Huka ~ Hakaaro & Hakatupato i Waitangi 08

Huka's 'Hakaaro & 'Hakatupato i Waitangi 2008
Huka,s thoughts and warnings on issues of sovereignty & Mana-motuhaketanga @
Waitangi 2008

Land of the Long White Lie

The New Zealand Terror Raids

By VALERIE MORSE

On October 15 2007, the New Zealand police carried out unprecedented nation-wide raids arresting 17 indigenous rights activists and anarchists and raiding some 60 different locations. The arrests were based on surveillance and interception warrants obtained under the Terrorism Suppression Act. This was the first time that the police used this Act, a law passed immediately after 9/11 and a direct result of it.

The raids were staged on a Monday morning starting at approximately 5am. At 5:45 am, the Police knocked on my door. Then they nearly broke it down. When I opened it, 15 officers swarmed in, waving an 80-page search warrant in my face. When I said, 'this isn't signed,' the detective responded 'here, here's the signed copy.' Then they ransacked my room, pulling my plants out of their containers, removing the back of my refrigerator and collecting a raft of documents, photographs, electronic gear and clothing. Finally, they arrested me and told me that I was going to be charged with participating in a terrorist group.

The raids came as a huge shock to me, to most of the country and to the world that follow such events. New Zealand, also known as Aotearoa-the 'land of the long white cloud' in the indigenous language of the Maori people-has a reputation for amicable race relations, a progressive government and an enviable settlement process for indigenous claims against breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi, the founding treaty between Maori and the British Crown, signed in 1840 by some 500 chiefs.

What is actually happening in Aotearoa beneath the government's clever 'clean, green, 100 per cent pure' marketing campaign is not at all what they would lead you to believe.

On day one of the raids, there was a media frenzy as the police carefully leaked tantalizing nuggets of evidence including reports of napalm bombs, assassination plots against Prime Minister Helen Clark and President George W Bush, and an 'IRA-style war plan.' The 17 arrestees were brought before District Court judges in four different cities to respond to the charges. One was dealt with immediately by the courts and dismissed, the remaining 16 all went to prison that night, remanded in custody as bail was vigorously opposed by the Crown prosecution.

We were deemed a threat to 'national security.' In the cloud of terrorism hysteria and secret evidence, our lawyers would not even attempt an application for bail.

The New Zealand Government has signed up for all of Bush's post-9/11 terrorism requirements. At the same time, it imported the US Government's brutal tactics of repression, surveillance technologies and police hyper-paranoia about political activity, particularly when it comes from indigenous activists who dare to speak of aspirations of sovereignty.

Of the 17 arrested on 15 October, 12 were Maori, many from the Tuhoe iwi (tribe). Tuhoe is known for its long history of resistance to colonization. They never signed the Treaty of Waitangi. There is a story that the Crown agent was advised that he would be eaten if he attempted to come into Tuhoe land in order to get the Treaty signed. Today, Tuhoe have the one of the highest ratios of native speakers of the Maori language (called 'te reo') among tribal groups and have a strong cultural identity that is intimately linked to the land in an area that they call 'Te Urewera,' land of the mist. There are about 20,000 people who claim Tuhoe ancestry, many of whom are still living in relatively isolated communities within Te Urewera.

The raids and arrests were the culmination of an $8 million dollar, two-year long operation dubbed 'Operation Eight'. On the day of the raids, some 300 police were involved. Most had little knowledge of the investigation or the suspects; none it seems had any knowledge of the history of the Crown's scorched earth policy, murder, and land theft which prompted fierce resistance by Tuhoe more than 100 years ago.

The forces of the state have a convenient way of forgetting things that don't suit the current narrative. Such was the case on October 15. In a spectacular display of force, armed, balaclava-clad police known as the 'armed offenders squad' quite literally invaded the small Tuhoe town of Ruatoki and blockaded the entire community. On an elaborate quest for terrorists and evidence, they stopped all vehicles coming in or out of the community and photographed the drivers and occupants. In the process of conducting house raids, they severely traumatized many people, including locking a woman and five children in a shed for six hours while the man of the family was questioned, taking a woman's underwear as evidence, and boarding a local school bus.

In one South Auckland raid, the police held an entire family, including a 12 year old girl, on their knees with hands behind their heads for some 5 hours, asking the young woman if she was a terrorist. This was the pattern for raids in the Maori communities.

For the non-indigenous arrestees (referred to herein as 'pakeha' a word that means white New Zealander), the situation was starkly different. In my case, I was not even handcuffed as I was walked to the car. No white neighborhoods were blockaded, nor were white bystanders stopped and photographed as they went about their daily business that cool Monday morning in October. It was only Maori.

The institutional racism of the police and justice system came as no surprise to Maori people and particularly to Tuhoe who have been subject to its arbitrary acts for some 160 years. For pakeha throughout the country, it was a wake-up call. Unfortunately, it was less a wake-up call about racism than it was about the growing power of the state against political dissidents. I say it was unfortunate because it is clear from the nearly 10,000 pages of evidence I have now seen, that it is Maori sovereignty that they fear. It is the political force of unified indigeneity that scares the ruling class of New Zealand.

