US leader believes Israel, Hamas truce could drive greater peace in the region. That may be wishful thinking
United States President Donald Trump seems to be in a peace-making mood.
After briefly bombing Iran last month, he swiftly hailed a ceasefire between Israel
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
an hour ago
- Otago Daily Times
First-hand view of peacemaking challenge in the ‘Holy Land'
West Bank-based Kiwi journalist Cole Martin asks who are the peacemakers? As a Kiwi journalist living in the occupied West Bank, I can list endless reasons why there is no peace in the "Holy Land". I live in a refugee camp, alongside families who were expelled from their homes by Israel's violent establishment in 1948 — never allowed to return and repeatedly targeted by Israeli military incursions. Daily I witness suffocating checkpoints, settler attacks against rural towns, arbitrary imprisonment with no charge or trial, a crippled economy, expansion of illegal settlements, demolition of entire communities, genocidal rhetoric, and continued expulsion. No form of peace can exist within an active system of domination. To talk about peace without liberation and dignity is to suggest submission to a system of displacement, imprisonment, violence and erasure. I often find myself alongside a variety of peacemakers, putting themselves on the line to end these horrific systems — let me outline the key groups. — Palestinian civil society and individuals have spent decades committed to creative non-violence in the face of these atrocities — from court battles to academia, education, art, co-ordinating demonstrations, general strikes, hīkoi (marches), sit-ins, civil disobedience. Google "Iqrit village", "The Great March of Return", "Tent of Nations farm". These are the overlooked stories that don't make catchy headlines. — Protective Presence activists are a mix of about 150 Israeli and international civilians who volunteer their days and nights physically accompanying Palestinian communities. They aim to prevent Israeli settler violence, state-sanctioned home demolitions, and military/police incursions. They document the injustice and often face violence and arrest themselves. Foreigners face deportation and blacklisting — as a journalist I was arrested and barred from the West Bank short-term and my passport was withheld for over a month. — Reconciliation organisations have been working for decades to bridge the disconnect between political narratives and human realities. The effective groups don't seek "co-existence" but "co-resistance" because they recognise there can be no peace within an active system of apartheid. They reiterate that dialogue alone achieves nothing while the Israeli regime continues to murder, displace and steal. Yes there are "opposing narratives", but they do not have equal legitimacy when tested against the reality on the ground. — Journalists continue to document and report key developments, chilling statistics and the human cost. They ensure people are seen. Over 200 journalists have been killed in Gaza. High-profile Palestinian Christian journalist Shireen Abu-Akleh was killed by Israeli forces in 2022. They continue reporting despite the risk, and without their courage world leaders wouldn't know which undeniable facts to brazenly ignore. — Humanitarians serve and protect the most vulnerable, treating and rescuing people selflessly. Over 400 aid workers and 1000 healthcare workers have been killed in Gaza. All 38 hospitals have been destroyed or damaged, with just a small number left partially functioning. NGOs have been crippled by USAID cuts and targeted Israeli policies, marked by a mass exodus of expats who have spent years committed to this region — severing a critical lifeline for Palestinian communities. All these groups emphasise change will not come from within. Protective presence barely stems the flow. Reconciliation means nothing while the system continues to displace, imprison and slaughter Palestinians en masse. Journalism, non-violence and humanitarian efforts are only as effective as the willingness of states to uphold international law. Those on the frontlines of peacebuilding express the urgent need for global accountability across all sectors; economic, cultural and political sanctions. Systems of apartheid do not stem from corrupt leadership or several extremists, but from widespread attitudes of supremacy and nationalism across civil society. Boycotts increase the economic cost of maintaining such systems. Divestment sends a strong financial message that business as usual is unacceptable. Many other groups across the world are picketing weapons manufacturers, writing to elected leaders, educating friends and family, challenging harmful narratives, fundraising aid to keep people alive. Where are the peacemakers? They're out on the streets. They're people just like you and me. — Cole Martin is a New Zealand journalist in the West Bank.
Scoop
12 hours ago
- Scoop
Defence Spending Is Like Insurance – How Will NZ Pay The Higher Premiums?
