperate, hungry people fleeing for shelter again and again, the scale of suffering is heartbreaking.” But her answer to the travesty is simply to follow the same path to peace that has been blocked again and again by Israeli president Netanyahu and his war cabinet. She did not propose simply following U.S. law – the Leahy Amendment – that denies U.S. weapons and supplies to any regime that violates human rights with impunity. She did not support the International Criminal Court in its pursuit of arrest warrants for both Israeli and Hamas leaders.

The third utterance that made me cringe – leaving aside the bromides about American exceptionalism — was the following: “We must be steadfast in advancing our values and our security abroad….As Commander-in-Chef, I will ensure that America always has the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world.” That the U.S. has the most lethal military in the world is beyond question. But that’s the problem, not the solution to global violence. The genocide of Native Americans, the wars against Korea and Vietnam, and the military interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq and a dozen other nations have killed millions. The wars currently wars fought in Ukraine and Gaza have the stamp of U.S. incompetence, indifference and profiteering all over them.

Paeans to America’s “military might” are by now reflexive. All candidates repeat them to appear strong and attract votes. But that reflexivity is, to repeat the formulation above, the very problem that a good president must tackle. By repeating the oath to lethality and war so prominently in a speech seen by 30 million Americans – way more than Trump’s acceptance speech, but who’s counting – Harris risks making her promise self-fulfilling. Is she already, even before her possible (now likely) election, sowing the seeds of her own political demise, just as Lyndon Johnson did in 1968 with Vietnam and Biden did in 2024 with Gaza?

The post Make America “Lethal” Again: a Review of Some Speeches at the DNC appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Stephen F. Eisenman.

Pacific Journalism Review (PJR) began life three decades ago in Papua New Guinea and recently celebrated a remarkable milestone in Fiji with its 30th anniversary edition and its 47th issue.

Remarkable because it is the longest surviving Antipodean media, journalism and development journal published in the Global South. It is also remarkable because at its birthday event held in early July at the Pacific International Media Conference, no fewer than two cabinet ministers were present — from Fiji and Papua New Guinea — in spite of the journal’s long track record of truth-to-power criticism.

Fiji’s Deputy Prime Minister Biman Prasad, a former economics professor at The University of the South Pacific (USP) and a champion of free media, singled out the journal for praise at the event, which was also the occasion of the launch of a landmark new book. As co-editor of Waves of Change: Media, Peace, and Development in the Pacific with Shailendra Singh and Amit Sarwal, Prasad says the book aimed to analyse recent developments in the Pacific because if sustainable peace and stability remain elusive in the region then long-term development is impeded.

Papua New Guinea’s Information and Communication Technologies Minister Timothy Masiu, who has faced criticism over a controversial draft media policy (now in its fifth version), joined the discussion, expressing concerns about geopolitical agendas impacting on the media and arguing in favour of “a way forward for a truly independent and authentic Pacific media”.

Since its establishment in 1994, the PJR has been far more than a research journal. As an independent publication, it has given strong support to Asia-Pacific investigative journalism, socio-political journalism, political-economy perspectives on the media, photojournalism and political cartooning in its three decades of publication. Its ethos declared:

While one objective of Pacific Journalism Review is research into Pacific journalism theory and practice, the journal has also expanding its interest into new areas of research and inquiry that reflect the broader impact of contemporary media practice and education.

A particular focus is on the cultural politics of the media, including the following issues: new media and social movements, indigenous cultures in the age of globalisation, the politics of tourism and development, the role of the media and the formation of national identity and the cultural influence of Aotearoa New Zealand as a branch of the global economy within the Pacific region.

It also has a special interest in climate change, environmental and development studies in the media and communication and vernacular media in the region.

PJR has also been an advocate of journalism practice-as-research methodologies and strategies, as demonstrated especially in its Frontline section, initiated by one of the mentoring co-editors, former University of Technology Sydney professor and investigative journalist Wendy Bacon, and also developed by retired Monash University Professor Chris Nash. Five of the current editorial board members were at the 30th birthday event: Griffith University’s Professor Mark Pearson; USP’s Associate Professor Shailendra Singh, the conference convenor; Auckland University of Technology’s Khairiah Abdul Rahman; designer Del Abcede; and current editor Dr Philip Cass.

As the founding editor of PJR, I must acknowledge the Australian Journalism Review which is almost double the age of PJR, because this is where I first got the inspiration for establishing the journal. While I was head of journalism at the University of Papua New Guinea in 1993, I was really frustrated at the lack of quality Pacific-specific media and journalism literature and research to draw on as resources for both critical studies and practice-led education.

So I looked longingly at AJR, and also contributed to it. I turned to the London-based Index on Censorship as another publication to emulate. And I thought, why not? We can do that in the Pacific and so I persuaded the University of Papua New Guinea Press to come on board and published the first edition at the derelict campus printer in Waigani in 1994.

We published there until 1998 when PJR moved to USP for five years. Then it was published for 18 years at Auckland University of Technology (AUT), mostly through the Pacific Media Centre, which closed in 2020. Since then it has been published by the nonprofit NGO Asia Pacific Media Network.

When celebrating the 20th anniversary of the journal at AUT in 2014, then AJR editor professor Ian Richards noted the journal’s “dogged perseverance” and contribution to Oceania research declaring:

Today, PJR plays a vital role publishing research from and about this part of the world. This is important for a number of reasons, not least because most academics ground their work in situations with which they are most familiar, and this frequently produces articles which are extremely local. If “local” means London or Paris or New York, then it’s much easier to present your work as “international” than if you live in Port Vila of Pago Pago, Auckland or Adelaide.

Also in 2014, analyst Dr Lee Duffield highlighted the critical role of PJR during the years of military rule and “blatant military censorship” in Fiji, which has eased since the repeal of its draconian Media Industry Development Act in 2023. He remarked:

The same is true of PJR’s agenda-setting in regard to crises elsewhere: jailing of journalists in Tonga, threatened or actual media controls in Tahiti or PNG, bashing of an editor in Vanuatu by a senior government politician, threats also against the media in Solomon Islands, and reporting restrictions in Samoa.

At the 30th anniversary launch, USP’s Adjunct Professor in development studies and governance Dr Vijay Naidu complimented the journal on the wide range of topics covered by its more than 1,100 research articles. He said the journal had established itself as a critical conscience with respect to Asia-Pacific socio-political and development dilemmas, and looked forward to the journal meeting future challenges.

I outlined many of those future challenges in a recent interview with Global Voices correspondent Mong Palatino. Issues that have become more pressing for the journal include responding to the changing geopolitical realities in the Pacific and collaborating even more creatively and closely on development, the climate crisis, and unresolved decolonisation issues with the region’s journalists, educators and advocates. To address these challenges, the PJR team have been working on an innovative new publishing strategy over the past few months.

View the latest Pacific Journalism Review: Gaza, genocide and media – PJR 30 years on, special double edition. The journal is indexed by global research databases such as Informit and Ebsco, but it is also available via open access for a Pacific audience here.

This article is republished from ANU’s Devpolicy Blog. Dr David Robie is founding editor of Pacific Journalism Review, former director of the Pacific Media Centre, and previously a head of journalism at both the University of Papua New Guinea and the University of the South Pacific.

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

Imagine that you’re the parent of a child who suffers from a rare mental health condition that causes anxiety, depression and suicidal ideation. Psychiatric medications and therapy do not work for this condition.

There is a treatment that has been shown to work in adults, but there’s very little research in kids, apart from a few small studies that have come out of the Netherlands, where they are prescribing these treatments. Doctors in your own country, however, won’t prescribe it until your child is 18, to avoid any unwanted side effects from the medication.

Meanwhile, your child has suffered for years, and attempted suicide multiple times. As a parent, what do you do? Do you take your kid overseas, or let them continue to suffer?

“Awareness of transgender children is growing,” the Guardian (8/13/08) reported 16 years ago.

This is precisely the situation that parents of trans kids in Britain were facing 16 years ago, when the Guardian (8/13/08) ran a story on their efforts to get the country’s Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) to prescribe puberty blockers for their kids. The Guardian noted how grim the situation was for these kids and their parents:

Sarah believes that anyone watching a teenager go through this process would want them to have the drugs as soon as possible. Her daughter was denied them until the age of 16, by which point she already had an Adam’s apple, a deep voice and facial hair….

“It takes a long, long time to come to terms with. It took us about two years to stop crying for our loss and also for the pain that we knew our child was going to have to go through. No one would choose this. It’s too hard.”

Short-lived success

Dr. Hilary Cass told the BBC (4/20/24) that “misinformation” about her work makes her “very angry.”

After years of struggle, UK parents successfully lobbied the NHS to start prescribing gender-affirming medical treatments for minors under 16 in 2011. Their success, however, was short-lived.

In April, NHS England released the findings of a four-year inquiry into GIDS led by Dr. Hilary Cass, a pediatrician with no experience treating adolescents with gender dysphoria. On the recommendation of the Cass Review, which was highly critical of adolescent medical transition, the NHS services in England, Wales and Scotland have stopped prescribing puberty blockers for gender dysphoria. The British government also banned private clinics from prescribing them, at least temporarily.

Though there is much more evidence now to support gender-affirming care than in 2008, there is also a much stronger anti-trans movement seeking to discredit and ban such care.

British media coverage has given that movement a big boost in recent years, turning the spotlight away from the realities that trans kids and their families are facing, and pumping out stories nitpicking at the strength of the expanding evidence base for gender-affirming care. Its coverage of the Cass Review followed suit.

US media, unsurprisingly, gave less coverage to the British review, but most of the in-depth coverage followed British media’s model. Underlying this coverage are questionable claims by people with no experience treating minors with gender dysphoria, and double standards regarding the evidence for medical and alternative treatments.

More evidence, worse coverage

The most impactful—and controversial—recommendation of the Cass Review is that puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones on those under 16 should be confined to clinical research settings only, due to the supposed weakness of the studies underpinning gender-affirming treatments for minors, and the possibility of unwanted side effects:

While a considerable amount of research has been published in this field, systematic evidence reviews demonstrated the poor quality of the published studies, meaning there is not a reliable evidence base upon which to make clinical decisions, or for children and their families to make informed choices.

This stands in direct opposition to guidelines and recommendations from major medical associations, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Endocrine Society and the World Professional Association of Transgender Health (WPATH), which support gender-affirming medical interventions for youth.

WPATH (5/17/24) expressed bewilderment at the Cass Review’s approach, and noted that its reviews “do not contain any new research that would contradict the recommendations” of those groups, which were updated in 2022.

So what could explain the divergence? For starters, the review took place in the context of a rising anti-trans culture in England, and the NHS took the highly unusual approach of excluding experts on pediatric gender-affirming care from the review.

At the same time, the Cass Review, and the NHS England Policy Working Group that preceded it, had clinicians on its team with ties to advocacy groups that oppose gender-affirming treatment for minors, so its bias was questioned even before the review was released. The Cass Review has been a major boon for these advocacy groups, as its recommendations are exactly what those groups have been calling for.

‘Arbitrarily assigned quality’

“It’s a bad-faith claim that we don’t have enough evidence for pubertal suppressants or gender-affirming hormones,” a Harvard Med School psychiatry professor told Mother Jones (5/10/24).

The systematic review on puberty blockers conducted by the Cass Review excluded 24 studies, with reviewers scoring this research as “low quality.” But Meredithe McNamara, assistant professor of pediatrics at Yale, told FAIR that the scale the Cass Review used to grade study quality is not typically used by guideline developers. Under this methodology, the authors excluded many studies from consideration for what she describes as “arbitrarily assigned quality.”

A recent white paper from the Yale Law School Integrity Project, co-authored by McNamara, explains the flaws more in depth:

They modified the scale in an arbitrary way that permitted the exclusion of studies from further consideration, for reasons irrelevant to clinical care. For instance, in the York SR on social transition, the modified NOS asked if study samples were “truly representative of the average child or adolescent with
gender dysphoria.” There is no such thing as the “average child or adolescent with gender dysphoria”—this is an inexpertly devised and meaningless concept that is neither defined by the authors nor used in clinical research. And yet it was grounds for excluding several important studies from consideration.

The Yale report highlights the problems that come from assigning authors who are unfamiliar with essential concepts in gender care. For example, puberty blockers are not intended to reduce gender dysphoria, but rather halt the effects of puberty. The systematic review looked at gender dysphoria reduction as a metric of the treatment’s success, however, which the Yale report says was an “inappropriate standard.”

Moreover, even studies scored as low quality by more standard scales are not uncommon in medicine, and do not mean “poor quality” (despite Cass’s slippage between the two) or “junk science.” Doctors can and do often make treatment recommendations based on evidence that is rated low quality. A 2020 study in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (9/2/20) found that 53% of treatments are supported by either “low quality” or “very low quality” evidence. Many commonly prescribed antidepressants, for example, have low-quality evidence for use in populations under 18—but many families decide, with the help of a doctor, that it’s still the best choice for their child.

This is why the guidelines supported by WPATH do not deviate from the norms of medical practice in recommending puberty blockers based on the large amount of evidence we do have. As with all medical treatments, WPATH recommends doctors should inform patients and their parents of the potential risks and benefits, and allow them to decide what is best. This approach aligns with evidence-based medicine’s requirement to integrate the values and preferences of the patient with the best available evidence.

‘Shaky foundations’

Of eight articles the Guardian ran on the Cass Review, only one (4/9/24) quoted any trans youth or their parents.

Cass also conducted a second systematic review on cross-sex hormones, which excluded 19 studies for being “low quality.” In spite of their exclusion, the systematic review still found “moderate quality” evidence for the mental health benefits of these treatments, a fact that Cass omits from her BMJ column (4/9/24) published concurrently with the review’s release, where she claims that pediatric gender medicine is built on “shaky foundations.”

These “shaky foundations” of “poor quality” evidence that Cass trumpeted were largely gobbled up by media, despite the criticisms of both expert groups like WPATH, and trans kids and their parents. Guardian readers almost certainly wouldn’t know that the amount of data we have on these treatments since the paper’s 2008 piece has expanded considerably: Every single one of the 103 studies on puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for minors that the Cass Review found was published after 2008. That’s not the story that’s being told; in fact, it’s not even mentioned in the Guardian’s initial story (4/9/24) on the findings of the Cass Review, which put Cass’s “shaky foundations” quote in its headline.

That story exemplifies the problem with the frequent media scrutiny of evidence quality that is completely devoid of the circumstances under which trans youth and their parents have sought these treatments for more than a decade. In fact, these teens and their parents have been all but erased from the paper’s coverage.

The Guardian released eight stories and a podcast on the Cass Review in the first month of its coverage. Only two trans youth and one parent were quoted across these nine pieces.

Readers can’t fully understand why trans youth and their parents would seek out a treatment with “low-quality” or “moderate-quality” evidence without understanding their circumstances. And they can’t fully judge a policy decision to restrict these treatments without understanding how much more evidence we have now than we did when desperate parents were seeking them out abroad.

Same problem across the pond

WBUR‘s interviewer (5/8/24) did not challenge Cass on her nonsensical statements, such as her assertion that “let[ting] young people go through their typical puberty” is the best way to “leave their options open.”

Some US outlets have, unsurprisingly, followed the British pattern in their coverage of the Cass Review, not questioning Cass’s tendentious interpretations, and sidelining the voices of trans youth and their parents.

Boston NPR station WBUR (OnPoint, 5/8/24) aired a lengthy interview with Cass. For almost two hours, host Meghna Chakrabarti gave Cass a friendly platform to pontificate on such matters as how pornography might be causing more kids to identify as trans, without asking her to substantiate her claims:

So we looked at what we understand about the biology, but obviously biology hasn’t changed suddenly in the last 10 years. So then we tried to look at, what has changed? And one is the overall mental health of teenage girls, in particular, although boys, to some degree. And that may also be driven by social media, by early exposure to pornography, and a whole series of other factors that are happening for girls.

While Chakrabarti raised some criticisms of the Cass Review, she never pressed Cass on her answers. For instance, when the host quoted WPATH’s statement that the Cass Review would “severely restrict access to physical healthcare for gender-questioning young people,” Cass suggested that trans youth will still be able to access treatment “under proper research supervision”—yet such research has yet to be announced. Chakrabarti did not press her on when these studies will start, what the criteria for participation will be, or what parents and kids are supposed to do in the meantime. Nor did she ask how long it will take to get into a study; currently the GIDS wait times are over six years.

Cass repeatedly argued that the key for youth seeking gender-affirming care was to “keep their options open.” Yet Chakrabarti never questioned how preventing young people from accessing puberty blockers helps achieve this, even when Cass argued that trans boys shouldn’t receive hormone treatment because male hormones “cause irreversible effects.” By this logic, the Cass Review should have required all trans girls to receive puberty blockers to prevent those same “irreversible effects.” Cass’s double standard also doesn’t take into account that estrogen puberty likewise causes irreversible effects that are not fully or easily reversible, such as height, voice and breast growth.

Incredibly, Cass described decisions about these treatments as very individual ones that need to be made with patients and doctors—which happens to be what WPATH recommends, and what the Cass Review has made virtually impossible. Cass told WBUR:

And for any one person, it’s just a careful decision about balancing, whether you have arrived at your final destination in terms of understanding your identity, versus keeping those options open. And that’s a really personal decision that you have to take with your medical practitioner, with the best understanding that we can give young people about the risks versus the benefits.

Rather than asking how exactly this squares with the Cass Review recommendations that have, at least for now, shut down all NHS medical gender-affirming care, Chakrabati changed the subject.

Chakrabarti’s segment also had a second part, which could have been used to interview an expert who disagreed with Cass’s findings. Instead, she interviewed two pediatric gender clinicians—one of whom, Laura Edwards-Leeper, had been a speaker at a conference against gender-affirming care in 2023—who offered no criticism aside from the fact that requiring mental health treatment for social transition would be impractical in the US, due to a lack of national healthcare.

‘Under political duress’

“There are young people who absolutely benefit from a medical pathway, and we need to make sure that those young people have access,” Cass told the New York Times (5/13/24)—before adding, “under a research protocol,” even though such research has yet to be announced.

The New York Times (5/13/24), in a published interview conducted by reporter Azeen Ghorayshi, also ignored the realities facing trans kids in Britain as a result of Cass’s recommendations. Cass accused the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) of not being forthright about the evidence around gender-affirming treatments, and suggested its motivations are political:

I suspect that the AAP, which is an organization that does massive good for children worldwide, and I see as a fairly left-leaning organization, is fearful of making any moves that might jeopardize trans healthcare right now. And I wonder whether, if they weren’t feeling under such political duress, they would be able to be more nuanced, to say that multiple truths exist in this space—that there are children who are going to need medical treatment, and that there are other children who are going to resolve their distress in different ways.

Ghorayshi agreed with Cass, asking her how she would advise US doctors to thread this needle:

Pediatricians in the United States are in an incredibly tough position, because of the political situation here. It affects what doctors feel comfortable saying publicly. Your report is now part of that evidence that they may fear will be weaponized. What would you say to American pediatricians about how to move forward?

This entire line of questioning ignored that this issue is politicized in Britain as well. In March, former Prime Minister Liz Truss proposed a legislative ban on gender-affirming medical treatments for minors, which the government later implemented temporarily. The British government has also implemented recommendations that make social transition in schools extremely difficult. Ghorayshi could have pressed Cass on the political situation in her own country, rather than speculating on how doctors in the US are reacting to the one here.

Cass also presented the widely discredited theory that an exponential rise in the number of children and adolescents seeking gender-affirming care over the past decade is evidence of a “social contagion”:

It doesn’t really make sense to have such a dramatic increase in numbers that has been exponential. This has happened in a really narrow time frame across the world. Social acceptance just doesn’t happen that way, so dramatically. So that doesn’t make sense as the full answer.

This gigantic leap in logic goes completely without follow-up by Ghorayshi. Exponential rises can happen easily when a number is low to begin with. According to Cass’s own report, there were fewer than 50 referrals to GIDS in 2009. And while that number increased to 5,000 for 2021–22, this is 0.04% of the approximately 14 million people under the age of 18 in Britain.

Despite Cass’s claims to the contrary, these numbers could easily show that while very few adolescents were comfortable being out as trans at the outset of the 2010s, increased social acceptance has made that possible for more of them. Ghorayshi, however, does not press her to show any evidence for her highly unscientific theory.

The therapy trap

A BBC report (5/7/24) cited Cass suggesting “‘evidence based’ treatment such as psychological support” as an alternative to puberty blockers, even though her review found no studies showing psychotherapy as an effective treatment for gender dysphoria.

One of the underlying problems with the Cass Review is that where it (dubiously) claims that medical interventions are not supported by evidence, it pushes psychotherapy as an effective treatment for gender dysphoria—with even less evidence. Most media have blindly accepted this contradiction.

In an article headlined “Cass Review Author Calls for ‘Holistic’ Gender Care,” the BBC (5/7/24) reported on Cass’s claim to the Scottish parliament implying psychotherapy and “medications” are “evidence-based” ways to treat gender-dysphoric children.

However, she told MSPs a drawback of puberty blockers, which she said had become “almost totemic” as the route to get on to a treatment pathway, was they stopped an examination of other ways of addressing young people’s distress—including “evidence-based” treatment such as psychological support or medication.

The BBC did not interrogate this claim. This is especially egregious in light of the fact that Cass’s own systematic review found no studies that show psychotherapy is an effective means of improving gender dysphoria. Moreover, it deemed nine of the ten studies of psychosocial support “low quality.”

Dan Karasic, a psychiatrist who has worked with patients with gender dysphoria for over 30 years, and an author on WPATH’s current treatment guidelines, told FAIR that there’s no evidence for her claim that psychiatric medications could be effective either:

There is absolutely no evidence to support Dr. Cass’s suggestion to substitute antidepressants for puberty blockers. It’s telling that Cass suggests an intervention utterly devoid of any evidence—antidepressants for gender dysphoria—over established treatments.

‘Alternative approaches’

The Washington Post (4/18/24) featured an op-ed criticizing the “poor quality of evidence in support of medical interventions for youth gender dysphoria”—by someone pushing evidence-free psychotherapy treatment for youth gender dysphoria.

The Washington Post (4/18/24) accepted this same fallacy when it published an op-ed on the Cass Review by Paul Garcia-Ryan. Garcia-Ryan is the president of the organization Therapy First, which supports psychotherapy as the “first-line” treatment for gender dysphoria. Garcia wrote that in light of the Cass Review’s findings on the evidence behind gender-affirming treatments, psychotherapy needed to be encouraged:

The Cass Review made clear that the evidence supporting medical interventions in youth gender dysphoria is utterly insufficient, and that alternative approaches, such as psychotherapy, need to be encouraged. Only then will gender-questioning youth be able to get the help they need to navigate their distress.

Garcia-Ryan provides no evidence that psychotherapy is an effective alternative to the current treatment model that he is criticizing—which is no surprise, given the Cass Review’s findings. This is especially disturbing, given that his organization has published “clinical guidelines” for treating “gender-questioning” youth.

One of the case studies in the Therapy First’s guidelines involved an adolescent struggling with gender dysphoria, who described their family situation—where they don’t “feel understood and supported,” and their parents “don’t think trans exists”—to a therapist. The therapist then hypothesized that the gender dysphoria may be caused by an “oedipal process,” a subconscious infatuation with the father that the child “dealt with…by repudiating her femininity and her female-sexed body.”

Op-ed pages certainly exist to represent a diversity of viewpoints. But opinion editors have a duty to not let them be used for blatant misinformation. Though Garcia-Ryan protests that Therapy First is “strongly opposed to conversion therapy,” the sort of psychoanalysis he champions has a long, dark history of being used in conversion therapy. The American Psychoanalytic Association did not depathologize homosexuality until nearly 20 years after the American Psychiatric Association did.

‘Notably silent’

The Washington Post (5/3/24) ran another pro-Cass op-ed from Benjamin Ryan, who it described as “covering LGBTQ health for over two decades”; it didn’t mention that much of that coverage has been in right-wing publications like the New York Sun and New York Post.

Rather than publishing any op-eds critical of the Cass Review for balance, the Washington Post (5/3/24) added a second op-ed a week later by freelance journalist Benjamin Ryan, who has recently published several pieces on trans issues for the conservative New York Sun and New York Post. Ryan criticized the American Psychiatric Association (APA) for being “notably silent” on Cass’s findings, and citing the fact that the only panel at its 2024 conference contained supporters of gender transition:

The program for the 2024 APA annual meeting lists only one panel that touches on pediatric gender-transition treatment, titled “Channeling Your Passion and ‘Inner Outrage’ by Promoting Public Policy for Evidence-Based Transgender Care.”

The panel notably includes Jack Turban, a University of California at San Francisco child psychiatrist and a vocal supporter of broad access to gender-transition treatment.

A letter to the editor in the Washington Post (5/10/24) noted that abstracts for the APA were due before the final Cass Review was published, so it would not have been possible to submit a panel examining its findings. This is something the Post could have easily factchecked.

In the US, gender-affirming care bans for minors have taken place amongst a similar backdrop of relentless media assault, based on similarly poor sources (FAIR.org, 8/30/23) and bad interpretations of data (FAIR.org, 6/22/23). The coverage of the Cass Review shows just how much US media have taken their cues from the Brits.

Research assistance: Alefiya Presswala, Owen Schacht

This content originally appeared on FAIR and was authored by Lexi Koren.

Pacific Journalism Review has challenged journalists to take a courageous and humanitarian stand over Israel’s genocidal war in Gaza in its latest edition with several articles about the state of news media credibility and the shocking death toll of Palestinian reporters.

It has also taken a stand in support of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange who was set free in a US federal court in Saipan and returned to Australia the day before copies of the journal arrived back from the printers.

The journal went online last week and it celebrated three decades of publishing at the 2024 Pacific International Media Conference hosted by The University of the South Pacific in Fiji in partnership with the Pacific islands News Association (PINA) and the Asia Pacific Media Network (APMN).

• READ MORE: Other Pacific Media Conference reports
• Pacific Journalism Review online

In the editorial provocatively entitled “Will journalism survive?”, founding editor Dr David Robie wrote: “Gaza has become not just a metaphor for a terrible state of dystopia in parts of the world, it has also become an existential test for journalists — do we stand up for peace and justice and the right of a people to survive under the threat of ethnic cleansing and against genocide, or do we do nothing and remain silent in the face of genocide being carried out with impunity in front of our very eyes?

“The answer is simple surely.”

Launching the 30th anniversary edition, adjunct USP professor Vijay Naidu paid tribute to the long-term “commitment of PJR to justice and human rights” and noted USP’s contribution through hosting the journal for five years and also continued support from conference convenor associate professor Shailendra Singh.

Papua New Guinea’s Communication Minister Timothy Masiu also launched at the PJR event a new book, Waves of Change: Media, Peace, and Development in the Pacific, edited by Professor Biman Prasad (who is also Deputy Prime Minister of Fiji), Dr Singh and Dr Amit Sarwal.

The PJR editors, Dr Philip Cass and Dr Robie, said the profession of journalism had since the covid pandemic been under grave threat and the journal outlined challenges facing the Pacific region.

Among contributing writers, Jonathan Cook, examines the consequences of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) legal cases over Israel’s illegal occupation of the Palestinian territories, and Assange’s last-ditch appeal to prevent the United States extraditing him so that he could be locked away for the rest of his life.

Both cases pose globe-spanning threats to basic freedoms, writes Cook.

New Zealand writer Jeremy Rose offers a “Kiwi journalist’s response” to Israel’s war on journalism, noting that while global reports have tended to focus on the “horrendous and rapid” climb of civilian casualties to more than 38,000 — especially women and children — Gaza has also claimed the “worst death rate of journalists” in any war.

The journalist death toll has topped 158.

