Category: MIL-OSI

COMMENTARY: By Ro Naulu Mataitini

An invitation from a distant warzone landed in Suva earlier this month. The United States, with Israel’s endorsement, has asked Fiji to send troops to join a proposed International Stabilisation Force in Gaza.

For a nation proud of its United Nations peacekeeping legacy, this whispers of global recognition. Yet, it is a dangerous siren’s call, urging Fiji toward a perilous mission that risks betraying a far more urgent duty at home.

This force would swap impartial peacekeeping for coercive enforcement, serving great-power ambition over principle.

Simultaneously, Australia faces its own costly summons, involving a bill of up to US$1 billion, to take up a permanent seat on a controversial “Board of Peace” overseeing Gaza.

With no Palestinian voice and critics decrying it as a “transactional colonial solution”, this board aims not for peace but to sideline the UN, cementing a donor-driven world order.

For Oceania, these parallel invitations present a defining choice: expend finite resources on a flawed project thousands of kilometres away, or assert true regional independence by confronting the clear and present danger eroding our own communities — the transnational crime and drug epidemic.

The Gaza plan is architecturally unsound. The force Fiji is asked to join is not a traditional UN mission deployed with consent; it is a peace enforcement body expected to demilitarise a shattered, hostile territory — a task requiring overwhelming force and unambiguous political will, neither of which is guaranteed.

Designed for dysfunction
The Board of Peace itself is designed for dysfunction, acting as a parallel structure to the UN Security Council where influence is bought, not earned.

For Australia, the billion-dollar question is stark: is this investment in distant geopolitical theatre wiser than addressing the existential crisis in its primary sphere of influence?

This moment mirrors a recent lesson from Europe. When President Trump targeted Greenland, European nations stood collectively on the principle of territorial integrity, forcing a retreat.

Their unity demonstrated that defending sovereignty collectively is the only way smaller states are protected from the predatory actions of larger ones.

For the Pacific, the lesson is clear: our security lies in collective regional resolve, not in subsidising external power plays that undermine the very multilateral rules that protect us.

This dynamic exposes the core hypocrisy of the new transactional order. It invites regions like ours to help manage conflicts born of imperial histories and great-power rivalries, while the same powers show a willingness to disregard the sovereignty of smaller states when it suits their strategic whims.

The Greenland episode is not an isolated fantasy; it is a blueprint. If economic coercion can be levelled against a NATO ally for territory, what guarantees exist for nations in the Pacific, whose strategic waterways and exclusive economic zones are equally coveted?

Enshrines coercion
The Board of Peace model enshrines this very coercion, asking nations to pay for a voice in a system that inherently devalues the sovereign equality that the UN Charter promises.

While Gaza beckons with false prestige, a real war is destroying our social fabric. Fiji’s National Security Strategy identifies the methamphetamine epidemic as a top-tier threat (p. 19). Record drug busts reveal not success, but the staggering scale of invasion.

This crisis fuels violence, overwhelms health systems, corrupts leaders and drains state resources.

To even contemplate diverting military and political focus to Gaza is to declare this domestic war secondary. It begs a foundational question: what is the ultimate purpose of sovereignty if not to deliver safety and security to one’s own people first?

This is the primary duty of any state. When institutions are eroded by cartels while security forces look abroad, that duty has failed.

This crisis is the true test of our regional architecture. The traffickers’ networks are transnational, exploiting fragmented governance and weak maritime surveillance. Their success is a direct result of our collective vulnerability.

To confront them requires a consolidation of sovereignty, not its diversion. Every police officer, intelligence analyst and naval patrol boat committed to a quagmire overseas is a resource stripped from guarding our own shores.

Diplomatic minefield
The political capital spent navigating the diplomatic minefield of Gaza is capital not spent rallying the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) to adopt a wartime footing against a clear, shared enemy. We cannot allow the spectre of one crisis to blind us to the substance of another.

The strategic response lies not in the Middle East, but in our own waters. Australia must make up its mind. That US$1 billion — a sum that could transform regional security — could and should be the cornerstone of a bold, coordinated campaign against the drug crisis, championed through the Forum.

