Monthly Archives: Feb 2015

Climate change increasingly difficult to ignore

Posted on by
Reply

Today, reading the news on the web, I saw something that I found profoundly disturbing. It was an article about mysterious craters appearing in the permafrost regions of Siberia. The craters – some measuring up to 30 metres across and several metres deep – have baffled scientists as to their origins. No meteorites or volcanic activity has been reported in the area. There is however significant methane deposits trapped under the permafrost and in the absence of any other natural or man made event that could excavated these craters, the scientists have made a potentially very dangerous discovery: the permafrost is melting, upsetting the methane pockets below, which are exploding and excavating the craters.

This is the latest in a long line of discoveries that have been made, which have slowly drawn me to the conclusion that man made climate change or not, we as a nation, as a member of the global community need to act now. Just a few of the others are:

  • The accelerating acidification of the ocean, slowly but surely making our oceans inhospitable to the marine ecosystem upon which we rely so much
  • The fact that tiny Pacific Island nations such as Tokelau and Kiribati may slide beneath the sea for good in my life time – as yet they live a tenuous existence at sea level, prone to king tides, storm surge and tsunami –  and the people on these islands may become environmental refugees
  • The frequency with which bush fires are hitting Australia, sometimes in tandem with heatwaves

There was a time when I actually thought climate change was not only man made, but that it was already too late to do anything. However as I progressed through my undergraduate geography and geology papers, and more recently the slew of environmental science papers that I have taken, I came to appreciate alternative points of view. The views are quite varied and range from the openly skeptical that it is just simply a too short period in history to possibly be man made, through to the aforementioned chicken little type view that the sky is falling, woe betide. And then there is the middle ground view that I am drawn towards. And of course there are the outright denials of climate change in any form – which I thought for the sake of this post should be set aside for another day.

One such view was that perhaps it is happening, but that we need to look at the geological record which contains evidence of past warming and cooling periods and their duration before we jump to conclusions. I tend to go with this, but balance it with two additional stand points to get a rounded perspective. Those other two stand points are at alternative ends of the sphere – trying to plant the range of views on climate change on a one or two dimensional spectrum is simply impossible:

  1. There is only limited impact New Zealand can positively have because of our very small contribution to the overall global emissions, and that we should therefore not cripple ourselves trying to be as clean as possible when in one year or less the growth in emissions from developing countries will engulf any reduction we contributed.
  2. That New Zealand should however take full advantage – and this makes me gnash my teeth with frustration – of its technological know how, clean energy sources and environmental planning laws and rather than lead the world in something it simply cannot do, develop a green tech industry, more along the lines of what Germany is trying to achieve.

I gnash my teeth for a very good reason. The elected politicians have not the vision or the courage to prepare a long term integrated plan involving all of the affected sectors of the New Zealand economy and society that can address as far as is reasonably possible the New Zealand portion of a problem I am increasingly led to believe is now too serious to ignore, regardless of the causes. The know how is there. The environmental laws that enable this are there. The means are there.

But as yet, the will is not.

Government attacking New Zealand democracy

Posted on by
Reply

New Zealand is a land that loudly proclaims to free, democratic and transparent. That is certainly true when it is compared to nations such as China where freedom of speech is frowned on and dissent of the government is likely to land you in jail; where their use of the death penalty is one of the highest in the world and where torture is rampant in prisons. But how does New Zealand’s own performance stack up against these claims?

It is true that no Government is totally protective of human rights or democracy. All have had their failings in one respect or another. In supposed times of war, on a number of fronts the perceptions of a crackdown become particularly strong. In a war such as World War 2, where there was a clear and present danger to the free world by aggressive well armed foes, perhaps the censorship and lose lips warnings of those times were justified. But that is not now. Islamic State is not Nazi era Germany or Japan and the circumstances that brought I.S. about are different from those that gave rise to the World War Two aggressors.

Sometimes it is a government of a nation that is supposedly at peace that wants to make life a bit more exciting for itself, that decides it needs to have a foe that can be the problem. Whilst that is not the case in New Zealand, it could well be the underlying cause of the constant wars that the United States finds itself in. America could make the world a much safer place in a fairly short time if it unilaterally stopped arming dictatorships, closed all bases in the Middle East and ended the War on Drugs. But to do that would be hugely damaging to the military industrial complex that – ironically – an outgoing Republican President (Dwight D. Eisenhower) forewarned the U.S. about, which employs more than one million U.S. citizens, to say nothing of the soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines, the C.I.A. and so forth that rely on the complex for gadgets and weapons.