Independent journalist Mick Hall offers a compelling research indictment of the role of Western legacy media institutions, arguing that they too are in the metaphorical dock along with Israel in South Africa’s genocide case in the ICC.

He also cites evidence of the wider credibility implications for mainstream media in the Oceania region.

Among other articles in this edition of PJR, a team led by RMIT’s Dr Alexandra Wake, president of the Journalism Education and Research Association of Australia (Jeraa), has critiqued the use of fact check systems, arguing these are vital tool boxes for journalists.

The edition also includes articles about the Kanaky New Caledonia decolonisation crisis reportage, three USP Frontline case study reports on political journalism, the social media ecology of an influencer group in Fiji, and a photo essay by Del Abcede on Palestinian protests and media in Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific.

Book reviews include the Reuters Journalism, Media, and Technology Trends and Predictions 2024, Journalists and Confidential Sources, The Palestine Laboratory and Return to Volcano Town.

The PJR began publication at the University of Papua New Guinea in 1994.

• The full 30th anniversary edition of Pacific Journalism Review

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Journalism Review.

Journalists, publishers, academics, diplomats and NGO representatives from throughout the Asia-Pacific region will gather for the 2024 Pacific International Media Conference hosted by The University of the South Pacific in Suva, Fiji, next month.

A notable part of the conference on July 4-6 will be the celebration of the 30th anniversary of the journal Pacific Journalism Review — founded by the energetic pioneer of journalism studies in the Pacific, Professor David Robie, who was recently honoured in the NZ King’s Birthday Honours list as a Member of the New Zealand Order of Merit.

I have been on the editorial board of PJR for two of its three decades.

• READ MORE: PJR to celebrate 30 years of journalism publishing at Pacific Media 2024
• Other Pacific Media Conference reports
• Dr Lee Duffield on 20 years of PJR
• Other Mark Pearson media law blog items

As well as delivering a keynote address titled “Frontline Media Faultlines: How Critical Journalism can Survive Against the Odds”, Dr Robie will join me and the current editor of PJR, Dr Philip Cass, on a panel examining the challenges faced by journalism journals in the Global South/Asia Pacific.

We will be moderated by Professor Vijay Naidu, former professor and director of development studies and now an adjunct in the School of Law and Social Sciences at the university. He is also speaking at the PJR birthday event.

In addition, I will be delivering a conference paper titled “Intersections between media law and ethics — a new pedagogy and curriculum”.

Media law and ethics have often been taught as separate courses in the journalism and communication curriculum or have been structured as two distinct halves of a hybrid course.

Integrated ethics and law approach
My paper explains an integrated approach expounded in my new textbook, The Communicator’s Guide to Media Law and Ethics, where each key media law topic is introduced via a thorough exploration of its moral, ethical, religious, philosophical and human rights underpinnings.

The argument is exemplified via an approach to the ethical and legal topic of confidentiality, central to the relationship between journalists and their sources.

After defining the term and distinguishing it from the related topic of privacy, the paper explains the approach in the textbook and curriculum which traces the religious and philosophical origins of confidentiality sourced to Hippocrates (460-370BC), via confidentiality in the priesthood (from Saint Aphrahat to the modern Catholic Code of Canon Law), and through the writings of Kant, Bentham, Stuart Mill, Sidgwick and Rawls until we reach the modern philosopher Sissela Bok’s examination of investigative journalism and claims of a public’s “right to know”.

This leads naturally into an examination of the handling of confidentiality in both public relations and journalism ethical codes internationally and their distinctive approaches, opening the way to the examination of law, cases and examples internationally in confidentiality and disclosure and, ultimately, to a closer examination in the author’s own jurisdiction of Australia.

Specific laws covered include breach of confidence, disobedience contempt, shield laws, whistleblower laws and freedom of information laws — with the latter having a strong foundation in international human rights instruments.

The approach gives ethical studies a practical legal dimension, while enriching students’ legal knowledge with a backbone of its philosophical, religious and human rights origins.

Details about the conference can be found on its USP website.

Professor Mark Pearson (Griffith University) is a journalist, author, academic researcher and teacher with more than 45 years’ experience in journalism and journalism education. He is a former editor of Australian Journalism Review, a columnist for 15 years on research journal findings for the Pacific Area Newspaper Publishers’ Association Bulletin, and author of 13 books, including The Communicator’s Guide to Media Law and Ethics — A Handbook for Australian Professionals (Routledge, 2024). He blogs at JournLaw.

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

The editorial board of the Columbia Law Review journal — made up of faculty and alumni from the university’s law school — shut down the review’s website on Monday after editors refused to halt publication of an academic article by a Palestinian human rights lawyer that was critical of Israel.

Al Jazeera reports that the student editors of the journal said they were pressured by the board to not publish the article which accused Israel of carrying out genocide in Gaza and implementing an apartheid regime against Palestinians.

The review’s website was taken down after the article was published on Monday morning and remained offline last night, reports AP news agency.

• READ MORE: 66 killed in central Gaza as Palestinians flee renewed Israeli offensive
• Other Gaza censorship reports

A static homepage informed visitors the domain was “under maintenance”.

Several editors at the Columbia Law Review described the board’s intervention as an unprecedented breach of editorial independence at the periodical.

In a letter sent to student editors yesterday, the board of directors said it was concerned that the article, titled “Nakba as a Legal Concept,” had not gone through the “usual processes of review or selection for articles”.

However, the editor involved in soliciting and editing the aricle said they had followed a “rigorous review process”.

‘A microcosm of repression’
The author of the article, human rights lawyer Rabea Eghbariah, a Harvard doctoral candidate, said the suspension of the journal’s website should be seen as “a microcosm of a broader authoritarian repression taking place across US campuses”.

The Intercept reports that this was the second time in barely eight months that Eghbariah had been censored by US academic publications.

Last November, the Harvard Law Review made the unprecedented decision to “kill” (not publish) the author’s edited essay prior to publication. The author was due to be the first Palestinian legal scholar published in the quality journal.

As The Intercept reported at the time, “Eghbariah’s essay — an argument for establishing ‘Nakba’, the expulsion, dispossession, and oppression of Palestinians, as a formal legal concept that widens its scope — faced extraordinary editorial scrutiny and eventual censorship.”

“When the Harvard publication spiked his article, editors from another Ivy League law school reached out to Eghbariah.

“Students from the Columbia Law Review solicited a new article from the scholar and, upon receiving it, decided to edit it and prepare it for publication.

“Now, eight months into Israel’s onslaught against Gaza, Eghbariah’s work has once again been stifled.”

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

Australia and the United Kingdom would join Canada as the only countries with exemptions from licensing requirements under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, or ITAR, which is meant to stop U.S. defense technology falling into the wrong hands.

Public comment on the proposed exemptions – central to “Pillar 2” of the AUKUS security pact between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States – is being sought by May 31, according to a statement issued by the State Department on Thursday. 

The change “would create a license exemption supporting billions of dollars in license-free defense trade between Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States and allow for deeper security cooperation and innovation among AUKUS partners,” it said.

“All three nations are committed to working with our private sectors and our research communities – those who will use these exemptions – to ensure the exemptions, taken together, support the goals of the AUKUS enhanced security partnership,” the statement added.

AUKUS Pillar 2 aims to create a broad and “seamless” defense industry across the three nations amid ongoing production backlogs in America as its defense industrial base is stretched by growing commitments to allies in Europe, the Middle East and Asia.

However, the proposed ITAR changes have been criticized by some U.S. lawmakers, including the ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York, who has asked whether Australia can protect defense secrets from Chinese spies.

ITAR exemption

Officials at the State Department last year also expressed concerns about the proposed ITAR exemptions, arguing that Australian and British firms can already freely access U.S. military technology after being vetted and going through the licensing process.

Proponents of Pillar 2, though, said the process is bureaucratic and burdensome for many foreign firms, and that exemptions are needed to facilitate production innovation across the three AUKUS countries.

Congress ultimately approved the possible exemptions in last year’s defense spending authorization bill, and gave President Joe Biden until last month to evaluate whether Australia and the United Kingdom had appropriate safeguards in place to protect U.S. military secrets.

On April 19, though, the State Department said Biden had not yet reached such a determination and would again evaluate the allies in 120 days, at which time the exemptions could be “finalized.”

Sen. Jim Risch, a Republican from Idaho and his party’s ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, slammed the decision at the time as undermining the AUKUS pact.

“The Biden Administration’s determination that the U.K. and Australia do not have a system of export controls comparable to those of the United States is deeply misguided and further delays the implementation of AUKUS,” Risch said in a April 22 statement. 

“This judgment means our trade with the U.K. and Australia will continue to operate under the existing ITAR rules for at least the next four months,” he said. “It is time to deliver on the promise of AUKUS. Continued failure to do so would demonstrate the administration is fundamentally unserious about competing with China.”

Last year, Risch noted that Australia and the United Kingdom were – along with Canada and New Zealand – already trusted as part of the “Five Eyes” intelligence sharing alliance with the United States.

Widening net

Those critical of the exemptions point out that Five Eyes is an arrangement with trusted foreign governments, while the changes to ITAR would put U.S. defense technology into the hands of private companies who would then be responsible for safeguarding it.

Australian and British companies would no longer need to seek approval from the State Department “prior to any export, reexport, retransfer, or temporary import of defense articles” from America, according to a filing on the U.S. Federal Register.

In order to mitigate the risks involved with that, the proposed exemptions say individuals in Australia and the United Kingdom with access to sensitive U.S. technologies would need the equivalent in their countries of “Secret”-level clearance in the United States.

The exemptions would also not be comprehensive. 

The State Department will compile “a list of defense articles and defense services excluded from eligibility for transfer under the proposed new exemption,” the Federal Register filing says.

Whatever the case, the Biden administration seems intent on passing the exemptions that could dramatically expand military production amid fears about China’s aims of territorial expansion in the Pacific. 

Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell – who until February was Biden’s top advisor on Asia – said last month that Pillar 2 of AUKUS was “basically … the way forward” from the massive backlogs that he said have “plagued” the America’s defense industrial base.

In time, U.S. officials say that Pillar 2 could be expanded to include more allies. Last month, officials indicated Japan could be the first extra country added, but also said Tokyo has to wait until the arrangement with Canberra and London is “fully fleshed out.”

South Korea this week also expressed its interest in joining.

Edited by Malcolm Foster.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Alex Willemyns for RFA.

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

In late 2020, Dr. Debby Day said her bosses at Cigna gave her a stark warning. Work faster, or the company might fire her.

That was a problem for Day because she felt her work was too important to be rushed. She was a medical director for the health insurer, a physician with sweeping power to approve or reject requests to pay for critical care like life-saving drugs or complex surgeries.

She had been working at Cigna for nearly 15 years, reviewing cases that nurses had flagged for denial or were unsure about. At Cigna and other insurers, nurses can greenlight payments, but denials have such serious repercussions for patients that many states require that doctors make the final call. In more recent years, though, Day said that the Cigna nurses’ work was getting sloppy. Patient files that nurses working in the Philippines sent to her, she said, increasingly had errors that could lead to wrongful denials if they were not corrected.

Day was, in her own words, persnickety. If a nurse recommended denying coverage for a cancer patient or a sick baby, she wanted to be certain it was the right thing to do. So Day said she researched guidelines, read medical studies and scrutinized patient medical records to come to the best decision. This took time. She was clearing fewer cases than many of her peers.

Some of her colleagues quickly denied requests to keep pace, she said. All a Cigna doctor had to do was cut and paste the denial language that the nurse had prepared and quickly move on to the next case, Day said. This was so common, she and another former medical director said, that people inside Cigna had a term for these kinds of speedy decisions: “click and close.”

“Deny, deny, deny. That’s how you hit your numbers,” said Day, who worked for Cigna until the late spring of 2022. “If you take a breath or think about any of these cases, you’re going to fall behind.”

In a written response to questions, Cigna said its medical directors are not allowed to “rubber stamp” a nurse’s recommendation for denial. In all cases, the company wrote, it expects its doctors to “perform thorough, objective, independent and accurate reviews in accordance with our coverage policies.” The company said it was unaware of the use of the term “click and close” and that “such behavior would not be tolerated.”

During Day’s final years at Cigna, the company meticulously tracked the output of its medical directors on a monthly dashboard. Cigna shared this spreadsheet with more than 70 of its doctors, allowing them to compare their tally of cases with those of their peers. Day and two other former medical directors said the dashboard sent a message loud and clear: Cigna valued speed. (ProPublica and The Capitol Forum found these other former Cigna doctors independently; Day did not refer them.) One of Day’s managers in a written performance evaluation called the spreadsheet the “productivity dashboard.”

Measuring the speed and output of employees is common in many industries, from fast food to package delivery, but the use of these kinds of metrics in health care is controversial because the stakes are so high. It’s one thing if a rushed server forgets the fries with your burger. It’s another entirely if the pressure to act fast leads to wrongful denials of payment for vital care. Walgreens in 2022 dropped measurements of its pharmacists’ speed from their performance reviews after some alleged that practice could lead to dangerous mistakes.

ProPublica and The Capitol Forum examined Cigna’s productivity dashboards for medical directors from January and February 2022. These spreadsheets tallied the number of cases each medical director handled. Cigna gave each task a “handle time,” which the company said was the average amount of time it took its medical directors to issue a decision.

Day and others said the number was something different: the maximum amount of time they should spend on a case. Insurers often require approval in advance for expensive procedures or medicines, a process known as prior authorization. The early 2022 dashboards listed a handle time of four minutes for a prior authorization. The bulk of drug requests were to be decided in two to five minutes. Hospital discharge decisions were supposed to take four and a half minutes.

“Medical directors would message me and say, ‘We can’t do these cases in four minutes. Not if you want to do a good job,’” Day recalled.

Deny, deny, deny. That’s how you hit your numbers. If you take a breath or think about any of these cases, you’re going to fall behind.

As ProPublica and The Capitol Forum reported last year, Cigna built a computer program that allowed its medical directors to deny certain claims in bulk. The insurer’s doctors spent an average of just 1.2 seconds on each of those cases. Cigna at the time said the review system was created to speed up approval of claims for certain routine screenings; the company later posted a rebuttal to the story. A congressional committee and the Department of Labor launched inquiries into this Cigna program. A spokesperson for Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, the chair of the congressional committee, said Rodgers continues to monitor the situation after Cigna shared some details about its process. The Labor Department is still examining such practices.

One figure on Cigna’s January and February 2022 dashboards was like a productivity score; the news organizations found that this number reflects the pace at which a medical director clears cases.

Cigna said it was incorrect to call that figure on its dashboard a productivity score and said its “view on productivity is defined by a range of factors beyond elements included in a single spreadsheet.” In addition, the company told the news organizations, “The copy of the dashboard that you have is inaccurate and secondary calculations made using its contents may also be inaccurate.” The news organizations asked what was inaccurate, but the company wouldn’t elaborate.

Nevertheless, Cigna said that because the dashboard created “inadvertent confusion” the company was “reassessing its use.”

Day was afraid to look at the dashboards. Anyone could see that by Cigna’s measures, she was a laggard. In January 2022, only a third of her peers had lower scores, and in February 2022, it was just a quarter.

In a recorded phone call and in emails with supervisors, Day complained that Cigna’s metrics failed to account for the quality of decisions. She said she and others asked higher-ups how often medical director decisions were overturned on appeal but nobody would say.

Day gave Cigna written permission to discuss her employment with ProPublica and The Capitol Forum.

The company described Day as a “disgruntled former employee” and said her “personal view is not an accurate representation of the work of the many medical directors and clinicians we employ.” Cigna added that prior authorization requests are often time-sensitive and the company’s “mission is to ensure our patients receive the right care as quickly as possible.”

Cigna rejected the assertions that denying cases was an effective way of working faster. “Even if medical directors were incentivized to review more claims — which they are not — it makes no sense to suggest that this incentivizes denials; it would be far quicker to approve all claims,” the company spokesperson wrote. The insurer said that denials take more time because they require a deeper review of clinical data, potentially requesting additional reviews by senior clinical directors, drafting denial letters and possibly phoning the treating physicians.

But another doctor who had worked at Cigna also said that denying a request for payment was far quicker than approving one since the nurses served up language that could be used to justify the denial. That former Cigna medical director said, “Sometimes you just have to accept the nurse and click and close if you had too much work.” (That doctor asked not to be named because they feared repercussions if they commented publicly.)

When Debby Day got her job at Cigna in November 2005, she thought it was a godsend.

She had been working for a health insurance startup in North Carolina. The charismatic founder of the company, Day said, had told her and a handful of principal executives to expect a windfall when the company went public. That never happened, and Day was eventually left with no job and no severance.

When a recruiter mentioned the medical director job at Cigna, it sounded like a perfect fit. The job was based in North Carolina, but Cigna didn’t mind that she was licensed in California, where she did her residency at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center. She was ready to leave the executive track, and the position allowed her to put her medical training to good use without the daily grind of working in a clinic.

The daughter of an ophthalmologist, Day had watched her father perform eye surgery when she was a child, and she found medicine fascinating. When Day started practicing, she learned quickly that while she enjoyed the intellectual challenges of medicine, the hands-on work of seeing patients drained her. As a medical director, she said, “I could really take care of patients without having to talk to them all day long.”

Cigna, like all health insurers, makes patients get approval in advance for certain treatments. Day became one of the people who reviewed these prior authorization requests, deciding what to cover and what to deny. Everyone Day worked with was under one roof in Raleigh, North Carolina. The office buzzed with conversations among colleagues, and she was able to consult with specialists on complex cases.

She never felt pressure to do anything but make the right decision for the patient. At the same time, she said, she didn’t hesitate to reject treatment she thought was improper.

A couple years into her time at Cigna, Day noticed some doctors prescribing a costly treatment called intravenous immunoglobulin, or IVIG, that helps patients with weakened immune systems fight off infections. Only she found they were prescribing it in cases where it didn’t make any medical sense. That wasn’t good for patients or for Cigna. “Some of these guys were pouring it into every patient they could get their hands on and then making hundreds of thousands of dollars billing for it,” she recalled.

At the time, Cigna didn’t have a policy for when IVIG should be used, so Day developed one based on the scientific evidence available at the time. Day said this saved millions of dollars and that Cigna rewarded her with bonuses and stock options.

“In my head I truly believed that you could marry good health care with business,” she said.

As Day neared the end of her first decade at Cigna, the company closed regional offices in favor of a nationwide review system, she said. With medical directors working from home, Day could no longer pop down the hallway to consult with doctors in other specialities.

Cigna had used a productivity dashboard for years, but by 2019, these metrics began playing a more prominent role in the company’s evaluations of medical directors, Day said. Now, making a fast decision seemed more important than making the right decision, she said. In February 2019 emails to her managers, Day openly questioned this system.

Her boss responded: “We all understand that many cases are involved and take more time,” he wrote. “We have tried to account for that additional time in the allotment allowed for certain cases.”

Still, he made it clear that transaction volume — the metric on the dashboard that was similar to a productivity score — was one of the factors “we use to determine merit raises, bonus” and stock awards. When asked about this, Cigna said that “any assertion that our Medical Directors’ compensation (cash or stock) is tied to denials or their handle time for cases is false.”

In that same 2019 email, Day’s boss added, “We want to assist every medical director who wishes to improve his or her efficiency.”

Day shot back, “Some of our newer MDs are quite terrified of the ‘counting,’” she wrote. “All ask — ‘how is quality measured?’”

Soon, Day realized that her boss wasn’t talking in the abstract about improving efficiency; he was talking about her. She learned that managers were going to help her pick up the pace of her reviews.

When bosses reached out, they didn’t discuss whether she was making the right call, only how long it took her to decide, she said.

In my head I truly believed that you could marry good health care with business.

By then, Day said, Cigna had shifted much of the nursing work to the Philippines. She found mistakes in the case files that these nurses sent. In an email to Day, a fellow medical director lamented the amount of time it took to untangle one case and said the reports by “the overseas nurses” were “messes.”

Some of the more astonishing problems that Day spotted have stayed with her. In a case involving a newborn who needed an epilepsy evaluation, Day noticed that a Cigna nurse had listed the mother’s name as the patient, rather than the baby’s. Day fixed that mistake, avoiding what certainly would have been a denial. In another case, a nurse recommended denying payment for an ultrasound of the neck because the treatment wasn’t medically necessary. But the nurse had gotten the body part wrong. It was a hip that was injured, and the imaging was needed. An appeal that landed on Day’s desk involved Cigna’s decision to reject payment for a test because it wasn’t medically necessary for a patient with a sexually transmitted disease. But Day figured out that the patient had toenail fungus, not an STD.

Day said her bosses didn’t want to hear that she was catching errors. By October 2020, Cigna had placed Day on a performance improvement plan that required her to raise her “productivity level” — referring to the score on the dashboard — to at least 70%, which would be a significant jump for her but was slightly below the median for medical directors. The company made the consequences crystal clear: If she failed to successfully complete the plan, she could be terminated.

ProPublica and The Capitol Forum asked Cigna how it calculated that score, but the company wouldn’t say. “Transaction volume helps gauge productivity and efficiency — the amount of work done, not the speed at which it is done,” a Cigna spokesperson wrote. The company said this metric measured the time a medical director spent on tasks involving medical judgment versus other work, such as internal meetings or training.

On the early 2022 productivity dashboard, though, a different calculation could explain Day’s score, and this math reflects how fast medical directors reviewed cases. ProPublica and The Capitol Forum multiplied the number of cases Day handled by the time Cigna allotted for each type of case, then divided that total by the hours she worked that month. The resulting percentage equaled her score. Medical directors who spent every available minute of their workdays clearing cases within the time constraints Cigna set would score at least 100%. Indeed, some medical directors had scores greater than 100%, meaning they cleared cases in even less than the allotted time. The newsrooms’ formula accurately reproduced the scores of 87% of the Cigna doctors listed; the scores of all but one of the rest fell within 1 to 2 percentage points of the number generated by this formula. When asked about this formula, Cigna said it may be inaccurate but didn’t elaborate.

Day said her bosses told her that the way to boost her score was to review more cases during her normal work hours.

Responding to questions, Cigna said the productivity dashboard was “primarily used to ensure that we have enough medical directors to perform the amount and type of work that needs to be done.” It is not used, the company said, to evaluate the performance of medical directors or track the speed at which individual doctors do their work.

Cigna, however, later said of the dashboard that “in the unusual situation that a medical director is a significant outlier to peers performing similar types of reviews, managers might use this metric as one data point to understand and discuss the variance with the medical director.” It also said Day was placed on a performance improvement plan “to help her meet the most basic standards to support patient care.”

During the time Day spent on the performance improvement plan, she refused to change her approach, which she felt was necessary to make the right call.

In December 2020, she appealed to the human resources department, figuring that colleagues there would see that it was wrong to fire a medical director for taking care to decide critical medical questions.

She was wrong.

“You feel that the time constraints/metrics, which are in place to review these cases are unreasonable, for some cases are very complex consisting of multiple pages to review,” a Cigna human resources employee wrote, summing up Day’s feelings as the matter escalated.

And while Day’s supervisor “appreciates your attention to detail,” the human resources employee wrote, he “also realizes that there are metrics in place that he must hold everyone to.”

When asked about this, Cigna said, “Dr. Day raised questions about her performance improvement plan through appropriate internal ethics channels available to all employees, and there was no wrongdoing found.”

Eventually, the daily stress of being pushed to work faster coupled with the threat of being fired took a toll on Day. Sleepless and fighting depression, Day was at the breaking point.

“I actually sort of had a mental breakdown,” she recalled.

At the end of the day, we need to get your productivity up and we don’t have a lot of time to do that.

On a recorded call with her boss about her lagging productivity score, Day brought the subject back to the quality of the decisions she was making. Her boss made it sound like Day was a broken record.

“We have the same discussion every time we talk,” he said. While saying “nobody’s asking you not to do quality work,” her boss said, “you must know I just have to redirect our discussion.”

But Day continued: “When there is no measurement of quality, then the discussion will continue to have that element to it.”

The supervisor said he heard Day’s concerns “loud and clear” but warned that “at the end of the day, we need to get your productivity up and we don’t have a lot of time to do that.”

The focus on metrics was proof Cigna was losing its way, Day told her boss. When she started working at Cigna 15 years earlier, there was a “commitment to quality and taking care of our customers.” Day said that it was still important to her and other medical directors that “we go home at the end of the day and think we’ve done a good job for Cigna.”

In a response to questions, Cigna said the supervisor, who works in California, was unaware that he was being recorded and that under that state’s laws, it is illegal to record a private phone call without all parties’ consent. Day said that she was in North Carolina during the call and that North Carolina law allows a person on a call to record without getting the consent of others.

Day took a monthslong leave from the job in mid-2021 that allowed her to work part time, and she found a therapist who helped her manage the depression. When she returned, Day said, it was more of the same.

In the late spring of 2022 she decided to retire from Cigna.

Maya Miller contributed reporting.

This content originally appeared on Articles and Investigations - ProPublica and was authored by by Patrick Rucker, The Capitol Forum, and David Armstrong, ProPublica.

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

In late 2020, Dr. Debby Day said her bosses at Cigna gave her a stark warning. Work faster, or the company might fire her.

That was a problem for Day because she felt her work was too important to be rushed. She was a medical director for the health insurer, a physician with sweeping power to approve or reject requests to pay for critical care like life-saving drugs or complex surgeries.

She had been working at Cigna for nearly 15 years, reviewing cases that nurses had flagged for denial or were unsure about. At Cigna and other insurers, nurses can greenlight payments, but denials have such serious repercussions for patients that many states require that doctors make the final call. In more recent years, though, Day said that the Cigna nurses’ work was getting sloppy. Patient files that nurses working in the Philippines sent to her, she said, increasingly had errors that could lead to wrongful denials if they were not corrected.

Day was, in her own words, persnickety. If a nurse recommended denying coverage for a cancer patient or a sick baby, she wanted to be certain it was the right thing to do. So Day said she researched guidelines, read medical studies and scrutinized patient medical records to come to the best decision. This took time. She was clearing fewer cases than many of her peers.

Some of her colleagues quickly denied requests to keep pace, she said. All a Cigna doctor had to do was cut and paste the denial language that the nurse had prepared and quickly move on to the next case, Day said. This was so common, she and another former medical director said, that people inside Cigna had a term for these kinds of speedy decisions: “click and close.”

“Deny, deny, deny. That’s how you hit your numbers,” said Day, who worked for Cigna until the late spring of 2022. “If you take a breath or think about any of these cases, you’re going to fall behind.”

In a written response to questions, Cigna said its medical directors are not allowed to “rubber stamp” a nurse’s recommendation for denial. In all cases, the company wrote, it expects its doctors to “perform thorough, objective, independent and accurate reviews in accordance with our coverage policies.” The company said it was unaware of the use of the term “click and close” and that “such behavior would not be tolerated.”

During Day’s final years at Cigna, the company meticulously tracked the output of its medical directors on a monthly dashboard. Cigna shared this spreadsheet with more than 70 of its doctors, allowing them to compare their tally of cases with those of their peers. Day and two other former medical directors said the dashboard sent a message loud and clear: Cigna valued speed. (ProPublica and The Capitol Forum found these other former Cigna doctors independently; Day did not refer them.) One of Day’s managers in a written performance evaluation called the spreadsheet the “productivity dashboard.”

Measuring the speed and output of employees is common in many industries, from fast food to package delivery, but the use of these kinds of metrics in health care is controversial because the stakes are so high. It’s one thing if a rushed server forgets the fries with your burger. It’s another entirely if the pressure to act fast leads to wrongful denials of payment for vital care. Walgreens in 2022 dropped measurements of its pharmacists’ speed from their performance reviews after some alleged that practice could lead to dangerous mistakes.

