3/31/07

baldhead palagi kaka

Ewww worst piece of baldhead palagi kaka I’ve read in a while. , obviously he didn’t eat enough taro and palusami, or drink enough Valima whilst in Samoa and this clown gives security advice and wants to polices us natives in the pacific. 45% of Samoans live in poverty.

Go figure.

Found this article in a nominally right wing pakeha view of the Pacific, blog.

Samoa a vulnerable Paradise.

Eric is a member of AIPIO (Australian Institute of Professional Intelligence Officers) and is currently studying for his Post Graduate Diploma in Policing, Intelligence and Counter Terrorism. Eric can be contacted at intellisec(@)hushmail dot com.

http://pacificempire.org.nz/?p=247

http://www.aipio.asn.au/about.html


Introduction

Samoa, like most other countries in the South Pacific region, will not face security issues posed by the militaries of neighbouring countries. Instead, the threats Samoa will face will come from various other aspects of security such as local and organized crime, especially in the areas of off shore banking and possible money laundering and drugs, illegal economies such as counterfeit goods and corruption within government among others.


In terms of drug trafficking there have been a number of drug seizures. Several were made on the ferry that runs between Samoa and American Samoa. There have also been recent arrests made in relation to methamphetamine (Samoa Observer, 2005).


There has also been an increase in the number of people using marijuana. I have witnessed the dealing in marijuana being conducted quite openly at the markets and was approached by a dealer on my first day living in Samoa.


Samoa is also very vulnerable to natural disasters and climate change. Samoa has endured two devastating cyclones in 1990 and 1991 respectively. These caused widespread devastation and a total of 32 people were killed, 16 in each cyclone.


This paper however will focus on Samoa’s economic vulnerability and Samoa’s vulnerability to pandemics such as Bird Flu, both of which are equally devastating to a small developing nation such as Samoa.


Having lived and worked in Samoa these subjects as well as the country are close to my heart and I have witnessed some of these vulnerabilities first hand.

Overview

At the outbreak of World War I, Samoa was a German protectorate occupied by New Zealand. New Zealand continued to administer Samoa as a mandate until 1962 when Samoa became the first Polynesian nation to re-establish its independence in the 21st Century.

Samoa was known formerly known as Western Samoa but dropped Western from its name in 1997.


Samoa is part of Oceania and is located in the South Pacific Ocean about half way between New Zealand and Hawaii. Samoa lies at the heart of Polynesia.


Ethnically Samoa comprises 92.6% Samoan, 7% Euronesians (people of Polynesian and European decent) and Europeans 0.4% (CIA World Fact Book, 2005). These figures however do not seem to take into account the number of Asians, particularly Japanese and Chinese that call Samoa home. This link with Japan and China will be important later on in this paper and so I wanted to highlight this fact.


Samoa has no military force of its own; it has arrangements with New Zealand under the 1962 Treaty of Friendship, which would require New Zealand to consider any military assistance requested by Samoa.


Samoa comprises two major islands and several smaller ones. Apia the capital is located on Upolu, while Savai’i is the third biggest island in Polynesia and also the more traditional of the two main islands.


A tribal system is still in place and the family unit or Aiga is represented by a Matai or chief who sit on a village fono (council) to enforce rules within the villages.

Samoa is headed by a Prime Minister, currently Tuila’epa Sailele Malielegaoi.


Economic Perspective

Samoa has a market based economy and is heavily reliant on development aid, family remittances from relatives living overseas, agriculture and fishing.


Agriculture accounts for about two thirds of the work force, it accounts for 90% of exports, such as coconut cream, coconut oil and copra. Samoa’s main natural resources are hardwood forests, fish (especially tuna) and hydropower (CIA World Fact Book, 2005).


There is a small manufacturing sector which mainly focuses around the agricultural industry. The largest manufacturing business produces electrical harnesses for the automotive industry in Australia. This plant employs approximately 3,000 people, a significant amount given the population of Samoa which at last census was about 199,000 people (Samoa - Country Reports on Human Rights Practices; US Department of State, 2003).


There is also a large number of Samoan’s living overseas, Australia, New Zealand, Hawaii and California would account for the most significant populations.


In terms of economic vulnerability one only needs to look at Samoa’s major industries, for example fishing and logging of hardwood. Neither of these are sustainable on a large scale over the long term.


Over fishing is a great concern and there has been a decline in fish stocks, especially tuna. In terms of the scale of the tuna industry in Samoa, it is not as large as the industry in American Samoa, which has several major canneries located in and around it’s capital - Pago Pago.

The majority of fishing is rather for subsistence, with catches being sold on the local market, although some are sold on the overseas market, such as Japan. A 10 kilo Yellow Fin Tuna sells at the local market for about $30.00WS (approximately $15.00 Australian).


Over fishing in Samoan waters and surrounding areas is a great concern, this would devastate the industry and the livelihood of many thousands of people, not just in Samoa and American Samoa but other island countries, such as Tonga which also has a great many people working in the tuna industry in Pago Pago.


The local fishermen are already experiencing a decline in tuna numbers, some days there are no tuna at the local markets.


This industry is also prone to environmental factors such as cyclones with even bad storms affecting the fishing industry. If there is a bad storm or cyclone the fishing boats may not be able to go out for days on end. This has a flow on effect across not just Samoa’s economy but other countries that are linked to the tuna industry in Samoa.


As with the fishing industry, logging of Samoa’s hardwood is not sustainable over the long term. The native Ifilele trees are already becoming rare when once they were abundant. While working as a Resort Manager in Savai’i we commissioned an artist to carve a sculpture for the restaurant. We invited him to the resort as we wanted the work to reflect our resorts setting. We had a number of Ifilele tree’s on the resort property. As it turned out the artist had never seen an Ifilele tree in his life. I was both surprised and sad as the Ifilele tree features heavily in Samoan culture.


If we look at bigger countries that have logging industries and the issues with sustainability they have it does not bode well for a small country like Samoa.

The tourism industry is a burgeoning sector within Samoa. With airlines now offering direct flights and money being spent on advertising there will be an increase in the numbers of tourists traveling to Samoa.


However there are several factors which could have a negative impact on the tourism sector.

Firstly, skilled labour to both manage and staff resorts for example, is very hard to come by locally. A lot of Samoa’s skilled labour leaves Samoa to work over seas such as in New Zealand and Australia as they are able to earn a higher wage. This means foreign skilled workers must be imported to fill these positions. It also means most of these foreign workers will be seeking higher salaries than that of local workers. Again, this situation is not sustainable.

The minimum hourly rate in Samoa is $1.70WS ($0.85 Australian). This low hourly rate of pay leads to other problems such as petty crimes. The theft of food and other small items is fairly prevalent, this is something I have witnessed first hand while running the resort and talking with other local business owners.


Secondly, factors outside of Samoa can impact the tourism industry in a negative fashion.

The age of terrorism and high oil prices affects the numbers that may travel overseas due to the high cost of air travel, which in turn will affect Samoa’s economy.

These are factors which could also increase the cost of living in countries where Samoan’s live and as a result this would affect the amount of money they would normally send home for relatives. As mentioned before, remittances from family members living overseas is a major part of Samoa’s economy.


In any country where there is a low income issue various types of crimes appear. These range from petty theft as mentioned previously, through to high level corruption.

There have been multi-million dollar passport scams uncovered in Samoa (Security in Oceania in the 21st Century, 2005, Asia Pacific Centre for Security Studies). The investigations went nowhere as it is seen as disrespectful to persons of high rank, for example Matai and government officials, to be accused of criminal acts.


Again, countries, especially developing nations are open to corruption and manipulation not just from within but from other countries and their governments.

Japan for example donated all the ferries that are currently used throughout Samoa. It is not known what Samoa gave to Japan, if anything, but fishing rights would top that list in my eyes. For example, in 2005 Japan awarded millions of Yen in “grant aid” to several countries, including Samoa, in an attempt to buy votes at the International Whaling Commission (McNeil, 2006). So, it would not be the first time something like this occurred.


