MOU TO STRENGTHEN CULTURE, ARTS & REGIONAL COOPERATION

PORT MORESBY, PAPUA NEW GUINEA (26 May 2026): A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) recently formalized between the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) Secretariat and the Papua New Guinea National Cultural Commission aims to strengthen culture, arts and regional cooperation.

While signing the MOU, PNG Minister for Arts, Culture & Tourism, Honourable Belden Namah, highlighted the importance of regional cultural cooperation.

He said that while the MOU formalizes cooperation in culture, arts and regional partnership amongst Melanesian countries, it demonstrated a shared commitment to collaboration in promoting and preserving the Melanesian culture, heritage and the Melanesian way.

The collaboration he said, will help build stronger cultural connections and cooperation moving forward.

Acting Director General of the MSG Secretariat, Ilan Kiloe expressed his appreciation to Hon. Namah and the Government and people of Papua New Guinea for their commitment to advancing Melanesian culture.

He said the MSG was excited and proud to sign the MOU as it reflected a shared commitment to promote, protect and advance the living cultures of our people across Melanesia.

ADG Kiloe welcomed the partnership stating it will strengthen ties between Members through culture and shared values, underscoring the significance of the Melanesian way of life.

#msgnews

Photos: SUPPLIED

See less

UN climate vote exposes split over law, fossil fuels and China’s emissions rise

New York| 23 May 2026: The United Nations General Assembly has backed a Vanuatu-led climate resolution linked to last year’s International Court of Justice ruling, but the vote also exposed a hard dispute over legal liability, national sovereignty, fossil fuel use and the emissions record of China and India.

The resolution passed with 141 votes in favour, eight against and 28 abstentions. Belarus, Iran, Israel, Liberia, Russia, Saudi Arabia, the United States and Yemen voted against it. 

The resolution supports the ICJ’s July 2025 advisory opinion, which said states have obligations under international law to protect the climate system from greenhouse gas emissions. It also said states breaching those duties may face legal responsibility, including reparations in some circumstances. 

The Trump administration opposed the resolution on clear policy grounds. Washington said the text placed inappropriate political demands on fossil fuels and opened the door to legal arguments against states over climate damage. US Deputy Ambassador Tammy Bruce also rejected a request asking the UN Secretary-General to report back on legal issues arising from the ICJ opinion. 

Trump’s climate policy since returning to office has centred on energy sovereignty, cheaper power, domestic oil and gas, coal, minerals, jobs and industrial security. His January 2025 order withdrawing the US from Paris-related climate commitments said international environmental agreements must not unfairly burden the American economy. 

A second Trump order made expanded domestic energy production official US policy, linking fossil fuels and natural resources to prosperity, manufacturing strength, national security and lower household costs. 

The American argument also rests on a blunt emissions point: China and India remain central to global emissions growth. EDGAR’s 2025 report said China, the United States, India, the EU27, Russia and Indonesia produced 61.8% of global greenhouse gas emissions in 2024. It also found China, India, Russia and Indonesia increased emissions in 2024, with India recording the largest absolute increase among top emitters. 

IEA data gives the same picture. India’s energy-related CO₂ emissions rose 5.3% in 2024, the highest rate among major economies, driven by growth, infrastructure, heatwaves and rising electricity demand. China’s emissions rose 0.4%, while US energy-related CO₂ emissions fell 0.5% in 2024. 

That is the fairness argument behind Washington’s position: the US faces legal pressure, climate lawsuits and fossil fuel restrictions while China and India continue expanding energy use to power industry, cities and exports. In Trump’s view, climate law should not punish American workers, manufacturers and energy producers while fast-rising economies keep lifting emissions.

Pacific island states see the same issue from the opposite end. Vanuatu and other vulnerable countries argue rising seas, saltwater intrusion, coastal loss and stronger storms are already damaging communities with tiny emissions footprints.

