Weblog
The Global Coalition for Language Rights: A space for language justice
The award is meant to honor and inspire
Originally published on Global Voices
Screen shot of the Global Coalition for Language Rights website.
While over 7,000 languages are spoken worldwide, about half are under threat of extinction or severely endangered, as power relations among languages are far from equal. Many languages require their users to actively work to pass it on to the next generation, the only guarantee they can survive in the future. To highlight some of those preservation and revitalization initiatives, Global Voices talked to Gerald Roche, an Associate Professor of Politics at La Trobe University in Australia, who is not only a Tibet expert, but also an activist for language justice through The Global Coalition for Language Rights, where he plays a key role. He was interviewed over email and his responses have been edited for brevity and style.
Gerald Roche, photo used with permission
Global Voices (GV): How did The Global Coalition for Language Rights come about? What are its main goals?
Gerald Roche (GR): The Global Coalition for Language Rights was founded in 2020 by a group of language professionals: translators, localization specialists, and language access workers. The coalition was founded to help raise awareness of language rights and safeguard everybody’s language rights. We also aim to provide opportunities for members of the coalition to collaborate and support each other in whatever we are doing to promote language rights.
I got involved with the coalition in 2021, and took on the role of co-chair in 2022. The coalition is completely run by volunteers. We have no funding, and operate on a horizontal network model. The co-chair role is mostly an administrative position, facilitating meetings, and helping members connect across time zones. I stepped down from that role earlier this year as part of the regular rotation of roles in the coalition.
Since I joined the coalition, we have expanded our membership around the world. Members now include community activists, educators, researchers, translators, NGO professionals, and a range of people from other backgrounds. The coalition’s activities have also expanded during this time.
Each year, we hold Global Language Advocacy Days: several days of coordinated activities across the globe to raise awareness of language rights. We have also drafted a plain language statement on language rights, which is now available on our website in around 80 languages. Another initiative we launched earlier this year is a rights-based tool for linguists, to help them integrate human rights into their fieldwork. And this year we are also launching the Language Rights Defenders Award.
GV: Can you describe the applicants, and how and why you selected them for the award?
GR: The Language Rights Defenders Award aims to honor individuals who demonstrate outstanding commitment to language rights. We are looking for people who can demonstrate passion for language rights and impact in their work to protect and promote those rights. We opened nominations to members of the coalition, and to the general public as well. Anybody could nominate themselves or someone else.
We have been really encouraged by the number and diversity of nominations we have received for the first year of the award! Applications closed in April, and we are planning to announce the winner on May 22nd. We received nominations from 14 countries in Africa, Asia, Europe, and the Americas. Nominees are from a range of backgrounds, including community activists, translators, public servants, medical professionals, and academics. The nominations really attest to the wide relevance of language rights to all areas of life.
Some of these people work at a very local scale: within a local community, for example, helping to revitalize an Indigenous language, or providing vital services in a minoritized language. Others work at the international level, helping to build advocacy networks or develop new agreements between states that acknowledge language rights. It’s been really inspiring to see the dedication displayed in these profiles.
GV: What are you hoping to achieve with the first edition of this award?
GR: I think there are really two main aims: to inspire and to honor. First and foremost, it’s important to honor the work that language rights defenders do, because it’s hard work – sometimes even dangerous. Some people dedicate years of their life to this work, and when they do, they are working against a range of opposing forces. Usually they are working against widespread social discrimination against a group of people and their language. They are also usually working against policies that explicitly undermine the language, and keep its speakers from enjoying full equality: sometimes they are even faced with violent state violence. All language rights defenders are faced with indifference and inertia. All of this makes defending language rights really challenging, but still people choose to do it. We should acknowledge and honor that.
The second aim of the award is to inspire. In my role as co-chair of the coalition, I spoke to lots of people who were very enthusiastic about defending language rights. Often, however, they weren’t sure where to start. Finding an exemplary language rights defenders gives people an example to follow. It might help some people take the first step. For others who are already defending language rights, it might help them persist at what they’re doing when things get difficult. All of us who work to defend language rights can benefit from some inspiration.
This is why we’ve dedicated the first annual award to the memory of Tove Skutnabb-Kangas, an activist and academic who sadly passed away in 2023. Her life and work, her values and actions, all exemplify what we think a language rights defender should be.
GV: Can you speak specifically about the situation in Australia around Aboriginal languages and related activism?
GR: So, first I should point out that I’m not Indigenous, and also that most of my research has been with colleagues and communities in other parts of the world, in places like China, Japan, India, Philippines, and Sweden. Keeping that in mind, I would make two general observations about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander languages in Australia.
First is that there has been a tremendous amount of revitalization work done in the past few years. There is a real sense of momentum building. However, this movement is being met with backlash from conservative forces in Australia. Over the past few years I have been tracking online commentary about Indigenous language revitalization in Australia. The backlash I’ve observed includes efforts to promote English monolingualism as the solution to every problem, overt racism against Indigenous people, paternalizing assertions about what Indigenous people really need, unhinged speculations about Indigenous place names being part of a UN plot to take over the country, and a range of other arguments. All of this is allowed to circulate freely online, without any effort to counter or control these hateful discourses.
Which brings me to a second point. Policies for Indigenous languages in Australia have been patchy and insufficient. Most striking to me is the lack of a rights-based approach to language. You can see this, for example, in how Australian governments have reacted to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). UNDRIP contains some good, strong protections for a range of Indigenous language rights: to revitalize, use, develop and transmit languages, and to establish, control, and access education and media in those languages. Australia voted against the UNDRIP in the UN General Assembly, and recently, when an Indigenous senator tried to pass a bill implementing UNDRIP here, it was voted down. I think we can’t say we really care about Indigenous languages in Australia until we start taking language rights seriously.
Read more on how language activists across Australia are leveraging the power of technology to advance their revitalization efforts at Global Voices’ Rising Voices site.