This could have a very significant impact on fish stocks in Samoa’s territorial waters. That is having large industrialized nation fishing on a large scale in its territorial waters.

After the Tiananmen Square Massacre in Beijing, the Samoan Prime Minister was the first politician to visit China. In return, China built the new Samoa Government Building.

China is now one of the top three donors of aid to the region; it offers aid with no strings attached, or so it seems, unlike Australia and others which ask for good governance of the country. This is seen as China planting the seeds to exert greater influence in the region (Windybank, 2005).


One could argue that this is a war of influence rather than an armed conflict with the prize being greater influence when it come to natural resources.

This type of activity leads to countries or governments at least of developing nations, such as Samoa, being placed in a compromised position, both politically and economically.


Economic Perspective

Samoa has a market based economy and is heavily reliant on development aid, family remittances from relatives living overseas, agriculture and fishing.

Agriculture accounts for about two thirds of the work force, it accounts for 90% of exports, such as coconut cream, coconut oil and copra. Samoa’s main natural resources are hardwood forests, fish (especially tuna) and hydropower (CIA World Fact Book, 2005).


There is a small manufacturing sector which mainly focuses around the agricultural industry. The largest manufacturing business produces electrical harnesses for the automotive industry in Australia. This plant employs approximately 3,000 people, a significant amount given the population of Samoa which at last census was about 199,000 people (Samoa - Country Reports on Human Rights Practices; US Department of State, 2003).


There is also a large number of Samoan’s living overseas, Australia, New Zealand, Hawaii and California would account for the most significant populations.

In terms of economic vulnerability one only needs to look at Samo

a’s major industries, for example fishing and logging of hardwood. Neither of these are sustainable on a large scale over the long term.


Over fishing is a great concern and there has been a decline in fish stocks, especially tuna. In terms of the scale of the tuna industry in Samoa, it is not as large as the industry in American Samoa, which has several major canneries located in and around it’s capital - Pago Pago.

The majority of fishing is rather for subsistence, with catches being sold on the local market, although some are sold on the overseas market, such as Japan. A 10 kilo Yellow Fin Tuna sells at the local market for about $30.00WS (approximately $15.00 Australian).


Over fishing in Samoan waters and surrounding areas is a great concern, this would devastate the industry and the livelihood of many thousands of people, not just in Samoa and American Samoa but other island countries, such as Tonga which also has a great many people working in the tuna industry in Pago Pago.


The local fishermen are already experiencing a decline in tuna numbers, some days there are no tuna at the local markets.

This industry is also prone to environmental factors such as cyclones with even bad storms affecting the fishing industry. If there is a bad storm or cyclone the fishing boats may not be able to go out for days on end. This has a flow on effect across not just Samoa’s economy but other countries that are linked to the tuna industry in Samoa.


As with the fishing industry, logging of Samoa’s hardwood is not sustainable over the long term. The native Ifilele trees are already becoming rare when once they were abundant. While working as a Resort Manager in Savai’i we commissioned an artist to carve a sculpture for the restaurant. We invited him to the resort as we wanted the work to reflect our resorts setting. We had a number of Ifilele tree’s on the resort property. As it turned out the artist had never seen an Ifilele tree in his life. I was both surprised and sad as the Ifilele tree features heavily in Samoan culture.


If we look at bigger countries that have logging industries and the issues with sustainability they have it does not bode well for a small country like Samoa.

The tourism industry is a burgeoning sector within Samoa. With airlines now offering direct flights and money being spent on advertising there will be an increase in the numbers of tourists traveling to Samoa.


However there are several factors which could have a negative impact on the tourism sector.

Firstly, skilled labour to both manage and staff resorts for example, is very hard to come by locally. A lot of Samoa’s skilled labour leaves Samoa to work over seas such as in New Zealand and Australia as they are able to earn a higher wage. This means foreign skilled workers must be imported to fill these positions. It also means most of these foreign workers will be seeking higher salaries than that of local workers. Again, this situation is not sustainable.


The minimum hourly rate in Samoa is $1.70WS ($0.85 Australian). This low hourly rate of pay leads to other problems such as petty crimes. The theft of food and other small items is fairly prevalent, this is something I have witnessed first hand while running the resort and talking with other local business owners.


Secondly, factors outside of Samoa can impact the tourism industry in a negative fashion.

The age of terrorism and high oil prices affects the numbers that may travel overseas due to the high cost of air travel, which in turn will affect Samoa’s economy.


These are factors which could also increase the cost of living in countries where Samoan’s live and as a result this would affect the amount of money they would normally send home for relatives. As mentioned before, remittances from family members living overseas is a major part of Samoa’s economy.


In any country where there is a low income issue various types of crimes appear. These range from petty theft as mentioned previously, through to high level corruption.

There have been multi-million dollar passport scams uncovered in Samoa (Security in Oceania in the 21st Century, 2005, Asia Pacific Centre for Security Studies). The investigations went nowhere as it is seen as disrespectful to persons of high rank, for example Matai and government officials, to be accused of criminal acts.


Again, countries, especially developing nations are open to corruption and manipulation not just from within but from other countries and their governments.

Japan for example donated all the ferries that are currently used throughout Samoa. It is not known what Samoa gave to Japan, if anything, but fishing rights would top that list in my eyes. For example, in 2005 Japan awarded millions of Yen in “grant aid” to several countries, including Samoa, in an attempt to buy votes at the International Whaling Commission (McNeil, 2006). So, it would not be the first time something like this occurred.


This could have a very significant impact on fish stocks in Samoa’s territorial waters. That is having large industrialized nation fishing on a large scale in its territorial waters.

After the Tiananmen Square Massacre in Beijing, the Samoan Prime Minister was the first politician to visit China. In return, China built the new Samoa Government Building.


China is now one of the top three donors of aid to the region; it offers aid with no strings attached, or so it seems, unlike Australia and others which ask for good governance of the country. This is seen as China planting the seeds to exert greater influence in the region (Windybank, 2005).


One could argue that this is a war of influence rather than an armed conflict with the prize being greater influence when it come to natural resources.

This type of activity leads to countries or governments at least of developing nations, such as Samoa, being placed in a compromised position, both politically and economically.

Pandemic Vulnerability

In 1918 and 1919 the Spanish Flu had devastating affects on populations around the world. The global mortality rate is not known but it is estimated at around 2.5% to 5% of the world’s population, with 20% of the world’s population suffering from the Spanish Flu to some extent (Wikipedia, 2006).


Samoa’s population was particularly badly hit by the Spanish Flu with 22% of its population killed. Samoa’s population in 1918 and 1919 would have been significantly lower, so this loss of life would be magnified to a much greater extent if such a pandemic were to happen today. Even with a population of 199,000, 22% of the total population is a massive number.

All this leads to questions being raised about the world’s ability to cope with a pandemic of Bird Flu. Countries that have a modern medical system and the latest in both medical equipment and pharmaceutical manufacturing are in a much better position to cope with such a pandemic.
Countries such as Samoa, who are listed among the Least Developed Countries by the United Nations, would struggle to cope.


Firstly Samoa would struggle to cope with the numbers of sick and dying and secondly it would struggle to recover.



Samoa has one national hospital located at Vailima, just outside of the capital of Apia on the main island of Upolu. This hospital is the most up to date and best equipped in the country. There are regional hospitals throughout the main island of Upolu as well as Savai’i. There is also a major hospital at Tuasivi on Savai’i and although it is the most modern on Savai’i, it is not at the level of the National Hospital at Vailima.


There is also a private hospital, the Medcen, also located at Vailima which is well equipped and modern. But with this hospital costing around $300.00WS as day, it is out of reach for most Samoan’s.


Recently Samoa experienced a major health crisis, with Doctors going on strike over pay conditions. Doctors in Samoa receive about $30,000.00WS (approximately $15,000.00AU) after completing six years university. Subsequently a lot of Samoa’s Doctors and Nurses move overseas to work. This relates back to earlier points about a shortage of skilled labour within the country. And it is noticeable in the hospitals as a lot of the doctors are from other countries, and in a lot of cases are employed in Samoa through the World Health Organisation (WHO).

