8/29/08

PNG landowners continue to halt nickel mine construction

Updated August 29, 2008 09:46:01

Angry Papua New Guinea landowners say they will continue to halt construction at a Chinese owned nickel mine until they meet with the PNG government next week.

Police reinforcements have been sent to the mine site to protect Chinese employees, some of who were assaulted by locals.

Our PNG correspondent, Steve Marshall, reports the construction of the billion dollar nickel mine in the Medang province on the PNG north east coast has been plagued by controversy.

Landowners like Joe Koroma are upset over a long delay in reviewing a mining agreement that PNG Prime Minister Sir Michael signed with Chinese government developers.

"Because everytime they talk to the Chinese at the work site or in the office they said 'go and ask Michael Somare, we deal with Michael Somare. This is Michael Somare's land'. This is what they are saying," he said.

Violence broke out at a mine construction site with police firing warning shots to restore order.

Landowners say the mine will remain closed until next week when they meet with government and mining officials.

Maritime Union criticizes Myanmar connection in free trade deal

The Maritime Union of New Zealand says a free trade deal signed with ASEAN nations including the military dictatorship of Myanmar is bad for workers. Maritime Union General Secretary Trevor Hanson says a free trade deal including Myanmar will boost the violently anti-worker regime in Myanmar and threatened workers rights.

He says the Maritime Union has many concerns about the treatment of Burmese maritime workers, some of whom work in New Zealand waters, and who have been mistreated and abused in the past.The Maritime Union has previously spoken out about the murder of Ko Moe Naung, a Seafarers' Union of Burma (Myanmar) organizer in the Ranong region, who was killed by Burmese military forces on 19 May 2005.

The Seafarers' Union of Burma is a fellow affiliate with the Maritime Union of New Zealand to the International Transport Workers' Federation.

Ko Moe was tortured to death over three hours during interrogation at 8-Mile Village Army Base LIR 431 in Kawthaung, Burma.

Ko Moe was targeted by the Myanmar regime as he was a dedicated trade union leader, who was organising Burmese fishermen and migrant workers from Burma at the Ranong area.

Mr Hanson says free trade deals mean that New Zealand is now effectively endorsing dictatorships such as Burma which murder workers such as Ko Moe Naung.

He says the Maritime Union has a long history of opposing repressive regimes, refusing to work on American nuclear warships in New Zealand harbours and supporting the struggle against apartheid.

"New Zealand waterfront workers refused to load pig iron for Japan before World War 2, which they were denounced for, but shortly afterwards the pig iron was coming back towards us as bullets."

Mr Hanson says sometimes doing the right thing comes with a cost.

He says the Maritime Union is extremely concerned that free trade deals will mean the use of short term, casual labour imported across borders to drive down wages and conditions, a problem that is now occurring around the world.

ENDS

For further information please contact Maritime Union General Secretary Trevor Hanson on 021390585 or 04 801 7614

8/27/08

Raid Me! Global Day of Action Tickets Going Fast

Click on image for a larger version

Tickets to the global day of action to drop the charges against the 20 accused in the State Terror Raids are now available on Trade Me! There is a two-day auction that closes at the start of the demo on Saturday at 12 noon. The beautiful tickets are for freedom lovers, supporters of Tino Rangatiratanga, friends, and whanau. Tickets for police and other spy scumbags are $8 million – about the cost of the entire ‘Operation 8’ investigation (the name given to the State Terror Raids by the police).

Many of you will be aware that the police investigated thousands of TradeMe users as part of ‘Operation 8’. The accused received approximately 10,000 TradeMe usernames, passwords and buying histories revealing among other things, purchases of ‘my little pony’ items (undoubtedly for terrorist purposes). The Listener story, ‘Raid me’ focuses on the information given to the now 20 defendants in the case. But the issue isn’t the disclosure given to defendants as part of their legal right to access information about the investigation. The issue is about the extent of the police investigation and surveillance of people as part of ‘Operation 8’. (listener.co.nz/issue/null/features/11626/raid_me.html)

There were literally thousands of people under investigation as part of ‘Opeartion 8’. Almost everyone in this country will know someone affected by the State Terror Raids of October 15th 2007 – phones and cars were tapped, people were followed, bank accounts and internet traffic were monitored.

The powers of the police and the security intelligence service have grown exponentially since 9/11. They are the agencies who are carrying out George W Bush’s ‘war on terrorism’. They are getting millions of dollars as part of that war to find so-called ‘terrorists’ – in order to justify this money, they have targeted people seen to be supporting Tino Rangatiratanga.

Last year, that war came home – to the homes of Maori people around the country. It was a racist attack, and these are politically motivated charges. The global day of action is a call to drop the charges against the 20 accused. It is also a call to repeal the Terrorism Suppression Act, to support Tino Rangatiratanga and Te Mana Motuhake o Tuhoe, and to get justice for the people who were raided.

MAKING WAVES

: OPPORTUNITIES FOR RECLAIMING DEVELOPMENT IN THE PACIFIC INFORMING CIVIL SOCIETY RESPONSES TO THE FREE TRADE AGENDA:

Abstract

The Pacific Island Countries currently face concerted pressure (from donor countries and international financial institutions) to ‘integrate into the global economy’ through implementing new free trade agreements.

The model of extensive trade liberalisation is currently being implemented through interlocking stages – bilaterally through the Pacific Island Countries Trade Agreement (PICTA), negotiations for a new Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) with the EU, and with Australia and NZ under the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations (PACER), and multilaterally through the World Trade Organisation (WTO).

Free traders argue that the Pacific will benefit from cheaper imports, increased investment in the region and improvements in efficiency of Pacific business and service suppliers. However, it is widely acknowledged that trade liberalisation will have very real costs for societies and economies – in terms of lost government revenue, business closures and job losses, and undermined access to essential services.

Governments will also lose important ‘policy space’ that can be used to stimulate development, and regulate trade and investment in the social interest.

Concerns have been raised by civil society organisations, church groups and trade unions that free trade will hurt workers and communities in the Pacific, and that the ‘benefits’ of trade liberalisation are far from proven.

This paper provides an up-to-date analysis of the FTA negotiations currently facing the region, and potential implications for the region if our governments choose to sign new FTAs. It also offers a critical analysis of the approach Pacific governments have taken to engaging new trade
negotiations, and considers the role of trade unions and civil society in engaging the trade talks.

This paper is intended to give Pacific civil society organisations (CSOs) the critical tools required to understand the push towards free trade in the Pacific, and to engage the process more effectively. National, regional and international government processes for negotiating new FTAs are outlined, aiming to offer CSOs a picture of where, when and how they might better intervene in the trade decision making process. Finally, this paper offers some suggestions for coordinated CSO policy in relation to the push towards free trade in the Pacific.

This report has been prepared by Maureen Penjueli, Coordinator, the Pacific Network on Globalisation (PANG) and Wesley Morgan, Communications Officer, PANG. This paper has been prepared in collaboration with Nick Braxton, Advocacy and Research Officer, Oxfam New Zealand, and Professor Jane Kelsey, Professor of Law, Auckland University.

Acknowledgements

The Pacific Network on Globalisation (PANG) plays the role of the Pacific regional “peoples’ watchdog on trade issues”. Established in 2000 by regional NGOs concerned that Pacific civil society was being left out of the debate on trade liberalisati on and that the free-trade agenda lacked a focus on key goals of human development and poverty reduction.

PANG receives support from a number of organisations and individuals, who deserve a special mention for their help in producing this report.

Without continuing support from the Canadian ecumenical organisation, KAIROS: Canadian Ecumenical Justice Initiatives, PANG would not be able to continue to carry out its important work. KAIROS program coordinator Connie Sorio in particular has demonstrated a much-appreciated faith in the ability of Pacific civil society to engage trade discussions in the region.

In producing this report PANG worked closely with Professor Jane Kelsey, Professor of Law at Auckland University. Professor Kelsey has been a tireless supporter of the campaign for fair trade in the Pacific (and across the globe). Her technical and legal expertise has been invaluable for producing research at PANG. Professor Kelsey has previously completed two major reports on free trade in the Pacific: A People’s Guide to the Pacific’s Economic Partnership Agreement (Negotiations between the Pacific Islands and the European Union pursuant to the Cotonou Agreement 2000), and; A People’s Guide to PACER (The implications for the Pacific Islands of the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations (PACER).

Nick Braxton, Advocacy and Research Officer at Oxfam New Zealand also contributed to
the research and writing of this report. Nick completed the section entitled; A poor precedent for the region? Implications of the EU-Caribbean EPA, and provided support throughout the review phases of producing the Making Waves report. Oxfam NZ continues to be a staunch ally of the Pacific in campaigns for fair trade in the region.

An earlier version of this report was produced for a regional trade union conference on free trade in the Pacific, hosted by the International Labour Organisation. The ILO/ACTRAV Pacific Trade Union Seminar on Free Trade, Decent Work, and Social Development in the Pacific was held in Nadi, Fiji, from June 24-26, 2008. PANG would like to thank Mishihiro Ishibashi, Specialist on Workers’ Activities, ILO sub-regional officer for Southeast Asia and the Pacific, for his enthusiastic support during that seminar. PANG would also like to thank Rajeshwar Singh, General Secretary of the Fiji Public Service Association for nominating PANG staff to work as resource people for the ILO seminar.

In solidarity,
Maureen Penjueli
PANG Coordinator
August 2008

Full Report Here

1. Introduction: The push for free trade

For much of the past decade the Pacific Island Countries (PICs) have faced pressure fromdeveloped country partners, international financial institutions and aid donors to move towards trade liberalisation through new free trade agreements (FTAs) and through joining the World Trade Organisation (WTO).

Free trade agreements involving the region include the Pacific Island Countries Trade Agreement (PICTA), the Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) with the European Union, and the extension of the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations (PACER) with Australia and NZ to include deeper “economic integration”.

The move towards free trade in the Pacific is driven largely by the interests of business (exporters, service suppliers and potential new investors) based in the Pacific’s developed-country ‘partners’. Businesses in Australia and NZ in particular want to see tariffs reduced on their exports to the Pacific, and changes to laws in the region to allow multinational corporations to establish new enterprises and invest (and remove profits) with reduced obligations to the countries in which they invest.

