GUEST BLOG: Gerard Otto – Patrick Smellie, Matthew Hooton and Fran O’Sullivan order a large plate of ghost wedges

Fran is a dick

Last week Fran O’Sullivan put up her hand to identify herself as part of the propaganda network spreading the baseless ghost wedge that Winston Peters is running amok out of control with Foreign Affairs.

All week we have seen the same baseless allegation made by Patrick Smellie, Matthew Hooton and Professor Robert Ayson – none of whom could furnish any evidence that Winston was playing by himself behind PM Ardern’s back.

They just make this shit up and pass the parcel.

I raised the issue that we should be vigilant about this false media messaging concerning Winston – because an invisible hand could tie all of these senior commentators together – given they were venturing the same factless spin in the manner of a co-ordinated messaging agenda upon New Zealand.

Fran wrote today with condescending tone in the business section of the NZ Herald concerning PM Jacinda Ardern :

“…or will she learn the skills of horizontal management? This is important when her Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, Winston Peters, is to some extent running an independent agenda.”

What independent agenda?

The Pacific Reset? What?

Just like all the other three who made a point of including this “message” in their articles recently – there was no explanation from Fran O’Sullivan stating exactly what Winston’s alleged independent agenda is – nor when it was evident to her.

Instead Fran just asserted that this agenda existed – without a scrap of justifying evidence.

As you are undoubtedly aware by now – Fran O’Sullivan has special interests in China because Fran is on the advisory board of the New Zealand China Council.

The Council has it’s own agendas concerning doing more business with China and things that get in the way of that may be frowned upon by it’s members – more so – than a neutral independent senior business journalist with any substance ( lol ) .

The parroting of theories about “Winston going awol” or “Winston running amok” or “Winston being independent” also suits National – who need false perceptions like this to be reinforced on a regular basis.’

Who can do this in our media for National?

Now you only have to start counting the members of the team.

It is remarkable that our media operates in this fashion – given the way the coalition has performed in such a stable, cohesive manner for over a year now – and given that only partisan politics can explain using this “message” without any substance to it.

Ironically another message that Fran began spreading during the 2017 election was that Jacinda lacked substance.

Once again – there was no substance to saying Jacinda lacked substance at all – and Jacinda has repeatedly proven she is more than a match for anyone who takes her on – in election debates – in interviews with the press, in battles with the opposition in parliament or in trade talks and diplomacy with leaders of nation states.

Over and over the proof was in the pudding – our PM has the depth and diplomacy to artfully succeed where others fail.

Fran of course lives in some delusional universe where she is the authority on all things business.

Granted she has a couple of decades of reporting about it – but a close examination shows she is just repeating things others have said or written – and she seems unable to observe reality and stays tightly wrapped up in mistaken perceptions about substance and how Winston is out of control.

Fran seems to think none of Jacinda’s great track record over the past year exists and Davos will be the real test of substance.

What a wank!

Seriously – it is time Fran got some new spandex tights and ditched that leopard skin print and her out of date perceptions about Jacinda.

Jacinda has so much substance that Fran just looks like a giant inflated cock sparrow stuffed into a delusional stocking by continuing to defy the facts and re-asserting her tired undermining insinuations that Jacinda lacks substance.

Piss off Fran.

Put Jacinda into a debate with Fran and Fran would be bouncing off the ropes like a Chinese dumpling not knowing a dipping sauce from a chop stick.

Super sleuth Fran reported that Jacinda would be attending three panels in Davos concerning 1. Climate Change, 2. the well being budget and 3. mental health.

All topics Jacinda is strong and astute about.

The rest of Fran’s article read like a meeting timetable.

Fran may have read a programme pamphlet or similar to glean this information but she informed the business community of it – and they absorbed it like sponges.

She was able to report Trump had cancelled his attendance and was sending in some other clowns because of the government lock down.

Captain Obvious said Jacinda must get the US and China onto her dance card.

