AsiaPacificReport.nz

]]>

AsiaPacificReport.nz

]]>

AsiaPacificReport.nz

]]>

AsiaPacificReport.nz

]]>

AsiaPacificReport.nz

]]>

AsiaPacificReport.nz

For three decades Tagata Pasifika has been telling the stories of Pasifika people in Aotearoa and abroad.

A weekend special of the popular programme took the audience back down memory lane – where it all began, with the help from some familiar faces.

It marks turning 30 tomorrow.

The TVNZ-founded programme — now owned and produced by Sunpix — has been delivering the New Zealand Pacific news each week for three decades.

Made for the show’s 20th anniversary, this one hour special is hosted by actor Robbie Magasiva and discus champ Beatrice Faumuina.

Among those interviewed are Foufou Susana Hukui, a founding presenter and producer.

“The community got together and wanted to produce a family programme — a magazine programme,” she says.

Presenters past and present surveyed changes in the Aotearoa Pasifika community over the show’s run — from education, arts and culture (Ardijah, OMC and the Naked Samoans), to political pioneers (Mark Gosche, Winnie Laban), and sports heroes (All Black icons Jones, Lomu and Umaga).

Among those also paying tribute to the show’s importance are Helen Clark and singer Annie Crummer.

The rescreening of the programme is presented by Marama Papau and John Pulu, a star graduate from Auckland University of Technology.

Foufou Susana Hukui … one of the Tagata Pasifika “originals”. Image: TP video frame ]]>

AsiaPacificReport.nz

By Dan McGarry in Port Vila

In a late-night teleconference with senior government officials, World Bank representatives finally acquiesced to Vanuatu’s choice of bidder for the long-awaited Bauerfield runway upgrade.

Confronted with a determined government, the World Bank ended what one participant called a months-long “standoff” by indicating it had no objection to the decision to use China Civil Engineering and Construction Company, or CCECC, as the contractor for the projects.

CCECC’s bid for the Bauerfield component of the contract came in at just over US$47 million—approximately VT5.16 billion—according to members of the bid review committee. The repairs and upgrades on Tanna’s White Grass and Santo’s Pekoa airports will cost slightly more than US$11.3 million, or approximately VT1.24 billion.

A decision had been expected late January this year. But after a series of delays, the resolution arrived only hours before a senior cabinet briefing designed to bring the issue to a head.

In a late-night discussion with World Bank representatives on Thursday, senior government officials made it clear they were prepared to end the impasse by making their choice public, even if that preference was not shared by the funding body.

Journalists invited to the Friday morning event at the Holiday Inn had been briefed to expect a statement to that effect from the Prime Minister. Some were surprised when Charlot Salwai instead announced that the logjam had at last been broken.

The government clearly intends not to waste another moment. Contacted for comment, both the World Bank and CCECC were playing catch-up to the Friday morning announcement. Shortly after the press statement was issued, a spokesperson for CCECC indicated that the company had yet to receive formal notification of their selection, but promised a response as soon as the word arrived.

‘Critical importance’
For its part, a World Bank spokesperson replied by email, stating, “We fully appreciate the sense of frustration felt by many regarding delays in finalising the tender evaluation, however due to the critical importance of this runway to Vanuatu, getting things right through following proper procurement processes and due diligence was essential.”

They expressed relief at the positive result and were eager to move on: “The good news now is that all bidders have been formally notified of the completion of the evaluation process, with contract negotiations to be scheduled by the government in the coming days.”

Details are sparse concerning the cause of the delays. Speaking on background, all parties have admitted to differences of opinion concerning bid price, and confidence in the ability of some bidders to complete the required works within the proposed budget.

But no one was willing to discuss the process on the record, for fear of prejudicing the process.

An evaluation committee member told the Daily Post that their recommendation was returned three times with requests from the World Bank for additional information. These requests for information had to be forwarded to all bidders, and responses compiled and circulated.

Each of these took weeks to complete, giving rise to concerns among onlookers that the process was in danger of getting stuck in a loop.

Asked if this series of interactions affected the outcome, one person close to the process said: “It did affect the outcome. I can’t say any more than that.”

Fair contest
Numerous commentators and participants expressed understanding and respect for the integrity of the World Bank process, and understood the need to ensure a thorough and above all fair contest. Weeks ago, after a meeting with the World Bank’s vice-president for Asia Pacific, MIPU Minister Jotham Napat underlined the need to ensure that the process wouldn’t be subject to appeal or litigation following the award.

“That’s the last thing we need,” he said at the time.

The economic consequences of delay have been a source of deep concern people on the ground here in Vanuatu.

There has long been a widespread sense that undue delays to the Bauerfield project would only prolong the country’s economic struggles. In the wake of cyclone Pam, which ravaged half the country, tourism has struggled.

The shock announcement at the beginning of 2016 that Air New Zealand was suspending commercial service to Port Vila due to runway conditions was followed in quick succession by the suspension of a codeshare between Qantas and Air Vanuatu.

The resulting drop in tourists arriving by air put intense pressure on local tourism operators, who rely on air arrivals for the bulk of their revenues. Overall revenues from tourists arriving by air are just now returning to 2014 levels, but occupancy rates are lower.

This is primarily because tourists have been staying in Vanuatu marginally longer in recent months.

‘Round the clock’
When bids were unsealed in late December last year, a procurement specialist contracted by the World Bank assured bidders that committee members would work through Christmas and the New Year and do their best to get a result “within a month”.

A bid review committee member confirmed to the Daily Post that they had worked “round the clock” to assess the bids and make their selection.

According to one technical specialist, the upgrade to Bauerfield airport’s runway will consist of milling out the top 10mm of the runway surface, then re-mixing it and adding new bitumen. Then another 10mm of new runway surface will be added, effectively doubling the depth of the surface.

The contractor will work during airport downtime, mostly at night. The work will proceed in small slices, as it were, and a temporary ramp section will be added every morning to allow a smooth transition between new surface and old.

Asked about the state of the foundational materials that underlie the tarmac itself, the specialist replied that it was found to be in perfectly good condition.

Perhaps the primary concern for tourism business owners is the status of the codeshare between Qantas and Air Vanuatu.

The code share was cancelled shortly after Air New Zealand’s January 2016 announcement that they were suspending scheduled commercial service due to concerns about the condition of the runway.

The Daily Post asked Jotham Napat if he was going to contact Air New Zealand now, but he indicated he didn’t want to politicise the situation.

“This is purely a commercial deal. We’re doing our part. The airport has been certified. It’s just a matter for them to come.”

“The ball is in their court now,” he concluded.