Alongside these direct commercial interests in trade liberalisation in the Pacific, policy makers from Australia, NZ and the EU rely heavily on neoliberal arguments that trade liberalisation will lead to improvements in industry efficiency, through increased competition and a renewed focus on areas of ‘comparative advantage’. Proponents of new FTAs for the region also argue that consumers will benefit from cheaper imports, and that some export industries will benefit from cheaper inputs to their production lines.

(See Inset Box 1: What ‘free trade’ means for the Pacific for discussion on the arguments for free trade in the Pacific). Other more general arguments are made that new FTAs will help to improve regional cooperation in the Pacific, and will send a ‘positive signal’ that will help address the ‘economic and political marginalisation’ of the region.

In the decades following decolonisation in the Pacific, relations with former colonial powers in Europe, Australia and NZ were marked to a degree by development cooperation and trade preferences (preferential access to markets for Pacific exports).

These relations were cemented under agreements like the South Pacific Regional Trade and Economic Cooperation Agreement (SPARTECA) with Australia and NZ, and the Lomé Agreement with the European Union.

During the 1990s, alongside the widespread adoption of neoliberal market policies in the developed world (and among donor organisations and international financial institutions), the rise of a multilateral trade liberalisation instrument (in the WTO), and a proliferation of bilateral free trade deals, this emphasis on development cooperation and trade preferences has been eroded. The rhetoric of development cooperation and special/preferential treatment for smaller developing nations is increasingly being replaced by a hard line ‘everyone must compete on the open market’ policy.

While often conflated with other concepts – like cultural homogenisation, and the spread of new technologies – it is the move towards open and integrated markets that is most often referred to as globalisation. It is important to understand that when Pacific governments are pressured to ‘embrace globalisation,’ this most often refers to pursuing free trade policies and negotiating new FTAs.
7
The key question, for Pacific civil society organisations, is whether the free trade deals facing the Pacific will really raise the people’s standards of living, and of work, or will they lower them?

Concerns have been raised by many in the Islands, particularly civil society organisations, trade unions and critical academics, that FTAs will have negative implications for working people in the Pacific. Just some of these concerns are; reductions in government revenue (leading to increased consumption taxes and/or loss of government services), an undermining of access to essential services for poor and rural people through increased pressure for privatisation, a reduction in the ‘policy space’ available to governments to stimulate development, and less access to medicine and education materials through stronger intellectual property rights. It should be noted that Pacific civil society is not alone in being wary of FTAs.

There have been a series of concerns raised by civil society organisations the world over, and
the international trade union movement, and about the employment and development
impacts of the move to free trade.

Civil society organisations in the Pacific are focussed on work that contributes to regional goals of economic growth, sustainable development, good governance and human security – all elements of the Pacific Plan. The challenge of ‘integrating into the global economy’ and expanding trade opportunities is one that has become a preoccupation of Pacific leaders in the past decade.

It is important that Pacific CSOs are a part of the discussion around trade and development in the region. At the moment, the debate is dominated by simplistic assumptions that trade liberalisation will lead to economic growth and development. Pacific CSOs must raise concerns about potential negative impacts of poorly considered trade liberalisation – about the so called ‘adjustment costs’ – to add clarity to the discussion and help Pacific leaders to make realistic assessments of trade policy choices.

However, Pacific CSOs must do more than raise concerns about the FTAs. Pacific civil society can contribute to developing a coherent response to the question “ how can we use international trade to enhance our development?.” Currently, the focus, especially in FTA negotiations, is all too often “how much trade liberalisation can we cope with?”, and in some senses negotiating FTAs has replaced considered trade and development policy in the region.

This is a dead-end approach to development. We know that all of the now-developed countries have used various elements of protection, and support for local industry, to develop to a level where their firms can compete in the global market. This is true for countries in the EU, for developed countries in the region like Australia and NZ, and for the rapidly developing Asian ‘tiger economies’. Even small developing states can use a mix of tariffs, quotas, and investment incentives to govern the market in a way that adds value and stimulates development. Pacific leaders need to retain the ability to make policy choices that will harness trade to the service of development in the region.

To harness the opportunities of international trade, the Pacific needs a renewed focus on addressing real constraints in the region. A focus is needed on building service industry capacity (in tourism for example), supporting niche agricultural and manufacturingproducts, developing new markets (and improving market access) for Pacific exports,
improving management and value-adding of Pacific resources (in areas like mining,
fishing and forestry) and targeting investment at small and medium enterprises.
Renewed commitments are also needed to improving key infrastructure (transport,
electricity, telecommunications etc.) and improving access to health and education
services for Pacific workers.
The FTAs proposed by the EU, and Australia and NZ, will restrict forever the ability of
Pacific governments to favour local firms and service suppliers, or regulate foreign
investment to help stimulate local industry and employment. PICs will lose the ability to
support local businesses to benefit from future opportunities and create local jobs in the
future. For the Pacific, with relatively few developed businesses at present, it is this loss
of policy space that is likely to be the lasting legacy of unjust and misguided trade
liberalisation.

With Pacific governments rapidly committing themselves to FTAs that have not been debated publicly, it is vital that Pacific CSOs understand what is at stake in these agreements, develop effective strategies to engage the trade liberalisation debate, and vigorously resist agreements that would undermine development in the Pacific Islands. This background paper aims to contribute to those goals.

This report focuses on the three key FTA negotiations involving the region (PICTA, the EPA with the EU, and PACER), providing an update and analysis of the negotiations and their content. In particular, this background paper focuses on current discussions for an EPA with the EU, providing an analysis of the implications of the already initialled interim-EPAs (initialled by PNG and Fiji), a review of the example set by the EU- Caribbean EPA and their implications for the Pacific, an analysis of outstanding issues remaining for the negotiations in 2008, and a review of the implications of the EPA negotiations for potential trade negotiations with Australia and NZ (under PACER). Finally, this paper outlines some of the possible scenarios under all three FTAs going ahead, explains ways CSOs can become more involved in the trade talks, and provides suggestions for CSO policy engagement..
9
2. Multilateral and bilateral trade liberalisation: complex
and interlocking processes The Pacific Island Countries are surrounded by an ‘alphabet soup’ of complex and inter - related regional and sub-regional governmental and trade processes (see Figure 1 below). These inter-relating processes have implications for the way PICs engage trade
negotiations at the national and regional level.

The FTAs involving the PICs are often described as ‘stepping stones’ towards a deeper commitment to free trade and globalisation, with each new FTA locking the door on going back. PICTA has been seen as the ‘starting point’ for the PICs, leading on to the EPA negotiations, PACER and beyond. The World Bank explained how this works in a report from 2002 entitled Embarking on a Global Voyage: Trade Liberalisation and Complementary Reforms in the Pacific. That report said: In sum, PACER and the Cotonou Agreement have set in motion a process of negotiation of [free trade agreements] between [the PICs] and the EU and Australia and New Zealand, and for providing the United States with similar preferential treatment. The widening of preferential arrangements beyond PICTA is inevitable. Only the timing, extent and benefits are uncertain. This seemingly irreversible and inevitable transition to free trade is increasingly being locked in through FTAs, and is driven by the active policies of the EU, Australia and NZ in the region – and their influence in key institutions like the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat (PIFS). Understanding how these FTAs are interrelated, and the ways they
relate to each other at an ideological and practical level, is important for Pacific CSOs.
Figure 1: Interlocking ‘steps’ towards free trade in the Pacific Island Countries
10
A quick summary of trade and governance processes involved in trade liberalisation in
the Pacific, and ways they are interrelated, are as follows:

2.1 World Trade Organisation (WTO):

(Members: Fiji, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands and Tonga)

Pacific Island States that are members of the WTO have certain commitments to liberalise trade in goods with all other member countries of the WTO, and receive requests from other member states to liberalise service sectors under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). Vanuatu shelved plans to join the WTO in 2001 after it was found that conditions for Vanuatu’s accession to the WTO contained a range of WTO+ conditions (including demands for a radical liberalisation in services) 1. Vanuatu may yet accede under similar terms and Samoa is currently preparing to join the WTO.

Membership of the WTO has implications for countries that are engaged in regional FTA negotiations that are generally based on WTO principles (though the EU, Australia and NZ are seeking WTO+ provisions from the FTA negotiations). Less than half of the PICs are members of the WTO, so signing onto these FTAs will mean that PICs will have to submit to t radeliberalisation schedules more burdensome than is required of developing states at the WTO even if they are not members of the WTO.

2.2 Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG):

(Members: Fiji, PNG, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu)

The Melanesian Spearhead Group was formed in 1993 by Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, and Vanuatu – with Fiji joining in 1998. The MSG was formed to lead the free trade experiment in the Pacific. It applies free trade rules to a small number of key products in which each country has a comparative advantage. The Melanesian governments, especially PNG, argued that the agreement provided a small, gradual and island-only approach to free trade. Free traders have criticised the MSG as limited and weak.

2.3 Pacific Islands Forum (PIF):

(Members: Australia, Cook Islands, Fed. States of Micronesia, Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall
Islands, Nauru, New Zealand, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon
Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu).

The Pacific Islands Forum encompasses the 16 island states of the southwest Pacific (excluding French and American territories in the region). The Forum is the region’s premiere political and economic policy organisation. Forum leaders meet annually to develop collective responses to regional issues.

The Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat (PIFS) is the administrative arm of the Forum, based in Suva, Fiji. PIFS receives more than $30 million each year from member governments and other donors (like the EU). Since the late 1990s – under concerted influence from the EU, Australia, and NZ – PIFS has increasingly focussed on the Vanuatu had to make commitments to liberalise professional services, basic and value-added telecommunication services, environmental, wholesale, retail, insurance, banking services, hotels and restaurants, primary, secondary,
higher, adult and other education services, and sewerage, refuse disposal, sanitation and general construction services.