Pacific groups highlight role of media in addressing climate crisis
Journalists raised awareness about media suppression in the Pacific
Originally published on Global Voices
Journalists discuss the state of media in the Solomon Islands. Screenshot from the YouTube video of MASI: Media Association of Solomon Islands posted in May 2022. Fair use.
Media groups, heads of state, and free speech advocates across the Pacific marked World Press Freedom Day (WPFD) on May 3, by emphasizing the role of upholding the right to information in addressing the impact of the climate crisis in the region.
The theme of WPFD this year, “A Press for the Planet: Journalism in the Face of the Environmental Crisis,” resonates with the work being done by media groups in the Pacific. The statement of the Palau Media Council reflects the WPFD theme:
A free press is vital to informing our communities about the environmental challenges we face and holding all accountable for protecting our precious environment.
We celebrate the courageous work of journalists and recommit ourselves to defending press freedom, ensuring a strong and independent media that serves the people of Palau.
Moving forward, we pledge to prioritize climate crisis stories, ensuring they take center stage in our coverage. We will amplify important voices advocating for environmental protection.
Robert Iroga, chair of the regional media watchdog Pacific Freedom Forum, underscored the need for media coverage and inclusion of Pacific journalists at global climate conferences.
If there is work to be done by journalists in the Pacific, it is to urge and encourage global awareness of climate change's impacts and hold wealthy polluters accountable.
Pacific Islands News Association President Kora Nou asserted that journalists should have an active role in implementing initiatives that seek to address the harsh impact of climate change.
Journalists must be included in projects not merely as observers but as active participants, providing independent and objective coverage that uncovers the truth, expose wrongdoing, and amplify the voices of marginalised communities.
Fiji Media Association General Secretary Stanley Simpson has a reminder for fellow journalists.
Ethics must guide our industry; our code of ethics must guide us. We must serve the people with integrity; our articles must have integrity, balance, fairness, and accuracy.
The Media Association of Solomon Islands (MASI), in partnership with the @bbcmediaaction, held a breakfast event today at Heritage Park Hotel to commemorate the World Press Freedom Day 2024. Thanks to all our distinguished guests for availing your time to commemorate this event. pic.twitter.com/XXsx1ifXFl
— MASI (@solsmasi) May 3, 2024
Media groups also highlighted the various challenges they face in fulfilling their work. Some countries like Fiji saw an improvement in their media landscape after the parliament annulled repressive media laws; but there are also countries like Papua New Guinea where journalists are being threatened with stricter media regulations. Meanwhile, a “word war” recently created tension between some media outlets and a minister in New Zealand’s new government.
Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance Federal President Karen Percy cited the weaponization of laws that undermine the work of media in Australia:
When whistleblowers are prosecuted for revealing wrongdoing by governments and corporations; when defamation is weaponised to prevent scrutiny; when information that should be publicly available is inaccessible or wrongly marked top secret; and when the basic role of journalism is criminalised on ‘national security grounds’ – then it is the public who loses out.
In the French overseas territory New Caledonia, a union conducted a sit-in protest in solidarity with Kanak Indigenous journalist Thérèse Waia who was criticized by pro-France forces for her reporting on pro-independence protests. Sonia Togna of New Caledonia’s Union of Francophone Women in Oceania said in a media interview:
We are here to sound the alarm bell and to remind our leaders not to cross the line regarding freedom of expression and freedom to exercise the profession of journalism in New Caledonia.
Exploring New Zealand’s unique wildlife and learning about conservation efforts
Much effort is going into caring for vulnerable species
Originally published on Global Voices
Kiwi road sign. Photo used with permission.
All the original photos and videos were taken by Heather Milton or the author during their 2024 travels.
Our recent six-week trip to Aotearoa/New Zealand in late summer and early autumn 2024 presented the ideal opportunity to experience its amazing environment. We hadn't “crossed the ditch” (the Australasian slang for the Tasman Sea) for a holiday since 1985.
The Land of the Long White Cloud was created by volcanoes and carved by glaciers. Before the arrival of humans, its flora and fauna evolved in isolation from the rest of the world, and there were no threats to animals from land-based mammals.
New Zealanders pride themselves on the care they take to conserve their unique flora and fauna. “Kiwi,” their universal nickname, comes from the iconic bird, as shown in the sign above. It is a national symbol.
Their Tiaki Promise is a commitment to care for people and place “for now and for future generations”:
We enjoyed many day walks of varying lengths where we encountered many local bird species. The tui is one of the most popular, with its unusual song. We spotted the tui shown in the video below at Ōtari-Wilton's Bush reserve in the hills above the capital city, Wellington. The rarely-seen Stewart Island weka was foraging on an Ulva Island beach:
New Zealand has 17 species of the iconic albatross. The breeding place for the Northern Royal albatross can be viewed at the Albatross Centre near Dunedin on the South Island. It has a wingspan of up to 3 metres (9.8 feet) and may fly 190,000 kilometres (118,000 miles) across the Pacific Ocean each year.
View this post on Instagram
In addition, captive breeding programs and the reintroduction of endangered and threatened species complement each other. Te Anua Bird Sanctuary is nestled beside the lake. Here they breed takahe, kaka, whio and pateke, among others, for release into wild populations. It is open and free to the public.
Te Anau Bird Sanctuary. Photo used with permission.
An important initiative was taking place when we were in Wellington. One hundred kiwis bred in captivity were being released into the wild in the hills above Wellington.
This video slideshow below shows some of the birds we saw in the wild during our travels. It features the Northern Royal Albatross, Kereru Wood Pigeon, Stewart Island Robin, Kea, North Island Takahe Swamphen, NZ Fantail, White-fronted terns, Saddleback, and Paradise Shelduck.
Wikipedia has a List of Birds of New Zealand, with scientific and some Maori names.
While birds are clearly treasured, other animals receive a lot of attention, particularly the aquatic kind. These include whales, seals, sea lions/pakakes, dolphins, and penguins.