The doctors’ strike lasted for approximately 5 months when Samoa’s Prime Minister gave the doctors an ultimatum; return to work or be sacked. The doctors then proceeded to resign rather than return to work.


This lead to a major crisis, with hospitals around the country having no doctors. The national hospital at Vailima had two doctors working, and the Medcen private hospital was staffed. But regional hospitals were left with no doctors at all.


During this period any one who was severely ill was being flown out of the country to New Zealand. But of course this situation does not help those that need immediate medical attention, where a flight could jeopardise their life.


In terms of medications such as vaccinations for the Bird Flu, Samoa would be reliant on either New Zealand or Australia to lend assistance and supply them with the required medications.

Samoa already relies heavily on donated medications and through various funds set up to help developing nations. It is not uncommon in Samoa to find prescribed medications past the expiry date and still being sold and used.


As I touched on earlier, Samoa has a population of both Japanese and Chinese that live and or work in Samoa. This connection could potentially expose Samoa to the threat of Bird Flu spreading to Samoa. Both Japan and China have experienced cases of Bird Flu. Since 2003 China has recorded 21 cases of Bird Flu, with 14 total deaths. This is a very high mortality rate for people who contract the disease (Cumulative Number of Confirmed Human Cases of Avian Influenza, 2006, WHO).


Another aspect that poses a threat to Samoa with regards to the spread of Bird Flu is the fact the Apia harbour is one of the major shipping ports in the South Pacific. Many products in Samoa originate in places such as China and come into the country aboard ships to Apia.

An interesting point to raise here is that if we are comparing the spread of Spanish Flu to that of Bird Flu, one of the theories that has been presented is that the Spanish Flu began to spread through port cities. Apia is a perfect example of a port city. It is thought that in 1918 the Spanish Flu virus mutated and spread to three port cities, Freetown, Sierra Leone; Brest, France and Boston, Massachusetts (Lessons from the 1918 Spanish Flu – Part I, 2006, Duncan).

It is not too far a leap of the imagination to assume that Bird Flu may spread in a similar fashion.

Considering other major pandemics to hit the world spread around the globe in six to nine months, it is thought in this age of globalization it would take as little as three months.


The World Health Organization believes that once a contagious virus emerges, its global spread is inevitable in this day and age and that all countries will be affected (WHO, 2006).

Given Samoa’s loose border control and lack of medical infrastructure, it remains at great risk of a population decimating pandemic such as the Bird Flu scenario given by the World Health Organization.

somewhere_in_samoa.jpg

Future Paradise

Samoa needs to continue to develop policies that move towards economic stability. They also need to encourage local industry development to ensure economic stability. As we have seen the major industries in Samoa at present such as the tuna industry may not be sustainable over the long term. Samoa needs to plan for this and diversify its industry.


The tourism industry needs to continue to be nurtured as it is the biggest growing industry at present in Samoa. There have been steps taken to develop skilled labour within the country for the tourism sector. The Samoa Tourism Authority for example runs training days that are free of charge for resort workers. This training is in areas of customer service and food hygiene to name just two. This is a positive step to ensuring the tourism industry survives and contribute in a positive way to Samoa’s economy.


In terms of protecting itself from a major pandemic such as Bird Flu, hospitals must be fully stocked and staffed to have any chance of coping with such an outbreak of a deadly disease.
Putting in place agreements with countries such as New Zealand and Australia, supply of medications needed to treat Bird Flu, and have a stock pile of vaccines for Bird Flu is crucial.

Samoa needs to take part in regional planning to prepare itself to deal with an outbreak of Bird Flu, as well as an awareness program set up to provide the public with the knowledge needed to identify possible cases of Bird Flu and how to seek treatment.

Bibliography

  • CIA, (2006), CIA World Fact Book, Central Intelligence Agency.
  • Duncan, K (2006), “Lessons from the 1918 Spanish Flu”, PERI Symposium.
  • Malielegaoi, T.S. (2006), Statement to UN at Review of Least Developed Nations, United Nations.
  • McNeil, D (2006), “Revealed: Japans Secret Whaling ‘Shopping List’”, Independent UK.
  • Nickel-Leaupepe, J (2005) 4. District Hospitals to get doctors: PM.
  • Cabinet needs more time to look at the Commission of Enquiry’s Report, LeSamoa.
  • Shibuya, E and Rolf, J (2003) Security in Oceania in the 21st Century, Asia-Pacific Centre for Security Studies.
  • STA (2004), October Monthly Newsletter, Samoa Tourism Authority.
  • US Department of State, Samoa - Country Reports on Human Rights, (2004), Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor.
  • Wikipedia (2006), Spanish Flu, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu
  • Windybank (2005), “The China Syndrome”, Policy.
  • World Health Organisation (2006) Cumulative Number of Confirmed Human Cases of Avian Influenza A/(H5N1) Reported to WHO.

New Wave/Old Wave-Aotearoa NZ Colonial Continuum


"Colonisation is colonisation, whatever new name we may like to give to it. Globalisation, free market, neoliberalism, profitability, capitalism, it is all fundamentally about colonisation. The privatization agenda in this country did not start with the 1984 Labour government or the MAI or the GATT"Leonie Pihama (Te Atiawa, Ngati Mahanga) Maori academic and writer

"Colonial leopards rarely change their spots.They just stalk their prey in different ways"Moana Jackson (Ngati Kahungunu, Ngati Porou) Maori lawyer and sovereignty advocate
.

Like Canada, Australia, and the USA, Aotearoa New Zealand is a colonial settler state, based on invasion, dispossession and colonisation. Its past 18 years of free market fundamentalism must be understood in the context of an ongoing colonial occupation of Maori lands and resources on which the New Zealand nation-state is based.


The carefully crafted and maintained image of a clean, green, anti-nuclear, socially progressive Western democracy, enjoying model race relations, masks the genocide which has accompanied colonisation. Since the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840, the British Crown and subsequently the New Zealand Parliament has denied Maori sovereignty. Introduced diseases, wars, dispossession and the profound disruption of Maori societies had threatened their very survival. In the late 19th century, Maori were pronounced a "dying race", but now comprise around fifteen percent of the total population of under four million. Of the country's 66 million acres, only around 3 million remain in Maori hands.


The Treaty, signed between Maori and Crown representatives, affirmed Maori tino rangatiratanga - their sovereign right of self-determination - and allowed Pakeha (European) settlers to govern their own. Auckland University academic and Maori commentator Ranginui Walker described the Treaty as the original immigration charter, any variation of which had to be renegotiated with Maori. Sovereignty was never ceded to the British Crown. Yet successive New Zealand governments have expediently interpreted the Treaty as a cession of Maori sovereignty.


While refusing to honour the Treaty, New Zealand governments have been much less reticent about making far-reaching binding commitments at international forums like the World Trade Organisation which lock in and further domestic neoliberal reforms, without consulting Maori or non-Maori.


The fact that New Zealand underwent the most radical free market reforms of any OECD country since the incoming (centre-left) Labour Government imposed "Rogernomics" on an unsuspecting population in 1984 adds another dimension to understanding the different manifestations of colonisation and resistance there.


Rogernomics - named after former Finance Minister Roger Douglas - included unilateral and rapid removal of virtually all restrictions on foreign investment, all import controls and most tariffs, floating the NZ dollar, an independent Reserve Bank with the sole objective to control inflation, extensive programmes of corporatisation and privatization and radical restructuring of the public sector. Tax cuts for the rich accompanied welfare cuts for the poor. The labour market was deregulated and trade unions decimated. The Economist praised New Zealand for "out-Thatchering Mrs Thatcher". The weekly National Business Review likened the reforms to Pinochet's Chile "without the gun".


