Monthly Archive for July, 2005

Labour wins the election

Published
by
Christiaan
on 26 July, 2005
in Aotearoa New Zealand
. 18 Comments

Forget the fact that Brash is an incompetent warmonger who desperately wants to be another one of Bush’s poodles. Now you’ve got a bona fide middle-class reason to vote Green or Labour.

I must admit I had a little bounce in my step on my way to work this morning in London, having just received news from New Zealand that Labour have finally come to their senses and made it their policy to scrap student loan interest rates as of April of 2006 if they are part of the government in the next term.

Having already racked up $18 000 in interest this has the potential to save me personally up to $40 000 in the long run.

Looks like I’ll finally be able to do a bit of travel and come home earlier than expected, which is kinda cool because my brother and sisters are all starting to have kids. And like my mate, and fellow expat, Boggsy said, looks like our generation finally gets a break after being the whiping-boy for so long.

It’s rumoured that my father has traditionally been a Nat-voter. Well if I haven’t yet convinced him that Brash is in fact an incompetent warmonger, now there’s always the fact that he’s not going to vote to put his son $40 000 further into debt. And I can imagine a number of other parents will be thinking the same way.

As an aside, I’m interested to see what effect this policy might have on a baseless theory I have; that our high youth suicide rate is partly affected by the fact that there’s always a certain group of people in their twenties out of the country and therefore not participating in NZ society. If this group of people hold off traveling overseas until they’ve paid their loans off and they’re a little older I wonder if this might have a positive effect on teenagers and consequently bring the suicide rate down. Wishful thinking I know, but there ya go.

Oh yeah, and just to be on the safe side make sure you vote Green, who have an even better tertiary education policy.

We bear responsibility

Published
by
Christiaan
on 14 July, 2005
in Aotearoa New Zealand and Imperialism
. 5 Comments

Russell Brown commented Tuesday on some of the growing bigotry coming out of the New Zealand blogosphere in response to last week’s bombings in London. Hitler would have been proud.

I’d like to touch on a another form of bigotry: that of denying the links between terrorism targetted at the West and the actions of Western governments and corporations. People don’t want to believe they’re a part of something horrible so it’s a natural reaction to deny these links; to do otherwise is to admit that we are in some way responsible for these acts of violence. But the truth is we are. We need to take responsibility for our collective actions and stop pretending that we live above the laws of nature, or rather stop denying ‘what goes around comes around.’

In an interview with The American Conservative, Associate Professor Robert Pape of the University of Chicago, and author of Dying to Win: The Logic of Suicide Terrorism, had this to say in light of his research:

The central fact is that overwhelmingly suicide-terrorist attacks are not driven by religion as much as they are by a clear strategic objective: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland. From Lebanon to Sri Lanka to Chechnya to Kashmir to the West Bank, every major suicide-terrorist campaign—over 95 percent of all the incidents—has had as its central objective to compel a democratic state to withdraw.

Once the occupying forces withdraw from the homeland territory of the terrorists, they often stop—and often on a dime.

In Lebanon, for instance, there were 41 suicide-terrorist attacks from 1982 to 1986, and after the U.S. withdrew its forces, France withdrew its forces, and then Israel withdrew to just that six-mile buffer zone of Lebanon, they virtually ceased. They didn’t completely stop, but there was no campaign of suicide terrorism. Once Israel withdrew from the vast bulk of Lebanese territory, the suicide terrorists did not follow Israel to Tel Aviv.

In the mean time British tabloids, television and politicians have been working furiously to ensure that the dominant theme of last week’s London bombings becomes, “the terrorists will not change the way we live.” But what does this mean? They’re certainly not talking about privacy, civil liberties and human rights. No, despite the rhetoric, these are the very things authoritarian politicians and their bankrollers are just itching to change.

