“One ocean, one people” – Interview with Teresia Teaiwa on self-determination struggles in the Pacific

October 29, 2014 by
Teresia Teaiwa speaks at Capitalism: Not Our Future (photograph by Bronwen Beechey).

Teresia Teaiwa speaks at Capitalism: Not Our Future (photograph by Bronwen Beechey).

Teresia Teaiwa is a poet and founding academic of Pacific Studies in Aotearoa/NZ, who spoke on the gender panel at Fightback’s 2014 public conference Capitalism: Not Our Future. Teresia recently attended an international workshop on self-determination in Papua New Guinea. Ian Anderson interviewed her for Fightback.

You recently attended a workshop in Papua New Guinea. What was this all about?
The Pacific Conference of Churches (PCC), Pacific Network on Globalisation (PANG), Social Empowerment Education Program (Fiji) and the Bismarck Ramu Group (Papua New Guinea) collaborated to organize this event called the “Madang Wansolwara Dance 2014” [Wansolwara means “one ocean, one people”]. The gathering brought community-based organisations, activists, artists, academics and theologians together in order to re-ignite a movement of solidarity across the Pacific. Close to 200 participants from Hawai’i, Guam, the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), Fiji, Vanuatu, Australia, Aotearoa New Zealand and Papua New Guinea (PNG) explored issues of grassroots sustainability and national self-determination in the face of the relentless assaults of extractive industries, militarization, consumerism and colonialism. A crucial dimension of the gathering was a commitment to putting artistic and creative practice at the centre of our activism—the genres of art we focused on were visual art, poetry, music, and dance. The gathering was described as a dance rather than as a conference, because its structure and philosophy was not at all that of a conventional conference. Three of us went from Wellington: myself, my son Mānoa who is studying dance at Whitireia, and one of our Pacific Studies Honours graduates, Tekura Moeka‘a, who is a Cook Islands dancer and choreographer. A contingent of slam poets came from Hawai’i; visual artists came from the University of the South Pacific in Fiji; there were musicians from the University of Goroka in PNG; yam farmers from PNG and Vanuatu; forestry workers from PNG; social workers from FSM and West Papua; landowners from Fiji and Aotearoa and tribal chiefs from PNG and Vanuatu; theologians from West Papua, Australia, Fiji and Te Ao Ma‘ohi (French Polynesia)—it was quite an amazing gathering of people, perspectives and skills!

What are some of the ongoing struggles in Papua New Guinea?
It’s important to remember that PNG occupies roughly one half of the second largest island in the world. PNG is also the Pacific Island region’s most populous country at 7 million; it is the most linguistically diverse with over 1000 distinct languages at a recent count, and it is also the most rich in natural resources. The “Madang Wansolwara Dance 2014” was held in a province of PNG (Madang) that harbors mining industry, logging, tuna fisheries and a cannery. Over the six days we were there, we learned that ongoing struggles include a) preventing the rampant exploitation of the country’s vast resources; b) ensuring the equitable re-distribution of wealth generated from both foreign investment and local industry; c) developing strong governance systems that allow for robust civic participation and state and corporate accountability. It’s hard for us in this part of the Pacific to imagine how much wealth is being extracted out of PNG, I mean they’ve just delivered on an 18+billion dollar liquefied national gas project with BP! So it should have one of the highest per capita incomes in our region, it should be able to sustain a high quality infrastructure and provide decent medical services and education to all its citizens, but it can’t because the wealth that isn’t going off-shore is held in the hands of politicians and other local elites, and that ‘wealth’ is based on the destruction of the environment. One of the newspaper headlines that greeted us when we landed in Port Moresby was that the Fly River, the second longest river in the country, was dead. This was a consequence of untreated waste from the Ok Tedi open pit copper and gold mines being discharged into the Fly and Ok Tedi rivers.

What was the main message you took away from the discussion of struggles in Papua New Guinea?
Before going to Madang, it was easy to be influenced by the foreign media’s preoccupation with violence and security issues in the country. The main message that I took away from our gathering was that things are a lot more complex there, and while it seems logical to work to eliminate things like inter-tribal warfare, raskol attacks and gender-based violence from everyday life in PNG, we need to be vigilant about the way that ‘security’, ‘peace’ and even women’s rights can effectively be coopted into the agendas of government and large corporations—that aren’t really about security or peace or women’s rights, but about making it easier to extract natural resources. It’s heart-breaking to think that the cost of what is perceived to be ‘peace’ might have to be national, cultural, political, economic and environmental sovereignty.

What’s the connection between the movement in Papua New Guinea and elsewhere in the Pacific, particularly Aotearoa/NZ?
The main connection is that we are facing similar types of economic logics, and the same type of corporate and state collusions around extractive industries. Our demographics are rather different, though. PNG’s population of 7 million has an indigenous majority. Aotearoa New Zealand does not have an indigenous majority—Māori are 15% of the population at the latest census. While Māori understand their need to be actively involved in decisions around mining, Pasifika people as a migrant group constituting 7% of the population and largely urban-based, may not be as alert to the implications of extractive industries for them. Also, with mining being a mainly terrestrial activity in the Pacific in the last century, the centre of gravity was mainly in Melanesia, so Melanesians have a longer history and familiarity with these industries, while the Polynesians who have been migrating to New Zealand haven’t really had to think too much about it. In the 21st century, however, with the advent of deep sea mining technology, countries with small land areas but huge marine territories granted to them under the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention are now being encouraged to exploit their sea beds. The Cook Islands is one of those countries. With over 61,000 Cook Islanders living in New Zealand and less than 15,000 back in the islands, this means that Cook Islanders in New Zealand will need to educate themselves pretty quickly about the costs and benefits of proposed sea bed mining in their homeland. Hopefully, they’ll be able to learn some valuable lessons from their cousins in Aotearoa New Zealand as well as in Melanesia.