The resolution is not binding, but it gives climate-vulnerable countries another legal reference point. Future lawsuits, treaty debates and compensation claims will likely cite both the ICJ opinion and this General Assembly vote.

VANUATU DENIES IT IS ABOUT TO SIGN A SECURITY DEAL WITH CHINA AS AUSTRALIA WORKS TO INK ITS OWN PACT

“In short:

Vanuatu's prime minister has dismissed reports his country is on the verge of signing a security agreement with China.

Jotham Napat said reports suggesting as such were "untrue" before adding that his country's relationships "were not exclusive".

Australia's Pacific Minister Pat Conroy would not confirm if the federal government had concerns over Vanuatu's potential deal with China.

Vanuatu has furiously denied that it is on the cusp of signing a security pact with China and warned that it will not be "dictated to" by Australia in a row which threatens to disrupt delicately poised negotiations for the landmark Nakamal Agreement.

Multiple sources have confirmed that China and Vanuatu have spent months discussing a comprehensive new pact called the Namele Agreement.

In Vanuatu, the Namele leaf is a sacred symbol of peace and authority used to enforce kastom or customary laws.

On Tuesday morning the Vanuatu newspaper the Daily Post reported that Australian officials in Port Vila were concerned the deal could have security elements, quoting a source who said it might "affect agreements with Australia" and undermine Vanuatu's push to make Canberra ease visa restrictions.

But later that day Vanuatu's Prime Minister Jotham Napat issued a forceful statement calling the report "grossly misguided and inaccurate" and insisting the proposed agreement was a "comprehensive development cooperation agreement" not a security pact.

He also took a thinly veiled swipe at Australia saying that "Vanuatu will decide what is good for Vanuatu. We will not be dictated to."

"Our foreign policy is guided by our national interests, not by external speculation or pressure,"

Mr Napat said.

"Suggestions that our partnerships could affect visa arrangements or other bilateral matters are unhelpful and not a cultural reflection of Nakamal values.

"Vanuatu's relationships are not exclusive."

Airing of concerns 'serious' amid negotiations

The dispute risks poisoning the atmosphere between Australia and Vanuatu just as the two countries prepare to finalise protracted and sometimes difficult negotiations over the Nakamal Agreement — a landmark security and development pact between the two countries.

Last week Vanuatu's Climate Minister Ralph Regenvanu said the government was on the "cusp" of finally signing the deal, almost eight months after it was given initial approval on the summit of Mt Yasur.

One diplomat in Vanuatu from a third country said the fact Australian officials still pressed ahead with raising public concerns about the pact with China, albeit by an anonymous leak to a newspaper, showed they must have "serious" concerns that it would have security implications.

The ABC has been told that Australia is not opposed to Vanuatu building up its economic links with China, but wants to ensure that the Namele pact is not a security agreement which might undermine Nakamal, or threaten Australia's interests.

The Pacific Minister Pat Conroy would not confirm if Australia had concerns, or say whether officials in Vanuatu had tried to use the Namele agreement as leverage to secure a better deal in negotiations on the Nakamal Agreement.

But he said Australia was in a "daily contest" with unnamed other countries throughout the Pacific.

"We've been very honest with the Australian public that we're in a permanent state of contest for influence in the Pacific," Mr Conroy said.

"That's why we've put so much resources and so much ministerial energy into this area."

Chinese influence in region monitored closely

Australia has also been closely monitoring meetings between the Chinese government and Vanuatu government ministers, including Interior Affairs Minister Andrew Napuat, who went to a major summit on digital technology in Hong Kong last week.

Mr Napat said the conference was focused on "addressing challenges in cyber security, digital transformation, and emerging technologies" and a senior government source in Vanuatu denied outright that any agreements had been signed with China during his trip.

The Chinese embassy in Vanuatu also said the claim of a security agreement was "untrue" and that "China–Vanuatu cooperation focuses on infrastructure development and capacity building".