Dan McGarry is media director of the Vanuatu Daily Post group and has written extensively on the Port Vila airport issue.

]]>

AsiaPacificReport.nz

ANALYSIS: By Selwyn Manning

There is an overlooked aspect of the New Zealand Defence Force’s account of Operation Burnham that when scrutinised suggests a possible breach of international humanitarian law and laws relating to war and armed conflict occurred on 22 August 2010 in the Tirgiran Valley, Baghlan province, Afghanistan.

For the purpose of this analysis, we examine the statements and claims of the Chief of New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF), Lieutenant-General Tim Keating, made before journalists during his press conference on Monday, 27 March 2017. We also understand, that the claims put by the general form the basis of a briefing by NZDF’s top ranking officer to the Prime Minister of New Zealand, Bill English.

It appears the official account , if true, underscores a probable breach of legal obligations – not necessarily placing culpability solely on the New Zealand Special Air Service (NZSAS) commandos on the ground, but rather on the officers who commanded their actions, ordered their movements, their tasks and priorities prior to, during, and after Operation Burnham.

*******

According to the New Zealand Defence Force’s official statement, Operation Burnham “aimed to detain Taliban insurgent leaders who were threatening the security and stability of Bamyan Province and to disrupt their operational network”. (ref. NZDF rebuttal)

We are to understand Operation Burnham’s objective was to identify, capture, or kill (should this be justified under NZDF rules of engagement), those insurgents who were named on a Joint Prioritized Effects List (JPEL) that NZDF intelligence suggested were responsible for the death of NZDF soldier Lieutenant Tim O’Donnell.

When delivering NZDF’s official account of Operation Burnham before media, Lieutenant General Tim Keating said:

“After the attack on the New Zealand Provincial Reconstruction Team (NZPRT), which killed Lieutenant Tim O’Donnell, the NZPRT operating in Bamyan Province did everything it could to reduce the target profile of our people operating up the Shakera Valley and into the north-east of Bamyan Province.

“We adjusted our routine, reduced movements to an absolute minimum, maximised night driving, and minimised time on site in threat areas.

“The one thing the PRT [NZPRT] couldn’t do was to have an effect on the individuals that attacked Lieutenant O’Donnell’s patrol. For the first time, the insurgents had a major success — and they were well positioned to do so again.”

For the purpose of a counter-strike, intelligence was sought and Lieutenant-General Keating said: “We knew in a matter of days from local and International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) intelligence who had attacked our patrol [where and when Lt. O’Donnell was killed].”

The intelligence specified the villages where the alleged insurgents were suspected of coming from and Leutenant-General Keating said: “This group had previously attacked Afghan Security Forces and elements of the German and Hungarian PRTs.”

The New Zealand government authorised permission for the Kabul-based NZSAS troops to be used in Operation Burnham.

“What followed was 14 days of reliable and corroborated intelligence collection that provided confirmation and justification for subsequent actions. Based on the intelligence, deliberate and detailed planning was conducted,” Lieutenant-General Keating said.

Revenge, Keating said, was never a motivation. Rather, according to him, the concern was for the security of New Zealand’s reconstruction and security efforts in Bamyan province.

As stated above, Operation Burnham’s primary objective was to identify, capture or kill Taliban insurgent leaders named in the intelligence data.

We know, from the New Zealand Defence Force’s own account, Operation Burnham failed to achieve that goal.

Analysis of the NZDF official account
The official account of events that occurred in the early hours of 22 August 2010, describe how Taliban insurgents, realising coalition forces were preparing to raid the area (marked as “Operation Burnham Area of Operation” in a map (slide 3) declasified and released to media on 27 March 2017), formed a tactical maneuver using civilians (women, children and elderly) as a human shield.

The declassified operational map as released at the media conference on 27 March 2017. Image: Evening Report

Despite the official account placing this group within a building, within a small hamlet, within the area of operation, within Tirgiran Valley, there is no clear definitive official account yet given of what happened to either the civilians or the insurgents.

This appears to be an obvious void in the official record, but one that has failed so far to be scrutinised.

To follow the logic of Lieutenant-General Tim Keating’s account (detailed below), is to discover our defence personnel, who were in charge of the ground and air operation during Operation Burnham, failed to identify what had become of those civilians (women, children, and the elderly), and also importantly the suspected insurgents who Lt. General Keating said during his briefing used the villagers as a human shield.

We know from the Chief of Defence Force’s notes as provided on 27 March 2017, that as Operation Burnham began, NZDF was in command of United States manned aircraft (including helicopters and possibly a AC-130). The aircraft were swarming above the Tirgiran Valley.

From the NZDF account, an NZDF joint terminal air controller was in charge of the air attack against those NZDF had defined as insurgents.

Lieutenant-General Keating stated the alleged insurgents were armed and a NZDF commander authorised the US manned aircraft to commence firing. Weapons-fire then began to rain down on the valley from above.

Meanwhile, NZSAS ground force soldiers prepared to secure their positions and to defend themselves against any potential enemy counter-attack.

Lieutenant-General Keating stated the insurgents responded: “The insurgents, the guerrilla force, the tactic is mixed in with the civilian population, if you like, the term used is a human shield. So they use civilians as a shield.”

He added: “What occurred, is a helicopter was engaging a group of insurgents outside the village, on the outskirts of the village. During that engagement, it was noted by the ground forces there – the SAS ground forces – that some of the rounds [from the US manned aircraft] were falling short, and went into a building where it was believed there were civilians as well as armed insurgents.”

To be clear, from this account, Lieutenant-General Keating stated a group of insurgents were being tracked, targeted, and fired upon by the US manned aircraft and under the command of a New Zealand Defence Force terminal air controller.

Meanwhile, according to the NZDF record, one of the airborne helicopter’s weapon’s sights were not calibrated correctly, and, according to Lieutenant-General Keating, 30mm projectiles went into a building where it was believed there were civilians as well as armed insurgents – remember these 30mm projectiles are capable of penetrating the side of a tank.

For accuracy, Lieutenant-General Keating restated his account: “It is noted, the building, there were armed insurgents in there, but it is believed that there may have been civilians in the building.”

He then added: “There’s no confirmation that any casualties occurred, but there may have been.”

He restated again: “There were civilians in that building.”

Now, this is where the Chief of Defence Force’s account fails to further explain what occurred after that point.

To summarise, the official position of the New Zealand Defence Force is:

• There were civilians in a building within the village that was fired upon by an armor piercing aircraft weapon
• That it was believed insurgents were also in that building
• That civilian casualties or deaths “may have been” or occurred inside the building.

