Aziz Choudry
November 14, 1996

Paper presented at conference in Davao, Philippines, prior to the Manila People's Forum on APEC

Greetings from structurally adjusted Aotearoa/New Zealand.

APEC, WTO, GATT, NAFTA, PECC, ABAC, EU, FDI, ADB, IMF, SOMs, SAPs, TNCs; we live in a world so thickly populated by acronyms, abbreviations, Orwellian doublespeak, obscure jargon, and dictated to by a set of arcane economic truths (which only the "experts" claim to be qualified enough to understand) that it's getting harder and harder to see how the planet and its peoples fit in to the picture.

Native American poet and activist John Trudell calls the New World Order "an Old World Lie". The neoliberal market ideology which dominates APEC is based on the same kind of twisted anti-human logic and value system which has legitimised colonialism over the centuries. In Aotearoa/New Zealand, the neoliberalism of APEC, GATT/WTO, and the radical domestic market reforms that have made the country one of the most deregulated economies in the world must be seen in the context of the ongoing colonisation of indigenous Maori lands, lives, resources and futures by the Crown.

Throughout, and beyond the Asia-Pacific region, many others have pointed out the parallels between the experiences of their peoples under colonial rule and those faced in the 1990s as a result of an insane, profit-driven top-down model of development imposed in the interests of a tiny minority of the world's population. And I do not think that it is coincidental that the USA, Australia, New Zealand and Canada, the countries which are leading the charge within APEC for further, faster, more comprehensive liberalisation are ones which continue to deny indigenous peoples in those territories rights to decolonisation and self-determination, at the same time as disguising this fact with mythical notions that coloniser governments in these countries are inherently humanitarian, democratic and forward-thinking. As Cree lawyer Sharon Venne says of NAFTA: "It is the same colonisation game - just with a new name."

NGOs, human rights, environmental and aid and development organisations in these countries concerned about the global effects of structural adjustment and an unjust economic order need look no further than their own backyard to see the impact and outcomes of the same philosophy at work. The commodification of peoples, knowledge, rights, and nature itself which underpins the APEC and WTO agendas, as well as the radical market policies of the "New Zealand experiment" can be sourced in the same unbalanced, short-sighted, arrogant and greed-driven worldview which characterises the coloniser's mindset.

Maori educationalist Graham Smith points out that "[H]istorically the same processes of commodification were used by Pakeha [European settlers] to access Maori land. This was achieved through the individualisation of Maori land titles i.e. to commodify or 'package up' what were collective or group held titles into individual holdings in order to facilitate their sale to Pakeha under Pakeha rules and customs."

In Aotearoa/New Zealand, the Treaty of Waitangi, signed between Maori and Crown representatives in 1840 affirmed Maori tino rangatiratanga - their sovereign right of self-determination - and allowed Pakeha (European) settlers to govern their own. Sovereignty was never ceded to the British Crown. Instead, as Simon Upton, former Minister for the Environment conceded: "[W]hatever legitimacy the Crown failed to derive from the treaty, it acquired through the effective and durable assertion of power. To not put too fine a point on it...the British Crown and subsequently the New Zealand Parliament, effected a revolutionary seizure of power." (The Press, Christchurch, 1/5/1995) He adds: "revolution rests upon what is done, not what is legal, or necessarily moral or just."

Successive New Zealand governments still refuse to honour the Treaty, but are far less reticent about making far-reaching international commitments without consulting Maori or non-Maori, in fora such as the GATT and APEC. With fundamentalist zeal, they ascribe enormous significance to OECD reports, market/economic indicators like Standard and Poors credit ratings, fiscal restraint measures and an ideology which excludes all social, cultural, and environmental considerations in favour of market mantras.

So the word "sovereignty" is one that should be used with a great deal of caution. Can a society based on the dispossession and systematic oppression of indigenous people, on a "revolutionary seizure of power", on the unrecognised, undervalued and often unrewarded labour of women, and the blood, sweat and tears of workers ever truly claim to be "sovereign"?

Eager to attract foreign investment and be seen internationally as a driving force in global economic integration, the New Zealand Government is guaranteeing open access to lands and resources that they themselves have no right to. The speed at which the government has deregulated the economy has outstripped the pace demanded by GATT and APEC. Maori lawyer Moana Jackson has described the Government as a "neo-colonial harlot", prostituting itself for the highest investment price. Unfortunately the assets with which it prostitutes itself belong to Maori."

