China, US pledge Pacific funds before key meeting
The announcement comes before a meeting of foreign ministers of the Pacific Islands Forum regional bloc on Thursday and the region's top political meeting in September.
The Solomon Islands, which hosts the annual leaders meeting and is China's biggest ally in the region, made the surprise decision to block 21 donor countries, including China and the United States, from attending after pressure from Beijing to exclude Taiwan.
The US expressed disappointment with the move but on Tuesday made its own $US60 million ($A92 million) pledge to the region under a 2022 treaty, as news of the Chinese agreement with Nauru was made public.
The US Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau told Pacific Islands officials in Washington on Monday the long-promised funds would be released by the Trump administration, the State Department said.
Meanwhile, Australia, the largest forum member, has sent high-level delegations to Papua New Guinea and Vanuatu for security talks.
Nauru said its foreign affairs minister, Lionel Aingimea, had signed the proposal in Beijing worth $A1 billion with the China Rural Revitalisation and Development Corporation for economic development.
The deal was signed last week and would develop Nauru's renewable energy, phosphate industry, fisheries, water, agriculture, transport and health sectors, the statement said.
A Nauru government official was unable to provide further details.
Nauru President David Adeang visited China in July to trace his ancestral roots, China's embassy in Nauru said in July.
The Pacific leaders meeting in September will consider regional security, with Australia seeking to block China from forging further security ties in its Pacific neighbourhood.
Australia's Foreign Minister Penny Wong, Defence Minister Richard Marles and Pacific Minister Pat Conroy will hold security talks in Vanuatu on Wednesday, with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation reporting a deal worth $A500 million over a decade under consideration.
Vanuatu said the two countries expected to sign a deal covering infrastructure and economic development in September.
Wong said in a Sky television interview on Tuesday the Pacific was "essential to our stability, to our security".
Marles on Tuesday opened the Lombrum Naval Base in Papua New Guinea, which he said was the largest security infrastructure project delivered by Australia in the Pacific.
The upgrade to the PNG defence base was funded by the US and Australia.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sydney Morning Herald
16 minutes ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
While Trump blusters over Ukraine, Putin's laughing all the way to Alaska
The conventional model dictates that sanctions be imposed gradually, following stern warnings. This gives the Russian regime time to prepare for the impact: to subsidise domestic production of goods that will no longer be imported (Obama-era sanctions did wonders for Russian farmers and cheese makers), to prioritise new export markets as well as to find third-party countries through which to, say, export oil or import dual-use technology. It also bolsters ties between Russia and countries that are already under US sanctions – such as Iran, which has become an essential partner in Russia's drone warfare. And still, one presidential administration after another has touted sanctions as its main instrument in getting Putin to change his ways. Joe Biden imposed multiple rounds of sanctions, though none were 'devastating', as he had promised. Trump imposed an additional 25 per cent tariff on India, ostensibly as a penalty for importing Russian oil, and has promised more secondary tariffs for Russia's other trade partners. Year after year, American presidents do the same thing, expecting different results. In this one way, Trump is no crazier than his predecessors. However difficult it is for foreign-policy theorists to grapple with the limitations of the economic pressure approach, for Trump it is all but impossible. Again and again, Trump has shown that he assumes everyone is motivated by money. He is not alone in this: Many Western analysts have repeatedly suggested that Putin would seek an off-ramp in Ukraine once the war proved costly for Russia and, perhaps more to the point, for him personally. As much as Putin loves wealth, he has shown that he loves power even more – eternal power in his own country, which he wins by expanding Russia's borders, and power in the world at large, which he wins by making other leaders fear him. Trump seems to be unaware that, by meeting with Putin, he is giving Putin exactly what the Russian leader wants – a demonstration of his power. Trump is giving Putin additional gifts by agreeing to meet him without Zelensky and by sidelining the European Union. Trump is affirming for all of Russia to see what Putin has claimed all along: that the conflict is really between Russia and the United States. The moment Putin walks into the negotiating room, he has gotten everything he wants – plus an opportunity to make a quip about Alaska as historically Russian land (consider this a prediction). If the meeting does not produce an agreement, Putin loses nothing. Trump, on the other hand, would lose face if he walked out empty-handed. He may be motivated to accept something, anything. The conditions for peace that Russia offered in June were merely a more elaborate display of the four things Putin has consistently demanded: land, including parts of Ukraine that Russia has not occupied; an end to Western military aid to Ukraine; guarantees that Ukraine will never be invited to join NATO; and a change of leadership in Ukraine. Trump can agree to those conditions, but Zelensky will never accept them. Putin has very little reason to change his demands. Still, if the Russian leader is inclined to help Trump look good – a big if – they may emerge with some kind of ceasefire agreement. This may be a time-limited ceasefire, contingent on Ukrainian withdrawal from parts of eastern Ukraine. Such a deal would force Ukraine to retreat from positions it considers strategically important while giving Russia a couple of months to regroup before attacking again, on the pretext that Ukraine didn't abide by Russian demands. Another possibility that has been floated is a ban on waging war deep inside enemy territory, or an air truce. Such an agreement would save lives – in Kyiv and Odesa, which have come under Russian barrages day after day, but also in Russian cities, which Ukraine has grown increasingly capable of attacking with drones. For Ukraine, an air truce would come at tremendous strategic cost. It would continue to be a country at war. It would still be governed under a set of state-of-emergency provisions. Families would continue to be separated, with so many women and children having fled to western Europe while the men remained. Worst of