For Maori in Aotearoa New Zealand, the 'war on terrorism' and these raids are part of a long history of colonization in Aotearoa New Zealand, and they have not been forgotten.

In the 1860s, the Suppression of Rebellion Act was passed with strikingly similar language to the Terrorism Suppression Act of 2002. This earlier Act was used by the fledgling New Zealand State to launch a series of vicious attacks on Maori communities in order to appropriate their land for settlement. People and whole tribes were defined as 'in rebellion' in order that the State could then exercise a range of repressive and exploitative measures against them.

I was arrested, I believe, to provide a cloak for the racist nature of the operation.

By arresting some pakeha activists, the government could deflect criticism that this was an operation against Maori. I was also arrested because I am associates with the Maori accused in the case, and because as an anarchist I have caused enough problems and embarrassments for the state that they would like to put me out of their misery. In June of last year, I published a book detailing the New Zealand government's involvement in the 'war on terrorism.' In it, I suggested that both dissidents and Maori were targets of the war, along with refugees and migrants. It was not without a sense of bizarre irony and a certain grim satisfaction that I sat in my prison cell and congratulated myself on being right.

Needless to say, in a country of 4 million people, there are not six degrees of separation, but usually only one or two. There most certainly is a connection between anarchists, environmentalists, anti-war and indigenous rights activists: most of them know each other and work together regularly. One would have to exist in a state of utter delusion not to make the connections between these issues, particularly in New Zealand where the effects of the self-imposed neo-liberal structural adjustment of the 1980s is being felt more acutely everyday.

The New Zealand Parliament is Westminster-style with mixed-member proportional representation. At present, the governing Labor party maintains power through a delicate balance of negotiated agreements, some formal, some informal, with other smaller parties that give support on vital confidence and supply votes.

As with the British Labor Party, the New Zealand Labor party long ago shed any resemblance to a working-class based party and has wholeheartedly embraced neo-liberal economics. This has had major implications for Maori who in the main reject its ubiquitous commodification, particularly with regard to flora, fauna, land and intellectual property. Nevertheless, up until very recently Maori had continued to support Labor generally, and all of the Maori electorate seats in Parliament were held by the Labour Party.

In 2004, the Government passed the Foreshore and Seabed Act, which had the effect of extinguishing Maori rights to claim customary ownership of the land between the high tide and low tide marks, and to the seabed. In contravention of international law and despite condemnation by the UN, the Government pressed ahead with the law, with near unanimous support in parliament. The following year the Treasury began to include a line-item in the annual financial accounts for these newly acquired Crown assets. This grotesque confiscation was considered a declaration of war by some Maori. It ruptured the Labor Party and brought about the formation of the Maori Party. This now presents a significant threat to Labor's hold on the Maori vote, and more importantly, to their hold on power.

Politically, this is one of the primary factors behind the raids. In the lead up to the 2008 election, it is crucial that Labour cast radical Maori as a dangerous threat to the stability of New Zealand. This was a gamble by Prime Minister Helen Clark and her cabal to secure a third term through a tactic of divide and conquer. In the media Clark repeatedly stated that the raids were 'an operational matter for the police,' but behind the scenes in Wellington, every politico knows that nothing of consequence happens without her direct and explicit nod.

Another significant political factor prompting the raids is the government's relationship with the US and its other close defense partners. As a member of the exclusive five-nation UKUSA intelligence network (along with the US, UK, Canada and Australia), New Zealand's security and police are intimately tied to a distinctive post-War relationship with the US. This relationship, and the resultant organizational links, has played a significant role in New Zealand's response to US terrorism hysteria. Further, the New Zealand government has separate, internal reasons for adopting much of the new terrorism legislation.

Prior to 9/11, the Terrorism Suppression Bill was before the Select Committee and was simply intended to ratify two existing UN conventions against terrorism. After 9/11, the law was radically re-written, kept secret from the public, while the Government and the opposition rushed to appear resolute in support of the US.

Fortunately, the changes were leaked and there was significant public opposition that eventually mitigated the worst aspects of the Act. Unfortunately, there were many more Acts that followed. These Acts mirror changes to US law and include the Border Security Act, the Maritime Security Act, the Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Act, the Identity (Citizenship and Passports) Act, the Security Intelligence Act and amendments to both the Immigration Act and the Crimes Act.

Along with these legislative changes, the state's security and surveillance services received massive funding injections and personnel increases ­ all in the name of fighting terrorism. Given this environment with all their new toys, eventually, the police and spooks had to find a terrorist. They tried desperately to pin that label on exiled Algerian politician Ahmed Zaoui who came to New Zealand at the end of 2001 on a false passport. When that failed, as it did in 2006 when the security risk certificate against him was revoked, they set to work finding others to fill the 'terrorist' role. The culture of these agencies is such that they view ex-parliamentary political activity as dangerous; they view Maori politically activity as particularly dangerous.

So the stage was set and the roles cast when some 300 police mounted the first ever 'terror raids' late last year.

The Terrorism Suppression Act was the tool to obtain extensive interception warrants for bugging cell phones and cars, but the people who were arrested were initially charged only for joint possession of firearms and restricted weapons under the Arms Act. In order for the Terrorism charges to be laid, the police first had to get the approval of the Attorney General.