Although I have just acknowledged New Zealand is not – and hopefully never will be beholden to the military industrial complex – the foreign policy of nations friendly to us that are, has an at times negative impact on our own wellbeing. This can be reflected in events and policy changes that happen under a particular Government during a period of higher tensions. The fifth Labour Government for example:

  • Passed the Electoral Finance Act 2007, which many considered an attack on election campaigning rights because of the nature of the provision changes
  • The New Zealand Police carried out “anti-terror” raids to test the provisions of the Terrorism Suppression Act of 2002, passed by the Labour Government in response to the change in the international security environment caused by the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks
  • Prior to the current Government of Prime Minister John Key, had the highest number of Acts of Parliament passed under urgency

However, since November 2008, New Zealand has been governed by a National-led Government that has shown unprecedented disregard for New Zealand democracy and human rights. Since the start of 2009, it has:

  • Sacked an elected Regional Council and installed Commissioners, first with a three year limit and then with another three year extension
  • Removed clauses from numerous Acts of Parliament regarding corporate and investor social responsibility
  • Committed New Zealand troops to a war at the request of allies, without either asking the public for permission or permitting Parliament to have a vote
  • Warned the Human Rights Commission to effectively watch its step, hinting that its funding might be cut if it did not
  • Passed legislation in the shape of the Crown Minerals (Crown Land and Permitting)Act 2013 that the Human Rights Commission found to be in violation of New Zealand human rights law after the author of this blog lodged a complaint
  • Thus far refused despite significant and growing concern about the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement to release the details of the trade agreement
  • Ignored key recommendations from the United Nations Universal Periodic Review for human rights

I, like the majority of people reading this blog, am a New Zealander first and foremost. Like any decent citizen I want the best for my country and for it to be all that it can be. I want to see it be a nation respected by all on the world stage for being fair and compassionate, yet unmistakably New Zealand. To me, the first and foremost priority of ANY government is to put its people and the nation that it is elected to represent, FIRST.

I fail to see how attacking its democratic foundations that this dream can be achieved. I fail to see how the aspirations that the older generations of New Zealanders went to wars in foreign lands to fight for are going to be realized by Governments that trample on their hard gotten gains. That first and most fundamental priority is certainly not being met by the fifth National-led Government.

Using New Zealand’s United Nations Security Council seat

Posted on by
Reply

For years we spent considerable effort lobbying other nations to back New Zealand for a temporary seat on the United Nations. I hoped against nagging personal doubts that we were doing enough to convince those nations we should have one. I hoped because I remember the New Zealand effort in the United Nations during the Rwandan genocide by New Zealand diplomats horrified at what was happening and determined that even if the rest of the world did nothing, New Zealand had the moral courage to stand up and say “this is not okay”.

Do not get me wrong. I applaud New Zealand for having a Security Council seat, as it gives us opportunities that a nation does not have in the General Assembly to influence international policy. It gives us an opportunity to pressure the permanent nations to do something about the angst that results when the Veto is wielded on contentious United Nations Security Council resolutions. Syria remains a bleeding mess because Russia and China vetoed resolutions calling for international aid and the humanitarian crisis is now in its fifth year. Israel continues to anger the growing number of Palestine supporters with its disregard for calls to investigate alleged war crimes in Gaza and its ignorance of United Nations Security Council resolutions, something it gets away with because the U.S. prefers to abstain or vote against the Resolution.

But the Middle East is not everything and the obsession with it by the Security Council members, many people find quite off putting.

When I discuss New Zealand foreign policy, I set two different sets of targets. They are the ones that I expect New Zealand to be aiming for, and the ones I know that New Zealand is likely to reach. The ones I expect to reach are easy to describe, though they have been subject to a bit of revision:

  • An agreement on the removal and disposal of waste products floating around in the worlds oceans – nations generally don’t deny there is a problem
  • Recognition of the United Nations Universal Periodic Review of New Zealand and the implementation of its recommendations
  • Giving each geographical region a rotating seat on the United Nations Security Council to be shared amongst the nations of that region
  • Making it a criminal offense anywhere in the world to be supporting Islamic State or Boko Haram

The ones I don’t think New Zealand will reach, but which we must try are:

  •  To continue being a voice for the South Pacific in General Assembly and (should – like now – we ever be on) the Security Council because compromising their well being will compromise our own eventually;
  • Push for Security Council reform – ending the veto, introducing punishments for repeat international law violators;
  • Make the abolition of chemical and biological weapons a priority
  • More evenly distributing the funding responsibilities of United Nations Security Council members

However the obvious resolve of New Zealand Governments on matters of human rights and civil liberties has been in steady decline for some time now. It might have started during the late 1990’s when our economic relations with China began to substantially warm up. In order to keep the Chinese pleased, the Government began to show reluctance in criticizing the Chinese officials. Although they were not actively made to stop protesting, the Government began turning a blind eye/deaf ear to complaints about the conduct of Chinese officials wanting to shut down protests on Parliament grounds. This decline can be traced back in part to our weak constitutional framework and the reluctance of any party in Parliament to address issues that might trip them. One good example is the recent decision by Prime Minister John Key to commit troops to Iraq without a Parliamentary vote, which has resulted in negative feed back from many quarters.

My biggest fear though is none of the above, but that we will sit on our laurels instead of making maximum use of the temporary seat until too late, and let our allies – whoever they are – do the talking. As we have found out, allies have their limitations.

The price New Zealand pays for being in the club

Posted on by
2

Prime Minister John Key said a few weeks ago when anger at Islamic State brutality reached a new peak, that “the price of being in the club” was to be prepared to commit troops to a war against Islamic State. I opined on this blog in January when the Prime Minister first suggested New Zealand might become involved in the fight. Tonight, I opine again to A) register my discontent with this decision and B) query exactly who are these allies Mr Key speaks of.