You brought copies of the Fightback magazine as a gift. How were these recieved?
Yes, I did. I took copies of the Fightback magazine as well as copies of Kassie Hartendorp’s booklet on Women, Class and Revolution over to Madang as gifts. Some I presented to individuals who I thought would especially appreciate them, and others I left on a gift table, and they all got snapped up! One PNG participant used the Fightback magazine as a kind of memento book that he asked everyone to sign and write notes of encouragement or their email addresses on. That was really cool!

What opportunities can you see for deepening the connection between self-determination movements in this region?
I think this Wansolwara [“one ocean, one people”] movement is very promising, and really fills a gap that was left when the Nuclear Free and Independent Pacific (NFIP) movement fell into inertia in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Our next meeting is in Vanuatu in 2016, and there is a Youngsolwara (youth) meeting planned for Suva in 2015. Right now, I think it’s really important that the movement grows strong roots and branches in the Pacific Islands. As far as the Wansolwara movement in Wellington is concerned, when Mānoa, Tekura and I returned from Madang, we organized an evening session where we invited friends from the university and wider community to hear about our experiences and join the movement. Our focus in Wellington since we returned from Madang has been on building awareness about West Papua’s struggle for independence. We’ve been promoting the #WeBleedBlackandRed campaign that was started by PCC and PANG in Fiji to build regional awareness about West Papua, and we’ve also done a few actions around media freedom in West Papua. We’re also slowly building up a second stream around seabed mining, and Tekura and I made a joint written submission to Vanuatu’s first national consultation on deep sea mining earlier this month (October). We’re keen to work in solidarity with groups like Peace Movement Aotearoa and the Green Party, who have been the most consistent in reminding New Zealanders of their obligations to West Papua. I think we have a lot to learn from the dialogues and debates and formulations of a socialist position that go on in Fightback Aotearoa, too. But it’s crucial for us to develop our own ideological standpoint and a solid and autonomous constituency amongst Pasifika students and youth in this country.

Filed Under: Pacific

Moves to gut public and Maori broadcasting

October 25, 2014 by
Te Hoki New Zealand in Afghanistan, broadcast on Maori TV. Image: Scoop, Lionel de Coninck.

Te Hoki Huna New Zealand in Afghanistan, broadcast on Maori TV. Image: Scoop, Lionel de Coninck.

Ian Anderson (Fightback/MANA Poneke).

Paora Maxwell’s tenure as Maori TV CEO has been controversial. In August 2013, staff at Maori TV circulated a petition against Maxwell’s appointment by the Nats. More recently, Maxwell announced a restructuring process, and high-profile figures including Carol Hirschfeld left Maori TV. Now, plans to outsource TVNZ’s Maori and Pacific programming appear to confirm rumours of continued backdoor privatisation.

Maori TV remains the only TV broadcaster with content not dependant on advertising revenue, while TVNZ is now commercially funded. Public broadcasting enables journalism such as last year’s documentary He Toki Huna New Zealand In Afghanistan, commissioned and broadcast by Maori TV, which investigated New Zealand troops’ complicity in US occupation. Coupled with raids on independent journalist Nicky Hager’s house, and Maxwell’s banning of Hone Harawira from Marae Investigates, moves to gut Maori programming limit the capacity for critical journalism.

In an era of privatisation and neoliberal entrenchment, an era of Whale Oil and Kiwiblog, Maori TV’s continued existence is a tribute to decades of Maori struggle and organisation. At the same time, the complicity of the Maori Party in these changes reveals how a top layer of Maori have been co-opted into a system that dispossesses the majority.

With Hone Harawira booted out of his Taitokerau seat, the only serious public opposition to these moves has come from outside parliament. The struggle against neoliberal entrenchment, for a truly democratic society, is necessarily a community struggle. In addition to public broadcasting, we also need a people’s press, sources independent of capital and the state that aid struggles for self-determination.

Filed Under: Mana Party, Maori Party, Society

Thousands march against climate change

October 23, 2014 by
Flood Wall Street

Flood Wall Street

Article by Bronwen Beechey (Fightback/MANA Owairaka).

The largest demonstration to date against climate change was held in New York City on September 21.

The march was part of a global day of action held before a United Nations climate change summit in New York on September 23. Among the estimated 400,000 who attended were indigenous people from the US, Canada and Latin America, students, unions and representatives of communities affected by fracking.

The marchers stopped for a moment of silence to honour those who have already died around the world as a result of catastrophes linked to global warming. The entire crowd then erupted in a tremendous roar to literally sound the alarm, accompanied by the 26 marching bands that took part blaring their instruments. It was directed at the heads of state and governments that have repeatedly failed to address the problem.

The march was initiated by 350.org and other groups on the activist wing of the environmental movement, but as the momentum grew, more conservative groups like the Sierra Club endorsed the march.  The march was also built extensively through social media activist groups such as Avaaz and NZ’s Action Station.

One of the groups in the US that initiated the march, and was a central organising force, was System Change Not Climate Change (SCNCC). A coalition of socialist groups and individual radicals,  SCNCC targets capitalism as the cause of climate change and advocate socialism as the only long-term solution.. The role played by SCNCC in organising the march and its acceptance as part of the broader environmental movement marks an important step forward. The impact of the recession, the Occupy movement that targeted the wealthy “1%” and implicitly capitalism itself, and the obvious role of big corporations as destroyers of the environment, has made many realise that capitalism is to blame.

According to US socialist Barry Shepherd, writing for Green Left Weekly : “This was a truly grass-roots march, not a top-down affair. The march organisers from different environmental groups encouraged everyone to bring their own banners and literature, and raise their own concerns. The result was that all aspects of the problem of climate change were expressed.”

The day after the march, around 1000 people took part in a sit-in in Wall Street that was explicitly anti-capitalist. The action was called “Flood Wall Street”, referring to the flooding of the area that happened following Hurricane Sandy last year.  Around 100 people, including one dressed in a polar bear suit and three in wheelchairs, were arrested after blockading the street for eight hours.