ProPublica and The Capitol Forum examined Cigna’s productivity dashboards for medical directors from January and February 2022. These spreadsheets tallied the number of cases each medical director handled. Cigna gave each task a “handle time,” which the company said was the average amount of time it took its medical directors to issue a decision.

Day and others said the number was something different: the maximum amount of time they should spend on a case. Insurers often require approval in advance for expensive procedures or medicines, a process known as prior authorization. The early 2022 dashboards listed a handle time of four minutes for a prior authorization. The bulk of drug requests were to be decided in two to five minutes. Hospital discharge decisions were supposed to take four and a half minutes.

“Medical directors would message me and say, ‘We can’t do these cases in four minutes. Not if you want to do a good job,’” Day recalled.

Deny, deny, deny. That’s how you hit your numbers. If you take a breath or think about any of these cases, you’re going to fall behind.

As ProPublica and The Capitol Forum reported last year, Cigna built a computer program that allowed its medical directors to deny certain claims in bulk. The insurer’s doctors spent an average of just 1.2 seconds on each of those cases. Cigna at the time said the review system was created to speed up approval of claims for certain routine screenings; the company later posted a rebuttal to the story. A congressional committee and the Department of Labor launched inquiries into this Cigna program. A spokesperson for Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, the chair of the congressional committee, said Rodgers continues to monitor the situation after Cigna shared some details about its process. The Labor Department is still examining such practices.

One figure on Cigna’s January and February 2022 dashboards was like a productivity score; the news organizations found that this number reflects the pace at which a medical director clears cases.

Cigna said it was incorrect to call that figure on its dashboard a productivity score and said its “view on productivity is defined by a range of factors beyond elements included in a single spreadsheet.” In addition, the company told the news organizations, “The copy of the dashboard that you have is inaccurate and secondary calculations made using its contents may also be inaccurate.” The news organizations asked what was inaccurate, but the company wouldn’t elaborate.

Nevertheless, Cigna said that because the dashboard created “inadvertent confusion” the company was “reassessing its use.”

Day was afraid to look at the dashboards. Anyone could see that by Cigna’s measures, she was a laggard. In January 2022, only a third of her peers had lower scores, and in February 2022, it was just a quarter.

In a recorded phone call and in emails with supervisors, Day complained that Cigna’s metrics failed to account for the quality of decisions. She said she and others asked higher-ups how often medical director decisions were overturned on appeal but nobody would say.

Day gave Cigna written permission to discuss her employment with ProPublica and The Capitol Forum.

The company described Day as a “disgruntled former employee” and said her “personal view is not an accurate representation of the work of the many medical directors and clinicians we employ.” Cigna added that prior authorization requests are often time-sensitive and the company’s “mission is to ensure our patients receive the right care as quickly as possible.”

Cigna rejected the assertions that denying cases was an effective way of working faster. “Even if medical directors were incentivized to review more claims — which they are not — it makes no sense to suggest that this incentivizes denials; it would be far quicker to approve all claims,” the company spokesperson wrote. The insurer said that denials take more time because they require a deeper review of clinical data, potentially requesting additional reviews by senior clinical directors, drafting denial letters and possibly phoning the treating physicians.

But another doctor who had worked at Cigna also said that denying a request for payment was far quicker than approving one since the nurses served up language that could be used to justify the denial. That former Cigna medical director said, “Sometimes you just have to accept the nurse and click and close if you had too much work.” (That doctor asked not to be named because they feared repercussions if they commented publicly.)

When Debby Day got her job at Cigna in November 2005, she thought it was a godsend.

She had been working for a health insurance startup in North Carolina. The charismatic founder of the company, Day said, had told her and a handful of principal executives to expect a windfall when the company went public. That never happened, and Day was eventually left with no job and no severance.

When a recruiter mentioned the medical director job at Cigna, it sounded like a perfect fit. The job was based in North Carolina, but Cigna didn’t mind that she was licensed in California, where she did her residency at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center. She was ready to leave the executive track, and the position allowed her to put her medical training to good use without the daily grind of working in a clinic.

The daughter of an ophthalmologist, Day had watched her father perform eye surgery when she was a child, and she found medicine fascinating. When Day started practicing, she learned quickly that while she enjoyed the intellectual challenges of medicine, the hands-on work of seeing patients drained her. As a medical director, she said, “I could really take care of patients without having to talk to them all day long.”

Cigna, like all health insurers, makes patients get approval in advance for certain treatments. Day became one of the people who reviewed these prior authorization requests, deciding what to cover and what to deny. Everyone Day worked with was under one roof in Raleigh, North Carolina. The office buzzed with conversations among colleagues, and she was able to consult with specialists on complex cases.

She never felt pressure to do anything but make the right decision for the patient. At the same time, she said, she didn’t hesitate to reject treatment she thought was improper.

A couple years into her time at Cigna, Day noticed some doctors prescribing a costly treatment called intravenous immunoglobulin, or IVIG, that helps patients with weakened immune systems fight off infections. Only she found they were prescribing it in cases where it didn’t make any medical sense. That wasn’t good for patients or for Cigna. “Some of these guys were pouring it into every patient they could get their hands on and then making hundreds of thousands of dollars billing for it,” she recalled.

At the time, Cigna didn’t have a policy for when IVIG should be used, so Day developed one based on the scientific evidence available at the time. Day said this saved millions of dollars and that Cigna rewarded her with bonuses and stock options.

“In my head I truly believed that you could marry good health care with business,” she said.

As Day neared the end of her first decade at Cigna, the company closed regional offices in favor of a nationwide review system, she said. With medical directors working from home, Day could no longer pop down the hallway to consult with doctors in other specialities.

Cigna had used a productivity dashboard for years, but by 2019, these metrics began playing a more prominent role in the company’s evaluations of medical directors, Day said. Now, making a fast decision seemed more important than making the right decision, she said. In February 2019 emails to her managers, Day openly questioned this system.

Her boss responded: “We all understand that many cases are involved and take more time,” he wrote. “We have tried to account for that additional time in the allotment allowed for certain cases.”

Still, he made it clear that transaction volume — the metric on the dashboard that was similar to a productivity score — was one of the factors “we use to determine merit raises, bonus” and stock awards. When asked about this, Cigna said that “any assertion that our Medical Directors’ compensation (cash or stock) is tied to denials or their handle time for cases is false.”

In that same 2019 email, Day’s boss added, “We want to assist every medical director who wishes to improve his or her efficiency.”

Day shot back, “Some of our newer MDs are quite terrified of the ‘counting,’” she wrote. “All ask — ‘how is quality measured?’”

Soon, Day realized that her boss wasn’t talking in the abstract about improving efficiency; he was talking about her. She learned that managers were going to help her pick up the pace of her reviews.

When bosses reached out, they didn’t discuss whether she was making the right call, only how long it took her to decide, she said.

In my head I truly believed that you could marry good health care with business.

By then, Day said, Cigna had shifted much of the nursing work to the Philippines. She found mistakes in the case files that these nurses sent. In an email to Day, a fellow medical director lamented the amount of time it took to untangle one case and said the reports by “the overseas nurses” were “messes.”

Some of the more astonishing problems that Day spotted have stayed with her. In a case involving a newborn who needed an epilepsy evaluation, Day noticed that a Cigna nurse had listed the mother’s name as the patient, rather than the baby’s. Day fixed that mistake, avoiding what certainly would have been a denial. In another case, a nurse recommended denying payment for an ultrasound of the neck because the treatment wasn’t medically necessary. But the nurse had gotten the body part wrong. It was a hip that was injured, and the imaging was needed. An appeal that landed on Day’s desk involved Cigna’s decision to reject payment for a test because it wasn’t medically necessary for a patient with a sexually transmitted disease. But Day figured out that the patient had toenail fungus, not an STD.

Day said her bosses didn’t want to hear that she was catching errors. By October 2020, Cigna had placed Day on a performance improvement plan that required her to raise her “productivity level” — referring to the score on the dashboard — to at least 70%, which would be a significant jump for her but was slightly below the median for medical directors. The company made the consequences crystal clear: If she failed to successfully complete the plan, she could be terminated.

ProPublica and The Capitol Forum asked Cigna how it calculated that score, but the company wouldn’t say. “Transaction volume helps gauge productivity and efficiency — the amount of work done, not the speed at which it is done,” a Cigna spokesperson wrote. The company said this metric measured the time a medical director spent on tasks involving medical judgment versus other work, such as internal meetings or training.

On the early 2022 productivity dashboard, though, a different calculation could explain Day’s score, and this math reflects how fast medical directors reviewed cases. ProPublica and The Capitol Forum multiplied the number of cases Day handled by the time Cigna allotted for each type of case, then divided that total by the hours she worked that month. The resulting percentage equaled her score. Medical directors who spent every available minute of their workdays clearing cases within the time constraints Cigna set would score at least 100%. Indeed, some medical directors had scores greater than 100%, meaning they cleared cases in even less than the allotted time. The newsrooms’ formula accurately reproduced the scores of 87% of the Cigna doctors listed; the scores of all but one of the rest fell within 1 to 2 percentage points of the number generated by this formula. When asked about this formula, Cigna said it may be inaccurate but didn’t elaborate.

Day said her bosses told her that the way to boost her score was to review more cases during her normal work hours.

Responding to questions, Cigna said the productivity dashboard was “primarily used to ensure that we have enough medical directors to perform the amount and type of work that needs to be done.” It is not used, the company said, to evaluate the performance of medical directors or track the speed at which individual doctors do their work.

Cigna, however, later said of the dashboard that “in the unusual situation that a medical director is a significant outlier to peers performing similar types of reviews, managers might use this metric as one data point to understand and discuss the variance with the medical director.” It also said Day was placed on a performance improvement plan “to help her meet the most basic standards to support patient care.”

During the time Day spent on the performance improvement plan, she refused to change her approach, which she felt was necessary to make the right call.

In December 2020, she appealed to the human resources department, figuring that colleagues there would see that it was wrong to fire a medical director for taking care to decide critical medical questions.

She was wrong.

“You feel that the time constraints/metrics, which are in place to review these cases are unreasonable, for some cases are very complex consisting of multiple pages to review,” a Cigna human resources employee wrote, summing up Day’s feelings as the matter escalated.

And while Day’s supervisor “appreciates your attention to detail,” the human resources employee wrote, he “also realizes that there are metrics in place that he must hold everyone to.”

When asked about this, Cigna said, “Dr. Day raised questions about her performance improvement plan through appropriate internal ethics channels available to all employees, and there was no wrongdoing found.”

Eventually, the daily stress of being pushed to work faster coupled with the threat of being fired took a toll on Day. Sleepless and fighting depression, Day was at the breaking point.

“I actually sort of had a mental breakdown,” she recalled.

At the end of the day, we need to get your productivity up and we don’t have a lot of time to do that.

On a recorded call with her boss about her lagging productivity score, Day brought the subject back to the quality of the decisions she was making. Her boss made it sound like Day was a broken record.

“We have the same discussion every time we talk,” he said. While saying “nobody’s asking you not to do quality work,” her boss said, “you must know I just have to redirect our discussion.”

But Day continued: “When there is no measurement of quality, then the discussion will continue to have that element to it.”

The supervisor said he heard Day’s concerns “loud and clear” but warned that “at the end of the day, we need to get your productivity up and we don’t have a lot of time to do that.”

The focus on metrics was proof Cigna was losing its way, Day told her boss. When she started working at Cigna 15 years earlier, there was a “commitment to quality and taking care of our customers.” Day said that it was still important to her and other medical directors that “we go home at the end of the day and think we’ve done a good job for Cigna.”

In a response to questions, Cigna said the supervisor, who works in California, was unaware that he was being recorded and that under that state’s laws, it is illegal to record a private phone call without all parties’ consent. Day said that she was in North Carolina during the call and that North Carolina law allows a person on a call to record without getting the consent of others.

Day took a monthslong leave from the job in mid-2021 that allowed her to work part time, and she found a therapist who helped her manage the depression. When she returned, Day said, it was more of the same.

In the late spring of 2022 she decided to retire from Cigna.

Maya Miller contributed reporting.

This content originally appeared on Articles and Investigations - ProPublica and was authored by by Patrick Rucker, The Capitol Forum, and David Armstrong, ProPublica.

Just as I have found my arguments ignored rather than rebutted, I have repeatedly found that the data upon which I have drawn for my research has been similarly ignored or discounted without any attempt to establish its accuracy or soundness. The reasons for this are not unrelated to the central argument of this book. Since the initiation of the Manhattan Project, the secret US program for developing the first atomic bombs, science has been progressively overwhelmed by a new sacerdotal class, enriched by the State and endowed with access to the plenitude of power and violence. This wholesale purchase of the institutions of learning and research and its subsequent devotion to the business of death first destroyed free inquiry in the natural science fields. The best funded and highest paid in the natural sciences—those developing the weapons of mass murder and destruction for the State—became the envy and the measure for aspirant scholars, researchers and students. In imitation and greed for a share of that largesse and access, the social sciences followed, as did the humanities, albeit at a slower pace. The peer review system as well as what Morse Peckham called “publish and perish” was nothing less than the proliferation of little House Un-American Activities Committees (HUAAC) throughout American and then Western academia. In a country whose culture has been notorious for its conformism, subjecting intellectual labour to group consensus was perhaps an inherent national trait. In any event the system has functioned very well. It has rigorously defended the elusiveness of the obvious.

Thomas Kuhn, in his famous The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, argued that such “revolutions” do not occur gradually or because some prevailing prejudice has suddenly been disproven or discredited. Instead there is a change in the questions being asked usually starting with those about all the data that does not fit in the current theoretical framework. Peckham, who also knew Kuhn from Princeton, said that any human response in the world requires distinguishing something from everything. Inevitably a lot more is left out than included when limiting one’s behaviour, i.e. responding to the environment. What changes is not the data but the interest. Some data previously deemed irrelevant becomes central. The scholar or researcher is no different from anyone else here. Attention must be restricted in order to respond. That is to say an interest must be followed in order to distinguish from all the data to which they judge it is appropriate to respond. Joseph Weizenbaum’s primary argument against the validity of artificial intelligence focuses on the verb to judge. Machines and those humans who prefer to behave like them (or consider humans to be mere machines) cannot distinguish between data and information because they cannot judge. From an ethical point of view Weizenbaum also insists that the function of such machines, digital or analogue, should not be treated as judgment.

The creation of a vast system of inspection and certification of intellectual product was a logical consequence of organizing the highest levels of scientific activity based on secrecy and loyalty. However it also applies to the laity. In the US it is virtually impossible to utter public criticism of the country or its institutions without first professing “love” for one’s country. (Needless to say, “love” for any other country is impermissible). Whether it was the adoption of the US version of the Ermächtigungsgesetz (Enabling Act) aka The USA Patriot Act in 2001 or the implementation of the mass incarceration and economic shutdown under the pretext of an alleged pandemic in 2020, even the most academically qualified and experienced critics have felt obliged to demonstrate that their scientific assertions have survived “peer review”. While the Soviet Union was extant Western scholars and scientists discounted or denounced all but the most technical work product as “under political control”. However, the semi-anonymous peer review is nothing less than the act of a collective political commissar with no personal responsibility.

As for the conforming student or scholar and researcher, everything works as if organized intellectual life (the university and its ancillaries) were centres of free inquiry. They are made and kept safe by one’s peers. The potential to become one of those peers depends on decisions taken early in one’s education. Some decisions, like what to write on a term paper or which thesis topic to choose, can make or break one’s career. Without peers there is no one to promote one’s work, whether merely incremental or potentially monumental. The work which never reaches the assent of peers may disappear utterly. The work from which assent has been withdrawn can perish. Lorie Tarshis’s The Elements of Economics is a case in point.

There is another reason I have decided to reissue Church Clothes. Not only did I argue in 1997 for recognition of the way mission, as a knowledge technology, transforms social formations, I also argued that the “land question” was fundamental for any serious political science and its systematic neglect a discredit to any politics claiming to serve human beings. To simplify the argument of the following pages: mission is the ecclesiastical expression of conquest. Church conquest is essentially the domination of souls (minds) and hence also culture. Since the soul or mind (a metaphor for the body of human responses) develops from the historical experience in the empirical world and reproduces the culture (instructions for performance), control over the material world is essential in order to produce culture. The Church (Christian mission in all its manifestations) engaged in mission to preach a culture it would create by conquering and dominating the space in which that culture was to be imposed. Following Kuhn, destroying the data sets and institutions for stabilizing responses to them was a prerequisite to conversion. The conquered population had to be redirected to other data and data structures—those preferred by the Church and those who own it. Kuhn’s scientific revolutions, at scale, are conversions not proofs. Expropriating the land, whether in North America, Australia or South Africa, to name but the most notorious, was not only a strategy for enrichment but for mass conversion. That mass conversion was essential to sustain what would otherwise have been transitory conquest.

Since the annexation of the German Democratic Republic, the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the demolition of the Yugoslav Federation, the official Western policy has been that all the pre-1989 borders were violations of the inherent national and ethnic identities of the peoples inhabiting those countries. National and ethnic, following long-standing British political warfare strategy, are assumed to be identical for the purposes of forced conversion. Two seemingly contradictory policies have been pursued vehemently for nearly forty years. On one hand, every ethnic group susceptible of recognition by either the US or EU is entitled to political self-determination. On the other hand, any nation that defends its territorial integrity against foreign intervention (overt or covert) can be denied its sovereignty regardless of ethnic composition. Thus although the dissolution of the Soviet Union was eased by the Union constitution that permitted (in contrast to the US Constitution) republics to secede, the vast distribution of large Russian majorities in those newly separate republics did not legitimate redefinition of the boundaries or guarantees for those who literally overnight had lost their Soviet citizenship, which had made them citizens wherever they lived in the USSR. The historical complexities of the Yugoslav Federation were irrelevant to the forces determined to destroy it and steal its resources, including the geographical advantages for trans-Eurasian rail and pipeline traffic.

In fact since 1947 only one nation-state has been able to guarantee by any means it deems necessary its territorial and “ethno-religious” homogeneity. The former POTUS Jimmy Carter even called the means by which its system of governance and territorial control—its land regime—are imposed, apartheid, after the original legal regime by that name had been abolished in South Africa. Although the title of my book refers to the “end of apartheid in South Africa” it did not suppose the end of apartheid as a policy per se. In 1948, the ethnic nationalist National Party was elected to govern South Africa. In the same year, the settler regime in Mandatory Palestine announced its independent statehood. South Africa declared itself a republic in 1961 and was practically expelled from the Commonwealth. The NP’s Afrikaner version of ethnic nationalism was offensive to the non-white Commonwealth members upon whom Britain’s material wealth depends. The National Party regime understood itself as a movement of ethnic national self-determination, antagonistic both to the Bantu and the British. It elaborated the Afrikaner identity but would have been incapable of dominating the country without including the British and other European “foreigners”. Thus its original ethnic base was diluted to establish a “white” nationalism while the “Bantu” majority was carefully segregated into language and tribal groups, later assigned by law to their own “national” territories, territories with no real sovereignty. This was the NP’s version of the “two state solution”. By 1991 there was an international consensus imposed upon the South African state. The Republic of South Africa was a unitary state and not a pseudo-confederation of white and black entities. After separation of amenities and other segregation measures were repealed, the acts creating the so-called Bantustans were also purged from the law. Meanwhile the other apartheid regime continues in force.

The persistence of apartheid and its fanatical violence in the West means the question “what is apartheid?” continues to be of the utmost importance. Furthermore, just as the South African state claimed an essentially Old Testament basis for its legitimacy until 1994, the surviving apartheid system in Palestine retains this rabbinical-scriptural foundation. Yet more importantly, the establishment and maintenance of apartheid today is inseparable from the land in dispute. There can be no doubt that apartheid is ultimately a strategy and justification for expropriation and exclusive control of land by the State, on behalf of those who own it.

Beyond the most obvious extant apartheid regime there are far greater forces at work. It is tempting to see the current seventy plus year war in Palestine as a local conflict. Even those who worry about world peace because of the failure to reach a peaceful solution to the conflict between the occupying state and the aboriginal population are often blinded by the fanaticism with which the war is waged by the occupying state actor. Their concerns range from humanitarian to pragmatic-economic. It is impossible to deny that the Middle East has been a strategic interface for global trade and communications for millennia. The Latin Church waged centuries of war in order to dominate what it called the Holy Land. Here the Latin Empire battled the forces of Islam before a European sect adopted the territory as a settler-colonial project—just at the moment when Woodrow Wilson’s liberal cant had established the principle of decolonization (if only for the colonies of one’s rivals). His Britannic Majesty’s government, masters of indirect rule and exploitation at arm’s length, needed little prodding to support some kind of settlement proposal for an economically influential cult. It has been credibly argued that the Balfour Declaration was actually a clever bit of subterfuge that was very unpopular among much of Britain’s ruling elite. However the decision-makers, some very powerful members of the Rhodes-Rothschild Round Table and some essentially bribed agents of the same forces were able to impose this new white settler colony even while other white colonies in Africa were collapsing. The terrorism conducted against all opponents to the realignment of Mandate Palestine has been interpreted by many as proof that the policy subsequent to the Balfour Declaration was not only a mistake but injurious to British interests.

Such arguments rely on an antiquated concept of British interests. It relies on a view of Britain propagated precisely by those historians from the Round Table (RIIA) tradition who continue to dominate the history profession on both sides of the Atlantic, and hence the derivative historical research on the Continent. The principal innovation of the Netherlands and Great Britain in the 18^th century was the amalgamation of the State and the joint stock company. Today this is called the “public-private partnership”. When the VOC and BEIC were formed, unlike their weaker counterparts in France and Denmark, they were not only stronger than the existing state apparatus, they had achieved quasi-personal union with the sovereign. The VOC was essentially a republic apparatus while the more advanced BEIC benefited by the patronage of a monarchy that was beholden to its financial class in the City of London. Although the British East India Company eventually went bankrupt and was dissolved as an entity, the piratical machine it has innovated—the precursor to the modern multinational corporation—survived and flourished as an instrument of empire. The geographical centre of that empire is the City of London, the Square Mile. In that enclave of financial adventurism, i.e. piracy or capitalism, the aim of all policy is the control over cash flow and risk throughout the world.

In other words it is necessary to look for the technology of social transformation in processes found in a variety of institutions. These may operate with different formal ideologies and organizational structures. Those structures provide constraints both as internal and external projections of power. In politics power is exercised by the ability to impose shared meaning. That in turn means the capacity to limit responses in ways that conform to a given culture. We tend to ignore power when politics succeeds in compelling consensus and marginalizing or eliminating dissent. That is as natural as the thoughtlessness by which a fork and knife are used to eat until one finds there is only soup.

If we recognize that apartheid did not end with the retirement of the NP regime and the adoption of the 1994 constitution, although its legal framework was largely abolished in South Africa, then we have to examine the phenomenon as something that is not specific to the Cape republic. We have to consider the South African experience just one historical example of a social formation and that there are other varieties that may share attributes but also exhibit differences from the system formally in place from 1948 until 1994. In 1997 I based my analysis of South African apartheid precisely on the premise that South Africa was a special case of a more general phenomenon.

One of the founding myths of the South African epic was the claim that whites and blacks migrated into the Southern tip of Africa more or less at the same time. Hence black tribes had no prior territorial claims with precedence over those of the Dutch settlers at the Cape. This myth also asserted that nations, at least those that had emerged after the Thirty Years War, were politically and socially more mature forms of social organization and culture than anything the black inhabitants could claim. Maturity meant innate superiority. Hence Afrikaner nationalism was hierarchically superior to any other emergent nationalism, although potentially comparable to the nationalism in Britain’s other African colonies. A derivative myth was the foundation of the Group Areas Act. Allowing that each population, racially-ethnically defined, was entitled to its own development in its own space, separate spaces had to be recognized and assigned in which that development could occur. Beyond those boundaries black South Africans had no legal rights or privileges since these were residual to their own areas. In order to reconcile this legal fiction with the facts on the ground, the South African government began the process of forced removal. Cape Town and Cape Province was particularly disrupted because of the population of people called “Coloured” for whom there were no natural areas or “tribal homelands” to which these descendants of white settlers could be assigned.

In 1989 a global realignment began. While this has been analysed in terms of great power politics, the so-called Cold War, and the various strategic decisions by the Anglo-American Empire, another form of realignment was also initiated that cannot be subsumed by the Cold War model or the proposed Unipolar vs. Multipolar debate. This realignment is multi-layered and multi-faceted. Since the end of the Soviet Union has meant the end of grand theoretical analysis in any of the sciences, there has been enormous fragmentation combined with simplification in the study of the political-social-economic changes. This is due in large part to the absence of credible cultural history. By cultural history I do not mean either the comparative cultural studies associated with anthropology or sociology. Nor do I mean the sophistry and mendacity embedded in such pseudo-disciplines like “critical race theory”.

Cultural history is an integration of humanistic research methods with other tools aimed at explaining human behaviour, both individually and collectively, in the present using all the artefacts and documents available from the Past. Every explanation implies an organization and every organization can be understood as an explanation. There is no meta-position from which to study culture. We are in it to the end, till death do us part.

We have been witnessing—at least into the far reaches of the Anglo-American Empire—unprecedented human migration. Millions of people have been driven from their homes by wars, conventional and counter-insurgency (terrorism) and mysteriously transported over oceans no armies could cross, past borders once guarded by men at arms, into countries whose economies are being driven to collapse by the empire’s ruling oligarchy. Very little of the public debate, whether by laity or government functionaries, addresses the scope of this migration in anything resembling a coherent way. These flows in the millions within very short periods of time are not being repelled, like Asians or Southern Europeans were once repelled from US shores. On the contrary all the leading functionaries and officeholders in the West are insisting that these millions be admitted into the country on terms not only more favourable than lawful immigration (for which waiting lists and quotas apply) but also more favourable than for native-born or previously naturalized citizens. There is strong, if ineffective, resistance to this wave. However it is condemned rather than analysed.

Historical records show that massive waves of human migration are not in themselves new. What is unique about these migrations is that they are entirely man-made. China, central Eurasia, and Africa all experienced waves of migration when famine or other natural disasters accumulated to force people in large regions to move from desolation to new sources of food and shelter. Nowhere was such migration wholly without conflict. Yet what we have seen since 1989 is another kind of enforced migration. In an era where the monopoly of armed force as well as commercial and manufacturing power is in the hand of a small band of pirates calling themselves hedge funds or investment banks, two parallel forms of globalization have been accelerating. Until now the lead form of globalization was the relocation of industrial capacity to low wage countries and continued capture of their natural resources. In this shape there was little difference from the old colonial model, except that local governments run by natives had replaced imperial administrators and governors. The almost complete de-industrialization of the metropolitan countries has steadily reduced their populations to consumers and service workers. Thus the value extracted from those countries is derived from cash flow and the traffic in intangibles (finance and intellectual property). Population declines have been compensated by increase in the cost of consumption in order to maintain high cash extraction rates.

As a rule there has never been any interest in developing a similar consumer-based extractive economy in the low-wage, resource-rich parts of the world. This has led those who profit from the international flows of cash and resources to speculate by creating a massive international flow of human resources. Hence there has been a systematic series of wars incited and waged throughout the world to make large swathes of the planet uninhabitable. These wars constitute essentially strategic deportation of indigenous populations, whether from Syria, Palestine, Central Africa, Ukraine, or any other place where the land is worth more than the people living on it.

It is certainly no accident that high representatives of hedge funds, armaments, digital technology and mass media sit annually in ecumenical council in the heights of the Swiss Alps to devise such ideas as The Great Reset or the Fourth Industrial Revolution for a world in which the vast majority of people will “own nothing and be happy”. It should surprise no one that policies to concentrate populations like battery chickens in the urban conurbations of the temperate zone are to be administered by the PPP World Health Organization with its program of regular pandemics and constant inoculation. Much speculation and hysteria has been spent divining the motives, intentions and secret plans at the pinnacle of the sacerdotal and neo-feudal estate in aspiration. Unfortunately much of that has been impaired by fixation on a worldview that sentimentalizes the political ideologies of the English and Scottish Enlightenment at the same time demonizing the ideas of the French.