Mr Napat also insisted the discussions around finalising the Nakamal Agreement with Australia were "not at all linked to China".

"Officials are continuing close engagement to ensure any agreement with any partner reflects Vanuatu's interests as high priority in ensuring its longevity," he said.

The agreement hit the rocks just before it was due to be signed in Port Vila by prime ministers Anthony Albanese and Jotham Napat in September, with Vanuatu deciding it could not endorse language aimed at limiting China's security presence in the Pacific.

That included a section emphasising that Pacific nations should have clear responsibility for security matters in this region, and another section which was designed to limit foreign investment in critical infrastructure in Vanuatu.

Even before this dispute there has been evidence of tensions between the two sides.

Multiple sources in Vanuatu have said Australian diplomats had deliberately kept an unusually low profile in recent weeks, a move one official said was "strange" and noticeable".

Mr Conroy would not be drawn on when the Nakamal Agreement was set to be signed.

"We've had very productive conversations but you'll hear about an announcement when we make it," he said.

Shadow Foreign Minister Ted O'Brien said Australia was "deeply invested in its relationship with Vanuatu" and the government needed to make it built a "strong, respectful and enduring partnership".

"The Albanese government has questions to answer here," Mr O'Brien said.

"What is the status of the Nakamal Agreement? And what steps are being taken to encourage its finalisation?

"This is looking like yet another diplomatic blunder on the part of the Albanese government and given the strategic importance of this relationship I expect Labor will exhaust every effort to improve the situation."

SOURCE & IMAGE: ABC News 

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 21/04/2026

#livinginvanuatu #livinginvanuatunews

King Badu Bonsu II Executed by Dutch Colonialists

In 1838, after decapitating two Dutch emissaries and decorating his throne with their heads; King Badu Bonsu II, the ruler of the Ashante tribe in present day Ghana, was himself beheaded by Dutch soldiers. For more than 150 years, King Bonsu’s head was lost until an author found it stored in a jar of formaldehyde in a Dutch museum. Ghana immediately asked for the King’s severed head back and; in July 2009, members of the Ahanta flew to The Hague and staged a mourning ceremony that included pouring gin libations on the floor of the Foreign Ministry before taking the head back to Ghana.

King Badu Bonsu II

Before he was executed by the Dutch in 1838, King Badu Bonsu II, was the overlord of the Ahanta tribe in the Western Region. Badu Bonsu II, is believed to have been decapitated in retaliation for the killing of two Dutch emissaries in 1838. According to the Dutch government, Badu Bonsu II was handed over by his own ”nation” to Dutch colonists; who were then in control of a part of the former Gold Coast (present-day Ghana) that included Ahanta tribal lands. Arthur Japin, a Dutch author who discovered the king’s head when he was working on a historical novel; noted that Badu Bonsu II’s head was taken by Maj. Gen. Jan Verveer in 1838 in retaliation for the king’s killing of two Dutch emissaries; whose heads were displayed as trophies on his throne.

Preserved in a jar of formaldehyde, the head of King Badu Bonsu II was discovered gathering dust; in a laboratory in the Leiden University Medical Centre by Arthur Japin, a best-selling Dutch author.

How it was found

It had been there since its arrival in the late 1830s from what was then called the Dutch Gold Coast and is today Ghana. Japin, the Dutch novelist, explained how he had helped reunite Badu Bonsu II head with his body. ”I was researching my novel about an Ahanta boy brought to Holland in 1838, and in the process I learned about the head of the king, who had been a friend of the boy. I had been looking for the head for more than 10 years,” Japin was quoted to have said. ”Finally, in 2002 I found it locked away in a dark cupboard where it had been for more than 170 years.” After hearing of the head’s location in 2008, Ghana filed a request for its return, saying, ”without burial of the head, the deceased will be haunted in the afterlife.”