I think what it really means is that we will continue to strut around this planet sticking our limp dicks in other people’s deserts; murderously invading and occupying other nations in aggression to “secure our interests.” I think it means we will continue supporting Israeli apartheid, oppression and tyranny. I think it means we will continue to mass produce weapons of war; selling them to dictators throughout the world when they kotow to the capitalist power-elite. I think it means we will continue to allow private corporations to rape this planet and its population. I think it means we will continue to support and reelect politicians who lie through their teeth, taking us into wars of aggression which fly in the face of everything we supposedly learnt about war and propaganda in the previous century. And I think it means we will continue to believe we are god’s “democratic” gift to this world while simultaneously producing “representatives” who talk like this:

In 1996, Madeleine Albright, then the U.S. secretary of state, was asked on national television what she felt about the fact that 500,000 Iraqi children had died as a result of U.S.-led economic sanctions. She replied that it was ‘a very hard choice,’ but that, all things considered, ‘we think the price is worth it.’

I’m tired of hearing from those who supported the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and the so-called “War on Terror.” You’ve done enough damage. You need to stand the fuck down. I’m damned if you’re going to continue ruining the future of my niece and the future of millions of other children in this world. And I’m tired of all the self-proclaimed “moderates” who have tolerated these war-mongers because they’re piqued that the bombs are pointing the other way for once. Stop denying the violence of the West and the valid greviances of those who make last week’s violence thinkable. Just stop it.

So what came before September 11?

Published
by
Christiaan
on 8 July, 2005
in Imperialism
. 0 Comments

According to Jack Straw, in response to George Galloway’s quite reasonable point that the cowardly attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq increased the threat of terrorist attack in Britain, “People have to remember that 11 September was in 2001 before the military action.” This cheap little chunk of self-deluded spin is an attempt to weave the story that the September 11 attacks came out of the blue.

Such cheap spin conveniently ignores the actions of Western governments before September 11. It’s no secret that many of those glued to their television screens on September 11, 2001, were not only shocked (because the bombs were pointing the other way for once) but also unsurprised.

You only have to read Osama bin Laden’s very own statement on why the September 11 attacks took place to realise that the September 11 attacks did not come out of the blue.

… we fight because we are free men who don’t sleep under oppression. We want to restore freedom to our nation, just as you lay waste to our nation. So shall we lay waste to yours.

I say to you, Allah knows that it had never occurred to us to strike the towers. But after it became unbearable and we witnessed the oppression and tyranny of the American/Israeli coalition against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it came to my mind.

The events that affected my soul in a direct way started in 1982 when America permitted the Israelis to invade Lebanon and the American Sixth Fleet helped them in that. This bombardment began and many were killed and injured and others were terrorized and displaced.

I couldn’t forget those moving scenes, blood and severed limbs, women and children sprawled everywhere. Houses destroyed along with their occupants and high rises demolished over their residents, rockets raining down on our home without mercy.

The situation was like a crocodile meeting a helpless child, powerless except for his screams. Does the crocodile understand a conversation that doesn’t include a weapon? And the whole world saw and heard but it didn’t respond.

In those difficult moments many hard-to-describe ideas bubbled in my soul, but in the end they produced an intense feeling of rejection of tyranny, and gave birth to a strong resolve to punish the oppressors.

And as I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon, it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children.

And that day, it was confirmed to me that oppression and the intentional killing of innocent women and children is a deliberate American policy. Destruction is freedom and democracy, while resistance is terrorism and intolerance.

This means the oppressing and embargoing to death of millions as Bush Sr. did in Iraq in the greatest mass slaughter of children mankind has ever known, and it means the throwing of millions of pounds of bombs and explosives at millions of children – also in Iraq – as Bush Jr. did, in order to remove an old agent and replace him with a new puppet to assist in the pilfering of Iraq’s oil and other outrages.

So with these images and their like as their background, the events of September 11th came as a reply to those great wrongs, should a man be blamed for defending his sanctuary?

Is defending oneself and punishing the aggressor in kind, objectionable terrorism? If it is such, then it is unavoidable for us.

This is the message which I sought to communicate to you in word and deed, repeatedly, for years before September 11th.