We all know China is Fran’s pet project and smearing Wintson is part of that game.

 

Patrick Smellie and the ghost wedges

On 17th December Jacinda Ardern gave her last Post Cabinet Press conference of the year and towards the end she answered questions about a speech Winston Peters had given two day’s earlier in Washington.

Cabinet had approved the Pacific Reset in late February 2018 before any speeches were given at all – and since then there have been various speeches – plus the question of increasing foreign aid and support for projects in the region – along with the shifting asymmetries at play in the region -which have been commentated upon in the public domain extensively.

There is talk all the time about what nations with similar values might contribute to the region.

Nothing new.

But Patrick Smellie smelt this speech was a potential wedge issue which boiled down to his assessment of the significance of such a speech.

He thought the speech was balls out massively out of step and signified a quantum leap – or something – that departed from our prior position.

Because of this massively ordained significance Patrick Smellie thought the speech should have gone to cabinet first – and he now feared Winston was out of control – wagging the dog – yadda yadda.

A bowl of wedges anyone?

How about some ghost wedges?

Towards the end of the Post Cabinet Press Conference PM Ardern was asked about this speech.

This is the transcript ( 99% accurate ) :

“Did you see that speech before he gave it and did you approve it?”

“I would not expect to see every single speech a minister delivers because that would set unreasonable expectations upon ministers as you know from advisory – there are a huge number of speeches given every week” – said PM Ardern

Does that speech then accurately represent government policy on both China and the Pacific?

“Which particular elements are you talking about?” – replied PM Ardern.

Well where he calls on the United States to get more involved in the Pacific?

“Oh look we’ve been doing that publicly for some time”. – said PM Ardern.

And he also said there was an inflection point?

“Oh and that’s a conversation that’s been had in the public domain for a long time. That’s no secret. The discussion around different countries foreign policies and whether or not that’s meant we have had less engagement in the region is a matter of public debate and commentary. Not only of the US that there will be an interest in the Pacific – of course France has an interest. The UK may take a different position to foreign policy post Brexit. These are conversations that are worth having with those – who in the past we have shared similar values and directions when it comes to foreign policy.” – replied PM Ardern.

Is there room in the Pacific for China?

“This is not a bidding war. This is all about making sure that where there are shared values and projects that we partner with those who are able to deliver in the best interests of our region” – said PM Ardern

But does this speech indicate that your government is moving closer to America and a little bit further away from China?

“No. Absolutely not. No. As I say there’s a number of people who I have had conversations around the Pacific generally. President Macron, Prime Minister May. You’ll find that most nations are outwardly focused, are interested in different regions around the world, and frequently will have conversations with New Zealand around areas of partnership and development.” – said PM Ardern.

So PM Ardern had spelt out diplomatically here that this was not a speech that differed much from other conversations about the Pacific that are had all the time between other nations and New Zealand and this was not some giant wedge.

Nevertheless Patrick Smellie wrote a hit piece asserting his hand wringing worries that it really was a case of Winston running off with our foreign policy here.

The wedge theory propaganda rests on three shakey cards :

1. That the 2018 defence strategy included several clauses about spheres of influence and contested places that named China and it’s approach to reclaiming historical levels of influence on it’s periphery. No such transparent language was allowed previously or NZ could be punished by deferred meetings with China – or worse – dithering over our FTA upgrade negotiations.

2. We upgraded our fleet of planes and they can knock out submarines plus they cost us quite a bit. Despite this being approved by cabinet and based within the context of the 2016 defence capability budget according to the Coalition Agreement – it was apparently NZ First having a field day according to the wedge spin machine.

3. The GCSB has smacked Huawei on the hand and banned them from the 5G business with Spark. Not only that but the Five Eye’s nations have warned of China’s cyber attacks and this has unsettled matters with China.