Solidarity actions also took place in other cities in the US, and around the world, with an estimated 40,000 in London and 30,000 in Melbourne. In Auckland, several hundred people turned out despite miserable weather and the disappointment of the previous day’s election result.

Unsurprisingly, the UN summit produced little in the way of any action on climate change. However, the numbers protesting shows that more and more ordinary people are prepared to act, and that many are recognising that stopping climate change will mean changing the system.

Filed Under: Environment

Scotland’s radical independence movement

October 22, 2014 by

<> on September 15, 2014 in UNSPECIFIED, Scotland.

by DAPHNE LAWLESS (Fightback, Auckland)

A “Pyrrhic victory” is where one side wins a battle at such a cost that it goes on to lose the war. It looks like the victory of the “No” side in the referendum on Scottish independence on September 20 may go down as a clear historical example of these.

The referendum on “Should Scotland become an independent country?” was a primary historical demand of the Scottish National Party (SNP), who have formed a government in the Scottish Parliament since 2011. As it stands, Scotland’s Parliament is responsible for health, education and other local matters, but has no power over foreign policy or defence and only limited rights to raise its own taxes.

The SNP led the Yes campaign, with the support of the Scottish Greens and some socialist forces such as the Radical Independence Campaign (RIC). On the other side at the referendum were all three traditional UK major parties – the governing coalition of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, and the opposition Labour Party.

The “No” campaign, under the name “Better Together”, was widely criticised for its patronising and fear-mongering approach, telling scare stories of massive job losses and Scotland being excluded from both the British pound and the euro. This almost backfired altogether, when in the last weeks of the campaign, polls showed “Yes” ahead by a tiny margin. This was an amazing return, when “No” was leading 65-35% back in 2012.

As it turned out, the “No” vote rallied to win by a margin of 55-45%. On the face of it, this looks reasonably comfortable. But most significant was the fact that, of all Scotland’s local councils, the only places where “Yes” won a majority were Glasgow and Dundee – the two councils with the highest levels of poverty and the longest history of working-class activism.

Triumphalist “pro-British” far-right groups went on the rampage in Edinburgh after the “No” vote were announced. But the joy of the right wing was short lived. In the month since the vote, the membership of the SNP has tripled, to 75,000 members. The SNP are also riding high in the polls for both London and Scottish parliaments, with – crucially – the Labour Party vote having crashed. The government parties had to promise massively increased powers for Scotland’s Parliament (short of independence) to win back wavering voters in the last week of the campaign. Now they face a revolt against their promises from English backbenchers who oppose any concessions to nationalism.

The British Labour Party seems to be the biggest victim of the referendum. The Conservatives were almost wiped out in Scotland after the Thatcher years, and Scotland’s 59 MPs in the London parliament have since then gone overwhelmingly to Labour. One big fear among the Labour “No” campaign was that an independent Scotland would mean long-term Conservative dominance over a rump state of England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

But the referendum results and its aftermath clearly show that Labour made a possibly fatal error to team up with the parties of David Cameron’s “austerity” government. The massive shift of support to “Yes” in the last few months of the campaign was not a surge in Scottish nationalism in itself. It was primary a movement against the cuts agenda of the London government, and against the ability of English Tories to enforce a neoliberal agenda north of the border, which has repeatedly voted against it for 40 years.

Like their equivalents in Aotearoa/New Zealand, the British Labour Party has long ago given up offering a social democratic alternative, and simply strives to put a kinder face on neoliberalism and cuts. Standing with the Tories and LibDems under “Better Together” showed that clearly to the Scottish electorate. On the other hand, the SNP’s outgoing leader Alex Salmond steered them from traditional nationalism towards a social-democratic (though still business-friendly) position. Salmond’s rhetoric on the campaign trail was of an independent Scotland developing a high-tech, high-wage, socially secure mixed economy like Sweden or Norway.

For the Scottish working class, the nationalists are increasingly speaking their language, which Labour seems to have forgotten. It is of course doubtful whether an SNP-led independent government in Edinburgh would have been prepared to make any serious break with globalized neoliberalism. For example, the SNP was careful to call for an independent Kingdom of Scotland under the British monarchy, rather than a republic.

But the results of the votes in Glasgow and Dundee make it clear that generations of massive majorities for Labour are on the verge of tipping towards the nationalists, who now speak the language of reformism. On current polls, the SNP might win a majority of Scottish seats at Westminster in the next election, wiping out Labour and being able to demand many more powers for Scotland, or even the beginning of a new independence process.

Meanwhile, the Radical Independence Campaign has decided to stick together in the aftermath of the referendum, building a clear socialist case for Scotland to decide its own future. They will be holding a conference. The split in the Scottish Socialist Party in 2006 between supporters and opponents of former leader Tommy Sheridan dashed what was the brightest hope for the revolutionary left in English-speaking countries. This might indicate a new beginning.

Filed Under: International Tagged With:

Fiji Election: Crooks in Suits

October 19, 2014 by
SODELPA leader Ro Teimumu Kepa

SODELPA leader Ro Teimumu Kepa

Byron Clark (Fightback/MANA Otautahi).

On September 17 Fiji held its first election since Voreqe “Frank” Bainimarama  seized power in a 2006 coup. With his Fiji First party receiving 59.2% of the vote, Bainimarama will remain in power. Aman Ravindra-Singh, a candidate for the Peoples Democratic Party took so social media in the following days to declare “It is business as usual with the same old crooks this time they are in suits”.

A 3 News report the week of the election stated the election was “considered pivotal to ending the archipelago’s “coup culture”, which saw four governments toppled between 1987 and 2006 amid instability stemming from tensions between indigenous Fijians and ethnic Indians.”