At this juncture, we must consider whether the New Zealand Defence Force ground commanders had a responsibility to determine whether there were Taliban insurgents in the building? And if so, whether they were the individuals listed on the JPEL list, those deemed responsible for the death of Lieutenant Tim O’Donnell? And what of the ground commanders’ legal requirements, the duty of care with respect to civilians, were NZDF commanders on the ground or back in Kabul compelled by law to confirm the status of the civilians, whether they were injured or killed?

When asked by a journalist at the 27 March 2017 press conference: “If there may have been civilian casualties, why not have an inquiry to find out?”

Lieutenant-General Keating replied: “Even if there was, as far as the New Zealand Defence Force has heard, the coalition investigation has, um, said that uh, if there were casualties, the fault of those casualties was a mechanical failure of a piece of equipment.”

This reply does not appear to consider the legal requirements under:

• Second Protocol to the Geneva Convention Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts, Article 7: the obligation to provide medical assistance to all wounded, whether or not they have taken part in the armed conflict
• Second Protocol to the Geneva Convention Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts, Article 8: the obligation to search for and collect the wounded and to ensure their adequate care
• Second Protocol to the Geneva Convention Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts, Article 13: the obligation to protect the civilian population against dangers arising from military operations
• Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971, section 102. This section provides that the commanding officer of a person alleged to have committed an offence under that Act must initiate proceedings in the form of a charge or refer the allegation to civil authorities, unless the commanding officer considers the allegation is not well-founded. While little legal guidance is provided, it cannot be accepted that preliminary inquiries to determine whether an allegation is well-founded can be considered adequate where they fail to obtain evidence from the injured parties, determine their identities or even verify that they exist
• Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Article 28
• The NZDF Manual of Armed Forces Law provides that there are three types of inquiry in the NZDF: a preliminary inquiry, a court of inquiry and a command investigation. (It appears however the ISAF investigation cited by the Chief of Defence Force was not any of the above forms of inquiry).

Specifically, if you analyse Lieutenant-General Keating’s account, the New Zealand Defence Force commanders failed to identify whether any insurgents were inside the building and whether there were dead or wounded civilians.

Why was this the case? It seems reasonable to suggest, this is an abandonment of logic. It does not make sense.

We know from official NZDF documents the soldiers arrived at the scene of Operation Burnham at 0030 hours on 22 August 2010 and left at 0345 hours, that’s the official record.

To clarify, the NZSAS commandos were in the area of operation for 3 hours 15 minutes. Lieutenant-General Keating stated, near the conclusion of the raid: “The ground force commander chose at that time that there was no longer a threat and they were leaving.”

How could that rationally be the case unless the suspected insurgents inside that building had been checked? Was it not suspected that there were insurgents in that building?

Surely the ground force commanders would be compelled to seek and identify the inhabitants of that building to see if they matched the names/descriptions on the JPEL list? After all, the manhunt for Taliban leadership was the purpose of the raid that night.

Also, logic would suggest, the people inside the building were in part civilians including women and probably children – by Lieutenant-General Keating’s account the group likely included wounded civilians and probably a dead child.

Also, it is reasonable to suggest, considering the events over those 3 hours 15 minutes, the survivors would have been crying, weeping, even howling, and the wounded would likely have been in agony.

It defies belief that the ground force commanders, and their counterparts back in Kabul, were not aware of this building, that the NZDF account states was housing suspected Taliban, and included a group of civilian victims that had been used as a human shield.

The entire area of operation specific to Operation Burnham is a skewed rectangle approximately 500 metres wide by 1 kilometre long, with an intensified operation plan focusing on two small hamlets, each approximately 50×200 metres in area [based on the scale measures of the NZDF map] – named Objective 1 and Objective 2 in the NZDF released material.

To state it simply, the official silence surrounding the above-mentioned building, and the fate of the people inside, speaks volumes. It leaves one to consider at worst whether a crime was committed by New Zealand Defence Force commanders that night – whether by failing in their duty to care for the injured they were in breach of Articles 8, 9 and 13 of the Second Protocol to the Geneva Conventions.

Additional note:

• The Statute of the International Criminal Court defines war crimes as, inter alia, “serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict” and “serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in an armed conflict not of an international character”. (Ref. IHL Definition of war crimes, page 1 (pdf) – ICC Statute, Article 8 (cited in Vol. II, Ch. 44, § 3))
• “The Statute defines as within the scope of the law, the “launching an attack without attempting to aim properly at a military target or in such a manner as to hit civilians without any thought or care as to the likely extent of death or injury amounts to an indiscriminate attack”.
• War crimes can consist of acts or omissions. Examples of the latter include failure to provide a fair trial and failure to provide food or necessary medical care to persons in the power of the adversary.’

At best, if NZDF’s official account is to be relied upon, we are to believe the NZSAS ground commanders failed to ensure the Taliban insurgents they sought were not holed up in a building that had sustained damage from coalition force aircraft. If this assumption is incorrect, at what point had the suspected insurgents left the building? And what had become of the civilians that had been allegedly used as a human shield? Again, the vacuum of information specific to this aspect of the official account needs to be explained, including an explanation as to why NZDF’s account remains vague after six years since Operation Burnham was conducted.

It appears reasonable to assert that this single issue, notwithstanding the irregularities of official NZDF stated “facts”, warrants further official and independent investigation.

As it is, at this juncture, we are left to consider a series of unanswered questions that to date the New Zealand Chief of Defence Force has failed to satisfy. Here are some of them.

Key unanswered questions:

• What were the specific definitions of an insurgent that were used by NZDF for the purposes of evaluation during Operation Burnham and for the purpose of post-operation official analysis? For example; was it deemed that anyone who was male and of a fighting age was defined to be an insurgent?
• Were NZDF soldiers fired upon by individuals (villagers or insurgents) located within the confines of the villages or surrounding area during Operation Burnham?
• Was the individual who was killed by a NZSAS soldier or NZDF personnel carrying a weapon at the time of this shooting? If so, had he fired or attempted to fire his weapon in an attempt to kill or wound NZDF personnel?
• How long in minutes were the coalition forces’ helicopters, and any other airborne craft, firing their weapons on the villages and surrounding region during Operation Burnham?
  How long in minutes were NZSAS soldiers involved in securing the operational area from real or potential insurgent attack?
• Did NZDF personnel at anytime seek to identify individuals (and their status, injured, killed, or otherwise) who were located inside or near the building that Lt. General Keating said had suffered damage from an alleged mis-aimed firing from an airborne coalition aircraft?
• Were those who were injured or killed within sight of NZDF personnel before, during, and/or after the alleged mis-aimed firing?
• How many individuals did the NZDF personnel suspect were inside the building?
• How many of these people did the NZDF personnel suspect were civilians?
• How many were suspected of being women?
• How many were suspected of being children?
• Lieutenant-General Keating suggested that one of the individuals that may have been killed during Operation Burnham was a six year-old child. What was the gender of this child?
• Was their any attempt to identify this six year-old victim?
• Was this child Fatima, the three year-old child identified in the Hit & Run [ISBN 978 0 947503 39 0] book? If not, then who was this child?
• What actions did NZDF personnel do to exercise their duty of care obligations to the injured and to civilians?
• What reports, cautions, evaluations were written and/or submitted regarding Operation Burnham to NZDF by the NZDF legal officer who was on the ground during Operation Burnham?