Reclaiming the Head

In March 2009, Ghana government officials announced that it would be returned to its homeland for proper burial. The Dutch and Ghanaian governments and a member of Badu Bonsu’s Ahanta tribe signed a pact in The Hague for the handover of the head; which remained out of sight in a room elsewhere in the foreign ministry building for the ceremony. Ahanta tribe leaders held an emotional ritual, pouring alcohol on the floor of the conference room; while invoking the chief’s spirit in the presence of Ghanaian nationals dressed in the country’s red and black mourning colours. Ghana claimed the head of Badu Bonsu II, which had been preserved in formaldehyde; in a bottle among the anatomy collection of the Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC) on July 23, 2009.

https://iloveafrica.com/how-king-badu-bonsu-ii-of-ghana-was-beheaded-and-his-head-taken-to-the-netherlands-by-the-dutch/

#MossiWarriorClan

Fair Use

Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research.

Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.

Why Highlands Play Politics Better Than Coastal Leaders

I’m a coastal man, and this picture says everything about politics in Papua New Guinea. Politics is not about friendship or hate. It’s a game. A serious one. And the truth is, some people understand that game better than others.

Highlands leaders know how to play politics better than most coastal leaders. That’s why they stay in power. While coastal leaders are still thinking with emotions, others are making smart moves behind the scenes. In politics, thinking emotionally is the fastest way to lose.

Many people believe that James Marape and Peter O'Neill are enemies. That’s what the public sees. But politics is deeper than that. Leaders can fight today and work together tomorrow. There are no permanent enemies and no permanent friends. Nothing is personal. It’s just politics.

Coastal leaders often get played because they trust too easily or take things personally. Meanwhile, others are calculating every move. They build alliances, break them, and rebuild again when it suits them. That’s how the game is won.

As Rainbo Paita said, Parliament is more complicated than physics. And he’s right. Politics is not simple. It’s a game for strong minds, not soft hearts.

So here’s the hard truth, if you don’t understand the game, don’t enter politics. Because while you’re trying to be honest and emotional, someone else is already ten steps ahead, playing to win.

By The Hardest Pills to Swallow

This is not meant to attack any individual or group, but to share a perspective on how politics works.

The most intelligent highlands politicians are from Simbu when it comes to the real art of the game, like Sir iambake Okuk, Komdom Agaundo, Kerenga Kua James Nomane etc. The upper highlanders are dominant in the power play only with the use of money and nepotism, they are only good in using money and maintaining their wantoks system to find their way out,  but they don't have the brain to play the game on a neutral ground. Simbus don't play money or use their wantoks systems in politics. If a Simbu politician plays money and use wantoks system or if the game is played by all on a neutral ground, Simbu's will be victorious. I'm a coastal man and this is my simple view.

Angola and Botswana Unite To Buy Diamond Mining Company De Beers

Angola’s state-owned diamond company, Endiama, has announced plans to increase production to 17 million carats by 2027, following a record output in 2024.

This achievement has cemented Angola’s position as the world’s third-largest producer of rough diamonds by volume, behind only Russia and Botswana. 

In addition to boosting production, the Angolan government is reportedly considering acquiring a 20% to 30% strategic share in De Beers, one of the world’s leading diamond companies. 

Botswana is also positioning itself around De Beers. The government of Botswana is buying out 15% of De Beers. 

De Beers was founded by a British man named Cecil Rhodes over 135 years ago, and started its diamond mining operations in South Africa. 

They have mined hundreds of millions of carats of diamonds across Africa, primarily in South Africa, Botswana, and Namibia, generating tens of billions in revenue.

With Botswana and Angola both coming together to buy over 30% stake of De Beers, the days of imperial exploitation are numbered.

#TheAfricanDream

TWO LAWS FOR PNG? WHY MARAPE’S ‘UNPRECEDENTED’ CLAIM ABOUT CJ SALIKA SMELLS LIKE POLITICAL SMOKE, NOT JUSTICE

Commentary by: Alois Yoba Bai.

