Melanesian Spearhead Group discusses Middle East conflict
Papua New Guinea Prime Minister James Marape says the Middle East conflict was discussed at the recently-concluded Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) meeting,
Photo:
Fiji Ministry of Foreign Affairs/Facebook
Papua New Guinea Prime Minister James Marape says the Middle East conflict was one of the discussions of the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG), and Pacific leaders "took note of what is happening".
The
Post Courier
reported Marape saying the war between Israel and Iran is based on high technology and using missiles sent from great distances.
"In the context of MSG, the leaders want peace always. And the Pacific remains friends to all, enemies to none," he said.
He said an effect on PNG would be the inflation in prices of oil and gas.
Since then,
Iran has struck a US base in Qatar
.
On Tuesday morning, US President Donald Trump said a ceasefire had been agreed upon between Israel and Iran, but this has not been confirmed by either nation.
Australia had stepped in to help Papua New Guinea diplomats and citizens caught in the Middle East.
Foreign Affairs Minister Justin Tkatchenko confirmed last week that a group was to be evacuated through Jordan.
There were six diplomats in lockdown at the PNG embassy in Jerusalem awaiting extraction.
Meanwhile, a repatriation flight for Australians stuck in Israel was cancelled after another barrage of Iranian missiles.
The
ABC
reported it was the second day repatriation plays were scrapped last minute because of rocket fire. A bus meant to take people across the border into Jordan was cancelled the previous day.
A spokesperson for New Zealand's minister of foreign affairs said
where feasible, they may assist Pacific Islanders
in the Middle East.
"The Minister has said New Zealand will play its part as a good international citizen, and where feasible, that may involve assisting other nationals including those from the Pacific Islands," the spokesperson said.
"It is important to note that nationals of the Cook Islands, Tokelau and Niue have the rights of New Zealand citizens - and if nationals from those countries are in Iran or Israel, they're urged to follow the advice from MFAT to all New Zealanders to depart overland, if it is safe to do so."
Auckland Airport is advising international travellers to the Middle East to keep in contact with their airlines amid disruption because of military action.
The FlightRadar website shows a Qatar Airlines flight from Auckland to Doha that left Monday afternoon was diverted to Oman.
Australian Travel Industry Association chief executive Dean Long told the
ABC
many international airlines had been forced to reroute, particularly those flying through key transit hubs like Doha and Dubai.
"We're not seeing any major cancellations or significant delays affecting Australian travellers," Long said.
Meanwhile, Fiji assumed the chairmanship of the Melanesian Spearhead Group during the 23rd Melanesian Spearhead Group leaders' Summit held at the Bose Levu Vakaturaga Talanoa Lounge in Suva.
Fiji has assumed the chairmanship of the Melanesian Spearhead Group from Vanuatu.
Photo:
Fiji Ministry of Foreign Affairs/Facebook
In a traditional ceremony accorded at the BLV Grounds, the MSG Chairmanship was handed over to Fiji from Vanuatu.
Fiji Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs Sitiveni Rabuka and Prime Minister of the Republic of Vanuatu Jotham Napat in their remarks reaffirmed the regional solidarity and shared commitment to building a "peaceful and prosperous Melanesia".
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
5 hours ago
- RNZ News
Talks result in PNG and Bougainville signing 'Melanesian Agreement'
The Autonomous Bougainville Government President Ishmael Toroama, left, and PNG Prime Minister James Marape signed the Melanesian Agreement on Thursday. 26 June 2025. Photo: Autonomous Bougainville Government The leaders of Bougainville and Papua New Guinea have signed a deal that may bring the autonomous region's quest for independence closer. Called 'the Melanesian Agreement,' the deal was developed earlier this month in ten days of discussion at the New Zealand army base at Burnham, near Christchurch. Both governments have agreed that the national parliament in PNG has a key role in the decision over the push for independence. They recognise that the Bougainville desire for independence is legitimate, as expressed in a 2019 independence referendum result, and that this is a unique situation in PNG. That is the agreement's attempt to overcome pressure from other parts of PNG that are also talking about autonomy. The parties say they are committed to maintaining a close, peaceful and enduring relationship between PNG and Bougainville. Both sides said to bring referendum results to the national parliament both governments will develop a sessional order, which is a the temporary adjustment of parliament's rules. The said that a Bipartisan Parliamentary Committee on Bougainville, which will provide information to MPs and the general public about the Bougainville conflict and resolution is a vital body. The Parties said the will explore the joint creation of a Melanesian framework with agreed timelines, for a pathway forwards, that may form part of the Joint Consultations Report presented to the 11th National Parliament. Once the Bipartisan Committee completes its work the results of the referendum and the Joint Consultation Report will be taken to the 11th National Parliament. The parties said they will accept the decision of the national parliament, in the first instance, regarding the referendum results, and then commit to further consultations if needed, and this would be in an agreed timeline. In the meantime, institutional strengthening and institutional building within Bougainville will continue. To ensure progress is made and political commitment is sustained, the monitoring of this Melanesian Agreement could include an international component, a Parliamentary component, and the Bipartisan Parliamentary Committee, all with UN support.