Between 1988 and 1993, Aotearoa/New Zealand enjoyed the dubious distinction of leading the world in the sale of state-owned assets, often at bargain basement prices, to overseas investors, most of which are well-known transnationals. Some NZ $14 billion - or 3.6% of the annual GDP was sold off like this. The Economist magazine describes the neoliberal economic reforms as "out-Thatchering Mrs Thatcher". Other commentators have referred to this process as "revolutionary", or indeed, "Chile without the gun".

Upton and many other New Zealand politicians see no double standard in legitimising a colonial state based on revolution while attacking Maori who assert their right to self-determination and demand control over their resources and lands. It's hardly surprising then that they have no problem with pushing on with a relentless programme of selling off lands, resources and futures to transnational corporations for whom Aotearoa/New Zealand has become an unrestricted investment playground, and committing future generations of New Zealanders to this agenda while dressing this up as somehow guaranteeing greater political independence and enhancing sovereignty.

As assets, political and economic power were transferred from the Government to the private sector, especially to the transnationals, many non-Maori New Zealanders started to get a taste of the revamped laissez faire economics which was implemented without any democratic mandate from 1984 onwards. Concerns about foreign investment and the sale of so many assets have led many to talk about the loss of "economic sovereignty". The same kinds of policies which have long been used to subjugate indigenous peoples and the peoples of the South are now being imposed on increasing numbers of non-indigenous peoples in the so-called "First World". As decision-making powers are abdicated to international bodies and fora which have no accountability to ordinary citizens, and as people's destinies, living standards and environments are steadily remoulded to suit the interests and needs of transnational investors, a genuine sense of disempowerment and disenfranchisement is being felt.

Ordinary people, Maori and non-Maori alike, are supposed to take solace in the fact that all of this has been done to make us "attractive to foreign investment". There is nothing attractive about the end results. Stripped of almost all subsidies and import tariffs, and forced to compete in a global market dominated by immensely more powerful actors on a far from level playing field, whole sectors of New Zealand industries were decimated, with thousands of jobs lost. The voice of New Zealand big business, the Business Roundtable, and the neoliberal ideologues within Treasury were raised up as being the true visionaries of society. Tax cuts for the rich were accompanied by social welfare cuts for the poor. The public sector was attacked with great gusto and remodelled along market principles. The country's financial, media, transport, and communications infrastructure is largely in private/transnational hands.

By 1996, an estimated 1 in 5 New Zealanders lived below the poverty line. This figure was much higher for Maori and Pacific Island families. A 1995 Joseph Rowntree Foundation study found that among 18 comparable countries, between 1979 and 1995, Aotearoa/New Zealand had the fastest growing income disparity. The seemingly never-ending takeovers by transnationals did nothing to improve New Zealand's overseas debt problem. In 1984, total private and public foreign debt stood at $16 billion. In 1996, it is $74 billion - despite a decade of public asset sales and takeovers. Such cold realities are carefully glossed over in all of the hype surrounding free trade, but Maori Treaty activist and lawyer Annette Sykes attributes them to what she calls "the socially abhorrent principles of the structural adjustment programme" which has been imposed on all of us for over a decade. So much for the promises made about the "colossal", and "remarkable" benefits for us of the Uruguay Round and APEC that have been made in the past few years. We are repeatedly told to "leave it to the market to decide", and that the benefits of GATT will trickle down to us all. In reality, trade and investment liberalisation regimes like those promoted within APEC open the way for the sucking up of lands, lives and resources by corporations which cynically promote a destructive model of development which knows no limits in its lust for profit.

According to Prime Minister Jim Bolger: "There is no downside to opening up world trade. All you have to do is overcome political barriers, in other words, attitudinal barriers" These are the kind of glib assurances which we have become accustomed to hearing in relation to APEC. But increasingly, the hype and talking up of the supposed benefits of liberalisation have taken on an air of desperation, as many other economies continue to resist pressures to axe subsidies, tariffs and other forms of protection which the government proudly boasts of having removed.

Because of the history of colonisation in Aotearoa, it is somewhat difficult to talk of genuine economic sovereignty since Maori were deprived of their control over their resources by the settlers in 1840. As a British colony, New Zealand has always been controlled by external economic powers. So I have some problems with the use of the words "economic sovereignty". It would seem I'm not the only one. Former Prime Minister and Labour Trade Minister Mike Moore said of GATT in July: "Look, this has actually given us our economic sovereignty. Before, every couple of years, Europe would decide what was going to happen, and we'd be sitting outside the door, hoping the French and the Irish wouldn't hammer us and that someone would put in a good word. We can now take part in those trade decisions as a sovereign nation." (Sunday Star-Times, 7 July 1996). According to Mr Moore, economic sovereignty - indeed, sovereignty itself - can be reduced down to the possibility that more New Zealand exports may be able to gain access to international markets. A possibility which is hardly borne out by the duplicitous track record of powerful governments such as the USA in failing to adhere to the same overarching rules of global trade which it demands that every other country follows.