In the first week following the raids, I sat in solitary confinement with no access to news or information. I was in shock. I have been arrested several times in the past for political activity, but have never been to prison. I was scared. I was also lucky because one of my dearest friends had been arrested that morning and was there with me. We had adjoining cells and could communicate by yelling over a 25 foot concrete wall in the yard outside between our cells. After the third day, I got a book to read: Kurt Vonnegut's Jailbird. It made me laugh so hard I had tears in my eyes.

When they finally moved us to the general population at the end of the first week, it felt like a glorious place - which just goes to demonstrate how quickly and easily solitary confinement breaks down your resistance and your tether on reality. It was beautiful to hear voices, to hear music, to go outside and to be able to see the hills and sky.

By the end of that first week, our lawyers managed to put forward an application for bail. We arrived at the Wellington District Court to a mass of supporters and media. Within minutes of the start of the hearing, everyone except the media was excluded from the courtroom. It was an ominous beginning to one of the most disturbing and difficult days of my life.

In the hours that followed, the Crown prosecutor painted a picture of us as a group of people who had been training to commit terrorist acts. We were accused of attending camps in the Urewera area where we used guns, Molotov cocktails and napalm. The fact that my three immediate co-accused had no convictions of any kind, and I had very minor ones, was used to prove our ill intention to get out of prison and carry out that which we had been planning. Once the terror label was used, no judge in the country, or indeed the world, would bail us. We went back to prison that Friday evening and I felt very, very dark.

On Monday 29 October, the police finally put their evidence to the Solicitor General in order that the charge of 'participating in a terrorist group' could be brought against us. That night, I was interned in my new cell with no one to talk to or to question about what might happen next. I had been moved 500 miles north to the Auckland women's correctional facility in a secretive mission worthy of bin Laden or at least his best mate.

By Wednesday, Prime Minister Helen Clark could no longer hold her tongue and waded into the debate. She arrogantly breached the sub judice standard ­ the term used for the right to a fair trial ­ commenting that those arrested 'at the very least had been training with firearms and napalm'. The media circus continued.

Throughout the country, protests, rallies, fundraising and awareness raising gigs were organized and what remains of the political left in New Zealand rallied around the arrestees. The political analysis ranged from debate about indigenous sovereignty to civil rights and surveillance. The mainstream media continued its tradition of sensationalist reporting, ill-informed conclusions and downright fabrications. The media concentration in Aotearoa New Zealand is one of the highest in the world, with nearly all the major dailies owned by two multinational corporations. Everyone was singing from the same song sheet, so to speak.

The day before I was due to have another bail hearing, after now nearly a month in jail, I had a long conversation with my lawyer. We discussed his strategy going into the hearing and the possible Crown arguments. At the end of that conversation, he said, 'Oh, there was something else I was meaning to tell youoh, that's right, the Solicitor-General is about to announce his decision. Valerie, they are going to lay the terrorism charges against you.'

I hung up the phone and I found Emily, my co-accused and dear friend. I told her that, 'we must prepare ourselves for this because it is going to happen'. I was manic, frantic, deeply disturbed and shaken. We sat for a little while before I went to my cell and tuned in National Radio. The four o'clock news immediately went to a live broadcast of the Solicitor-General's press conference. I sat on my bed rigid with fear. He announced, 'I cannot authorize the laying of charges under the Terrorism Suppression Act.' I ran out of my cell, screaming and running around the prison wing, 'they're not going to do it; they're not going to do it.' I yelled up to Emily who had retreated to her cell. I could hardly get the words out.

Her immediate response, 'for all of us?' and I thought, 'oh no, I don't know.' In my excitement I hadn't listened to his whole speech. I ran back to my cell where she joined me.

We tuned back in to hear him say that there was 'insufficient evidence' that none of us would be charged, and that the terrorism law was 'complex, incoherent and unworkable'. I was ecstatic. Moments later I got a call from the lawyer saying that the Crown was no longer opposing our bail. We would be out tomorrow.

It was surreal. I have never in my life felt the kind of joyous relief that I felt that night. I couldn't sleep. I couldn't concentrate. I just sat there in wonder at the events of the previous month.

On Friday, November 9, we were bailed from the High Court in Auckland. We are not free, however. Sixteen of us still face charges under the Arms Act. We continue to have onerous bail conditions including curfews, reporting conditions and non-association orders. They are the State's tactics for control and punishment.

As I have suggested, the evidence indicates that the raids were politically motivated by the long-standing fear of indigenous assertions of power. In this election year, it suits the Labor Government to find 'bad Maori' in order to fulfill the old colonial divide and rule strategy. They will assimilate those they can through propaganda and persuasion; those that resist will be brutalized and criminalized as they have been for more than a century. Maori political activists are under State surveillance because they are Maori.

It comes as little surprise that the United Nations has now accepted a complaint from indigenous lawyers and will investigate the New Zealand Government's conduct over the raids, although it is the first time that a complaint by a group against a state (rather than vice versa) has been investigated. While this is unlikely to have any substantive effect either on the situation for Maori or on the arrestees, it is another blow to the idealized utopia of the South Seas.

In the coming months, the case of the 'Urewera 16' will be heard in the District Court in Auckland. My great hope for this trial and for the future of Aotearoa New Zealand is that the raids will contribute to disrupting the false peace of this colonial state and radicalize people to struggle for justice and freedom.