Between 1988-1993 New Zealand led the world in sales of state-owned assets, often at bargain basement prices, to overseas investors, mainly transnational corporations. Some NZ $14 billion (from a total $19 billion in asset sales from 1987-1999) was sold off during these years. Most of its productive, financial, energy, retail, transport, media and communications sectors are now in the hands of transnational corporations that have sucked huge profits out of the country. UNCTAD's World Investment Report 2000 described New Zealand as the most transnationalised economy in the OECD.


While many non-indigenous people articulated a sense of loss of sovereignty and control over their destinies, for Maori this was nothing new. Many saw the commercialisation, privatization and deregulation process as yet another wave of colonisation, the further appropriation and commodification of their lands and resources. Prior to corporatisation and privatization, these had been stolen from them, only to become "public" or "state-owned" assets. Some of the strongest challenges to the economic reforms have come from Maori, through legal challenges, direct action and other methods. Many were outraged that now these assets were being bought and sold in a global marketplace, they were even further out of reach.


"Historically the same processes of commodification were used by Pakeha to access Maori land. This was achieved through the individualisation of Maori land titles i.e. to commodify or 'package up' what were collective or group held titles into individual holdings in order to facilitate their sale to Pakeha under Pakeha rules and custom", explains Maori educationalist Graham Smith (Ngati Apa, Te Aitanga A Hauiti)


Like other Indigenous Peoples, Maori continue to be marginalized in their own lands. Contemporary health, education and employment statistics, arrest and imprisonment rates, speak of the impact of colonisation, racism and the imposition of an alien set of values and laws. Maori were disproportionately represented in the production, transport, equipment and labouring sectors which suffered the worst job losses during the economic reforms. Cuts to welfare hit Maori hard. Urban and rural poverty have spiralled upwards. While some Maori chose corporate paths and saw free market capitalism as a way to bypass the state, others have consistently been at the frontlines of resistance to neoliberal globalisation. Maori activists have often borne the brunt of highly politicised police and security intelligence agency surveillance and repression.


The parallels between the way in which Indigenous territories and resources have been colonised and expropriated are striking. The governments of Canada, New Zealand, Australia and the USA regularly share ideas with which to continue these processes, albeit couched in more sensitive, new age garb. For example, the New Zealand government attempt in 1994-1995 to settle all outstanding Treaty claims for a total of NZ $1 billion (the "fiscal envelope") was modelled on US and Canadian policies. These cash for sovereignty deals were rejected by Maori up and down the country. Yet successive governments have pressured some iwi (tribal nations) into accepting "full and final" settlements which are essentially cut from the same cloth. Given their colonial mindset, it is hardly surprising that internationally, these governments are such ardent cheerleaders for neoliberalism.


Maori concerns about the GATT/WTO TRIPs (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement) regime and renewed threats to indigenous intellectual property have been widely expressed. With increasing pressures to harmonise intellectual property laws and growing commercial interest in traditional knowledge, Maori knowledge and native flora and fauna have already been targeted by transnational corporations. One Treaty claim lodged over native flora, fauna, traditional knowledge and intellectual property has enormous international significance. It is an assertion of sovereignty. And it is also a direct challenge to the corporations who are increasingly commodifying and privatising knowledge and biodiversity all around the world, helped by governments which are revamping their patent laws for their benefit, and the TRIPs agreement. Some of the most resolute and principled opposition to genetic engineering continues to come from Maori.


Moana Jackson wrote: "GATT is a direct denial of the rights of Maori as stated in the 1835 Declaration of Independence and as reaffirmed in the Treaty of Waitangi [and] is also a continuation of the 'New' Right policies of individuated colonisation." In November 1994, the pan-tribal Maori Congress rejected the Crown's ratification of GATT, exempting member tribes from its provisions. It criticised the Government for overstepping its Treaty responsibilities and democratic mandate by not seeking the public's consent before signing.


Ngati Pikiao lawyer Annette Sykes challenged potential overseas investors and development bankers at a press conference held during the May 1995 Asian Development Bank's annual meeting in Auckland: "It's about time you sat down and talked to us because the present illegal government has no warrant to deal with resources, neither for the past, nor the present, and certainly not for the future." Later that year the Commonwealth Heads of Government met in Auckland. 1995 was marked by an upsurge in Maori land occupations, which raised the issue of sovereignty in the context of the government's unquestioning embrace of the global free market economy.


Graham Smith calls the Treaty a "structural impediment" to globalisation. Apologists for globalisation often talk about the need to remain attractive to foreign investors; to provide certainty and avoid "confusion" arising from the Treaty for actual or potential foreign investors. Under the provisions of free trade and investment agreements which New Zealand is signatory to, any preferences given to Maori under the Treaty may attract claims that it is a barrier to free trade and investment.


During the campaign against the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI), Maori challenged the government's mandate to negotiate an agreement which would give foreign investors enforceable rights over resources and intellectual property which they were fighting to control. A hikoi (march) opposing the MAI gained support from Maori and non-Maori, while the agreement was roundly rejected at all seven hastily-organised official consultations with Maori which many condemned as a cosmetic afterthought. Maori Members of Parliament from across the different parties were openly critical of the substance of New Zealand's commitments to the MAI and scathing of the way in which the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade had treated Maori in relation to the agreement.


Maori resistance to neoliberal globalisation continued through 1999 when the New Zealand government chaired the APEC (Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation) meetings. It has also focussed on bilateral trade and investment agreements such as the one signed between New Zealand and Singapore in late 2000.


In an August 2001 ZNet article (Bringing It All Back Home: Anti-Globalisation Activism Cannot Ignore Colonial Realities), I asked: "How can Indigenous Peoples be expected to validate, affirm or seek incorporation into national or international movements dominated by non-indigenous activists, organisations and agendas which are reluctant to address domestic issues of colonisation with the same vigour and commitment that they put into fighting transnational capital or the WTO?"


Maori have consistently challenged the supremacy and legitimacy of the colonial state. This is particularly important at a time when many "white progressive economic nationalists" in "anti-globalisation" movements advocate for retooling the nation state, democratic reforms, and greater state intervention in the economy as they frame the "problem" as corporate power and control and ignore the fundamentally colonial nature of the nation state and the rights of Indigenous Peoples.


Maori resistance to this latest wave of colonisation, and their insistent demands for self-determination serve as a warning that a mere reversion to a New Zealand version of social democracy based on invasion, injustice and dispossession - and denial - is not a sustainable or just alternative to the free market agenda.


Almost 20 years ago Cherokee scholar and activist Ward Churchill wrote: "If the liberation struggles of Native America are defeated while the left stands idly by debating "correct lines" and "social priorities," a crucial opportunity to draw a line on the capitalist process in America will have been lost, perhaps forever". I think the same is true in New Zealand.


While some non-Maori on the left in Aotearoa New Zealand have been engaged in solidarity and support work for Maori sovereignty, others have tended to frame discussion of Maori in a way which largely denies their rights to self-determination, and all but ignores the ongoing colonisation of Aotearoa. When I became involved in "anti-globalisation" campaigns as an anti-colonial activist I saw in the sense of betrayal and disempowerment among many non-Maori the potential for building broader support for Maori liberation and other independence struggles in the Pacific. Leaving aside the fundamental justice issue here, it seemed to me that the interests of the majority of non-Maori New Zealanders are more likely to coincide with the aspirations of Maori than with corporate capitalism.


Organisations and movements working for global justice in countries like Aotearoa New Zealand cannot talk of justice, democracy and liberation in a meaningful way until their starting point is the decolonisation of Indigenous Peoples and territories.


Author: Aziz Choudry

Title: New Wave/Old Wave: Aotearoa New Zealand’s Colonial Continuum
Page URL: http://www.voiceoftheturtle.org/show_printer.php?aid=328
Last modified: Saturday, 12-Apr-2003 14:57:51 CDT

Criminalizing Solidarity: Sami Al-Arian and the War of Terror


By Charlotte Kates

Al-Jazeerah, March 31, 2007

Dr. Sami Al-Arian, a Palestinian political prisoner, is held in a US prison hospital, after a debilitating 60-day hunger strike seeking to draw the attention of the nation and the world to the injustice visited upon him, jailed for his commitment to justice and dignity for his homeland. This is not a scene from an Israeli jail, however, but from a US prison in North Carolina. Al-Arian's hunger strike ended at the pleas of his family - yet without justice for Al-Arian, whose imprisonment is part and parcel of a US government policy of targeting Palestinian activists, as well as the broader Arab, Muslim and South Asian communities, in an internal "war of terror" whose policies run parallel to that being waged abroad.