Kelsey, J (2004a) Acceding Countries As Pawns in a Power Play: A Case Study of the Pacific Islands. Focus on the Global South, August 23, 2004. http://www.focusweb.org/content/view/442/36/
11
implementation of a free trade agenda in the Pacific Islands, and ‘economic reform’, ‘regional integration’ and ‘integration of the Islands into the global economy’ are all euphemisms for trade liberalisation in the PICs. Studies and reports into the ‘benefits’ of free trade, programs to develop technical capacity to negotiate new FTAs, and to implement the terms of new FTAs have all been funded by the EU, Australia, and NZ through the PIFS (under programs like the Regional Trade Facilitation Program funded by Australia/NZ and the Pacific Regional Economic Integration Program funded by the EU.)

This focus on trade liberalisation at the Forum Secretariat means it has become an institution for creating political consensus around signing new FTAs. As Fiji -based academic Claire Slatter writes: The Pacific Islands Forum, formerly known as the South Pacific Forum, has played a key role in regional economic restructuring, functioning as a channel for the diffusion of neo-liberal economic ideas and thinking among Pacific Island leaders, and as the principle implementing agency in the externally driven program of ‘reforms’. From 1999, the work of the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat began to focus increasingly on trade liberalisation and compliance with WTO principles and trade rules – two regional trade agreements, the Pacific Island Countries Trade Agreement (PICTA) and the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations (PACER),

emerged from Secretariat processes2. The Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat has also assumed responsibility for coordinating the Pacific ACP countries (see below) in their negotiations with the EU for a new FTA (the Economic Partnership Agreement) – with key technical staff assisting the Pacific Regional Negotiating Team funded by the EU itself. This has had implications for the
way Pacific countries have approached negotiations with the EU. 2.4 Pacific Island Countries Trade Agreement (PICTA): (Members: Cook islands, Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, Niue, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu).

In 1999 a meeting of Forum Trade Ministers decided to proceed with a PICs-only free trade agreement (excluding Australia and NZ) covering trade in goods between the PICs. PICTA arose to a degree in response to pressure from Australia and NZ for the PICs to begin negotiations for an FTA including those countries. In response the PICs decided to pursue an islands-only FTA (though Australia and NZ bullied PICs to commit to discussing extending free trade to Australia and NZ under PACER, see below).

Originally PICTA covered only liberalisation of goods trade between PICs, but in 2001 Forum Trade Ministers endorsed in principle the integration of services into PICTA based on a “gradual, flexible approach, with sufficient transition periods where appropriate”. PICTA came into force for trade in goods in 2003, and since then six members (Cook Islands, Niue, Fiji, Samoa, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu) have announced their readiness to trade under PICTA. Trading under PICTA preferences commenced in 2007.

Negotiations for the extension of PICTA to include trade in services (including labour
mobility) began in earnest in April of this year, with a subsequent round of negotiations
Slatter, C. (2005) “Treading water in rapids? Non-governmental organisations and resistance to neo-liberalism in Pacific Island States.” Chapter 2: Globalisation and Governance in the Pacific Islands. Australian National University Press.12conducted in June and a final round scheduled for September – with a view towards concluding the new legal text for a trade in services agreement (as an extension of PICTA) by October 2008. (See A stepping stone to where? The Pacific Island Countries Trade Agreement (PICTA), below, for further discussion on current stages of the PICTA negotiations).

2.5 Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations (PACER): (Members: Australia, Cook Islands, Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, New Zealand, Niue, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands and Tonga).

The Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations (PACER) was negotiated alongside PICTA by all Pacific Island Forum members, including Australia and NZ. Officially PACER is an ‘umbrella agreement’ and PICTA is the lesser one. This is not how most PICs see it, as they were interested only in negotiating an FTA among PICs, but Australia and NZ insisted on being included. Under PACER, Forum Island Countries must begin discussions with Australia and NZ
with a view towards negotiating an FTA in 2011, unless certain ‘triggers’ are engaged earlier. PACER stipulates that if Forum Countries sign an FTA with a third-party developed country, this triggers PACER discussions3. Australia and NZ view the initialling of interim EPAs by Fiji and PNG as having pulled that trigger, and are keen to begin discussions on a new FTA as soon as possible.

An informal meeting on PACER has already been held, in May this year in Auckland, between representatives from the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), the NZ Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) and representatives from each of the PICs.
PACER is not a free trade agreement, but an ‘economic and trade cooperation’ agreement that includes obligations to look towards negotiating a new FTA. PACER also contains obligations for Australia and NZ to help fund a Regional Trade Facilitation Programme aimed at streamlining and upgrading customs, biosecurity and quarantine processes in the PICs. This was a major incentive for PICs to sign on to PACER.

It is not clear what other elements of ‘economic and trade cooperation’ could be discussed
and negotiated under PACER – labour mobility, improved rules of origin, and new
development funding to address transport infrastructure and other “capacity constraint”
issues are possibilities. It should be noted that Australian and NZ officials have already stopped referring to PACER and now speak exclusively of PACER-Plus, with the ‘Plus’ indicating
negotiations for an actual FTA.

Of the FTAs facing the region PACER is likely to have by far the biggest impact on Pacific economies, societies and environments – due to the much larger volumes of trade with Australia and NZ, and the presence of large, well-established and expansionary corporations in those countries with an interest in the Pacific market.
3
As then Australian foreign minister Alexander Downer explained of the signing of PACER; “The PACER protects Australian trade interests in the event that Forum Island Countries begin negotiations for a free trade agreement or offer improved market access to another developed country”. Pacific Magazine. (2003) Enduring Commitments: An Exclusive Interview with Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer. Pacific Magazine, No. 3, March 2003. Accessed from: http://www.pacificislands.cc/pm32003/index.php Accessed on:5/6/08
13
2.6 Pacific members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific group (PACP): (Members: Cook Islands, Fed. States of Micronesia, Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu).

The EU has a special relationship with its ex-colonies in Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific (the ACP) that encompasses political and trade relations, and development assistance. This relationship, in acknowledgment of Europe’s historical debt to its ex- colonies, was been marked by the concept of development cooperation in particular. The Lomé Agreement (signed between the EU and ACP states in 1975) accepted that the parties involved were not on equal footing and one party (the EU) needed to assist the other (the ACP States) with technical and financial resources to develop capacity. In 2000, the EU and the ACP states signed a new agreement the Cotonou Agreement – in which the EU made an explicit shift from a relationship based on development cooperation to one more focused on trade.

The Cotonou Agreement reflected the new priorities of European powers interested in shedding historical responsibilities to their ex-colonies, and expanding their economic interests. Under the Lomé Agreement, ex-colonies had been granted preferential access to European markets for their exports. The Cotonou Agreement outlined the phasing out of these preferences for ACP countries, to be replaced with reciprocal rights for Europe’s goods into ACP markets. As well as reciprocal market access, the EU is seeking to extend the scope of trade relationships to include new areas like services, competition and investment policy and intellectual property rules.

In the Pacific, the Forum Island Countries, excluding Australia and NZ, are all members of the Pacific ACP (PACP) regional grouping – who are currently involved in negotiations with the EU for a new EPA (see below).

2.7 Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA):

Under the Cotonou Agreement, the EU set out to establish new trading arrangements, to be called Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs), with all of the ACP nations. The EU envisaged the completion of EPA negotiations, entailing World Trade Organisation compatible and reciprocal market access agreements, by the end of 2007 and sought a waiver from the WTO for the continuation of Lomé non-reciprocal preferences (deemed illegal under WTO rules) until December 31 2007.

In late 2007, Fiji and PNG initialed Interim-EPAs covering liberalisation of goods-trade (under threat of increases on tariffs for exports of tuna and sugar). No other PICs have initialed an Interim-EPA. Currently the EU is pressuring PACP states to sign onto a comprehensive EPA covering goods and other areas (services, investment, intellectual property rights etc.) before end-2008. Talks are currently at a stalemate with PACP countries demanding concessions from the EU on labour mobility before they will move ahead with negotiations on areas of interest to the EU. (See David and Goliath: Negotiations for an FTA between the Pacific Island Countries and the EU below).

The EPA negotiations have particular significance for relations with Austr alia and NZ
under the PACER agreement as PACER contains ‘triggers’ that mean PICs will have to look at instigating consultations with Australia and NZ, with a view towards beginning negotiations for a reciprocal market access agreement, should an FTA be signed with a third-party developed country.

It is widely believed that (under PACER commitments) the PICs must offer any market concessions to Australia and NZ that they offer to the EU under any EPA commitments.
14
This is not true4 though there will be considerable political pressure brought to bear on the PICs from Australia and NZ, who won’t want to see other parties gaining trade advantages in what they often regard as ‘their lake’. The New Zealand Minister of Trade, Phil Goff, has indicated that an FTA between Australia, NZ and the PICs is necessary to ensure NZ “is not disadvantaged by preferential access to Pacific markets being given to European countries”5. Meanwhile, the (then) Australian Trade Minister, Warren Truss, said in June 2007; “it’s obviously in Australia and New Zealand’s interest that any new deal that the South Pacific countries may do with the EU doesn’t disadvantage Australian exporters into those same countries. 6
4
Article 6(3) of the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations specifies that if Forum Island Countries that have ratified PACER enter a free trade agreement with the EU, then Islands who have signed PACER will be obliged to ‘offer to undertake consultations as soon as practicable with Australia and New Zealand, individually or jointly, with a view to the commencement of negotiation of free trade agreements’. Note that there is no specified time frame to start or complete those negotiations – nor that an agreement should be completed. This clearly leaves Pacific governments the option of refusing to sign any free trade agreement with Australia and NZ, if such a deal is not in their interests.