*For more information about the Crown's invasion of Tuhoe lands, please see:

Tuhoe: A history of resistance at http://october15thsolidarity.info/node/221

UN Observer says govts are using terror

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/print.html?path=HL0803/S00054.htm

Tuesday, 4 March 2008, 3:25 pm
Article: Syed Akbar Kamal

UN Observer says govts are using terror to instill fear in communities

Prof. Hans Koechler****** Transcript by
Syed Akbar Kamal

Prof. Hans Koechler paid a visit to Auckland recently to deliver lecture on ‘The Global War on Terror - Contradictions of an Imperial Strategy'. He is President of the International Progress Organisation (IPO) and a renowned international jurist, activist expert on international law, injustice, and power politics, academic and much-published progressive author:

Dr Koechler's clear perceptions on the subject assume greater relevance here now, following the terror raids, arrests, and mass intimidation of Tuhoe last October; and the subsequent Law Commission review now underway of NZ's criminal and terrorist legislation.

Since 1972, UN Secretaries-General in their statements subsequently acknowledged Professor Köchler’s contributions to international peace. In April 2000, Secretary-General Kofi Annan appointed Professor Koechler as international observer at the Scottish Court in the Netherlands (Lockerbie Trial) which to this day remains unresolved largely due to the non-compliance of the British government in releasing the supposedly secret information to the court.

Darpan-The Mirror: Dr. Hans Koechler, welcome, welcome to Aotearoa. Thank you for being willing on your holiday to spend some time sharing your knowledge with us. You have talked tonight about the global war on terror-what is it new about terror and terrorism in the current context?

Prof. Koechler: The new feature is that a kind of universal threat is now being connected to the term terrorism and fear is being instilled into the people because they are make believe that there is a threat to our western civilization even to the very survival of the western community and to the preservation of the identity that is emanating from this kind of illusive enemy which is called international terrorism. That I think is the new feature because in earlier decades, in earlier eras, terrorists acts were specified and people identified certain-the interests coming from certain specific groups but now apparently this danger is somehow general and vague and entire civilizations are presented as a threat to our own civilization.

Darpan-The Mirror: So who is promoting this and why?

Prof. Koechler: As far as I can see it is promoted by the establishment, powerful political and economic establishment, media establishment in the leading countries of the western world. On top of them first and foremost is the United States of America and in addition for instance the United Kingdom of Great Britain and the Northern Island and some other Western allies.

Darpan-The Mirror: And what do they have to gain from this?

Prof. Koechler: Well, frankly speaking, it is about the global power in a situation in which there is no challenge to the Western supremacy and particularly in which there is no real threat to the security of the Western world. I mean after the demise of communists, after the collapse of the Soviet block; apparently one feels the need to create another enemy stereotype which will allow to somehow justify certain measures of control over the rest of the world. Usually a government needs an enemy; people have to be rallied around the government in defence against an enemy from outside and this threat or the other which is now supposedly threatening the west is presented as terror- or as terrorism or as the terrorists.

Darpan-The Mirror: You described it as self-defeating; why do you think it is self defeating?

Prof. Koechler: It is finally doomed to fail because it necessitates a constant a kind of perpetual mobilisation of the people and of the resources of a country. When you present the threat as universal and when there is no possibility to identify specifically certain groups from which the threat emerges, you have to engage in a total of strategy of prevention and you have to exclude even the slightest possibility of attack from whichever direction and that means you have to be prepared 24 hours seven days a week hundred percent. And for that reason somehow the …somehow the…strength or the capacities of the countries that engage in such an undertaking will be exhausted and the other reason why I think this is in the medium and long term is a self-defeating exercise.

And the other reason is this kind of strategy antagonizes entire nations and even peoples and civilizations in such a way that they will not feel any loyalty towards those countries that engage in that struggle and they may challenge the supremacy of those countries and they may be more determined in their resistance than they otherwise would be, if there would be a kind of rational relationship on the basis of the definition of mutual interest, as also could be the case.

Darpan-The Mirror: Why have politicians, political leaders, intellectual leaders in so much of the west not challenged? You gave the example of the Japanese member of the senate who had raised issues and those issues had not appeared in the mainstream media. What- Why do you think that is occurring?

Prof. Koechler: I personally feel on the basis of my own experience now over several decades having dealt with issues particularly of the Middle East of the Muslim world that most of the people in the media and in the academic community are just afraid for their own position. They do not want to somehow be marginalized or that they do not want to be sidelined which would be the case if they speak out critically against this entire strategy. So it is a kind of opportunism or the kind of fear which people are not able to overcome because very often if one really speaks out, one is confronted with quiet strong media campaigns and the careers of some people might suffer if they do speak out.

Darpan-The Mirror: But if we contrast that to the civil rights campaigns and the challenges that there were to the suppression of rights during the 1960’s, 1970’s in the West- we are now seeing a revisiting of the normalization, militarization, of suppression of fundamental rights. What’s different? Why are we seeing those voices of dissent now?