The case of Sami al-Arian is a story of persecution, perseverance, and, ultimately, the determination of those in power to criminalize resistance and punish Palestinian activism, subverting not only the principles of justice but also their own criminal justice system in order to do so. Sami al-Arian, 49, is a Palestinian refugee who has lived in the United States for over thirty years and has, for the last decade, alongside his prominent role as an activist and leader in the Palestinian, Arab and Muslim communities in the Tampa Bay, Florida area and nationally, his work as a professor of computer science at the University of South Florida, and his personal life as a husband and father to five children, waged a prominent battle to protect fundamental rights within the US from an assault through secret evidence, racist detention policies, and an all-out assault on community organizing and solidarity work within targeted communities. Al-Arian has lived with over a dozen years of surveillance, and eight years of FBI agents shadowing his movements. Today, he is imprisoned, despite the fact that he was convicted of nothing by a jury, despite a parade of witnesses and years of harassment.

Dr. Mazen al-Najjar, Al-Arian's brother-in-law and a fellow professor at USF, was arrested in 1997, presumably for a minor visa violation, which, at the time, should have been a simple problem to correct. However, as a stateless Palestinian refugee, al-Najjar was instead imprisoned for three and one-half years on the basis of secret evidence to which Al-Najjar was never given access. Al-Najjar's case became a primary target of the then-Clinton Administration's demand to be able to hold and deport people on the basis of secret evidence, a case that is haunting today in its relevance to the thousands of men held around the world - and the nearly 400 held at Guantanamo Bay currently - imprisoned by the US government with evidence they cannot confront and with no legal process to ensure any sort of real hearing. In the late 1990s, however, secret evidence had not yet assumed its terrifying and major place in the government's extra-legal arsenal of imprisonment and detention. Sami al-Arian played a leading role in the campaign to defend his brother-in-law and obtain his freedom - a fight in which, it seemed, they were victorious, as, in late 2000, Immigration Judge Kevin McHugh, describing the government's case - based on secret evidence - as "devoid of any direct or indirect evidence" to support Al-Najjar's detention, ordered his release. By mid-2001, a bill to restrict the use of secret evidence was progressing through Congress, all but one of the non-citizens held on secret evidence had been freed, and even George W. Bush had expressed, during his campaign, disapproval for the practice. (Bush's statement against secret evidence, in a twist that now seems bitterly ironic, helped to secure the support of many in the Muslim and Arab communities; in Florida, Al-Arian himself was key in mobilizing those communities to support Bush's campaign.)

Both Al-Arian and Al-Najjar were prominent activists in the Muslim community, deeply involved with the Islamic Community Center of Tampa Bay and the Florida Islamic Academy, as well as dedicated advocates for the Palestinian cause. The organizations Al-Arian co-founded at the University of South Florida, the World and Islam Studies Enterprise (WISE) and the Islamic Concern Project (ICP), produced volumes of educational materials and held numerous events and conferences, helping to link their Islamic work with the struggle to free Palestine from occupation and oppression, as well as providing educational perspectives often silenced or unheard within US discourse around Palestine. Al-Arian was an exemplary founder and leader of community institutions that provided immense support to the strengthening of the Muslim community in Florida, as well as the national and international trend of Islamic work for justice in Palestine. Amidst the defense of his brother-in-law, he was also president of the National Committee to Protect Political Freedom.

For this work, Sami al-Arian was targeted for spying, harassment and intimidation - none of which silenced nor stopped his dedicated activism. Following the events of September 11, the repressive mechanisms of the state swung into action; Mazen al-Najjar was re-arrested, on the same immigration charges, and later deported. Al-Arian, prominent as a spokesperson and leader in the Muslim community, was invited to appear on notorious right-wing TV talk show host Bill O'Reilly's program. While Al-Arian was informed that he was to speak about the response of the Arab and Muslim communities in South Florida to September 11, instead, he was confronted with an ambush by O'Reilly based on his commitment to the Palestinian cause, a commitment that O'Reilly, working from a campaign based on the work of die-hard Islamophobes like Joe Kaufman and Steven Emerson - who sought to blame the Oklahoma City bombing on Muslims - sought to criminalize, attacking Al-Arian on the air, and declaring that if he were the FBI, he would be watching Al-Arian. The response to the O'Reilly show on the part of the University of South Florida administration was swift, and in line with the repressive post-September 11 environment that saw thousands of Arab, Muslim and South Asian men rounded up, detained for little or no reason, and deported, as well as the passage of repressive legislation like the USA PATRIOT Act: Al-Arian was placed on leave from USF, which claimed that it could not ensure his security.

While al-Arian had campaigned for his brother-in-law's civil liberties for years, his were now under attack. Faculty unions supported him in his campaign to preserve his ability to teach and work. Nevertheless, the worst was still to come. On February 20, 2003, Al-Arian was an arrested on the basis of an indictment that charged him, as well as three co-defendants, fellow community activists Sameeh Hammoudeh, Hatem Fariz and Ghassan Ballut, with various charges centered around the allegation that they provided "material support" to Palestinian Islamic Jihad, a Palestinian resistance organization designated by the US State Department as a so-called "Foreign Terrorist Organization."

Like the persecution of Mazen al-Najjar, this prosecution had its roots not solely in the post-September 11 repression of the Bush Administration, nor in the infamous PATRIOT Act, but rather in legislation passed during the Clinton Administration that has played a major role in the criminalization of resistance internationally, and the criminalization of solidarity within the United States - the 1996 Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. This law, targeting international movements of resistance to US imperialism, formalized two previous Executive Orders by President Clinton, creating a list of "Foreign Terrorist Organizations," to be designated by the US State Department, to which "material support" was forbidden and could be criminally prosecuted. This list of so-called "Foreign Terrorist Organizations" was not restricted to Palestinian (or even Arab or

Islamic) organizations and political movements - indeed, it has come to include such diverse examples of resistance to imperialism as the Communist Party of the Philippines and its associated New People's Army and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia. However, its genesis was as part of the US effort to enforce the Oslo process upon the Palestinian people.

The US was deeply involved in the early to mid-1990s effort to destabilize the Palestinian movement and create a willing Palestinian security force for the benefit of their Israeli occupiers, a process deceptively titled a "peace process" that, nevertheless, brought little to no peace for Palestinians, no real autonomy, a deeper and wider network of Israeli control of the West Bank and Gaza, and no justice whatsoever for the millions of Palestinian refugees and exiles, who, after sixty years, continue to be denied their right to return home to their original homes, lands and properties, from which they were forced in the Zionist military campaign to conquer Palestine and ethnically cleanse it of indigenous Palestinians in 1948. Despite decades of valiant struggle by the Palestinian people within and without Palestine, as well as the vast weight of international support

- outside that of US imperialism, which heavily funded and armed Israel, as a Western settler colony within the heart of the Arab world

- the post-Gulf War and post-Soviet international political environment, combined with an illusory promise of some relief for Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, and accentuated by the political weakness of important sectors of the Palestinian leadership within the Palestine Liberation Organization at the time in their belief that making concessions to the occupying power would in some way help to obtain meaningful independence, or at very least, some form of Palestinian state, led to the ratification of the "Oslo Accords." The following decade brought nothing but more misery to Palestinians, as the assassinations of Palestinian political leaders, the military occupation, the tripling of exclusive Jewish-only settlements in the West Bank and Gaza, the introduction of closure and economic isolation of the West Bank and Gaza, and a vast network of checkpoints and roadblocks failed to materialize anything like independence or a state, while Palestinian citizens of Israel continued to live under an apartheid regime as second-class citizens at best and Palestinian refugees continued to be denied their rights. It is not surprising, therefore, that many Palestinians and Palestinian political organizations rejected the Oslo accords as improper and destructive to the process of national liberation, instead creating a "Palestinian Authority" with no real power except for its authority to serve as a security force for the occupier and oppressor, in its assigned role to root out and suppress Palestinian resistance to occupation. The Islamic organizations in Palestine, Hamas (the Islamic Resistance Movement) and Islamic Jihad, rejected Oslo, as did the Palestinian Left, including the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine. In time, the brutal realities of Oslo led to the Al-Aqsa Intifada, often termed the "Second Intifada;" however, this Intifada was far from only the second Palestinian uprising for national rights, but rather the latest in a long history of uninterrupted struggle for national liberation that had been proceeding since before the Zionist occupation of Palestine, from the time of British colonialism in Palestine in the early twentieth century.