Fur seals faced extinction as a result of sealing in the 1700s and 1800s, but their numbers have increased significantly since being protected by law in 1978. The colony north of Christchurch at Kaikoura is an impressive haven for hundreds of seals and their pups. The walkway is a great way to get up close:
Kaikoura seal colony north of Christchurch. Photo used with permission.
Seals on a rock at Kaikoura. Photo used with permission.
On the other hand, sea lions are classified as nationally vulnerable, with numbers below 10,000. We were lucky to encounter them on the South Island coast at Sandfly Bay, Katiki Point, plus Ulva Island:
Creating pest-free habitats receives special attention in New Zealand. Sanctuaries play an important part in nurturing the natural heritage. Fenced areas such as peninsulas exclude introduced species. Wharariki Eco-sanctuary near Nelson is a recent example. Traps and poison baits are used to control predators such as rats, possums and stoats:
Trap for invasive predators. Photo used with permission.
Two island refuges stand out. Ulva Island is a very special place, off the coast of Stewart Island, just below the South Island. Like most environmental projects of this kind, there is plenty of advice to guide visitors before they take the 10-minute water taxi ride. There is a bait and trapping program as well, as rats can swim the short distance from the main island. They even use sniffer dogs. Their free brochure highlights these risks as well as the many birds and magnificent plant life, including towering trees such as the miro, rimu and totara.
Ulva is less than 300 hectares (741 acres) in area, but its luxuriant forest is packed with spectacular flora and fauna. Many of the birds seem unafraid of humans, presenting many up-close encounters. Its small beaches are popular with fearsome sea lions.
Rangitoto Island is just a short ferry ride from Auckland, New Zealand’s most populous city. It is only 600 years old and is famed for its raw volcanic landscape. Its Historical Conservation Trust is very keen to keep it pest-free, and visitors receive lots of tips on how to help to do this. This video is one example:
There are abundant display boards and signs throughout New Zealand with information about local conservation efforts. This sign at Ngakuta Bay is typical:
Ngakuta Bay birds sign. Photo used with permission.
The road sign at the popular Pancake Rocks on the west coast of the South Island shows the kind of effort taken to protect breeding birds:
Pancake Rocks street lights sign. Photo used with permission.
Curio Bay, in the Catlins east of Invergargill, is keen to protect their yellow-eyed penguins:
Penguin cutout: Protect Our Penguins. Photo used with permission.
The emphasis on conservation is not without controversy. The first day of an international SailGP event at Lyttleton Harbour near Christchurch had to be cancelled on March 23 because of the presence of a couple of Hector dolphins, members of a nationally vulnerable species. A posting of an NZ National Geographic story brought plenty of support for this action on Reddit. However, some “yachties” were unhappy with the decision.
Finally, if you’re thinking of exploring New Zealand’s natural wonders, best be prepared. The Tongariro Alpine Crossing on the north island is a spectacular and challenging day hike. Its 19.4 kilometres (12.0 miles) attracts over 100,000 visitors each year, with up to 3,000 in a single day.
The Mountain Safety Council has produced this video, giving advice on personal safety and care for the environment. It's worth viewing just for the incredible landscape:
Papua New Guinea demands apology from Joe Biden over cannibalism remarks
Biden said his uncle was killed by cannibals during World War II
Originally published on Global Voices
US President Joe Biden visits a World War II memorial bearing the name of his uncle, Second Lieutenant Ambrose J. Finnegan, who died in Papua New Guinea. Screenshot from YouTube video on Associated Press channel. Fair use.
Several Papua New Guinea leaders and institutions are demanding an apology from United States President Joe Biden, who mentioned in two public speeches that his uncle was killed by cannibals during World War II.
While visiting a war memorial in Pennsylvania on April 17, Biden remarked that his uncle, Second Lieutenant Ambrose J. Finnegan, was killed by cannibals after his plane was shot down by Japanese forces in Papua New Guinea.
He got shot down in an area where there were a lot of cannibals at the time.
They never recovered his body, but the government went back when I went down there and they checked and found some parts of the plane.
He repeated the same story during an assembly of union workers in Pittsburgh.
He got shot down in New Guinea and they never found the body because there used to be — there were a lot of cannibals, for real, in that part of New Guinea.
His narrative is different from the official account of the US military:
For unknown reasons, this plane was forced to ditch in the ocean off the north coast of New Guinea. Both engines failed at low altitude, and the aircraft's nose hit the water hard. Three men failed to emerge from the sinking wreck and were lost in the crash. One crew member survived and was rescued by a passing barge. An aerial search the next day found no trace of the missing aircraft or the lost crew members.
Based on this account, the plane crashed in the ocean, and there was no evidence that cannibals killed Biden’s uncle.
Responding to Biden’s remarks, Papua New Guinea Prime Minister James Marape rejected the insinuation that cannibals killed US soldiers during the war.
President Biden’s remarks may have been a slip of the tongue; however, my country does not deserve to be labeled as such.
World War II was not the doing of my people; however, they were needlessly dragged into a conflict that was not their doing.
He has a proposal for the US government.
The theaters of war in PNG and Solomon Islands are many, and littered with the remains of WWII including human remains, plane wrecks, ship wrecks, tunnels and bombs. Our people daily live with the fear of being killed by detonated bombs of WWII.
I urge President Biden to get the White House to look into cleaning up these remains of WWII so the truth about missing servicemen like Ambrose Finnegan can be put to rest.
In a statement, Foreign Affairs Minister Justin Tkatchenko said that Biden’s statement marks “a low point in our bilateral relations” and that it “has the potential to hurt our cordial relations” if the White House will not correct it.
Opposition Deputy Leader Douglas Tomuriesa said the White House should apologize to Papua New Guineans.
President Biden’s comments contribute and are a testament to the broader misunderstanding and this fantasization from the West about cannibalism in PNG.
It is bemusing and sad that all President Biden could say in reference about PNG to his crowd was [about] a very isolated practice in a small number of villages in the country. This has since died out and no longer accepted in our society.