RNZ News
8 hours ago
- RNZ News
Bougainville finally gets all Rio shares in Bougainville Copper
An aerial view of the abandoned Panguna mine pit. Photo: OCCRP / Aubrey Belford The Papua New Guinea government has announced it is going ahead with a handover of shares in Bougainville Copper Ltd to the Autonomous Bougainville Government (ABG). The former owner, Rio Tinto, let go of the shares nine years ago, with just over a third going to each government, and the remainder to the local landowners. Read more: PNG had long promised to give its portion of the shares to the people of Bougainville. Now, as per an agreement made five years ago, the shares will go to the ABG, giving it a shareholding of 73 percent. Bougainville's government wants to re-open the controversial mine at Panguna, which had been run by Rio Tinto through its Bougainville Copper subsidiary until its shut down by the civil war in 1989. The region's leaders see the mine as the fastest way to develop an economy on which Bougainville can build its independence. But overshadowing this somewhat is a call for Rio Tinto to mitigate the environmental and social damage generated by the mine before that shut down.
RNZ News
9 hours ago
- RNZ News
Why Trump needs the world to believe Iran's nuclear program is 'obliterated'
onpicture id="4K59BMS_AFP__20250624__63KL9ZG__v1__HighRes__UsPoliticsNatoSummitTrumpDepart_jpg" crop="16x10" layout="full"] US President Donald Trump. Analysis - There are two reasons why US President Donald Trump needs the world to believe his adamant claims that Iran's nuclear program has been obliterated. First, his entire presidency is set up to reflect glory on his own strongman persona, fuelling a narrative of courageous, unique and infallible leadership. Information that contradicts the myth is not welcome. Second, any evidence that Iran retains the capability to manufacture nuclear weapons or to restart its program after daring US bombing raids would raise an uncomfortable question: should the United States use military action again to try to finish the job and meet any future advances in Iran's capabilities with more strikes? This would potentially open a years-long period of quasi-war with Iran for which Trump has no appetite; raise the risks of a wider conflict; and anger his MAGA base. Trump and his top lieutenants are conjuring amped-up outrage and slamming the media for reporting an initial, "low confidence" assessment by the Defence Intelligence Agency that US attacks on three of Iran's facilities failed to destroy the core components of its nuclear program and likely only set it back by months. Trump redoubled his efforts in a news conference at the NATO summit to portray the raid as "very, very successful." He added, "It was called obliteration. No other military on Earth could have done it." Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth launched a theatrical outburst against CNN and The New York Times after they reported on the assessment. Such outlets "try to find a way to spin it for their own political reasons to try to hurt President Trump or our country, they don't care what the troops think", Hegseth said, showing the performative zeal that prompted the president to lift him from Fox News to head the Pentagon. The White House highlighted an assessment from Israel's military chief of staff Wednesday that Iran's nuclear program suffered "systemic" damage and was set back years, and CIA director John Ratcliffe said in a statement that the agency had evidence it had been "severely damaged." But these statements, while suggesting Iran has suffered a serious blow, do not yet fully support Trump's expansive claims. The president's tactics were familiar. He is going global with his strategy of creating his own narratives whether or not there is yet evidence to prove them. He showed how successful this could be with his false claims of election fraud in 2020. If the world believes that Iran's nuclear program is destroyed and all sources suggesting otherwise are discredited, Trump has a rationale for taking no further action. Everything that involves intelligence is, by definition, opaque. And lasting judgements, from technical or human sources, on how far the US set back Iran's nuclear program could take months. It's also not possible to know whether the administration does have more information on the aftermath of the strikes that it is not releasing for operational reasons. A more judicious initial White House response to the raids might have avoided the current controversy. But its frantic spin was inevitable, since Trump declared while B-2 bombers were still aloft that Saturday's mission was a total, overwhelming success. Any contrary evidence would mean an embarrassing reversal and challenge his ego and credibility. But the hyper-emotional response to honest questioning over whether Iran's nuclear program has truly been wiped out makes the White House look defensive, raising doubts about its truthfulness. And it is distracting from aspects of the mission for which Trump can claim credit - a flawless round-the-world bombing raid with no US casualties and his effective pressure on Israel and Iran to stop fighting as well as his success in not being pulled into a longer war. Growing controversy over Iran also overshadowed an undeniable achievement by Trump at the summit in the Netherlands in getting a commitment from member states to spend 5% of GDP on defence by 2035. The target will be hard to reach. But no other president came close to achieving anything similar. The White House only has itself to blame. Its failure to properly explain to Americans why Trump's administration suddenly came to believe Iran was weeks away from building a nuclear weapon created suspicion over its motives. Its failure to inform some top Democrats that the B-2 bombing mission was underway needlessly politicised an issue on which Trump could expect substantial support across the aisle. The administration then postponed Capitol Hill briefings on the strikes until Thursday. It's unclear whether those sessions will be productive. Trump's intelligence chiefs rushed to bolster his claims on Wednesday. Ratcliffe's statement said the CIA had obtained "a body of credible evidence" that Iran's nuclear program had been "severely damaged". This included intelligence from a "reliable source/method that several key Iranian nuclear facilities were destroyed and would have to be rebuilt over the course of years," Ratcliffe said. His comments fell short, however, of Trump's claims of obliteration. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard posted on X that "new intelligence" showed that Iran's nuclear facilities had been "destroyed". None of the pushback offered evidence that would allow Americans to make up their own minds. It did nothing to back up Trump's claim in the Hague Wednesday that Iran had not moved any of its stock of enriched uranium before the raids. Nor did it address whether Iran maintains secret facilities that it could use to race toward a bomb. The administration looks like it's trying to obscure difficult questions. Contrary to what Hegseth claimed, it is not unpatriotic to report information confirmed by administration officials questioning the extent of the damage to Iran's nuclear program. And no one is attacking the pilots of the B-2 bombers who undertook the hazardous multi-hour mission. The tone of media coverage of their efforts has been marked by marvelling rather than criticism. The issue is whether the bunker-busting bombs, used in action for the first time, really did penetrate the Fordow nuclear facility, buried under hundreds of feet of rock and cement, and destroy centrifuges that spin uranium. And it's about whether Trump is truly fulfilling his duties as president if he ignores any evidence the objectives were not fully met. The administration's wild reaction to the preliminary, low-confidence Pentagon intelligence report creates another dangerous possibility - that it's pressuring the intelligence community to tailor intelligence to meet its political needs. This corrosive trend has been disastrous to US national security in the past. Such behaviour is a major concern with huge national security implications under a president who has trashed the US intelligence community and appointed officials to lead it who share his politicized views. Future intelligence reports - which could take months to conduct - might well conclude that Iran's nuclear program has been destroyed or set back far from the point of approaching a weapon. If they don't, Trump has a huge political and diplomatic problem. Now that the United States has taken military action alongside Israel in an attempt to eradicate Iran's nuclear program, he has created a standard for himself. If credible evidence emerges that Iran has salvaged aspects of its program, either centrifuges or stocks of enriched uranium, as has been reported, the president - or Israel - will come under pressure to take new action to stop it. The International Atomic Energy Agency has said it's possible that Iran moved uranium, which is easily portable, before US and Israeli raids. Future US action against Iran could create the conditions for the prolonged war or deeper low-level conflict in the Middle East that Trump has sworn to avoid, and that would threaten to create a new fracture in his "Make America Great Again" political base. There is a precedent for such prolonged and expensive engagements. After the 1991 Gulf War, the US-led coalition maintained no-fly zones in Iraq to protect the Kurdish minority in the north and Shiites in the south and to contain Saddam Hussein's military for more than a decade. Uncertainty over the fate of Iran's nuclear program could also complicate efforts to reach a diplomatic solution with the Islamic Republic. Trump said at the NATO summit on Wednesday that US and Iranian negotiators would meet next week. Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff told CNBC on Wednesday that his boss was looking for a "comprehensive peace agreement" with Iran that would go beyond the nuclear question. It would be an extraordinary breakthrough after 45 years of antagonism. If Trump could end the US estrangement with the Islamic Republic - perhaps after breaking the foundation of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's power with military action - he could rightfully claim a major legacy achievement. "I think that they are ready; that is my strong sense," said Witkoff. Yet such hopes are dependent on developments in the opaque Iranian system; political forces that the US cannot control; and extremist elements, including in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, that have a lot to lose in terms of prestige and economic power if the regime changes or falls. Some experts believe that Iran will respond to the US and Israel assault by reasoning that it is even more imperative to develop a nuclear bomb to ensure the regime's survival. And if Tehran rejects cooperation with the IAEA and its inspectors, it might be able to evade outside monitoring. Trump, however, played down expectations for a lasting agreement with Iran on Wednesday. "We may sign an agreement. I don't know. To me, I don't think it's that necessary. I mean, they had a war. They fought, and now, they're going back to their world. I don't care if I have an agreement or not," the president said. He implied that a statement by Iran not to seek nuclear weapons would undercut his own claim that their program was obliterated. The complete truth may not be known for months. But it would be a deep irony if, 20 years after a war provoked by cherry-picked intelligence on a weapons of mass destruction program that did not exist, another White House tweaked intelligence to misrepresent a program in Iran that was active. - CNN