Prof. Koechler: I think that as far as Europe is concerned, then I am only an expert on these matters; in Europe as far as Europe is concerned the entire social climate if one may use that term, is different compared to the 1960’s and also our students in universities nowadays are much less outspoken and are much more obedient so to speak as far as the politically correct opinions are concerned. But maybe the situation now has to do with a kind of overall opinion control or fear that has been instilled into the people and no one dares to be or doesn’t want to be disloyal towards his community or wants to speak out against the supplementary soft state.

Darpan-The Mirror: So how would you relate this to that of Palestine? We have seen the stories of killings and maiming everyday; we have seen the depravation of basic necessities of life- of access to electricity and to water and food? How do you interpret or analyze the situation in Palestine and the responses to it within the framework of your thinking?

Prof. Koechler: As far as I understand that I have followed the developments in Palestine since 1970’s and that means it’s now more than three decades, as far as I see it, most of what you refer to now, most of the events are not adequately presented to the wider public; most of the people would just not know what is really going on, the news’ are filtered through the corporate media, if people would really be aware of the situation…people live…under which people live in for instance the Gaza strip, there would be some stronger and critical position against the policies for instance of the western countries. But as far as I see it, there is a lack of…lack of comprehensive information and the other problem as far as Palestine is concerned is that is this linkage with Islam as a threat and particularly terrorism-the linkage of Islam and terrorism.

Darpan-The Mirror: So when you are looking at the way the western states respond to the use of force to suppress resistance movements, freedom fighters, terrorists however they are defined by one side or the other. What are the factors that you think drive the decisions of states now can I put that in the local context…

Prof. Koechler: Yeah.

Darpan-The Mirror: Our government here for example had no problem with recognizing the General who lead the coup in Thailand. The military government there and the government here was perfectly happy to deal with, had no problem in dealing with Musharraf in Pakistan; Bainimarama the leader of the military coup in Fiji is ostracized, there are sanctions against anyone in the military including one who wanted to come here in January whose family members were part of the military, what are the kinds of considerations do you think that drive the differential responses of the western leaders to regimes that are actually very similar in their particular style and in the suppression of rights attached to it?

Prof. Koechler: I would use the term of “the policy of double standards”. A government applies certain principles of legality or certain criteria of the rule of law selectively according to the specific constellation of interest. And so it is no surprise to me, of course I am not aware of the specific policies of the government here, but it is of no surprise to me to see that the government applies certain principles or insists on the implementation of certain principles in one case and totally overlooks them. Of course in the neighbourhood there may be different interests…and different from which your country may have…that explains…why one insists on certain rules in this case and does not insists on certain rules in other cases. Of course, that creates a credibility problem but I do not know...frankly speaking upto the present moment I do not know of any government which really would be consistent in the application of principles and which would avoid in its foreign policy the so-called policy of double standards.

Darpan-The Mirror: The New Zealand government has also made great play out of the fact that it did not join the coalition of the willing in the invasion of Iraq but it’s there in Afghanistan; Does that sound a convincing clean hands kind of principled approach to you or do you have problems with that kind of differentiation?

Prof. Koechler: In terms of legal doctrines, I would say I would have problems with this kind of differentiation but one could say first of all the government of New Zealand made a good decision in not sending troops to Iraq may of the government that joined the coalition of the willing regret this by now and some have already withdrawn their troops. So the government here was lucky in having not fallen into that trap but as far as new principles are concerned in my view the interventions in both countries Iraq and as well as in Afghanistan are a violation of sovereignity of those countries and both interventions are not duly justified or legitimized by international law; even in the case of Afghanistan there is no authorization of the intervention by American and NATO forces in that country.

Darpan-The Mirror: So do you think International law has become so devalued that it is no longer actually defendable in many of those instances or do you think it is a recoverable concept that might still have some value if it can be removed from the grip of the Security Council?

Prof. Koechler: I don’t know. Eventually it may already be beyond repair so to speak. The big problem I see it that in a situation in a global constellation in which there is no balance of power there is absolutely no incentive for the hegemonial country to abide...to abide by the rule of law or to obey the law.

There is no incentive for instance for that country to respect Security Council resolutions, on other way because of the veto this country like for others can block any decisions by that Council at any moment. But as far as Afghanistan is concerned the situation went even that far that for instance my own country the Republic of Austria which according to its constitution is permanently neutral according to the Swiss model.

Even my country has sent forces though in a very small number but sent forces to Afghanistan. Of course people say that this is not compatible with the statutes of permanent neutrality. Can be? It never can be compatible but these things happen now and one is just reinterpreting terms according to the constellation, political constellation of interest at a given moment.

Darpan-The Mirror: So what’s your sense of what might happen in Iran? What are your fears what might happen?

Prof. Koechler: I did fear that the United States together with their ally in the Middle East plus one or two European countries might militarily intervene in Iran and that was according to my knowledge… also the plan of the United States administration two years ago...one year ago.

What I see now is the inter-actions services of that very country have expressed an opinion that is contradicting the strategy of the President of the United States. So now my hope is that the US is reconsidering its war plans against Iran and that it will not attack Iran because it will totally destabilize not only the situation in the Middle East but the situation far beyond that region.