The twisting turning official account – is this smoke and mirrors?
As a consequence of the Hit & Run book [ISBN 978 0 947503 39 0] being published, New Zealand Defence Force’s top ranking soldier, Lieutenant-General Tim Keating admitted civilians “may have been” killed during the operation.

Up until 27 March 2017, for the past six years, New Zealand Defence Force has insisted that no civilians were killed during Operation Burnham on 22 August 2010.

But on Monday, under questioning from the media, at the March 27 press conference, Lietenant-General Keating stated that the NZDF’s new “official line” regarding civilian deaths was “there may have been”.

He then attempted to suggest that NZDF’s previously stated position – that claims of civilian deaths were “unfounded” – was basically the same thing.

“I’m not going to get cute here and say it’s a twist on words, it’s the same thing, ‘unfounded’, ‘there may have been’. The official line is that there may have been casualties,” Lieutenant-General Keating said.

A journalist then challenged him further suggesting: “They’re different things, one means they didn’t happen and one mean might’ve done.”

Lieutenant-General Keating then replied: “You’re right…the, the, the official line is that civilian casualties may have occurred, but not corroborated.”

When asked how many insurgents were killed, Lieutenant-General Keating replied: “A significant number of insurgents, identified insurgents, were killed during Operation Burnham.”

When asked again how many were killed, Lt. General Keating stated: “Nine.”

When asked if NZDF had the names of the insurgents that were killed, he replied: “No, we do not have names of insurgents.”

This trajectory, inching toward a truth, occurred under tight questioning by a journalist, over just a few minutes.

What further truths will become relevant to understanding what occurred that night in Khak Khuday Dad and Naik villages should a commission of inquiry be established?

The inconsistencies – a summary
In evaluation, it is reasonable to assert the official government inconsistencies observed along a six-year timeline offer the appearance of a military hierarchy that has being dragged, by degrees, (mainly by the work of Jon Stephenson, an investigative journalist specialising in war and conflict reportage) into an arena where the floodlight of public interest ought to shed light on secrets long since filed into a dark place.

However, considering the above, rather than responding openly to the challenge of meeting its responsibilities to the New Zealand Minister of Defence and public, the New Zealand Defence Force appears resistant to its obligations toward open and accurate disclosure of non-classified fact.

In conclusion, if this is true, this conduct exhibited by the officials of New Zealand Defence Force and its Chief Lieutenant-General Tim Keating is hardly a defining benchmark of “exemplary” standards.

Actually, the admissions of relevant information, that is forthcoming only when lanced from the New Zealand Defence Force under questioning, offers the impression of a smoke and mirrors operation – it may appear churlish to suggest, but perhaps the post-Operation Burnham aftermath ought to be referred to as Operation Desert Road (bleak, cold, inhospitable, proceed with caution).

The public deserves to know the whole truth, not spin or part-truths – both the public interest and the national interest depends on it.

By the New Zealand Defence Force’s own account, it appears reasonable to suggest that the commanders overseeing Operation Burnham had legal obligations to civilians; that they were potentially negligent when considered against their stated rules of engagement, rules of conduct, obligations to international human rights law and international humanitarian law – negligent of their obligations to laws covering war and armed conflict, notwithstanding their obligations as representatives of the people and government of New Zealand to observe the Bill of Rights Act.

It is also reasonable to suggest; there are significant established facts as mentioned above, as put by the New Zealand Defence Force, that require an official investigative response from the New Zealand government.

It is also reasonable to insist that the matter of an absence of consistent fact emitting from the New Zealand Defence Force upon which a reliable opinion can be draw, adds weight to the burden on the Government to establish an inquiry into this matter.

If the New Zealand Prime Minister Bill English elects not to act then it will likely become a matter of political leadership or lack thereof.

If Bill English does not care to act on his office’s public interest obligations, then, it is reasonable to suggest he consider the empirical facts underlying this matter and the impact the matter has on New Zealand’s national interest. Should he fail to do so, this matter potentially could be argued before the International Criminal Court.

*****

The March 27 NZ Defence Force media conference. Image: Evening Report

Background relevancies
Were NZDF officials and Hit & Run authors describing the same raid? Let’s compare.

“It seems to me,” Lieutenant-General Tim Keating stressed, “that one of the fundamentals, a start point if you like, of any investigation into a crime is to tie the alleged perpetrators of a crime to the scene. Then we would examine the motive and means, and other scene evidence.” – Lieutenant General Tim Keating, 27 March 2017.

On Monday, 27 March 2017 both the Prime Minister Bill English and the Chief of New Zealand Defence Force Lieutenant-General Tim Keating countered details revealed in the book Hit & Run and argued facts stated in the work could not be relied upon because the authors “incorrectly” alleged Operation Burnham took place in Khak Khuday Dad Village and Naik Village deep in the mountainous Baghlan province of Afghanistan – two locations the Defence Force chief insisted his soldiers had never been to.

Lieutenant-General Keating asserted that the New Zealand Defence Force had never been to the two villages (Khak Khuday Dad and Naik) and insisted Operation Burnham took place 2.2 kilometres to the south of where the authors Nicky Hager and Jon Stephenson had marked the location of the villages (specifically on a map published in the book Hit & Run).

Lieutenant-General Keating said: “As you will note from the book, the authors have been precise in locating these villages with geo reference points — so I have no doubt they are very accurate in the villages they are taking their allegations from.

“The villages lie in the Tirgiran Valley some 2 kilometres north from Tirgiran Village. In straight distance this is like comparing the distance from Te Papa to Wellington Hospital. However, if you overlay the elevated terrain, you will see we are talking about two very separated, distinct settlements,” Lieutenant-General Keating said.

Beyond the obvious, it was a staggering claim, especially for those aware the New Zealand Defence Force had insisted one week prior, that its official position remained the same as stated in a media release dated 20 April 2011 that: “On 22 August 2010 New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) elements, operating as part of a Coalition Force in Bamyan province, Afghanistan, conducted an operation against an insurgent group.”