Defence spending is like insurance – you have to pay for it but you hope you never have to use it. And the higher the risk you face, the higher your premium will be. New Zealand has now committed to paying those higher defence insurance premiums. The government's 2025 Defence Capability Plan, released in April, includes NZ$9 billion in extra funding over the next four years. That's a sizable increase on a current annual budget of just under $5 billion. New Zealand is not alone, of course. Driven by geopolitical tensions and US President Donald Trump's demand that other countries spend a higher proportion of their GDP on defence, global military spending rose for the tenth year in a row to US$2,718 billion in 2024, with huge increases in Europe and the Middle East. How much 'insurance' a country should buy in the form of defence spending will vary. Too little, and it cannot respond when it needs to; too much, and resources are needlessly wasted. For New Zealand, it is a matter of finding the right balance. Economically, however, defence spending is more complicated than simply buying weapons and recruiting more personnel. There can be benefits beyond basic security considerations. One involves what economists call 'technology spillovers'. Past innovations developed for military use – such as jet engines, GPS and the internet – often found important civilian applications. The challenge is to design defence investments to deliberately build skills and technologies with wider economic benefit: advanced manufacturing, cybersecurity or clean tech. New Zealand's defence plan includes this kind of spending, including between $100 million and 300 million on cybersecurity. On the other hand, promises of new jobs from large projects are often overstated, with New Zealand's best known example being the ' Think Big ' policy of the 1970s. Rather, there can be job substitution as people move from civilian roles into military ones. Guns and butter In the end, of course, increased defence spending must be funded – through higher taxes, more debt or reduced spending on other items. Higher GDP growth would make the expenditure more affordable, but even then we face the same tradeoffs. It's not possible to have lower taxes and debt as well as higher government spending. Most of the expenditure set out in the defence plan will be on equipment. But any increase in the output of the defence industry will likely crowd out other consumer and investment goods. While clearly an extreme example, one only has to look at how defence spending rose during WWII. The increase in military output came at the expense of other goods, leading to shortages and rationing. New Zealand doesn't face that scale of change, but there is still likely to be some shift in production from 'butter to guns'. We might also see a shift in how businesses spend their research and development money, towards military and away from civilian applications. New Zealand does not have a large defence industry and will need to import much of the new equipment. This implies a need for higher exports to pay for those imports, meaning fewer goods for New Zealanders to consume. Costs and benefits Most countries are understandably reluctant to cut spending on health, education and other things voters care about in order to boost defence. Hence, governments can be tempted to label new expenditures as 'defence' when it could otherwise be classified as 'updated infrastructure'. Spending on dual-purpose capital works is likely to increase, therefore, with projects earmarked for defence more likely to be funded. The New Zealand defence plan already allows for housing, airfield and port facilities that can all have multiple uses. There are also ethical considerations. Many consumers prefer not to invest in the arms trade, but components used in weapons manufacture often have non-military uses as well. Similarly, many consumer items, such as phones, vehicles and food, can be purchased by the military but clearly have non-military uses. We may see more of the output of companies that also produce non-military items directed into defence. All of this can make it difficult to classify a company as a defence contractor, and may be challenging for large investors (such as superannuation funds) with ethical investment policies. At the same time, the cost of not investing in defence firms might also rise as demand for their products or services increases and they become better investments. Like people in general, countries prefer lower insurance premiums. But when risks increase, so too does the price of insurance. Voters will disagree on how much should be spent on defence, but that is largely a political question. What economics teaches us, however, is that if you want to reduce your insurance premium, then reduce your risk. And that is something easier said than done.
