‘It's not Chinese assistance': Australia accuses China of taking undue credit for aid projects in the Pacific
On the island of Bougainville, an autonomous region of Papua New Guinea to Australia's north, the state-owned China Railway Construction Corporation has begun work to strengthen the runway at Kieta-Aropa, on the outskirts of the largest city.
When the government of Bougainville announced the upgrade of the airport, there was no mention of the Asian Development Bank – who is funding the project – only the state-owned China Railway Construction Corporation.
And when an inauguration ceremony was held last month at the airport's runway, the president of Bougainville and the prime minister of Papua New Guinea broke the ground with a shovel wearing hardhats adorned with the name and logo of the CRCC. An ADB sign was visible in the background.
Australia's minister for the Pacific, Pat Conroy, said the 'branding' of multilateral development projects had been a consistent frustration for the government.
'It's not Chinese assistance. A Chinese state-owned-enterprise won a contract under the Asian Development Bank … that project is funded by the ADB.
'The largest donors to the ADB are countries like Japan and Australia, which is part of my frustration … because people driving past would assume it's funded by China because you see Chinese state-owned-enterprise branding everywhere, but it's funded by the taxpayers of countries like Japan and Australia.'
Conroy said he had lobbied the ADB to improve its procurement processes – 'to make sure they go for quality rather than the cheapest bid' – and to limit nationalised 'branding' of projects, reforms to which it has agreed.
The ADB is a major development backer across the Pacific. Australia is the fund's second-highest contributor after Japan.
Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email
Asked if he felt China was seeking to bolster its influence through multilateral organisations like the ADB, Conroy told the Guardian: 'I think that's a reasonable conclusion.
'I'm sure they seek to make money out of these projects as well, but if they're able to brand them with a [state-owned enterprise]'s name, then there's a secondary benefit, obviously.'
Conroy said the contest for influence extended beyond Bougainville, which is seeking independence from Papua New Guinea by 1 September 2027.
'We've been very clear that there's a permanent state of contest in the Pacific, that Australia is seeking to be the partner of choice for every Pacific nation and that China is seeking a role there as well.'
Emma Veve, director general of the ADB's Pacific Department, said the bank was expanding across the region, with strong support from countries like Australia.
'ADB is proud of its work and committed to ensuring that project information is visible to the public during the execution of construction works and that there is a precise acknowledgment of project funding sources.'
In the context of broader contestation in the Pacific, there are concerns from traditional allies over a deepening Chinese influence, particularly around security: three Pacific countries have 'flipped' their formal recognition from Taipei to Beijing since 2019 and China now has police training programs in Solomon Islands, Kiribati, Samoa, Fiji and Vanuatu.
In the US, the conservative Heritage Foundation – whose Project 2025 document has guided much of Donald Trump's agenda – argues the possibility of an independent Bougainville is a geostrategic opportunity for America.
'The US must take advantage of this opportunity, or risk ceding to Beijing a first-mover advantage in a vital corner of the Indo-Pacific, where the balance of power and influence could easily tip in China's favour.'
But Bougainville's deputy president, Patrick Nisira, said concerns over Chinese influence were fuelled by sceptical 'western media sources'.
'The dearth of options from traditional development partners over the last 20 years, a rapidly shortening timeframe for self-governance … and now Chinese companies' approaches for partnerships in these very areas, make such opportunities worth considering for the benefit of the people,' he said.
Oliver Nobetau, project director of the Australia-Papua New Guinea Network at the Lowy Institute, said he believes Bougainville will declare independence on 1 September 2027.
'Is it going to be successful? I don't think so.
Sign up to Breaking News Australia
Get the most important news as it breaks
after newsletter promotion
'What happens next is the great uncertainty… nobody knows what's going to happen on [September] 2nd.'
Nobetau said Bougainville's strategic access is significant: the island is 'right next door to Solomon Islands, and nearly smack bang in the middle of the Pacific'.
'For countries like the US and Australia, and for China, the next question is 'who are they going to turn to for assistance?' Because they definitely won't be able to do it by themselves.
'Are the US and Australia worried about the influence of China on a potential newly independent Bougainville? Yes, absolutely.'
Bougainville is less than 1,500km from the Australian coast, but the pair share a complex history: first as coloniser and colonised when Bougainville was part of the Australian-controlled Territory of Papua and New Guinea.
Beginning in the 1970s, Anglo-Australian miner Rio Tinto ran Panguna mine, which sparked Bougainville's brutal civil war. The Australian government was also directly implicated in the conflict when helicopters provided to PNG were fitted with weapons and turned on the Bougainvillean people.
But the Australian government was also a key agent in brokering the peace deal that ended the conflict.