Darpan-The Mirror: You stressed a lot on the foreign policy in ideological and the economic interests are also integral to this not only in the Middle East but in the way many economies are now becoming almost dependent on perpetual certainly many aspects of the economy are; Fiji where you are going to go tomorrow the Fiji economy is dependent on remittances; almost 90% of remittances are coming from the security workers that are operating in Iraq; you have an economy that becomes dependent on war and when people come back and bringing the militarization back into the country itself, do you see any similar kinds of militarization of economy within Europe and America that might want to keep perpetuating this process?

Prof. Koechler: As far as Europe is concerned I do not yet see that tendency firmly established. In United States it appears obvious to me that there is a kind of self-perpetuating situation and that’s the economic interests that lead to the involvement of the country into military adventures. As far as our countries in the European Union are concerned I think we are not yet reached that stage…the military industry in most of the European countries is much less strong and much less developed than it is in the United States.

Darpan-The Mirror: Just one last question…we become aware that terrorism has become a domestic issue in this country with the arrests that were in part under the Terrorism Suppression Act with most of those arrested being Maori Sovereignity activists. Do you think the global war on terror is actually having an internal dimension that legitimizes the use of state power against its own dissident internal factions as much as against the other in the global context? And how in that sense do you think we might connect the domestic realities to the international experiences?

Prof. Koechler: I am in this country only since very short time so I am not so familiar with the internal political situation however I do hope that a distinction will be made between tensions that may exist domestically and the international issues related to the so-called global war on terror. As of the present moment I do not see any connection between what is going on here between the government and the representatives of the native population of New Zealand and the war on terror. And just hope that no one will exploits this extremely emotional climate surrounding the global war on terror for internal domestic politics or for internal security measures. One thing…the one situation is to be totally kept separate from the other.

Darpan-The Mirror: Thank you very much for your time. We wish you safe travel and we look forward to having you back here again before July. Thanks!

Prof. Koechler: You are welcome!

*****

Syed Akbar Kamal is Producer/Director for nationwide current affairs programme Darpan-The Mirror on satellite feed Stratos & Triangle TV.
www.teamworkproductions.co.nz

www.teamworkproductions.co.nz

UN to investigate New Zealand Settler Grubbyment over conduct of the Oct 15 raids

UN to investigate raids | Raids in Ruatoki | History repeats itself | Raids across Aotearoa | The arrestees | Maori, the Labour government and the UN

Links: October15thSolidarity.info | Te Mananmotuhake o Tuhoe | Te Kotahi a Tuhoe | Aocafe

UN to investigate New Zealand Government over conduct of the Oct 15 raids (from the newswire)

The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Human Rights while Countering Terrorism has agreed that there are grounds to investigate the New Zealand Government over its conduct during the October 15 raids. This is the first time that a complaint from a group against a nation-state has been accepted by the Rapporteur. The complaint was lodged by lawyers acting on behalf of the Tuhoe nation and some of the accused in the case. It is based on some 14 specific instances of breaches of human rights.

The New Zealand government has now been issued a list of questions by the United Nations and it is required to provide a response to these within six months. The complaint was submitted pursuant to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. The grounds of the complaint are acute breaches of rights to privacy, freedom from discrimination and personal liberty, for which there is no available domestic remedy. The violations arise from conduct of the police, elected politicians and media, and pertain to what has been termed, albeit without objective or legal foundation, an ‘anti-terrorism’ operation. Depending on the response of the Government, or the lack thereof, the Rapporteur may make a ruling on the complaint or decide to investigate further, possibly visiting Aotearoa New Zealand in order to interview victims of the raids, arrestees, lawyers and naturally, members of the police and Government.

There is no domestic mechanism capable of inquiry into the collective rights of self determination and culture held by the Tuhoe Nation. A civil action may be pursued on behalf of individuals who were affected, but even if this succeeds at considerable cost and delay it cannot address the collective and systemic harm caused to the affected communities and the Tuhoe nation. Attempts to secure recourse through the Waitangi Tribunal for a violation of te Tiriti o Waitangi would likewise be ineffective as the Tribunal only has powers to make recommendations on such matters to the government, and has failed to report on the earlier claim by the Tuhoe nation that was concluded several years ago.

The New Zealand Government likes to extol its human rights record to the world. Meanwhile, it conveniently ignores the condemnation of various UN bodies when they don’t suit the Government’s fairy tale of amicable race relations. In 2006, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous People visited Aotearoa New Zealand to investigate breaches of human rights as a result of the Foreshore and Seabed Act. Following the investigation, the Rapporteur issued a report detailing the violations of human rights which the New Zealand Government has roundly ignored.

Needless to say, people around the world are not blind to the New Zealand Government’s double-speak when it come to Maori. Statements from around the world, including the Canadian Postal Worker’s Union and the Zapatista Liberation Army indicate that support for the right of Maori to self-determination will not be denied.

From the Comprehensive Statement of Facts



Raids in Ruatoki

In one raid, a schoolgirl and a woman were ordered from their house and into the street with their hands above their heads. They were separated and not allowed to communicate. Dressed in their night attire, crying and wet from the rain, both of them were body searched by police officers in full public view of their neighbors. The woman was made to lift her breasts. The schoolgirl was crying "shame". They watched in fear as their husband and stepfather was held face down on the street with a gun to his head. They were taken to the police station and questioned for a number of hours before being released.