I will start with my discontent.

Let me be clear first and foremost that just because I am not in favour of what the New Zealand military is about to do, does not mean that I do not support New Zealand troops. When one is in the military, they are expected to obey orders, which may at times challenge their conscience or they can see potential wrongs with them. My mother and her brother are both ex-Royal New Zealand Navy.  He saw nuclear testing at Mururoa and Christmas Island atolls. Their younger sister is ex-Royal New Zealand Airforce.

I register my discontent when I am grumpy through several means. In a purely political sense, I take to the Facebook page of the politician in question if they have one and tell them what I think. I write letters to the editors of several New Zealand newspapers. I broadcast it in debates and with mates and on this blog.

But it is more the lack of consitutional safeguards in Parliament to stop rash decision making and to ensure that even if something which goes against the will of the Parliament is allowed to happen, the Prime/Minister, Members of Parliament responsible are not exempt from blame and may have to account for themselves. In the United States, a two-thirds majority is needed to permit military involvement, something not always sought, in part because of the time taken, but also because  countries like China and Russia continue to sell top flight weapons systems to despots who might be subject to United Nations orders.

The discontent also stems from knowledge that this is really the end game of 100 years of western geopolitical thinking falling to pieces at the realisation that beneath the superimposed boundaries of Syria (which the French formed around 1920) and Iraq and Iran, the same old ethnic tensions and fault lines lie. This became about from the massive oil wealth there, the installation of dictatorships or puppet governments to appease the imperial power and brutal methods such as gassing and air power as that which the British employed against Iraq in 1920. Finally it came about because not surprisingly, resentment began to grow with each new event. If one draws the boundaries purely to conform with ethnic geography, you have a lot more complex map that no one will want to know about.

Now, I would like to query who are these allies that the Prime Minister speaks of. Who are they? Are they the same ones that turned a deaf ear/blind eye to the fury of New Zealand when the French Government blew up the Rainbow Warrior in Auckland, in an act of state sanctioned vandalism? That’s France. Are they the same ones that ruined pristine atolls with nuclear testing and did not adequately compensate them or offer to clean the radioactive residue up? That is France, Britain and U.S. Are they the same allies that are part of obsolete Cold War military alliances that should be put out to pasture? Australia, France, Britain, U.S. and Canada. Are they the same ones that did not get a United Nations resolution to sanction military force against Iraq in 2003, but invaded anyway and left behind the power vacuum mentioned earlier? That is the U.S. and Britain.

What I think New Zealand needs to do will be a separate post.

Valuing the New Zealand Passport

Posted on by
Reply

Passports issued by first world countries are valuable things. The greater the credibility of a country on the world stage, the greater the ability of their national passport to get people into exotic places.

New Zealand is no exception. In fact we sit near the top of the power table for passports. There are not many countries a New Zealand passport will not let you into 170 countries according to the Henley and Partners 2014 Visa Restrictions Index. At the top are Finland, Germany, Sweden, U.S. and U.K. whose respective passports permit entry into 174 countries. At the other end of the scale an Afghanistan passport will permit entry into only 28 countries. An Iraqi passport will permit entry into only 31 countries – figures not likely to change before the insurgencies in either country either stabilise or are reduced to the point where they cannot no longer threaten.

I can appreciate efforts to protect the security of such a valuable document, property of the New Zealand Government. The New Zealand passport has over 1.5 million copies in circulation and is issued by the Department of Internal Affairs. Roughly 75% of the population has possessed or possesses a New Zealand passport of some description.

Unfortunately as an incident involving suspected Israeli Mossad agents in 2004 showed, whereas passport fraud might normally  be the work of organized terrorists, criminal groups or opportunistic fraudsters, sometimes Governments have ulterior motives as well. The incident involved two men who were jailed for six months. I am aware that it caused a diplomatic uproar including the suspension of diplomatic relations with Israel. The Government of Israel apologized in 2005.

The passport I had issued prior to my current one was a 10 year one, that lasted from 2002 to 2012. My current one will only last five years, before I have to renew it because the National-led Government of Prime Minister John Key did away with the 10 year version for reasons of fraudulent activity being linked to them. However a petition by Kyle Lockwood to the Government Administration Committee asking for the 10 year passport to be reintroduced was recognized on the grounds no clear link between fraudulent activity and 10 year passports could be identified.

Whilst I have no problems with people being issued New Zealand passports if they show that they are of good character, I believe every nation has the responsibility to put the passport needs of their citizenry first and foremost. In the case of New Zealand, I believe that the 10 year passport should be brought back, but the 10 year version should only be available to New Zealand citizens and that everyone else should hold five year passports. I further believe that three strikes penalty regime should exist for misuse of passports. For people who are not New Zealand citizens, the only way  to hold a passport should be to not commit any serious crime with permanent forfeiture of that right if something serious is committed. For New Zealanders it should be a substantially escalating fine/prison combination with the possibility of permanent loss only as a last resort for serial offenders.