Fellow Papua New Guineans,

I am writing this with a heavy heart and a confused mind. Our Prime Minister, James Marape, has reportedly described recent referrals concerning our Chief Justice, Sir Gibbs Salika, as "unprecedented." This label makes us stop and ask: Unprecedented because it threatens the powerful? Or unprecedented because it actually follows the rule of law?

We have to connect the dots here, and when we do, the picture is disturbing. It forces us to ask a question that should never need asking in a democracy: Do we have two sets of laws in this country—one for ordinary citizens and another, unbreakable one for our politicians and top bureaucrats?

The "Unprecedented" Claim vs. The Constitution

Firstly, we need to understand what the Constitution actually says. It is the Supreme Law. Period. Section 11 clearly states that the Constitution is the Supreme Law, and any law inconsistent with it is, to the extent of the inconsistency, invalid .

The Constitution also establishes an independent National Judicial System, with the Chief Justice at its helm, to guard this law . The Supreme Court, led by the Chief Justice, has the final say on interpreting our laws . So, if there are referrals or questions raised about the conduct of any public officer—including the Chief Justice—the proper legal channels exist. So why is the process "unprecedented"? It is only unprecedented if we are used to seeing the powerful simply walk away.

If the Prime Minister believes the process is wrong, the proper place to argue that is in the very courts he is criticizing. This talk of "unprecedented" actions feels like an attempt to undermine the very institutions meant to keep us all equal.

The Paraka Shadow: A Tale of "Selective" Memory

The Prime Minister’s current stance is incredibly hard to swallow when you look at his history, specifically the infamous Paraka scandal. This is where your question about "two sets of laws" becomes terrifyingly real.

Just recently, Hon. Kerenga Kua gave evidence in court regarding the Paraka case. He testified about the immense pressure applied to facilitate illegal payments of K41 million to Paraka Lawyers—money that did not follow due process . He spoke about the "secrecy surrounding the transactions" .

What was Chief Justice Sir Gibbs Salika’s reaction to this testimony? According to reports, His Honour questioned Kua on why he and other senior ministers did not have the courage to put in a formal complaint to police . The Chief Justice was essentially asking: Why were the politicians protected while the system was looted?

And what was Prime Minister Marape's response to this resurfacing of the Paraka matter? He didn't address the core issue of the missing K162 million . Instead, he launched a fierce attack on the media for reporting it. On his official government website, he accused the Post-Courier of "fake news" and "slander," threatening them with legal action for merely reporting what was said in his own colleague's court testimony .

He stated, "I have never approved any of the payments made under the Paraka claims process. In fact, I was the last Finance Minister who put a stop to the series of claims and payments" .

This is a very contradictory position, Mr. Prime Minister. On one hand, you attack the media for reporting on a scandal that involves your time as Finance Minister. On the other hand, you describe actions involving the highest judicial officer as "unprecedented."

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot demand the media be silent on your past while questioning the processes that might hold the current judiciary accountable.

Are Our Leaders Immune?

This brings us back to the citizen's fear: Are our top leaders immune to the Constitution?

When a Prime Minister attacks the media for reporting court proceedings , and then casts aspersions on processes involving the Chief Justice, it creates a chilling effect. It suggests that the rules are for the little people—the ones who go to jail for stealing a few hundred Kina.

But for the political elite, even a scandal involving K162 million (the Paraka funds) is just a matter of "media narrative" and "fake news" . We saw the Opposition recently note that the government's reports of success are "misleading" and that wealth distribution remains "highly unequal" . That inequality isn't just economic; it seems to be a legal inequality, too.

We cannot allow our leaders to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution apply to them.

The Bottom Line

Mr. Marape, you still have the outstanding issue of the Paraka saga hanging over your head, a saga that Chief Justice Salika is actively seeking truth and courage on . Your current media statements attacking the process and the messengers are, as you say, "very contradictory."

If the referrals regarding the Chief Justice are "unp