NZDF’s earlier position asserted New Zealand soldiers had not been in Baghlan province on or near 22 August 2010 the night of Operation Burnham. Now, the chief of New Zealand’s armed forces was admitting that they had.

At the press conference on Monday, 27 March 2017, the Chief of New Zealand Defence Force prepared to stake his claim that the book could not be relied on as a factual reference.

Before around 30 journalists, Lieutenant-General Tim Keating pointed to four relevant bullet-points underlying key claims of fact in the book:

• Helicopter landing sites
• Location of houses that were destroyed
• Locations of where civilians were allegedly killed
• Presumed location of an SAS sniper with evidence presented of SAS ammunition and water bottles which were found at the site.

A relationship was drawn between the sniper location and the alleged killing of the individual Islamuddin, the school teacher.

He acknowledged that the book contained a detailed list of those alleged to have been killed or wounded during a military operation in Khak Khuday Dad and Naik villages and a detailed list of the houses destroyed at the two locations.

Lieutenant-General Keating then drove his point home that: “The underlying premise of the book is that New Zealand’s SAS soldiers conducted an operation on Khak Khuday Dad Village and Naik Village…”

“It seems to me,” he stressed, “that one of the fundamentals, a start point if you like, of any investigation into a crime is to tie the alleged perpetrators of a crime to the scene. Then we would examine the motive and means, and other scene evidence.”

Lieutenant-General Keating pivoted. “Let me now talk about the ISAF Operation Burnham in Tirgiran Village.”

The premise of the Chief of Defence Force’s position was; the book Hit & Run described events that may or may not have occurred in Khak Khuday Dad and Naik villages, but that these alleged events had nothing to do with New Zealand Defence Force soldiers as they had never been to the two locations as marked in the book.

Likewise, the Prime Minister, Bill English, said the book got it wrong, that the New Zealand Defence Force had never been to either Khak Khuday Dad Village and Naik Village.

The Prime Minister added: “We believe in the integrity of the Defence Force more than a book that picks the wrong villages.”

For some, it appeared the raid that night as described by the authors could have been committed by another force. For others, it seemed the authors had got a major fact wrong so therefore the remaining claims in the book were moot.

By mid-Wednesday morning, the government and the public found out there was more to it, that the Chief of New Zealand Defence Force was also wrong with regard to his geography.

Unpicking the official line began in earnest late on Tuesday night (28 March 2017) when the lawyers representing the alleged victims of Operation Burnham contacted their clients back in Afghanistan. The purpose of the contact was to identify the exact location of Khak Khuday Dad Village and Naik Village; to confirm or otherwise disprove the existence of “Tirgiran Village” (the NZDF stated official location of Operation Burnham), and to identify and confirm what village or villages are located at the exact co-ordinates as provided by Lieutenant-General Tim Keating in his briefing to New Zealand media.

The lawyers’ clients, represented by a doctor from the region, stated categorically that “Tirgiran Village” (as stated by Lieutenant-General Keating) does not exist. That the region is known as Tirgiran Valley.

The lawyers evaluated from the new information, that to refer to the location of Operation Burnham as Tirgiran Village is like insisting an operation had occurred in Otago City (obviously Otago is a region and a city of that name does not exist, and as such would fail to offer an exact point of reference on a map).

Importantly, the lawyers confirmed, New Zealand Defence Force co-ordinates of where Operation Burnham took place were correct – but that the location was not as the NZDF had stated as “Tirgiran Village” (an incorrect reference to a village that does not exist) but rather marks the geo-locations of where Khak Khuday Dad Village and Naik Village are located.

Specifically, the villagers confirmed the red-rectangle as marked on the NZDF map provided by the Lt. General on Monday, March 27, and referred to as the area specific to Operation Burnham, frames the exact positions of where Khak Khuday Dad and Naik villages are located.

So simply, the book contained a map that placed Khak Khuday Dad and Naik 2.2 kilometres north of their specific real locations. And, the NZDF got it wrong by stating that those two villages were located where the book suggested, and that the village at the centre of Operation Burnham was a different village called Tirgiran Village (again, a place-name that does not exist).

So it turns out, according to those that live in the Tirgiran Valley, the Chief of Defence Force’s statement is incorrect or false; that when NZDF stated as a categorical fact that the New Zealand SAS commandos had never been to Khak Khuday Dad Village nor Naik Village, that that information was false.

At this point politically, it is inescapable that the Prime Minister’s stated position ought to have taken a hit.

Remember back to the Prime Minister’s statement to media on Monday, March 27, 2017 where he pitched his rationale: “We believe in the integrity of the Defence Force more than a book that picks the wrong villages.”

Surely, the same measure that was applied to the authors of Hit & Run now ought to be applied in equal measure to the New Zealand Defence Force chief and his officials. After all, they also got their geography wrong.

Since then, there has been stated unease about the whole issue by Internal Affairs Minister Peter Dunne (the minister who would have to sign off and authorise the costs of an inquiry should the Prime Minister order an inquiry be established). By Thursday, 30 March 201,7 Dunne, through media, called for an inquiry into the whole affair. (ref. Stuff.co.nz )

Also on Thursday, the Minister of Defence at the time of the raid, Dr Wayne Mapp, wrote of his unease about Operation Burnham in a piece published on the Pundit website. (ref. Pundit )

Dr Mapp argued that the government’s position, and that of the New Zealand Defence Force, cannot be the end of it.

“Part of protecting their [the SAS’] reputation is also finding out what happened, particularly if there is an allegation that civilian casualties may have been accidentally caused. In that way we both honour the soldiers, and also demonstrate to the Afghans that we hold ourselves to the highest ideals of respect of life, even in circumstances of military conflict,” wrote Dr Mapp.

Common statements of fact
The descriptions of Operation Burnham, in both the book, and, as stated by the New Zealand Defence Force, do mirror each account with precision on numerous vital points, including:

• The time of night Operation Burnham took place
• That New Zealand Defence Force was commanding and leading the operation (both on the ground and in the air)
• That the helicopters were manned by United States military personnel under New Zealand’s command
• That the purpose of the operation was to kill or capture those named as having been part of a Taliban insurgent raid that killed Lieutenant Tim O’Donnell
• That buildings were destroyed during the operation
• That people were killed at the villages.

However, anyone who has reasonably assessed the issue can see there is much more information to be revealed.

Conclusion
In concluding this analysis, it is an imperative that due to the highest levels of public and national interest concerning the alleged conduct, the seriousness of allegations, and the variables relating to the official account, that the matter be subjected to an independent commission of inquiry.