Many New Zealand politicians and business leaders openly advocate a national identity based on maintaining a regime on overseas investment best described as an open door policy, with no scrutiny or controls. In relation to APEC and GATT/WTO commitments, we are supposed to be proud to be "ahead of the game". This kind of sovereignty has little to do with people with whom it is vested, with political and democratic rights. With the fundamental and inalienable right of all peoples to self-determination. It has much more to do with selling "government of the transnationals, by the transnationals, for the transnationals" to the general public. This appears to be the '90s definition of sovereignty which we are being asked to accept. It is this kind of "sovereignty" that APEC, along with its partners in crime, the Bretton Woods toxic trio wants to lock us into forever. The term "free trade" is itself merely a euphemism for freedom from governmental restrictions for transnational corporations.

According to some New Zealand apologists for free trade, GATT has given consumers more "sovereignty". So apparently, sovereignty can also be reduced down to the range of choices at the shopping mall - never mind the high costs borne by local workers who are forced into unemployment as a result of the erosion of their jobs as the effects of cheaper imports began to bite deep. Never mind the fact that the products that are replacing local ones on the shelves at the shops may well be produced by workers forced to work in inhuman conditions in the free trade zones set up for the transnational robber barons. Without peoples' sovereignty, without constitutional arrangements which are based on solid and just foundations, without support for peoples' full economic political cultural and social rights, without participatory democracy, our line of defence against the onslaught of transnational capital will be very flimsy. The concept of sovereignty, both within Aotearoa and throughout the APEC region is one that needs careful examination and serious debate.

You cannot rebuild a house which has rotten foundations. The worldview that dominates the APEC process is fundamentally corrupt. APEC's very nature is one which rests on a narrow economic reductionist outlook. Firstly, economics is defined so as to exclude vast areas of human activity - those which do not contribute to GNP growth and all the other supposed "vital signs" of a "healthy" economy. And within that, peoples, natural resources, lands, even the air that we breathe are redefined within this narrow definition as tradeable commodities. In this brave new world, "economics" and trade issues are presented in such a way as to seem as alien and incomprehensible as possible to ordinary citizens.

As Vandana Shiva points out, all areas have become "trade-related". Nothing is off-limits. You can put the term "trade-related" in front of anything and draw the "areas of domestic decision making into the global arena." and create "areas where the 'darker', more visible, facets of free trade are tranformed into reasons for its justification and expansion" New Zealand journalist Bruce Ansley sums up the "brave new world" charted by APEC: "[I]n Apec language (as singular as Esperanto) nations become "economies" without, apparently, irritating social philosophies. These economies aren't inhabited by people but by "human resources". They don't have elected representatives; doubtless to his gratification, Jim Bolger becomes an "economic leader". It is cold and grey and mechanical, and scary as hell." (NZ Listener, 3/8/1996)

I do not believe that the answers to concerns about people-centred development, social justice and the environment can be developed within the framework which has already been largely mapped out by the main actors within APEC. These actors have been careful to exclude the rest of us from their deliberations and adoption of trade and investment measures. They have ignored the "non-economic" effects wrought by trade and investment liberalisation. Overtures towards "consulting" at least some NGOs and other actors in civil society will come from some bodies within APEC. These overtures should be treated with extreme caution. Grassroots peoples' struggles for democratic rights, genuine participatory democracy, and sane, just and sustainable models of development have their own dynamic and truths quite apart from the message that we are all being told in our respective countries to a greater or lesser degree that "there is no alternative" to trade and investment liberalisation.

We do not need APEC or the WTO to validate us by inviting us to their party. Jumping on board the APEC train and convincing ourselves that we can somehow change its course is delusory. It is likely to lead to co-option and division within peoples' movements and organisations.

We need to work locally, nationally, and internationally to resist and roll back the realities of corporate colonialism in this rapidly globalising world. There are chinks in the sometimes seemingly impenetrable armour of the transnationals and their agenda. Like the myths of colonisation, the emperor's new clothes of the free market need to be exposed to the light of day. They are actually so fragile that their exponents cannot afford the risk of exposure. That is why, in many nations around the world, those who dare to challenge the neoliberal model of development are vilified, treated like heretics, or even criminalised Open debate and even the mere suggestion that alternative models of economic and social development exist will not be tolerated. So it is vital to ensure that debate and action does occur, and that it reaches outside of conferences such as this out into the wider community.