And you can read this, if you wish, in my interview with Scott in Time Magazine in 1996, or with Peter Arnett on CNN in 1997, or my meeting with John Weiner in 1998 …

The chickens come home to roost

Published
by
Christiaan
on 7 July, 2005
in Imperialism
. 4 Comments

Lucky for that “War on Terror” thing ay? Terrorist incidents have increased year on year since Bush took power in 2001. Before that they were decreasing year on year. My mother managed to phone me today from New Zealand, to check I hadn’t been blown up. She advised that I take care with my words.

The first hint I received of something amiss in London this morning was full bus loads of people drifting endlessly past my bus stop, and a long walk to work. This afternoon there has been tens of thousands of people walking the streets of London in the absence of public transport. On the BBC there has been incessant reporting that people “can’t believe this has happened.” Yeah right, it’s no damn surprise and Londoners know it. Today’s just extra special because the bombs were pointed the other way, just like September 11.

Having elected as Prime Minister a man who is arguably a war criminal I must say I find it difficult to muster up the kind of sympathy that would usually befit a nation in times like these, just as I found it difficult to muster up sympathy for the U.S. as a nation on September 11. Then as now the overwhelming feeling is one of grim predictability. I have dulled empty feelings for those in the middle of it all, just as I do for hundreds of thousands—in fact millions—of Iraqis, Palestinians, and endless other peoples killed by the gangs we call our governments. It’s just a little difficult to get emotional about every killing when they happen in the numbers they do. Am I meant to be more emotional today because they’re Westerners?

After returning to London from Iraq in March 2003 I often found myself down at the local pub in discussions with people who were, one, confident they lived in a democracy, and two, indifferent about the invasion of Iraq. I’ve always found it a little difficult to deal with such indifference. “At the end of the day,” I used to say to them, “you can enjoy your pint of beer in the sun and ignore the murderous actions of your so-called democratic government in faraway lands, but don’t go complaining when someone comes looking for some justice in the form of a bomb under your ass.”

And from what I’ve gleaned today they’re not. Many Brits seem to know the score.

Whether this was the act of MI6/MI5 operatives or the so-called “Al-Qaeda,” Blair has blood on his hands. And while we’re going to be hearing a lot about “us” and “them,” there’s little doubt in my mind that the connection between the death of “their” babies and the death of “ours” will never be made in the coming media storm. Instead it will be Blair to the rescue!! Bring on 1984!!

According to Wikipedia, a person using the name “Nur al-Iman,” posted to the jihadist website Al-Qal’ah (Fortress), a statement issued by “The Secret Organisation Group of Al-Qa’ida of Jihad Organization in Europe.” In the statement, the group claims responsibility for the London attack. The following is a translated text of the statement (minus all the god stuff):

Nation of Islam and Arab nation: Rejoice for it is time to take revenge against the British Zionist crusader government in retaliation for the massacres Britain is committing in Iraq and Afghanistan. The heroic mujahideen have carried out a blessed raid in London. Britain is now burning with fear, terror and panic in its northern, southern, eastern, and western quarters.

We have repeatedly warned the British government and people. We have fulfilled our promise and carried out our blessed military raid in Britain after our mujahideen exerted strenuous efforts over a long period of time to ensure the success of the raid.

We continue to warn the governments of Denmark and Italy and all the crusader governments that they will be punished in the same way if they do not withdraw their troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. He who warns is excused.

Mike Marqusee writes for Counterpunch:

Blair has already appeared on television to address the nation … Even by Blair’s standards, it was a performance of nauseating hypocrisy, as he sought to seize the moral high ground in relation to violence and destruction that he himself helped unleash.

Fomenting and exploiting fear has been a speciality of the Blair regime. Asylum seekers, teenagers wearing hoods, militant Muslims, anarchists, paedophiles the list of targets is lengthy and frighteningly flexible. Whenever there is a need to distract people from the impact of the government’s neo-liberal economic policies, from its failure to rebuild the public sector, from its misbegotten foreign adventures, a new scapegoat is conjured up. The bomb blasts may aid this process, but there is also reason to hope that this time there will be substantial public resistance.