In 1995, however, President Clinton sought to shore up an unjust process built on an attempt to make the national movement of the oppressed collaborate with its oppressor by issuing an Executive Order that declared a "national emergency" to deal with the "threat posed to the Middle East peace process" by Palestinian resistance - as well as Hezbollah, for continuing Lebanese resistance to the occupation of Southern Lebanon, and froze all transactions with twelve named groups, including HAMAS, Islamic Jihad, the PFLP, the DFLP, and Hezbollah. This Executive Order was soon followed by the push for the 1996 law, which went beyond freezing transactions to creating a criminal offense of "material support" to these organizations. This served an important objective in attempting to isolate Palestinian resistance and ensure Palestinian submission to Israeli rule. As a nation largely in exile, the Palestinian and Arab community in the United States - and around the world - was deeply involved in political and charitable activity to support its brothers and sisters inside the occupied land and living in refugee camps in the Arab world. In addition, the larger Muslim community was also actively involved in supporting Islamic peoples and movements against occupation in Palestine and elsewhere. The resistance organizations criminalized through this repressive legislation were not merely organizations engaged in armed struggle. On the contrary, they were - and are - engaged with all facets of Palestinian life. They are the political organizations of Palestine, and their activists are involved in social programs, community programs, unions, women's organizations, student organizing and all aspects of social and community life - and the US government has been quick to deem large numbers of such organizations to be "front groups" for resistance organizations, which, if honest, completely ignores the way in which a national liberation movement functions. Such movements are grounded in the people - in grassroots organizing, social programs and community involvement. The resistance belongs to the people, and cannot be uprooted merely by a law prohibiting financial support. However, if observed through the lens of the US government's political interest in aiding Zionist colonialism and repressing the Palestinian movement for liberation, it is clear that these laws targeted not "terrorism," but instead, the entire national liberation movement of the Palestinian people, criminalizing its institutions and its movements. (After all, if the U.S. was interested in securing peace and ending "terror," clearly the swiftest mechanism it would have for doing so would be to immediately end its billions of dollars in annual support - including its provision of the latest U.S. military machinery, from Apache helicopters to M-16 rifles - to the Israeli regime and to impose sanctions upon that regime for its conduct of terror against the Palestinian and Lebanese people.)

The criminalization of resistance should be seen within the context of the history of international solidarity inside the United States for national liberation movements, most of which are readily branded as "terrorists" by the imperialist forces opposing them. Take, for example, the movements in support of the people of Nicaragua and El Salvador in the 1980s, or the movement against South African apartheid. Both the Sandinista movement and the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (FMLN) were denounced as "terrorists," as was the African National Congress - an organization with offices in major U.S. cities whose presence was able to lend vast coordination and strength to the anti-apartheid solidarity movement. In light of this repressive legislation and the U.S. government campaigns against these organizations in decades past, it is difficult to imagine that they would not be on the "Foreign Terrorist Organization" list of their day - leading to devastating and dramatic consequences for the solidarity movements that proudly supported those popular national liberation movements and their resistance. The El Salvador and Nicaragua fundraisers of the 1980s branded illegal, would legislation to ban funding to the contras or the Salvadoran dictatorship ever have been passed? The ANC branded an "FTO," would, within the US, the anti-apartheid movement today be such a singular example of a successful solidarity movement? In the early part of the twenty-first century, when it is popular to declare that one opposed apartheid in South Africa all along, it is often forgotten that the U.S. government and its mainstream spokespeople for decades supported South African apartheid in all of its brutal settler-colonial horror, as today it supports Israeli apartheid in its own settler-colonial horror, and designated the African national liberation movement as "terrorists."

A vast array of charitable institutions and social organizations within Palestine has been branded fronts for the resistance organizations, and it has never been clear which organization will be so described next. In the post-September 11 atmosphere of repression, charities within the U.S., such as the Holy Land Foundation, were shut down and their assets frozen. Yet, even before September 11, the mechanism for the suppression of Palestinian community organizing in the U.S. was activated by the 1996 law and its executive order predecessor. The Oslo process itself was devastating to many Palestinian community institutions, as many fell victim to post-Oslo hopes for the end of the struggle and others sought to reestablish themselves despite the transformation of much of the PLO's national liberation structure to the new realm of the PA, limited in focus to the West Bank and Gaza, and with a newly circumscribed mandate that fell far short of national liberation. However, these laws were also laying the groundwork for repression of the community and creating fear of action and fear of supporting even purely charitable initiatives for their brothers and sisters in Palestine. Cases like those of Mazen Al-Najjar, combined with the existing immigration-based prosecution of Palestinian activists in Los Angeles, known as the Los Angeles 8, for their entirely legal activities in promoting the Palestinian cause, were part of creating fear in the community. Islamic institutions, which, outside the PLO, faced different post-Oslo challenges than their leftist and secular nationalist fellow organizations in the national liberation movement, yet had maintained a basic continuity of organization in the pre and post-Oslo era.

With the rise of the Al-Aqsa Intifada in Palestine, within the United States, Palestinian community as well as solidarity organizing rebounded in parallel to the upsurge in the movement in Palestine. New organizations were founded and existing organizations were inundated with support and volunteers. Despite repressive legislation, the obvious need of the Palestinian people suffering from the daily brutality of occupation combined with the inspirational example of their resistance inspired activism in the community around the world. Repression, however, fell harshly on these organizations and institutions. Charities that had received funds from thousands, if not millions, were shut down and attacked as "fronts for terror," while prominent community leaders faced insinuations and, at times, direct prosecution. While initially hailed as "terrorism" cases, in reality, these often revolved around minor immigration matters or financial matters with no relation to alleged "terrorism." The enactment and enforcement of this repressive legislation led to the defunding of Palestinian institutions, both religious and secular, as funding of the social and community institutions of Palestinian life, as well as for the financial welfare of Palestinian families, were directly impacted by both the freezing of funds and the repressive political climate that created a well-founded fear of persecution for any fundraising that would end up benefiting people outside the borders of the United States.

That so many organizations and institutions have continued to survive and in fact grow is a testament more to the creativity and commitment of the Palestinian, Arab and Muslim communities - as well as that of solidarity activists - than it is to the limitations of repressive legislation. Many organizations have focused on educating the public in the U.S. about the Palestinian cause, to win their support, while others have found non-governmental organizations and individual families to which funds can be safely distributed without fear of persecution. (It is also to be noted that the U.S., the European Union and others were instrumental in the Oslo era of promoting the rise of an NGO class in Palestine in an attempt to supplant the resistance organizations and the national liberation movement within the Palestinian social fabric, and that this repressive legislation can also be seen as a means of directing funding to approved institutions and attempting to undermine or separate the resistance from the people through this mechanism. However, such NGOs have not supplanted the resistance movements, and those NGOs, while independent of political affiliations with any organization, are often loyal to the Palestinian cause, rather than to the initiatives of the U.S. administration, and it is those NGOs that Palestinian and solidarity organizations in the U.S. have been able to safely support.) Just as the Oslo accords themselves had sought to segment out the Palestinian community - separating Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza from those within the borders of the Israeli regime and the largest Palestinian community, those in exile in the Arab world and internationally, the repressive legislation as well as the post-September 11 assault on the community sought to reinforce that division and ensure separation between Palestinians here and Palestinians there.