In Aotearoa, Maori resistance to the latest wave of colonisation in the form of free trade, and their insistent demands for self-determination serve as a warning that a mere reversion to the kind of New Zealand "state sovereignty" based on invasion, injustice and dispossession is not a sustainable or just alternative to the free market agenda. Finding alternatives to and liberation from corporate rule and inhuman market models of development are to me inextricably bound together with the issue of support for indigenous sovereignty and a rebuilding of a worldview which is not underpinned by corporate greed. Unlike the free market model of development, which claims to be applicable to any sector, country or region and a panacea for all kinds of problems, there are many different alternative models to be explored in different contexts.

As the experience of many countries which were supposedly freed from colonial rule after long years of struggle shows, flag independence is not enough. The Bretton Woods institutions and the insatiable demands of big business have become the new colonial overlords. Next month's WTO Ministerial Meeting will seek to further prise open the world's economies - especially the weaker ones - to the demands of transnational capital. Without economic independence, what kind of independence can a country truly enjoy? If social, political, environmental, cultural and economic outcomes are decided by those acting in the interests of transnational business and international lending institutions, then have not societies and peoples merely become adjuncts to the corporate mission statement and balance sheet?

It is not enough to reject the free market vision as advocated by APEC and WTO and to seek to nostalgically return to a golden age of a strong nation-state. In much of the talk about economic sovereignty, whether it be at government, or global level, all-too frequently the work of women, the exploitation of workers, lack of government accountability, and the enormous contributions made by the innovations of indigenous peoples and peoples of the South are studiously overlooked. A true peoples' sovereignty cannot be based on the denial of sovereign rights of others.

The issue of trade and investment liberalisation will not go away. The social, environmental, cultural and political devastation which market-driven policies and international trade structures and processes causes will not go away. And opposition to free trade will not go away. At the end of the day, we should ask ourselves who we want to determine our futures and those of our children? The CEOs of transnational corporations? A set of global rules about trade and investment which reads like a corporate wish list backed up by the World Trade Organisation? Or our own communities?

Aziz Choudry is an activist with GATT Watchdog.

1 comment:

Robert Robideau said...

July 17,2007
By Robert Robideau, Co-defendant of Leonard Peltier

On, June 26, 2007, the 32nd anniversary of the Pine Ridge reservation firefight that left two FBI agents and an Indian man dead , the Canadian Court of Appeals in British Columbia sent John Graham a long awaited message, rejecting his appeal of a lower court’s ruling that he should be extradited to the United States to face trial in South Dakota for the killing of Anna Mae Pictou Aquash and ordering him into custody to be extradited to the United States. In rejecting Graham’s appeal, Canadian Justice Ian Donald wrote: "But on the crucial issue of whether the person known as John Graham, also known as John Boy Patton, was the same person who committed the murder, the judge found that the evidence of John Trudell established identification."

John Graham has until the 26th of July for the Supreme Court to decide whether to accept his case on appeal. However, the Graham committee announced, “given the three judges' unanimous decision, the chances appear to be slim that such an appeal would be heard.”

John Graham and Arlo Looking Cloud were indicted in 2003 for the execution style killing of American Indian Movement icon Anna Mae Pictou Aquash. In February of 2004 Arlo Looking Cloud stood trial at which time John Trudell testified that Looking Cloud confessed to him, in 1988, his role in Anna Mae’s murder and also implicated John Graham as shooting Anna Mae in the head while she prayed. After a three day trial, Looking Cloud was found guilty of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. His conviction says nothing about the fairness of his trial.

Although a few of those responsible for her death have been revealed, and Looking Cloud has been declared guilty, the truth still remains hidden under a blanket of deceptions and lies. There are numerous questions that cry out to be answered. Most notably, why have noted AIM members become informants for the FBI? The FBI paid Darlene Nichols Kamook Banks $47,000 to say that Leonard Peltier “bragged about killing the two agents” and made inferences targeting Leonard Peltier in the death of Anna Mae Aquash. In 2006, in reference to Kamook’s accusations, Trudell admittedly told her that “she had done the right thing..” and “…I said the only way we are going to be able to get to the bottom of this is we have to hunt them down and flush them out.”. What sort of deal has the FBI made with John Trudell ?

It came as a big surprise to many in Indian country when Trudell, a former leader and national spokesperson of AIM, materialized as an informant for the FBI against Arlo Looking Cloud, and John Graham. An even bigger surprise came soon after Arlo Looking Cloud’s conviction, when Darlene Nichols Banks “Kamook” married BIA officer Robert Ecoffey, a thug who served under the former corrupt Pine Ridge reservation President, Dick Wilson, and who allied himself with domestic security agents of the FBI in creating the reign of terror from 1972 -1976, resulting in 60 homicides and 200 assaults against Indian people, almost all of whom were associated with AIM.