I am not arguing for a return to failed, militarised prohibition. I propose a holistic, regional compact built on:

• Integrated policing: A permanent regional Task Force with real-time intelligence fusion to disrupt trafficking syndicates and their finances;
• Community resilience: Co-designed programs creating economic alternatives for youth and supporting rehabilitation to erode the cartels’ demand; and
• Institutional integrity: Major initiatives to shield judiciaries and border services from corruption, ensuring the rule of law is an asset.

In a world of transactional great-power politics, Australia must consciously encircle the Pasifika. This means investing politically and financially in the PIF, respecting its priorities and heeding its calls.

Addressing this crisis would be an act of enlightened self-preservation for Australia, and a lifeline for the region. The model exists in our history: the Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands, known as RAMSI, succeeded because it blended Australian resources with Pasifika personnel and local knowledge. We must summon that spirit again for a more complex fight.

The invitations to Gaza are a test of strategic identity. For Fiji, it is a test of resisting the seductive glare of distant drama for the sober duty of safeguarding the homeland.

Choice for Australia
For Australia, it is a choice: to fund a board that undermines global order or to invest in a sovereign regional compact against a shared existential threat.

True leadership is demonstrated not by saying a reflexive “yes” to powerful patrons, but by having the wisdom to say “no” when their wishes conflict with fundamental principles of multilateralism and life-and-death needs at home.

Europe showed that collective defence of sovereignty is how smaller states secure their future. For the Pasifika, our path to security and independence does not run through the rubble of Gaza. It runs through the strengthened, cooperative spirit of our own Blue Continent.

Choosing this closer, harder path is the mark of a region that truly knows where it belongs. It is the only choice that builds a legacy of genuine security, leaving our children a future defined not by the crises we attended elsewhere, but by the community we fortified here.

Ro Naulu Mataitini is a Fijian high chief of Rewa Province. A founding member of the People’s Alliance Party, he now serves as an apolitical member of Fiji’s Great Council of Chiefs and is the chairman of Rewa Provincial Holdings Company Limited. He is a retired security executive with the United Nations. This article appeared first on the Devpolicy Blog from the Development Policy Centre at the Australian National University and is republished under Creative Commons.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/01/29/pacific-at-risky-crossroads-gaza-vs-the-urgent-drug-crisis-at-our-door/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Amin Saikal, Emeritus Professor of Middle Eastern Studies, Australian National University; The University of Western Australia; Victoria University

The United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran are once again on the brink of a major confrontation. This would have terrible ramifications for both countries, the region and the world.

All signs point in this direction, but the two sides also have an off-ramp: the possibility of reaching an agreement on Iran’s nuclear program and other disputed issues.

The Iranian regime has never been so besieged both internally and externally. It has just faced yet another widespread protest movement demanding the government’s ouster, while dealing with the threat of military action by the US, supported by its ally, Israel.

Even so, the regime remains resilient and defiant. It brutally crushed the recent protests at the cost of thousands of lives and mass arrests and has warned the US of an all-out war if it attacks.

At the same time, it has signalled a willingness to reach a deal with the US over its nuclear program to avoid such an outcome.

So, what happens next, and can war be avoided?

A regime in survival mode

The regime’s tenacity is embedded in its unique theocratic nature, in which societal subordination and confrontation with outside enemies are the modus operandi.

Since its inception 47 years ago, the regime has learned how to ensure its longevity. This requires having a strong and defendable state, armed with all the necessary repressive instruments of state power, along with an ideology that mixes the concept of Shia Islamic martyrdom with fierce Iranian nationalism.

Given this, the regime has operated within a jihadi (combative) and ijtihadi (pragmatist) framework for its survival.

It has prepared for both war and making deals. This is not the first time Iran’s clerical leaders have been put in a tight corner by their own people and outside adversaries. They have always found a way to work through challenges and threats to their existence.

Still, the current challenge is bigger than any they’ve faced before. Over the past month, US President Donald Trump has vowed to punish the regime for its repression of the Iranian people, and now for its refusal to reach a deal on its nuclear program.

Some believe his ultimate goal, though, is to create the conditions for regime change.

Regime change not a given

Trump must know that regime change in Iran will not happen easily. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his fellow clerics are ready to fight to the very end. They know that if the Islamic system they created goes down, everyone in the regime is most likely to perish with it.

