Pacific Waves for 11 July 2025
Tags:
To embed this content on your own webpage, cut and paste the following:
See terms of use.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
10 hours ago
- RNZ News
New Zealand not part of 'trifecta' with Cook Islands and China, Winston Peters says
New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters, left, and Cook Islands Prime MinisterMark Brown. Photo: RNZ/Pacific Islands Forum/123RF Winston Peters says the Cook Islands has described its relationship with New Zealand as "part of a trifecta" when dealing with China. The comment from the New Zealand foreign minister comes at a time of increased tension between Cook Islands and New Zealand. At the heart of that tension is four agreements Cook Islands signed with China in February. Peters told Pacific Waves "there are things going wrong". He also rejected Cook Islands' Prime Minister Mark Brown's position that the two nations had a reciprocal relationship , therefore neither had to consult one another on foreign trade arrangements. "They were required under our arrangement and agreement to consult with us when these matters might affect more widely themselves but also other countries and our relationship," Peters said. "To describe us as part of a trifecta when we've got the special relationship for 60 years is utterly wrong." A spokesman for Peters clarified Peters was referring to the way New Zealand had effectively been described as a third-party by the Cook Islands in its agreements with China. Cook Islands is in free association with New Zealand. Under that arrangement, implemented in 1965, the country governed its own affairs, but New Zealand provided assistance with foreign affairs (upon request), disaster relief and defence. Despite that, the current diplomatic rift has resulted in a pause in funding of $18.2 million by the New Zealand government. That occurred last month. And while there have been ongoing discussions between the two nations, this week Prime Minister Mark Brown told a Cook Islands audience that if New Zealand could not afford to fund the country's national infrastructure investment plan - funding the development needs of the Cook Islands was a major motivator in signing the agreements with China. Peters' responded by challenging Brown to call a referendum - a position he doubled-down on when he spoke to Pacific Waves . "They can let us know whether they want the relationship or whether they want independence," he said. "Because if you behave like you want independence, then above all, that, should be up to the Cook Islands people to decide, not just a temporarily-empowered politician or government." The whole population of the Cook Islands should have a say, he said. "Politicians come and go, governments come and go, ministers come and go. But our purpose is to ensure the long-term, enduring relationship between the New Zealand people and the Cook Islands people." Peters also touched on previous disagreements with the Cook Islands over its sovereignty and foreign policy arrangements. "There were times in the past when this issue arose and we had agreements and pacts, declarations or statements … to give us the parameters of our future relationship, as we last did in [2001] under Helen Clark and [Terepai] Moate, who was then the prime minister of the Cook Islands. "And here we are, 24 years … on and that has been called into question. So we are saying… if it's going to change, then we are accountable to the Cook Islands people. Next month, the Cook Islands celebrates its 60th constitution anniversary. Governor-General Dame Cindy Kiro was due to attend as the New Zealand government's representative. Peters and Prime Minister Christopher Luxon have said they would not attend - a move that has been labelled a snub amidst the break-down in bilateral relations. Peters said Kiro was the appropriate representative from New Zealand. "We're sending the highest person constitutionally in our country to go… this is very fitting."
RNZ News
13 hours ago
- RNZ News
'A ray of sunshine': NZ litigants spurred on by international climate ruling
Climate Change Minister Simon Watts. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone A landmark ruling by the United Nations' highest court puts further pressure on the New Zealand government over a large hole in its climate plans, a group of climate lawyers say. Another litigant taking on big polluters calls it a "a ray of sunshine" - while the climate minister will only say it's "long and complicated". The International Court of Justice (ICJ) found overnight that countries can be responsible for paying reparations for damage caused by their greenhouse gases. It also said governments are legally obliged to set climate targets that are consistent with keeping temperatures within 1.5C (not 2C) and that they must "pursue measures capable of achieving" those goals. The decision said states could be in breach of international law for failing to address fossil fuel consumption, granting fossil fuel exploration licenses, and providing fossil fuel subsidies, something the New Zealand government is doing with its $200 million fund for drilling . New Zealand is currently on track to be over 80 million tonnes of emissions short of meeting its 2030 climate target, because the coalition government has broken with plans by previous governments to meet the target largely by buying carbon credits from overseas. The coalition has been told there is no feasible way to meet the target purely inside this country, without some kind of offshore deal. While Climate Change Minister Simon Watts has acknowledged that this is true, he has so far ducked making any public commitment to closing any of the necessary deals beyond "exploring options". At times, ministers have explicitly said the government wouldn't spend money offshore to meet the target, despite officials warning them that their