Post-Courier newspaper published an editorial reiterating the demand for Biden to apologize.
What is so hard about apologizing? Is the five-letter word SORRY so hard to utter? You might be the most powerful man in the world but President Joe Biden, your supremacy is nothing compared to the might of saying sorry.
We lost soldiers and war carriers, many innocent people were killed by your bombs and the Japanese army, and many of your old bombs left behind in New Guinea, still maim or kill people to this day.
So Uncle Joe, if your utterance was an unintentional blunder, just humble yourself and say sorry. That's all we beg of you. If you don't say sorry, the Chinese are more than willing to say sorry on your behalf.
The last line alludes to the rivalry between the US and China as both countries vie for influence in the Pacific. In fact, China’s foreign minister was in Papua New Guinea after Biden made his controversial remarks.
GT Bustin of PNG Tribal Foundation said Biden’s “misstatement is an insult to brave” citizens who assisted US troops during World War II.
I believe President Biden's remarks were embellished as a poor attempt to bring more honor to his fallen uncle and not in an attempt to offend the people of Papua New Guinea. As a leader, the President ought to do the right thing which is to acknowledge the false statement, apologize to the people of PNG, and move on.
Responding to the social media uproar, the US embassy in Papua New Guinea affirmed the Biden government’s commitment to foster closer relations between the two countries.
We have seen statements from President Biden regarding his uncle in WWII. President Biden highlighted his uncle's story as he made the case for honoring our sacred commitment to equip those we send to war.
The U.S. respects the people and culture of Papua New Guinea and remains committed to furthering respectful relations between our democracies.
Remembering the victims of nuclear weapons testing in the Marshall Islands
Protests marked the 70th anniversary of nuclear tests at Bikini Atoll
Originally published on Global Voices
Bikini Atoll nuclear test site. Marshall Islands. Photo by Ron Van Oers / UNESCO. Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 IGO
Pacific communities marked the 70th year of nuclear testing at Bikini Atoll in Marshall Islands by highlighting the demand for justice and accountability.
March 1 is Nuclear Free and Independent Pacific Day, but in Marshall Islands it is commemorated as Nuclear Victims Remembrance Day in honor of the victims of Castle Bravo, the codename for the thermonuclear bomb test made by the United States military.
The 15-megaton bomb dropped on Bikini Atoll was the equivalent of a thousand Hiroshima bombs. It created a mushroom cloud that reached 40 kilometers into the atmosphere and its radioactive fallout affected nearby inhabited atolls. The US military conducted 67 nuclear weapon tests in the Marshall Islands between 1946 and 1958.
The tests vaporized at least two islands and forced the permanent displacement of communities contaminated by radioactivity. Cancer cases and other serious diseases linked to nuclear testing went up over the next several decades.
Reparations were made but the toxic consequences of the testing continue to inflict damage up to this day. Civil society group ICAN emphasized that the Castle Bravo testing “is a story of how life on the Marshall Islands was uprooted, lands contaminated, and people left to struggle with the consequences for generations.”
Public assemblies in Fiji and the Marshall Islands marked the 70th anniversary of the Castle Bravo testing with calls for justice.
FWRM led the chants at the Nuclear Victims Solidarity March at USP Laucala Campus in Suva today.
It has been 70 years since the Castle Bravo explosion on 1st March 1954.#NuclearFreePacific #PeoplePower pic.twitter.com/etKO1i9pgJ
— Fiji Women's Rights Movement (@FWRM1) March 1, 2024
Some veterans and descendants of those who were evacuated from their homes also joined the event.
We also acknowledge Pacific nuclear test veterans and their descendants who joined @misa4thepacific Nuclear Victims Remembrance Day solidarity march at @UniSouthPacific today.
Lest We Forget.#NuclearJustice #NewClearWays #NukeFreeFridays #NukeFreePacific pic.twitter.com/nvSqkhlz7o
— PANG (@pangmedia) March 1, 2024
Kathy Joel was six years old in 1954 when her family was uprooted from their community.
I remember when I saw planes flying over my island, I was really frightened. We were evacuated by the US. Until now I long for my homeland. I always think about my homeland and I wish one day, with the help of our President, that I may set foot again on my homeland.
Kathy Joel was six years old when the #Bravo nuclear test spread radioactive fallout over the northern atolls of the #MarshallIslands, including Rongelap and Ailinginae. pic.twitter.com/jt7wTHyyLK
— Nic Maclellan (@MaclellanNic) March 1, 2024
Henry Puna, secretary general of the Pacific Islands Forum, noted that resolving the issues related to nuclear testing has remained inadequate.
Our history is littered with overwhelming foreign disrespect for our Blue Pacific. Clearly, we were used as a testing ground – more like a testing laboratory. And we must ask the question, why was the most beautiful corner of the world, with the most beautiful and peaceful people, chosen for these horrific acts without our informed consent?
While we have come a long way in mending past grievances, regrettably, the terms of resolving nuclear legacy issues in the Marshall Islands have been inadequate, and therefore remain unfinished.
Peace Movement Aotearoa pointed out the political significance of the Nuclear Free and Independent Pacific Day.
Nuclear Free and Independent Pacific Day is a day to remember that the arrogant colonial mindset which allowed, indeed encouraged, this horror continues today – the Pacific is still neither nuclear free nor independent.
It is a day to celebrate the courage, strength and endurance of indigenous Pacific peoples who have persevered and taken back control of their lives, languages and lands to ensure the ways of living and being which were handed down from their ancestors are passed on to future generations.
Shaun Burnie, the international climate and nuclear campaigner for Greenpeace International, also expressed solidarity with the people of the Marshall Islands.
The proud people of the Marshall Islands have retained their profound and deep connection to their Pacific home, despite all efforts to destroy that connection through displacement and contamination. That same determination is now evident in their response to the devastating impacts of climate change.