This soundbyte oversimplifies the history of Fiji. As a British colony, indentured servants were brought from India to work on sugar plantations, and in time equaled the indigenous population in number. The divide-and-rule system implemented by the British persisted following independence, with electorates for ethnic Fijians and electorates for Fijian Indians.

Electorates were not based on population, meaning people in densely populated areas (more likely to be Fijian Indian) had less representation in parliament than the rural electorates, more likely to be populated by ethnic Fijians.

‘Ethnic tensions’ does not tell the whole story, the coups in 1987 and 2000 were indeed led by men wanting to retain the political power of ethnic Fijians, but the governments they overthrew were led by the multi-ethnic Labour Party which had its base not in any one ethnic group but in Fiji’s working class, which had been instrumental in independence struggles with industrial action as a tactic, and has retaining its fighting spirit though the subsequent decades.

The Bainimarama coup was different in that he promised to reform the electoral system to end the ethnic division. The election was held with electorates of equal size under ‘Open List’, a form of proportional representation similar to the MMP system used in New Zealand, but giving voters some control over the order of candidates on party lists. As in New Zealand, parties had to cross a 5% threshold, disadvantaging small parties and independents.

During the eight years since the coup the Bainimarama regime attempted to crush the union movement, arresting organisers and strike leaders, and issuing decrees limiting the role of unions in political life. “The current Decrees deny workers their most fundamental rights which are part of human rights and attempt to decimate workers unions and all the gains that workers have made through decades of struggle,” wrote then Council of Trade Unions general secretary Felix Antony in February last year.

“Such onslaught by the Regime and aided by some Employers is unprecedented. The uncertain political climate is seen by some employers as an opportunity to turn the clock back on workers and their unions.”

Around the same time the FCTU ended its support for the Labour Party, which was seen at the time as becoming an Indian Party drawing most of its support from just one union. Support for the Labour Party has collapsed completely, from 39% of the vote in 2006 to just 2.6% this year. Unfortunately, the new party formed out of a mass meeting of union members, the Peoples Democratic Party, didn’t do much better gaining just 3.2% of the vote.

Anthony, who had left his FCTU role to lead the new party (a government decree meant union office holders could not stand as candidates) resigned from the party leadership saying he takes full responsibility for the party’s poor performance.

The main opposition is now the Social Democratic Liberal Party, a reformation of the Soqosoqo Duavata ni Lewenivanua who were in government until the coup (the new party is known as ‘SODELPA’ rather than SDL because of a decree banning new parties using the same initials as old ones)

Fijis labour movement will continue to face challenges in the coming years as Bainimarama continues his rule with a supposedly democratic mandate. The Multinational Observer Group (MOG) stated that the “casting and counting of votes” was fair and the election results “broadly represented the will of the people” but as Wadan Narsey writing on Scoop pointed out:

“The good governance organisations know too well that elections are far more than just the “casting and counting” of votes, especially in a Fiji where draconian military decrees and total media control have restricted and shaped public opinion over the last eight years.

Books will now be written about this second Fiji case study (the first being Rabuka) on how a military commander, treasonously deposed a lawfully elected government, and managed to become legitimised as an elected Prime Minister.”

The struggle for democracy in Fiji is far from over.

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Marshall Island poet speaks at UN climate summit

October 16, 2014 by
The people of Micronesia are some of the most at risk from climate change, yet some of the least responsible. Following this speech, Kathy Jetnil-Kijiner is supporting the direction action taking place in Australia tomorrow. 
From 350.org

“The fossil fuel industry is the biggest threat to our very existence as Pacific Islanders. We stand to lose our homes, our communities and our culture. But we are fighting back. This coming Friday thirty Pacific Climate Warriors, joined by hundreds of Australians, will peacefully blockade the world’s largest coal port in Newcastle, Australia using our traditional canoes.

United we will stand up to the fossil fuel industry and world leaders must join this fight in order to stand on the right of history.

With our heads raised high the people of the Pacific are not drowning, we are fighting. The biggest threat to our homes is the fossil fuel industry and we will not rest until our very existence is no longer threatened by their greed and endless extraction.

I stood before world leaders at the United Nations last month to remind them that the price of inaction on climate change is high for the whole world. To tackle it we need a drastic change from the course we are currently on. The Pacific Warriors are here to remind the world what that change of course entails.

It entails freeing ourselves from the stranglehold of the fossil fuel industry once and for all.

The choice to make this happen is within reach as in the case of the divestment movement which serves to directly challenge the social license of the industry.

It’s time for us all to stand with the Pacific Climate Warriors and all frontline communities around the world who will be hit first and worst by the catastrophic climate change if the fossil fuel industry continues unchallenged.

It is time to show the fossil fuel industry we are united in the fight for the future of this world!”

Filed Under: Pacific

Why workers need our own “foreign policy” based on solidarity

October 15, 2014 by
"Our allies are the genuine revolutionary fighters like those defending Kobane. They need support not from the US or Turkey who will only seek to dominate and betray them but from fellow revolutionary fighters... across the globe" (photo from timeturk.com)

“Our allies are the genuine revolutionary fighters like those defending Kobane. They need support not from the US or Turkey who will only seek to dominate and betray them but from fellow revolutionary fighters in Syria, Iraq, Turkey and across the globe” (photo from timeturk.com)

Article by Mike Treen, UNITE Union General Secretary (but the views expressed are his own and not necessarily those of UNITE). Reprinted from UNITE and the Daily Blog.

Working people in the advanced capitalist world should reject appeals by the rulers of their countries to support the foreign policy of “their” country.

Inevitably that foreign policy is simply a programme to advance the interests of the super wealthy owners of industry and services to grab the biggest possible share of the wealth available on the world market. They disguise their naked self interest with appeals to the so-called “national interest” with claims that we are fighting for lofty goals like “freedom and democracy”. We are even asked to wage war for these goals. Often it is the working people on both sides of these wars who are being shafted or killed. But inevitably a few years down the line we discover that it was all lies.