Both positions distract from the underlying cultural historical phenomenon upon which the West is built: the Latin Church, the original totalitarian system in the West. It has mutated many times since the Reformation and the Thirty Years’ War, however it remains the single most important explanation and organization in the West. It is the core of what Samuel Huntington meant by “the superiority in applying organized violence.” The Fourth Crusade was an early climax in the “clash of civilizations”, better said the clash of the West with civilization. Philanthro-capitalism, especially that attributed to Bill Gates and George Schwartz Soros, is atomic-strength or a viral form of the mass conversion model propagated by the Latin Church. When the 14-year-old Soros adopted the “deport and confiscate” practice of enrichment, as a willing helper to the occupying forces of Nazi Germany, he was confessing to the business model upon which his entire Open Society and Quantum Fund organizations are based. The International Organization for Migration, a UN specialized agency (PPP), turned the UN relief to workers compelled to migrate as labourers after World War 2 into the service provider to permanently displaced people. The overall objective pursued by the World Economic Forum, as the college of cardinals in the Church of Finance Capitalism (what the medieval Latin Church was in essence), can be seen when these prelates convene to put their seal upon the covenants by which capital, humanity, and natural resources are maintained in continuous flow to be allocated wherever the hierarchy deems desirable or necessary. The land upon which people are born, from which they derive their nutrition and habitation, in which their cultures emerge and the humanity unfolds, is to be seized de facto where people are deported and de jure where they still live or arrive. The hedge funds or carcino-capitalists like Gates, Soros and those whose names we will never hear or read are already buying whatever is vacated by force of arms or destitution, both in the source countries and the new targets.

Deprived of land and affordable, safe homes in the places they were born and where there families have lived, often for centuries, these human flows will be dehumanized, too. Their material culture no longer either natural or self-produced, it too becomes the discharge of planned obsolescence. A mass conversion is underway in the West. Instead of “group areas” there will be no areas and no groups. The grand apartheid of the future is that separation between those who own nothing and those who own everything. Perhaps that is a good reason to rethink what one thought one knew about the apartheid in South Africa.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by T.P. Wilkinson.

Pacific Journalism Review, the Pacific and New Zealand’s only specialist media research journal, is celebrating 30 years of publishing this year — and it will mark the occasion at the Pacific Media International Conference in Fiji in July.

Founded at the University of Papua New Guinea in 1994, PJR also published for five years at the University of the South Pacific in Fiji before moving on to AUT’s Pacific Media Centre (PMC).  It is currently being published by the Auckland-based Asia Pacific Media Network (APMN).

Founding editor Dr David Robie, formerly director of the PMC before he retired from academic life three years ago, said: “This is a huge milestone — three decades of Pacific media research, more than 1000 peer-reviewed articles and an open access database thanks to Tuwhera.

• READ MORE: The Pacific Media International Conference 2024
• The Pacific Journalism Review website

“These days the global research publishing model often denies people access to research if they don’t have access to libraries, so open access is critically important in a Pacific context.”

Current editor Dr Philip Cass told Asia Pacific Report: “For us to return to USP will be like coming home.

“For 30 years PJR has been the only journal focusing exclusively on media and journalism in the Pacific region.

“Our next edition will feature articles on the Pacific, New Zealand, Australia and Southeast Asia.

“We are maintaining our commitment to the Islands while expanding our coverage of the region.”

Both Dr Cass and Dr Robie are former academic staff at USP; Dr Cass was one of the founding lecturers of the degree journalism programme and launched the student journalist newspaper Wansolwara and Dr Robie was head of journalism 1998-2002.

The 20th anniversary of the journal was celebrated with a conference at AUT University. At the time, an Indonesian-New Zealand television student, Sasya Wreksono, made a short documentary about PJR and Dr Lee Duffield of Queensland University of Technology wrote an article about the journal’s history.

The Life of Pacific Journalism Review.  Video: PMC/Sasya Wreksono

Many journalism researchers from the Journalism Education and Research Association of Australia (JERAA) and other networks have been strong contributors to PJR, including professors Chris Nash and Wendy Bacon, who pioneered the Frontline section devoted to investigative journalism and innovative research.

The launch of the 30th anniversary edition of PJR will be held at the conference on July 4-6 with Professor Vijay Naidu, who is adjunct professor in the disciplines of development studies and governance at USP’s School of Law and Social Sciences.

Several of the PJR team will be present at USP, including longtime designer Del Abcede.

A panel on research journalism publication will also be held at the conference with several editors and former editors taking part, including former editor Professor Mark Pearson of the Australian Journalism Review. This is being sponsored by the APMN, one of the conference partners.

Conference chair Associate Professor Shailendra Singh, head of journalism at USP, is also on the editorial board of PJR and a key contributor.

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

Amnesty International Indonesia is calling for an evaluation of the placement of TNI (Indonesian military) in Papua after a video of a Papuan man being tortured by several soldiers at the Gome Post in Puncak regency, Central Papua, went viral on social media.

“This incident was a [case of] cruel and inhuman torture that really damages our sense of justice,” said Amnesty International executive director Usman Hamid in a statement.

“It tramples over humanitarian values that are just and civilised. To the families of the victim, we expressed our deep sorrow.”

• READ MORE:  Australian group warns of new ‘arrests, torture’ in Papuan crackdown
• ‘Committed to human rights’, claims Indonesia over West Papua torture
• West Papuan wounds of suffering – diplomatic pressure on Indonesia needed urgently – Ronny Kareni
• Wenda condemns ‘sadistic brutality’ of Indonesian torture of Papuan – calls for UN action
• Other West Papua human rights reports

Hamid said that no one in this world, including in Papua, should be treated inhumanely and their dignity demeaned — let alone to the point of causing the loss of life.

“The statements by senior TNI officials and other government officials about a humanitarian approach and prosperity [in Papua] are totally meaningless.

“It is ignored by the [military] on the ground,” he said.

Hamid said that such incidents were able to be repeated because until now there had been no punishment for TNI members proven to have committed crimes of kidnapping, torture and the loss of life.

Call for fact-finding team
Hamid said Amnesty International was calling for a joint fact-finding team to be formed to investigate the abuse, including urging that an evaluation be carried on to the deployment of TNI soldiers in the land of Papua.

“There must be a sharp reflection on the placement of security forces in the land of Papua which has given rise to people falling victim, both indigenous Papuans, non-Papuans, including the security forces themselves”, he said.

Earlier, a short video containing an act of torture by TNI members went viral on social media. It shows a civilian who has been placed in an oil drum filled with water being tortured by members of the TNI.

TNI Information Centre director (kapuspen) Major-General Nugraha Gumilar has revealed the identity of the person being tortured by the soldiers as allegedly being a member of a pro-independence resistance group — described by Indonesia as an “armed criminal group (KKB)” — named Definus Kogoya.

“The rogue TNI soldiers committed acts of violence against a prisoner, a KKB member by the name of Definus Kogoya at the Gome Post in Puncak Regency, Papua,” he said when sought for confirmation on Saturday.

Despite this, General Gumilar has still has not revealed any further information about the identity of the TNI members who committed the torture. He confirmed only that more than one member was involved in the abuse.

He said an “intensive examination” was still being conducted and he pledged it would be transparent and act firmly against all of the accused torturers.

“Later I will convey [more information] after the investigation is finished, what is clear is that it was more than one person if you see from the video”, he said.

Note:
The video (warning: contains graphic, violent content and viewer discretion is advised) of the Papuan man being tortured by TNI soldiers can be viewed on YouTube at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJgAHYdLgVo (requires registration)

or on the United Liberation Movement for West Papua (ULMWP) website: ahttps://www.ulmwp.org/president-wenda-a-crime-against-humanity-has-been-committed-in-yahukimo.

[Translated by James Balowski for IndoLeft News. The original title of the article was “Amnesty Desak Evaluasi Penempatan TNI Buntut Aksi Penyiksaan di Papua”.]

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

Tuvalu has reaffirmed its recognition of Taiwan following an election last month that had triggered speculation the Pacific island country could sever ties and recognize Beijing.

After choosing a prime minister earlier this week, Tuvalu’s new government on Wednesday released a statement of its domestic and international priorities. While reaffirming ties with Taiwan, the coral atoll nation of some 10,000 people also signaled it wants more benefits from the relationship.

“The new government wishes to reaffirm its commitment to the long-term and lasting special relationship between Tuvalu and the Republic of China, Taiwan,” the statement said.

“It intends to reassess options that would strengthen and lift it to a more durable, lasting and mutually beneficial relationship.”

Seve Paeniu, the finance minister in the previous government who reportedly argued for reviewing ties with Taiwan, is not part of Tuvalu’s new nine-man Cabinet.

Tuvalu is one of the dwindling number of nations that have diplomatic relations with Taiwan instead of Beijing. Last month, another Pacific island nation, Nauru, severed ties with Taiwan, reducing its diplomatic allies to 12 countries. Among Pacific island nations, Palau and the Marshall Islands also recognize Taiwan.

China’s government has courted Pacific island nations for the past two decades as it seeks to isolate Taiwan diplomatically, gain allies in international institutions and challenge U.S. dominance. Beijing regards Taiwan, a democracy and globally important tech manufacturing center, as a renegade province that must be reunited with the mainland.

The new Tuvalu government’s statement of priorities underlined the numerous challenges facing the farflung archipelago nation, particularly on its most populated atoll Funafuti.

It listed 19 challenges that included higher sea levels, lack of protection against king tides that swamp atolls, insufficient medical services, chronic problems of waste disposal on Funafuti – which is only a few square kilometers in area – lack of affordable flights, lack of reliable shipping and a high cost of living.

The statement also said that the new government broadly supports a contentious security pact with Australia that was signed last year, but would seek to amend parts of it.

The treaty between Tuvalu and Australia, called the Falepili Union, requires Tuvalu to have Australia’s agreement for “any partnership, arrangement or engagement with any other state or entity on security and defence-related matters.” Its expansive scope and lack of consultation was criticized during the election campaign.

The Tuvalu government statement said it recognizes the absence of transparency and consultations in informing Tuvaluans about the treaty, which comes with a long-term commitment to resettle some Tuvaluans in Australia.

It said it would address those concerns and work with the Australian government for an arrangement that safeguards Tuvalu’s sovereignty.

BenarNews is an RFA-affiliated online news organization.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Stephen Wright for BenarNews.

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.

The latest round of Russian strikes came as EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell and the head of the UN's atomic agency, Rafael Grossi, were in Ukraine, with the latter visiting the Russia-occupied Zaporizhzhya nuclear plant to assess the situation amid concerns about the plant's safety.

In Kyiv, debris from a downed Russian missile fell on an 18-story residential block in the southern Holosiyivskiy district, triggering a fire that killed at least four people, Interior Minister Ihor Klymenko said.

Sixteen people were injured in Holosiyivskiy and in the eastern district of Dnipro in the capital, Klymenko said. Rescue crews continue to work at the sites, he added.

Serhiy Popko, the head of the Kyiv City Military Administration, said at least 38 people were wounded in the capital.

Fragments of a downed Russian missile also damaged electricity lines, leaving part of the Ukrainian capital without power and heating.

"Some consumers on the left bank [of the Dnieper River] are currently without electricity," Mayor Vitali Klitschko wrote on Telegram. "The heating supply main on the left bank was damaged."

"Another massive Russian air attack against our country," President Volodymyr Zelenskiy wrote on X, formerly Twitter, as an air-raid alert was declared for all of Ukraine. "Six regions came under enemy fire. All of our services are currently working to eliminate the consequences of this terror," Zelenskiy wrote.

In the southern city of Mykolayiv, one mad died following a Russian strike, Mayor Oleksandr Sienkevych said. Russian missiles also hit the Kharkiv and Sumy regions, wounding two people, regional officials said.

Parts of the Ukrainian capital were left without power and heating following a deadly Russian missile attack that struck in the early morning hours of February 7, Mayor Vitali Klitschko said.

The Ukrainian Air Force said Russia launched 64 drones and missiles at Ukraine's territory. The Ukrainian air defense shot down 29 missiles and 15 drones, it said.

Borrell, in Kyiv on a two-day visit to highlight the bloc's support for Ukraine, posted a picture on X from a shelter.

"Starting my morning in the shelter as air raid alarms are sounding across Kyiv," Borrell wrote. "This is the daily reality of the brave Ukrainian people, since Russia launched its illegal aggression."

Grossi, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), meanwhile, arrived at Moscow-controlled Zaporizhzhya -- Europe's largest nuclear power plant -- accompanied by IAEA mission staff and Russian soldiers, Russian state-owned news agency RIA Novosti reported.

Grossi on February 6 held talks in Kyiv with Zelenskiy, Energy Minister Herman Halushchenko and other Ukrainian officials.

Russia occupied the plant shortly after it launched its unprovoked invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, and its six nuclear reactors are now idled.

The UN nuclear watchdog has voiced concern many times over the possibility of a nuclear catastrophe at the plant amid fighting in the area.

Zelenskiy said he told Grossi during their meeting that the Russian occupation of the plant must end.

"This is the main prerequisite for the restoration of radiation safety for our entire region," Zelenskiy said in his evening video address.

Grossi said the IAEA has had a monitoring team at the plant since September 2022, but its experts have not been able to inspect every part of the power station.

At times "we weren't granted the access that we were requesting for certain areas of the facility," Grossi said at a press conference in Kyiv.

One of the problems is the situation with the nuclear fuel, which has been inside the reactors for years and is reaching the end of its useful life.

Grossi also said he was worried about the operational safety of the plant amid personnel cuts after Moscow denied access to employees of Ukraine’s Enerhoatom.

Halushchenko said the Russian occupants were preventing hundreds of qualified workers from entering the plant.

"We're talking about 400 people who are highly skilled and, most importantly, licensed. You can't just take them away," Halushchenko told a joint news conference with Grossi.

With reporting by Reuters and AP

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

Cook islands Deputy Prime Minister Robert Tapaitau, former National Environment Service (NES) director Nga Puna, and his wife and former Secretary of Infrastructure Cook Islands (ICI), Diane Charlie-Puna, have been found guilty of “all or most offences” following a judgment given by Chief Justice Patrick Keane.

In his ruling Chief Justice Keane said: “In my decision, issued [Wednesday, Cook Islands time], which this minute accompanies, I have found each defendant guilty of all or most of the offences with which they are charged, and have convicted them of those offences.”

The trio were accused of taking public funds amounting to CI$70,000 between April 2019 and March 2021.

• READ MORE: Other Cook Islands news reports

Prime Minister Mark Brown’s office confirmed he had been briefed on the matter [on Wednesday] afternoon, shortly before the 100-page judgment was obtained by Cook Islands News.

In a written statement, Brown’s office said the Prime Minister had been briefed “a short time ago” by the Solicitor-General on the decision released by Chief Justice Keane on Wednesday, relating to the trio.

“The government acknowledges the court’s decision and will take time to study the 100-page plus document, before commenting further.”

Tapaitau faced three charges of using a document to obtain pecuniary advantage and one charge of conspiracy to defraud.

‘Guilty of all offences’
Chief Justice Keane ruled: “Mr Tapaitau is guilty of all offences with which he is charged; and I convict him accordingly.”

Charlie-Puna faced seven charges of using a document to obtain pecuniary advantage and a charge of conspiracy to defraud to which she entered a guilty plea on 1 June 2023.

In his ruling, Chief Justice Keane said: “Mrs Puna is guilty of all offences with which she is charged, including those to which she has pleaded guilty, except those on which she has been discharged and charges 5,13; and I convict her accordingly.”

Charlie-Puna entered guilty pleas to conspiracy and theft charges in June 2023.

Nga Puna faced 22 charges of using a document to obtain pecuniary advantage, one of conspiracy to defraud, one of uttering a forged document and five charges of forgery.

Chief Justice Keane ruled: “Mr Puna is guilty of all offences with which he is charged, except charges 14, 25; and I convict him accordingly.”

They are due to be sentenced in March.

Pre-sentence report
“Each defendant is now to be sentenced on the basis of a pre-sentence report; and I direct accordingly. I should appreciate those reports being given high priority,” CJ Keane said.

“To ensure, if feasible, that sentences are imposed within the March session, which I will be conducting, on 21 March perhaps, I direct primary submissions be filed and served without reference to the pre-sentence reports.”

The Crown was given until February 21 to file and serve submissions while the defence had until seven days before the sentence date allocated.

In his judgement statement, Chief Justice Keane said that in the Cook Islands, government departments, and state agencies, entrusted with public money, money appropriated by Parliament and project aid money, were subject to clear statutory principles, standards and controls.

“Public money is the property of the Crown; and heads of government departments, and state agencies, are charged by statute with ensuring that those public entities have sound financial management systems and internal controls.”

The Public Expenditure Review Committee and the Audit Office were charged by statute with safeguarding public money, and the integrity of all public accounts, including those of government departments and state agencies.

“Within each government department, and state agency, accounts and records must be faithfully and properly kept, revenue must be properly assessed and collected, expenditure must be valid and correctly authorised, revenue, expenses, assets and liabilities must be properly recorded and accounted for, and financial and operating information must be reliable.”

Gave evidence, denial
All three defendants elected to give evidence and denied any offence.

Each said, with one exception, that any benefit they received in the ways charged lay within their entitlement; or that, if it did not, they had acted honestly in that belief and without any intent to defraud.

The primary issue on each of the charges, therefore, was not principally the documentary context, which was largely uncontested, Chief Justice Keane said in his judgement.

“The issue is whether the Crown, on the evidence called, is able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendants did act dishonestly and with intent to defraud.”

In discharging charges five and 13 against Diane Puna, charge five alleged she fraudulently used, or procured the use of, an Infrastructure Cook Islands cheque to pay for a week’s Auckland accommodation for her family and herself, during her father’s funeral.

“There is, and can be, no issue that this ICI cheque was capable of, and did, confer on Mrs Puna a pecuniary advantage. It met the cost of her first seven days accommodation in Auckland, independently of her father’s house, while she was attending his funeral.”

Charge 13 alleged that fraudulently using, or procuring the use of, a cheque on 7 April 2020, $400 cash, to pay for a lunch for workers at her Rarotonga home address.

In the case against Nga Puna, he was not convicted on charges 14 and 25.

Two NES cheques
Charge 14 alleged Puna fraudulently used, or procured the use of, two NES cheques to benefit himself, together with a related deposit to his account on 29 August 2019.

There was a lack of evidence underpinning the inference that Puna did fraudulently misuse for his own benefit the cash proceeds of the two NES cheques, issued for a retreat, and thus the cheques themselves.

On charge 25, the Punas were jointly charged with fraudulently using, or procuring the use of, a cheque on 7 April 2020, $400 cash, to pay for a lunch for workers at their Rarotonga home address.

“This payment by cheque may well, I accept, have been a misuse of public money. But the house belonged to the government, and the work needed to be done. The payment was a gesture, after the event, to NES and ICI staff during the lockdown,” CJ Keane said.

The final submissions were heard in the high-profile corruption case late last year with CJ Keane indicating at the time that he would make a decision in the new year.

The guilty verdicts come more than two years after the trio were charged with various dishonesty offences.

In November 2023, CJ Keane released a ruling through the High Court of the Cook Islands, making an order that all theft charges be substituted with fraudulent document dealing charges.

Pleas remained the same
While the original charges were vacated, the pleas from the three defendants remained the same to the new charges.

Tapaitau was reinstated as Deputy Prime Minister for the second time early in November 2023 month after suspension amid the charges.

Tapaitau was the minister responsible for Infrastructure Cook Islands and National Environment Service when the offences took place. He was not responsible for those two ministries due to conflicts with the pending court decisions. The Penrhyn MP resumed his duties as Deputy Prime Minister and Minister responsible for Transport, Marine Resources, Energy and Outer Island Projects.

The trio faced a four-week Judge alone trial in July before it was confirmed final submissions in the trial had been pushed back, after CJ Keane sought clarification on legal issues, specifically whether the offending the Crown alleged, ought to be charged as theft, or as fraudulent use of a document.

This report was first published by Cook Islands News and is republished with permission.

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

With 160 countries signing up to offer their criticism or praise of China’s rights record, each was allotted just 45 seconds in the approximately three-hour session. Beijing, meanwhile, was afforded a full hour to defend its record since its last “universal periodic review,” or UPR in U.N. speak, in 2018.

Prior to the review, diplomats speaking to Reuters said China’s delegation in Geneva had been lobbying non-Western countries to praise its human rights efforts during the session.

In his opening remarks, Chen Xu, China’s ambassador to the U.N. offices in Geneva, said that Beijing “upholds respect for and protection of human rights as a task of importance in state governance” and had “lifted 100 million people out of poverty” over the past decade.

“We embarked on a path of human rights development in keeping with the trend of the times, and appropriate to China's national conditions and scored historic achievements in this process,” Chen said. 

“A happier life for people is the ultimate human right,” he said. “China sees people's aspiration for a better life as the focus of these efforts.”

It was the first review of China’s record since the then-top U.N. rights official, Michelle Bachelet, in 2022 issued a damning report that accused China of possible “crimes against humanity” for its forced-assimilation policies against the Uyghur ethnic minority in the Xinjiang region.

But China’s diplomats in Geneva ignored those claims Tuesday.

Elevator pitches

With so many countries sign-up to speak, there was little time for each to review China’s human rights  record in much depth, and many of the diplomats who did speak used their time to praise Beijing’s record.

Ethiopia, for instance, said it “applauds China for improving the criminal litigation system rigorously” in order “to make the judicial procedures of human rights in a more orderly way,” and recommended that Beijing strive to “carry out publicity and education on the rule of law.”

Gabon welcomed China’s work “to promote child protection through improvements to the law” and said that its recommendation was for Beijing “to continue to promote the rights of women and children.”

In contrast, many Western countries were critical in their 45-second reviews, but were still measured given the format of the review process, which requires countries to offer constructive criticism.

The United Kingdom called on China to “cease the persecution and arbitrary detention of Uyghurs and Tibetans, and allow genuine freedom of religion or belief and cultural expression without fear of surveillance, torture, forced labour, or sexual violence.”

Canada’s U.N. ambassador in Geneva, Leslie Norton, said China should allow the United Nations “unfettered access” to the country to review the rights situation there, and recommended that Beijing end its forced assimilation programs targeted at Tibetans and Uyghurs.

“End all coercive measures imposed on Uyghurs, Tibetans and other ethnic minorities including forced labor, coercive labor transfer, forced sterilizations and mandatory residential schools,” Norton said.

Finland’s U.N. ambassador in Geneva, Heidi Schroderus-Fox, called on China to protect the rights of the Uyghurs and “to invite the [U.N.] Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief to visit China, including Xinjiang,” which Beijing has so far not allowed.

Israel, too, called for China to improve the human rights situation in Xinjiang, while Turkey recommended China “improve overall conditions of all components of its population, including the Uyghur Turks, with full respect of their distinct identity, religion, and language.”

Long list

The most scathing review was offered by the United States, which in 2021 accused Beijing of “genocide” over its treatment of Uyghurs.

Speaking in a rapid-fire succession of sentences reminiscent of a patter song, the U.S. representative to the U.N. Human Rights Council, Michele Taylor, fit whole paragraphs listing human rights abuses committed by China’s government into her 45-second slot.

“We recommend that China release all arbitrarily detained individuals, … cease harassment, surveillance and threats against individuals abroad and in China, including Xinjiang, Tibet and Hong Kong, cease discrimination against individuals, culture, language, religion or belief and forcible assimilation policies, including boarding schools in Tibet and Xinjiang, and torture, unjust residential, detention and persecution throughout China, and forced labor, marriage, birth control, sterilization, abortion and family separation in Xinjiang,” Taylor said.

Without taking a breathe, Taylor then called on China to “repeal vague national security counterespionage, counterterrorism and sedition laws, including the National Security Law in Hong Kong, and repressive measures against women, LGBTQI+ persons, laborers and migrant workers, including in Hong Kong and Macau, permit the U.N. unhindered and meaningful access particularly in Xinjiang and Tibet.”

“We condemn the ongoing genocide and crimes against humanity in Xinjiang and transnational repression to silence individuals abroad,” she concluded, taking her first breathe before adding: “Thank you.”

Human rights activists who gathered in Geneva blasted China for undermining a key global rights process, but said that Beijing’s efforts did show how much it cared about the outcome.

“It seems as though some of those questions could have been drafted by the Chinese government,” Kai Muller, the head of U.N. advocacy for the International Campaign for Tibet, told Radio Free Asia.

“China’s investment into this U.N. process is quite stunning and tremendous and, at the same time, indeed worrisome.”

Edited by Malcolm Foster.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Alex Willemyns for RFA.

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.

Ian Millhiser, senior correspondent for Vox, called the denial a “big victory for Trump.”

Legal expert, George Conway, denying that this was a win for Trump, theorized that the Circuit Court will hear the appeal and decide “within days” by early January and the trial will go ahead in timely fashion, so there is no need for SCOTUS to take now. (Conway, a founder of the Lincoln Project, won the landmark 1997 Supreme Court immunity case that forced Bill Clinton to sit for a deposition in a lawsuit brought by Paula Jones.)

Who is right? While Honig is correct that the DOJ has a general policy prohibiting prosecutors from investigating during an election, he’s blowing hot air. I believe Conway is right about the reason for SCOTUS’s denial.

The DOJ policy prohibits prosecutors from selecting “the timing of any action, including investigative steps, criminal charges, or statements, for the purpose of affecting any election, or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party.” (Any action likely to raise an issue or the perception of an issue under this policy provision requires consultation with and must be approved by the Public Integrity Section.)

However, according to ProPublica, the DOJ apparently issued (via an email) an exception in late 2020 that permits public investigation where “the integrity of any component of the federal government is implicated by election offenses within the scope of the policy including but not limited to misconduct by federal officials or employees administering an aspect of the voting process through the United States Postal Service, the Department of Defense or any other federal department or agency.”

Nonetheless, it is unclear whether this exception would apply now to Smith’s prosecution of Trump (as a former federal official) or whether it remains in effect.

In any case, the Supreme Court would likely agree that resolution of Trump’s immunity claim is an urgent matter (for the very reason that it could affect the outcome of the case and the presidential election).

But the Court, as is its general policy, prefers to stay out of the fray as long as possible and let the lower courts do the preliminary analyses. Where the appellate court can still timely rule, SCOTUS doesn’t need to and should not. In other words, the issue is not quite ripe for SCOTUS review.

And the D.C. Circuit Court is clearly moving rapidly, having set a January 9th date for oral arguments, which will be live-streamed here.

The post Why Did SCOTUS Deny Jack Smith’s Expedited Petition for Review? appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Jennifer Van Bergen.

The progressive regional current, the so-called Pink Tide, slackened in 2023 compared to the rising tide of 2022, which had been buoyed by big wins in Colombia and Brazil. Progressive alternatives had floated into state power on a backwash against failed neoliberal policies. Now they have had to govern under circumstances that they inherited but were not their own making. Most importantly for progressives once in power are whether they have sufficient popular support and a program commensurate with achieving significant economic and social goals.

 Ebb and flow of the Pink Tide – Peru, Guatemala, and Ecuador

Peru. A case in point was the presidency of Pedro Castillo. From a nominally Marxist-Leninist party in Peru, he had neither a sufficient program nor the electoral mandate to resist the traditional oligarchy.  Castillo was imprisoned a year ago on December 7 via a complicated parliamentary maneuver. Dina Boluarte assumed the post to become Peru’s seventh president in eight years. Beloved by what Bloomberg calls the “business class,” she had a single-digit approval rating from the larger population as she spent this year presiding over a contracting economy in harsh recession.