5
Goff, P. (2007) ‘Preliminary Discussions on Pacific Trade Agreement’ Ministerial Press Release NZ Minister of Trade, 12 June 2007. New Zealand Government. Available at:
http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/preliminary+discussions+pacific+trade+agreement Accessed on: 16/1/08
6
Pacific Magazine (2007) ‘Pacific Urged to Beware of Trade Agreement Trigger’ Pacific Magazine, 5 October 2007. Available at: http://www.pacificmagazine.net/news/2007/10/05/pacific-urged-to-beware-of-trade-agreement-trigger
Accessed on: 16/1/08

4. David and Goliath: Negotiations for an FTA between the EU and the Pacific

4.1 Background to the EPA negotiations

The European Union (EU) has a long historical debt to the Pacific Island Countries (PICs), including Fiji. For centuries European nations colonised distant lands around the globe, subjugating their peoples, stripping economic and environmental resources, stealing land, and imposing alien laws and systems of government.

The Pacific Islands are certainly no exception. Tens of thousands of Indian labourers were coerced to work for British companies in the sugar plantations of Fiji, islands like Banaba and Nauru were stripped of their phosphate resources to provide rich fertilizer for farmers inAustralia, New Zealand and Europe, thousands of Islanders were captured in raids by slave traders to work the sugar cane fields of Queensland, and natural resources like cotton, beche-de-mere, sandalwood, pearls and copra were all extracted from colonies in the Pacific. The exploitation of colonies in the Pacific (and the Indian sub-continent, Africa and the Caribbean) contributed massively to Europe’s own development and the growth of European economies.
In acknowledgement of this historical debt, a special trading arrangement was established between European nations and their independent ex-colonies in the 1970s. Signed between the EU and the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) states in 1975 and in force for decades, the Lomé Agreement was marked by the concept of development cooperation – a relationship that accepts parties involved are not on an equal footing, and that one party needs to assist the other with technical and financial resources to develop capacity.

In 2000, the EU and the ACP states signed a new agreement – the Cotonou Agreement – in which the EU has made an explicit shift from a relationship based on development cooperation to one more focused on trade. The Cotonou Agreement reflected the new priorities of European powers interested in shedding historical responsibilities to their ex-colonies, and expanding their economic interests. Under the Lomé Agreement, ex-colonies had been granted preferential
access to European markets for their exports7. The Cotonou Agreement outlined the phasing out of these preferences for ACP countries, to be replaced with a reciprocal free trade agreement giving unprecedented access for Europe’s goods into ACP markets.

As well as reciprocal market access, the EU is seeking to extend the scope of trade relationships to include new areas like services, competition and investment policy and intellectual property rules. Under the Cotonou Agreement, the EU set out to establish new trading arrangements, to
be called Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs), with the ACP nations. The EU envisaged the completion of EPA negotiations, entailing World Trade Organisation- compatible and reciprocal market access agreements, by the end of 2007 and sought a waiver from the WTO for the continuation of Lomé preferences until December 31 2007.

9
Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat (2007) ‘Pacific ACP countries express deep concern at EU trade deal proposal. Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat Press Release, August 28, 2007. Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, Suva. Available at: http://www.bilateral.org/article.php3?id_article=9518. Accessed on: 16/1/08
10
For extensive discussions on ways the EU could have provided continued market access to Pacific countries in the absence of signing an EPA see: Oxfam Internaional (2007) A Matter of Political Will: How the European Union can maintain market access for African, Caribbean and Pacific countries in the absence of Economic Partnership Agreements. Briefing Note, April 2007.

Further Information:

Resources concerning trade liberalisation in the Pacific are available at official websites such as that of the World Trade Organisation, the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the International Monetary Fund, from Government websites (Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade) from PIC’s, Australia and NZ, from the official websites of the EU and from the website of the ACP group of countries.

Information regarding the international labour movement’s response to free trade, and FTA negotiations in particular, is available at various websites, including those of the International Labour Organisation (ILO), the International Trade Union Confederation, etc. A site with good links is the website of the Global Union Research Network, which has a sub-section dealing with regional and bilateral trade agreements. See: http://www.gurn.info/topic/trade/index.html
60
10. References
Anon. (2008) Member of Pacific EPA Regional Negotiating Team interviews with PANG.
January 2008.

Braxton, N (2006) Fishing for a future – The advantages and drawbacks of a comprehensive fisheries agreement between the Pacific and the European Union.
Oxfam New Zealand
European Commission (2004) Pacific ACP – EC EPA Negotiations, Joint Road Map. Accessed from: www.trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/html/118922.htm
Accessed on 10/1/07
European Commission (2007) Global Europe: A Stronger Partnership to Deliver Market Access for European Exporters. EC Communication, 18.4.2007 European Commission (2007) Liberalisation of trade in services and the right of establishment in the Economic Partnership Agreement between the EC and Pacific ACP. EC Non-Paper. Accessed at:www.bilaterals.org/article.php3?id_article=6216
Accessed on: 10/2/08.
European Service Forum (2007) Re: Negotiation of services commitments in the European Partnership Agreements. (Letter to European Commission Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson, dated 1/11/07). Accessed at: http://www.esf.be/000/index.html
Accessed on 12/2/08
Global Europe, Trade Policy in Practice (2008) Six common misconceptions about Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs). European Commission External Trade. Grynberg, R. (2000) Asymmetric reciprocity in the post-Lomé framework – Implications for trade relations in the Pacific. Pacific Islands Forum Discussion Paper. Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat.

Grynberg, R and Onguglo, B (2002) A development agenda for the Economic Partnership Agreement between the EU and the Pacific ACP (PACP). Concept Paper. Available at: www.eu-ldc.org/downloads/PACP.doc
Accessed on: 10/1/07
Kelsey, J (2005) A People’s Guide to the Pacific’s Economic Partnership Agreement (Negotiations between the Pacific Islands and the European Union pursuant to the Cotonou Agreement 2000). World Council of Churches Office in the Pacific Kelsey, J (2004) A People’s Guide to PACER (The implications for the Pacific Islands of the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations (PACER). Pacific Network on Globalisation.
61
Kelsey, J (2004a) Acceding Countries As Pawns in a Power Play: A Case Study of the Pacific Islands. Focus on the Global South, August 23, 2004.
http://www.focusweb.org/content/view/442/36/
Maclellan, N. (2008) Workers for all seasons? Issues from New Zealand’s Recognised
Seasonal Employer (RSE) program. Institute for Social Research, Swinburne University
of Technology. Hawthorn, Australia.

Maclellan N and Mares, P. (2005) “Labour Mobility in the Pacific: Creating seasonal work
programs in Australia”. Chapter 3: Globalisation and Governance in the Pacific Islands.
Australian National University Press.

Mares, P. (2007) “Objections to Pacific seasonal work programs in rural Australia”,
Public Policy, v.2(1), 2007, pp. 68-87.
Millbank, A (2006) A seasonal guest worker program for Australia? Parliamentary Library
Research Brief no. 16, 2005-06, Australian Parliamentary Library, Canberra, May 5
2006.

Available at: http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/RB/2005-06/06rb16.htm
Accessed on: 30/5/08
Oxfam International (2007) A Matter of Political Will: How the European Union can maintain market access for African, Caribbean and Pacific countries in the absence of Economic Partnership Agreements. Briefing Note, April 2007.

Oxfam New Zealand (2007) Weighing the Options – Key issues in the proposed Pacific-
European Economic Partnership Agreement. Oxfam New Zealand. Pacific, EU Joint Text (2007) Interim Partnership Agreement between Pacific States, on the one part, and the European Community, on the other part. Joint Text initialled (by PNG and the EU, and Fiji and the EU) on 23 November, 2007 in Brussels.

Pareti, S (2007) “EPA with Europe in doubt” Island Business Magazine.
Accessed at:
http://www.islandsbusiness.com/islands_business/index_dynamic/containerNameToRep
lace=MiddleMiddle/focusModuleID=17209/overideSkinName=issueArticle-full.tpl
Accessed on 10/1/08
Primack, D (2007) “EPA fails to draw the Pacific closer to the international trading system” Trade Negotiations Insights, Vol. 6. No. 8, December 2007. International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development. Rampa, F & Bilal S. (2006) Alternative (to) EPAs: Possible scenarios for the future ACP trade relations with the EU. European Centre for Development Policy Management.

The Seattle to Brussels Network (2006) The New ‘Global Europe’ Strategy of the EU:
Serving Corporations Worldwide and at Home. November 2006. Accessed at: http://www.bilaterals.org/IMG/pdf/globaleurope_s2balert_nov06.pdf
Accessed on: 10/2/08
62
Slatter, C. (2005) “Treading water in rapids? Non-governmental organisations and resistance to neo-liberalism in Pacific Island States.” Chapter 2: Globalisation and Governance in the Pacific Islands. Australian National University Press. South Centre (2007) “Development and Intellectual Property under the EPA Negotiations” South Centre Policy Brief No.6 March, 2007.
Available at: www.southcentre.org
Accessed on 9/1/07
South Centre (2007) “Why Inclusion of Services in the EPAs is Problematic: Legal and
Development Implications” South Centre Policy Brief No.6 March, 2007.
Available at: www.southcentre.org
Accessed on 9/1/07
South Centre (2007) “Demystifying Trade in Services: A Strategic Guide for ACP EPA
Negotiators” South Centre Fact Sheet No.5. South Centre, Geneva.

Further information on PANG: Please note that further resources on trade and economic justice issues in the Pacific are available at www.pang.org.fj.

A report prepared by the Pacific Network on Globalisation (PANG) for the
2008 Annual Pacific Civil Society Organisation (CSO) Forum.
Auckland, NZ. August 12-14.
Pacific Network on Globalisation (PANG)
20 Desvouex Road, GPO Box 17105, Suva. FIJI ISLANDS.
Ph: (679) 3316 722 Fax: (679) 331 3466
Email: coordinator@pang.org. fj Web: www.pang.org. fj

New Zealand the "War on Terror" & the Pacific

much appreciation and thanks to Val for this, an extract from her book :

Against Freedom: The war on terrorism in everyday NZ life

Clothed in benevolent, paternal words, greed and racism lie at the heart of the war on terrorism: pushing the West’s way of doing things onto the Paciﬁc. New Zealand seeks to gain access to markets in the Paciﬁc and to rich natural resources through liberalised trade

In 2003 Helen Clark hinted that New Zealand would be a willing agent to carry the war on terrorism to the Paciﬁc. Answering the call of George W Bush, Clark endorsed a range of counter-terrorism initiatives for Paciﬁc Island nations.1 New Zealand’s close links with many Paciﬁc Island countries places it strategically to implement the war agenda.