Patrick Shellie felt he was not alone in his wedge theory because Professor Robert Ayson of Victoria University wrote an article that was republished in Newsroom saying PM Ardern had a challenge here to repair things with China…and wrote :

” The prime minister needs to bring some balance back into her government’s foreign and defence policy, where Peters and his New Zealand First colleagues have been having a field day.”

Sadly the professor – who is often called upon by media to comment – was unable to specify exactly how this field day could really be verified.

Notably the Professor works at a University who is generously sponsored by …you guessed it …Huawei.

Hooray!!!

Not that I am saying this influences academics about what they can say publicly, nor that the cash strapped University would tread carefully about the hands that feed it.

What I am saying is that once again the professor’s writings about NZ First was all just opinion that did not include any referenced evidence to back it up.

Not really the sort of stuff academics should be doing.

Patrick Smellie also referred to an article published by Mike Smith in the Standard as further support for his view.

Sadly once again – the article titled “Peters to Pence on the pacific – a return to Colonialism?” was really more of a critique about how the speech was designed for an American audience and not every part of every historical reference would be seen the way “Americans see things”.

This was not about how Winston was running around having a field day.

There was no evidence in Patrick Smellie’s cupboard.

PM Ardern gave us the context – but he just ignored it.

He was not alone.

Instead others who had no evidence that Winston was wagging the dog – had joined him.

Together they sang the ghost wedge song.

You can’t eat ghost wedges – not if you’ve been internalising a really complicated situation in your head.

But our media still – drive these ghost wedge stories upon the New Zealand population anyway.

A population that is now sick of it and demand the evidence.

 

Hooton reinforces the ghost wedge

Is it any co-incidence that Matthew Hooton reinforced the ghost wedge theory peddled by Patrick Smellie and Professor Robert Ayson recently – that Winston had gone rogue and was having a field day over foreign policy?

Hooton singles out the question and calls it the only question.

“The Ardern Government is carrying out the most radical repositioning of New Zealand’s foreign policy since the nuclear-ships dispute with the US and UK in the 1980s and the start in the 1990s of what became the “Four Firsts” with China. The only question is whether the Prime Minister is herself aware of what’s going on.”

Framing up that question was the entire purpose of the article.

Positioning the PM as dumb and out of the loop and insinuating that impression from the assertion alone.

This appears to be the agenda which is being passed from one member of a propaganda network to another across deep reach media platforms in New Zealand.

The agenda is to undermine PM Ardern via a non existent crack filled with non existent evidence.

The agenda is being set and the narrative framed as we start 2019.

The “Peters is rogue on Foreign policy” wedge theory has no compelling evidence to support it and neither Patrick Smellie, Professor Robert Ayson nor Matthew Hooton have furnished any.

Not a bean.

But the headlines still blaze across our media which should cause us concern.

To the contrary – they have avoided spelling out the counter evidence – which suggests Peters and Ardern have been working together with traditional partners in the region who share the same values to strengthen the region’s resilience for some time now.

By values – I read democracy versus dictatorship and a respect for human rights and international law, not that any are saints in this regard.

It is very clear that PM Ardern is well aware of these efforts and frequently discusses the Pacific region when she meets leaders who have an interest in the Pacific.

Why would these senior commentators all conspire to avoid that counter evidence to their claims?

Is there an invisible hand behind this “united front” of ghost wedge peddlers?

Perhaps that is the only question?

There is certainly a pattern of avoidance in all three of these commentator’s writing.

Why is that? Seriously.

The Pacific Reset was confirmed by cabinet in early 2018 and shortly afterwards ( a week ) Winston gave a speech about it at the Lowry Institute in Australia.

Peters appealed to Australia to work with New Zealand on its renewed development focus in the Pacific, saying there had not been a time since 1945 when it was so important the two nations join forces to help its Pacific neighbours.

Hooton, Smellie and Ayson had very little to say about the cabinet approval that was stamped all over the Pacific Reset?

How exactly was this Winston going rogue?