Deadly tribal clashes destabilize Papua New Guinea
Unresolved land disputes fueled the tribal conflict
Originally published on Global Voices
Tribal violence has escalated last week in Papua New Guinea. Screenshot from YouTube video of ABC News In-depth. Fair use.
Clashes between several tribes in the Pacific nation of Papua New Guinea led to at least 50 deaths and displaced numerous highland communities. The government said that the February 18 massacre was the country’s worst tribal violence on record.
The police said they retrieved 50 bodies on February 19 in Enga province, but the death toll could be higher based on the reports and testimonies of local leaders.
The long-running feud between the Sikin and Kaikin tribes and the Ambulin tribe triggered the violence stemming from unresolved land disputes. Police said the warring clans hired mercenaries from nearby villages.
Authorities noted that the fighters used military-grade weapons, which indicated the culpability of arms suppliers and the existence of a black market for illegal firearms and explosives.
Police Commissioner David Manning urged community leaders to cooperate:
These ethnic fights stem from wicked people who in the end cause the deaths of their own people when they stir up a fight.
While I recognise it is hard because there are threats and intimidation involved, but community leaders have to step up, work with police to identify the ringleaders.
But former opposition leader Belden Namah accused security forces of being indecisive in protecting citizens:
We are sending the same old people, the soldiers and the police and they are fraternising with the tribal fighters, with the lot of people on the ground and not effecting any arrests.
In fact, they are standing around with the warriors carrying their guns, soldiers and police carrying their guns, where are we heading?
In an editorial, Post-Courier wrote about the collapse of the traditional leadership provided by tribal leaders:
Sadly, the traditional or community leadership's grip on authority has crumbled in recent years, because governments, past and present have, failed to empower those in this role with resources, skills, knolwedge, and legislations for them to effectively perform in partnerhsip with competent state institutions in the rapidly changing world PNG lives in today.
Penniless, illiterate and isolated from the formal contemporary governance system, the community leaders fight an uphill battle everyday to administrate justice and deal with crime in their rural communities.
In another editorial, Post-Courier asked the government to deliver justice for the victims:
We suggest that the right thing to do now, in the face of the terrorism presented by tribal fighters in Wapenamanda, is to deal with the situation head on. Send the full force of the law, police, army, and warders, declare a full-on state of emergency in Engam and seek out and bring those tribal lawless warriors to justice.
Go in head on and deal with the troublemakers. Let the gunmen know there are laws in this country that protect the citizens of our nation.
#Wapenamanda #massacre: #PNG leaders #angry over #tribal #war ‘barbarity’ #AsiaPacificReport #pngpostcourier @kenneth_gorethy #tribalwarfare #highlands #Enga @newsroom_the @PACNEWS2 @PngPles @PNGReport https://t.co/E0pydydQSr pic.twitter.com/CM1j8OHPMC
— David Robie (@DavidRobie) February 20, 2024
Dorothy Tekwie, founder of Papua New Guinea Women in Politics, told the media about the impact of the clashes on highland families:
Any woman would be emotional…and I am also calling on women throughout Papua New Guinea to stand up. Enough is enough of violence of all forms.
We are asking for accountability from our members of Parliament. It doesn't matter whether they are in government or in opposition. This is a national crisis.
Pacific countries and institutions like the Pacific Islands Forum have expressed concern about the latest incident of tribal violence in Papua New Guinea. Richard Howard, the UN Resident Coordinator in the country, pointed out that “the increasing use of modern weapons exacerbates the tribal fightings and their impact on human lives.”
It has been a tumultuous two months for Papua New Guinea. Riot and looting hit the capital Port Moresby in January, which killed at least 20 people. An aviation fuel crisis is plaguing the transport sector. The recent tribal clashes have severely undermined the stability of the government and peace and order in the country.
National broadcaster axes Australian journalist Antoinette Lattouf over Gaza social media post
Staff threatened to strike over management's decision
Originally published on Global Voices
Antoinette Lattouf – Screenshot: TedX Talks YouTube video ‘Reverse Discrimination? It doesn't exist…but ‘tokenism’ does’ October 2022. Fair use.
The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) has caused a furore down under after firing Lebanese Australian journalist Antoinette Lattouf on December 20, 2023 for sharing a post on the humanitarian situation in Gaza. Her employment as a short-term radio host was abruptly ended for allegedly breaching social media policy by reposting a Human Rights Watch (HRW) video on Instagram.
View this post on Instagram
Lattouf added the comment: “HRW reporting starvation as a tool of war.” The ABC justified their decision, saying that “she failed or refused to comply with directions that she not post on social media about matters of controversy.” The ABC itself covered the HRW claim on TV News.
The corporation is a government-funded national broadcaster, which has independence within a legislated charter. Its board and chair are appointed by the government.
Subsequently, ABC journalist Nour Haydar resigned over the broadcaster’s coverage of the Gaza conflict and treatment of culturally diverse staff. She posted on X (formerly Twitter):
Does this mean all ABC employees can’t share info from @hrw?
What if it’s about the treatment of Uyghurs in China or protestors in Iran?
Does this rule exist exclusively for findings that are critical of Israel?
Did this directive apply only to @antoinette_news and why? https://t.co/vqsb3ocW82
— Nour Haydar (@NourHaydar) January 16, 2024
Haydar also has Lebanese heritage.
Mastodon user MilennialZero posed a question that was concerning many people on social media:
Artemis went further in their response:
Journalists at the ABC threatened to take strike action. Their union, the MEAA (Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance) has given Lattouf strong backing:
The decision to sack Antoinette Lattouf from her role as an ABC radio presenter over sharing a social media post from a reputable human rights organisation is incredibly disturbing. Read the full statement: https://t.co/B1IAkQkl3W #MEAAmedia pic.twitter.com/a2Xt7wyft3
— MEAA (@withMEAA) December 21, 2023
There were accusations that the ABC management was influenced by a campaign by pro-Israel lobbyists via a WhatsApp group called Lawyers for Israel.
