Monthly Archives: Jan 2016

European Union creaks and groans: What it means for New Zealand

Posted on by
Reply

25 years after the Cold War  ended, Europe is barely recognizable from the continent that in 1991 was daring to hope for a better future. Back then the border crossings that for many people were the end of the road quite literally were opening up; it was okay to protest in east Berlin; the Soviets were gone. If one thought that the imperial powers of Europe had wound up their business as such after World War Two and that their former colonies were free to do as they wished, they could not have been more wrong.

The lingering legacy of Britain and France’s ill fated Iraqi and Syrian geopolitical experiments were still to unravel. Dictatorships sanctioned and armed by the west ruled both with an iron fist. The Belgian colony of Rwanda was about to experience a genocide whose roots could be traced back to the colonial days. And the former Italian colonies of east Africa had plunged into anarchy. Out of these countries and their neighbours has flowed a unstoppable stream of migrants who wanted to get away from the persecution, and the civil wars over who was most qualified to run nations with no experience of democracy. With little money or means to go elsewhere, they headed north and west for Europe.

And Europe, with little thought for what might follow, accepted them en masse. Fast forward to 2016 and throw in a new wave of people leaving…

It would be fair to say that the European Union has not had a stellar decade thus far. The influx of migrants from Syria and the Middle East, trying to get away from an aimless war with no clear winners in sight, is just one of a potent mix bubbling very near the surface. From Portugal  to Poland, Sweden to Italy, the continent is bulging at the seems with migrants whose mass movement is not by choice, but largely by necessity. Many are traumatized. Many have never been to another country in their life and find the culture of continental Europe as much a challenge as getting away from the conflict. Integration will not be easy.

The social pressures brought on by hundreds of thousands of migrants pouring in is putting immense strain on everything from social services to law and order. All of them need to be housed somewhere whilst they are processed. All of them need food, medical treatment, clothes and so forth. They all need assistance with language barriers and understanding what is acceptable and what is not. Not all will integrate and many just want to go home, but for now, have no choice but to leave.

What does all of this mean for New Zealand? Quite a lot. And much of it not entirely good, but not entirely surprising either. Despite having little to do with the problems afflicting Europe, New Zealand like many other countries may find Europe tightening the visas limitations imposed on their nationals, and closing border crossings that for 20 odd years since the end of the Cold War, one could drive straight through. Indeed Germany and Sweden have already starting activating long dormant border checks. Other nations may follow suit shortly. In a bid to ensure that jobs are available for their own people, those going on working holidays overseas which has long been a favourite  travel option for New Zealanders

It is possible too that Europe may find itself facing a surge amongst right-wing parties that is bigger than just the surging Front National in France. This surge represents a growing distrust of foreigners brought on by terrorist attacks in various E.U. countries, a decades long failure to integrate steadily growing immigrant communities into individual nations and the perceptions that European culture is being overrun. Sadly this xenophobia is not new to Europe. Organizations like the Greek Golden Dawn, the French Front National, the English Defence League are all experiencing growth in membership in rural areas and urban areas alike. All are openly hostile to migrants and even people of colour who might be just tourists in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Unfortunately given the apparent clueless nature of the European response to the migrant crisis, the fact that it comes on top of a wad of other socio-economic problems and a worsening situation in Syria, the European Union might be looking at the edge of the abyss. And for nations all over the world that have gained from the freeing up of the post-Cold War continent, that could be a very bad thing.

Zika virus and New Zealand

Posted on by
Reply

By now you might have heard of the Zika virus, which came from a pathogen unheard of just 12 months ago, but which is now spreading steadily through the sub/tropical latitudes. For the first time since the mid 2000’s when there were a flurry of virus scares such as H5N1 (Bird Flu) the World Health Organization is sounding a degree of alarm that means its risk assessments believe something capable of international disruption is occurring. But what is Zika and how much of a risk does it pose here in New Zealand?

Zika is a virus that is carried by the Aedes mosquito. It has its onset between 2-7 days after the Aedes mosquito has bitten you, and there is a 25% chance of developing symptoms that are related to the virus. Very few people appear likely to develop complications as a result of being bitten by a Zika bearing mosquito. However the worst effects are defects to the body in babies that can include small heads.

At this stage there has been one hospitalization and nine diagnosis of the virus in New Zealanders so far this year. Although the virus has been detected in New Zealanders on 67 different occasions since 2002, it is not thought to pose a major risk. Ministry of Health guidelines for pregnant women are to get tested, and for those wanting to become pregnant soon to consider delaying pregnancy for a few months if they are planning to travel to any country with known Zika infections.

It is possible given that numerous large international airlines fly in and out of New Zealand daily – Emirates and Singapore both fly in and out of Christchurch on a daily basis; numerous large carriers fly into and out of Auckland – that as the virus spreads more cases may unwittingly arrive in New Zealand. However, more likely is the arrival on regional carriers, which include Air Vanuatu, Virgin Blue and Fiji Airways. As these service countries that have poor or non-existential customs or biosecurity checks it would conceivable to get bitten by the mosquito, leave for New Zealand the following day and still have 24 hours before symptoms are likely to appear.