I want to touch on a few of these wars from my lifetime and the lies told to support them.

The New Zealand Army participated in the Vietnam war from 1965 to 1972 when the troops were withdrawn by the newly elected Labour government under Norm Kirk. The previous National Party Prime Minister Keith Holyoake had declared: “Whose will is to prevail in South Vietnam? The imposed will of the North Vietnamese communists and their agents, or the freely expressed will of the people of South Vietnam?” Every word was a lie. It was widely accepted that if the elections promised at the 1954 peace conference had been held the Viet Minh forces led by Ho Chi Minh would have won easily. Instead the US installed a puppet dictatorship in the South of extreme brutality. Twenty years later the US was forced to leave Vietnam, the southern dictatorship soon collapsed and the country was reunified. But Vietnam had suffered several million deaths and a legacy of destruction they still are recovering from today. The US lost 58,000 troops. NZ lost 38. Every one of the killed was murdered in defence of a world capitalist empire.

In 1975 the Indonesian military regime invaded Timor and annexed the territory. The action was taken with the support of NZ, Australia, and the US. What the imperialist West feared was that the Revolutionary Front for an Independent East Timor (Fretilin) would create what was dubbed “another Cuba” in the Pacific. Ten years earlier this same military regime in Indonesia (again with the support of Australia, NZ, and the US) slaughtered a half million of their own citizens to remove a nationalist left wing government. While the UN passed a resolution deploring the invasion of Timor no action was taken. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the US ambassador to the UN at the time, wrote in his autobiography that “the United States wished things to turn out as they did, and worked to bring this about. The Department of State desired that the United Nations prove utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook [with regard to the invasion of East Timor]. This task was given to me, and I carried it forward with not inconsiderable success.” Later, Moynihan admitted that, as US ambassador to the UN, he had defended a “shameless” Cold War policy toward East Timor. A quarter century and several hundred thousand dead later Indonesia was forced to withdraw and Fretilin won the subsequent election. That has not stopped Australia in particular from trying to bully tiny Timor out of access to oil and other resources off its coast.

In December 1978 the Vietnamese government intervened militarily to remove the genocidal Khmer Rouge regime from power in Cambodia. This was an very popular move inside the country. Cambodian forces opposed to the Khmer Rouge supported the Vietnamese action and a Cambodian run government was established. Vietnam was met my extreme hostility by the imperialist West who imposed a brutal economic blockade on both Cambodia and Vietnam. China, the US, Australia, the UK and NZ supported the Khmer Rouge keeping their diplomatic seats in the United Nations and claiming to represent the victims of their genocide for another 15 years after their overthrow. In addition they allowed the Khmer Rouge to take control of refugee camps in Thailand and military and financial aid poured into their coffers to use for attacks on Cambodia and Vietnam. Hundreds of thousands of people starved to death as a consequence.

In 1975 a conservative monarchy was overthrown in Afghanistan by forces associated with the Peoples Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA). It was an urban based based with broad support in the middle classes and professional layers. It was also deeply influenced by an authoritarian and bureaucratic approach to politics from its association with Soviet style Stalinism. Many of its leading cadre had also been trained as engineers and military officer in the Soviet Union under the monarchy. The programme of the government was however very popular, especially in the cities, and included expanded rights for workers, women, and peasants.

Very soon a rural based war was sponsored by the US and the right wing military regime in Pakistan against the regime. The conservative tribal leaders (who also doubled as the rural gentry) feared the land reform and abolition of usury. They used the proposed education of girls to mobilise opposition to the “athiest” regime in Kabul. The Kabul regime in turn responded in increasingly brutal manner to force the policy changes down the populations throat.

Billions of dollars in aid flowed from the US through Saudi Arabia and Pakistan into the hands of the Mujahideen. They were dubbed “Freedom fighters” by US President Reagan.

The mujahideen consisted of at least seven factions, who often fought amongst themselves in their battle for territory and control of the opium trade. To hurt the Russians, the U.S. deliberately chose to give the most support to the most extreme groups. A disproportionate share of U.S. arms went to Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, “a particularly fanatical fundamentalist and woman-hater.”‘ According to journalist Tim Weiner, ” [Hekmatyar’s] followers first gained attention by throwing acid in the faces of women who refused to wear the veil. CIA and State Department officials I have spoken with call him ‘scary,’ ‘vicious,’ ‘a fascist,’ ‘definite dictatorship material.”There was, though, a kind of method in the madness: Brezinski hoped not just to drive the Russians out of Afghanistan, but to ferment unrest within the Soviet Union itself. His plan, says author Dilip Hiro, was “to export a composite ideology of nationalism and Islam to the Muslim-majority Central Asian states and Soviet Republics with a view to destroying the Soviet order.” Looking back in 1998, Brezinski had no regrets. “What was more important in the world view of history?… A few stirred-up Muslims or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War”.Read more.

Tens of thousands of foreign fighters were recruited and got their baptism of fire in Afghanistan including the most famous “freedom fighter” Osama Bin Laden. In 1992, the Mujahedeen drove the Soviets out and seized power themselves. However they soon fell into a fratricidal civil war that killed tens of thousands more Afghans. The Taliban then ousted the Mujahideen faction in power in 1994.

The Taliban were ousted in turn in 2001 by US-led forces installing other factions from the old Mujahideen based in the north of the country. New Zealand has supported the military occupation since then and actively participated at times. All of the governments in Afghanistan since the US-led occupation are reactionary warlords, drug dealing despots and murderers. The current vice-president General Dostum earned notoriety for suffocating several thousand Taliban prisoners in shipping containers during the final offensive against them.