Antoinette has taken an unlawful termination case to the Fair Work Commission. However, mediation talks between Lattouf and the ABC have failed to resolve the issue. Lattouf posted a video response on X. She not only raised the question of free speech but said that her dismissal involved racism:
Some words following my Fair Work Commission conciliation with the ABC today.
This is such an important case because it is not just about me.#NoFearNoFavour pic.twitter.com/gDqlH89CkI— Antoinette Lattouf (@antoinette_news) January 18, 2024
Denis Muller, Senior Research Fellow at the University of Melbourne’s Centre for Advancing Journalism, canvassed some of the issues at The Conversation:
One is the issue of how to deal with journalistic staff posting on social media about issues in the news. Another is whether it has the backbone to protect its journalists and presenters from external attack. A third is whether the organisation is culturally capable of respecting and supporting staff from diverse backgrounds.
Veteran Australian journalist and TV news presenter Mary Kostakidis spoke out in the strongest terms on public policy website Pearls and Irritations:
The Lattouf story shows that the same level of white colonial supremacist attitudes that have forged the bond of western leaders on the Middle East issue permeates the leadership of public broadcasting.
… A one sided narrative in the media cultivates ignorance in the public and enables our leaders to maintain unquestioned entrenched support for Israel, not only with words but with supplies and intelligence, and possibly with armed forces should they see fit to do so. Attempts to interfere and prevent the interrogation of our foreign policy are anti democratic.
The ABC managing director, David Anderson sent an email to all staff, denying Lattouf's claims and rejecting any influence by external pressure.
At the Fair Work Commission mediation, the ABC denied that race or political opinion were part of their decision to terminate her contract.
There is a GoFundMe fundraiser for her legal fees, plus a couple of online petitions calling on ABC to rehire Lattouf.
In the latest twist, the ABC is now claiming that it did not sack Lattouf, according to a Guardian report:
In its submission, the ABC wrote it decided “not to require” Lattouf to perform the last two of her five shifts as a casual presenter of Sydney’s Mornings because she had “failed or refused to comply with directions that she not post on social media about matters of controversy during the short period she was presenting”.
On X, Lattouf mocked what she called the use of a euphemism:
“If I wasn’t sacked what was it? I’m keen to hear all the creative euphemisms that will be used to try and explain this backflip to me, ABC staff and Australians who are very concerned about their public broadcaster. Was I unshackled? Liberated? Untied?”
— Antoinette Lattouf (@antoinette_news) January 22, 2024
A meeting of ABC journalists overwhelmingly passed a motion of no confidence in Managing Director David Anderson. The resolution included:
Winning staff and public confidence back will require senior management:
1. Backing journalism without fear or favour.
2. Working collaboratively with unions to build a culturally informed process for supporting staff who face criticism and attack.
3. Take urgent action on the lack of security and inequality that journalists of colour face.
4. Working with unions to develop a clearer and fairer social media policy.
5. Upholding a transparent complaints process, in which journalists who are subject to complaints are informed and supported.
According to Mediaweek, ABC Global Affairs Editor John Lyons spoke forcefully in favor of the motion. Lyons has been reporting from the Middle East on the Gaza conflict for the ABC.
David Anderson has agreed to meet with staff in the coming weeks to discuss their concerns.
Meanwhile, Pedestrian TV has reported claims of another coordinated lobbying campaign against Lattouf on WhatsApp group J.E.W.I.S.H. Australian creatives and academics. Australian researcher and journalist Claire Connelly posted:
‘Screenshots show a coordinated letter campaign that encouraged the group’s 628 members to complain to Buttrose, ABC Managing Director David Anderson and Federal Communications Minister Michelle Rowland over the ABC’s hiring of Lattouf.’ pic.twitter.com/hSj831HGKQ
— Claire Connelly (@_ClaireConnelly) January 22, 2024
An emergency ABC board meeting on January 23, passed a unanimous vote of confidence in the managing director.
The dispute is ongoing for now. In the meantime, the satirical website The Shovel has a lighthearted take:
The ABC says it is simply adhering to its charter by ending journalist Antoinette Lattouf’s employment, but also not sacking her.
“It is incumbent on us to provide both sides of the story,” an ABC spokesperson said. “So while some may say Ms Lattouf has been fired, others would say she has been freed up to pursue other opportunities. Some will say she has been let go, others will say has been de-hired. All of those views deserve to be heard.
A New Zealand Minister’s ‘war’ with the media
He described state-funded journalism as ‘bribery’
Originally published on Global Voices
Minister Winston Peters being interviewed by the media. Screenshot from the YouTube video of Newshub
New Zealand’s Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Winston Peters said he is at “war” with the media and has accused public broadcasters of lacking independence.
Peters, currently serving as Deputy PM under Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, is the founder and leader of the populist and nationalist New Zealand First party. He began his tenure by publicly chided the media just days after the country’s new government was formed on November 27, 2023. He questioned, in particular, the USD 55 million public interest journalism fund set up by the previous government during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, which he claimed was used to “bribe” the media.
He asked journalists to stop being “mathematical morons,” and, at one point during a Cabinet meeting, he dared journalists to be “transparent”:
Before you go, can you possibly tell the public what you had to sign up to to get the money? Before you ask one more question, tell the public what you signed up to to get the money.
Peters is a veteran politician whose party lost in the 2020 election. During the October 2023 campaign period, he lambasted some journalists for being “corrupt” and “dirt merchants.” He repeated his charge about the media being biased during a parliamentary session during the first week of December.
Three conservative parties, including Peters’ New Zealand First party, formed a coalition to form a government. The new government has pledged to lower taxes, reduce bureaucracy, train more police, and ease inflation. They dislodged the former ruling Labour Party, which was globally praised for its handling of the COVID-19 pandemic but faced local criticism for the rising cost of living.
