Australia says it would keep security ties with Solomons despite China pact

Solomon Islands PM Manasseh Sogavare and Australian Minister for International Development Zed Seselja pose for a picture as they meet to discuss China security pact in Honiara on April 13, 2022. (Handout via REUTERS)
Short Url
Updated 17 April 2022
Follow

Australia says it would keep security ties with Solomons despite China pact

  • Canberra is concerned the security deal could foreshadow a Chinese military presence fewer than 2,000 km from Australia

SYDNEY: Australia would continue to cooperate with Solomons Islands on matters of security even if the Pacific island nation signs a proposed security agreement with China that Australia opposes, Australian Foreign Minister Marise Payne said on Sunday.
Canberra is concerned the security deal, details of which have not been publicized, could foreshadow a Chinese military presence fewer than 2,000 km from Australia.
Despite a national election campaign putting the Australian government in caretaker mode, an Australian minister this week met with Solomon Islands Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare in Honiara and asked him not to sign the proposed agreement.
Queried over whether Australia would continue security cooperation with the Solomons Islands if the deal went ahead Payne told ABC television: “Yes, that is absolutely my view and it is the view of Pacific partners.”
“But there is also a concern that there has been a lack of transparency in relation to this agreement,” Payne said.
She described as “very important” recent assurances from Sogavare that no Chinese military base would be established in the Solomons Islands if the deal with China went ahead.
Officials from China and Solomon Islands have initialled but not yet signed the security pact, which Australia, New Zealand, United States and some Pacific island neighbors have criticized as undermining regional stability.
The agreement has sparked concerns among US allies Australia and New Zealand about Chinese influence in a region where they have for decades held strong sway.
Beijing this week said security ties between China and the Pacific nation were not aimed at any third party and did not contradict cooperation Solomons Islands has with other nations.

 

 


Top UN court to hear Rohingya genocide case against Myanmar

Updated 6 sec ago
Follow

Top UN court to hear Rohingya genocide case against Myanmar

THE HAGUE: Did Myanmar commit genocide against its Rohingya Muslim minority? That’s what judges at the International Court of Justice will weigh during three weeks of hearings starting Monday.
The Gambia brought the case accusing Myanmar of breaching the 1948 Genocide Convention during a crackdown in 2017.
Legal experts are watching closely as it could give clues for how the court will handle similar accusations against Israel over its military campaign in Gaza, a case brought to the ICJ by South Africa.
Hundreds of thousands of Rohingya Muslims fled violence by the Myanmar army and Buddhist militias, escaping to neighboring Bangladesh and bringing harrowing accounts of mass rape, arson and murder.
Today, 1.17 million Rohingya live crammed into dilapidated camps spread over 8,000 acres in Cox’s Bazar in Bangladesh.
From there, mother-of-two Janifa Begum told AFP: “I want to see whether the suffering we endured is reflected during the hearing.”
“We want justice and peace,” said the 37-year-old.

’Senseless killings’

The Gambia, a Muslim-majority country in West Africa, brought the case in 2019 to the ICJ, which rules in disputes between states.
Under the Genocide Convention, any country can file a case at the ICJ against any other it believes is in breach of the treaty.
In December 2019, lawyers for the African nation presented evidence of what they said were “senseless killings... acts of barbarity that continue to shock our collective conscience.”
In a landmark moment at the Peace Palace courthouse in The Hague, Nobel Peace laureate Aung San Suu Kyi appeared herself to defend her country.
She dismissed Banjul’s argument as a “misleading and incomplete factual picture” of what she said was an “internal armed conflict.”
The former democracy icon warned that the genocide case at the ICJ risked reigniting the crisis, which she said was a response to attacks by Rohingya militants.
Myanmar has always maintained the crackdown by its armed forces, known as the Tatmadaw, was justified to root out Rohingya insurgents after a series of attacks left a dozen security personnel dead.

‘Physical destruction’

The ICJ initially sided with The Gambia, which had asked judges for “provisional measures” to halt the violence while the case was being considered.
The court in 2020 said Myanmar must take “all measures within its power” to halt any acts prohibited in the 1948 UN Genocide Convention.
These acts included “killing members of the group” and “deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.”
The United States officially declared that the violence amounted to genocide in 2022, three years after a UN team said Myanmar harbored “genocidal intent” toward the Rohingya.
The hearings, which wrap up on January 30, represent the heart of the case.
The court had already thrown out a 2022 Myanmar challenge to its jurisdiction, so judges believe they have the power to rule on the genocide issue.
A final decision could take months or even years and while the ICJ has no means of enforcing its decisions, a ruling in favor of The Gambia would heap more political pressure on Myanmar.
Suu Kyi will not be revisiting the Peace Palace. She has been detained since a 2021 coup, on charges rights groups say were politically motivated.
The ICJ is not the only court looking into possible genocide against the Rohingya.
The International Criminal Court, also based in The Hague, is investigating military chief Min Aung Hlaing for suspected crimes against humanity.
Another case is being heard in Argentina under the principle of universal jurisdiction, the idea that some crimes are so heinous they can be heard in any court.