The lies associated with the Iraq wars are more well documented. NZ also played a more limited role. However the NZ government did support the criminal sanctions regime against Iraq between Gulf War One in 1990 and Gulf War Two in 2003. This led two leading UN officials who had been placed in charge of the sanctions to resign as it was obvious that hundreds of thousands of people were killed as a consequence. On May 12, 1996, Madeleine Albright (then U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations) appeared on a 60 Minutes segment in which Lesley Stahl asked her “We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?” and Albright replied “we think the price is worth it.” While not part of the invasion force in 2003 Helen Clark’s Labour-led government did send a unit of military engineers to assist the occupation forces in 2004 because otherwise Fonterra would miss out on lucrative oil for food contracts. The morality of the occupation was no different to that of the invasion so the culpability remains.

We should remain very suspicious of any claims the US has that their promotion of renewed military intervention in the Middle East has anything to do with naked self-interest. Oil and the control of where it is extracted remains a geo-strategic objective of immense value.

Preventing the people of Syria and Iraq from exercising any notion of genuine self-determination or democracy is part of that reality.

The Kurdish people in Syria and Turkey (or Iraq and Iran for that matter) are not considered allies of the US and its allies because they desire a genuine social revolution that will liberate their people from being divided up and exploited. The Kurdistan Workers Party has mass support in Turkey and Syria. That party has led the resistance in Kobane to the ISIS attacks. Turkey has killed more Kurds in Turkey this past week than ISIS fighters in Syria. On the BBC tonight I heard a Kurd who lives in Turkey declare “We don’t need your support, or your weapons, we just need you to stop supporting ISIS”. NZ, Australia, The UK and The US have all listed the PKK as a terrorist organisation because it also fights the recationary Turkish regime (and Nato ally).

ISIS is a product of the attempt over three years to overthrow an autocratic, nationalist regime in Syria that won’t bow down completely before the US empire or Israel. Billions of dollars in arms and fighters have poured across the border since the revolt began against the Assad regime in 2011. The most reactionary gulf states (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait) funded like-minded individuals and groups. Turkey opened its borders to foreign fighters and promoted their own groups. No one cared if fighters went from the UK, Australia or NZ. The main allies that the imperialists and their local allies are able to find in their fight against these increasingly unpopular governments were often the most reactionary and gangster like tribal leaders, warlords and businessmen.

But once you unleash reactionary forces like this they can take on a life of their own that gets out of control. This is exactly what occurred in Afghanistan with the Taliban and Libya with the armed gangs vying for control of that country.

We must completely reject the propaganda of the empire. Our allies aren’t the US military or the local gangsters they support. Our allies are the genuine revolutionary fighters like those defending Kobane. They need support not from the US or Turkey who will only seek to dominate and betray them but from fellow revolutionary fighters in Syria, Iraq, Turkey and across the globe. Those fighters cannot be the ones who sell their souls to the empire but ones who want a genuinely progressive and democratic transformation of their country.

Filed Under: Uncategorized

10,000 Workers Strike in Support of Hong Kong’s Protests

October 10, 2014 by

hong-kong-umbrellas-cops

Article by Michelle Chen, reprinted from The Nation.

The umbrella is a perfect icon for Hong Kong’s uprising: inclusive, aloof, a bit Anglophile and pragmatically defiant of the elements (and according to cinematic lore, readily convertible to a lethal kung fu weapon). It embodies the central plea of the protesters amassed in “Democracy Square”: a civilized demand for self-determination. Yet the biggest worry in Beijing right now isn’t the threat of universal suffrage, but what comes afterward—the struggle for social justice that Hong Kongers face they pivot between post-colonial limbo and authoritarian capitalism.

That’s what the labor movement is taking to the streets with young protesters. The Equal Times reports that as of Wednesday—China’s National Day—“According to the latest HKCTU [Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions] figures, some 10,000 workers across all sectors have downed tools.” As unions representing industrial, service and professional workforcesrallied alongside the youth and condemned police suppression of the demonstrators, Hong Kong labor echoed the former colony’s long legacy of worker militancy. In a call for mass strikes, the HKCTU declared, “Workers must stand up against the unjust government and violent suppression…. To defend democracy and justice, we cannot let the students fight the suppression alone.”

The immediate spark for the protests was the controversy over the electoral process. Activists were incensed that following Beijing’s decree via the proxy authority National People’s Congress, candidates for Hong Kong’s 2017 executive election would be pre-approved by the mainland authorities.

But even prior to the electoral betrayal, students revolted against the imposition of Beijing-controlled nationalist curricula on public schools. Longtime residents chafed at mainlanders’ perceived aggressive economic encroachment on local neighborhoods and businesses. And even the symbols of the protest express a yearning for a change in the social and cultural reality, rather than just liberalizing political mechanics. Like the “Hands Up” iconography of the Ferguson protests, the sea of umbrellas exude both civility and defiance in the face of brutality, not looking for trouble, just demanding dignity.

At the center of their struggle for dignity is the desire to control their economic destiny. A statement issued last week by dozens of labor and community groups draws the link between unaccountable government and the divide between the plutocracy and the people:

The Chinese Communist Party has followed and reinforced almost every governing strategy used by the British colonialists. Working in tandem, the CCP and business conglomerates have only worsened Hong Kong’s already alarming rich-poor gap. …

It is true that even a genuinely democratic system may not be able to bring immediate improvements to grassroots and workers’ livelihoods. However, the current political system and the NPC’s ruling are flagrant violations of our political rights as well as our right to be heard. A pseudo-democratic system will only install even more obstacles on our already difficult path to better livelihoods and a progressive society.

But the group’s demands go beyond electoral freedom: it wants expanded housing protections and welfare policies and a government that is responsive to the economic and social concerns raised by civil society groups. With this aspiration toward a fairer as well as freer society,according to City University of Hong Kong professor Toby Carroll, many leaders fear primarily that “people in Hong Kong will convert demands for increasing suffrage into robust demands for redistribution; that in the face of plenty, those with little or no positive prospects won’t stand for obscenely concentrated wealth, power and privilege anymore.”