I hope so Mike, I hope so.

Review of Great New Zealand Argument

Published
by
Christiaan
on 5 July, 2005
in Aotearoa New Zealand
. 0 Comments

Great New Zealand Argument book coverToday I received a copy of Great New Zealand Argument: Ideas about ourselves, which was surprisingly quick. Presumably it was distributed from within the UK somewhere. Edited by Russell Brown, it’s a good looking book; the cover appears as if it might be a picture of Russell and his kid walking down a country road (I’ll have to ask him). Well chosen fonts, a good layout and obviously meticulous editing make it easy on the eye too. I only wish I’d been able to get a hardback version as this is a book I’d like to last.

Set to questions such as, “What is special about the character of New Zealand, both the place and its people? How have we changed and what kind of place do we want to become? What are our great national questions?” Great New Zealand Argument is described as bringing “together essays and speeches spanning nearly 70 years, by some of New Zealand’s best writers and opinion leaders. Their work is by turns thoughtful, visionary, provocative and amusing. Much of it is either previously unpublished or long out of print.”

I got it at work and as soon as lunch time arrived I delved into Russell’s intro, which, like much of his writing, manages to hit the sweet spot.

This year, on Public Address, the weblog site where the Great New Zealand Argument project began, I invited our many expatriate readers to comment on the latest round of the ‘brain drain’ debate that has recurred through our national history. The replies came flooding back. They talked about wages, student loads and education. But overwhelmingly, they spoke of the land, sea and sky. It was this that would bring them back—and this that defined them.

One response Russell received was this gem from someone named Darren, who was commenting on his arrival back in NZ after five years in Aus:

On the morning that I returned, I remember driving back from the airport in my brother’s Falcon ute. There was a small patch of moss on the inside corner of the windscreen. There were ferns growing out of the cracks on his driveway. The local indian dairy was selling taro. I don’t think unique is a stong enough word.

It reminded of a time when a friend of mine, Anna Pierard, pulled out a book of New Zealand landscapes and poetry while I was at her place somewhere in Camden, London. I’m a little ashamed to admit that I started crying! Having spent a couple of years or so in the concrete jungle that is London it hadn’t occured to me how powerfully rooted we can be in those islands we call Aotearoa New Zealand.

Russell’s intro includes many quotes from outsiders, including this pearler from French intellectual André Siegfried in his 1904 book Democracy in New Zealand:

The colonials, moreover, are generally men of mingled strength and simplicity. Their strength makes them unconcious of obstacles, and they attack the most delicate questions much as one opens a path through a forest with an axe. Their outlook, not too carefully reasoned, and no doubt scornful of scientific thought, makes them incapable of self distrust. Like almost all men of action they have a contempt for theories: yet they are often captured by the first theory that turns up, if it is demonstrated to them with an appearance of logic sufficient to impose upon them. In most cases they do not seem to see difficulties, and they propose simple solutions for the most complex problems with astonishing audacity. At heart they are probably convinced that politics are not as complicated as they have been made out to be, and that a little courage and decision are all that is required to accomplish reforms of which Europe is so afraid.

On the bus ride home I managed to devour most of David Lange’s 1985 speech, Nuclear Weapons are Morally Indefensible. It is an extraordinary speech. I don’t recall ever coming across the words, which were first said on the day of my 9th birthday. I do, however, recall how much Lange was liked for having the balls to join New Zealanders calling for a Nuclear-free New Zealand in the face of U.S. opposition, with such voracity and intelligence.

Russell Brown’s first book gets a thumbs up from me. If someone doesn’t give you this book then go out and find a copy. If you’re not in NZ, you can purchase a copy from this online store. Well done Russ, I’ll leave you the last word:

I hope that this collection will make for a better debate and that it is but the first of its kind. I hope many people will read it and talk about it and that perhaps, in three decades’ time, someone will pluck it down from a high, dusty shelf and find it useful. And not just because in thirty or fifty years we will be grappling with many of the same issues, but because—you would hope—we will still have plenty to talk about.