Mourners amid the earthquake damage in Vanuatu's capital after the December 2024 earthquake. Screenshot from ABC's YouTube documentary. Fair use.
The prime minister of Vanuatu, Jotham Napat, expressed dismay over an Australian documentary that discussed Chinese-funded buildings which were damaged during the December 2024 earthquake. The prime minister criticized the reporters’ “bias,” but a global media watchdog warned that the leader’s remarks could undermine critical reporting.
Vanuatu is a south Pacific island nation with a population of more than 300,000. The December 17th earthquake resulted in at least 14 fatalities, 265 injuries, the displacement of 1,092 people, and the destruction of 570 houses that affected 2,850 people. The earthquake also left significant infrastructure damage in the capital.
The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) published a report on March 21 about the post-earthquake situation in Vanuatu’s capital, Port Vila, and linked the damage to some buildings to outdated building code guidelines and construction practices. Titled “From paradise to peril,” the report mentioned that the new presidential palace complex built and donated by the Chinese government was among the damaged buildings. The report, which was written by a local journalist, also included a video interview with Vanuatu’s Prime Minister Jotham Napat.
But Napat took offense about the framing of the report and the so-called singling out of China. His office released a statement on March 27 describing the ABC report as an example of “foreign bias.”
There were other lines in the intro that were clearly meant to cast doubt and shame a long-standing partner of Vanuatu, which we will not accept. We deserve an apology for this blunder.
The last thing we want to see is foreign media coming in and questioning our intelligence or sovereign decisions.
Napat led a coalition of parties when he assumed power in February. He said that Vanuatu will balance all countries amid the rising rivalry of global superpowers in the Pacific, namely Australia, China, and the US.
In an opinion piece published by Daily Post on April 2, writer Mavuku Tokona also highlighted how the report promoted Australian perspectives.
The truth is there are a lot of damage on buildings that were on the fault line, if you’re going to cherry-pick the Chinese projects only, that would be pandering to a western narrative that we shouldn’t have any business getting involved with.
Sadly, the tip of the spear of media was used as an instrument to promote what the Australians wanted to say.
The ABC responded the following day, defending the story it published.
We stand by our reporting and the questions it raises around whether Chinese-gifted buildings were built to code, which came from multiple sources. Our reporting would have been the same if Australian-funded projects were under scrutiny.
The ABC statement added that the report tackled various aspects of the country’s recovery efforts and did not solely focus on China-funded buildings in the capital.
Media watchdog the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) reminded authorities that the prime minister’s statement could be interpreted as an attempt to influence media reporting.
The IFJ reminded that just because a government is uncomfortable with a report does not mean it equates to journalistic bias. Any attempts to control or stifle the media narrative in the island nation could easily be interpreted as an act of censorship and a warning to others working in the media to not report on so-called sensitive issues in the eyes of the government.