As Eli Friedman points out, Hong Kong is both an amazingly sophisticated and intensely unequal economy, compared to other “developed” nations. One-fifth of the population lives in poverty. The minimum wage, just recently implemented at the rate of US $3.60, hardly offsets the astronomical costs of housing, inflation and unemployment. The former colonial trade hub has lost about 80 percent of its manufacturing jobs since the early 1990s, as industries have shifted to the mainland. The most impoverished are often migrant laborers, youths and women. The radicals at the core of #OccupyCentral represent twentysomethings who are tired of the volatility of the economy and the stagnation of the country’s political system.

The latest uprising was portended last year when dockworkers staged a major strike to demand stable, fair working conditions. They galvanized international solidarity in criticizing multinational corporations’ degradation of global labor rights.

So far, Beijing shows no signs of heeding the demands for free elections or the resignation of mainland-aligned Chief Executive C.Y. Leung. Protesters are doubling down, too, heartened by a groundswell of international solidarity actions. And so the brittle “one country, two systems” policy is steadily unraveling. Not necessarily because Beijing has tried to impose its rule directly—for the most part, Hong Kongers enjoy infinitely more civil freedoms than their mainland counterparts—but because Hong Kong, on principle, just wants to be able to claim full freedom and self-rule for the first time in its modern history.

The voices of Hong Kong’s workers are instructive for international observers. It’s too easy to draw a simple parallel to the Tiananmen Square pro-democracy protests. The idealism is there, but universal suffrage is a means to an end, the first step away from decades of being lorded over by reactionary ruling elites—one building block toward social democracy.

Sophia Chan, an activist with Left 21, tells The Nation, “We see free elections as a major blow to business-government collusion and capitalist privilege.” She emphasized that the current parliamentary government, dominated by business leaders, has been structured “to protect the interests of capitalists.… although we do think that a democratic political system is only the first step to real change, we also think that that in itself would already be a huge improvement for our fight against capitalist oppression in Hong Kong.”

In 1997, Hong Kong was handed over by Britain to its “motherland,” the crown jewel of China’s new empire. But the deal turned out to be more than what Beijing had bargained for. The mainland regained a piece of territory, but it never conquered the hearts of a people who are ready for true decolonization and will settle for nothing less.

See also

Filed Under: Hong Kong, International

ANZ workers strike

October 10, 2014 by

secure hours ANZ courtenay place

ANZ workers across Aotearoa/NZ (members of FIRST Union) went on strike today, for secure hours and better wages.

ANZ rat frank kitts
ANZ indebts customers and undermines staff, while CEO David Hisco makes over $2000/hr.

ANZ Hisco rat

With more attacks on unions, workers and beneficiaries on the way, collective action like this is exactly what we need. Kia kaha!

See also

Filed Under: Workers in Struggle

Hone Harawira’s farewell speech

October 4, 2014 by

parliament steps MANA Movement

Ten years ago I led 50,000 Maori on the historic FORESHORE AND SEABED MARCH from Te Rerenga Wairua to the very steps of this parliament, in a march against the greatest land grab in the history of this country – Labour’s theft of the foreshore and seabed – a watershed moment for Maori because it wiped away any illusion that Labour would put Maori rights ahead the interests of big mining; because it showed that the colonial past of land thefts was still very much alive; and because it led to the formation of the first ever independent Maori political party – THE MAORI PARTY.

Those were the wonderful days when it seemed all of Maoridom spoke with one voice – days that quickly ended when the Maori Party did A DEAL WITH NATIONAL at the next election in 2008, and although it quickly became clear that we were being overwhelmed, the leadership of the Maori Party ignored my pleas for us to stop accepting National Party lies over the advice of our own experts, and supporting tax cuts for the rich, billion dollar bailouts for failed finance companies, benefit cuts and the privatisation of prisons.

But the final straw came when the Maori Party accepted National’s version of the Foreshore and Seabed Bill – the MARINE AND COASTAL AREAS BILL – a bill which has seen not one grain of sand returned to Maori in the 5 years since it became law.

That was the when I resigned from the Maori Party, resigned from parliament, and with the support of the people of the north and tautoko from around the country, won the seat back as the leader of the newly minted MANA MOVEMENT, and held it again in the election of 2011.

MANA defined its position when we announced that our constituency would be those we call TE PANI ME TE RAWAKORE, the poor and the dispossessed, and our last three years have been a challenging and vigorous time where we have staked out our place in the political world – a commitment to ending poverty for all and particularly those most vulnerable in our society, our kids; a commitment to putting an end to the grinding homelessness affecting tens of thousands of New Zealand families; a commitment to putting the employment of people ahead of the sacrifice of jobs in the endless pursuit of wealth for the few; and a commitment to a future where the Treaty of Waitangi is honoured as the basis for justice and good governance in Aotearoa.

Mind you – being so highly principled brings with it enormous risk, not least the fact that KIDS CAN’T VOTE AND POOR PEOPLE DON’T, but I am proud of what we have achieved in our short time in parliament.

When we first raised our FEED THE KIDS policy three years ago, everybody laughed, so we took our kaupapa on the road, we built a support coalition of more than 30 national organisations, we pushed the policy into the top 5 issues of the year, and with the support of a standout series on Campbell Live, we got a poll last year that showed more than 70% supported a government-funded food in schools programme.

When we called for 10,000 NEW STATE HOUSES EVERY YEAR until the housing crisis was over, other politicians squirmed, but after challenging them at a Housing Action protest outside parliament, Labour took up the same call for 10,000 new houses a year, albeit theirs was more a pitch to woo middle-class voters than a bid to help the poor.

We took up the call for FULL EMPLOYMENT because to accept anything less was to accept failure, and by pushing for the minimum wage to be the LIVING WAGE OF $18.80 AN HOUR, we forced other so-called left-wing parties to follow suit.