At this stage it is too early to tell whether Zika will cause a major scare like H5N1 did. And even if one does happen, it might be months before it becomes an issue here. As long as the current quite robust mosquito surveillance remains in place at the border, New Zealand is probably at little risk. Sometimes living in a country that consists of two moderate size islands and a host of smaller ones in the southwest Pacific, where the nearest large land mass is a minimum three hours flying time away has its advantages.

 

 

Police surveillance of T.P.P.A. protestors a sign of desperation?

Posted on by
Reply

Today there was a disturbing change in tone by the New Zealand Police in their stance on the protests against Trans Pacific Partnership. In Dunedin, activists were visited by Police officers wanting to know what their plans for protesting with regards to the Trans Pacific Partnership are. According to the Police this was following a national directive to find out what activists are planning.

It is true that in order for Police to apprehend suspects, and those with warrants out for their arrest, that a degree of surveillance has to be carried out. This is particularly so with violent criminals who perceive that they have little to lose by being violent, those in organized crime who have access to resources and logistical support that normal criminal activity does not.

However it is also true that when a Government that is trying to push through highly contentious changes are in danger of losing critical support or the changes have reached a critical stage, they might use the Police to conduct surveillance on individuals and organizations known to be openly critical. Aside from being a major waste of police resources and time, as well as tax payer dollars, it also points towards that the trust between civilians and their elected officials is breaking down, and that the officials might be prepared to impose their will.

In 1951, New Zealand had the waterfront strike, where striking workers refused for over 100 days to load/unload ships. Caused by a wage dispute brought on by long working hours, the Court of Arbitration awarded a 15% wage rise to workers covered by the arbitration system. However it did not apply to waterside workers who were offered 9% and elected to strike over the matter. It was a highly contentious event where the army and the navy were brought in to do the work, for the duration of the 151 day strike. During this time many activists in the unions and on the waterfront, were under Police surveillance.

In 1981, New Zealand had the very contentious Springbok tour where a South African rugby team picked on skin colour and not playing ability was sent to New Zealand on tour. Under considerable pressure from Commonwealth nations who were disgusted with the New Zealand Government for its attitude to Apartheid, and considered a highly inflammatory issue in a bi-cultural nation, New Zealanders were split between pro-tour supporters who wanted the tour to go ahead, and the anti-tour movement. The tour went ahead, but not before unprecedented civil disorder in every large city, including rioting and acts of disobedience. New Zealand Police copped a lot of criticism for excessive force being used against protesters who had given up and for their tactics.

Is it possible that the Government is creating a non-existential  threat in order to give the appearance of a security issue existing so that it can clamp down on civil activists? If so that would be a very dangerous turn of events in New Zealand.

None of the anti-T.P.P.A. protesters or the organizations that are organizing and co-ordinating them are out to riot. On the contrary, the general consensus is that it will be unhelpful, and it might even harm the cause. None of them are out to beat up people or otherwise pose a threat to civil order. Many of them are mothers and fathers with young children. Some are small business owners, such as Donna Miles-Mojab. Others are grandparents in their 70’s, and possibly 80’s. Some are immigrants from countries where exercising ones democratic rights peacefully is dangerous. They left to get away from the repression and because they wanted to live lives without fear of persecution. A peaceful protest in Iran for example (where Ms Miles-Mojab is from)with peaceful intentions might end violently because, scared of large numbers of people peacefully on the move, the Iranian authorities beat and detain individuals. To them it is a security threat of some sort, and has to be put down, lest it incite trouble elsewhere.

IMG_20160128_190837[1]A peaceful gathering to hear experts talk about the T.P.P.A. at the Christchurch Cardboard Cathedral (Photo: R. Glennie)

Perhaps the Minister of Police might explain why the blue arm of the law should be suddenly so curious about activists they have seen numerous times on peaceful protests. Any disorder would be from fringe individuals with little or no real regard for the aims of the anti-T.P.P.

The other (unspoken)side of Australia Day

Posted on by
Reply

There are two sides to Australia Day. One is the very well known, “lets have a barbie, a few pints of beer and go to the beach” version that people in the urban areas identify with. To them it is the day when Australia became a proper nation, and about the arrival of British colonials from half way around the world. This is the version that most people around the world are accustomed to. It is the version that the Liberal Party of Australia, and politicians such as Pauline Hanson want you to celebrate.

I have no problem with Australians celebrating the characteristics that make them the nation they are. Singing Australian classics such as Waltzing Matilda, with steaks on the barbecue at a seaside property in Woollongong, whilst watching people surfing and playing beach cricket – how Australian is that? Very. And for the most part, quite awesome.