On March 21, the New York Times noted that UN officials were observing that Palestinians were "becoming increasingly dependent on humanitarian handouts." Given the amount of energy expended by the United States and Israel over more than a decade to defund, isolate and undermine Palestinian institutions rooted in the people, this can hardly be seen as surprising. Nevertheless, the United States has opted to continue its war on Palestine, side by side with the war of the direct occupier upon the Palestinian people, and alongside its own direct war on the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, and its threats upon Iran. It has done so not merely by imprisoning its own Palestinian political prisoners, alongside the 10,000 held in Israeli jails, including 41 members of the Palestinian Legislative Committee, among them Aziz Dweik, the elected Speaker of the PLC from Hamas, and Ahmad Sa'adat, the General Secretary of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, kidnapped with four of his comrades in March 2006 when Israeli military forces stormed the PA prison in Jericho where they were being held at the behest of the Israeli regime. The United States

- and indirectly, every U.S. taxpayer - funds the provision of military supplies to the occupier and other direct aid to the tune of over $10 million daily. Meanwhile, the U.S., in collaboration with the EU, has imposed a devastating economic blockade against the West Bank and Gaza, in a new attempt to punish Palestinians for democratically electing a government committed to resistance and national liberation while demanding that government accept the "right" of the occupier state - built on stolen Palestinian land and created as an ethnically and religiously exclusive settler-colonial entity based on the denial of Palestinian rights - to exist as such a state and that the people of Palestine renounce their own right to resist against the occupation that has devastated their lives.

Despite the blockade, Palestinians have not acceded to these conditions, based, as they are, not on any concept of justice or legitimacy, but rather on the perpetuation of occupation without costs. In response, the U.S. administration, as it once attempted to criminalize resistance and demand Palestinians jail and imprison other Palestinians for the benefit of the occupier, has attempted to foment a civil war among Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, seeking out willing collaborators for funding and military training. Nevertheless, the commitment of the Palestinian people in their entirety to resisting this attempt has carried the day, despite the best efforts of U.S. envoys. The U.S. government's war on Palestine, however, has not been limited to the massive support of the oppressor while attempting to isolate the oppressed - it has centered efforts on the Arab League summit in Riyadh taking place this week, attempting to pressure the Arab regimes taking part in the summit - many of whom maintain their power despite despotism and corruption through the support of the U.S. - to relinquish their support for the most basic of Palestinian rights - the right of Palestinian refugees expelled from their land to return to their original properties, homes and lands. The return of six million Palestinian refugees, of course, disrupts the Zionist project to create an ethnically exclusive settler-colonial state on Palestinian land, and thus, generations of Palestinian refugees have been forced to pay the prices of Israeli apartheid, racism and colonialism, kept from their stolen land at the behest of an occupying power, an apartheid state ruling by the gun. The United States government, seeing maintenance of the Zionist regime in Palestine as a primary goal, has devoted itself, through envoys such as Condoleeza Rice, to seek an Arab negation of this fundamental right. However, as much as many of the Arab regimes may be dependent upon U.S. support, they also have legitimacy to retain among their own people, and it is clear that the Arab people do not support the attempts to undermine Palestinian rights sponsored by the U.S., in an attempt to bring about Arab normalization with Zionism.

In the meanwhile, Sami al-Arian remains imprisoned. When his case, and those of his fellow activists, was brought to trial, despite a parade of witnesses including numerous Israelis, through the court, he was convicted of nothing, acquitted on eight charges, while the jury deadlocked 10-2 on nine others. This was the result of over a decade of FBI surveillance, under repressive legislation, in the post-September 11 political climate. It is no accident, however, that Sami Al-Arian was not convicted by a jury; in fact, it was so clear to his defense team that, rather than present their own defense, Al-Arian's attorney, William Moffitt presented only four words: "I rest my case," for Al-Arian's defense, after the close of the prosecution case, and ten of the twelve jurors wanted to convict al-Arian of precisely nothing.

Al-Arian's case is not an anomaly in this regard. Mohammad Salah and Abdelhaleem al-Ashqar, two Palestinian community activists who were tried in Chicago on "racketeering" charges revolving around alleged "material support" to Hamas, were acquitted of all "terrorism"-related charges in February 2007. As William Moffitt, attorney for both Ashqar and Al-Arian, told the New York Times, "the Bush administration cannot win this war by trying to make criminals out of people who are fighting for their freedom...and two American juries have said that." The Al-Arian and Salah/Ashqar juries made a very clear statement that the people of the United States are not interested in convicting Palestinian, Arab and Muslim community leaders of "terrorism" for aiding their community and supporting their people under occupation, which, despite the stand of the U.S. government, is not surprising.

While U.S. imperialism wages war on the Arab world, invades and occupies Afghanistan, continues an occupation in Iraq that has brought about the deaths of over 650,000 Iraqis as well as several thousand U.S. soldiers, funds a war on Palestine, funds and arms Israel's war on Lebanon, threatens Iran, and attempts to criminalize all resistance to its rule as it imprisons thousands around the world, kidnaps and "renders" people to countries where they will be interrogated under torture, and holds hundreds of men at Guantanamo Bay in an international symbol of the apparent impunity of US imperialism and its brutality, the vast majority of people within the United States have seen only misery from these policies. The minimum wage - on which many are forced to subsist - is barely adequate for survival. Millions of people in the United States have no health care, and costs of education have been skyrocketing increasingly out of reach for many. Youth of color in U.S. cities are put on a fast track to criminalization, targeted by often-brutal police and introduced at a young age to the world's largest prison system. Women's rights are increasingly under attack, while women - and men - immigrants, who form a major component of the U.S. working class, have been targeted for severe repression. Within the U.S., around solely domestic issues, the right to dissent is under attack, as the administration seeks ever-increasing authority to spy on citizens, tracking everything from library books borrowed to wiretapping millions of telephone calls. Meanwhile, the power of major multinational corporations appears to grow, virtually unchecked. And yet, the administration attempts to sell its bankrupt policies to the people of the United States through scare tactics, racist manipulation, and repression. It deems resistance organizations "terrorist" and attempts to link the resistance of a people against occupation and oppression and for liberation to hatred of Jews - a deceptive attempt to obscure the reality that Zionism, a political ideology based on racism and colonialism, and the regime it has created, is neither representative nor equivalent to Jewish people or Judaism as a religion - while waging a bitterly racist "war on terror" that has been, in reality, a "war of terror" for its victims around the world, including those in the United States.

Despite the resounding defeat for the government in Al-Arian's case, it expressed its determination to re-prosecute Al-Arian. In this environment, with the stress of years of persecution wearing on his family, Sami al-Arian agreed to a plea bargain in which he would plead guilty to one count of "providing services" to "people associated with" Palestinian Islamic Jihad - the enumerated innocuous activities including hiring an attorney for his brother-in-law, Al-Najjar, and filling out immigration forms for a visiting Palestinian scholar - and swiftly be deported. Despite his over thirty years in the U.S., and the U.S. citizenship of his entire family, he was willing to accept this in order to finally win some peace for his family. However, despite the request made by the prosecution at the entering of the plea that Al-Arian be sentenced lightly, and primarily to time served, the judge on Al-Arian's case, Judge James Moody - who had shown immense bias during the proceedings of the case, allowing numerous Israeli witnesses to testify about the costs of Palestinian resistance to Israel while allowing no testimony about the suffering of Palestinians, or Palestinian rights - sentenced him to an additional sentence while lecturing Al-Arian about his "guilt" in a manner that was, in fact, completely rejected by the jury in the case. Al-Arian and his co-defendants, like Salah and Ashqar, were not convicted, or even charged, with anything even related in the most remote degree to an attempt to harm anyone within the United States, or even the government or military of the United States - every charge against them pertained only to the Palestinian struggle for national liberation against Zionist occupation. Al-Arian was scheduled to be deported following his sentence, in April 2007. As part of his plea, Al-Arian secured a promise that he would not be called upon to cooperate in any additional government prosecutions. Nonetheless, Gordon Kromberg, a Virginia prosecutor who has assailed "the Islamization of America," targeted Al-Arian as part of his fishing expedition in Virginia targeting Muslim organizations there through a wide-ranging grand jury. Despite Al-Arian's plea, Kromberg has demanded Al-Arian testify before his grand jury - attempting both to lay Al-Arian open for charges of perjury and force him to serve as a witness against fellow community leaders and activists as part of a government witch-hunt.