We created a space for those of the Ratana faith to meet in parliament, out of respect for TW Ratana’s commitment to the Treaty of Waitangi, a space that I sincerely hope that Rino Tirikatene and Adrian Rurawhe will honour in my absence, and we also allowed my parliament offices to be used as neutral ground for warring gangs – not exactly parliamentary business but certainly the business of MANA.

And as I leave, I lay down a challenge to this parliament.

My FEED THE KIDS bill is live in parliament as we speak, a bill which already has the support of Labour, the Greens, New Zealand First and the Maori Party, a bill to provide what the people of New Zealand have called for – a comprehensive, government-funded food in schools programme. It is ready to be passed at the first sitting of parliament, and if it did, I know it would gladden the hearts of all good Kiwis, please the mums who are struggling to get by, and fill the stomachs of the 100,000 children still going to school hungry every day. This is not my bill. This is a bill for the children. And I call on this parliament to pass it as a show of faith in our own future, and a show of love for those of our children who desperately need our help.

We have a full-blown housing crisis in Aotearoa, with 30,000 families officially listed as homeless – families living in cars, cowsheds, cockroach-infested caravans and garages, or in cold, damp, overcrowded, unhealthy homes, because rents are too high, and the cost of a new home is out of reach. I call on this parliament to stop the sale of New Zealand homes to non-resident foreigners, to stop the sale of state houses to private developers, to renovate or replace those that need them, and to commit to a full programme of building 10,000 new state houses every year until the housing crisis is over. All it takes to eliminate homelessness and employ thousands of people in the housing industry is political will.

Government also has the responsibility of managing the economy, and just as importantly, ensuring that that economy meets the needs of its people rather than the profits of its parasites, and I call on this parliament to restructure our economy to suit just such a purpose; to invest in community work programmes; to give life back to communities all around our country devastated by asset sales, asset stripping and corporate greed; to create employment for all of its citizens so that instead of wasting billions and billions of dollars every year in needless and mindless welfare dependency, that that money is used to engage communities in rebuilding their future, engage whanau in rebuilding their lives, and engage people in rebuilding their love for work.

And as I leave, I do so in good heart, for over the past couple of weeks I have travelled the MANA nation, and felt the love and the passion that is the lifeblood of MANA, and the commitment to continue our work: from Kaitaia to Kaikohe, Whangarei to the North Shore, West Auckland to Southside, Waatea to Waikato, Hamilton to Gisborne, Rotorua to Taihape, Christchurch, and here in Wellington.

Our meetings have not been the sombre and tearful farewell tour for Hone Harawira that others may have hoped for, but rather a joyous and uplifting revival tour for a Movement that takes up the challenge of being the conscience of the nation, and of taking action in support of our kaupapa.

I hear the mean-spirited and ugly voices of those who are desperately keen to see me go, but I don’t have time to respond because we’re too busy focussing on the tasks ahead.

We are already organising to FEED THE KIDS, and working with other groups to get in behind our campaign.

We will be calling on iwi up and down the country to open their marae to HOUSE THE HOMELESS.

We will be organising INTERNET CAMPS for senior students and Maori communities so that our young people can fly the highways of the world.

We are talking with work trusts about COMMUNITY EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMMES that can become a model for other communities to adopt.

We will create COMMUNITY HUBS where the MANA message of hope and action can become the core of the communities we serve.

We will MONITOR GOVERNMENT’S PERFORMANCE on steps they are taking to create real jobs with decent wages and safe working conditions, to house the homeless, and to eliminate child poverty, and we will also be challenging the opposition to keep the pressure on to achieve these goals.

And we will march against THE HATED GCSB; we will mount a legal challenge against the MASS SURVEILLANCE that this government is conducting illegally against the people of New Zealand; we will continue to oppose THE TPPA that threatens the sovereignty of our very nation; and we will campaign for the return of OUR ASSETS.

Believe me when I say that MANA will not be going gently into the night.

And as I leave, I thank the thousands of NZers of all creeds and cultures for their fabulous support for me personally, and for their recognition of the work that MANA has done and continues to do as the voice for the voiceless.

And I leave you all with the words of a National Party voter who wrote to me just two days after the election, who said

“Hone, I hope you get to read this.

I am a 57 year old pakeha centre right voter (don’t throw up just yet) who was delighted with the result of the election, with one exception. That exception is a big one, and one I believe all NZ is poorer for, and that is, you are for the present, no longer in our Parliament.

I have talked about this today with a large number of people who, like me, have had a reasonable amount of success in life, who support the current Government, and would on the surface appear to have little in common with you. The common feeling was that you are an honourable man with a strong and decent vision.

While you made a bad call with your partners for this election, this shouldn’t define you, and I and the people I mix with, genuinely hope that after a little time out, you will regroup and then start the next campaign shortly. Good government needs strong opposition and Labour is too factional to provide that, the Greens are too narrowly focused, and the rest are a bloody joke.

I like the fact that with you what one sees is what one gets. At times I wish you would learn to play with others better, but that’s you, so what the hell.

I guess what I’m trying to say is that there is a strong feeling out here that NZ needs you; that not only Maori, but all New Zealanders will be missing out, by not having you in our House of Representatives.

I hope out of this you will come back stronger than ever in your own right, without partners with baggage that you don’t need. Be your own movement!

Good luck and Stay Strong.

E te whanau – there is a saying that has fed my soul all the years of my adult life, a saying that you all know well, and a saying that says it all …

Happy are those who dream dreams, and are prepared to pay the price to make those dreams come true.

Our dream, MANA’s dream, is for a society where Maori can stand tall, where te pani me te rawakore is just a line in a song, and where everyone can feel good about the contribution they can make as a citizen of Aotearoa.

When I first came to parliament my people brought me here.

Today I thank the MANA whanau for making the long journey to take me home. Your love and your support has sustained me through the darkest of days, and your joy and your happiness has been a constant source of strength. Long may it continue.

And finally, to my darling wife, thank you for just being you, and for always being there for me.

Filed Under: Mana Party