Ostensibly, war and development are opposites. War is destructive while development is liberally conceived of as being constructive and beneﬁcial. It would therefore appear contradictory that the war on terrorism is being sold to New Zealand’s Paciﬁc Island neighbours
as a development opportunity. There is a different view of development in which it is a largely self-interested undertaking by the donor country for both material and ideological gain. The evidence supporting this view is that a considerable portion of development aid money is spent in the country giving the aid, rather than the country giving the aid, receiving it. Seen in this light, the New Zealand government’s actions are not contradictory.

Fighting a so-called ‘Paciﬁc war on terror’ with development money, while spinning propaganda about high- minded development goals, makes perfect sense when you see it as an exercise in greedy self-interest. Our Paciﬁc neighbours are being shortchanged while we are led to believe our government is generous and altrustic. This is not to say that development aid cannot have beneﬁcial outcomes. It is more that any beneﬁcial outcomes must be viewed with the understanding that they are secondary to New Zealand’s interests.

How is New Zealand’s support for the war on terrorism speciﬁcally serving its own ends in the Paciﬁc and beyond? First, it is necessary to understand both New Zealand’s aims and some of the responses from the Paciﬁc. One part of this is an analysis of the cost of the war in the amount and type of development assistance New Zealand is giving to help carry out the goals of the agenda.

This includes what New Zealand is not doing in order to be able to continue the war. There are two poignant examples to illustrate this: the Regional Assistance Mission to the Solomon Islands and the deployment of military engineers to Iraq. The invasion of the Solomon Islands in
2003 is part of the agenda of the war clothed in development rhetoric. Beyond the Paciﬁc, the government has used the public perception of beneﬁcial development aid to mask the deployment of New Zealand Defence Force troops to Iraq in support of the occupying armies. New Zealand is aggressively pursuing the war agenda for its own self-interested gain, at the expense not only of real Paciﬁc needs, but of the very survival of these island states

Unlike the United States, New Zealand is not “an island unto its self.”2 Its written history is testament to the forces — both internal and external that have shaped and inﬂuenced its development as a player on the world stage.

New Zealand has a reputation for taking seriously its place in the Paciﬁc region. At times, New Zealand has acted on imperial ambitions; at other times, it has seemingly given practical, albeit self-interested, patronage. For example, as a result of signiﬁcant and sustained grassroots pressure on the issue of nuclear testing in the Paciﬁc, the New Zealand government has favoured the creation of a nuclear-free region in the South Paciﬁc. Similarly, the circumstances that lead to the 1987 declaration nuclear free were entirely as a result nuclear free were entirely as a result nuclear free of the work of people unafraid of confronting US military dominance in the region. Now, the United States is again demanding unwavering loyalty in its global war on terrorism. New Zealand is a part of the global community — the US is the only superpower. This New Zealand government is only too happy to acquiesce to its will and help export the war to the Paciﬁc.

The government sees the Paciﬁc as its sphere of inﬂuence, and it is keen to ensure that the US anti-terrorism agenda is being followed. From the ﬁrst Asia-Paciﬁc Economic Cooperation (APEC) meeting after 9/11, George W Bush has sought to deﬁne the war on terrorism in economic terms. In Shanghai, he intoned “Terrorists did not just attack the United States on September 11… they attacked the world and free trade.”4 At the most recent forum in Santiago, Chile, Bush again challenged his colleagues in pursuit of APEC’s main goals — trade and prosperity — to “do more to combat global terrorism.”

Bush’s press secretary Scott McClellan observed: “The big priorities will focus on the security and economic side because they really go hand in hand. You need to make sure you have security so that you can move forward on the economic side.”5

Given New Zealand’s lust for trade agreements, coupled with the relentless pressure from the US, even the pretence of meeting traditional development goals has been subsumed by the war. At present, the goal of eliminating poverty through the promotion of sustainable development appears to have been annihilated by the war on terrorism. The war in the Paciﬁc The war’s agenda in the Paciﬁc is advancing in two stages.

The ﬁrst aims to change the deﬁnition of development while retaining its good public image. Words such as ‘security’ and ‘good governance’ are part of the lexicon of the war. The second stage of the war advances fundamental economic and social changes which can broadly be described as neo-liberalism. This system advocates minimal state intervention in favour of market mechanisms in areas such as health, education and welfare. It includes the privatisation of public assets, unfettered foreign direct investment and capital ﬂow, and strict rules-based trading. Neo-liberalism has been called ‘capitalism with the gloves off’ because business forces are stronger and more aggressive, and face less organised opposition than ever before.6

The war on terrorism is being linked intimately with development through the need for ‘security’ and ‘good governance’. In this discourse, ‘security’ is deﬁned by the needs of Washington, Canberra and Wellington, not those of Paciﬁc Island nations. This is not ‘security’ that seeks to ensure adequate food, clothing and shelter for the residents of these island nations. Nor is it about addressing urgent environmental issues such as global climate change, coral reef destruction or ﬁsh-stock depletion that threaten the livelihoods and survival of hundreds of thousands of people. This is an imported deﬁnition of ‘security’ as a war against some nebulous threat of terrorism.

This deﬁnition of security translates to mean more military, more police, more restrictions on movement, more intelligence gathering, and harsh counter-terrorism laws in order to deter activities that hinder the war. Not surprisingly, the expenditure for these counter-terrorism measures is subtracted from New Zealand aid dollars ostensibly intended for basic needs to eliminate poverty through the promotion of sustainable development.

The term ‘good governance’ as sold to the New Zealand public means a government that is ﬁnancially accountable, has fair and transparent processes, consults with and is responsive to the populace, and makes information available to citizens. But this deﬁnition obscures the implicit directive to adopt a particular way of being — democracy deﬁned by free markets. As George W Bush interpreted the 9/11 assault, it was an attack on “the world and free markets.”

This is the second phase of the war, one in which democracy becomes the New World Order’s euphemism for neo-liberalism.8 Beneath the language of development, the true agenda of the war on terrorism is exposed. Clothed in benevolent, paternal words, greed and racism lie at the heart of the war on terrorism: pushing the West’s way of doing things onto the Paciﬁc. New Zealand seeks to gain access to markets in the Paciﬁc and to rich natural resources through liberalised trade. NZAID endorses a strategy of trade for the promotion of sustainable democratic development. Despite the environmental and economic vulnerability of most Paciﬁc Island states, NZAID is pursuing a so-called ‘development strategy’ that has the possibility of destabilising the entire economy of these nations. It is a development strategy designed to enhance the New Zealand economy, not the Paciﬁ c. It spends nearly $100 million on such
‘development’ in the Paciﬁ c while the government aggressively pursues a free-trade zone of six million Paciﬁc peoples that would be a signiﬁcant boost to New Zealand business.

Transparent rules-based trading is promoted as the great panacea for poverty in the Paciﬁ c. It belies the reality that most Paciﬁc nations have a narrow and homogeneous range of products for export.

They are reliant on remittances from abroad for hard currency, and in most cases practise subsistence agriculture. “As one NZ government official conﬁrmed with disarming frankness: when it comes to trade there is no ‘special relationship’ with the Paciﬁc. International trade strategy takes priority over the views of Paciﬁc governments and the needs of Paciﬁc peoples.”9

8/26/08

AJA - Professional Forum - The impact of anti-terror laws on reporting

Australian Journalists Association
Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance

Cordially invites you to a forum exploring the impact of anti-terror laws on reporting.

The forum is hosted by the School of Applied Communication and RMIT University and will develop and discuss ideas and perspectives from journalists, lawyers and civil rights activists about the impact of Australia’s anti-terror legislation on reporting.

One high profile case under the new legislation has seen more than 20 suppression orders imposed. Under the anti-terror laws anyone revealing they have been interviewed by police face gaol. These are just some of the issues for civil rights and journalism under Australia’s anti-terrorism legislation.

The forum is organised in conjunction with Civil Rights Defence, a group concerned at how some of our most basic civil and human rights are being eroded, under the pretext of the ‘war on terror’.

Date: Thursday 28 August, 2008
Time: 6.00 - 7.30pm
Venue: RMIT University
Building 8. Lecture Theatre 81022. Entrance from Swanson St, Melbourne.

MC
Michael Bachelard
Senior Journalist - The Age

Speakers
Louise Connor
The Victorian Secretary of the Media, Entertainment & Arts Alliance will give a perspective from “The Right to Know Coalition” and what the impacts are for working journalists.

Brian Walters SC Barrister
A prominent Melbourne barrister and senior counsel, he is the immediate past president of Liberty Victoria (the Victorian Council of Civil Liberties).

Dr K.M. Oakham
Senior Lecturer in Journalism at the School of Applied Communication RMIT University

Feel free to invite you colleagues.

First Time In Prison

First of all, my apologies.

I'm not usually one for 'emails to all', but please allow me a second to explain myself. 3 years ago, a young 18 year old Maori male accompanied his older brother on a midnight car trip.

A burglary later, and that young man was sentenced to eleven months in Mt.Eden Prison.Somehow, he and his family, as well as the Auckland City Court and the Department of Corrections agreed to my following this young man through his prison sentence with a small, hand held dv camera.

It's been three years of multi layered struggle to get this documentary to
air.But nothing in comparison to his personal struggle through his sentence.

Tonight is the night.

9.30 pm TV 3.

First Time In Prison.

Tearepa Kahi

Simply an internal snapshot, that allows us to see more, discuss more and perhaps reinforce what we already know - prisons do not help our people.

See Also
http://uriohau.blogspot.com/2007/08/prison-industrial-complex-and-wto.html

Palmy to Project Dissent against State Terror in support of Global Day of Action

PRESS RELEASE

WHERE: Palmerston North Courthouse (main street)
WHEN: Fri 29th August 6pm

Palmerston North will be meeting outside the Court House (Main St across from Downtown) on Friday nite 29th at 6pm in support of the
Global Day of Action against State Terror.