The regime has built sufficient fanatical forces (namely, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and Basij paramilitary force) and advanced missiles and drones to defend itself. It also has the ability to block the Strait of Hormuz, though which 20% of the world’s oil and 25% of its liquefied natural gas flows every day.

The regime also has the backing of China, Russia and North Korea, which means any US assault could quickly escalate into a broader regional war.

Although Trump has not favoured regime change in the past, he now seems as if he’s not ruling it out. (His ally, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has long had this aim.)

But even though Trump now has a “massive armada” of ships and fighter jets in the region, the Iranian regime cannot be toppled by air and sea alone. And a ground invasion is not on Trump’s agenda, given the United States’ bitter experiences with ground offensives in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.

The regime could only crumble if a sizeable part of its security forces defected to the opposition. So far, they have remained quite loyal and solidly behind the leadership – as the brutal crackdown to the recent protests shows.

A possible destabilising future

Even if the regime were to crumble from within by some chance, what would come next?

Iran is a large and complex country, with an ethnically mixed population. While Persians form a slim majority of the population, the country has significant minority groups, such as the Kurds, Azeris, Arabs and Balochis. They all have a history of movements for secession and autonomy.

With the exception of two short periods of experimenting with democracy in the early and mid-20th century, Iran has been governed by authoritarian rulers. In the event of a power vacuum, it remains prone to chaos and disintegration.

It is doubtful that Reza Pahlavi, the son of the last shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who ruled from 1941–79, will command sufficient public support and organisational strength to ensure a smooth transition to democracy. He has lived most of his life in exile in the US and has been closely identified with Israeli and American interests.

Netanyahu would be pleased to see a disintegrated Iran, as he has always wanted to prevent the formation of a united Muslim front against Israel. But the fall-out from a destabilised Iran would be problematic for the region.

These considerations are probably weighing on Trump’s mind, delaying his promise to the Iranian protesters that “help is on its way”.

Diplomacy is the better way forward. The time has come for the Iranian and American leadership to compromise and resurrect their July 2015 nuclear deal, from which Trump withdrew in 2018.

This should be urgently followed by Iran’s clerical rulers opening their iron fist and allowing the Iranian people to determine their future and that of their country within a democratic framework.

Otherwise, the volatility that has long dominated this oil-rich country, where between 30–40% of the population lives in poverty, will eventually devour the regime.

Amin Saikal does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. With Iran weakened, Trump’s end goal may now be regime change. It’s an incredibly risky gamble – https://theconversation.com/with-iran-weakened-trumps-end-goal-may-now-be-regime-change-its-an-incredibly-risky-gamble-274626

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/01/29/with-iran-weakened-trumps-end-goal-may-now-be-regime-change-its-an-incredibly-risky-gamble-274626/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Megan Prictor, Associate Professor in Health Technology Law, The University of Melbourne

On Wednesday, the federal government announced plans to reform how medications are dispensed and tracked, aiming to reduce unsafe use, stockpiling and “doctor shopping”.

This will include two stages. First, the government will require all online and telehealth prescribers to upload information about a patient’s prescribed medications to their My Health Record.

Second, the government plans to develop a National Medicines Record – an over-arching database to register and monitor all current prescriptions.

So, how would this work? While some detail is still lacking, here’s what we know.

Why is this needed?

An increasing number of Australians take multiple medications. Recent research analysing prescribing patterns in Australia estimates almost two million of us took five or more regular medicines in 2024.

While multiple medicines are often needed to manage multiple conditions, there are risks of adverse effects.

And when a clinician prescribes medication or a pharmacist dispenses it without a full understanding of the patient’s current medications, it can lead to harmful interactions between them.

This can make a patient sicker and often lands them in hospital. An estimated 1.5 million people in Australia experience some kind of harmful side effect from using medicine each year.

Those at particular risk are older adults taking numerous medications, as well as those transitioning between health-care settings (such as going into hospital or returning home).

Sometimes patients also stockpile medications, including through consulting multiple doctors, known as “doctor shopping”. For example, they might do this to obtain extra supplies of addictive pain medication.

How does it work right now?

