There is currently a serious problem with tribal fighting and gang violence in some of the Highland provinces of Papua New Guinea. In many areas, the violence surrounding the July 2022 election has essentially continued as a series of rolling fights. The most recent violent event to hit the news is a kidnapping of women and girls in Hela Province. They were brutally raped and subjected to other unnamed horrors before being released.

The problem seems so intractable, widespread and repeated that it is hard to know where to begin. The dominant outcome is impunity for perpetrators. Impunity is justified by reference to difficulties of access and transport, of communication, scarcity of government resources, and the considerable firepower of the feuding parties and gang members. All these are truly difficult logistical obstacles.

But, they are less insurmountable obstacles if we stop viewing the incidents as isolated events, and start seeing them as repeated patterns of behaviour. Paying attention to the systemic and cyclical nature of intergroup fighting highlights two much underused resources in the intervention armoury: timing of interventions, and networks with local communities.

In regard to timing, we use as an illustration a tragic recent case in Enga Province that personally affected one of us. Williams father was murdered, along with three other men, when he attended a peace mediation talk between two clans. This gave rise to immense pressure for payback from Williams clan, but there were many level heads within the clan of the deceased who realised that this could trigger an ever-increasing cycle of violence. They put enormous efforts into containing the forces crying out for revenge channelling their own resources, oratory skills and charisma towards this objective. Against all odds, clan and community leaders managed to stop the violence for 14 days while the haus krai and burial occurred. The immensity of this feat should not be underestimated.

The leaders knew that this temporary peace had an end date; they alone were not strong enough to permanently stop the violence. So they actively sought out the states police force to help them and, they hoped, take the burden from their shoulders by arresting the perpetrators of the original four murders. Unfortunately, the police did not intervene as hoped.

The force of those speaking for peace was eventually overwhelmed by those thirsting for war, and cycle after cycle of attack and revenge occurred, drawing in old conflicts from two or three decades ago. It turned out to be one clan who spoke for peace, against 18 others who mobilised for violence. At the height of the conflict, the state finally sent police and military personnel who were on the ground. They were quickly overwhelmed, as by that stage the violence had escalated...

Ever since May 2023, when the 14-member Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) reached an agreement on strengthening the resilience of supply chains a crucial aspect of the frameworks second pillar an intense debate has been ignited within academia and media regarding its feasibility. For obvious reasons, scholars and commentators have delved into the potential ramifications and explored various perspectives on the matter. Some have scrutinized the practicality of implementing the agreement, while others have examined the potential economic and geopolitical implications it may entail. While the final text of the IPEF Supply Chain Agreement is yet to be unveiled to the media, initial indications have partially revealed its main features, suggesting the creation of comprehensive regulations and institutional mechanisms. The success of this agreement hinges on its implementation, with a particular focus on delineating tangible measures and possibly establishing specialized projects to propel further advancements.

Launched by US President Joe Biden in May 2022 during a Quad Summit in Tokyo, the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) is a coalition of 14 member countries including India, Australia, Brunei, Fiji, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam. The IPEFs declared objective is to establish a shared framework based on four key pillars: connectivity and digital trade, resilient supply chains, clean energy, and corruption-free fair trade. But the IPEF is generally viewed as the United States strategic response to its perceived retreat from the Asia-Pacific region during the Trump era, symbolized by the withdrawal from the ambitious Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), now known as the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). Evidently, the IPEF is an assertive move by the Biden administration to counter Chinas increasing sway in the Indo-Pacific region. With the IPEF, the United States aims to expand its economic leadership in the region while advancing its foreign policy and economic interests. Through strategic partnerships with member countries, Washington seeks to enhance the development of supply chains and promote regional connectivity in both physical and digital realms. In doing so, the United States hopes to solidify its position as a dominant economic force in the Indo-Pacific region, asserting its influence and securing its long-term economic and strategic objectives.

As per media reports, the proposed agreement has suggested the establishment of three bodies: a Supply Chain Council, a Supply Chain Crisis Response Network, and a Labor Rights Advisory Board. Additionally, the United States has pledged to initiate technical assistance and capacity-building programs, such as digital shipping pilot projects and an IPEF STEM Exchange Program. Nevertheless, the global response from th...

Indonesias Foreign Minister Retno Marsudi urged nuclear weapons states to join ASEANs regional nuclear-free zone.

The Diplomat, By Edna Tarigan and Niniek Karmini, July 12, 2023

Indonesias top diplomat warned Tuesday of the threat posed by nuclear weapons, saying that Southeast Asia is one miscalculation away from apocalypse and pressing for world powers to sign a treaty to keep the region free from such arms.

Indonesian Foreign Minister Retno Marsudi raised the alarm ahead of a two-day summit of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), which started later Tuesday in Jakarta. The agenda would spotlight Myanmars deadly civil strife, continuing tensions in the South China Sea, and efforts to fortify regional economies amid the global headwinds set off by Russias invasion of Ukraine.

Later in the week, the 10-nation bloc will meet Asian and Western counterparts, including U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, and Chinese foreign policy overseer Wang Yi.

The U.S.-China rivalry is not formally on ASEANs agenda but looms large over the meetings of the bloc, an often-unwieldy collective of democracies, autocracies, and monarchies, with some members split over allegiances either to Washington or Beijing.

We cannot be truly safe with nuclear weapons in our region, Marsudi told fellow ASEAN ministers. With nuclear weapons, we are only one miscalculation away from apocalypse and global catastrophe.

In 1995, ASEAN states signed a treaty that declared Southeast Asias commitment to be a nuclear weapon-free zone, one of five in the world. However, Marsudi lamented that none of the worlds leading nuclear powers have signed on to the pact and called for renewed efforts to convince those states to sign up. The threat is imminent, so we can no longer play a waiting game, she said.more https://thediplomat.com/2023/07/indonesia-warns-nuclear-weapons-put-southeast-asia-a-miscalculation-away-from-disaster/

The US and its allies are attempting to cling onto world hegemony against the tide of a multipolar international order, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said on Tuesday. "We do not define the current phase of international relations as a new Cold War," Lavrov told the Indonesian outlet Kompas. "The issue at hand is about something different, namely, the formation of a multipolar international order. This is an objective process. Everyone can see that new globally meaningful decision-making centers are growing stronger in Eurasia, the Asia-Pacific region, the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America." These countries and their associations are seeing success because they promote "values such as national interests, independence, sovereignty, cultural and civilizational identity and international cooperation," in line with the global development trends, Lavrov explained.