Spokesperson Kathleen Anderson said " We will be projecting our dissent against State Terror onto the courthouse with images and sound aimed at informing the Palmy masses - in this way we reaffirm our tautoko for the families whose houses were raided here in Palmerston North and around the country - and in particular the kaumatua who was incarcerated for 3 days during the raids last year without access to medical care resulting in hospitalisation"

It is also an opportunity for us to remind people that the case is on-going and demand that the charges be dropped."

"Attempts by the Police to lay charges under the Terrorism Suppression Act (TSA) failed but people are still facing politically motivated charges under the Arms Act. The day of action immediately precedes the start of the deposition hearing in Auckland on 1 September"

"Police used the Terrorism Suppression Act and over $8 million to harass and punish political activists who they saw as supporting Tino Rangatiratanga and Te Mana Motuhake o Tuhoe"

"You don't need to look very far back into the history of New Zealand to see the brutality used by the State to silence Maori calls for sovereignty and self-determination. Parihaka, Maungapohatu, Takaparawhau (Bastion Point), Pakaitore (Moutoa Gardens), are familiar names in this nation's history of State violence to Māori resistance."

"The 20 defendants have suffered considerable and sustained emotional, physical and financial punishment by the crown in the 10 months since their initial arrests. This punishment must end and the charges must be dropped."

There are demonstrations and actions being planned around the globe including Australia, the US, Germany and of course here in Palmy North

Listings for protests in other cities can be found at
www.October15thSolidarity.info

CONTACT
Kathleen Anderson 0274578326

Melbourne: Global Day of Action Saturday 30th August 2008

Solidarity in the Kulin Nations

FED SQUARE, 2pm

Melbourne

Global Day of Action Saturday 30th August 2008

We demand the unconditional freedom of the people who are facing charges as a result of the state terror raids on 15 October 2007.

Attempts by the Police to lay charges under the Terrorism Suppression Act (TSA) failed but people are still facing politically motivated charges under the Arms Act. These charges are the result of a racist operation.

Police used the Terrorism Suppression Act and over $8 million to harass and punish political activists who they saw as supporting Tino Rangatiratanga.

The Police have arrested a few people but we're all targeted. The arrests of 15 October are aimed at intimidating and frightening all of our communities and cannot be tolerated.

We therefore call on everyone to stand up against this attack on our communities. We support the global day of action on 30 August 2008 and are mobilising to demand the unconditional freedom of the people facing charges as a result of the state terror raids.

Brought to you by LASNET & In solidarity with Oaxaca Political prisoners

Red de Solidaridad con los Pueblos Latinoamericanos

October 15th Solidarity - Remember the state terror raids

8/25/08

West Papua Coalition to work on changing PNG Government attitude

RNZI Posted at 05:41 on 25 August, 2008 UTC

The West Papua National Coalition for Liberation says Papua New Guinea remains the main stumbling block for the issue of West Papua to be raised by the Pacific Island Forum.

This follows the non-inclusion of the Papua on last week’s Forum leaders agenda in Niue.

However the Papua problem had been discussed at last year’s leaders summit in Tonga where it was resolved that PNG’s Prime Minister Sir Michael Somare would discuss West Papua with Indonesia.

But the Coalition’s secretary general Rex Rumakiek concedes that Sir Michael has effectively buried the issue after the Tonga meeting.

Mr Rumakiek says the coalition is now preparing to approach PNG leaders:

“Lobbying them to change their attitudes, change their minds. West Papua is like a flood and Somare cannot stop it. And if possible [we] can make it an election issue for the next election: there are many things that can happen in between... you know PNG politics, anything can happen.”

Rex Rumakiek of The West Papua National Coalition for Liberation.

Churches warn on work plan

PACIFIC non government organisations, churches and unions have warned Pacific leaders to be wary that a new seasonal workers' scheme could be used as a bargaining chip to enter free trade negotiations.

Pacific civil society organisations meeting in Auckland last week called on Australia and NZ to do more to help the Pacific improve its trade opportunities without pressuring them into a new free trade agreement (FTA).

Pacific Conference of Churches general secretary Fei Tevi said trade could promote development.

But he warned Australia and NZ had only one trade model for the Pacific. "That model, of a new WTO compatible with FTAs with Australia and NZ could be potentially disastrous for the Pacific, said Mr Tevi.

"Even supporters of a new FTA acknowledge there will be high costs like job losses and reductions in government revenue.

continues here

Spineless Pacific ACP Leaders committed to Neoliberal EPA with EU

Pacific ACP Leaders from the Cook Islands, Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Republic of Marshall Islands, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu, including the Vice President of the Federated States of Micronesia, met in Alofi, Niue, on 19 August 2008 before the 39th Pacific Forum Leaders meeting. Timor Leste was represented by its Ambassador to Australia.

The Premier of Niue, Hon. Toke Talagi chaired the meeting and will be chair of the PACP Group for the next year.

In their deliberations, PACP Leaders had before them the outcomes of the recent PACP Trade Ministers Meeting (PACPTMM) as well as the Forum Trade Ministers Meeting (FTMM) which contained a series of decisions taken and recommendations made on a range of trade and related issues of importance to the region.

continues here

8/24/08

Niue: Corpse Held in Substitute Fish Chiller

Friday, 22 August 2008, 3:53 pm
Article: John Andrews - Pacific Insights

Niue Hospital Facilities Questioned After Corpse Held In Fish Chiller

Report and photographs by John Andrews in Niue

Relatives of an elderly man who died on Niue Island are upset his body had to be held in a chiller used for storing fish. They believe the body of their patriarch, 91-year-old Tuhipa Niutama, does not deserve the indignity of having to lie in a food container for two weeks pending burial.

Click to enlarge
The fish chiller used to hold the body of Tuhipa Niutama.

They learned that Niue Foou Hospital officials resorted to a substitute chiller to keep dead bodies cool because their own mortuary’s refrigeration plant was not working, and hadn’t done so for the past six months.

The inability of eight close family members in Auckland to get to the tiny South Pacific island quickly delayed a funeral service for Mr Niutama, a former village policeman.

The family were told there were no seats for them on Niue-bound Air New Zealand flights until after the Pacific Islands leaders’ summit meeting ends today. (Pictured: the dead man's grandson, Richard Tuhipa.)

What’s been worrying them is the possibility they may face a hefty “chiller” bill based on the normal mortuary charge of $100 a day --- the cost of power to keep bodies cool.

Richard Tuhipa, Mr Niutama’s grandson, said: “We assumed the mortuary was up and running but they [hospital staff] said it had still not been repaired and he would have to go in a refrigerated cooler truck.

“People say that, out of respect for the older people, you should go through a proper process of funeral and burial, and that includes a mortuary that works. It has got to the point that it is ridiculous.”

Veve Jacobsen (pictured right), Niue’s newly appointed Minister of Health, sympathised with Mr Tuhipa and highlighted other shortcomings at the $6 million hospital opened by Minister of Foreign Affairs Winston Peters opened just over two years ago.

She referred to it as an “incomplete” hospital complex. “We have a septic tank that stinks like anything,” she said. “There have been complaints about the septic tank but the high commissioner [Brian Smythe] says it is not being maintained properly.

“It has been smelling for months. Patients and staff have to live with it. We have a mortuary that doesn’t work. The refrigerator is stuffed up so we cannot provide that service.

“Everything in that hospital is supposed to be new. If it is relatively new equipment, why has it broken down? When will it be fixed?”

Click to enlarge
Niue's Foou Hospital.

Professor Sitalei Ata’ata Finau, Niue’s director of health, said responsibility for deficiencies at the hospital rested with bureaucrats in New Zealand and Niue, both from hospital design and maintenance perspectives.

The absence of a replacement compressor for the mortuary was “a casualty of a shortage of finance” but a new one would be found.

He said: “All sorts of things need to be done. Equipment keeps breaking down with no back up service available on the island. Maintenance here in general is not very good.

“There’s debate between New Zealand and Niue as to what is maintenance or new work. New Zealand funds maintenance and not new works. It is very bureaucratic.

“It’s a very unreasonable discussion which does not solve anything and causes a malaise among the [hospital] workers. It’s the bureaucrats in New Zealand together with the ones here that are causing problems.” Professor Finau cited several problems and design faults at the hospital:-

*The septic tank had “played up” since the hospital opening.

*A lack of a kitchen meant patients’ meals were supplied by an outside contractor.

*Totally inappropriate café site.

*None of the building’s electric door stoppers and electric head boards worked.

*Poor dental laboratory ventilation caused dental technician to refuse to work there.

*A tiny library designed like a prison dungeon.

*Rainwater puddles at the front door because the surface sloped the wrong way.

*The roof leaked in some places.

Professor Finau said he believed those responsible for paying the hospital’s designers needed to answer questions as to why they allowed the defects to happen.

Replacement parts for the mortuary’s chiller compressor arrived last week and were installed two days ago. Mr Niutama’s funeral is expected to be held in Niue tomorrow [Friday].

Ends

8/22/08

How the Haneef affair became carry on coppers

Richard Ackland
August 22, 2008

More than a year ago, there was strong evidence that the terror case against Mohamed Haneef was a farce. Yet grimly the federal police and the top copper Mick Keelty held firm to the belief that this Indian doctor posed a threat.

Based on the word of the Australian Federal Police, Haneef was stripped of his visa. The then minister for immigration, Kevin Andrews, repeatedly said he was in possession of secret information from the police that he relied on to make that decision. It was so powerful and secret that this information could not be publicly revealed.

It has now emerged that there was no evidence of criminal behaviour in the document at all.

.....

At the moment, Mick Keelty is looking like one of the most wretched and plod-like public servants in Australia.

It's about time the Government put its foot on his neck. To allow him to continue to run a complex and massively resourced anti-terrorism agency is unthinkable.

continues here

Radyo Inteligentaindigena-08-21-2008

Internet Archive: Details: Radyo Inteligentaindigena-08-21-2008

Transmitting from within the occupied Aboriginal territories of North America for Radio Free First Nations, this is Radyo Inteligentaindigena for 08.21.2008

This Dispatch: The Angryindian asks why a Lakota would want to sing the American National Anthem for the Democratic Convention when Indians such as the Lakota do not enjoy their own basic human rights?