In his rebuke of the public interest journalism fund, Peters didn't mention that it aimed to support local media companies that lost advertising revenue during the pandemic. The fund was managed by New Zealand on Air, an independent body. Andrew Shaw, a board member of the body, described Peters’ statement as “malicious” and “not truthful.” He subsequently resigned from his position since his statement undermined the impartiality of the body.
Sir Ian Taylor, founder and managing director of Animation Research and also a former board member of New Zealand on Air, wrote that Peters should apologize for his remarks. He also defended the credibility and independence of the body.
The only way journalists could access those funds was to have their applications approved by the New Zealand on Air board, a completely independent organisation. By making the claim that “you can’t defend USD 55 million of bribery” our Deputy Prime Minister just accused the full board of being complicit in his bribery claim and they, quite justifiably, should expect an apology for such an unwarranted, and potentially defamatory, claim. He certainly deserved much more than the slap over the wrist he got.
Tracy Watkins, editor of the Sunday Star-Times, wrote that Peters is engaging in “misdirection and misinformation” and that he is using his office “to further erode trust and respect in the media.” She also criticized the motives of authorities who echo the baseless claims of Peters about the media:
Why have so many powerful people bought into this argument? Because it muddies the boundary between truth and lies. Because a weakened media is good for them. What politician wouldn’t want that? They don’t particularly like being answerable to the media and they like even less the scrutiny that comes with public office.
Cédric Alviani, the Asia-Pacific bureau director of Reporters Without Borders, urged New Zealand’s Prime Minister Christopher Luxon to affirm the government’s support for a free press. He also condemned the statements of Peters:
By making irresponsible comments about journalists in a context of growing mistrust of the New Zealand public towards the media, Deputy Prime Minister Peters is sending out a worrying signal about the newly-appointed government’s attitude towards the press.
Australia's bid to co-host COP31 climate conference faces obstacles
Fossil fuel exports could prove sticking point for international community
Originally published on Global Voices
Flare (Oceania) John Gerrard — A continuous burning gas flare set against the backdrop of the Tongan coast. Author’s photo of video installation at National Gallery of Victoria 5 Dec 2023
Australia’s hopes of co-hosting the IPCC’s (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) COP31 (Conference of the Parties) summit in 2026 with Pacific nations may well depend on how the rest of the world sees its progress towards eliminating carbon emissions. Since the election of the new Labor government in 2022, Australia’s international reputation regarding climate action has risen considerably as a result of stronger emissions targets and its enhanced Safeguard Mechanism.
However, the controversy surrounding the hosting of COP28 by the United Arab Emirates, a major oil exporter, may ring some alarm bells. Australia is also a major fossil fuel exporter, namely coal and gas.
There are a number of contentious aspects to the government’s climate policy.
Meeting emissions targets
The Federal Climate Change Minister Chris Bowen was upbeat in his climate statement to parliament before leaving to represent Australia at COP28. He acknowledged the challenges in meeting the goal of a 43 percent reduction by 2030 but argued that:
With policies we have announced and are in the process of implementing, Australia’s emissions are projected to be 42 per cent below 2005 levels in 2030 — compared to 40 per cent in last year’s projections.
However, the government-funded, independent statutory body, the Climate Change Authority, warned in its 2023 Annual Progress Report:
Meeting or surpassing Australia’s 2030 target is crucial – otherwise achieving the more ambitious but essential targets needed down the track will be that much harder. The authority’s assessment is there are real risks of falling short, but working together we can succeed. The challenge is: ‘are we willing to do what it takes?’
There are many people who are sceptical about the minister's claims. Economist John Quiggin looked at some of the data and concluded:
Unfortunately, a closer look at the statement suggests Australia is unlikely to achieve net zero by 2050 in the absence of radical policy changes.
New coal and gas projects
Greenpeace Australia has an online petition against any new coal or gas projects, with particular focus on the concerns of its near neighbours in the Pacific. With 30 new coal and gas projects seeking approval in Australia, with a potential 20+ billion tonnes of carbon in the atmosphere, the petition claims:
As Australia is the third biggest fossil fuel exporter in the world, the Australian Government must listen to Pacific communities and stop new coal, oil and gas projects now.
Approving new fossil fuel projects will endanger countless lives and recklessly lock Australia into more fossil fuels as the rest of the world shifts to cleaner, cheaper renewable energy.
Australia’s Climate Council, an independent non-government organisation, is very clear about the challenge:
For Australia, COP28 comes as our nation continues to work to rebuild its international reputation on climate, after a decade as one of the world’s most notorious climate pariahs.
…If Australia is to be a successful host of COP31 in 2026 … Australia will need to stop adding fuel to the fire and plan for a managed phase-out of fossil fuels.
Pacific Island countries have been pushing for drastic action on fossil fuels, as spelled out in the Port Vila call for a just transition to a fossil-free Pacific in March 2023. The language was watered down in the Pacific Island forum communique in November, following pressure from Australia and New Zealand. A historic climate change agreement was also signed between Australia and Tuvalu, one of the countries threatened by rising sea levels.
The progressive Australia Institute put the case against fossil fuels in this video:
The Institute’s Poly Hemming contends that:
Any policy that does not address the primary cause of the climate crisis, fossil fuels, is not informed by science. Any policy that facilitates new fossil fuels is not a climate policy, it's greenwash. If a government anywhere tells you we need more gas and coal to meet our climate targets they have no climate integrity.
In a June 2023 report, the Australia Institute asserted:
To host a COP in Australia in good faith, it would be fitting for the federal government to demonstrate how it is fulfilling the requests of the Pacific as well as demonstrating to the international community how its climate target and fossil fuel expansion plans are consistent with the Paris Agreement.
The ACF (Australian Conservation Foundation) is also concerned about the challenge of coal and gas:
Frustratingly, the Albanese government is taking genuine steps to cut climate emissions at home while enabling the increased and ongoing export of coal and gas to other countries.
The ACF also argues that:
The government says it’s not responsible for the emissions when Australian coal and gas is burnt overseas, but the fact remains that Albanese government decisions are fuelling global warming. It’s the difference between climate accounting and climate accountability.