Bougainville, a group of islands off Papua New Guinea to the north of Australia, has been variously controlled by Britain, Germany, Japan, Australia and PNG.
It declared independence in 1975 as the Republic of North Solomons, but was absorbed into the newly independent PNG weeks later.
Its close ethnic ties and proximity to the Solomons archipelago means it has always sat uneasily with Port Moresby's rule.
That discontent came to a violent head in 1988 after a long-running dispute over the lucrative Panguna copper and gold mine.
The mine, carved from a mountain in central Bougainville, was critically important to PNG, at one point generating more than 45% of the country's national export revenue.
Multinational Rio Tinto and other international investors earned nearly US$2bn from the mine over 17 years of operation. But less than 1% of the mine's profits went to Bougainvilleans, whose homes and lands had been destroyed by it.
Under the leadership of a former mine worker, Francis Ona, disaffected Bougainvilleans ran a sabotage campaign which forced the mine's closure in 1989.
The PNG Government responded by sending in police, then soldiers, to restore law and order. Bougainville was blockaded and the island descended into a brutal civil war that ran for a decade, and saw as many as 20,000 people die.
PNG later hired international mercenaries to end the conflict (the notorious Sandline affair), before a peace agreement was signed in 2001.
In a 2019 referendum, 97.7% of Bougainvilleans voted in favour of independence. Many argue that reopening Panguna mine will be key to the island's economic future as an independent nation.
Australia has, since the Bougainville Peace Accords, been the island's largest external development funder: $51m of Australia's $631m in development assistance to PNG goes to the autonomous region, the most of any single province: money is dedicated towards roads, bridges and solar electricity projects.
Since a 2019 referendum on independence returned a 97.7% yes vote, the Australian government has sought to maintain a resolute neutrality on Bougainville's independence – although its position has not always been seen as impartial on the island.
In 2022, the deputy prime minister, Richard Marles, said 'our role is to support the prime minister, and the government of Papua New Guinea, in the decisions that it makes in respect of the future of Bougainville', a statement seen as siding with the PNG government, which is resistant to secession.
Bougainville's president, Ishmael Toroama, accused Marles of 'veiled threats' and said Australia had made only 'piecemeal contributions' to Bougainville's development through 'boomerang aid'.
'My people do not take kindly to threats and we will never kowtow to neo-colonists that seek to usurp the sovereignty of Pacific island nations with their bullying tactics and intimidation.'
Conroy said this month the question of Bougainville's political independence was 'a matter for the people of Bougainville, and Papua New Guinea more broadly, to decide'.
This project was supported by a grant from the Melbourne Press Club's Michael Gordon Fellowships
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Leader Live
an hour ago
- Leader Live
Failing to protect planet from climate change ‘could violate international law'
Advocates immediately cheered the landmark advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on nations' obligations to tackle climate change and the consequences they may face if they do not. 'Failure of a state to take appropriate action to protect the climate system… may constitute an internationally wrongful act,' court president Yuji Iwasawa said during the hearing. He called the climate crisis 'an existential problem of planetary proportions that imperils all forms of life and the very health of our planet.' The non-binding opinion, which runs to more than 500 pages, was hailed as a turning point in international climate law. Notably, the court said a 'clean, healthy and sustainable environment' is a human right. That paves the way for other legal actions, including states returning to the ICJ to hold each other to account as well as domestic lawsuits, along with legal instruments such as investment agreements. The case was led by the Pacific island nation of Vanuatu and backed by more than 130 countries. All UN member states including major greenhouse gas emitters such as the United States and China are parties to the court. Climate activists had gathered outside the crowded court with a banner that read: 'Courts have spoken. The law is clear. States must act now.' They watched the ruling on a giant screen, clapping and cheering at times during the two-hour hearing. When it was over, others emerged from the courtroom laughing and hugging. 'Today, the tables have turned. The world's highest court provided us with a powerful new tool to protect people from the devastating impacts of the climate crisis – and to deliver justice for the harm their emissions have already caused,' former UN human rights chief Mary Robinson said in a statement. 'The ICJ's decision brings us closer to a world where governments can no longer turn a blind eye to their legal responsibilities. It affirms a simple truth of climate justice: Those who did the least to fuel this crisis deserve protection, reparations and a future,' said Vishal Prasad, director of Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change. After years of lobbying by vulnerable island nations who fear they could disappear under rising sea waters, the UN General Assembly asked the ICJ in 2023 for an advisory opinion, an important basis for international obligations. A panel of 15 judges was tasked with answering two questions: What are countries obliged to do under international law to protect the climate and environment from human-caused greenhouse gas emissions? Second, what are the legal consequences for governments when their acts, or lack of action, have significantly harmed the climate and environment? 'The stakes could not be higher. The survival of my people and so many others is on the line,' Arnold Kiel Loughman, attorney general of the island nation of Vanuatu, told the court during a week of hearings in December. In the decade up to 2023, sea levels rose by a global average of around 4.3cm, with parts of the Pacific rising higher still. The world has also warmed 1.3C since pre-industrial times because of the burning of fossil fuels. 'The agreements being made at an international level between states are not moving fast enough,' Ralph Regenvanu, Vanuatu's minister for climate change, told the Associated Press. Activists could bring lawsuits against their own countries for failing to comply with the decision. 