These items, Fourth World news and more on Radyo Inteligentaindigena, the podcast of the Intelligent Aboriginal news service.

Subscribe to our handy dandy Internet Radio Broadcast RSS/XML feed here or you can directly download this episode MP3 file here.
-----------------------------------------

The Radyo Inteligentaindigena Internet radio broadcast is hosted by the Internet Archive -----------------------------------------

*Special thanks to the lovely people of Dance-Industries, the best copyleft music on the www and the Creative Commons licensed sounds of Jamendo, Protest Records and CC Mixter.

August 30th - Day of Action - Drop the Charges!

Demonstrations and protests are being planned around the world for the global day of action to 'Drop the Charges' against the 20 people arrested in the nationwide State Terror Raids of 15 October 2007.

Wellington / Te Whanganui-a-Tara: Meet at 12noon at 128 Abel Smith Street, Te Aro. March through town - speakers and music
Auckland / Tāmaki-makau-rau: Meet at 12noon in Aotea Square for a rally

The deposition hearing (i.e. the pre-trial) starts in the Auckland District Court on Monday, 1 September 2008. There is a hearing in the High Court in Auckland on 22 August, too. Several defendants have filed applications regarding the police affidavits that was used to gain search and interception warrants. This is likely to be held 'in chambers' and thus not open to the public. Second, the High Court will hear an application for bail variation for Valerie Morse and Emily Bailey that would allow them to associate. As it stands, Valerie and Emily have limited association as consented to by the Crown. They are seeking a removal of any restriction on association.

Intro | Legal | Tūhoe | Solidarity | 30 August | Solidarity Statement | Fairfax | Donate | AIMC Features | Links

On Monday, October 15th 2007, more than 300 police carried out dawn raids on dozens of houses all over Aotearoa / New Zealand. Police claim the raids were in response to 'concrete terrorist threats' from indigenous activists. The reality, however, included heavily armed police terrorising an entire township. To date, no evidence of the so-called terrorist plot has been revealed.

Police arrested 17 indigenous, anarchist, environmental and anti-war activists, including people from Tūhoe, Te Atiawa, Maniapoto, Ngā Puhi and Pakeha. Police wanted to charge 12 people under the Terrorism Suppression Act (TSA), however the Solicitor-General denied the police permission to proceed. After four weeks in jail everyone was released on bail. On Tuesday, February 19th 2008, police raided further properties, arresting 3 more men. All were released on bail with strict conditions that same day. A woman was arrested on Thursday April 17th, 2008, and also faces charges under the Arms Act.

Legal update: lead up to the deposition hearing in Auckland

The deposition hearing (i.e. the pre-trial) starts in the Auckland District Court on Monday, 1 September 2008. There is a hearing in the High Court in Auckland on 22 August, too. Several defendants have filed applications regarding the police affidavits that was used to gain search and interception warrants. This is likely to be held 'in chambers' and thus not open to the public. Second, the High Court will hear an application for bail variation for Valerie Morse and Emily Bailey that would allow them to associate. As it stands, Valerie and Emily have limited association as consented to by the Crown. They are seeking a removal of any restriction on association.

The deposition hearing has been set down to start 1 September and will sit until 11 September. There will be a recess for one week. Court will resume on Monday, 22 September and run until 3 October (unless it finishes early).

All but one of the 20 defendants are due to have a depositions hearing starting on 1 September in the Auckland District Court. This hearing is effectively a preliminary step in which the Crown must prove that it has a 'prima facie' case (literally a case 'on the face of it') against each of the accused. There will be the presentation of evidence to determine whether the defendant has a case to answer before a jury. There is a low threshold to prove a 'prima facie' case - A prima facie case is one that at first glance presents sufficient evidence for the plaintiff (the Crown) to win. Following this, defendants will be committed to trial by jury. This will likely happen in mid- to late 2009. One defendant, Raunatiri Hunt, will have a deposition hearing in Tauranga on 20 November 2008.

During the depositions, the defendants can call any of the Crown's witnesses. This will be their opportunity to see the extent of the case against them and get clarification on various matters and statements. All of the arrestees have been excused from attending this hearing as long as they have legal representation. However, the October 15th Solidarity support crew is urging arrestees and whānau to attend at least the first week to get a clear idea of what is happening.

The crown has said that they will lay a whole heap more Arms Act charges. This will mean that Tame Iti for example will face 38 charges - the 20 defendants will probably face around 400 charges together! The crown has indicated that they will call 132 witnesses in their case.

Tūhoe - the struggle for Mana Motuhake

Ngāi Tūhoe entered the beehive with around 500 people in late July for the signing of the Terms of Negotiations for their historical Waitangi Tribunal claims. When entering the semi-circular banquet hall, a haka - Te Pūru - was chanted. The formal proceedings were done with Te Ati Awa kawa. Two Te Ati Awa kaumata did a whaikōrero followed by Minister of Māori Affairs, Parekura Horomia. Then a speaker of Ngāi Tūhoe responded. He talked about the colonial invasions in the 1860s and 1916 and the confiscation of land aswell as the state terror raids last October. Michael Cullen, Minister of Minister in Charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, addressed Ngāi Tūhoe. "I would also like to briefly acknowledge that less than a year ago the events at Ruatoki provided a fresh point of tension in our relationship. It would not be appropriate or helpful for me to comment on the merits of the events of last October. I know emotions are still raw and opinions strongly held. But I am very pleased that less than a year later we are able to join together to show that it is the future that is first and foremost on the minds of Ngai Tuhoe."

However, the actions of Te Weeti Tihi during the signing itself show that Ngāi Tūhoe has not forgotten the raids last year, nor the confiscation, the scorched earth campaigns and murder in previous years. Te Weeti, who was arrested on 15th October 2007 when he challenged police setting up their roadblock on the confiscation line just out of Rūātoki, refused to shake hands with Michael Cullen and instead showed him his middle finger.

Tāmati Kruger, chairperson of Te Kotahi ā Tūhoe Trust said there would be some sensitive issues in negotiations that could create "unease" for the Crown. "I think the tricky issues are around Tuhoe's desire and wish to have Te Urewera National Park regarded as part of our territory. The second one that would be difficult for the Crown would be discussions over self government, over mana motuhake and sovereignty." He said that he has recently met with Police Commissioner Howard Broad to settle out of court over last year's state terror raids. It is rumored that Broad will visit Te Urewera in October this year - or in Tame Iti's words: "Broadband is coming to Rūātoki."

Tame Iti gave Michael Cullen a taiaha during the ceremony. "Te rākau nei, kei te haere ki te minita, mo te hoki mai o te whenua, ko Te Mana Motuhake ō Tūhoe. Ae, me whakawhiti korero tātou, ko Te Mana Motuhake ō Tūhoe kia hoki mai a Te Urewera. ko te kaupapa nui inaianei, me pehea, me aha?"

Ngāi Tūhoe signs Terms of Negotiation http://indymedia.org.nz/newswire/display/75809/index.php

We did it once…Let's do it again!

The solidarity movement on the streets in October and November 2007 is probably the main reason why charges under the Terrorism Suppression Act were never laid and everybody who faces charges is currently on bail. Thousands of people marched across Aotearoa and the world to stand in solidarity with the people in prison. Over 1000 people marched to Mount Eden prison in October 2007 in Auckland to demand the immediate release of all arrestees.

Since then, the various groups have raised thousands of dollars. The Wellington October 15th Solidarity group can now pay for the use of the marae during the deposition hearing so that defendants, whanau and friends have a place to stay.

August 30th - Global Day of Action

Wellington / Te Whanganui-a-Tara: Meet at 12noon at 128 Abel Smith Street, Te Aro. March through town - speakers and music
Auckland / Tāmaki-makau-rau: Meet at 12noon in Aotea Square for a rally
Vancouver (Canada): Film Screening at Spartacus Books, 684 East Hastings, at 7pm. Money to support the accused!

Why have a day of action?
The day of action is a chance to educate and inform people about what is happening with the case. Many people believe that since the Terrorism charges were not successfully laid by Police, that everything is fine. We need to let people know that the case is on-going. It also is an opportunity to re-ignite involvement in the issues of Tino Rangatiratanga, Te Mana Motuhake o Tuhoe and repealing of the Terrorism Suppression Act. People can come along to express their rage, anger and sadness at the raids, and their on-going commitment to the solidarity work.

What is happening?
There are demonstrations and actions being planned around the globe. In Wellington, there will be an action starting at 12 noon at 128 Abel Smith Street. People should come along prepared for a demonstration and protest. It might include a tour of the places that were raided and a visit to the local police station. Bring along your signs, banners, placards, do some street theatre and make some noise for justice and freedom!

Statement of support: October 15th Solidarity

We demand the unconditional freedom of the people who are facing charges as a result of the state terror raids on 15 October 2007.

Attempts by the Police to lay charges under the Terrorism Suppression Act (TSA) failed but people are still facing politically motivated charges under the Arms Act. These charges are the result of a racist operation.

Police used the Terrorism Suppression Act and over $8 million to harass and punish political activists who they saw as supporting Tino Rangatiratanga.

The Police have arrested a few people but we're all targeted. The arrests of 15 October are aimed at intimidating and frightening all of our communities and cannot be tolerated.

We therefore call on everyone to stand up against this attack on our communities. We support the global day of action on 30 August 2008 and are mobilising to demand the unconditional freedom of the people facing charges as a result of the state terror raids.