inability to explain how New Zealand would close the gap would lead to overseas scrutiny. Jessica Palairet, executive director of Lawyers for Climate Action, said the international ruling confirmed that paying lip service to international climate targets wasn't enough. Under the Paris Agreement, countries' targets are known as NDCs, or Nationally Determined Contributions. The first ones run from 2021-2030, and the second set from 2031-2035. "The judgment confirms that New Zealand can't just say it hopes it will meet the NDC and that it's committed to our targets, it has to take real and demonstrable steps towards meeting it, it has to demonstrate that intent to meet it. The judgment clarifies that, and I think in the face of an 89 million tonne hole, there are real questions about whether or not we're doing that," she said. "When we made the NDC commitment in the first place, we had a plan for how we were going to meet the gap, but the government is changing course and the ICJ starkly brings into focus whether that is lawful." Palairet said the ruling also sharpened questions over whether New Zealand's second Paris Agreement target , out to 2035 was aligned with curtailing heating within 1.5C. Watts has defended the new target of 51-55 percent reductions by 2035, saying the cuts were difficult to achieve and met the definition of ambition, but several experts - and independent advice - disagreed. "There have been real questions raised about whether our second NDC is 1.5 degrees aligned," Palairet said. "Put it this way, Simon Watts specially asked officials for the second NDC to align with domestic emissions budgets, to avoid having to pay offshore mitigation." "The problem is that our domestic emissions budgets are set according to a test that's different to the where that leaves us is we have an NDC that likely isn't 1.5 degrees-aligned likely doesn't reflect highest possible ambition and likely doesn't reflect our fair share," she said. "The ICJ opinion really draws into sharp focus whether that is lawful." Palairet said court's opinion that 1.5C was a binding target could also have implications for the government's plans to lower the country's methane target. The coalition has been considering lowering the goal for methane reductions from between a 24 and 47 per cent by 2050 to between 14 and 24 percent. "The ICJ opinion has crystalised 1.5C as the target states have to work towards," Palairet said. "The government is considering reducing our methane target to 14 percent," she said. "The problem is that government's own independent expert advisory panel said that a 14 percent target was consistent with 2C, so I think there's a real question if New Zealand reduces its methane target to 14 percent, whether that's consistent with international law." Palairet said the government's gas and oil exploration subsidies and backtracking on the ban on new offshore exploration might also be incompatible the court's statements. "The ICJ had really strong statements on those kind of subsidies and decisions being in breach of international legal obligations." "It's advisory only, it's non-binding but it is really authoritative and it holds significant legal and moral authority and it's very likely going to be used in court cases all around the world, including New Zealand court cases." That might include Lawyers' for Climate Action's existing judicial review against Watts, which argues there are glaring holes in the country's emissions reduction plans. The world's top greenhouse gas emitters denied they had any obligations beyond the UN framework convention on climate change (UNFCCC) and the 2015 Paris agreement. The court rejected that argument, saying a range of other treaties applied, including the UN convention on the law of the sea, the Vienna convention for the protection of the ozone layer, the Montreal protocol, the convention on biological diversity and the UN convention to combat desertification. It also said states were obliged to cooperate to solve climate change. Asked to comment on the ruling, Watts sent a written statement noting the advisory opinion had been issued. "Climate change is an important issue in our region, and we know our Pacific Island neighbours are following this development closely," it said. "This is a long, complicated opinion, and New Zealand will study it carefully before commenting on the substance." Iwi climate leader Mike Smith said environmental lawyers were already discussing how to use the landmark ruling in New Zealand. Smith won the right in the Supreme Court last year to sue seven companies - including Z Energy, Genesis Energy, NZ Steel and Fonterra - for their role in causing climate change. He said the findings by the international court overnight offered hope in a time of worsening climate damage. "In all of that darkness this is a ray of sunshine, this is a beacon, it gives us hope that we can leverage these decisions and effect change," he said. "It strengthens [my case] in the sense that the decision confirmed that states are legally obligated to prevent climate harm and they must not support or subsidise emissions-intensive activities." "I've been talking to the lawyers from ELI, the Environmental Law Initiative, and they are all putting their minds to what falls out the bottom of this opinion and what opportunities are there now to bring further proceedings against the government."
RNZ News
15 hours ago
- RNZ News
UN's top court finds countries can be liable for emissions
climate politics 34 minutes ago Vanuatu's Climate Change Minister has said the Pacific now has more leverage in climate negotiations after the UN's top court found that countries can be held legally responsible for their greenhouse gas emissions. The president of the International Court of Justice, Yuji Iwasawa, said climate change is an urgent and existential threat. From the Hague, Jamie Tahana reports.