Currently, there is no centralised, mandatory register that records all of the medicines a person is prescribed and dispensed.

Instead, prescribing information may be siloed in hospital and aged care systems, general practice records and those of online telehealth providers such as Instant Scripts, 13SICK and Hola Health.

This can prevent any single doctor or pharmacist from having clear, comprehensive information about a patient’s medications.

Some health-care practitioner and pharmacy bodies have criticised the online prescribing industry, in particular, for contributing to inappropriate prescribing and medication misuse.

For high-risk medications such as opioids, there is already a Real Time Prescription Monitoring system. Victoria has a similar system called SafeScript, but this doesn’t record the full range of prescription medications.

Announcing the reforms, Health Minister Mark Butler referred to an Australian woman who died from an overdose after stockpiling her medicine. He explained her parent’s advocacy prompted the government to address the lack of a comprehensive medicines record.

What will change?

First, the government will require online and telehealth prescribing platforms to add information to the My Health Record system about prescribed medications. This will include information about the clinical reasoning for prescribing.

My Health Record is a government-run platform providing a secure, online collection of a patient’s health information. Both patients and their treating health-care professionals can access it.

So any medication or related clinical information uploaded by a prescriber would be accessible via My Health Record, to the patient as well as to their health-care providers and pharmacists.

Many general practices already upload this information, but online prescribing platforms may not. Organisations representing pharmacists have long called for this kind of change.

Will it work?

In theory, it is a step forward. The challenge is that the My Health Record system remains under-used. One in 10 Australians have no My Health Record (the system is opt-out).

For the millions of Australians who do have a My Health Record, usage is increasing. But many still have never accessed their own record.

It is also not clear whether, and how, a patient’s access to their own My Health Record would reduce medication harm (particularly if the patient is deliberately stockpiling medication).

Almost all GPs, pharmacies and public hospitals are registered for My Health Record and have used the system. But data shows pharmacies are mainly using it to upload information rather than looking at records others have uploaded.

Overall, ensuring that all medicines information is available on the My Health Record is a positive step.

But it does not mean that the information will be accessed (or understood) by others who are prescribing and dispensing medication to a patient.

Indeed, sadly, the warnings that were placed by hospital services on the My Health Record of the young woman who died from an overdose were not accessed by telehealth services nor pharmacies prescribing and supplying her with medication.

What’s ahead?

As a second step, the government says it will design and build a National Medicines Record. This would be an overarching platform linked to My Health Record and other digital health systems, to register all current prescriptions.

At this stage, detail is lacking, but health-care practitioner and pharmacy bodies are broadly supportive.

A consultation is underway.

If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 14.

Megan Prictor is a member of the Australasian Association of Bioethics and Health Law, the European Association for Health Law and the World Association of Medical Law.

– ref. The government wants to track your medicines – here’s why – https://theconversation.com/the-government-wants-to-track-your-medicines-heres-why-274532

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/01/29/the-government-wants-to-track-your-medicines-heres-why-274532-2/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kathryn Benier, Senior Lecturer in Criminology, Monash University

Reports that Victoria Police are issuing anti-association orders to “youth gang members” has sparked fresh debate about how to best deal with youth gang violence in Australia.

These orders have previously been used to reduce the presence of outlaw motorcycle “bikies” and are an attempt to prevent prospective harm.

While such measures may temporarily address public calls for tougher crime control, there have been significant criticisms of association laws in Australia and internationally.

Instead, we need to understand why young people gravitate to gangs, and consider evidence-based early-intervention solutions.

What do the stats suggest?

The number of young offenders in Australia is decreasing.

However, in Victoria, the number of offences committed by youth (aged 10–17 years) has risen in recent months.

Media and political discourses have consistently portrayed young people, and particularly migrant young people, as being responsible for anti-social, delinquent and criminal behaviour.

This fuels public perceptions that young people are out of control, threatening, violent and dangerous. Data from Victoria Police indicate young people account for just 13% of all offenders, yet media coverage of crime seems to focus mainly on youths.

---

Read more:
Is Australia becoming a more violent country?

---

Youth crime does occur and we recognise that victims experience significant trauma and long-lasting harms.

But the over-use and misapplication of the “gang” label by the media and politicians sometimes conflates friendship groups with youth gangs.