In another raid in Ruatoki, a family with young children were held for hours, cold and shivering, in a shed at the side of their house without food and water or nappies for their babies.

Armed police established a dawn to dusk roadblock around the township of Ruatoki. Cars and a school bus were stopped and searched. Armed 'ninja' police made the occupants get out of their cars and photographed them with identification labels. A 76 year-old woman was one of the first to be subjected to this indignity.

The children of Ruatoki were deeply traumatised by the presence of armed police at their houses and in their village. The day after the raids the Kohanga Reo (Maori language pre-school) asked for counsellors to be sent to work with the children. When a school pupil is killed in a car accident it is common for the government to send counsellors to the school the next day. One month later, there is still no response to the request from Ruatoki.

History repeats itself

For the people of Tuhoe, 15 October 2007 repeated a history of armed invasions by the colonial power. Tuhoe has always maintained te mana motuhake o Tuhoe - the independent authority of the Tuhoe nation. They have never acknowledged the Crown's claim of sovereignty. A claim to this effect has been laid with the Waitangi Tribunal. Those hearings began in 2003 and finished in 2005. The Tuhoe people are still waiting for the tribunal to report.

The Tuhoe territories, Te Urewera, have been repeatedly invaded by the Crown. In the 1860s, the freedom fighters Te Kooti Rikirangi and Te Rau Kereopa sought refuge within te Urewera as they were hunted by colonial troops. Notwithstanding the fact that Te Kooti was escorted from Te Urewera, and Te Rau Kereopa was handed over to the Crown by Tuhoe, their lands were confiscated. The Crown claimed its action was justified as a means of suppressing rebellion by taking the wealth and breaking the autonomy of the Tuhoe people. In a clear provocation of these old wounds, the cordon around Ruatoki in Operation Eight was established on this historic confiscation line.

In 1916 armed colonial police invaded the Tuhoe nation again. This time, they arrested Tuhoe prophet Rua Kenana, shooting dead two men, one of whom was Rua's son. Once the armed constabulary gained control at Maungapohatu, they gathered together the women and children, and raped them under armed guard.

The invasion of 15 October 2007 repeats this tragic history of repression, arbitrary detention and racist abuse. This time, the Crown claims that its invasion of Tuhoe is justified as the suppression of terrorism; yet it has no evidence to lay anything more than firearms charges.

Raids across Aotearoa

In total, more than 60 homes and workplaces around Aotearoa have been searched under warrants authorised pursuant to the Terrorism Suppression Act. Stories are still emerging, as many of those who were targeted are fearful that they will be branded 'terrorists'.

Many of the searches followed a similar pattern to those in Ruatoki and Whakatane. Residents were woken by load hailers to find their houses surrounded by large numbers of armed police, who forced entry by breaking down doors. In a number of cases, very young children and old people were confronted with weapons.

In one raid an estimated 40 armed officers entered a house where there were 8 people, two of whom were under 12. Distressed children were separated from their parents and not allowed to speak to them for the whole period of the raid. Two men who were later arrested were marched onto the road outside their homes, made to kneel for lengthy periods with hands behind their heads with guns to their heads.

Some of the police actions can only have been intended to humiliate. One young woman was detained in a room while her house was searched, and then taken to her bedroom as the police went through all her drawers. They took away her underwear. In another case, police took all the baby's clothing.

The arrestees
Initial applications for bail were refused for ten of those accused, largely because of the pending terrorism charges. They faced the prospect of eighteen months to two years on remand while awaiting trial, with the loss of livelihoods, severe financial hardship, trauma to their families and children, and damage to their wairua.

On 30 October the Crown prosecutors notified counsel for the accused that the names of 12 of the 16 had been forwarded to the Solicitor General for consideration of charges under the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002. On 8 November 2007 the Solicitor General announced that there was insufficient evidence to lay charges against any of the accused. As a result of this decision the ten people who had been held in custody since 15 October were released on bail.

Sixteen people now face charges under section 45 of the Arms Act 1983.

None has yet entered a plea. All are due to appear next in Auckland March 3rd 2008.


(Headings by AIMC)

Maori, the Labour government and the UN

• In March 2005, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) released its decision on the Foreshore and Seabed Act, concluding that the legislation appeared, "on balance, to contain discriminatory aspects against the Maori", and urging renewed consultation and dialogue.
  The Government responded by criticising the UN Committee and denigrating Maori groups who took their concerns to the UN in the first place.
• A year later, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples was called to review progress made by New Zealand in addressing these concern. His comprehensive report outlining action recommendations was universally condemned by Government.
• In August 2007, the UN CERD Committee reported that the New Zealand Government's actions tended "to diminish the importance and relevance of the Treaty and to create a context unfavourable to the rights of Maori". This time, Dr Cullen admitted that the Committee had put the Government on notice.

This is a Government, of course, which was happy to vote against the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples - an international human rights declaration which 143 other nations supported (while only 4, New Zealand, Australia, the United States of America and Canada, opposed).

(This background is taken from a Maori Party media release - thanks.)