Scoop
13 hours ago
- Scoop
K-Defense Day: Pimping For The Arms Dealers
Militarism is catching on across the countries of advanced economies and beyond. The sly, disingenuous term of 'defence' is used in this context, encouraging arms manufacturers, contractors and the entire apparatus of the military-industrial complex to fatten for the cause. The European Union huffs and struts towards higher targets of expenditure that will cull projects for peaceful development in favour of a fatuous rearmament agenda. Member countries of the NATO alliance, lent on by the administration of President Donald Trump, are doing the same. The countries of the Middle East continue to add to the numbers, with warring Israel seeing a 65% increase in 2024 to US$46.5 billion, the sharpest annual increase since the Six-Day War in 1967. In East Asia, military contractors are also preening themselves in Tokyo and Seoul, pressing the flesh and pursuing contracts. Japan's military spending rose by a gulping 21% in 2024. The amount of US$55.3 billion is the largest since 1952. In Seoul, on the occasion of K-Defense Day on June 8, President Lee Jae-myung made it clear that he did not want South Korea's own defence industry to miss out on all the fun. In a closed-door discussion held at the Grand Hyatt Seoul hotel organised by the Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA), Lee solemnly promised to 'do my best to push ahead, as long as we don't end up being labelled arms dealers'. This somewhat idiosyncratic caveat is bound to make little difference, given Lee's ambitions to promote the value of South Korea's killing inventory. DAPA, wanting to make the most of its first Defense Industry Day themed 'Remembering the dedication and passion of Korea's Defense Industry', was in a bullish mood to promote Korean military prowess. Some well minted propaganda did the rounds, drawing inspiration on the exploits of Admiral Yi Sun-sin on July 8, 1592, when the turtle ship was committed to the Battle of Sacheon against the Japanese fleet. The turtle ship, in its 'historical significance', symbolised 'Korea's will to protect its territory and its independent technological prowess.' Those in the defence industry had been worried that the new President might give them the cold shoulder on this grand occasion. He had previously attacked the installation of the US Terminal High Altitude Defense system on Korean soil, ostensibly to protect South Korea from North Korean missiles, as needlessly provocative. The militarists need not have worried. All the relevant mandarins were in attendance, including the Minister of National Defense nominee Ahn Gyu-baek and Chairperson of the National Defense Committee, Seong Il-jong. The industry titans were also represented. Numerous awards of merit were also presented. Lee had purportedly told his aides that K-Defense Day, put on the calendar of commemorations by his impeached predecessor Yoon Suk Yeol in 2023, would be a good opportunity to 'highlight our support for defence.' According to Korea JoongAng Daily, Lee outlined his various achievements of late to the closed gathering, including attending the G7 summit held last month in Canada. 'A big reason I went was to showcase the strength of our defence industry and to ask them to buy our submarines.' In May, it was revealed that a trio of South Korean firms – Hyundai Heavy Industries, Hanwha Ocean and Hanwha Aerospace – had made a combined offer to the Canadian armed forces valued between US$14 to 17 billion in submarines, with US$720 million worth of armoured vehicles and artillery systems. It was a good time for the Koreans to strike, given the stated view by newly-elected Canadian Prime Minister Mike Carney that 'the old relationship with the United States based on… tight security and military cooperation is over'. Lee also explained his purpose for seeking an invitation to the latest NATO summit held in The Hague. Despite wanting to avoid accusations of being a grubby arms dealer, the ROK President was clearly placing the ambitions and wallets of arms dealers ahead of the common citizenry. He had become a pimp for arms: 'The biggest reason I wanted to go was to advertise our defence industry and weapons.' Participants at the forum pressed Lee to depart from the view that defence was a matter of procurement and competition between parties rather than a total industry beneficial to the state. The response was suitably patriotic – at least if you are a merchant of death: 'Defence and arms exports are not just a competition between companies; they're a competition between nations. We have to win as 'One Team Korea.'' In public remarks made at the start of the forum, Lee offered the sort of reasoning that launders the military-industrial complex of its stains, concealing its insatiable appetite to stimulate the cause for war. 'I hope the defence industry not only strengthens our security but also becomes one of Korea's future growth engines. The government will continue investing and providing strong support.' In response to 'the rapidly changing security environment', the government would also 'develop state-of-the-art weapon systems using artificial intelligence (AI) and unmanned robots and build a healthy business ecosystem that goes beyond the industrial structure centred on big corporations to allow small and medium enterprises and diverse talent to participate.' Militarism, following this seedy rationale, should not just be for the big corporations and arms manufacturers. In the business of killing, the little guys should also be given a chance.