Selwyn Manning is editor of EveningReport.nz. This analysis was first published on Kiwipolitico.com and on Evening Report and is republished on the sister website Asia Pacific Report with the permission of the author.

]]>

AsiaPacificReport.nz

By Kendall Hutt

Climate change is the central focus of the European Union’s continuing relationship with the Pacific, says the international cooperation chief.

Stefano Manservisi, Director-General of International Cooperation and Development of the European Commission, says his organisation is fully behind the Pacific on raising awareness of climate change.

European Union’s Stefano Manservisi … “100 percent backing” for the Pacific. Image: Unimedia

“Having consulted already with national level authorities on how we can step-up support, notably on climate change, we are 100 percent backing determination to do more,” he told Asia Pacific Report.

Manservisi is currently in the Pacific — due in New Caledonia today — meeting with leaders to discuss the European Union’s (EU) ongoing relationship under the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP)-EU Partnership Agreement, which is more commonly referred to as the Contonou Agreement.

Signed in 2000, the treaty between 79 countries from Africa, the Caribbean and Pacific is the “most comprehensive partnership agreement between developing countries and the EU,” according to the commission.

Aimed at reducing poverty, ensuring sustainable development and promoting democracy, peace and security, the agreement is set to expire in 2020.

“The objective is to reaffirm the full commitment of the European Union in the South Pacific, now, and in the future,” Manservisi said.

Climate change challenge
Part of this commitment would continue to be climate change, identified as a key concern under “global challenges” in several EU documents.

This was due to the fact that since the agreement’s 2010 revision, climate change had been referenced as the central point on which future relations should be framed.

This was because all the treaty’s partners were adversely affected by climate change, Manservisi said.

“Well, climate change is the agenda and the main issue our partners themselves are raising with us, because, you know, they are all islands which are at risk in terms of disasters, in terms of rising oceans, in terms of difficulty of having a prosperous agriculture sector for food production.”

Potential future investments and development in areas such as energy and increased interconnectivity were hindered because they “fall under the climate change umbrella and are linked to the vulnerability of these islands”.

This was unfortunate, given Pacific nations would like to see their vulnerability turn into something more sustainable through the development of such resources, Manservisi said.

“This is what our partners are asking us to do and we are working in order to respond.”

Post-COP21 world
Such commitment reflected a global trend in which world leaders were taking climate change seriously.

“COP21 would not have produced the commitment that it has, otherwise.”

More importantly, this was further evident in the fact Fiji was co-chairing COP23, Manservisi said.

“This will, let’s say, keep promoting the importance of the climate change agenda and to make pressure, in particular, seeing it from one of the area which is most at risk.”

This all comes despite US President Donald Trump’s announcement America will be unwinding several key climate change policies implemented under Obama’s presidency.

“I would say that I’m an optimist, so therefore I believe that since climate change is evidence-based, you know, our American friend will probably reconsider a certain number of things,” Manservisi said.

“In any case, what I noticed here so far in my talks is that if anybody has some doubts and in spite of some announcement from the US, this has boosted even more our determination to tackle climate change.”

Moving forward, the EU would also like to see the addition of a “Pacific pillar” to the agreement.

Pacific pillar
Although the treaty creates a powerful framework for engagement, Manservisi admits it does need some work.

“We suggest it be a bit more regionalised, closer to realities. A Pacific pillar of this new ACP framework will be able to address more specifically the specificity of the South Pacific to have its own governess and mechanics to make decisions.”

Ideally, this new pillar would encompass other European territories such as French Polynesia, and include Australia and New Zealand, he said.

“I’m here to talk about this and see how we can do it. But in the understanding that we want to consolidate our presence here.”

Manservisi said the EU’s main motivation behind its plans to strengthen relations with the Pacific, however, was friendship.

“We are here, and we are doing work and efforts for developments for decades, so therefore you know we have an old story of friendship and partnership with the islands. Therefore, you know, it’s our first thinking and duty to say ‘now look, let’s see how we can do better’.”

Manservisi spent the beginning of his “case for the Pacific” roundtable last week engaged in several talks with leaders from Australia, but missed speaking with leaders and Pacific academics in New Zealand due to unexpected weather.

Talks on how to do better also continued in Fiji on Friday, where Manservisi planned to meet with Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama and several government ministers.

Similar talks took place in Vanuatu on Sunday, and bilateral discussion with Pacific leaders are planned to conclude in New Caledonia today.

Kendall Hutt is Pacific Media Watch freedom project contributing editor for the Pacific Media Centre.

]]>

AsiaPacificReport.nz

]]>

AsiaPacificReport.nz

ANALYSIS: By Johannes Nugroho (Part 2)

Following the awkward debacle of suspended military cooperation with Australia, in another maverick moment, General Gatot Nurmantyo told the press he might soon be replaced as chief of the Indonesian Military (TNI), hinting that he had somehow fallen out of favour — but later explaining that at any rate, he was nearing retirement.

He then made an “exposé” about how little power the TNI chief had in the procurement of military hardware under a 2015 law that grants the Ministry of Defence sole responsibility for such acquisitions.

Ruing his loss of control over procurement, he said: “If this [erosion of the TNI chief’s prerogatives] continues, then the commander will have no authority whatsoever.”

The new law must have come as a great disappointment to the armed forces, just when they were expecting significant rises in defence spending.

In the 2017 state budget, defence is one of the 10 biggest spenders at Rp 104.4 trillion (US$7.85 billion), compared to the Rp 72.4 trillion allocated to the National Police. The figures are expected to increase as the president has made a promise to jack up defence spending to around Rp 250 trillion a year.

The figures must have been music to the generals’ ears, since defence procurement in the past was an area in which the top brass of the military could make significant economic gains through “commission fees” from defence contractors as well as other “markups”.

By relocating the procurement responsibility to the Ministry of Defence, the government effectively closed off another significant “economic access” previously enjoyed by military grandees.

Brash indiscretions
In airing his disappointment, Gatot was perhaps being true to his brash indiscreet self, a side Jokowi had evidently missed, or underestimated when considering him for the top job. However, the general’s penchant for talking to the press and delivering incendiary lectures – in one of which he described feeding hypothetical Chinese refugees to the sharks – may also suggest that he is trying to craft a careful image of himself as an all-action patriot ready to embark on great things.

Judging by former President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s political success story, former army generals with popular appeal can still do well electorally.

It is also noteworthy that Gatot’s unbosoming to the press came after the police scored an important political triumph in shoring up the president’s authority during the populist Islamist rallies in November and December last year.

The rallies, purportedly against Jakarta Governor Basuki “Ahok” Tjahjaja Purnama – a Christian of Chinese descent who is accused of blaspheming against Islam – were on the verge of turning into protests against the government and ultimately, the president.