'With today's authoritative historic ruling, the International Court of Justice has broken with business-as-usual and delivered a historic affirmation: Those suffering the impacts of climate devastation have a right to remedy and full reparation,' said Joie Chowdhury, a senior lawyer at the Centre for International Environmental Law. The United States and Russia, both of whom are major petroleum-producing states, are staunchly opposed to the court mandating emissions reductions. But those who cling to fossil fuels could go broke doing it, the UN secretary-general told the Associated Press in an exclusive interview this week. Simply having the court issue an opinion is the latest in a series of legal victories for the small island nations. Earlier this month, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights found that countries have a legal duty not only to avoid environmental harm but also to protect and restore ecosystems. Last year, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that countries must better protect their people from the consequences of climate change. In 2019, the Netherlands' Supreme court handed down the first major legal win for climate activists when judges ruled that protection from the potentially devastating effects of climate change was a human right and that the government has a duty to protect its citizens. The presiding judge on Wednesday acknowledged that international law had 'an important but ultimately limited role in resolving this problem', and said a lasting solution will need the contribution of all fields of human knowledge 'to secure a future for ourselves and those who are yet to come'.
NBC News
2 hours ago
- NBC News
U.N.'s top court says failing to protect planet from climate change could violate international law
THE HAGUE, Netherlands — The United Nations's top court in a landmark advisory opinion Wednesday said countries could be in violation of international law if they fail to take measures to protect the planet from climate change, and nations harmed by its effects could be entitled to reparations. Advocates immediately cheered the International Court of Justice opinion on nations' obligations to tackle climate change and the consequences they may face if they don't. ' Failure of a state to take appropriate action to protect the climate system ... may constitute an internationally wrongful act,' court President Yuji Iwasawa said during the hearing. He called the climate crisis 'an existential problem of planetary proportions that imperils all forms of life and the very health of our planet.' The non-binding opinion, which runs to over 500 pages, was hailed as a turning point in international climate law. Notably, the court said a 'clean, healthy and sustainable environment' is a human right. That paves the way for other legal actions, including states returning to the ICJ to hold each other to account as well as domestic lawsuits, along with legal instruments like investment agreements. The case was led by the Pacific island nation of Vanuatu and backed by more than 130 countries. All U.N. member states including major greenhouse gas emitters like the United States and China are parties to the court. Climate activists had gathered outside the packed court with a banner that read: 'Courts have spoken. The law is clear. States must ACT NOW.' Afterward, others emerged laughing and hugging. 'Today, the tables have turned. The world's highest court provided us with a powerful new tool to protect people from the devastating impacts of the climate crisis — and to deliver justice for the harm their emissions have already caused,' former U.N. human rights chief Mary Robinson said in a statement. 'The ICJ's decision brings us closer to a world where governments can no longer turn a blind eye to their legal responsibilities. It affirms a simple truth of climate justice: Those who did the least to fuel this crisis deserve protection, reparations, and a future,' said Vishal Prasad, director of Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change. After years of lobbying by vulnerable island nations who fear they could disappear under rising sea waters, the U.N. General Assembly asked the ICJ in 2023 for an advisory opinion, an important basis for international obligations. A panel of 15 judges was tasked with answering two questions: What are countries obliged to do under international law to protect the climate and environment from human-caused greenhouse gas emissions? Second, what are the legal consequences for governments when their acts, or lack of action, have significantly harmed the climate and environment? 'The stakes could not be higher. The survival of my people and so many others is on the line,' Arnold Kiel Loughman, attorney general of the island nation of Vanuatu, told the court during a week of hearings in December. In the decade up to 2023, sea levels rose by a global average of around 4.3 centimeters (1.7 inches), with parts of the Pacific rising higher still. The world has also warmed 1.3 degrees Celsius (2.3 Fahrenheit) since preindustrial times because of the burning of fossil fuels. 'The agreements being made at an international level between states are not moving fast enough,' Ralph Regenvanu, Vanuatu's minister for climate change, told The Associated Press. Activists could bring lawsuits against their own countries for failing to comply with the decision. 'What makes this case so important is that it addresses the past, present, and future of climate action. It's not just about future targets -- it also tackles historical responsibility, because we cannot solve the climate crisis without confronting its roots,' Joie Chowdhury, a senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law, told AP. The United States and Russia, both of whom are major petroleum-producing states, are staunchly opposed to the court mandating emissions reductions. But those who cling to fossil fuels could go broke doing it, the U.N. secretary-general told The Associated Press in an exclusive interview this week. Simply having the court issue an opinion is the latest in a series of legal victories for the small island nations. Earlier this month, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights found that countries have a legal duty not only to avoid environmental harm but also to protect and restore ecosystems. Last year, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that countries must better protect their people from the consequences of climate change. In 2019, the Netherlands' Supreme court handed down the first major legal win for climate activists when judges ruled that protection from the potentially devastating effects of climate change was a human right and that the government has a duty to protect its citizens. The presiding judge on Wednesday acknowledged that international law had 'an important but ultimately limited role in resolving this problem,' and said a lasting solution will need the contribution of all fields of human knowledge 'to secure a future for ourselves and those who are yet to come.'