While Boluarte may be facing murder charges for the violent repression of continuing mass protests, former president Alberto Fujimori was just sprung from prison. Fujimori had not completed his sentence for crimes against humanity, but was given a humanitarian pardon, despite a request from the regional Inter-American Court of Human Rights to delay his release. Castillo is still in prison.

Guatemala. In a surprise break from right-wing rule in Guatemala, political dark horse Bernardo Arévalo won the presidential runoff election in August. Ever since, the entrenched oligarchy has tried to disqualify the winner. Despite popular demonstrations in his support and even murmurings from the US State Department to maintain the rule of law, it remains to be seen if the president-elect will be allowed to be sworn into office on January 14.

Ecuador. The corrupt right-wing president of Ecuador, Guillermo Lasso, faced popular protests, out of control narcotics-related violence, a dysfunctional economy, and a hostile parliament. He came within a hair’s breadth of being impeached on May 17. At the very last moment, Lasso invoked the uniquely Ecuadorian muerte cruzada (mutual death) constitutional provision.

This allowed him to dissolve the National Assembly and rule by decree but with the subsequent requirement for snap elections to replace both the legislators and the executive. On October 15, the mandated presidential election brought in another rightist, Daniel Noboa, who will serve the remaining year and a half of the presidential term. Noboa’s father, the richest person in Ecuador, ran unsuccessfully for the presidency six times.

Argentina takes a sharp right turn

 Argentina is a case study of how, when the left fails to take the initiative, the popular revolt against neoliberalism can take a sharp right turn. Javier Milei’s win was symptomatic of what Álvaro García Linera, former leftist vice president of Bolivia, observed as a shift to more extreme right-wingers (e.g., free market fundamentalists) and more timid progressives (e.g., social democrats).

In a typically Argentine que se vayan todos (everyone leave) moment, harking back to 2001 when mass popular discontent precipitated five different governments in a short period of time, the self-described anarcho-capitalist Milei won the presidential runoff by a landslide on November 19.

Sergio Massa, who ran against Milei, was the incumbent economic minister in the administration of Alberto Fernández, which had broken with the more leftist wing of the Peronist movement associated with Vice President Cristina Fernandez (no relation). With 143% inflation rate and 18 million in poverty, the Peronists were booted out by an alternative that promises to realign the second largest economy in South America with the US and Israel and away from its main trading partners Brazil and China.

The left-centrist Peronists had in turn inherited a made-to-fail economy due to excessive debt obligations incurred by former right-wing president Mauricio Macri’s mega IMF loan. Ironically, the current Pink Tide wave is commonly thought to have begun with the defeat of Macri by the Fernandez’s in 2019. Now Macri has teamed up with the ultra-right Milei. Officials from Macri’s old administration, such as Patricia Bullrich and Luis Caputo, are in Milei’s new ministries.

Venezuela resists

Venezuela provides a counter example to Argentina. The possessor of the world’s largest oil reserves appeared to be on the ropes back in the dark days of 2019-2020. US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo triumphantly predicted Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro’s “days are numbered.” Over 50 countries had recognized the US puppet pretend-president Juan Guaidó including Venezuela’s powerful and (at the time) hostile neighbors, Colombia and Brazil. With the handwriting on the wall spelling imminent collapse, the Communist Party of Venezuela jumped ship from the government coalition.

Against seemingly unsurmountable odds, President Maduro led a remarkable turnaround. By year end 2023, Venezuela had achieved nine quarters of consecutive economic growth across all economic sectors. The Orinoco Tribune reports inflation down from triple digits. Still the most vulnerable have least benefited from the recovery.

Venezuelan special envoy Alex Saab, meanwhile, is in his third year behind bars, now languishing in a Miami prison. The imprisoned diplomat helped circumvent the illegal US blockade of Venezuela by obtaining humanitarian supplies of food, medicine, and fuel from Iran in legal international trade.

Opposition-aligned Venezuelan economist Francisco Rodriguez now admits the US hybrid war against Venezuela has so far “failed,” although he still shamelessly calls Washington’s campaign to overthrow the democratically elected president an effort “to push Venezuela back toward democracy.”

Given the successful resistance, the Biden administration has been compelled to modify its tactics, although not its ultimate goal of regime-change, by easing some of its sanctions against Venezuela. Because the relief is explicitly temporary, the implicit threat is that full sanctions would be reimposed if Maduro is reelected. This, in effect, is a form of election interference.

Behind the temporary easing of sanctions is surging immigration to the US, posing a vulnerability for Biden’s 2024 reelection bid. Immigration from sanctioned Venezuela, along with Cuba and Nicaragua, is driven in large part by conditions created by the US sanctions. Even corporate media are increasingly making this connection with the coercive US policy. A letter to Biden from 18 House Democrats urged sanctions relief.

Also with an eye to reelection, Biden is hoping to stimulate Venezuelan oil production lest the US-backed wars in Ukraine and Palestine cause fuel prices to rise. If the US does not walk back on the sanctions relaxation, Venezuela’s oil company could increase state revenues, which would be applied to social programs.

Over a year ago, the Venezuelan government reached an agreement with opposition figures and Washington for releasing $3.2b of its own illegally seized assets. So far, nothing has been forthcoming. The best relief would come if the US simply released what lawfully belongs to Venezuela.

Regional economic and climate prospects

Last year’s post-Covid regional economic rebound had run its course by 2023. The World Bank currently projects a 2.3% regional growth rate for the year, described as “regressed to the low levels of pre-pandemic growth” due partly to lower global commodity prices and rising interest rates. Real wages have remained stagnant and declined for older adults.

Since the pandemic, an estimated 1.5 years of learning have been lost, especially impacting the youngest and most vulnerable. In the context of declining economic conditions, the region is experiencing the worst migration crisis in its history with recent surges from Venezuela (4.5-7.5m) and Haiti (1.7m) adding to the more usual sources of Mexico and Central America.

In addition, extreme weather events driven by climate change have displaced 17 million people. The World Bank warns that by 2030, 5.8 million could fall into extreme poverty, largely due to a lack of safe drinking water along with exposure to excessive heat and flooding. Foreshadowing future scenarios, drought in Argentina contributed to a crashing economy which was a factor in the far-right presidential win in November.

2023 has been the hottest year in the millennium. The Mexican daily La Jornada reported that the much anticipated mid-December COP28 climate summit in Dubai concluded with at best “small achievements” and with the road to renewables proceeding at a “snail’s pace.”

The other pandemic – illegal drugs

Related to deteriorating economic conditions for the popular classes region-wide has been a continuing drug pandemic. The role of the US and its Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), active in most countries in the region, is problematic. Washington’s staunchest allies repeatedly turn out to be major drug pushers. Former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández is now in US federal prison on drug charges. However, former Colombian President Álvaro Uribe, the person credited for kick starting the Medellin Cartel, remains free.

Mexico, Honduras, and Venezuela have all had to call in their militaries in major operations to wrest control of their prison systems and even parts of their national territories from narcotics cartels. According to the Amnesty International, El Salvador is experiencing the worst rights causes since the 1980-1992 civil war under President Nayib Bukele’s controversial crackdown on gangs.

US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen visited Mexico in December in the midst of the fentanyl flood. The corporate press in the US continuously runs sensational reports about drug kingpins in Latin America but curiously none on our side of the border. Not simply under-reported, but unreported, is how the illegal substances get distributed in the US. How is it that the US is the biggest illicit drug consumer, but we don’t hear about cartels at home?

US military projection

Drug trafficking and popular unrest, both exacerbated by precarious economic conditions, have been capitalized by the US to further project its military presence in the region. Washington is by far the largest source of military aid, supplies, and training.

US military strategy in the region has pivoted from fighting communism and “terrorism” to containing China and, to a lesser extent, Russia and Iran. China is now the leading trading partner with South America and the second largest with the region as a whole, after the US. Some 20 regional countries have joined China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

China’s official policy on relations with the US is based on mutual respect, peaceful coexistence, and win-win cooperation, predicated on the understanding that “the common interests of the two countries far outweigh their differences.”  US official policy, on the other hand, is “full spectrum dominance.”

Laura Richardson, head of the US Southern Command, met with Brazilian and Colombian military brass in May. Previously, she had visited Argentina, Chile, Guyana, and Surinam. When asked about her interest in the region, she unapologetically admitted that the US seeks hegemony over the region and possession of its rich resources.

In May, Peru brought in US Marines and special forces. In October, the US got the UN Security Council to approve the military occupation of Haiti using proxy troops from Kenya, even though the operation would not be under its auspices. Moreover, history shows occupation is the root problem. Also in October, Ecuador approved deploying US troops there plus US funding for security programs.

The annual CORE23 exercises, held in November by combined Brazilian and US forces, were designed to achieve military interoperability. Last year, joint Brazilian and US troops practiced war games against a “hypothetical” Latin American country (e.g., Venezuela) experiencing a humanitarian crisis. This month, Mexico and Peru joined the annual US naval Steel Knight exercises.

By December, the disputed Essequibo territory between Venezuela and Guyana became an international flashpoint. The US Southern Command announced joint air operations with Guyana. What is in essence an oil company land grab by ExxonMobil is disrupting regional unity and is a Trojan horse for US military interference. US boots are already reportedly on the ground in Guyana. However, the leaders of Guyana and Venezuela met on December 14 and pledged to resolve the conflict peacefully.

End note for the year 2023 – Sanctions Kill!

While Washington may seek to accommodate social democracies such as Colombia and Brazil by cooption, nothing but regime ruination is slated for the states explicitly striving for socialism: Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua.

Sanctions on Venezuela – started by Obama, intensified by Trump, and seamlessly continued by Biden – have taken its toll: over 100,00 death, 22% of the children under five stunted, 2.4 million food insecure, over 300,00 chronic disease patients without access to treatment, 31% of the population undernourished, 69% drop in goods and services imports, deteriorated infrastructure, and accelerated migration and brain drain.

Despite the UN nearly unanimously condemning the US blockade of Cuba for its devastating effects on civilians and as a violation of the UN Charter, the ever-tightening economic warfare has left the island in crisis. Reuters reports that the production of staples pork, rice, and beans is down by more than 80%. Cuba has only been able to import 40% of the fuel requirement while industry is operating at 35% of capacity.

The Trump/Biden “maximum pressure” campaign has produced its desired effect of a catastrophic situation in Cuba. Biden imposed additional sanctions in November and has continued his predecessor’s policy of keeping Cuba on the list of state sponsors of terrorism.

While sanctioned by Washington, the current hybrid war on Nicaragua has been less intense and prolonged than that endured by Cuba and Venezuela. Nicaragua left the Washington-based Organization of American States (OAS) on November 19. Foreign Minister Denis Moncada said good riddance to what he called an “instrument of US imperialism.”

Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua have achieved so much with so little. The World Economic Forum commended Nicaragua for being the country in Latin America that made notable progress in reducing the gender gap. The World Wildlife Fund certified Cuba as the only country in the world to have attained sustainable development. The Harvard Review of Latin America praised Venezuela for cutting poverty in half before the sanctions set in. Imagine what could be accomplished if the hegemon’s boot was removed from their necks.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Roger D. Harris.

In preparation for the U.N. Human Rights Council’s 4th Universal Periodic Review on Vietnam, or UPR, in April 2024, three rights groups – the Vietnam-based Human Rights Defenders and Brotherhood for Democracy and the U.S.-based Vietnam Human Rights Network– this month submitted two joint reports to the council documenting the situation since the third review in 2019.

The groups said that Vietnam uses vague provisions in its penal code to protect the current one-party structure of power on the premise of protecting national security, thereby seriously violating fundamental human rights, including freedoms of speech, association, and assembly.

They called on the one-party state to release prisoners of conscience and amend its laws towards respecting universal human rights.

Nguyen Ba Tung, head of the Vietnam Human Rights Network, told RFA Vietnamese that during the previous review, the government promised to respect universal rights and craft related laws to enable its citizens to exercise these rights. However, over the past four years, Hanoi has continued to procrastinate in making the laws.

“Notably, [the government] has been using vague provisions in its Penal Code, such as Articles 88, 117, and 331, to arrest those who dare to speak up and have opinions contrary to those of the ruling party.”

The three articles are often used to bring charges against bloggers, journalists, activists and other people whom the government wishes to silence. 

260 prisoners of conscience

According to Human Rights Defenders, Vietnam holds 260 prisoners of conscience.

Among that number, 63 are accused or convicted of “conducting anti-State propaganda,” 44 for “abusing democratic freedoms” due to exercising freedom of speech and 39 for “carrying out activities to overthrow the government” due to exercising freedom of association.

Another 55 are detained for “undermining the unity policy” due to exercising freedom of religion. Many are also charged with “disturbing security” after exercising their freedom of staging peaceful demonstrations, all under the three problematic articles.

“We put forward several recommendations,” Tung said. “We asked [the government] to release those who have been arrested for exercising freedom of speech and freedom of association, for example, people from the Brotherhood for Democracy and those who had been arrested when using their freedom of speech.”

He said the reports also recommended urgent revisions to the laws Hanoi promised to change under the last review.

Worsening rights situation

The government needs to change laws that, in practice, protect those in power rather than the people, said Nguyen Van Dai, the co-founder and chairman of the Brotherhood for Democracy who is also an attorney. 

“In general, the Vietnamese authoritarian communist government must eliminate all of those [vague] provisions in the penal code and replace them with new ones protecting people’s basic human rights.”

The international community should use Vietnam’s upcoming review as an opportunity to improve rights in Vietnam, Andrea Giorgetta, the director of the International Federation For Human Rights Asian Office, told RFA.

“As the Vietnamese government intensifies its repression of peaceful dissent, the Universal Periodic Review is one of the few remaining fora for the international community to scrutinize Hanoi’s abysmal human rights record,” he said.

“We urge U.N. member states to use the periodic review of Vietnam’s human rights record to show their concern about violations in the country and to demand Hanoi comply with its international human rights obligations.”

He said the international community should call on Hanoi to release all political prisoners, amend draconian laws, and ensure the respect of human rights of all people in the country.”

Translated by Anna Vu. Edited by Eugene Whong and Malcolm Foster.

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

The state of civic space in Indonesia has been rated as “obstructed” in the latest CIVICUS Monitor report.

The civic space watchdog said that ongoing concerns include the arrest, harassment and criminalisation of human rights defenders and journalists as well as physical and digital attacks, the use of defamation laws to silence online dissent and excessive use of force by the police during protests, especially in the Papuan region.

In July 2023, the UN Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide, Alice Wairimu Nderitu, expressed concerns regarding the human rights situation in the West Papua region in her opening remarks during the 22nd Meeting of the 53rd Regular Session of the Human Rights Council in Geneva.

• READ MORE: West Papuan, Indonesian youth protest over ‘illegal’ 1962 Rome Agreement
• The CIVICUS Monitor report
• Other West Papua reports

She highlighted the harassment, arbitrary arrest and detention of Papuans, which had led to the appropriation of customary land in West Papua.

She encouraged the Indonesian government to ensure humanitarian assistance and engage in “a genuine inclusive dialogue”.

In August 2023, human rights organisations called on Indonesia to make serious commitments as the country sought membership in the UN Human Rights Council for the period 2024 to 2026.

Among the calls were to ratify international human rights instruments, especially the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (ICPPED), to provide details of steps it will take to implement all of the supported recommendations from the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) and to fully cooperate with the Special Procedures of the Council.

Call to respect free expression
The groups also called on the government to ensure the respect, protection and promotion of the rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association, for clear commitments to ensure a safe and enabling environment for all human rights defenders, to find a sustainable solution for the human rights crisis in Papua and to end impunity.

In recent months, protests by communities have been met with arbitrary arrests and excessive force from the police.

The arbitrary arrests, harassment and criminalisation of Papuan activists continue, while an LGBT conference was cancelled due to harassment and threats.

Human rights defenders continue to face defamation charges, there have been harassment and threats against journalists, while a TikTok communicator was jailed for two years over a pork video.

Ongoing targeting of Papuan activists
Arbitrary arrests, harassment and criminalisation of Papuan activists continue to be documented.

According to the Human Rights Monitor, on 5 July 2023, four armed plainclothes police officers arrested Viktor Makamuke, a 52-year-old activist of the United Liberation Movement for West Papua (ULMWP), a pro-independence movement.

He was subsequently detained at the Sorong Selatan District Police Station where officers allegedly coerced and threatened Makamuke to pledge allegiance to the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia (NKRI).

A week earlier, Makamuke and his friend had reportedly posted a photo in support of ULMWP full membership in the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) — an intergovernmental organisation composed of the four Melanesian states.

Shortly after the arrest, the police published a statement claiming that Makamuke was the commander of the West Papua National Liberation Army (TPNPB) — an armed group — in the Bomberai Region.

The Human Rights Monitor reported that members of the Yahukimo District police arbitrarily arrested six activists belonging to the West Papua National Committee (KNPB) in the town of Dekai, Yahukimo Regency, on 6 July 2023.

KNPB is a movement promoting the right to self-determination through peaceful action and is one of the most frequently targeted groups in West Papua.

The activists organised and carried out a collective cleaning activity in Dekai. The police repeatedly approached them claiming that the activists needed official permission for their activity.

Six KNPB activists arrested
Subsequently, police officers arrested the six KNPB activists without a warrant or justifying the arrest. All activists were released after being interrogated for an hour.

On 8 August 2023, three students were found guilty of treason and subsequently given a 10-month prison sentence by the Jayapura District Court.

Yoseph Ernesto Matuan, Devio Tekege and Ambrosius Fransiskus Elopere were charged with treason due to their involvement in an event held at the Jayapura University of Science and Technology (USTJ) in November 2022, where they waved the Morning Star flag, a banned symbol of Papuan independence.

Their action was in protest against a planned peace dialogue proposed by the National Commission on Human Rights (Komnas HAM).

According to Amnesty International Indonesia, between 2019 and 2022 there have been at least 61 cases involving 111 individuals in Papua who were charged with treason.

At least 37 supporters of the West Papua National Committee (KNPB) were arrested in relation to peaceful demonstrations to commemorate the 1962 New York Agreement in the towns Sentani, Jayapura Regency and Dekai, Yahukimo Regency, on 14 and 15 August 2023.

Allegations of police ill-treatment
There were also allegations of ill-treatment by the police.

On 2 September 2023, police officers detained Agus Kossay, Chairman of the West Papua National Coalition (KNPB); Benny Murip, KNPB Secretary in Jayapura; Ruben Wakla, member of the KNPB in the Yahukimo Regency; and Ferry Yelipele.

The four activists were subsequently detained and interrogated at the Jayapura District Police Station in Doyo Baru. Wakla and Yelipele were released on 3rd September 2023 without charge.

Police officers reportedly charged Kossay and Murip under Article 160 and Article 170 of the Indonesian Criminal Code (KUHP) for “incitement”.

• The full CIVICUS Monitor report on Indonesia

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

Diplomats from authoritarian countries that are China’s closest allies – Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Belarus and Pakistan – visited the far-western region on Aug. 28-30, photos posted on the social media platform X, formerly called Twitter, show. 

“All members in the group visiting Tibet belong to an authoritarian nation that is economically dependent on China to a large extent,” said Tenzin Dawa, director of Tibetan Centre for Human Rights and Democracy.

“And since the U.N. member states are set to publicly examine China’s human rights record in early 2024 as part of a review process at the Human Rights Council in Geneva, this visit arranged by the Chinese government is clearly aimed at portraying a Tibet where China believes Tibetans enjoy human rights and freedom,” she said.

The trip came amid growing criticism of China’s policies in Tibet, where authorities restrict Tibetans’ political activities and peaceful expression of cultural and religious identity. Tibetans frequently complain of discrimination and human rights abuses by Chinese authorities and policies they say are aimed at eradicating their national and cultural identity.

The diplomats visited the Jokhang Temple, Potala Palace, Sera Monastery and a secondary school in Lhasa, capital of the Tibet Autonomous Region.

“We appreciate the visit to the secondary school no. 8 in Lhasa, Tibet, #China,” tweeted Juan Antonio Quintanilla Roman, permanent representative of Cuba in Geneva, after the visit. “We confirm that education is a priority for the government There, more than a 1,000 students receive quality preparation in subjects such as science, art, language, while preserving Tibetan culture.”

The U.N.’s Human Rights Council will scrutinize China’s human rights records during the body’s fourth Universal Periodic Review of China in Geneva, Switzerland, in early 2024.

Cuba and Pakistan are current members of the 47-member council, but their terms expire at the end of this year. Venezuela, Nicaragua and Belarus are not members. Nevertheless, as close allies, Beijing expects the countries to support it in the face of likely accusations.

Tenzin Lekshey, spokesman for Central Tibetan Administration said the Tibetan government-in-exile in Dharamsala, India, has repeatedly urged U.N. representatives and foreign journalists to visit Tibet on their own terms to see China’s repression firsthand.

“But the Chinese government organizes these carefully choreographed visits aimed at hiding repression in Tibet, so it has become very difficult to learn about the actual reality,” he told Radio Free Asia. 

In May, U.N. human rights experts expressed concern that allegations of mandatory vocational training programs and labor transfer in the Tibet Autonomous Region could affect the human rights of Tibetans, similar to the situation with Uyghurs in Xinjiang, RFA reported.

The United States in August said it would impose visa sanctions against Chinese officials responsible for the forced assimilation of more than 1 million young Tibetan children into state-run boarding schools. 

The coercive policies aimed to eliminate Tibet’s distinct linguistic, cultural, and religious traditions among younger generations of Tibetans, the U.S. said.

China’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin rejected the move and said the sanctions were based on “fabricated lies on Tibet in disregard of the facts.”

Translated by Tenzin Dickyi. Edited by Roseanne Gerin and Malcolm Foster.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Yeshi Dawa for RFA Tibetan.

Papua New Guinea’s opposition leader has sought a Supreme Court review of the legality of a recently signed defense cooperation agreement with the United States, highlighting continuing unhappiness about the pact in the Pacific island country.

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Papua New Guinea’s Defense Minister Win Bakri Daki signed the agreement in May, which once ratified would give the U.S. military unrestricted access to six air and sea ports in the island nation. The U.S. would also have criminal jurisdiction over American military personnel in Papua New Guinea.

The agreement “has sparked unprecedented protests and opposition all over the country,” opposition leader Joseph Lelang told BenarNews on Monday. “The issue of sovereignty and constitutionality of that agreement is now being tested.” 

The agreement has been criticized by some analysts and groups such as the PNG Trade Union Congress as overly accommodative to Washington and entangling Papua New Guinea in the intensifying rivalry between China and the United States. Its signing sparked student protests at campuses in Papua New Guinea.

The U.S. has sought to bolster its already significant military presence in the Pacific and East Asia in response to China’s claims to the South China Sea that impinge on several Southeast Asian countries’ waters, its belligerence towards Taiwan – which Beijing considers a rebel province – and other activity.  

Aside from Papua New Guinea, the U.S. has strengthened its defense ties with the Philippines, which is embroiled in territorial disputes with Beijing in the South China Sea. 

The U.S. and the United Kingdom are also working to equip Australia with nuclear-powered submarines by next decade, under the AUKUS pact – another source of concern for some Pacific island nations that fear being dragged into superpower competition.

China’s military spending has grown rapidly for the past two decades but remains much smaller than that of the U.S. and its allies. 

Lelang said the defense agreement case was submitted to Papua New Guinea’s top court on Thursday and a date for hearings to begin has yet to be decided.

A statement from Lelang said the government has the right to enter into agreements with other countries, but must do so without breaching the constitution or any other laws.

“As leader of the opposition it is my duty to ensure that all lawful checks and balances are strengthened or are available and that at all times, PNG’s sovereignty is not unnecessarily compromised,” he said.  

Lelang said the opposition’s lawyers are also preparing a challenge to the shiprider agreement signed with the U.S. in May. 

The agreement provides the basis for personnel from the Pacific island country to work on U.S. coast guard and naval vessels, and vice versa, in targeting economic and security challenges such as illegal fishing.

The Pacific island country’s courts are independent and are empowered to shape society rather than be judicial bystanders, according to constitutional law expert Bal Kama. The Supreme Court, which is the final judicial word on interpretations of the constitution, in 2016 ordered the closure of an Australian detention center on Papua New Guinea soil that was used to hold refugees and asylum seekers.

Papua New Guinea is among the poorest nations in the Pacific and its central government struggles to exert control over vast tracts of remote mountainous territory that frequently erupt in fatal tribal violence.  

Prime Minister James Marape has previously said the defense agreement would help Papua New Guinea develop a robust economy, without giving details of how that would be achieved.

Mihai Sora, a Pacific analyst at the Lowy Institute, a Canberra-based think tank, said Marape probably has enough influence to ensure political support for the defense agreement.

However, the window of stability for his administration is closing, Sora said. A grace period that prevents no confidence motions in the first 18 months of a government will end in February.

“I think fundamentally the benefits of the defense cooperation agreement for Papua New Guinea are yet to be realized or even satisfactorily explained,” Sora said. 

“This is the U.S.’s problem more than Marape’s problem. It should be their main priority in PNG right now,” he said. 

The U.S.-PNG agreement and the AUKUS security pact are part of the new regional security architecture of the so-called Indo-Pacific, a U.S. strategic concept that combines the Indian and Pacific oceans and which analysts say aims to contain China.

Samoa’s Prime Minister Fiame Naomi Mataafa said in March that it was disconcerting to be lumped into a new super region without any consultation.

BenarNews is an RFA-affiliated online news organization.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Harlyne Joku and Stephen Wright for BenarNews.

“We are gravely concerned by the Indian government’s apparent attempts to pass a series of bills undermining press freedom, ahead of elections in 2024, without adequately consulting journalists or civil society,” said Beh Lih Yi, CPJ’s Asia program coordinator, in Kuala Lumpur. “Indian lawmakers must allow ample time for a transparent and exhaustive review of the bills, and the government should withdraw and substantially revise the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, which provides a dangerous framework for the expansion of surveillance and censorship.”

On August 3, India’s upper house of parliament passed the Press and Registration of Periodicals Bill, 2023, which is set to replace an 1867 law. The Editors Guild of India described its provisions “draconian” as they widen “the powers of the State to have more intrusive and arbitrary checks into the functioning of newspapers and magazines.”

If passed by the lower house and the president, the bill would expand the powers of the government’s Press Registrar to deny registration to anyone convicted of a “terrorist act” or “unlawful activity” as defined under the country’s anti-terror law, or “having done anything against the security of the State.” It would also allow any other “specified authority” to enter the premises of a publication “to inspect or take copies of the relevant records or documents or ask any questions necessary for obtaining any information.”

Separately, on August 11, Home Minister Amit Shah introduced several criminal law bills, which a parliamentary committee began discussing on August 24. Three opposition lawmakers on the committee protested at the short notice.

The first proposed bill, overhauling the colonial-era Penal Code, intends to replace the crime of sedition with a broader and more ambiguous clause, stating that those who encourage “feelings of separatist activities” or endanger the “sovereignty, unity and integrity of India” can be imprisoned for seven years to life, up from the current three years to life. The sedition law has been used repeatedly to jail and harass journalists.

The second proposed bill, a replacement of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, would allow the officer-in-charge of a police station to summon any document or device “likely to contain digital evidence” for an investigation or trial, without oversight. It also proposed to extend the maximum period that police may detain someone without charge from 15 to 60 or 90 days, depending on the nature of the accusations.

Separately, the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, which came into force on August 12 after being rushed through parliament in six days, has been criticized by local press groups as likely to stifle investigative journalism as it could compel reporters to reveal their sources.