Supporting organisations (21st August 2008)

Socialist Aotearoa
Friends of Jeffrey Free Luers
Anti-Privatisation Forum (South Africa)
Workers Party
Systemoppositionelle Atomkraft Nein Danke (Germany)
128 Abel Smith Street Collective
Anarchist Black Cross Wellington
Garage Collective
Global Peace and Justice Auckland
Communist Workers' Group of New Zealand/Aotearoa
International Bolshevik Tendency
Te Mana Motuhake o Tuhoe
Wellington Animal Rights Network
Opportunity for Animals collective
Citizens Against Privatisation (CAP)
Auckland Animal Action
Mutiny Collective (Newcastle, Aus)

"…al Qaeda had arrived" - Tim Pankhurst and Fairfax New Zealand in court

Five days have been put aside in September for the solicitor-general's case against Dominion Post editor Tim Pankhurst and Fairfax New Zealand. David Collins is taking contempt proceedings against them for publishing 'Operation 8' conversations secretly recorded by police over their two year investigation. The court hearing start on 15th September 2008 in Wellington. This decision was announced by Justice Randerson in the Supreme Court.

Two judges, Justice Randerson and someone else, will be in court for the hearing. A telephone conference will take place on 9th September to finalise the dates. Jail is a possibility, but only if it is sought by the solicitor-general. In this case, jail is not being sought and only Fairfax could face a fine. Collins has not applied to have Pankhurst fined.

On 14th November 2007, the Dominion Post and The Press published information which they obtained of the 155-pages search warrant which was used to raid over 40 homes on 15th October 2007. The Dom Post called it 'The Terrorism Files'. They printed several quotes without attributing them to anyone. "To help ensure that [revealing what police found relating to the terrorism charges will not influence those firearms cases] we removed the names from the material" wrote Pankhurst in his editorial on 14th November. David Collins said that "the articles were sensational in tone and highly memorable." He went on to say that the decision not to attribute comments to individual defendants had the effect of attributing them equally to all of those charged.

Pankhurst said that "Police needed to treat [what was happening in Te Urewera] seriously and needed to investigate. To do anything less would have been to fail in their duty to protect New Zealanders. We believe that the police were right to act. However, we also believe the public has the right to make its own judgment on the police's credibility, and to do that it needs as much information as possible, within the bounds of the law and within the bounds of fairness to all those involved. That is why we decided to publish."

Curiously, the Dominion Post did not believe that the public needed to make its own judgement about suppressed information regarding the rapist police officers Brad Shipton, Bob Schollum and Clint Rickards during their gang rape trial in 2006. The suppressed information, that two of these men were already serving prison time for a nearly identical offence and that more trials were forthcoming, might have resulted in a very different outcome had the public been made aware of it.

If the Dominion Post is in fact so interested informing the public, perhaps they could endeavour to publish the entire 25,000 pages that have so far been disclosed to the defendants (plus around 200 DVDs with video and photo material). Reading through these pages, any person will be able to see the racist nature of 'Operation 8' and what this colonial government is really scared of: indigenous sovereignty.

Struggle against capital - capital to the struggle ;-)

October 15th Solidarity Cheques - Please make your cheque payable to 'October 15 Solidarity', and post to October 15 Solidarity, PO Box 9263, Wellington, New Zealand.
Wire or Transfer Details - Bank: Kiwibank, Account name: October 15 Solidarity, Account Number: 38-9007-0239672-000

This is a Wellington based group that formed in the immediate aftermath of the raids. It does both support work and political organising. Deposits made with the code "Support" will be dedicated towards supporting all those affected by the raids, arrests and on-going court appearances.
Legal Defence Fund

Cheques - Please make your cheque payable to 'Peace Action Wellington'
and post to: 128 Abel Smith St, Wellington.

Wire or Transfer Details - Bank: BNZ, Account name: Peace Action
Wellington, Account number: 02 0536 0458570 00, Bank address: Bank of New Zealand, North End Branch, Pastoral House, 100 Lambton Quay, Wellington

Money donated to this account with the tagline "Legal Defence" will go towards the legal costs of all those still facing charges under the Arms Act. The money collected for legal defence will be shared among defendants
according to their need.
Te Mana Motuhake o Tuhoe fund:

Wire or Transfer Details - Bank: BNZ Bank, Account name: Tūhoe Trust, Account number, 02-0488-0170643-00, Bank Address, BNZ Bank, Whakatāne Branch, 181 The Strand, Whakatane.

The struggle for Te Mana Motuhake ō Tūhoe is the struggle for self-determination of Tūhoe people and sovereignty over their lands. Donations made to the Tūhoe trust support this struggle.
Rotorua regional fund:

Cheques - Please make your cheque payable to 'Nga Tai o te Reinga', and post to Nga Tai o te Reinga, 61B Iles Rd, Lynmore, Rotorua.

Wire or Transfer Details - Bank: Kiwibank, Branch: Te Ngae, Account name: Nga Tai o te Reinga, Account Number: 38-9002-0653401-00, Bank address: Kiwibank Limited, Te Ngae Branch, Te Ngae PostShop, Shop 7, 512 - 518 Te Ngae Road, Rotorua.
Civil Rights Defence - Auckland:

Cheques - Please make your cheque payable to 'Global Peace and Justice Auckland', and post to GPJA, PO Box 7175, Wellesley St, Auckland.

Wire or Transfer Details - Bank: Kiwibank, Account name: Global Peace and Justice Auckland, Account Number: 38-9000-0099726-00. Particulars/Code/Reference: Defence Fund

Civil Rights Defence is an Auckland based group that formed in the immediate aftermath of the raids. Money donated to Civil Rights Defence goes to their campaigns and also to projects such as bringing people from Ruatoki to Auckland for court.
Te Kotahi a Tuhoe fund:

Cheques - Please make your cheque payable to 'Te Kotahi a Tuhoe' and post to: Te Kotahi a Tuhoe, PO Box 47, Taneatua, Whakatane.

Wire or Transfer Details - Bank: ASB, Account name: Te Kotahi a Tuhoe, Account Number: 12-3253-0032178-50, Bank address: ASB Bank, Whakatane Branch, 202 The Strand, Whakatane or PO Box 682, Whakatane 3158.

Te Kotahi ā Tūhoe supports Tūhoe who were affected by the raids on October 15th. The worst actions of the police that day were taken against Tūhoe and the community of Ruatoki was terrorised.

Te Kotahi ā Tūhoe engaged Peter Williams to investigate the police actions at Ruatoki on 15 October, and represent them in claims against the crown arising from those actions. Donations you make would support this work.

Aotearoa Indymedia Features: Police raid houses across Aotearoa under anti-terrorism legislation, at least a dozen arrests (15 Oct. 07) | 17 activists arrested, denied bail. 300+ Police raid houses across the country (15 Oct. 07) | Solidarity with the Urewera 17! Free them now! (17 Oct. 07) | Stop the Terror Laws! Free our Friends! (19 Oct. 07) | "Raise your voice before you lose your soul" - protests across Aotearoa (20 Oct. 07) | Urewera 17 Update: Bail Denied, Another Police Raid, Another Activist Named, Wellington Activists Moved (26 Oct. 07) | Across the world, people demand freedom for political prisoners! (27 Oct. 07) | Urewera 16 in court - 2 more bailed (2 Nov. 07) | 150 People Protest Labour Conference in Tamaki Makaurau (3 Nov. 07) | Two more prisoners lose name supression (7 Nov. 07) | No terrorism charges for the Urewera 16! (8 Nov. 07) | Tuhoe Hikoi Arrives at Parliament (14 Nov. 07) | The struggle continues… (19 Nov. 07) | Thousands gather in solidarity with October 15th arrestees and against the Terrorism Supression Act (1 Dec. 07) | Tame Iti back in jail for one night (11 Dec. 07) | UN to investigate New Zealand Government over conduct of the Oct 15 raids (26 Jan. 08) | Waitangi Day protests across Aotearoa (6 Feb. 08) | More Raids, 3 More Arrests in Tuhoe (19 Feb. 08) | La Lucha Sigue… Protests against raids and arrests (23 Feb. 08) | 'Operation 8' defendants back in court on March 5th (3 Mar. 2008) | Labour Party conference to be held responsible for Operation 8 (9 April 08) | Labour party humiliated by protest at election congress (12 April 08) | Further 'Operation 8' arrest in Auckland (17 April 08) | Tūhoe freedom fighter in Porirua District Court (1 May 08) | October 15th Solidarity - State Terror court update (21 May 08) | The SIG at it again (7 June 08) | Sign onto the October 15th Solidarity Statement (2 July 08) | SOUL FIRE - a night of dancing in solidarity with those affected by the police "terror raids" (30 July 08) | Ngāi Tūhoe signs Terms of Negotiation (1 Aug. 08) | Operation Eight bail variation denied (15 Aug. 08)

Links: October 15th Solidarity | Te Mana Motuhake o Tuhoe | AoCafe | Civil Rights Defence | Te Kotahi a Tuhoe | Tūhoe: History of resistance | Tu Kotahi - Freedom Fighting Anthems

Whenua Fenua Enua Vanua

8/29/08

PNG landowners continue to halt nickel mine construction

Maritime Union criticizes Myanmar connection in free trade deal

8/27/08

Raid Me! Global Day of Action Tickets Going Fast

MAKING WAVES

New Zealand the "War on Terror" & the Pacific

Against Freedom: The war on terrorism in everyday NZ life

8/26/08

AJA - Professional Forum - The impact of anti-terror laws on reporting

First Time In Prison

Palmy to Project Dissent against State Terror in support of Global Day of Action

Melbourne: Global Day of Action Saturday 30th August 2008

Red de Solidaridad con los Pueblos Latinoamericanos

October 15th Solidarity - Remember the state terror raids

8/25/08

West Papua Coalition to work on changing PNG Government attitude

Churches warn on work plan

Spineless Pacific ACP Leaders committed to Neoliberal EPA with EU

8/24/08

Niue: Corpse Held in Substitute Fish Chiller

Niue Hospital Facilities Questioned After Corpse Held In Fish Chiller

8/22/08

How the Haneef affair became carry on coppers

Radyo Inteligentaindigena-08-21-2008

August 30th - Day of Action - Drop the Charges!

Links

Blog Archive

8/29/08

Related

8/27/08

Related

8/26/08

Red de Solidaridad con los Pueblos Latinoamericanos

8/25/08

8/24/08

Niue Hospital Facilities Questioned After Corpse Held In Fish Chiller

8/22/08

Related