BreakingNews.ie
3 hours ago
- BreakingNews.ie
Failing to protect planet from climate change ‘could violate international law'
The UN's top court has announced that if countries fail to take measures to protect the planet from climate change they could be in violation of international law. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivered an advisory opinion in a landmark case about nations' obligations to tackle climate change and the consequences they may face if they do not, calling it an 'urgent and existential' threat to humanity. Advertisement 'Failure of a state to take appropriate action to protect the climate system… may constitute an internationally wrongful act,' court president Yuji Iwasawa said during the hearing. The court also said countries harmed by climate change could be entitled to reparations for the damage they have suffered from rising global temperatures, but what they are owed should be determined on a 'case by case' basis. The non-binding opinion, which runs to more than 500 pages, is seen as a potential turning point in international climate law. The court said a 'clean, healthy and sustainable environment' is a human right. Enshrining a sustainable environment as a human right paves the way for other legal actions, including states returning to the ICJ to hold each other to account as well as domestic lawsuits, along with legal instruments such as investment agreements. Advertisement The case is led by the Pacific island nation of Vanuatu and backed by more than 130 countries. All UN member states including major greenhouse gas emitters such as the United States and China are parties to the court. Outside the court, climate activists gathered with a banner that read: 'Courts have spoken. The law is clear. States must act now.' The courtroom, known as the Great Hall of Justice, was packed. After years of lobbying by vulnerable island nations who fear they could disappear under rising sea waters, the UN General Assembly asked the ICJ in 2023 for an advisory opinion, an important basis for international obligations. Advertisement A panel of 15 judges was tasked with answering two questions: What are countries obliged to do under international law to protect the climate and environment from human-caused greenhouse gas emissions? Second, what are the legal consequences for governments when their acts, or lack of action, have significantly harmed the climate and environment? 'The stakes could not be higher. The survival of my people and so many others is on the line,' Arnold Kiel Loughman, attorney general of the island nation of Vanuatu, told the court during a week of hearings in December. In the decade up to 2023, sea levels rose by a global average of around 4.3cm, with parts of the Pacific rising higher still. The world has also warmed 1.3C since pre-industrial times because of the burning of fossil fuels. Vanuatu is one of a group of small states pushing for international legal intervention in the climate crisis, but it affects many more island nations in the South Pacific. Advertisement 'The agreements being made at an international level between states are not moving fast enough,' Ralph Regenvanu, Vanuatu's minister for climate change, told the Associated Press. Activists could bring lawsuits against their own countries for failing to comply with the decision. 'What makes this case so important is that it addresses the past, present, and future of climate action. It's not just about future targets – it also tackles historical responsibility, because we cannot solve the climate crisis without confronting its roots,' Joie Chowdhury, a senior lawyer at the Centre for International Environmental Law, told the Associated Press. A gravestone lies just feet from the shoreline on Pele Island, Vanuatu (Annika Hammerschlag/AP) The United States and Russia, both of whom are major petroleum-producing states, are staunchly opposed to the court mandating emissions reductions. Advertisement But those who cling to fossil fuels could go broke doing it, the UN secretary-general told the Associated Press in an exclusive interview this week. Simply having the court issue an opinion is the latest in a series of legal victories for the small island nations. Earlier this month, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights found that countries have a legal duty not only to avoid environmental harm but also to protect and restore ecosystems. Last year, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that countries must better protect their people from the consequences of climate change. In 2019, the Netherlands' Supreme court handed down the first major legal win for climate activists when judges ruled that protection from the potentially devastating effects of climate change was a human right and that the government has a duty to protect its citizens.