The law empowers the central government to ask any entity that processes data—including journalists, news organizations, and social media companies—to hand over information, “thereby converting every private company into an instrument of surveillance,” according to DIGIPUB News India Foundation, an association of journalists working in digital media.

Social media companies are “highly likely to comply” with orders to hand over journalists’ data, rather than risk retaliation such as fines or blocking of their content, Prateek Waghre, policy director at the digital rights organization Internet Freedom Foundation, told CPJ.

The act also includes a right to the “erasure of personal data,” which could allow someone who shared personal information with a journalist to petition the government-appointed Data Protection Board for a news article to be removed, even if the reporting was in the public interest. 

Further, the act empowers the government to block the content of any journalist, news organization, or social media platform that has been fined twice before for failing to comply with any aspect of the law if authorities believe doing so would be “in the interests of the general public.”

That section of the law expands the government’s censorship powers beyond the Information Technology Act, 2000, which has been repeatedly used to block social media accounts of journalists and news organizations, including this month The Kashmir Walla and Gaon Savera.

The new law also amends the country’s Right to Information Act, 2005, a key tool for journalists to access government data on issues like corruption and rights violations, by allowing government officers to reject requests involving “personal information.”

That amendment “severely obstructs the ability of journalists to seek information in the public interest,” Geeta Seshu, founding editor of the Free Speech Collective watchdog group, told CPJ.

CPJ’s emails to Information and Broadcasting Minister Anurag Singh Thakur, Home Secretary Ajay Kumar Bhalla, and Electronics and Information Technology Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw did not receive any replies.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

The submission, sent for the 44th session of the Universal Periodic Review Working Group scheduled for November, documents impunity in cases of killings and abductions of journalists, violence against members of the press in custody, and the death of writer Mushtaq Ahmed in jail in February 2021. It also highlights instances of arbitrary detention, harassment, and violence against family members of critical exiled journalists.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Erik Crouch.

Photograph Source: Marek Mróz – CC BY-SA 4.0

I begin this essay 7AM, the quiet Sunday morning of August 6, 2023. Despite the throes of the second world war, August 6, 1945, was likely similar in a lot of ways; especially at the early hour of 7AM. But on that particular Monday, just an hour and fifteen minutes later, Harry S. Truman would disturb that quiet and alter man’s moral compass forever, by executing the most inhumane atrocity in the history of this planet.

Last weekend I went to a quaint theater in Park slope Brooklyn and saw Chris Nolan’s OPPENHEIMER– a film that begins with a gush of images and episodes that crescendos with the Trinity Test (the July 16, 1945 detonation of the atomic bomb) – then simmers into the infamous 1954 Oppenheimer Hearings that stripped Julius Robert Oppenheimer of his security clearance. A privilege that gave him access to top secret data, national security information, and universal prestige.

Nolan, one of the most reliable voices in Hollywood, delivers an intriguing account that candidly navigates the facts, while subtextually conveying a lot of the nuance surrounding the men and women who built the bomb and the rationale that compelled them – vague attributes, that I confess, have always sent me on long ruminating stretches.

On the surface, the Manhattan Project, or the development of the atomic bomb during World War II, was the frantic US response to Germany’s 1938 discovery of nuclear fission. Hitler’s demented assault on Europe (and its Jewish communities) made the endeavor somewhat perspicuous, but from the humanitarian perspective; Germany surrendering to Allied Powers on May 7^th 1945 (three months before America’s nauseating assault on Hiroshima) could have nullified any nuclear apprehension moving forward.

It would be unfair as a generation X’er to say for certain, but anyone attentive to American history could argue that the diplomatic, urbane, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, with regard to demonstrating unprecedented nuclear strength, may have made a more pragmatic decision. Juxtaposed with a politician like Truman, who, from what I’ve read, was interested in becoming president but reluctant to follow FDR’s illustrious 12-year reign, which more than likely left him feeling like he had a lot to prove and huge, formidable shoes to fill. Inhibitions that could’ve provoked his savage display of aggression.

Moreover, Vice President Truman wasn’t even aware of the Manhattan Project until FDR passed away and he took the presidential reins, which speaks volumes to how Roosevelt felt about Truman, and his foreign policy acumen and counsel.

Oppenheimer went from prideful exuberance, after his successful test detonation in New Mexico, to unmitigated remorse, after Truman doubled down his brutality in Nagasaki Japan – conflicting emotions that Nolan candidly addresses in the film. But there’s another aspect of the story that, in my opinion, discreetly contextualizes the speed in which the atomic bomb was developed and its role in the World War Two narrative.

Without seeing the film, anyone with an internet connection can quickly discover that most of the top scientist involved in the Manhattan Project were Jewish: J. Robert Oppenheimer, Leo Szilard, Edward Teller, Hans Bethe, Jon von Neumann, James Franck, Rudolf Peierls and Enrico Fermi, who was an Italian physicist, married to the Jewish writer and author of the acclaimed biography MUSSOLINI, Laura Fermi. Not to mentioned, Dr. Albert Einstein, who, due to the security risk his celebrity posed, was not invited to New Mexico, but is rumored to have surreptitiously contributed when called upon – and many, many others.

All these upstanding men and women would have undoubtedly been willing to thwart Germany’s pathological quest for world domination no matter what ethnos they represented, but it would be naive to believe that The Shoah, and its abominable actuality, did not galvanize them as well.

It’s hard to even imagine someone like Dr. Martin Luther King, (who, outside of perhaps Michael Jackson, was the most peaceful, temperate man of the 20th century) not wanting to deliver some form of retaliation, if his children, family, and friends were subjected to the horrors of the Holocaust.

Love is not a song you create for a mono audio system. Love is a two-prong reality, which is to say, it can make you want to purchase a big, beautiful nosegay, or prompt you to violently come to someone’s rescue. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were constructed with a dire love that was intent on being expressed in integral German cities like Kassel and Hanover – and it is not difficult for many to say, that the Nazis, with all the diabolical murder and destruction they wrought, had it coming.

Conversely, the attack on Pearl Harbor and the loss of 2,403 lives (especially the 68 civilians) was terrible, but it did not merit the kind of nuclear fury that was unleashed on Hiroshima (70,000 lives) and Nagasaki (40,000 lives). Jewish physicist Joseph Rotblat seems to be the only one at Los Alamos New Mexico that immediately came to the aforementioned conclusion.

In an American Heritage Foundation interview, Rotblat said that British physicist, James Chadwick told him, in an October 1944 conversation “that there was now intelligence information that the Germans are not working on the bomb (and) after this discussion, then I decided that I am going to leave.”

Rotblat was the only Manhattan Project scientist to leave New Mexico on grounds of conscience – an interesting fact, and man, that Nolan did not explore in Oppenheimer.

Director James Cameron chimed in on this discussion years ago, with a statement that he put into the mouth of his Terminator 2 deuteragonist, Sarah Connor.

The head scientist in the film, giving a slippery pretext for creating the Judgement Day computer, poses the question:

”How were we supposed to know…?”

Sarah argues:

“Yeah. Right. How are you supposed to know? F***ing men like you built the hydrogen bomb. Men like you thought it up. You think you’re so creative. You don’t know what it’s like to really create something; to create a life; to feel it growing inside you. All you know how to create is death and destruction…!”

Cameron was of course referring to Oppenheimer and crew, but it would be interesting to know if he wrote the statement after researching the Oppenheimer biography, American Prometheus – or just relied on his perception of man’s egotistical pride. Nevertheless, the pompous self-congratulatory party scene in Oppenheimer, after the successful test detonation, makes Cameron’s chiding assertion somewhat apropos.

I say somewhat because, underneath their imperious quest for excellence, and their commendable sense of duty, the Manhattan Project scientists had an innate desire to protect and save their loved ones, innocent souls that were being persecuted by the Germans for inscrutable reasons – however, as intelligible as this unavowed desire was, that kind of response can blur lines and breach universal laws.

What I mean by that is, there’s a thin line between rescuing loved ones and revenge, and the latter can add a pandora’s box-like quality to a situation, which is a simple way of trying to explain that metaphysical phenomenon called, karma. It was the legendary philosopher Confucius that first said: “Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves.”

Team Oppenheimer dug an enormous grave, one they thought was going to be hollowed out in Germany but was unjustifiably executed in Japan. The crucial lingering question since August 6, 1945 has, and will always be: Will the second Confucius grave be an inescapable 700-mile crater condignly fit for humanity?  Unfortunately, it seems like, only time and the megalomaniacs of this world will tell.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Elliott MIller.

The integration of RNZ’s digital team with the wider news team was meant to take place during the merger with TVNZ that never eventuated, the organisation’s board says.

It comes after an investigation into the inappropriate edits being written into news stories blamed differences between news teams, a lack of supervision and inconsistent editorial standards.

However, a report released on Wednesday also accused RNZ’s leadership of over-reacting, saying it “contributed to public alarm and reputational damage” while the journalist “genuinely believed he was acting appropriately”.

• LISTEN TO RNZ MORNING REPORT: Dr Jim Mather on RNZ’s ‘integrity and trust’
• READ MORE: The RNZ audit reports
• The Independent External Review of RNZ Editorial Processes

The independent panel was established by the RNZ board after it was revealed in June that some foreign news stories from wire services such as Reuters and the BBC were inappropriately edited.

The panel made 22 recommendations, including merging the radio and digital news teams, a review of staffing levels and workloads, refresher training for journalists, and hiring a new senior editor responsible for editorial integrity and standards. It stressed the creation of a single news team “cannot happen soon enough”.

RNZ has agreed to implement all the panel’s recommendations.

Speaking to RNZ Morning Report, RNZ board chairperson Dr Jim Mather said the recommendations would be initiated as “promptly as possible”.

Dr Mather accepted RNZ had been slower than other public media entities to integrate its digital team with the wider news team — but it had been endeavouring to do so.

“The potential merger of RNZ and TVNZ that was being considered for a number of years was going to be the catalyst for that occurring. That didn’t go ahead so that issue came directly back onto the board table and it has been a priority.

“I wouldn’t say we took our eye off internal issues, it was in anticipation of that potential merger moving forward and recognising that that would incorporate this, so when that didn’t happen, we as a board and the executive team through the chief executive reverted directly back to that plan and that is a priority.”

An area of improvement
Dr Mather said it had been identified as an area of improvement as RNZ “did want a unified leadership” over its news operation.

Dr Mather accepted the panel’s finding that a lack of access to training had contributed to the editorial breach — and said RNZ needed to create a culture where training was implemented and effective.

“The report did highlight that there was intense level of pressure on staff in the digital news content area and also the training needed to be more effective, ie provided on a regular basis, … noted and there needed to be audit and follow-up on confirmation that the training had been effective.

“Once again, that’s another area of opportunity for the chief executive and our executive team to be looking at.”

Dr Mather said there was a “significant body of work” to be done.

“I think responsibility starts with the board, ultimately we are accountable for everything that occurs within the organisation and we accept that our level of responsibility of what’s occurred and with responsibility and leadership comes a requirement to make the necessary corrective actions.”

Publishing complaints
While Dr Mather said he believed RNZ to be a “very transparent organisation”, the report has indicated it could be more “robustly transparent”.

It had noted that other public media entities, such as TVNZ, publish the overall number of editorial complaints and the number they uphold in their annual reports.

“I expect that we will be following suit also,” Dr Mather said.

He said RNZ remained the most trusted media organisation in Aotearoa and it was his “emphatic” objective for that to remain the case.

“We will do whatever we are required to do to remain our country’s most trusted media entity.”

RNZ’s response to breach
Dr Mather accepted that RNZ’s trust was eroded to some extent — but the organisation responded very quickly to restore the public’s confidence and took the issue very seriously.

The panel was critical of chief executive Paul Thompson’s initial public response in calling the edits “pro-Kremlin garbage” and said it contributed to the story gaining international attention.

Dr Mather said he understood why Thompson made the comments he did.

“We are all committed to ensuring that the integrity and trust that is held in RNZ is maintained and that was obviously factored into the way we responded.”

The panel had said the issue was contained to a small section of RNZ and Dr Mather emphasised that the “vast majority” of its news output was of an “excellent standard” – which was reinforced by the panel in the report, he said.

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

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

(New Press, 2023)

Brown University’s Costs of War project released a study this year estimating that US-led wars since 9/11 have contributed directly and indirectly to 4.5 million deaths in the targeted countries. Those countries—Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Pakistan, Libya, Somalia and Syria—have also seen an estimated 40–60 million people displaced from their homes. This refugee crisis is as destructive as any war, and marks the largest number of refugees since the end of World War II. By all accounts, the US-led Global War on Terror has been a disaster for tens of millions of people.

When the study was released in May, there was only one report (Washington Post, 5/15/23) in all of America’s top newspapers that brought attention to the staggering figure. The Hill (5/16/23) and a few smaller outlets (NY1, 5/17/23; UPI, 5/16/23) published pieces on the topic, but the bulk of corporate media did not deem it worthy of any coverage at all.

No solemn reflections about the war machine, no policy pieces about how we might avoid such devastation in the future, and certainly no op-eds calling for the wars’ architects to stand trial for their crimes.

How does our media environment so easily dismiss carnage of this scale? Norman Solomon’s new book, War Made Invisible: How America Hides the Human Toll of Its War Machine (New Press), offers a deep look at the media system that enables a monstrous war machine to extract such a heavy toll on the world with impunity.

Solomon’s book attempts to show how our institutions came to be so casual about burying the costs of US wars. He challenges the traditional myth of the American “free press” as a check on power, and instead shows how the media act as “a fourth branch of government.” This book serves as a survey of media malfeasance in recent history, but also as a meditation on the role of our media system in manufacturing consent for a brutal foreign policy for the entire world.

Useful victims

Solomon takes aim at the common, unchallenged assumptions that often shape how media portray conflicts. Persistent tropes, like the constant appeal for America to “lead the world,” and dangerously common euphemisms like “defense spending” contribute to a culture that worships a mythical version of America, while the empire’s true nature remains hidden.

FAIR.org (3/18/22): In the Ukraine War, US corporate media discovered a “newfound ability to cover the impact on civilians—when those civilians are white and under attack by an official US enemy, rather than by the US itself.”

One key aspect of that myth-building is the selective way US media cover civilian victims. Some are covered extensively, eliciting calls for revenge, while others are ignored entirely—depending on who the aggressor is. Solomon recalls a critical moment just a few weeks into the US invasion of Afghanistan—at a time when, as the Washington Post (10/31/01) reported, “more errant US bombs have landed in residential areas, causing damage to such places as a Red Cross warehouse and senior citizens’ center.” Images of these atrocities had sparked “criticism of the American war effort.”

At CNN, chair Walter Isaacson declared in a memo to staff that it “seems perverse to focus too much on the casualties or hardship in Afghanistan.” When the network did cover the toll on civilians, Isaacson told the Washington Post (10/31/01), “You want to make sure people understand…it’s in the context of a terrorist attack that caused enormous suffering in the United States.” John Moody, the vice president of Fox News at the time, called the directive “not at all a bad thing,” because “Americans need to remember what started this.” The coverage was designed to reinforce the US government line of a noble cause, to shield viewers from the toll on civilians, and justify them if they were shown.

The media’s expedient treatment of civilian suffering has continued to this day. In the Russian invasion of Ukraine, where civilian casualties supported rather than hindered the message the media wanted to send, the coverage was reversed (FAIR.org, 3/18/22). “By any consistent standard,” Solomon writes, “the horrors that the US military had brought to so many civilians since the autumn of 2001 were no less terrible for the victims than what Russia was doing in Ukraine.” Despite that, the media coverage of Ukraine was “vastly more immediate, graphic, extensive and outraged about Russia’s slaughter than America’s slaughter.”

During April 2022, the New York Times published 14 front-page stories on civilian casualties from Russia’s military offensive. During a comparable period after the US invasion of Iraq, there was only one front-page story about civilian victims of the US attack (FAIR.org, 6/9/22).

Media boundaries

Looming over any current discussion of news media is their abysmal reporting of the Global War on Terror. Solomon uses the case of Iraq to demonstrate the boundaries of our media system, both top-down and self-imposed.

Through social filtering, the journalists who end up covering wars for elite institutions often have internalized the assumptions that justify the empire. Journalist Reese Erlich (Target Iraq, Solomon and Erlich) recounted that he “didn’t meet a single foreign reporter in Iraq who disagreed with the notion that the US and Britain have the right to overthrow the Iraqi government by force.” This selection bias was clearly reflected in the West’s acquiescent coverage of the war.

Ashleigh Banfield (4/24/03): “There is a grand difference between journalism and coverage, and getting access does not mean you’re getting the story.”

Other times, boundaries can be rigidly and publicly reinforced, as in the case of the young journalist Ashleigh Banfield. Banfield was a journalist who ascended the heights of cable news. A rising star, Banfield’s career at NBC hit a wall after she made a speech in April 2003 deeply critical of how the media obscured the harsh realities of the Iraq War. She told an audience at Kansas State University:

What didn’t you see? You didn’t see where those bullets landed. You didn’t see what happened when the mortar landed… There are horrors that were completely left out of this war.

Television coverage of the war, Banfield said, was “a glorious wonderful picture that had a lot of people watching and a lot of advertisers excited.”

NBC announced that it was “deeply disappointed and troubled by her remarks.” Her punishment was swift and harsh:

I was officeless for ten months. No phone, no computer…. Eventually after ten months of this, I was given an office that was a tape closet…. The message was crystal clear.

The message wasn’t just for Banfield. Journalists could not help but pay close attention to this destruction of one of their own.  If they stray outside the unspoken bounds set by corporate media’s owners, they could share Banfield’s fate or worse.

Accepting forever wars

Even war critics give the US military credit for being “more humane” (New York Times, 9/3/21).

As of 2021, the last soldiers exited Afghanistan, solidifying a new era of US warfare dubbed “over the horizon.” This is a reference to the constant high-tech, “lower intensity” slaughter emanating from the hundreds of military bases the US still has across the world.

US drone warfare has been a persistent source of horror for millions. But, as Solomon notes, “the systems of remote killing get major help from reporters, producers and editors who detour around the carnage at the other end of US weaponry.” One clear way they help is by endorsing and repeating the idea that America’s campaign of air assassinations is a new form of “humane war.”

Even some of the more thoughtful critics of this kind of war fall into linguistic traps that minimize its true toll. In a New York Times op-ed (9/3/21) that described the trend as “disturbing,” Yale historian Samuel Moyn wrote that “America’s bequest to the world…over the last 20 years” was an “endless and humane” form of “counterterrorist belligerency,” one in which “Human Rights Watch examined for violations of the law of war and…military lawyers helped pick targets.” Moyn is concerned that “more humane war became a companion to an increasingly interventionist foreign policy”—but seems to miss the irony of calling a strategy  “humane” that kills innocents by the millions.

Moyn seems partially aware that the “humane” war is more rebranding than restraint, but insists that the “improved humanity of our wars” is both “ostensible and real.” References to “humane” war should ring just as hollow as Lyndon Johnson’s proclamation in 1966 about soldiers on the way to Vietnam: “No American army in all of our long history has been so compassionate.”

The risk of truth-telling

Jacobin (8/21) notes that “the Espionage Act makes no distinction between spies who steal information for hostile foreign governments and government employees who share information of public interest with the press, journalists, or even members of the public.”

As a sharp contrast to the media who shield the empire from any reckoning, Solomon highlights the people who take a risk to bring the world the truth about this detached, mechanized warfare. He talks to Cian Westmoreland, who “spoke sadly of the commendations he received for helping to kill more than 200 people with drone strikes.” Brandon Bryant lamented that the entire system was designed “so that no one has taken responsibility for what happens.” There was Heather Linebaugh, who recounted how she and her colleagues “always wonder if we killed the right people.”

One of these heroes was Daniel Hale, who remains in prison today for leaking information that showed that over a five-month period in 2012,  90% of the people killed in Afghanistan drone strikes were not the intended target. Solomon quotes Hale’s touching letter explaining that he leaked the information so that “I might someday humbly ask forgiveness.”

Other whistleblowers have suffered immensely for their acts of bravery.  In 2010, army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning leaked the infamous “Collateral Murder” video, showing US forces using an Apache helicopter to gun down a dozen civilians in Iraq. The dead included two Reuters employees. For leaking the video and other documents, Manning spent seven years in prison, much of that in solitary confinement. In 2019, Manning spent another year in prison for refusing to testify against the publisher of her documents, Julian Assange—who is himself incarcerated in Britain, facing extradition to the United States to face charges related to exposing US war crimes.

These whistleblowers and truth-tellers only exist on the margins in public discourse. When the 20-year US occupation of Afghanistan was bookended by yet another “unintentional” drone strike on ten civilians, the words of these whistleblowers had long left the public mind. Media shrugged when the Pentagon cleared itself of any wrongdoing, as they have done countless times before. In this so-called free press, Solomon writes, “outliers can’t compete with drumbeats.”

It really is no surprise that US media had so little to say when Brown University’s Cost of War Project released its estimates for the death toll of the US’s post-9/11 wars. They ensured America’s 4.5 million victims barely registered in the public consciousness, as they diverted audiences’ attention to another noble US cause in Ukraine. War Made Invisible lays bare the very heart of the system that allows the US war machine to grind onward, with minimal resistance from a confused and misled public.

The post How to Ignore 4.5 Million Deaths  appeared first on FAIR.

This content originally appeared on FAIR and was authored by Bryce Greene.

(New Press, 2023)

Brown University’s Costs of War project released a study this year estimating that US-led wars since 9/11 have contributed directly and indirectly to 4.5 million deaths in the targeted countries. Those countries—Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Pakistan, Libya, Somalia and Syria—have also seen an estimated 40–60 million people displaced from their homes. This refugee crisis is as destructive as any war, and marks the largest number of refugees since the end of World War II. By all accounts, the US-led Global War on Terror has been a disaster for tens of millions of people.

When the study was released in May, there was only one report (Washington Post, 5/15/23) in all of America’s top newspapers that brought attention to the staggering figure. The Hill (5/16/23) and a few smaller outlets (NY1, 5/17/23; UPI, 5/16/23) published pieces on the topic, but the bulk of corporate media did not deem it worthy of any coverage at all.

No solemn reflections about the war machine, no policy pieces about how we might avoid such devastation in the future, and certainly no op-eds calling for the wars’ architects to stand trial for their crimes.

How does our media environment so easily dismiss carnage of this scale? Norman Solomon’s new book, War Made Invisible: How America Hides the Human Toll of Its War Machine (New Press), offers a deep look at the media system that enables a monstrous war machine to extract such a heavy toll on the world with impunity.

Solomon’s book attempts to show how our institutions came to be so casual about burying the costs of US wars. He challenges the traditional myth of the American “free press” as a check on power, and instead shows how the media act as “a fourth branch of government.” This book serves as a survey of media malfeasance in recent history, but also as a meditation on the role of our media system in manufacturing consent for a brutal foreign policy for the entire world.

Useful victims

Solomon takes aim at the common, unchallenged assumptions that often shape how media portray conflicts. Persistent tropes, like the constant appeal for America to “lead the world,” and dangerously common euphemisms like “defense spending” contribute to a culture that worships a mythical version of America, while the empire’s true nature remains hidden.

FAIR.org (3/18/22): In the Ukraine War, US corporate media discovered a “newfound ability to cover the impact on civilians—when those civilians are white and under attack by an official US enemy, rather than by the US itself.”

One key aspect of that myth-building is the selective way US media cover civilian victims. Some are covered extensively, eliciting calls for revenge, while others are ignored entirely—depending on who the aggressor is. Solomon recalls a critical moment just a few weeks into the US invasion of Afghanistan—at a time when, as the Washington Post (10/31/01) reported, “more errant US bombs have landed in residential areas, causing damage to such places as a Red Cross warehouse and senior citizens’ center.” Images of these atrocities had sparked “criticism of the American war effort.”

At CNN, chair Walter Isaacson declared in a memo to staff that it “seems perverse to focus too much on the casualties or hardship in Afghanistan.” When the network did cover the toll on civilians, Isaacson told the Washington Post (10/31/01), “You want to make sure people understand…it’s in the context of a terrorist attack that caused enormous suffering in the United States.” John Moody, the vice president of Fox News at the time, called the directive “not at all a bad thing,” because “Americans need to remember what started this.” The coverage was designed to reinforce the US government line of a noble cause, to shield viewers from the toll on civilians, and justify them if they were shown.

The media’s expedient treatment of civilian suffering has continued to this day. In the Russian invasion of Ukraine, where civilian casualties supported rather than hindered the message the media wanted to send, the coverage was reversed (FAIR.org, 3/18/22). “By any consistent standard,” Solomon writes, “the horrors that the US military had brought to so many civilians since the autumn of 2001 were no less terrible for the victims than what Russia was doing in Ukraine.” Despite that, the media coverage of Ukraine was “vastly more immediate, graphic, extensive and outraged about Russia’s slaughter than America’s slaughter.”

During April 2022, the New York Times published 14 front-page stories on civilian casualties from Russia’s military offensive. During a comparable period after the US invasion of Iraq, there was only one front-page story about civilian victims of the US attack (FAIR.org, 6/9/22).

Media boundaries

Looming over any current discussion of news media is their abysmal reporting of the Global War on Terror. Solomon uses the case of Iraq to demonstrate the boundaries of our media system, both top-down and self-imposed.

Through social filtering, the journalists who end up covering wars for elite institutions often have internalized the assumptions that justify the empire. Journalist Reese Erlich (Target Iraq, Solomon and Erlich) recounted that he “didn’t meet a single foreign reporter in Iraq who disagreed with the notion that the US and Britain have the right to overthrow the Iraqi government by force.” This selection bias was clearly reflected in the West’s acquiescent coverage of the war.

Ashleigh Banfield (4/24/03): “There is a grand difference between journalism and coverage, and getting access does not mean you’re getting the story.”

Other times, boundaries can be rigidly and publicly reinforced, as in the case of the young journalist Ashleigh Banfield. Banfield was a journalist who ascended the heights of cable news. A rising star, Banfield’s career at NBC hit a wall after she made a speech in April 2003 deeply critical of how the media obscured the harsh realities of the Iraq War. She told an audience at Kansas State University:

What didn’t you see? You didn’t see where those bullets landed. You didn’t see what happened when the mortar landed… There are horrors that were completely left out of this war.

Television coverage of the war, Banfield said, was “a glorious wonderful picture that had a lot of people watching and a lot of advertisers excited.”

NBC announced that it was “deeply disappointed and troubled by her remarks.” Her punishment was swift and harsh:

I was officeless for ten months. No phone, no computer…. Eventually after ten months of this, I was given an office that was a tape closet…. The message was crystal clear.

The message wasn’t just for Banfield. Journalists could not help but pay close attention to this destruction of one of their own.  If they stray outside the unspoken bounds set by corporate media’s owners, they could share Banfield’s fate or worse.

Accepting forever wars

Even war critics give the US military credit for being “more humane” (New York Times, 9/3/21).

As of 2021, the last soldiers exited Afghanistan, solidifying a new era of US warfare dubbed “over the horizon.” This is a reference to the constant high-tech, “lower intensity” slaughter emanating from the hundreds of military bases the US still has across the world.

US drone warfare has been a persistent source of horror for millions. But, as Solomon notes, “the systems of remote killing get major help from reporters, producers and editors who detour around the carnage at the other end of US weaponry.” One clear way they help is by endorsing and repeating the idea that America’s campaign of air assassinations is a new form of “humane war.”