In developing COP28 news, the ACF has congratulated the Australian government on “its commitment to stopping billions of dollars in foreign aid and loans being spent on fossil fuel expansion”, but wants a similar promise down under.
View this post on Instagram
A post shared by Australian Conservation Foundation (@ausconservation)
Carbon capture and storage
Australia is putting some hope and resources into the controversial CCS (Carbon capture and storage). This is the process of storing carbon dioxide produced by such areas as mining, power generation and industry in long-term isolation from the atmosphere.
It has many critics, such as Keivn Morrison, Energy Finance Analyst, Australian Gas for The Institute of Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA). He maintains that CCS will have minimal impact and argues that:
CCS only perpetuates oil and gas production, which are major contributors to global GHG emissions each year. Global energy-related CO2 emissions totalled 36.8 gigatonnes in 2022, whereas CCS sequestered a little more than 40 million tonnes of CO2 in the same period. This equates to a rounding error in the total emissions pumped into the atmosphere each year.
Carbon Offsets
The safeguard mechanism relies heavily on carbon offsets and transferable credits for these. A carbon offset is defined as:
A carbon offset broadly refers to a reduction in GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions — or an increase in carbon storage (e.g., through land restoration or the planting of trees) — that is used to compensate for emissions that occur elsewhere.
The Australian government’s scheme, called Australian Carbon Credit Units (ACCUs), supports projects that sequester (isolate) carbon from the atmosphere. Minister Bowen emphasised its importance in September 2023:
Let me be clear, integrity in crediting real carbon abatement is essential.
The ACCU scheme must deliver real and additional abatement that contributes to our legislated emissions reduction targets under the Paris Agreement.
However, not everyone is convinced. At the Conversation, Professors Andrew Macintosh and Don Butler have challenged the effectiveness of many of the offset projects:
Our research shows that most of these projects have low integrity. People are getting carbon credits for not clearing forests that were never going to be cleared anyway, for growing trees that already exist, for growing forests in places that will never sustain them, and for operating electricity generators at landfills that would have operated anyway.
The bid
In a June 2023 report, the Australia Institute maintained:
The current Labor Government’s stated climate ambition may be an improvement over that of the previous government, but its legislated climate target of a 43 per centreduction in emissions by 2030 is not consistent with 1.5°C or 2°C of global warming, and its support for fossil fuel expansion is just as enthusiastic as its predecessor.
Australian governments collectively provide $11 billion a year in fossil fuel subsidies making the $700 million Australia has committed to climate finance in the Pacific over four years look particularly meagre.
As this report also pointed out, there is a domestic democratic hurdle facing the current government as well:
The proposition to host a COP will need bipartisan support, because the four years until COP31 will see a federal election take place, bringing with it the possibility of a change in government.
The host of COP31 will be decided before the COP30 meeting in 2025.
Australian journalist pushes back against anti-LGBTQ+ trolls
Media groups expressed solidarity with queer journalist Patricia Karvelas
Originally published on Global Voices
Patricia Karvelas. Screenshot from YouTube video posted by ABC
Prominent TV and radio news anchor Patricia Karvelas was targeted by homophobic trolls after sharing her experience as a queer Australian journalist who had to guard her sexual identity for many years. Media groups expressed solidarity with Karvelas as they condemned the online abuse against the journalist.
Australia’s national broadcaster ABC interviewed several journalists, including Karvelas, who narrated the challenges they faced as LGBTQ+ individuals working in the media industry. After this, Karvelas was viciously trolled on social media. She wrote on X (Twitter):
Trolls target me for hours with vile stuff.
The stuff I’ve read is truly shocking I didn’t even share the worst. Sexualised homophobia it made me sick
My family is really proud of me thanks.
The last line refers to the nasty comments she received alleging that her Greek family is embarrassed about her sexual identity.
ABC news director Justin Stevens defended Karvelas and criticized media outlets that amplified the comments against the journalist.
It is disturbing, saddening and angering that Patricia should find herself the target of online trolling and abuse, much of it sexualised, homophobic and racist, just for speaking publicly about her life.
Media outlets should be combatting dangerous online abuse and gender-based and sexual bullying, and standing in solidarity with peers experiencing it, not disingenuously serving to amplify it.
The Coalition For Women In Journalism urged authorities to investigate the attacks against Karvelas as it highlighted how online harassment can gravely affect the personal and professional lives of journalists.
We strongly condemn the mistreatment she has faced and urge authorities to thoroughly investigate these acts of aggression and ensure those responsible are held accountable.
The attacks against Karvelas serve as a reminder of the importance of standing up against online harassment and fostering an inclusive and respectful environment for journalists.
This abuse can have severe professional and personal consequences, leading to self-censorship, avoidance of certain topics, or even departure from the industry, adding to the existing gender disparity.
Karvelas discussed how she hid her sexuality from politicians and even some colleagues who seemed hostile to LGBTQ+ rights in her ABC interview. She said:
I was very careful among my colleagues who I perceived not to be supportive, [and] among politicians who I knew were hostile to gay rights, which were many.
Looking back, she shared her feelings about it.
I think back on those years with a great sense of sadness, that I wasn't able to be my full self at work.
I'm not dead yet so I can be myself now. But I don't think it should have been the case that I didn't get that experience in my youth.
She explained why she didn’t come forward to call out the LGBTQ+ discrimination in her workplace:
People would be surprised by that, because I think I'm well known in the public, and to anyone reading this piece who knows me, as being someone who does stand up and isn't really afraid of people.
But that's not what happens when you're in a social environment where people think gay jokes are funny. You just find it very hard to say anything without, you know, making yourself vulnerable, but also just being considered difficult all the time.
Finally, she acknowledges her role as a public figure and also her right to affirm her “authentic self”:
I don't want people to feel like I'm not their broadcaster. But equally if I'm not my authentic self, I can't do my job well.