A recently uncovered FBI document, discovered through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), strongly suggests that the FBI choose not to prosecute anyone for the murder of Anna Mae for 29 years, but instead to covered up for those whom they knew were implicated in her murder, to protect an operative/informant working with them. Did their informant/provocateur retire from AIM? Clearly, the FBI’s intent to blame Peltier and keep him in prison until death became an important reason to proceed with the prosecutions. After approximately 16 years of silence,John Trudell suddenly appears as the most important federal witness and conspirator to implicate Arlo Looking Cloud, John Graham and Leonard Peltier in the murder of Anna Mae Pictou Aquash.

Why, 31 years ago, did Trudell expose, at my trial, a conversation he had with Dennis Banks that Banks told him that Anna Mae had been killed BEFORE HER BODY HAD BEEN IDENTIFIED. It wasn’t relevant to my trial and its significance was not immediately grasped. Was it done in preparation for an opportune time? What about his conversation with Arlo Looking Cloud in 1988, incriminating both Looking Cloud and Graham into Anna Mae’s execution? What sort of deal did the FBI have with Trudell? Trudell also implicated others: “Lorelei Means, Madonna Thunder Hawk and Thelma Rios, as persons guarding Anna Mae” in Thelma’s home in Rapid City. Why did Trudell, after 27 years of accusing the FBI for killing of Anna Mae, decide to accuse members of AIM instead?

Trudell’s testimony in the Looking Cloud trial establishes that he knew for 16 years that John Graham, aka, John Boy Patten, Arlo Looking Cloud, and Theda Nelson Clark took Anna Mae, who was tied up, from Denver, Colorado to Rapid City, South Dakota, where she, according to witnesses, was questioned at the Wounded Knee Legal Defense/Offense Committee and ultimately shot in the head by John “Boy” Graham. Trudell says that he knows Looking Cloud and Graham were “following orders.”. If he knows who gave the orders he has yet to say. Perhaps Trudell has been saving this part of the puzzle for the Graham trial.

Several sources have stated that Trudell asked Kamook Banks to participate and gave her “strong words of support” to encourage her to take the witness stand to testify about an alleged confession she heard by Leonard Peltier. This, together with the testimony of another long time close friend of Trudell‘s, Troy Lynn Yellow Wood, said that Anna Mae told her Peltier had put a gun to her head in an attempt implicate Peltier to the Anna Mae murder. Kamook also testified that Anna Maetold her the same story at the 1975 AIM Conference (SEE Arlo Looking Cloud trial transcript: http://www.jfamr.org/doc/index.html ) I never saw Kamook at the Conference and her sister, Bernie Lafferty corroborated she was not there (taped phone conversation, August 4th, 2004). I was present and I never saw Leonard with a gun when Banks and Vernon Bellecourt ordered us to take Anna Mae out to question her. Trudell publicly rallied for Peltier’s freedom for more than 20 years. Why has Trudell now turned on Leonard to encourage the proffering of lies from long time friends and associates?

Candy Hamilton, a prosecution witness, commented, "I didn’t think that Leonard should have been dragged into it. I mean, god, how could he have had anything to do with it, he was all so broken.” She said further, "...Leonard was not really considered high up in AIM, I think that it came from the top. For sure the Bellecourts and probably Banks, and after that I don’t know" (taped conversation, August 28, 2004). Mrs. Ecoffey’s sister, Bernie Lafferty, in another taped phone conversation, said: "Oh yeah, that is why I couldn't understand why they were trying to involve Leonard in this ..." (August 4, 2004).

“The way I understand how things went John T (Trudell) contacted Kamook about telling the truth. So why he has come out of this smelling like a rose and Kamook takes the label of informant is beyond me,” expressed Denise Maloney after the Looking Cloud trial. She has also described odd behavior by Trudell just before the Looking Cloud trial: “When I ran into John Trudell in San Francisco in 2002 he ran around the room like a chicken with his head cut off …talking in code and not really saying anything.” (e-mail, February 11, 2004).

Paul DeMain, Editor of News From Indian Country, and friend to Joseph Trimbach, (former Special Agent in Charge of the Minneapolis Division of the FBI) in a phone conversation in regard to Leonard’s civil suit against him stated, "I would have never said that Leonard Peltier ordered Anna Mae's death because first of all I don’t believe that is the way that happened and second of all even if Peltier wanted her dead there was no authority to have ordered something like that in the apparatus of AIM. He wouldn’t have been able to do that. But the first proposition is that I never would have said that" (taped phone conversation May 2005). SEE: (http://www.leonardpeltier.net/peeledapple.htm).