Even some of the more thoughtful critics of this kind of war fall into linguistic traps that minimize its true toll. In a New York Times op-ed (9/3/21) that described the trend as “disturbing,” Yale historian Samuel Moyn wrote that “America’s bequest to the world…over the last 20 years” was an “endless and humane” form of “counterterrorist belligerency,” one in which “Human Rights Watch examined for violations of the law of war and…military lawyers helped pick targets.” Moyn is concerned that “more humane war became a companion to an increasingly interventionist foreign policy”—but seems to miss the irony of calling a strategy  “humane” that kills innocents by the millions.

Moyn seems partially aware that the “humane” war is more rebranding than restraint, but insists that the “improved humanity of our wars” is both “ostensible and real.” References to “humane” war should ring just as hollow as Lyndon Johnson’s proclamation in 1966 about soldiers on the way to Vietnam: “No American army in all of our long history has been so compassionate.”

The risk of truth-telling

Jacobin (8/21) notes that “the Espionage Act makes no distinction between spies who steal information for hostile foreign governments and government employees who share information of public interest with the press, journalists, or even members of the public.”

As a sharp contrast to the media who shield the empire from any reckoning, Solomon highlights the people who take a risk to bring the world the truth about this detached, mechanized warfare. He talks to Cian Westmoreland, who “spoke sadly of the commendations he received for helping to kill more than 200 people with drone strikes.” Brandon Bryant lamented that the entire system was designed “so that no one has taken responsibility for what happens.” There was Heather Linebaugh, who recounted how she and her colleagues “always wonder if we killed the right people.”

One of these heroes was Daniel Hale, who remains in prison today for leaking information that showed that over a five-month period in 2012,  90% of the people killed in Afghanistan drone strikes were not the intended target. Solomon quotes Hale’s touching letter explaining that he leaked the information so that “I might someday humbly ask forgiveness.”

Other whistleblowers have suffered immensely for their acts of bravery.  In 2010, army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning leaked the infamous “Collateral Murder” video, showing US forces using an Apache helicopter to gun down a dozen civilians in Iraq. The dead included two Reuters employees. For leaking the video and other documents, Manning spent seven years in prison, much of that in solitary confinement. In 2019, Manning spent another year in prison for refusing to testify against the publisher of her documents, Julian Assange—who is himself incarcerated in Britain, facing extradition to the United States to face charges related to exposing US war crimes.

These whistleblowers and truth-tellers only exist on the margins in public discourse. When the 20-year US occupation of Afghanistan was bookended by yet another “unintentional” drone strike on ten civilians, the words of these whistleblowers had long left the public mind. Media shrugged when the Pentagon cleared itself of any wrongdoing, as they have done countless times before. In this so-called free press, Solomon writes, “outliers can’t compete with drumbeats.”

It really is no surprise that US media had so little to say when Brown University’s Cost of War Project released its estimates for the death toll of the US’s post-9/11 wars. They ensured America’s 4.5 million victims barely registered in the public consciousness, as they diverted audiences’ attention to another noble US cause in Ukraine. War Made Invisible lays bare the very heart of the system that allows the US war machine to grind onward, with minimal resistance from a confused and misled public.

The post How to Ignore 4.5 Million Deaths  appeared first on FAIR.

This content originally appeared on FAIR and was authored by Bryce Greene.

The post Why We Do This Crap: a Review of Mark Paul’s The Ends of Freedom appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Dean Baker.

The joint submission on press freedom in Cameroon released ahead of the country’s Universal Periodic Review (UPR) in Geneva later this year marks six months since the abduction and killing of prominent Cameroonian journalist Martinez Zogo, whose mutilated body was found five days later.

The groups’ submission highlights that the killing, physical attacks, abduction, torture, and harassment of journalists by Cameroonian police, intelligence agencies, military, and non-state actors continue to have a severe chilling effect. Several journalists have been forced into exile, two journalists have died in government custody under suspicious circumstances since 2010, and, most recently, prominent journalist Martinez Zogo was murdered in January 2023.  In addition, two other journalist deaths are being investigated by CPJ.

“President Paul Biya’s government routinely claims that the plethora of media outlets in the country proves that the right to media freedom is enjoyed in Cameroon, but the reality is the polar opposite as laid bare in this joint report,” said Angela Quintal, CPJ’s Africa program coordinator.  “The arbitrary detention of journalists labeled terrorists, the killings with impunity and the widespread censorship tactics fostered by the government, must be reversed for democracy to overcome Cameroon’s protracted conflict.”  

The arbitrary imprisonment of journalists coupled with incommunicado and lengthy pre-trial detention has made Cameroon the second worst jailer of journalists in sub-Saharan Africa after Eritrea. Cameroon also detains journalists the longest after Eritrea. Five journalists are currently being detained there, four of whom are being held on anti-state charges in connection with the ongoing Anglophone conflict that has pitted separatists in the English-speaking regions of Cameroon against the forces of the majority French-speaking government.

The Cameroonian government uses anti-terror, anti-state, “false news” charges, and criminal defamation legislation to detain and convict journalists. It also prosecutes journalists by military tribunals rather than impartial civilian courts and consistently denies them the right to a fair trial and appeals process.

“The politically motivated detention of journalists in Cameroon is of serious concern,” said Margaux Ewen, Director of Freedom House’s Political Prisoners Initiative. “Through this submission, we remind Cameroon of its obligations under domestic and international law. We also show solidarity with the five journalists currently behind bars, who will not be forgotten.”

The Cameroonian government frequently suspends broadcasts and broadcast permissions, orders internet shutdowns, and blocks access to social media, communication platforms, and journalism offices and studios.

Cameroon is rated “Not Free” in Freedom House’s Freedom in the World 2023 report. The country has an overall score of 15/100, with a score of 0/4 for media freedom (since 2018). The country has consistently appeared on CPJ’s annual prison census since 2014, with press freedom and journalist safety in decline for more than a decade. The American Bar Association’s Center for Human Rights has documented multiple due process violations in trials of journalists reporting on the Anglophone crisis.

“This submission conclusively shows that the Cameroonian justice system continues to fail to protect journalists and other human rights defenders,” said Ginna Anderson, Associate Director of the American Bar Association’s (ABA) Center for Human Rights. “The significant fair trial violations that the ABA Center for Human Rights has documented show an escalating breakdown in the rule of law and the protection of fundamental freedoms. It is vital that the UN Human Rights Committee engage the government of Cameroon on the specific violations and recommendations contained in this report.”

 “Through Covington’s Kurt Wimmer Media Freedom Pro Bono Initiative, our lawyers provide pro bono support on media freedom matters, seeking to protect and advance media freedom and the safety of journalists,” said Peter Lichtenbaum, a partner at Covington & Burling LLP.  “Our work on the joint submission to the United Nations UPR Review process assessing Cameroon’s actions with respect to press freedom supports these objectives.”

Among the recommendations in the report, CPJ, Freedom House and the ABA urged President Paul Biya’s government to finally account for the death in custody of Samuel Wazizi, to free the journalists it has arbitrarily detained, including those falsely accused of terrorism, and to ensure that the murder of Martinez Zogo and the killing of Jean-Jacques Ola Bebe do not go unpunished. They also called for Cameroon’s overly broad anti-terror law to be reviewed and to include a public interest defense.

Cameroon will undergo its UPR in November 2023 as part of the 44^th session of the Universal Periodic Review Working Group in Geneva. To read the full submission, please click here.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Arlene Getz/CPJ Editorial Director.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Arlene Getz/CPJ Editorial Director.

The RNZ board is meeting tonight to begin setting up an independent review on how pro-Russian sentiment was inserted into a number of its online stories.

An RNZ digital journalist has been placed on leave after it came to light he had changed copy from news agency Reuters on the war in Ukraine to include pro-Russian views.

Since Friday, hundreds of stories published by RNZ have been audited, and 16 Reuters stories and one BBC item had to be corrected, with chief executive Paul Thompson saying more would be checked “with a fine-tooth comb”.

• LISTEN TO RNZ MORNING REPORT: ‘I think it’s really important that we preserve the editorial independence of an institution like RNZ’ – PM Chris Hipkins
• LISTEN TO RNZ NINE TO NOON: ‘I am gutted. It’s painful,’ says RNZ chief executive
• Prime Minister responds to questions on RNZ investigation into pro-Russian editing
• Other RNZ inquiry reports

The journalist told RNZ’s Checkpoint he had subbed stories that way for a number of years and nobody had queried it. Thompson said those comments appeared to be about the staffer’s overall role as a sub-editor.

Board chairperson Dr Jim Mather said the public’s trust had been eroded by revelations and it was going to take a lot of work to come back from what had happened.

“We see ourselves as guardians of a taonga and that taonga being the 98 years of history that RNZ has in terms of trusted public media and high standards of excellent journalism and so it is fair to say we are extremely disappointed,” he told RNZ’s Checkpoint on Monday.

“We need to demonstrate that we are prepared to review every aspect of what has occurred to actually start the restoration process in terms of confidence in RNZ.”

The board would discuss who will run the investigation and its terms of reference, and would make a decision “very soon”.

Currency is trust
“The role the board is going to take is we are going to appoint the panel of trusted individuals, experienced journalists, those that do have editorial experience to undertake the review. This is going to be done completely separate from the other work being undertaken by management,” he said.

Dr Mather said the currency of the public broadcaster was trust, and the revelations had impacted the organisation’s journalists.

“I know that we pride ourselves as having the highest standards of journalistic quality so I can just say that it’s had a significant impact also on our journalism team.”

Reuters said it had “addressed the issue” with RNZ, noting in a statement that RNZ had initiated an investigation.

“As stated in our terms and conditions, Reuters content cannot be altered without prior written consent,” the spokesperson’s statement said.

“Reuters is fully committed to covering the war in Ukraine impartially and accurately, in keeping with the Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.”

‘Important that politicians don’t interfere’ – Hipkins
Prime Minister Chris Hipkins said while he would never rule out a cross-party parliamentary inquiry, he had not seen anything so far to suggest the need for an wider action.

Hipkins told RNZ’s Morning Report he was not sure a cross-party parliamentary inquiry on issues around editorial decisions would be a good way of protecting the editorial independence of an institution like RNZ.

“Having said that, we always monitor these kinds of things to see how they are being handled, it’s really important that politicians don’t interfere in that,” he said.

“I think if it reached a point where public confidence in the institution was so badly tarnished that some degree of independent review was required, I’d never take that off the table.”

But in the first instance, it was important to allow RNZ’s management and board to deal with it with the processes that they had in place, Hipkins said.

“I haven’t seen anything in the last few days that would suggest that there’s any case for us to trigger something that’s more significant than what’s being done at the moment.”

Hipkins said he had not sought, nor had, any briefings from New Zealand’s security services in relation to the incident because it was a matter of editorial independence and it was important that politicians did not get involved in that.

“RNZ, while it’s a publicly-funded institution, must operate independently of politicians.”

Not an issue for politicians – Willis
National Party deputy leader Nicola Willis agreed that it was not an issue for politicians to be involved in.

She said it was important the investigation was carried out, and the concern was about editorial standards that let the situation go unnoticed for such a long time.

Trust in media was important and people reading mainstream media expected stories to go through a fact-checking process and reflect appropriate editorial independence, she told RNZ’s First Up.

“I think it will be a watch for newsrooms around the country, and I hope that it’s a thorough investigation that comes out with robust recommendations.”

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

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

Sitiveni Rabuka, who became Fiji’s prime minister after an election in December broke strongman Frank Bainimarama’s 16 year hold on power, has emphasized shared values with democracies such as U.S. ally Australia and New Zealand. His government also has accorded a higher status to Taiwan’s representative office in Fiji, but has not fundamentally altered relations with Beijing. 

“When we came in [as the government] we needed to look at what they were doing [in the area of police cooperation],” Rabuka told a press conference during an official visit to New Zealand’s capital Wellington. “If our values and our systems differ, what cooperation can we get from that?”

The agreement signed in 2011 has resulted in Fijian police officers undertaking training in China and short-term Chinese police deployments to Fiji. Plans for a permanent Chinese police liaison officer in Fiji were announced in September 2021, according to Fijian media.

“We need to look at that [agreement] again before we decide on whether we go back to it or we continue the way we have in the past – cooperating with those who have similar democratic values and systems, legislation, law enforcement and so on,” Rabuka said.

China, over several decades, has become a substantial source of trade, infrastructure and aid for developing Pacific island countries as it seeks to isolate Taiwan diplomatically and build its own set of global institutions. 

Beijing’s relations with Fiji particularly burgeoned after Australia, New Zealand and other countries sought to punish it for Bainimarama’s 2006 coup that ousted the elected government. It was Fiji’s fourth coup in three decades. Rabuka orchestrated two coups in the late 1980s. 

Last year, China signed a security pact with the Solomon Islands, alarming the U.S. and its allies such as Australia. The Solomons and Kiribati switched their diplomatic recognition to Beijing from Taiwan in 2019.

The Chinese embassy in Fiji has said that China has military and police cooperation with many developing nations that have different political systems from China.

“The law enforcement and police cooperation between China and Fiji is professional, open and transparent,” it said in May. 

“We hope relevant parties can abandon ideological prejudice, and view the law enforcement and police cooperation between China and Fiji objectively and rationally.”

China also provides extensive training for Solomon Islands police and equipment such as vehicles and water cannons. 

Solomon Islands deputy police commissioner Ian Vaevaso said in a May 31 statement that 30 Solomon Islands police officers were in China for training on top of more than 30 that were sent to the Fujian Police College last year. 

Rabuka has expressed concerns about police cooperation with Beijing since being elected prime minister. 

“There’s no need for us to continue, our systems are different,” Rabuka said in January, according to a Fiji Times report.

BenarNews is an RFA-affiliated news organization.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Stephen Wright for BenarNews.

Fiji’s Great Council of Chiefs has endorsed the reinstatement of a lease distribution policy with the iTaukei Land Trust Board.

The decision was reached by interim council members who met on Bau Island yesterday shortly after the historic re-establishment of the council, which was abolished in 2007 by then prime minister Voreqe Bainimarama.

The lease distribution policy outlines the payment scheme for revenue generated through Fiji’s complicated system of native land leases which can be tens of millions of dollars a year or even more than that for the wealthier tribes.

• READ MORE:  Fiji President welcomes inclusive ‘new dawn’ for Great Council of Chiefs
• Other Great Council of Chiefs reports

The former FijiFirst government removed the policy and introduced Equal Rent Distribution in 2011.

This meant every member of the mataqali, or landowning unit, received the same amount from lease payments, regardless of their status.

The Minister for iTaukei Affairs, Ifereimi Vasu, said the chiefs endorsed the reinstatement of the original policy at a reduced percentage.

This means after the iTaukei Land Trust Board (TLTB), which oversees all native leases takes its 10 percent poundage fee, the remaining funds are to be distributed as follows:

• 5 percent for the Turaga iTaukei (Village Chiefs)
• 10 percent for the Turaga Qali (Village Elders)
• 15 percent for the Turaga ni Mataqali (Clan Leader)
• 70 percent to be shared equally among remaining members

Vasu said concerns had been raised with them that some mataqali members around Fiji take their lease money and do not contribute to the vanua or the village’s development.

“Most of our visits to the province, most stated that the equal distribution is not helping, it really is not helping those that are leading the vanua, they are really struggling.

“In a sense, now that we are having equal distribution, people don’t bother about what is happening on the vanua, they have taken their share, they have gone, and all the responsibilities are handled by the chiefs.”

Ifereimi Vasu said it was also decided that a development fund be set up to cater for future iTaukei development needs.

“As an outcome of the discussion, the meeting endorsed the setting up of a special fund for the future, iTaukei Development Funding, which will be sourced from the percentage of the TLTB poundage and the percent of the lease money,” he said.

Chiefs to hear from review committee
Apart from the lease distribution policy, the chiefs also agreed to hear back from a committee conducting a review of the Great Council of Chiefs which will guide the form and function of the new council.

The review team, led by Ratu Jone Baledrokadroka, has until the end of July to complete their work.

A final report will be presented to the council upon its completion.

Ratu Baledrokadroka said the council — which was accused of being a racist organisation in the past — has indicated a willingness to open up as a body for all Fijians, which is a positive endorsement of the work his team is carrying out.

He said, in reinventing itself, it is important for the council to keep out of politics.

“The GCC is willing to open up the institution making it more apolitical. We are trying to make sure that, into the future, it doesn’t commit the mistakes of the past,” Ratu Baledrokadroka said.

“That has been the biggest mistake for the GCC that it had delved into politics which had seen it disestablished by the previous government.”

Speaking after the presentation to the meeting yesterday, Ratu Baledrokadroka said their brief presentation on what they had been able to gather so far was well received.

“We have done nine provinces. What they are wanting is inclusiveness, that the GCC represents all ethnicities and all sections of society, the youth, the women.

“We give our recommendations on what people say. What we will produce is what the people have said.

“What has come out very strongly today is that the GCC and the chiefs are for all, not just for iTaukeis; they are willing to take on that responsibility for all.”

Ratu Baledrokadroka said the traditional ceremonies of apologies and forgiveness that took place at the opening ceremony augured well for the way Fiji was moving.

Future membership
Minister of iTaukei Affairs Vasu confirmed yesterday that the current membership of the GCC was temporary.

He said the re-establishment of the GCC was scheduled for May.

“Its actual make up will come from what the Review Team finalises. The people and the chiefs will decide how the GCC will move forward,” Vasu added.

Vasu said calls made for the inclusion of other races and groupings in the GCC membership would have to be decided when the review team “come back and give us their final analysis of what the people and the chiefs are saying”.

The meeting of the interim council members continued today on Bau Island and was expected to conclude this afternoon.

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.

This content originally appeared on The Intercept and was authored by Somebody.

In the name of "protecting future generations from potentially devastating consequences," a bipartisan group of U.S. lawmakers on Wednesday introduced legislation meant to prevent artificial intelligence from launching nuclear weapons without meaningful human control.

The Block Nuclear Launch by Autonomous Artificial Intelligence Act—introduced by Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Reps. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), Don Beyer (D-Va.), and Ken Buck (R-Colo.)—asserts that "any decision to launch a nuclear weapon should not be made" by AI.

The proposed legislation acknowledges that the Pentagon's 2022 Nuclear Posture Review states that current U.S. policy is to "maintain a human 'in the loop' for all actions critical to informing and executing decisions by the president to initiate and terminate nuclear weapon employment."

The bill would codify that policy so that no federal funds could be used "to launch a nuclear weapon [or] select or engage targets for the purposes of launching" nukes.

"As we live in an increasingly digital age, we need to ensure that humans hold the power alone to command, control, and launch nuclear weapons—not robots," Markey asserted in a statement. "We need to keep humans in the loop on making life-or-death decisions to use deadly force, especially for our most dangerous weapons."

Buck argued that "while U.S. military use of AI can be appropriate for enhancing national security purposes, use of AI for deploying nuclear weapons without a human chain of command and control is reckless, dangerous, and should be prohibited."

According to the 2023 AI Index Report—an annual assessment published earlier this month by the Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence—36% of surveyed AI experts worry about the possibility that automated systems "could cause nuclear-level catastrophe."

"Use of AI for deploying nuclear weapons without a human chain of command and control is reckless, dangerous, and should be prohibited."

The report followed a February assessment by the Arms Control Association, an advocacy group, that AI and other emerging technologies including lethal autonomous weapons systems and hypersonic missiles pose a potentially existential threat that underscores the need for measures to slow the pace of weaponization.

"While we all try to grapple with the pace at which AI is accelerating, the future of AI and its role in society remains unclear," Lieu said in a statement introducing the new bill.

"It is our job as members of Congress to have responsible foresight when it comes to protecting future generations from potentially devastating consequences," he continued. "That's why I'm pleased to introduce the bipartisan, bicameral Block Nuclear Launch by Autonomous AI Act, which will ensure that no matter what happens in the future, a human being has control over the employment of a nuclear weapon—not a robot."

"AI can never be a substitute for human judgment when it comes to launching nuclear weapons," Lieu added.

While dozens of countries support the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, none of the world's nine nuclear powers, including the United States, have signed on, and Russia's invasion of Ukraine has reawakened fears of nuclear conflict that were largely dormant since the Cold War.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Brett Wilkins.

The United Kingdom’s commitments to upholding human rights have come under question this week over the West Papua issue, resulting in a heated exchange between a government representative and five members of the House of Lords.

The exchange occurred on Monday after the Minister of State for the United Nations, Lord Tariq Ahmad of Wimbledon, responded to a question posed by Lord Harries of Pentregarth on what progress had been made in obtaining access to West Papua for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Lord Ahmad said the UK government welcomed recent engagements between the UN and Indonesia to meet the recommendations of a Universal Periodic Review, calling for the UN to access and review the human rights situation in West Papua.

• READ MORE: Other West Papua reports

He said Indonesia was an important bilateral partner.

“We recognise that a significant amount of time has passed since the visit was first proposed, but we hope that both parties can come together to agree dates very soon,” Lord Ahmad said.

The statement was unsatisfactory for Lord Harries, who pointed out that the UK was not among the eight countries which had endorsed the universal periodic review, and demanded clarity on where the UK stood.

“He (Lord Ahmad) mentioned the universal periodic review of Indonesia. He will know that, at that review, a number of major countries, including the United States, Australia and Canada, called for an intervention from the UN in Indonesia and an immediate visit by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights,” Lord Harries said.

Support not clear
“It is not at all clear that the United Kingdom was among those supporting that call. Perhaps the minister will be able to enlighten us.”

Lord Ahmad acknowledged a visit by the UN human rights chief to West Papua had been “pending for a long time” but added that the conservative government supported an earlier visit.

The answer was not well received by Lord Lexden, who condemned Indonesia’s control over the Melanesian region.

“Is it not clear that this small country is suffering grievously under a colonial oppressor,” Lord Lexden said.

“Indonesia, which is busily exploiting the country’s rich mineral resources and extensive forests in its own interests? Will the government do all in their power, in conjunction with Commonwealth partners in the region, to get the UN to act and to act decisively?”

Lord Hanny of Chiswick, Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Purvis of Tweed shared their frustrations, describing the details of human right reports on West Papua and pressing Lord Ahmad on why the UK was not among 8 countries that endorsed the Universal Periodic Review.

“It is over a year since the UN special rapporteur’s allegations of extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, and the forced displacement of thousands of indigenous Papuans,” Lord Kennedy said.

Foreign Office ‘does nothing’
“What is the point of the Foreign Office highlighting human rights concerns if it does nothing about them in its negotiations with the country in question?,” Lord Purvis said.

“Why the UK does not seem to have been part of that group of eight countries that pressed for an early visit by the High Commissioner for Human Rights?” Lord Hannay of Chiswick said.

“It is surely reasonable to ask a democratic country such as Indonesia to admit the high commissioner to look into abuses of human rights. That is what it should do, and I hope that we will press that strongly,” Lord Hannay added.

Lord Ahmad said he had spoken to the High Commissioner of Rights about the situation, and acknowledged that a visit was overdue.

He said, the alleged human rights abuses, are regularly brought up in bilateral talks between Indonesia and the UK.

“My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that we engage with them quite regularly,” he said.

“As I said earlier, Indonesia is an important bilateral and regional partner with which we engage widely on a range of issues of peace, conflict and stability in and across the region; it is a key partner.

“In all our meetings, we raise human rights in the broad range of issues, and we are seeing some progress in Indonesia, including on freedom of religion or belief,” he added.

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

Thank you to Lord Harries for your tireless support, as well as Lords Lexden, Kennedy, Hannay, and Purvis.
Pressure is growing on Indonesia. They cannot ignore the international call for a UN visit any longer @MsgSecretariat @ForumSEC @UNHumanRights pic.twitter.com/hjlLxXLDN9

— Benny Wenda (@BennyWenda) April 18, 2023

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

Calls for an investigation into Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk mounted Saturday after The Washington Post revealed that the U.S. judge behind a temporarily blocked ruling against an abortion medication may have taken his name off of a controversial law review article as he sought a nomination to the federal bench from then-President Donald Trump.

In February 2017, Kacsmaryk was deputy general counsel for the Christian conservative legal group First Liberty Institute and sent an application to the Federal Judicial Evaluation Committee, established by U.S. Sens. John Cornyn and Ted Cruz, both Texas Republicans, to vet potential nominees from their state. He was interviewed by the committee in March, the two senators in April, and White House and Justice Department offices in May.

Trump nominated Kacsmaryk to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas in September—the same month that the journal Texas Review of Law and Politics, which Kacsmaryk led as a University of Texas a law student, published "The Jurisprudence of the Body," an article criticizing Obama administration protections for transgender patients and people seeking abortions, with First Liberty lawyers Justin Butterfield and Stephanie Taub listed as the sole authors.

\u201cThe only thing MAGA judges enjoy more than limiting our personal freedoms is lying.\u201d

— Indivisible Guide (@Indivisible Guide) 1681594638

Kacsmaryk's nomination was sent back to the White House twice, but Trump renominated him both times and the judge was eventually confirmed by Senate Republicans in June 2019. Although judicial nominees are required to disclose any publication with which they are associated, the article is never mentioned in the questionnaire that Kacsmaryk filled out for the Senate Judiciary Committee.

When Kacsmaryk initially submitted a draft of the article to the journal in early 2017, Butterfield and Taub's names did not appear anywhere, including in the footnotes, the Post reported. On April 11, a week after he was interviewed by the GOP senators, Kacsmaryk—whose initials are MJK—emailed an editor an updated version and attached a file titled "MJK First Draft."

Later that month, Kacsmaryk, wrote in an email that after consulting with the editor in chief, "For reasons I may discuss at a later date, First Liberty attorneys Justin Butterfield and Stephanie Taub will co-author the aforementioned article."

\u201cOne thing I appreciate about Matt Kacsmaryk is he keeps finding ways to make clear that he\u2019s a stone-cold right-wing freak, and no one in the Biden administration should respect him or take his opinions seriously\u201d

— Jay Willis (@Jay Willis) 1681584910

According to the Post:

Kacsmaryk did not respond to a request for comment. A spokesman for First Liberty, Hiram Sasser, said that Kacsmaryk's name had been a "placeholder" on the article and that Kacsmaryk had not provided a "substantive contribution." Aaron Reitz, who was the journal's editor in chief at the time and is now a deputy to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R), said Kacsmaryk had been "our chief point of contact during much of the editing" and "was the placeholder until final authors were named by First Liberty."

On Saturday, after this story was first published, Sasser provided an email showing that Stephanie Taub, one of the people listed as an author on the published article, was involved in writing an early draft.

But one former review editor familiar with the events said there was no indication that Kacsmaryk had been a "placeholder," adding that this was the only time during their tenure at the law review that they ever saw author names swapped. The former editor, who spoke on the condition of anonymity out of fear of reprisal, provided emails and several drafts of the article.

Butterfield and Taub, who still work at First Liberty, did not respond to requests for comment, but Sasser told the Post that "Matthew appears to have not gotten to the project so Stephanie decided to do a first draft that Justin edited."

"It appears Matthew provided some light edits," Sasser added.

After the article was published, "Sasser sent what he said were emails showing that Taub, who was then associate counsel, was involved in writing the article as early as December 2016," the Post reported. "She sent an outline to Kacsmaryk, according to the emails provided by First Liberty, and then a first draft one month later."

\u201cLead counsel in the fight over venue before Judge Tipton; co-counsel in the fight before Judge Kacsmaryk:\u201d

— Steve Vladeck (@Steve Vladeck) 1681593232

As the newspaper noted:

When Kacsmaryk requested the authorship switch, the editor familiar with the events said they raised the issue with Reitz, the law review's editor in chief. The lower-ranking editor asked why Kacsmaryk was making the request.

Reitz smiled, the editor recalled, then said, "You'll see."

Reitz did not address the exchange with the editor in his statement to the Post. But he said that "because of their work on the article, Mr. Butterfield and Ms. Taub rightfully received credit as authors."