Related

• http://october15thsolidarity.info
• http://tuhoe.net

Nothing New Under this Sun

Looking back at the Police "Operation" in Aotearoa, its clear to see similarities with the MO of the police & the corporate media over here. I'm looking for a source but I'm sure that a delegation of Police went over to APEC to learn and share tactics and mis information. At all levels the police have been milking the phoney war on terror to accrue resources and extra powers, let alone the contracts and sub contracts to the "security" & surveillance & telecommunication transnationals.

As others have said these tactics are nothing new here, cause its always has been a penal, capitalist, colonial and genocidal settler colony.

Colombia - Urgent Action for Wayuu people

Kia ora ano whanau

Met a Columbian Wahine Toa at the recent Latin /Asia Pacific
solidarity gathering, she warned of this. Sis was staunch and strong
woman, a testament to her people the targets of this Colombian State
Sponsored Terror against indigenous peoples.

na

Ana

URGENT ACTION FROM THE WAYU PEOPLE TO THE NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL
COMMUNITY

The displaced community of Baha Portete found in the Alta Guajira
once again denounces the latest incursion of the paramilitary group
CONTRAINSURGENCIA WAYUU under command of the alias " PABLO " into
their ancestral territory that has once already been bathed
in blood. This time the unfortunate victims of these mercenaries were:
CHICHI EPINAYU of 35 years of age that was horrbily killed yesterday
November 23 and JULIAN EPINAYU of 68 years of age who was kidnapped
for who knows what purpose or if he is even dead or alive. After
being subject to the tortures and brutalities that these murderers use
to cause terror in our families and acheive their criminal objectives,
MASPARRAY EPINAYU, was able to survive and is currently with serious
condition due to bullet wounds from the firearms that these
assassins used to victimize families of the EPINAYU and URIANA clans.
The same clans that were massacred in the April 18th, 2004 massacre.

Once again we are reassured that the stories that are illustrated to
us by the states authorities regarding our community s right to return
are very far away reality. This is because of the lack of guarantee
from the state that our community will not be again victmized upon
return to the lands that we should have never left.

There is nno denying the permenant prescence of these "paracos"
(paramilitaries) who now go by "AGUILAS NEGRAS" and continue
plundering with out their primary sponser , THE STATE, be affected at
all. According to authorities, there are no more paramilitaries in the
Alta Guajira or in Colombia. What will be said this time too justify
these crimes against humanity that wound our people with great pain
and helplessness? Perhaps that we are kidnappers and theives the way
the mercenary JORGE 40 freely said on November 8th, 2007 in
Barranquilla or this time again that we wer targetted.


"Today there is no paramilitarism - Pres. Uribe. El tiempo. Saturday,
July 21st, 2007.



We urge for a comission of the following to go to the area:

Defensoria del pueblo.
Fiscalia General de la Nacin.
Procuradura General de la Nacion.
OAS.
CNRR.
UN.
ONIC.


Please direct urgent actions and letters of solidarity to:

Presidencia de la RepblicaDr. lvaro Uribe Vlez,Cra. 8 No..7-26,
Palacio de Nario, Santa
fe de Bogot.Fax: (+57 1) 566.20.71

E-mail:
auribe@presidencia.gov.co

Vicepresidencia de la Repblica
Dr. Francisco Santos
Vicepresidencia de la Repblica
E-mail:
fsantos@presidencia.gov.co

Presidencia ECOPETROL S.A.
Dr. Javier Gutierrez Pemberthy

Javier.Gutierrez@ecoeptrol.com.co

Programa Presidencial de Derechos Humanos y de Derecho Internacional
Humanitario.
Dr. Carlos Franco
Calle 7 N 5-54
TEL: (+571) 336.03.11
FAX: (+57 1) 337.46.67
E- mail: cefranco@presidencia.gov.co
E-mail:
fibarra@presidencia.gov.co

Comisin Interamericana de Derechos Humanoscidhoea@...

Representante Permanente de la OIT en Colombia
Dr. Marcelo Castro Fox
Direccin: Av. 82. No. 12-18 Oficina: 504.Telfono: 623 75 86.Bogot D.C.
E-mail:
castrofox@oit.org.pe

Procuradura General de la Nacin

Dr. Edgardo Jos Maya VillaznCarrera 5 No. 15-80Santa Fe de Bogot.

Fax: (+57 1)342.97.23

E-mail:
reygon@procuraduria.gov.co;


anticorrupcion@...

Fiscala General de la Nacin

Dr. Mario Iguarn Diagonal 22 B No.52-01Santa fe de Bogot.

Fax: (+571) 570 20 00

E-mail:
contacto@fiscalia.gov.co;


denuncie@fiscalia.gov.co

Unidad de Derechos Humanos y de Derecho Internacional Humanitaria

E - mail:
elbsilva@fiscalia.gov.co

Defensora del PuebloDr. Volmar Antonio Prez Ortiz.Calle 55 No. 10-32
Santa Fe de Bogot.
Fax: (+571) 640 04 91

E-mail:secretaria_privada@hotmail.com

Organizacion Wayuu Munsurat

wayuumunsurat@yahoo.com
Dirigente Wayau - Guajira - Colombia.


http://organizacionwayuumunsurat.blogspot.com

http://organizacionwayuumunsurat.blogspot.com

Ward Churchill: On Perpetual War, State Sponsered Terrorism, and the Limits of Academic Dissent (2005)

1 hr 47 min 45 sec