With a turnout of hundreds of thousands, the Islamist protests represented the first real challenge to Jokowi’s presidency. To blunt the blow, the police duly arrested several “agitators” on treason charges on the morning of last year’s December 2 rally.

National Police chief General Tito Karnavian, handpicked by Jokowi in July last year, threw his weight behind the president and proved to be in his element by being seen to contain the possible excesses of the rallies through a combination of negotiations and strong-arm tactics.

In contrast, the armed forces did not seem overly eager to come to the president’s aid during the turbulent months. Instead, Gatot expounded his pet theory to the press, arguing that radicalism and “pitting Indonesians against one another” as evident in the gubernatorial election campaign, was another proxy war designed by foreign powers.

Hardline Muslim links
More seriously, Gatot is said to have strong links to hardline Muslim groups such as the Islamic Defenders Front (FPI), which served as the field operators for the recent Islamist rallies against the government.

Seasoned Indonesia correspondent John McBeth considers the allegation to have some merit. He quoted a retired general in an article, writing: “Playing games with Muslim groups is a result of a rotting situation … They want to show that the Army is still needed and they have no concerns about the problems it creates.”

If true, then Tito, with the president’s blessing, deftly turned the tables on the cabal Army group wishing to create an untenable situation, which would have necessitated military intervention. Far from humiliating the police for their inability to control the masses, it allowed them to swoop in and save the day for the president.

The triumph of the police in securing the president’s gratitude took place at the expense of the military. Yet, this temporary political setback for the military does not mean the end of rivalry between the forces.

The police, being the most involved with civilians, inevitably has the advantage over the TNI in post-Reformasi Indonesia.

However, in its interaction with the people also lies the police’s weakness. A 2015 survey by Transparency International, for instance, placed the police as one of the most corrupt government agencies as perceived by the public. Apart from taking and demanding bribes, police officers are also known for operating strictly illegal “businesses” on the sidelines, such as “security money” demanded from businesses and individual officers commandeering lucrative urban “parking spaces” in conjunction with gangsters, or preman.

Now that the president is indebted to the police, it remains to be seen if Jokowi can push through further reform within the force to combat rampant corruption. Failure to do so might just provide the military with another avenue to power. The president certainly has his work cut out for him in balancing between the forces.

The spectre of the armed forces’ tentacles in Indonesian politics is real enough to warrant vigilance, although the country’s democracy has fared better than its Thai counterpart in this respect.

The dwifungsi may have been formally abolished, but its roots are buried deep. Corny as it may sound, a military uniform tends to inspire confidence in the country, so much so that President Sukarno, who never had military training, spent the last years of his life wearing his military honors in the most conspicuous manner.

If Gatot truly has political aspirations after he retires, and provided he can secure enough political backing, we may see him compete in the 2019 presidential election, alongside Prabowo Subianto and perhaps Yudhoyono’s son Agus Harimurti.

Indonesia’s days of pseudo-military leaders are apparently not over yet. Not by far.

Johannes Nugroho is a Jakarta writer, political analyst and history aficionado and a columnist at the Jakarta Globe. This article was first published in the Globe. Part 1 in this series was published yesterday.

]]>

AsiaPacificReport.nz

AFP’s global news – “A different angle”. A promotional video.

Under a multi-year agreement starting tomorrow, the British public broadcaster BBC will receive edited live video feeds from AFPTV for use on all its platforms – television channels, websites and mobile applications as well as radio for audio production.

AFPTV, the video news division of the French news agency AFP, has developed over 15 years into a major international player with a monthly English-language production of 2500 edited videos and 200 live videos from around the world.

AFP … strengths in regions “underserved” by mainstream media.

The BBC already receives AFP’s photo and English, French and Arabic text news services.

Jonathan Munro, BBC’s head of newsgathering, said: “We are delighted to be working even more closely with AFP in the years ahead. The BBC’s coverage of the world will benefit enormously from the growing firepower of AFP, including its strengths in regions which are underserved by the mainstream media.

“We hope that the BBC’s new relationship with AFP will prove enduring and positive for both organisations.”

Emmanuel Hoog, chairman and chief executive of AFP, described the partnership as “an emblematic recognition of everyone’s efforts to make video a top priority”.

Investment strategy
He added: “It encourages us in our long-term investment strategy to extend and consolidate AFPTV’s unique positioning in Europe and worldwide.”

AFPTV has developed rapidly since its launch in France in 2002.

It started international news production in 2007 and then began a process of substantial expansion on every continent from 2011.

AFPTV is now at the forefront in covering top world news as well as offering its clients in-depth features, file images and stockshots in six languages.

Since 2015, it has successfully developed live video production. Journalists working for AFPTV have notably won Rory Peck awards for coverage of the migrant crisis in Greece (Will Vassilopoulos – 2015-2016); rebel-held Aleppo (Zein Al-Rifai – 2014-15); and civil war in the Central African Republic (Pacome Pabandji – 2013-14).

Besides the BBC, AFPTV has some 300 clients, a number that is steadily increasing. The further development of AFPTV is a strategic priority for the agency.

]]>

AsiaPacificReport.nz

OPINION: By Johannes Nugroho  (Part 1)

Since its inception in 2014, President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo’s administration has witnessed growing rivalry between the Indonesian Military (TNI) and the National Police for political clout and access to the president.

For his part, Jokowi has shown himself to be more pragmatic than idealistic in his approach to the armed forces, willing to work with either according to his own political needs.

While the vying for political influence by the military and the police is nothing new in Indonesia, it may have significant ramifications for the development of democracy in the country.

Since the foundation of the republic, the armed forces both the military and the police have always had access to both political and economic power in varying degrees.

In the 1950s, President Sukarno relied heavily on the military to suppress rebellions in the provinces. Consequently, as quid pro quo, when the country decided to seize major foreign companies in 1958, army generals suddenly became corporate commissaries and quite a few sat at the boards of the newly nationalised companies.

Under his successor, Suharto, ABRI (the merger of the army, navy, air force and the police) became the government’s backbone for much of his 30-year rule under the dwifungsi (dual function) doctrine, allowing the military unprecedented political and economic access.

Regional leaders such as regents, mayors and governors were often retired military officers. Since Suharto was a former army general, his old corps became predominant among the forces.

Civilian political supremacy
After the fall of Suharto in 1998, the precept of civilian political supremacy over the military became paramount. Hence, President Abdurrahman Wahid in 2000 formally abolished dwifungsi and detached the police from the military. ABRI was no more.

It was now TNI and the National Police. The aim of the abolition was to “return the troops to the barracks” and confine them there, in effect restoring their original function as professional soldiers subservient to civilian rule.