As a judge, Kacsmaryk has issued key decisions on both reproductive and trans rights. Earlier this month, he struck down the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's 2000 approval of mifepristone, one of two drugs often taken in tandem for abortions, though his "junk science" ruling was temporarily halted by the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday.

In response to the revelations Saturday, Congressman Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) urged Kacsmaryk to step down, tweeting: "Why did Judge Kacsmaryk mislead the American people during his confirmation hearing about his abortion views? Because he knew he wouldn't be confirmed if people found out he was a religious zealot. Judge Kacsmaryk made a mockery of the confirmation process and must resign."

U.S. Rep. Daniel Goldman (D-N.Y.), an attorney who served as lead counsel in Trump's first impeachment trial, called for a probe: "The judge hand-picked by the GOP to enjoin mifepristone withdrew his name from a law review article denouncing medication abortion *during* his confirmation process—and did not disclose the article. He needs to be investigated."

Federal judges serve lifetime appointments unless they retire or are removed from the bench—which requires being impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives and then convicted by the Senate.

"Unless there is some really surprising and persuasive innocent explanation for the sudden authorship swap, this is grounds for impeachment and removal," New York University School of Law professor Christopher Jon Sprigman said of Kacsmaryk.

\u201cFor the sake of our democracy, the judiciary needs to be held accountable. \n\nhttps://t.co/pekpjKzw0j\u201d

— Let America Vote (@Let America Vote) 1681588794

Given that the House is currently controlled by Republicans, the reporting provoked some calls for a probe by the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is chaired by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.)—who has openly criticized Kacsmaryk's mifepristone ruling and this week pledged to soon hold a hearing on "the devastating fallout" since the U.S. Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade last June.

"A functioning Senate Judiciary Committee could investigate this," declared The Nation's Jeet Heer.

Drexel University Thomas R. Kline School of Law professor and reproductive rights activist David S. Cohen agreed, arguing: "The Senate Judiciary Committee needs to call him in to testify and explain. Now."

Alex Aronson, a former chief counsel to Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), who questioned Kacsmaryk during his confirmation hearing, told the Post that not disclosing such an article is "unethical" and raises concerns about "the candor and honesty of the nominee."

"The Senate Judiciary questionnaire requires nominees to disclose all 'published materials you have written or edited,'" Aronson tweeted. "It's not a close call. Kacsmaryk needed to disclose this article he ghostwrote. What else did he bury?"

This post has been updated with information about emails that First Liberty Institute spokesperson Hiram Sasser shared with The Washington Post after the initial article was published.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Jessica Corbett.

In a move blasted by one environmental group as a "cave to PG&E," the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission on Thursday approved the criminal corporation's continued operation of California's last nuclear power plant without a renewed license or safety review while it seeks a 20-year-extension.

The NRC granted an "administrative" exception allowing the Diablo Canyon plant near Avila Beach in San Luis Obispo County—which began operating in 1985—to remain operational under its current license beyond its scheduled 2025 closure date. The commission said in a statement that the exemption "will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and is consistent with the common defense and security."

PG&E senior vice president and chief nuclear officer Paula Gerfen welcomed the NRC decision as a way to "improve statewide electric system reliability and reduce greenhouse gas emissions as additional renewable energy and carbon-free resources come online."

\u201cPro-nuclear advocates are scared of not having electricity 24/7.\nI'd rather risk an hour of no electricity than risk a meltdown.\nDiablo Canyon kills fish and heats the ocean.\nMoney should go to renewables.\n#CloseDiabloCanyon\u201d

— Susie Sunshine \u262e\u2615\ud83c\udf34\ud83d\udc15\ud83c\uddfa\ud83c\udde6 (@Susie Sunshine \u262e\u2615\ud83c\udf34\ud83d\udc15\ud83c\uddfa\ud83c\udde6) 1677776332

However, green groups denounced the move.

"The decision is unprecedented," Friends of the Earth said in a statement. "The NRC has never approved an exemption for a license renewal applicant that would allow it to operate a nuclear reactor past its 40-year limit without a comprehensive safety and environmental review."

"The NRC's own rules recognize that continued operation of a reactor past the 40-year statutory limit poses safety risks that are different from operational risks during the facility's first 40 years in operation and require a separate review," the group added. "But the NRC, in its bow to PG&E, completely ignored its own rules, with far-reaching implications for all its safety standards."

\u201cDiablo Canyon, CA's last remaining nuclear plant, just got the greenlight to operate up to 20 years without a safety review or a license renewal. \n\nThe decision completely ignores safety and environmental issues that the aging plant poses.\ud83e\udd26\u200d\u2640\ufe0f\nhttps://t.co/yrJbEIQt2R\u201d

— Friends of the Earth (Action) (@Friends of the Earth (Action)) 1677801021

The NRC's decision came days after the California Energy Commission rubber-stamped a plan backed by Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, the state Legislature, and PG&E to keep Diablo Canyon operating.

Visiting the facility on Wednesday, Newsom cited last year's record heatwave and other climate-driven extreme weather events to assert that Diablo Canyon "is important to support energy reliability as we accelerate progress towards achieving our clean energy and climate goals."

As CalMatters' Nadia Lopez reported, PG&E said it will seek permission to keep Diablo Canyon operating for up to 20 additional years, although state officials have not said whether they will allow the plant to run after 2030. A law passed last year by the California Legislature allows the facility to remain operational for the remainder of the decade, while the Biden administration last November announced a billion-dollar bailout for PG&E to keep the plant running.

According to Friends of the Earth:

Major safety and environmental risks will only increase if Diablo Canyon's twin reactors continue running past their expiration dates. First, the reactors are sited on a web of earthquake fault lines. A recent New York Times article detailed how similar the fault lines are beneath Diablo to those that caused the recent 7.8 earthquake that has killed roughly 50,000 people in Turkey and Syria combined.

Furthermore, the NRC is proposing to let Diablo Canyon continue operating without environmental review of the significant adverse effects on the marine environment from the plant's once-through cooling, or OTC, system. PG&E was due to replace the OTC system with cooling towers in 2024 and 2025, but now will be allowed to abandon that effort without an environmental risk evaluation.

"This is an ominous warning sign for how independent the NRC will be in evaluating the earthquake risk and the overall operational integrity of the Diablo Canyon reactors," Friends of the Earth legal director Hallie Templeton said in a statement. "We will consider all available means to ensure that they are held to the letter of the law on this and future decisions and do not put people and the environment at risk."

\u201cNRC caved to PG&E over license exemption for aging Diablo Canyon nuclear plant. The NRC's betrayal of public safety comes days after the California Energy Commission rubberstamped PG&E's plan to keep Diablo operating beyond 2025.\nREAD MORE: https://t.co/TsvMMF5Gih #NoDiablo\u201d

— Mothers for Peace (@Mothers for Peace) 1677831351

Diane Curran, lead attorney for the anti-nuclear group San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace, said that "this decision is frightening because it casts aside the serious safety and environmental issues raised by operating Diablo Canyon past its expiration dates without a comprehensive safety and environmental review."

"The NRC calls the exemption a mere 'administrative' decision, as if it were choosing paper clip sizes," Curran added. "There is nothing 'administrative' about allowing this aging reactor duo to continue running for days, months, or years when each day of operation poses the risk of an accident that could devastate the entire state and beyond."

Ken Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group, called NRC's behavior mafia-like.

"Public safety concerns were blatantly ignored by the NRC over this politically motivated and reckless decision to bend the law for PG&E," he said.

"A federal agency responsible for protecting public safety is now simply serving as the consigliere for the nuclear industry," he added.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Brett Wilkins.

"The Native people of this land after Wounded Knee, they had like a surge of new pride in being Native people," Dwain Camp, an 85-year-old Ponca elder who took part in the 1973 revolt, told The Associated Press.

"Anything that goes on, anything we do, even today with the #LandBack issue, all of that is just a continuation."

Camp said the occupation drove previously "unimaginable" changes, including the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, the Indian Child Welfare Act, the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, and the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.

"After we left Wounded Knee, it became paramount that protecting Mother Earth was our foremost issue," he explained. "Since that period of time, we've learned that we've got to teach our kids our true history."

Camp said the spirit of Wounded Knee lives on in Indigenous resistance today.

"We're not the subjugated and disenfranchised people that we were," he said. "Wounded Knee was an important beginning of that. And because we're a resilient people, it's something we take a lot of pride in."

Some of the participants in the 1973 uprising had been raised by grandparents who remembered or even survived the 1890 massacre of more than 200 Lakota Lakota men, women, and children by U.S. troops at Wounded Knee.

"That's how close we are to our history," Madonna Thunder Hawk, an 83-year-old elder in the Oohenumpa band of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe who was a frontline participant in the 1973 occupation, toldIndian Country Today. "So anything that goes on, anything we do, even today with the #LandBack issue, all of that is just a continuation. It's nothing new."

Nick Tilsen, an Oglala Lakota who played a prominent role in the 2016-17 protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline at Standing Rock, North Dakota and who founded the NDN Collective, toldIndian Country Today that "for me, it's important to acknowledge the generation before us—to acknowledge their risk."

"It's important for us to honor them," said Tilsen, whose parents met at the Wounded Knee occupation. "It's important for us to thank them."

Akim Reinhardt, an associate professor of history at Townson State University in Baltimore, told Indian Country Today that the AIM protests "helped establish a sense of the permanence of Red Power in much the way that Black Power had for African-Americans, a permanent legacy."

"It was the cultural legacy that racism isn't okay and people don't need to be quiet and accept it anymore," he added. "That it's okay to be proud of who you are."

Indian Country Todayreports:

The occupation began on the night of Feb. 27, 1973, when a group of warriors led by Oklahoma AIM leader Carter Camp, Ponca, moved into the small town of Wounded Knee. They took over the trading post and established a base of operations along with AIM leaders Russell Means, Oglala Lakota; Dennis Banks, Ojibwe; and Clyde Bellecourt, White Earth Nation.

Within days, hundreds of activists had joined them for what became a 71-day standoff with the U.S. government and other law enforcement.

On March 16, U.S. Marshal Lloyd Grimm was shot and paralyzed from the waist down. Two Indians were subsequently killed during the standoff. Frank Clearwater, a 47-year-old Cherokee from North Carolina, was shot in the head while resting in an occupied church on April 17 and died a week later. The day after Clearwater's death, Lawrence "Buddy" Lamont, a local Lakota and Vietnam War veteran, was shot through the heart by a sniper during a shootout. He was 31 years old.

Black activist Ray Robinson, who had been working with the Oglala Sioux Civil Rights Organization, went missing during the standoff. In 2014, the FBI confirmed that Robinson died at Wounded Knee, but his body was never recovered.

AIM remains active today. Its members have participated in the fights against the Dakota Access, Keystone XL, and Line 3 pipelines, as well as in the effort to free Leonard Peltier, a former AIM leader who has been imprisoned for over 45 years after a dubious conviction for murdering two FBI agents during a separate 1975 shootout on the Pine Ridge Reservation.

Kevin McKiernan, then a rookie reporter for NPR who was smuggled into Wounded Knee after the Nixon administration banned journalists from covering the standoff, said in an interview with NPR that the #LandBack movement—spearheaded in the U.S. by NDN Collective—is a leading example of the occupation's legacy.

"And I think that there is a collective or a movement like that on every reservation with every tribe," McKiernan said. "They're going to get back, to buy back, to get donated—just do it by inches."

"That's what's going on in every inch of Indian country today," he added.

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

"The Native people of this land after Wounded Knee, they had like a surge of new pride in being Native people," Dwain Camp, an 85-year-old Ponca elder who took part in the 1973 revolt, told The Associated Press.

"Anything that goes on, anything we do, even today with the #LandBack issue, all of that is just a continuation."

Camp said the occupation drove previously "unimaginable" changes, including the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, the Indian Child Welfare Act, the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, and the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.

"After we left Wounded Knee, it became paramount that protecting Mother Earth was our foremost issue," he explained. "Since that period of time, we've learned that we've got to teach our kids our true history."

Camp said the spirit of Wounded Knee lives on in Indigenous resistance today.

"We're not the subjugated and disenfranchised people that we were," he said. "Wounded Knee was an important beginning of that. And because we're a resilient people, it's something we take a lot of pride in."

Some of the participants in the 1973 uprising had been raised by grandparents who remembered or even survived the 1890 massacre of more than 200 Lakota Lakota men, women, and children by U.S. troops at Wounded Knee.

"That's how close we are to our history," Madonna Thunder Hawk, an 83-year-old elder in the Oohenumpa band of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe who was a frontline participant in the 1973 occupation, toldIndian Country Today. "So anything that goes on, anything we do, even today with the #LandBack issue, all of that is just a continuation. It's nothing new."

Nick Tilsen, an Oglala Lakota who played a prominent role in the 2016-17 protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline at Standing Rock, North Dakota and who founded the NDN Collective, toldIndian Country Today that "for me, it's important to acknowledge the generation before us—to acknowledge their risk."

"It's important for us to honor them," said Tilsen, whose parents met at the Wounded Knee occupation. "It's important for us to thank them."

Akim Reinhardt, an associate professor of history at Townson State University in Baltimore, told Indian Country Today that the AIM protests "helped establish a sense of the permanence of Red Power in much the way that Black Power had for African-Americans, a permanent legacy."

"It was the cultural legacy that racism isn't okay and people don't need to be quiet and accept it anymore," he added. "That it's okay to be proud of who you are."

Indian Country Todayreports:

The occupation began on the night of Feb. 27, 1973, when a group of warriors led by Oklahoma AIM leader Carter Camp, Ponca, moved into the small town of Wounded Knee. They took over the trading post and established a base of operations along with AIM leaders Russell Means, Oglala Lakota; Dennis Banks, Ojibwe; and Clyde Bellecourt, White Earth Nation.

Within days, hundreds of activists had joined them for what became a 71-day standoff with the U.S. government and other law enforcement.

On March 16, U.S. Marshal Lloyd Grimm was shot and paralyzed from the waist down. Two Indians were subsequently killed during the standoff. Frank Clearwater, a 47-year-old Cherokee from North Carolina, was shot in the head while resting in an occupied church on April 17 and died a week later. The day after Clearwater's death, Lawrence "Buddy" Lamont, a local Lakota and Vietnam War veteran, was shot through the heart by a sniper during a shootout. He was 31 years old.

Black activist Ray Robinson, who had been working with the Oglala Sioux Civil Rights Organization, went missing during the standoff. In 2014, the FBI confirmed that Robinson died at Wounded Knee, but his body was never recovered.

AIM remains active today. Its members have participated in the fights against the Dakota Access, Keystone XL, and Line 3 pipelines, as well as in the effort to free Leonard Peltier, a former AIM leader who has been imprisoned for over 45 years after a dubious conviction for murdering two FBI agents during a separate 1975 shootout on the Pine Ridge Reservation.

Kevin McKiernan, then a rookie reporter for NPR who was smuggled into Wounded Knee after the Nixon administration banned journalists from covering the standoff, said in an interview with NPR that the #LandBack movement—spearheaded in the U.S. by NDN Collective—is a leading example of the occupation's legacy.

"And I think that there is a collective or a movement like that on every reservation with every tribe," McKiernan said. "They're going to get back, to buy back, to get donated—just do it by inches."

"That's what's going on in every inch of Indian country today," he added.

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

The post Keep Politics Out of Grizzly Review appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Mike Bader.

Prime Minister James Marape and the Constitutional and Law Reform Commission launched the review Wednesday. It comes months after the most violent national election in the Pacific island country in decades that the U.N. criticized for dozens of deaths and alleged ballot tampering.

“I am treating the review seriously and will give it high priority and support,” Marape said in launching the review. “Above all, democracy and Christianity must be upheld.”

The commission said the review would consider issues including whether Papua New Guinea should have an upper house of parliament; whether the prime minister should have a limit of two terms; whether the prime minister should be directly elected instead of elected by parliament; and whether the British monarch should continue to be head of state. 

Papua New Guinea’s ties to the United Kingdom stem from a protectorate that the British declared in the late 19th century. Australia, also a former British colony, was the administrative power from the early 20th century until Papua New Guinea’s independence in 1975.

Australia and the United States are increasingly vying for influence in Papua New Guinea against China. Australia is the largest aid donor to Papua New Guinea while China has achieved prominence in the country with some high-profile infrastructure works.

The commission said the list of issues it would review was not exhaustive and that it would look at other matters as they emerge during the months-long review. 

The review already faces criticism as a distraction from other pressing challenges in the economically lagging country. For some prominent Papua New Guineans, it is an opportunity to argue for less democracy as the solution to their country’s problems.

Gabriel Ramoi, a former member of parliament, said the review would be “a waste of time, money and intellectual capital.” He called for the government to focus on economic problems such as runaway inflation and high unemployment.

PNG's challenges

Mountainous and jungle-clad Papua New Guinea is one of the world’s most linguistically diverse nations, with more than 800 indigenous languages. A creole known as Tok Pisin has emerged as a common language for Papua New Guinea’s estimated nine million people, but stability for the country remains elusive.

It grapples with tribal violence and challenges such as corruption, lack of roads and basic healthcare in many regions and limited participation of women in politics. The United Nations estimates that more than half the population lives in severe poverty when income and other standard-of-living factors are taken into account.

Jean Parkop, one of the few female candidates in the country’s 2022 election, said she had doubts about whether the commission’s public consultation would be adequate.

It plans to visit provinces between early March and mid-May and will receive written submissions until the end of June. An online survey for the public to submit views also will be available until June 30. 

Not all of Papua New Guinea is connected to the internet and the majority of people in rural areas have no access to it, according to Parkop.

“Will the commission be able to travel the length and breadth of this nation and hear the views of our people in three months,” she said.

”I am also concerned whether the majority of women and people in the rural areas will participate.”

Ted Diro, a former provincial governor and commander in Papua New Guinea’s military, questions whether democracy is the best system for his country. He said the review was timely and necessary. 

“I have always maintained that there has never been an honest election since PNG became independent. If we are really serious about the success of our nation we need to be honest,” Diro said. 

“Maybe rather than democracy we need a guided democracy in future. We must ensure that there is peace and security in our country and region,” he said.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Harlyne Joku.

A New York Times book review (2/14/23) gets an important fact about US history seriously wrong.

In a red-baiting New York Times review (2/14/23) of Malcolm Harris’ book Palo Alto, writer Gary Kamiya makes a false assertion about the persecution of Japanese people that amounts to denial of one of the most shameful chapters of US history. The Times should issue an immediate correction and apology.

Complaining that “Harris doesn’t acknowledge the exceptions” to his “seamless, all-explanatory narrative” of California history, Kamiya writes:

Take his discussion of Japanese internment. As an example of how “embracing white supremacy and segregation meant sacrificing a certain amount of nonwhite talent”…he cites the story of the sculptor Ruth Asawa, who was interned along with her family and then “formally excluded from California” and thus forced to study out of state.

“At a time when the Bay Area’s artists began toying with Japanese ideas and forms, artists of Japanese heritage were banned from the state,” he writes, implying that all artists of Japanese heritage were banned from the state. This is not true.

Contrary to Kamiya’s claim, it is true that not just all artists of Japanese descent, but all Japanese nationals and Japanese-American citizens were banned from California, beginning in March 1942.  As Personal Justice Denied: Report of the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians explained, under the US Army’s interpretation of President Franklin Roosevelt’s Executive Order 9066,

all American citizens of Japanese descent were prohibited from living, working or traveling on the West Coast of the United States. The same prohibition applied to the generation of Japanese immigrants who, pursuant to federal law and despite long residence in the United States, were not permitted to become American citizens.

Japanese residents of some lightly populated areas of eastern California were initially not subjected to the ban, but the exclusion was extended to the entire state in June 1942. While the initial plan was to allow the people ethnically cleansed from the West Coast to relocate to other states, this was deemed impractical, and concentration camps, in the original sense of the term, were set up to confine them. As the commission report put it, “The evacuees were to be held in camps behind barbed wire and released only with government approval.”

At the time, the New York Times (3/24/42) presented the incarceration of Japanese Americans in upbeat terms, describing people being rounded up into camps as “weary but gripped with the spirit of adventure over a new pioneering chapter in American history.” (See FAIR.org, 3/24/15.)

This is history that Kamiya, who writes a history column for the San Francisco Examiner, surely knows. So what does he offer in support of his assertion that Harris’ writing that “artists of Japanese heritage were banned from the state” was “not true”? This is Kamiya’s entire argument on the point:

To take just one example, the artist Chiura Obata, who was on indefinite leave from his professorship at Berkeley while interned at Topaz, was reinstated by the University of California president Robert Sproul in January 1945.

So the fact that a person released from a detention camp, after the War Department rescinded the ban on Japanese residents in California (effective January 2, 1945), was allowed to get his job back means that the ban didn’t really exist? This is a preposterous argument, and one that will surely mislead many readers about the scope of the anti-Japanese program.

Kamiya treats the fact that Japanese exclusion didn’t continue in perpetuity as a damning indictment of Harris’ book:

Palo Alto is chock-full of Asawas, and this ugly underside of California history should be told. But the book has virtually no Obatas, and that selection bias, clearly driven by Harris’s conviction that “positive” stories are simply window-dressing concealing capitalism’s dark reality, severely damages its credibility.

To the contrary: Kamiya’s insistence that the historical fact that all Japanese people were banned from California “is not true” severely damages the credibility of the New York Times. The paper needs to offer a correction, and an apology, immediately.

ACTION:

Please contact the New York Times to demand a retraction of and apology for the paper’s denial of the historical reality that people of Japanese descent were completely banned from California.

CONTACT:

Letters: letters@nytimes.com

Readers Center: Feedback

Twitter: @NYTimes

Please remember that respectful communication is the most effective. Feel free to leave a copy of your communication in the comments thread.

Featured image: Map of showing “Military Area No. 1” and “Military Area No. 2,” from which Japanese nationals and Japanese-American citizens were totally excluded.

The post ACTION ALERT: NYT Book Review in Denial on Japanese Persecution in World War II appeared first on FAIR.

This content originally appeared on FAIR and was authored by Jim Naureckas.

While steps are being taken behind the scenes by Fiji’s coalition government to review the country’s existing media legislation, civil society organisation Dialogue Fiji says coming up with a law that protects media freedom and safeguards against reporting that can have negative implications is difficult.

Speaking at the launch of the Fiji Media Industry Development Act 2010 – An Analysis report in Lami last week, Dialogue Fiji executive director Nilesh Lal said Fiji’s punitive Media Industry Development Act was promulgated in 2010 and remained in place, although the new Fiji government had expressed its intentions to replace it.

The report was produced by Dialogue Fiji and contained important lessons and insights on the challenging issue of media freedom and regulation in a multiethnic society with conflict dynamics like Fiji.

• READ MORE: Lice Movono: Hopes for the return of press freedom in Fiji
• Other Fiji media law reports

“We will need to consider elements such as capacity of the Fijian market to sustain a multiplicity of media players. Media ownership has been a key element of the regulatory regime under previous administration and this will need to be looked at,” Lal said.

“The challenges to traditional media posed by social media in a small market context will need to be considered to ensure that media organisations remain financially viable and a robust and diverse media sector is maintained.”

Lal said many lessons had been learnt from the experience of the past 12 years, operating under a highly restrictive and punitive media regulation.

He said it was important that stakeholders be consulted at every stage of the review process of the media legislation, including pre-drafting.

Friction possible
“If the draft does not meet expectations, it is going to unduly create friction between the government, media and other interest groups such as CSOs,” Lal said.

The launch programme also included a panel discussion on the issue of media regulation and features of the media legislation desirable in Fiji.

Lal said as an organisation that championed democratic freedoms, dialogue and deliberations, Dialogue Fiji believed it was important to create opportunities for Fijians to deliberate on issues that affected their lives.

“Media freedom is an important element of freedom of expression. We need the media to be able to exercise this right, which is afforded to them in Fiji’s Constitution,” he said.

The comprehensive analysis on the Act was authored by USP Journalism Programme coordinator Associate Professor Dr. Shailendra Singh, Nilesh Lal and the chief deputy Attorney-General of Arizona (US) Daniel Barr.

Dr Singh said a major complaint against the Act from the media sector and observers was the ambiguities in some of the provisions.

“Section 22 is a good example of this. Section 22 states no content must include materials against the public interest, order, national interest or anything that might create disharmony in society,” he said.

National interest ‘subjective’
“The national interest/order can be subjective matters. The question is, who decides what is national interest or public interest, especially when these terms are so ill-defined in the Act.

“The reality is that the media, government and the public all have different viewpoints about what constitutes the national interest in any particular time or year. Vagueness in some of the provisions in the Act is another shortfall when it comes to international benchmarks.”

For issues like hate speech, he said it was important to ensure key terms were first defined.

“The broader the definition, the more it opens the door for arbitrary application of these laws. Some people might say, in all its years of existence, no one has been charged or prosecuted under the Media Act. Sometimes this is touted as a positive development but the problem is, it can be invoked at any time,” Dr Singh said.

“Even though no one might have been charged or cited, it is still like an axe hanging over the news media’s heads. This is why Media Act is accused of instilling a chilling effect on journalism in Fiji.”

Penalties excessive
Dr Singh noted that penalties in the Act were also in breach of some international benchmarks, adding that excessive sanctions should be reserved for exceptional cases. In Fiji’s Media Act, penalties applied across the board regardless of the seriousness of the offence.

He noted that there was little evidence of the separation of powers in the Act and that all powers were invested in the Communications Minister and Attorney-General, breaching international benchmarks on independence of regulatory bodies of government.

“Any national media regulatory body should be independent from the government in a democracy. The A-G and Communications Minister, who have so much power in the Act, are part of government and are expected or required to work in the interest of government first and foremost,” Dr Singh said.

“So two ministers had so much powers and are expected to work in unison, rather than in the interest of media organization,” Dr Singh said.

“What we found peculiar is that, with the previous government, the Communications Minister and A-G positions were held by the same person, one person with two different portfolios controlling everything. When we talk about separation of powers, it was almost non-existent in the Media Act.”

Dr Singh also noted that a core grievance with the Act was the criminalisation of ethics, adding that Fiji was one of the few countries in which journalism ethics had been criminalised.

Under self-regulation, ethics are considered non-punitive breaches but under the Media Act, a breach of ethics is treated as criminal offences.

“Ethics are not set in stone; you cannot have the same response for every ethical dilemma out in the field,” he said.

“Another key analysis in the Act is the lopsided hearing and appeal procedures where the appeal provisions for the media are restricted. It raises some really serious questions, for example, why are complainants against news media given full appeal whereas media can only appeal decisions for penalties more than $50,000?

“There is non-compliance of universal human rights, all should be equal before the law, provided equal protection of the law.”

Dr Singh said the Act was well protected legally so that no court of any kind could entertain any challenges by any person or body in relation to the validity or legality of the Act, and any decision of the Tribunal except for appeals.

“The immunity clause shows how the Act and its entities are bestowed all the powers without being bound by some of the core accountabilities of the justice system,” he said.

Government’s commitment
Attorney-General Siromi Turaga, who joined the panel discussion alongside newsroom editors from Fiji’s mainstream news media, said the coalition government recognised the pivotal role that the media played in Fiji, in terms of ensuring the circulation and responsible reporting of information.

He reaffirmed the government’s support of a free, independent and responsible media and reiterated that the Media Industry Development Act 2010 would be reviewed with the assistance of a committee that would be established for the task.

While there was no set timeframe on the completion of the review, Turaga said this was a priority for government as it continued to encourage robust journalism, urging journalists to also “practise fair and balanced reporting, and most importantly, allow for the right of reply at all times”.

Turaga said the analysis by Dialogue Fiji provided an insightful commentary on the Act and was a helpful resource for the review process.

Republished under the journalism education partnership between Asia Pacific Report and the University of the South Pacific regional journalism programme.

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