Less than three weeks after the election Prime Minister John Key wants New Zealand to join a war in the Middle East and extend the powers of our US-focused spy agencies the SIS (Security Intelligence Service) and the GCSB (Government Communications Security Bureau) to control the movement of New Zealand citizens travelling overseas.
Both these moves should have been shadowed during the election campaign but Key deliberately chose to downplay the issues because waging war in a country on the other side of the world is something many, and possibly most, New Zealanders are suspicious of.
The best mainstream critique of the government’s proposals comes from Sunday Star Times journalist Andrea Vance here.
To get public support for his plans Key must first create fear in the hearts of New Zealanders because a fearful public is a manipulable public. It’s the same old recipe used by warmongers from time immemorial.
Key began the process last week and later this month will ramp up and amplify the “threat” to New Zealand from New Zealanders going overseas to fight and then returning to wage terror attacks here. In reality the risks for New Zealand are somewhere between minor and insignificant and easily contained by vigilance from our police force.
The real reason Key wants to send troops to Iraq, extend mass surveillance and restrict the rights of New Zealanders is to appease the US and ensure we are seen as reliable partners in America’s global objectives – military, political and corporate.
It’s certainly nothing to do with the welfare of Middle Eastern citizens. If this was about protecting civilians the New Zealand government would have spoken out and stopped New Zealanders travelling to fight in the Israeli Army. Instead we not only let them freely travel to fight for a racist, Zionist state but we positively welcome Israeli soldiers, fresh from the killing fields of Gaza, with visa-free travel to New Zealand. We have even allowed the likes of Israeli General Moshe Ya’alon to be welcomed here despite overwhelming evidence of his involvement in the most egregious war crimes against United Nations peacekeepers and Palestinian and Lebanese civilians.
I’m not holding a candle for ISIS whose members have engaged in brutal, oppressive behaviour as bad as anything Saddam Hussein or George Bush approved. But the rise of ISIS and similar groups across the Middle East is directly related to US foreign policy and the decision to invade Iraq in 2003 on the phony premise of weapons of mass destruction when the real objective was to open up more of the Middle East to US corporations, the oil industry in particular.
Back in early 2003 National Party MPs (with the exception of Maurice Williamson) were chomping at the bit to have New Zealand join the George Bush/Tony Blair invasion of Iraq. They were gutted not to have the chance to show the US our soldiers could kill Iraqis as well as any other US ally.
Prime Minister Helen Clark however kept New Zealand out of that war and the US-led invasion and occupation was just as highly unpopular amongst the public here as it was anywhere in the world. The result was the biggest mass mobilisation of humanity against a war that the world had ever seen.
It won’t be the Prime Minister or government MPs that speak out against this war – it will have to be ordinary New Zealanders marching in the streets.
This is fundamental to the well-being of ordinary New Zealanders. The US/UK security arrangements are not only historical, they’re institutional, so any meaningful change can only be achieved at the institutional level, not by party politics or by pursuit of left wing ideology. The means by which national security is achieved is a constitutional issue, you’re not going to fix it simply by protesting about it. An alternative strategy that doesn’t support the institutions which brought the state to make make war on false pretenses is required, and that involves not only looking at our own values, but at the historical role that empire has played in shaping western society.
The remedy, in my opinion, involves abandoning the state as protector and provider, and keeping the law of the land rather than the political dictates of bubbleheads and cowards.
“Non-co-operation is a protest against an unwitting and unwilling participation in evil….Non-co-operation with evil is as much a duty as co-operation with good.” Mahatma Gandhi
It was enough to defeat the British empire in India, perhaps the idea will come of age in NZ
I was in the army as a conscript and once proud to defend this country I loved, but what I see ahead now worries me severely.
Simply the establishment has run out of ideas how to stop the global economy from collapsing within the next six to nine months according to global economics experts.
IMF boss Christine Lagard warned this morning we need a radical change to avoid the global economy from tanking.
Latest forecasts are that the Global debt is well over the $700 Trillion in 2009 while the global stock market asset values are only $50 Trillion, clearly the world is now in deep trouble financially.
So our collective economies are so over leveraged we are headed for a cliff and reinventing another Global was is their only answer.
I like you John solidly support your stand against this Global elitist Bilderberg Group type surveillance drive & to falsely attempt to re stimulate the global economy again as they tried in 1939 and see our young die on foreign fields or desserts for a fist full of dollars US style politics.
So then what do you propose we do about ISIS and the impending massacre of civilians, that according to UN Envoys on the ground will parallel what happened in Serbia and Rwanda.
I get where you are coming from ideologically wise, but for the woman and children who are about to be killed, turning a blind eye, seems morally repugnant.
Who said anything about turning a blind eye? And why is it that your eyes are so selective? I don’t recall you demanding military action to invade Israel for the war crimes they perpetrated against Palestinians.
typical and incorrect response
is anyone saying “lets do nothing”?
or are people saying “its a serious issue that requires some serious thinking – not a whipping up of fear and a decision made in haste by a single person for questionable reasons”
sorry sansa – the “your suggesting doing nothing” is an ignorant and/or deliberate attempt to create a “your with us or against us” environment that will do vastly more harm and create not a shred of good
“So then what do you propose we do…”
A good first step would be to identify who is training and financing ISIS, and take a look at their relationship with Al Qaeda and at the origins of the mujahadeen in Afghanistan. ISIS didn’t just come into existence from out of nowhere, tracing the history of the radicalization of Islam leads to the conclusion that supporting the US will never result in a workable solution IMO. Sibel Edmonds is an excellent source of information on the forces which shape Muslim extremism.
Dr Udo Ulfkotte, journalist, insight into how mainstream media is influenced and by who, he had enough of being complicit in starting wars so has spelt it out
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yp-Wh77wt1o
Well said Mr Minto. While I agree that public protest action will be an important part of making dissent on the issue known (let me know when and where), I think that we shouldn’t look for a single solution. Let’s not discount other political or legal actions that may, in concert with protest have an effect that any of them wouldn’t alone.
It’s disappointing to see many in the public falling hook, line and sinker for Key’s statements which are so obviously just precursors to war. As has been mentioned in other comments, just because a person may not support military action that doesn’t mean they think no action should be taken. There are plenty of other avenues available. First among them, follow the money, eliminate it at the source. Those profiting from war don’t give arms and ammunition away. If the act of supplying IS with their weapons is criminal, prosecute those responsible, if it’s not, make it so.
Is Max & Stephie Key going to be on the front line? I think not. So why send other peoples sons & daughters to be killed.
Agree entirely John. The first lie was the weapons of mass destruction the line this time could be called a fight against mass brutality In neither case should we have gone there or be there again. Our independent foreign policy is gone. Today we are running dogs
Scary swords and not-so-scary swords.
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/sword-removed-in-counterterrorism-raids-a-common-plastic-decoration-owner-reveals-20141007-10r7nj.html
From UGLYTRUTH’s link…
“Police did not explain to the media at the time that the sword was plastic.”
It seems they also failed to state the poor lad they arrested was a Shia Muslim, a sworn enemy of the Sunni ISIL.
It doesn’t take much thought to think of a reason the police may have omitted telling the general public these facts.
thats john key perogative certainly not mine or those that voted against him…….
Comments are closed.