But there is another Australia Day that is completely ignored among the mainstream media. It is the day that the First Nation peoples of Australia, whose settlement records go back longer than modern Judaeo Christian society has existed, remember as “Invasion Day”. For them this is the start of a period where Aboriginals were actively hunted down, marginalized, and degraded as a race. This is the civilization whose recorded history of song and dance traces Australia back through times and events before people of European descent even began spreading out around the world.

Compared with New Zealand, which has numerous issues still to address with Maoridom, Australia is far, far behind. The fact that it took until Labor Prime Minister Kevin Rudd apologized in 2008 to the descendants of the First Nations people for the wrong doings for Australia to even acknowledge its pasts says something about its social priorities regarding indigenous peoples. The fact that Aboriginal people on average have a life span of 15-20 years less than their equivalent peoples in the United States, Canada and New Zealand and that land titles confiscated from them still cause as much angst and hurt as they did when the confiscations originally happened is hurtful. How long it will take for the the families of the Stolen Generation to be realistically able to move on from their past is unknown. Some might never.

Aboriginal people have given Australia a lot more than they have been given credit for. Anthony Mundine (boxer), and Cathy Freeman (Olympic sprinter)are both of Aboriginal descent. National parks such as Uluru and Kakadu are sacred to local Aboriginal people, and help to form the basis for Dreamtime mythology, which exists before an individual is born and after they die. These national parks among others also have rock art works that depict past events of signficance as well as stories, and some of them are over 30,000 years old. These national parks attract millions of people each year. The digeridoo, which is about 1,500 years old and primarily a wind instrument is one of the primary contributions made to music.

So, let us celebrate Australia Day as we do, but let us also remember that contrary to what former Prime Minister Tony Abbott will have you believe, Australia was settled well before any European even knew the Lucky Country existed.

250px-Australian_Aboriginal_Flag.svg

Greens too strong to ignore in next Labour Government

Posted on by
Reply

For the nine years that Prime Minister Helen Clark was in office, the Labour Party considered the Greens to be useful for propping up her Government. To Labour, the Greens were somewhat undsciplined and still lacking in basic Parliamentary experience. On one hand this should not be a surprize as none of the Green Members of Parliament held their current jobs as Green M.P.’s when they were elected. Too new, and needed to learn the basics. But 17 years after entering Parliament could they finally be ready for Ministerial portfolios? Especially after suggesting Treasury audit the costs of individual Party’s policies?

Some of you might be wondering why a New Zealand First member and support would be interested in the future well being of the Greens? It is because a few but quite fundamental policies link both parties and justify political collaboration in order to reach goals set. And I am not a supporter of Metiria Turei/James Shaw – too conservative and still understand the need for extraction industries. Parliament needs to revisit the entire sentencing act legislation, because it is obvious from the cutting off or removal of electronic bracelets that it does not work properly.

A good example of how the Greens have grown is to look at some of their people like Metiria Turei when they entered Parliament and where they are today. Mrs Turei was picked as a replacement for Jeanette Fitzsimons, who retired a few elections ago. Likewise, James Shaw was picked as a replacement for Russel Norman, after the latter got a job at Greenpeace. Although many will say that she meant well, and hopefully she did, the departure of Sue Bradford, an activist who proposed the controversial changes to New Zealand smacking laws removed a person who was divisive and seemed bitter when she lost their co-leader election was probably a good thing.

And yet, I cannot help but be drawn like a fly to a lamp at night to the fact that Labour as a force in the 2014-present Parliamentary term may be restricted to sharing the load with New Zealand First and the Right Honourable Winston Peters. With the first month of 2016 starting to reach its end, a stalling economy, an increasingly unpopular Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement and a budget blow out in which New Zealand’s total student debt must now be pressing down on Prime Minister John Key. The T.P.P.A.  defiance that the Prime Minister showed earlier this week when a kaumatua on a marae in Northland warned that if the Trans Pacific Partnership is to succeed, Mr Key should be totally honest about:

  • What is in it for Maori as an indigenous people with treaties that New Zealanders need to understand the importance of
  • How he and his pro-development ministers will respect fresh water quality and ensure that the resource is developed, used and sustained for ALL New Zealanders

Although Parliament might be out for another couple of weeks year, with concerns about the Trans Pacific Partnership and how the Government is abusing democratic practice already at pressure cooker levels, the jockeying for pole position among parties is well under way. With an election in not more than 21 months, the Greens appear to remain one of the better organized parties in Parliament in terms of electoral readiness. Labour need to hold 45-50 seats if they are to ever have a successful election where voters decide if they come out as the largest party in the country. New Zealand First and the Greens need to hold onto all of their combined 26 Members of Parliament. Where swing votes count in Parliament, they might be able to rely on the Maori Party for support passing legislation. Maori support for National will decline substantially if they find out the true cost of the T.P.P.A.