Kamook’s sister, Bernie Lafferty said, “Leonard treated Anna Mae no different than the rest of us, “… “I never once heard Leonard accuse Anna Mae of being an informant.” Bernie further said, “We was always real close to Anna Mae…well, we had to be…I know deep in my heart that she was no FBI agent. She would never say anything to anybody” (taped phone conversation, August 4th, 2004).

Other sources that uphold the same opinion about Leonard’s trust of Anna Mae can be found in the following sources: In the Spirit of Crazy Horse, by Peter Matthiessen, Agents of Repression, by Churchill and Vander Wall, and many other media journals, and books. But our actions toward Anna Mae showed our trust of her, and her actions toward us speak louder then words.

Indeed, there were two occasions when Anna Mae became a member of our group. The first occurred, when she become a member of our group one day before the Crow Dog raid. The second occurred when she joined Bank’s in Denver, before the Columbus Day bombings on the Pine Ridge reservation in 1975. Both actions on her part reflect that she had no fear of Leonard.

Each time Anna Mae ran it was from federal authorities. She went to the safe house provided by Trudell’s close friend, Troy Lynn Yellow Wood, in Denver, Colorado. It is well known in AIM that Trudell and Troy Lynn have been friends for many, many years. While in Denver , Trudell normally visited and stayed at her house. The question here is, why would this long time friend of Trudells agree to take Anna Mae prisoner and then hand her over to her executioners with out Trudell’s approval, who was then the national chairman of AIM?

On November 24th, 1975, after being released in connection with the Oregon charges and the FBI Crow Dog arrest, Anna Mae went to Denver, Colorado for the third time. “She knew she was going to get indicted on the Oregon charges no matter what, [and, I add, she knew there was no chance she would receive justice from the scheduled trial on November 25th, 1975 in Pierre, SD] so she split," Nilak Butler stated In the Spirit of Crazy Horse, by Peter Matthiessen. Anna Mae also believed that she would, as she had done on other occasions, re-join Leonard Peltier and Dennis Banks through the help of Troy Lynn and Colorado AIM. Ray Hand Boy testified that he and Evelyn Bordeaux drove Anna Mae to Denver at her own request.

According to the testimony of John Graham’s girlfriend at the time, Angie (Begay) Janis, soon after Anna Mae arrived in Denver she received a phone call from Rapid City and was told to “hold Anna Mae”. Janis then phoned her “best friend” Yellow Wood, who’s house then became Anna Mae’s prison. The phone call came shortly after Trudell picked up and drove Dennis Banks, who had just escaped the Oregon shootout, to California. Was it Dennis Banks, who ordered further questioning of Anna Mae Aquash? What did Trudell have to do with this order? Banks and Trudell both knew that many AIM members, including those working at the WKLD/OC, had formed suspicions Anna Mae was an informant. According to Candy Hamilton they “wanted to know why everywhere Anna Mae had been people got arrested” (taped phone conversation, Sept. 2004).

Ken Stern, in his book, Loud Hawk, writes at length about Trudell's ideas of who the informants could have been that turned in Banks’ motor home. Trudell has a long history in AIM of fingering people as informants. Did he finger Anna Mae? As it turns out, he has become what he has decried: an informant.

For years Trudell claimed to know nothing about the death of Anna Mae and accused the FBI of being solely responsible. Yet, statements he has made over the years highlight the incredulity of his alleged lack of knowledge and that he has associated with and given aid to the right individuals in AIM to cover up the parties who committed this crime and to create patsies to take the fall for both the FBI and AIM.

Bruce Ellison, Trudell’s attorney buddy of 32 years, believed Anna Mae to be a "snitch". This is the same attorney Trudell knows took part in the WKLD/OC meeting about her; and this is the same attorney Trudell has conspired with for the last 29 years to cover up for those who ordered and killed Anna Mae. Beginning in 1976 both Trudell and Ellison began making public statements accusing the FBI of being totally responsible for the death of Anna Mae. , But Trudell’s testimony at my trial makes it clear that he knew in 1975 what AIM members had played, implicating Dennis Banks. In the Looking Cloud trial, Trudell said nothing about FBI involvement in the killing, nor has Trudell made further statements to the media about FBI involvement.