Fairfax published a graph in an article by Laura Walters on 2nd March 2018 showing how under National the percentage of contributions to foreign aid in the Pacific had fallen to only 0.23% of GNI by 2017.

PM Ardern stood up in Parliament and responded to questions from Simon Bridges about this – while Winston sat beside her.

How did that reconcile with PM Ardern being out of the loop?

Yes National had dropped New Zealand’s foreign aid contribution whilst China had accelerated it’s investment in the region and sought the sign up of island states to it’s one belt and road initiative.

The Coalition Government determined to raise that contribution to $714 Million over four years – but they urged others to contribute as well.

This was the inflection point Peters was to refer to many months later in his speech to Washington.

On 9th May Australian foreign minister, Julie Bishop, said Australia would strengthen relations with its Pacific partners and “work together” for the region’s stability, security and economic opportunities.

Subsequently Australia boosted it’s aid to the Pacific and Scott Morrison announced a A$2 billion ($1.46 billion) fund to provide loans to Pacific nations to build infrastructure.

This was hardly “the most radical repositioning of New Zealand’s foreign policy since the nuclear-ships dispute with the US and UK in the 1980s” as Hooton described it today.

It was a boost of the old position that had sagged and it was a regional response to the changing geo-political situation.

From New Zealand’s perspective this meant increasing our contribution back to levels that they had been at around 2009 and asking others to contribute and join the mission.

New Zealand was frank and independent and spoke up about our values and being resilient about them in the 2018 Strategic Defence Paper.

This was about walking the talk we had heard from National concerning it’s position, supporting the rulings from the Hague that rejected China’s claims in the South China Sea but it was also about doing more.

This was no great change in posture – but instead an open expression of our independent view which had already been there under National – and it now needed to strengthen.

On 15th December Winston asked the US to contribute more to the region.

On 17th December 2018 PM Ardern reassured New Zealand that there is nothing secret in Winston’s speech in Washington and how it had all been a matter of public debate and commentary for some time.

Winston was repeating to Washington the essence of the speech he had previously given to Australia.

It was a call to do more in the Pacific Region and PM Ardern was across that 100% as was in evidence on 17th December.

She asked the assembled press – what particular aspects of the speech are commentators concerned about?

When they asked if there was room for China in the Pacific – PM Ardern replied that this is not a bidding war and of course there was.

She went onto to say France has an interest in the region -and the UK may shift it’s position post Brexit.

She added that these conversations happen frequently between leaders and are worth having.

Notably Hooton avoided mentioning PM Ardern’s remarks about Winston’s speech on 17th December in his article today in the New Zealand Herald.

He looked the other way.

So did Patrick Smellie and so did Professor Robert Ayson in other articles they had written.

PM Ardern was indeed fully across the topic but that fact was being assiduously stepped around by the ghost wedge peddlers.

It is likely that all three of these commentators are avoiding the counter evidence to this ridiculous wedge theory for their own reasons.

But it does not look good, not professional and poses the question – what invisible hand might cause three senior commentators to all sing from the same hymn sheet which has no supporting music?

It’s disingenuous of them at best and another example of the “propaganda network” spreading unsubstantiated wedge issues at worst.

Hooton concluded his article by saying PM Ardern needs to deliver certainty after pointing out the current conflicts between the EU, the UK, China and the US.

Notably Hooton did not mention the massive extent of China’s trade with the USA and how both players need each other despite the scuffles over tariffs and so called “trade wars”.

Despite Trump – the US and China are bound up economically with each other and much fuss is made about posturing but neither will make a clean break with each other.

In fact Hooton seemed to be saying fuck all other than he did not like how PM Ardern was prioritising talks about and EU FTA over trade talks with the UK in her upcoming visit.

Prioritisation means doing both not making one exclusive over the other.

I realise that Hooton is bought and paid for – but I think it’s worth pointing out how this ghost wedge agenda has manifested itself in early 2019 and to keep up our vigilance about any magic weapons at work.

Oh look an invisible hand.