all, people would continue dying at the front, in the villages and towns near the front line, and in Kharkiv, Ukraine's second largest city, which is about 20 miles (32 kilometres) in. The ability to attack deep in Russian territory is Ukraine's sole negotiating advantage. These days, Russian airports are frequently forced to suspend operations because of drone attacks. The mayor of Moscow reports on the number of drones intercepted by air defence in much the same way as the mayor of Kyiv does. This is not enough to destabilise Putin's regime, but it is enough to make him nervous. If drone attacks deep inside Russian territory stopped, war – what Russian propaganda still calls the 'special military operation' – may once again come to feel far away. The only thing that could force Putin to negotiate in earnest is the possibility of military defeat. Without that prospect, he is content to let the war continue forever. He doesn't care about losing wealth as much as Trump imagines he does, and he doesn't care about losing soldiers at all. In 2022, and again this May, the Kremlin noted that Peter the Great's war with Sweden, which began in 1700, lasted 21 years. This war, too, could go on for decades. One doesn't have to go back centuries to imagine what that would be like. The forever war is already here. A devastating new documentary, 2000 Meters to Andriivka, by Ukrainian director Mstyslav Chernov shows what it looks like. Loading The film follows a Ukrainian brigade trying to liberate a small village. It takes them months to cover the distance in the movie's title, roughly the equivalent of just over a mile. The movie shows the gigantic horrors of war – entire cities destroyed, swaths of farmland turned into minefields and what looks like miles of identical fresh graves – and the smallness of it: handfuls of soldiers, armed with semiautomatic rifles, killing and being killed one person at a time, taking one prisoner at a time, fighting for one trench at a time, in terrifying minutes that stretch into hours. It is relentless like a nightmare. A platoon commander says that he dreams of the fighting, then wakes up to the fighting. 'And I thought, this war is a nightmare none of us can wake up from,' the narrator says. As the soldiers on-screen drag themselves through mud and ruins, the voices of Western commentators and newscasters occasionally intrude, off-screen. 'Western confidence is likely to dip.' 'If we're not getting results here, then perhaps Ukraine wants to think about another plan, even some land concessions for peace.' 'Western officials have expressed disappointment in a much-vaunted counteroffensive.' 'Russia has millions more men from whom to draw. There's no path to a military victory here, only more death.' 'How sustainable is this level of support when there's really no end in sight to the war?' Those are not, in the end, complicated questions. No, Ukraine cannot win this war as it is fought now. Yes, this war may drag on indefinitely, and yes, this means more death. But this was never and still is not the only possible outcome. The United States and NATO have always had the capacity to put an end to this war the only way it can be ended: by defeating Putin. They have consistently chosen not to do that, relying instead on old, failed policies. In this one way, Trump is more of the same. He just puts on a much bigger show. M. Gessen is an Opinion columnist for The New York Times. They won a George Polk award for opinion writing in 2024. They are the author of 11 books, including , which won the National Book Award in 2017.
Daily Telegraph
18 minutes ago
- Daily Telegraph
ABS travel data shows fall in Aussie visits to US
Don't miss out on the headlines from Breaking News. Followed categories will be added to My News. Australian holiday-makers continue to drift away from the US, with fresh Australian Bureau of Statistics data revealing a stark fall off in visitor numbers. Overseas arrivals and departures data shows the US fell from third to fourth most popular travel destination across 2024-25. Travel to the vast and vibrant North American democracy was now 25 per cent lower from 10 years ago, the ABS said. China, meanwhile, rose two spots to fifth place, even as the government recommends travellers exercise a 'high degree of caution' when visiting the Communist country. More restrictive US trade and entry policies, introduced following US President Donald Trump's victory in November last year, could be dampening Australia's traditional American wanderlust. The US boasts a range of legendary cities including New York. Picture: Visit USA In a trading update from July, travel booking company Flight Centre warned of an 'ongoing global downturn in bookings to the US' and said Australian holiday-makers were searching for destinations closer to home. 'This volatility temporarily disrupted traditional travel and booking patterns during Flight Centre's peak trading period as some customers either booked closer-to-home overseas holidays (in Australia, examples include China, Japan, Fiji and New Zealand) or delayed finalising travel plans,' the company said. The $2.8bn company delivered a reduced profit forecast as a result of the disruption in traditional travel patterns. Though travel to the US declined, Indonesia held steady as Australia's most popular travel destination. Indonesia remains Australia's most popular holiday destination. Picture: Getty Images The northern neighbour, which boasts the tourism crown jewel of Bali, accounted for 14 per cent of Australian overseas trips across the year. Some 87 per cent of the 1,741,370 trips recorded to Indonesia were for holidays. New Zealand came in second place, Japan third, the US fourth and China at No.5. Trips to Japan have tripled compared with 2015, while trips to India have doubled. For travel into Australia, New Zealanders took out top spot, accounting for 16.6 per cent of all visitors, or 1,391,140 visits. The median duration of stay in Australia was 12 days, the same as 2023-24. Originally published as ABS overseas arrivals and departures data shows 25 per cent fall in Aussie visits to US
Sky News AU
an hour ago
- Sky News AU
Trump will show his rage if Putin decides to play ‘hardball': Megyn Kelly
'The Megyn Kelly Show' host Megyn Kelly discusses the upcoming meeting between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska. 'Trump understands that when he goes in there, he's going to hear either a difference in the messaging and the tone from Putin … or he's not,' Ms Kelly told Sky News host Paul Murray. 'Trump doesn't have a lot of time on his hands for the normal diplomatic glad-handing and banal talk ... Trump's going to get right down to business. 'If Putin makes the mistake of really giving him nothing and trying to play hardball, I have no doubt Trump will come out and tell us that, and he'll be angry and he'll be pushing the secondary sanctions on India and possibly others.'