Al-Arian's hunger strike came in protest to his sentence, extended yet again, for "contempt" for his refusal to testify, holding to the terms of his plea agreement. The use of grand juries as fishing expeditions in political cases is neither new, nor restricted to this case - however, the attempt to force Al-Arian's testimony in direct contradiction of his agreement illustrates once more what little regard the U.S. government has for its own principles of criminal justice, in pursuit of a goal of political repression. Of course, Sami Al-Arian is far from the only political prisoner in U.S. prisons. From the many prisoners of the Black Liberation Movement, to Puerto Rican political prisoners, to Leonard Peltier, targeted for his work with the indigenous national liberation movement, to the new charges against Black liberation movement activists from the 1970's, the criminal justice system in the U.S. has always held political prisoners in its wars against oppressed communities and oppressed nations within the United States. The Al-Arian case is representative of an internationalization of political imprisonment in U.S. jails, alongside the impunity of Guantanamo Bay and its "military commissions" and U.S. secret detention around the world.

However, Al-Arian's case is not only an urgent call for support for his case, which is in urgent need of public pressure to make it clear that people in the U.S. will not stand for this persecution in our name (and with our money - the prosecution of Al-Arian is estimated to have cost the government $50 million of our tax dollars). Al-Arian, like his fellow political prisoners in U.S. jails, and his fellow Palestinian and Arab political prisoners in Zionist jails, is an inspiration to all of those who struggle for justice. Despite repression and despite the targeting of him and his family, Sami Al-Arian never ceased his work with the Palestinian, Arab and Muslim communities. While he was under investigation, being shadowed by the FBI and attacked in the press, he traveled coast to coast, continuing to speak out for justice in Palestine and in support of the liberation movement of his people. He is an example of the courage, dignity and bravery of those who resist. Resistance takes many forms - including, for many, like Al-Arian and the others who have been so targeted in these prosecutions - speaking, writing, educating the public and building community-based institutions capable of mobilizing many for justice in Palestine, and it is that example that stands as a reminder of the tasks that are incumbent upon all of us that are also committed to that cause.

The U.S. administration engaged these prosecutions not simply to target a few prominent activists and leaders. Rather, a major goal of repressive legislation and prosecution has always been to silence the community of support for the targeted cause, to quiet activism, to press people to withdraw from their political work for fear of also becoming examples. However, the only successful response to repression has always been struggle and defiance in the face of repression and not allowing our legal and legitimate work to fall silent in the face of repression. The greater the level of activity, the stronger the institutions of the community, the louder and more visible the movement of solidarity, the stronger we are as a movement - and the more repressive forces are pushed back. Indeed, Sami Al-Arian's case is a striking example of repression, of the targeting of a community leader and - despite it all, his continued resistance and dignity in the face of attempts to force him to join the witch-hunt. With every event for Palestine, every act of solidarity and support for the Palestinian people, every Palestinian Arab community institution that is rebuilt, supported or encouraged, the criminalization of solidarity and the criminalization of resistance is pushed back. If that activism were not so crucial, vital and important, its leaders and activists would not have been targeted as part of the campaign against the national liberation movement. In much the same way, if the right to return were not the core and crucial issue in Palestine - the achievable, indeed, realistic, core issue in Palestine, it would not be under sustained and direct attack from the U.S. and its Zionist allies.

Therefore, in the face of repression, attempted isolation, and the war on Palestine, there is only one real choice and one real hope for those who seek justice in Palestine, and those who wish to build solidarity with Palestine within the United States - holding to the principles to which these political prisoners - those in U.S. and Zionist jails - have shown such deep and vigorous commitment - the right to return, the liberation of the land, the right to resist, the end of apartheid, the undoing of occupation, the freedom for the prisoners - and popularizing them as broadly, as clearly, and as visibly as possible, within all areas of society, while supporting the mobilization and organization of the Palestinian and Arab communities, as well as the organization of the Muslim community, wherever and whenever we can. In the face of such sacrifices, it is the least we can do, and a critical task not only for Palestine, but for all forces of liberation who stand in the crosshairs of imperialism, in order to achieve the decriminalization of solidarity and the empowerment of community organizing for national liberation.

Charlotte Kates is an organizer and activist with NJ Solidarity - Activists for the Liberation of Palestine

(http://www.newjerseysolidarity.org/) and Al-Awda, the Palestine Right to Return Coalition. She is a 2006 graduate of Rutgers School of Law, and is admitted to practice law in New York and New Jersey.

--

Charlotte L. Kates charlotte.kates@gmail.com


http://www.newjerseysolidarity.org

http://www.rutgersdivest.org

http://www.al-awdany.org

Read Al-Awda Newspaper! http://alawda.newjerseysolidarity.org

German militant freed after 24 years in jail

Free ... Former Red Army faction guerrilla Brigitte Mohnhaupt, once Germany's most dangerous woman, has left jail after 24 years in detention / AFP


March 25, 2007 07:29pm

Article from: Agence France-Presse

FORMER Red Army faction guerrilla Brigitte Mohnhaupt, once Germany's most dangerous woman, left jail today after 24 years in detention.

Mohnhaupt, who was convicted for her role in nine murders in the left wing group's campaign against the West German state in the 1970s, was released on parole from a prison in southern Germany early today, prison official Wolfgang Deuschl said.

Mohnhaupt, 57, was collected at the prison by friends, he said.

A German court last month granted her parole because she has served her minimum sentence and is no longer considered a threat.

But the families of the victims of the RAF, also known as the Baader-Meinhof Gang, have bitterly opposed the release, partly because she has never expressed remorse over the murders.

Mohnhaupt was part of the second generation of RAF leaders who took over after Ulrike Meinhof, Andreas Baader, Jan-Carl Raspe and Gudrun Ennslin were caught and committed suicide in jail.

The RAF's campaign reached a bloody crescendo in the so-called German Autumn in 1977 when they kidnapped and killed leading industrialist and former Nazi Hanns-Martin Schleyer and hijacked a Lufthansa passenger plane with the help of Palestinian militants.

Schleyer's widow was among those who opposed Mohnhaupt's release, saying she was "appalled'' at the move.

The RAF is believed to have killed 34 people. Its other victims include the head of Dresdner Bank, Juergen Ponto, who was shot dead on his doorstep.

The group also launched attacks against US military personnel stationed in Germany.

In 1981, Mohnhaupt helped to launch a rocket attack on an American general, Frederick Kroesen. He barely survived.

The former philosophy student was finally arrested at an RAF arms cache in a forest near Frankfurt in 1982.

Her release had initially been due on Tuesday.

Mohnhaupt has given no indication of what she wants to do outside prison.

A priest who has regularly visited her in prison in Bavaria in southern Germany over the past 15 years, said she was a "very nice'' person who would lead a peaceful life, like other former RAF activists who had completed their prison sentences.

"The RAF has renounced violence and Brigitte Mohnhaupt did so along with them,'' priest Siegfried Fleiner said.

The RAF disbanded in 1988. Some 20 former militants of the group have been freed after serving lengthy sentences.

Only three still remain behind bars, including Christian Klar who led the group along with Mohnhaupt.

Klar was last month refused prison day releases after calling for "the total defeat of the capitalists' aims'' in a speech read out on his behalf at a Marxist meeting in Berlin.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigitte_Mohnhaupt

http://www.baader-meinhof.com/