On April, 28, 2005, in a hand written letter to me, Arlo Looking Cloud alleged that his trial attorney Tim Rensch conspired with Bruce Ellison. “I received a letter informing me that Vernon B. [Bellecourt] provided all my legal material in my case to Laliberte [Graham’s attorney] in Canada, apparently getting it from Gilbert [Arlo‘s appeal attorney]. And I read Vernon and Gilbert go way back. And how hard Rensch [Arlo’s trial attorney] worked to make sure Candy Hamilton couldn’t mention Bruce Ellison’s name. Rensch, his former law partner Leech and Ellison go way back.”

According to Canadian Justice Ian Donald, Trudell was the most important witness in John Graham’s extradition proceedings, and Trudell will also be a prime witness for the United States federal prosecution against John Graham. What is even more curious to many of us close to the events is why has Trudell’s close friend Bruce Ellison befriended John Graham’s defense team in Canada? While in Canada on June 9,2007, Ellison,spoke to the media in support of John Graham. Perhaps Arlo has brought attention to the reason why.

I know the friendship that has existed between John Trudell and Bruce Ellison all these years, but a recent article published in Counterpunch on March 8,2007, by Michael Donnelly, entitled “Rock Stars, Porn Stars and Peace, LA Story,” makes it clear that Ellison and Trudell are still good friends. Donnelly writes, “The occasion was last month in Los Angeles when John Trudell, Jackson Browne and Willie Nelson held a benefit concert for the Women's Cancer Research Institute. It was the second Give Love; Give Life benefit that the fellas have held for this cause.
“LA Native Celia Alario and I hooked up for brunch with Quiltman, my good friend and member of Trudell's band Bad Dog. Leonard Peltier's attorney, Bruce Ellison joined us, as did Jimbo Simmons of the Treaty Council and the Indigenous Environmental Network (IEN)”. http://www.counterpunch.org/donnelly03092007.html
The question. What does Bruce Ellison and Trudell share, besides their friendship, that has bound them together in the Anna Mae killing? With Trudell the fed snitch, one would naturally think they should be at odds with each other, yet it is clear they are not. What are we missing here? A very clever conspiracy, but conspiracy to accomplish and gain what? Each has placed himself in different camps and positions of influence. Bruce Ellison, who has Graham’s defense team covered and John Trudell who has the federal witnesses covered.

The information about the FBI affidavit Anna Mae wrote in her letter to Trudell became one of the documents used to accuse and confront Anna Mae. According to one inside source, this affidavit was used in Denver, Colorado, by Theda Nelson Clark, Troy Lynn and others, and used again in South Dakota as an instrument, that purportedly evidenced that she was an informant. Did Trudell pass this FBI affidavit on to his friend Troy Lynn?

John Trudell, National Chairman of the American Indian Movement during that period, began an early campaign to cover up the true circumstance that lead to the execution of Anna Mae. The question is why?

Even after I had publicly confronted Trudell in 1994, with the murder of Anna Mae, at the “Salt of the Earth Book Store”, in Albuquerque, New Mexico, (when Bob Ecoffey was carrying an active investigation) he continued to say nothing publicly of what he knew of AIM‘s involvement. To the contrary, he accused me of being part of the FBI cointelpro program stating, “…a Cointelpro operation is being directed at me…to neutralize me. I have been waiting for the attack.”

If as Trudell contends, he was not an important part of Banks’ support network, why was he contacted to “protect Anna Mae” in California? Why was Trudell recruited to help purchase weapons for Banks? Why was Trudell the only one Banks called to pick him up in Nevada after escaping the Oregon shoot out? Why was Trudell contacted and told the location of Anna Mae‘s safe house? Banks knew that “after Pierre, [South Dakota,] Anna Mae went to [Denver,] Colorado” (In the Spirit of Crazy Horse, by Peter Matthiessen). Trudell’s knowledge that Anna Mae “had been taken to a protected area,” that she had “been taken prisoner” leads many to believe that he could have saved Anna Mae.

According to Trudell’s testimony in the Looking Cloud trial, he claims to have found out about who murdered Anna Mae for the first time in 1988, when his good friend Troy Lynn Yellow Wood set up a meeting between Trudell and Looking Cloud who allegedly told him the whole story of Anna Mae’s murder. This is simply not true based on Troy Lynn‘s own words from October 2nd, 1994 taped conversation that "John Trudell has known about all this from the time Anna Mae was taken from my house”. Trudell’s own admission, during CBC the Fifth Estate program aired in December 2000, that “Troy Lynn called me from Denver and told me that Anna Mae had been at her house and these people had come and took her away as prisoner”.