There are documented dangers of labelling all youth groups of friends as gangs.

A youth gang can be defined as:

Any durable, street-oriented youth group whose involvement in illegal activity is part of its group identity.

Gangs are often a group of delinquent friends, perhaps drawn together by their shared attitudes and propensity for delinquency.

In Australia, gangs rarely go out to recruit members as is sometimes seen in the United States or Central America. This is because Australia has, for the most part, escaped the transnational street gang presence that drives youth recruiting in other countries.

The risk factors of gang involvement

After the murders of two boys, aged 15 and 12, in Melbourne’s outer west last September, Victoria Police Detective Inspector Graham Banks said:

We need to get to the root cause of why these people are joining gangs and to make it a situation where they don’t want to be involved in that sort of behaviour.

There is no single reason for youth offending. Instead, multiple areas of a young person’s life come together to influence their behaviour: their own beliefs and attitudes, peer group, family, school and community.

Although the relative importance of each category changes across childhood and adolescence, a young person’s risk of violence, offending, or gang membership increases as the number of risk factors rises.

Individual risk factors include low self-control, low empathy, antisocial beliefs and attitudes, substance use, or having been victimised themselves.

Despite media portrayals to the contrary, ethnicity or migration background has not been shown to be a risk factor for violence, offending, or gang membership.

Peers are one of the strongest influences on gang involvement, with young people more likely to offend if their peers are delinquent.

In the absence of a legitimate pathway to social capital, youth gangs can provide a sense of belonging and social identity for disenfranchised young people.

Family risk factors include lack of parental supervision and abusive or neglectful family environments.

Risk factors at school include truancy, low grades, feeling unsafe at school and lack of attachment to school.

Finally, at the community level, we see the impact of risk factors such as socioeconomic disadvantage, low social cohesion and high levels of crime in the neighbourhood.

It is important to remember that although these interconnecting risk factors can increase the risk of a young person offending, they do not automatically cause offending.

If a young person has good conflict resolution skills, positive friendships, strong family relationships and opportunities for education and employment, it is likely their risk of offending is lower.

What are some possible solutions?

Current solutions proposed by the Victorian government include machete bans and tougher bail laws.

Yet evidence shows harsher bail laws do not have the desired deterrent effect. They also consistently and disproportionately affect those of a lower socio-economic status.

People on bail have not been found guilty – so removing bail is removing the presumption of innocence.

Queensland’s “adult crime, adult time” policy – which lists 33 offences for which children can receive the same penalty as an adult – has also faced scrutiny for perpetuating harm.

Financially, tough bail and sentencing laws cause unintended consequences that actually cost governments more by failing to break cycles of incarceration.

Violence and gang membership can emerge from a complex interplay of risks across childhood and adolescence. These are unlikely to be shifted by legislation.

Instead, best practice suggests a need to work with young people on early intervention and ideally prevention.

Young people at risk need mentoring, active school engagement and increased employment opportunities. Their families and communities need support.

Supports such as these do exist, including state government programs and organisations such as Mission Australia. These often have good results but are usually underfunded.

Sustainable reductions in youth violence and gang involvement will only be achieved by adequately funding and expanding evidence-based early intervention and prevention programs that address the broader social and developmental needs of young people.

Kathryn Benier has received funding from Department of Health and Human Services (Victoria), Department of Justice and Regulation (Victoria), Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety (ANROWS), Attorney-General’s Department (Australia), Campbell Collaboration, Department of Homeland Security (USA).

Angela Higginson has received funding from: Australian Research Council; Australian Institute of Criminology; Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety (ANROWS); 3ie; Campbell Collaboration (Dept Homeland Security USA & Public Safety Canada); Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime UK; College of Policing UK; Dept of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs; Dept of Social Services; Dept of Innovation, Tourism Industry Development and the Commonwealth Games; Australian and New Zealand Association of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgeons.

– ref. Why are some young people attracted to gangs and what are some evidence-based solutions? – https://theconversation.com/why-are-some-young-people-attracted-to-gangs-and-what-are-some-evidence-based-solutions-265072

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/01/29/why-are-some-young-people-attracted-to-gangs-and-what-are-some-evidence-based-solutions-265072/