Trudell stated: "... And I got this message that...Annie Mae was in trouble and could I help her. I couldn't because they had a warrant for my arrest in Nevada on a charge that was later dropped. I could do nothing about it. The next time I …Dennis told me she had been shot in the back of the head. He told me this in California. This is when he was out on bail there...I know it was within two days or so after they found the body and I knew nothing about that" (trial transcript of the Butler -Robideau trial, Cedar Rapid, Iowa, 1976, http://www.dickshovel.com/trurspn.html). Trudell’s words contradict his own testimony at Looking Cloud’s trial, where he testified that he had been in Los Angeles in late September and early October, he said: “…one of us always stayed with her as much as possible just to act in the capacity of being security.” The fact is that even if Trudell was unable to travel in December, he had access to all the phone numbers of AIM members in Rapid City, as well as the lawyers’ who worked at the WKLD/OC office. He knew Anna Mae had been taken and where, to save her was just a phone call away.
Why didn’t he intervene to save his “friend” Anna Mae?

Trudell's long time friend and close associate, Bruce Ellison, who participated in the questioning of Anna Mae and allegedly provided documents that went to show she was an informant. Why didn’t Bruce Ellison contact Trudell? Perhaps he did. Ellison said that Anna Mae had been brought into the WKLD/OC office tied up, "I told them to untie her". (Conversation with Bruce Ellison during the March 4th, 2005, "Benefit for Freedom" in Toronto, Canada).

Why did Trudell align himself for 29 years with Bruce Ellison, a person he knew participated in the WKLD/OC “meeting” that undoubtedly condemned Anna Mae as an informant?

Why does Trudell continue to maintain close ties to Bruce Ellison, who he knew took part in the interrogation of Anna Mae at the WKLD/OC?

For many years, beginning in 1975, both Trudell and Bruce Ellison had taken the position that they “do not know who pulled the trigger…” But “the responsibility clearly rests with the federal bureau of investigation”. In, Rolling Stone, April 7, 1976, Banks was the first to utter this position stating, “…even if AIM members had killed Aquash, the FBI bore responsibility because it had helped launch rumors about her.”
In my conversation with Trudell 1994 at “Salt of the Earth”, I asked him, "Did you know that Bruce Ellison was involved?" Trudell answered: "Yes, I knew about that". Again, the question, did those at the WKLD/OC “meeting” call Trudell, who they knew was not only a long time “friend” of Anna Mae‘s, but also a person who, by Trudell’s own admission a was a close associate to Banks?

In a tape recorded interview, Candy Hamilton alleges Anna Mae told her that "Price told me he would see me dead within a year." In the Lan Brookes Ritz documentary, "Anna Mae, Brave Hearted Woman,"
Trudell said, "Agent Price told Anna Mae if she did not cooperate she would be dead before the end of the year...and it worked out that way!" Just before leaving the jail in Vale, Oregon she told one reporter, obviously speaking about the FBI, "They’ll execute me. That’s what they do to Indians who fight for their people". In the Looking Cloud trial, Trudell said nothing of these threats by FBI agents as he had done for years with the media. Why has Trudell become conspicuously silent about the involvement of the FBI? Does Banks, who has remained silent also, still support Trudell today or does he fear Trudell?

There are many unanswered questions concerning John Trudell’s motives for joining the federal prosecution in the Anna Mae Aquash murder case and giving comfort and aid to the likes of Kamook and other friend’s; and influencing testimony that seeks to drag Peltier into this mess. It’s becoming instructive that John Trudell has known, from day one, why Anna Mae Aquash was taken prisoner, and executed; and as a witness for the prosecution, sheltered himself from possible prosecution for wrong doings he may have played in the killing of Anna Mae and its cover up. What did Trudell have to do with the killing of Anna Mae?

What has materialized is that John Trudell, and his friends, Troy Lynn Yellow Wood, Kamook Ecoffey Banks, and other federal witnesses have become FBI puppets to convict two small pawns and target Leonard Peltier. It is instructive to know that John Trudell was privy to the legal strategies in both my trial and that of Leonard Peltier’s. We are forced to look further into the possibility that Trudell may have been working with the feds as early as 1975, especially in light of the fact that Trudell implicated Dennis Banks in the murder of Anna Mae Aquash while testifying at my trial.There is nothing that explains why he should have even gave this testimony in 1976. His testimony is repeated in the Looking Cloud trial. http://www.jfamr.org/doc/trudell.html. We know that some where in the back ground the FBI is dirty in all of this. We know it was an FBI operative/provocateur who first started the rumors that Anna Mae was an informant. It was an FBI informant who perpetuated the rumors. It was an FBI operative/informant responsible for the death of Anna Mae. It is well known within the American Indian Movement that Trudell has attempted to place snitch jackets on several members of the American Indian Movement. In the end we must ask just when did John Trudell actually become an FBI informant? The answer would reveal much.