Almost 20 years on, the stereotype among Indonesians that ex-military men make better leaders because they are “tough” is still prevalent. During his first presidential campaign at least, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, or SBY, gained considerable support owing to his background as a former army general.

The election of Jokowi as president in 2014 may have given the impression that the constituent no longer craved for a leader with military background of which Jokowi’s rival Prabowo Subianto was one but it is worth pointing out that Jokowi’s small victory margin was not reassuring.

More recently, the eldest son of SBY, Agus Harimurti, resigned his commission from the army to enter the Jakarta gubernatorial election as a candidate. He initially performed well in the polls, suggesting that the voters may have seen his military background as desirable.

Apart from rivalry between the forces within TNI, ever since the detachment of the police from the military, TNI has cast a covetous eye upon its one-time brother corps. As the only armed force to have legal and formal jurisdiction over civilian matters, police personnel consequently have better economic access.

To add insult to injury, the police force is also entitled to its own independent budget, which is comparatively bigger than each of the three forces gets. For example, in 2013 the police received Rp 47 trillion (US$3.53 billion) in government funding while TNI had to split its 96.4 trillion among the army, navy and air force.

Changing the rules
However, having an eminently civilian president like Jokowi has perhaps changed the rules of the game when it comes to competition between the forces within TNI and concurrently TNI vis a vis the police.

A president with no loyalty to any of the forces like Suharto or SBY was literally up for grabs. It is no wonder the three forces and the police have been doing their best to make the president beholden to them.

Yet Jokowi’s response proves to be mercurial. At the onset of his presidency, he often spoke grandiosely of the need to return to the archipelago’s roots as a seafaring power, even quoting the navy’s motto “Jalesveva Jayamahe” (“At sea, we triumph”) in his inaugural speech and outlining his vision for Indonesia as the global maritime fulcrum.

It was initially thought that the president would prioritise the modernisation of Indonesia’s ageing naval equipment and weaponry to help realise his maritime vision.

In view of the rising tension in the South China Sea between China and other claimant states particularly after it was revealed that China claims a portion of the Natuna Sea upgrading the navy’s capabilities would have made sense.

But early on the expectation was shattered when he selected Ryamizard Ryacudu, a former army general, to become defence minister, a post even under SBY that was always held by civilians.

Then when the time came for him to choose the replacement for the outgoing TNI commander General Moeldoko in 2015, he selected General Gatot Nurmantyo.

Controversial choice
The president’s choice was controversial in two ways: first, although it was his prerogative to choose whomever he thought fit, the convention established under President Abdurrahman Wahid and supported by a 2004 law mandated that the post be filled in by Air Marshall Agus Supriatna from the Air Force since the Army had had its turn in Moeldoko.

Second, Gatot was known to have preached about a conspiracy theory dubbed “proxy war” by which he argued that various foreign powers were waging war against Indonesia through indirect agents and issues.

Interestingly, Ryamizard has also publicly endorsed the theory and between the two of them, they have named narcotics, communism, LGBT movement, liberalism and foreign-funded NGOs as examples.

It is possible that Jokowi had been impressed by Nurmantyo’s fiery patriotism when he was the Army chief-of-staff but the latter’s tenure so far as TNI commander has been marred by embarrassing incidents, chief of which was the unilateral suspension of military cooperation with Australia over allegedly insulting material to the state ideology Pancasila spotted by TNI personnel at an Australian military base.

Even though Jokowi half-heartedly defended Nurmantyo’s decision later, his initial disclaimer of knowledge suggested that he had never been consulted by the general over the decision.

Nevertheless, the military cooperation suspension proved to be popular with the Indonesian public, many of whom thought the general had acted out of nationalism. While to punish the general severely for what was a popular stunt might have been impolitic of Jokowi, the fact that the TNI commander dared bypass the president, in theory commander-in-chief of the Army, because he thought he had a “winner” case illustrates how relatively circumstantial proper code of conduct is in the governance of Indonesia.

Johannes Nugroho is a Jakarta writer, political analyst and history aficionado and a columnist at the Jakarta Globe. This article was first published in the Globe. Part 2 in this series will be published tomorrow.

]]>

AsiaPacificReport.nz

]]>

AsiaPacificReport.nz

]]>

AsiaPacificReport.nz

]]>

AsiaPacificReport.nz

By Nicky Hager and Jon Stephenson

The Chief of Defence Force Lieutenant-General Tim Keating presented the NZ Defence Force response to the book Hit & Run at a press conference on Monday, 27 March 2017. For 45 minutes he and his colleagues suggested that everything in the book was incorrect.

The Hit and Run authors have now had time to study the defence chief’s statements. Our conclusion is that the NZDF criticisms are wrong – with one exception – and that they have failed to address almost everything of substance in the book.

Hit and Run … allegations of NZ SAS atrocity and cover-up in Afghanistan.

This is what a cover up looks like.

READ MORE: Villagers say both NZDF and authors wrong on village names – but confirm civilian deaths

1. The raid described in the book “is not an operation NZSAS conducted”: INCORRECT

The information presented in Keating’s press conference leaves no doubt that the book and the defence chief are talking about the same raid. Keating gave the name of the raid (Operation Burnham), the times and date (12.30-3.45am on 22 August 2010), the location in the Tirgiran Valley, and said the SAS arrived in two Chinook helicopters, used SAS snipers, found a quantity of ammunition in one building and had one SAS trooper injured by falling debris.

All of these are details of the SAS raid publicised first in chapter 3 of the book. There were not two different raids with the same operation name at the same time in the same valley. It is obviously the same raid.

An NZDF power point presentation shown in the press conference showed three main SAS objectives in the valley called A1, A2 and A3. The book had already identified the SAS’s main targets as being the house and guest house of an insurgent named Abdullah Kalta and the house of an insurgent named Naimatullah, neither of whom were present during the raid.

The NZDF objectives A1 and A2 are the buildings belonging to Abdullah Kalta seen in a photo on p. 60 of the book and NZDF objective A3 is the house of Nematullah shown on pp. 39 and 60 of the book.

2. The SAS raid was in a different village with a different name: INCORRECT

The defence force claimed that the SAS raid occurred in a village called Tirgiran, not the villages of Naik and Khak Khuday Dad named in the book. This is not true. The locals know the names of their own villages and they are called Naik and Khak Khuday Dad. The raid occurred there.

3. The SAS raid was about two kilometres from the position we gave in the book: CORRECT, BUT DOES NOT CHANGE THE STORY IN ANY SIGNIFICANT WAY

After the NZDF press conference, Nicky Hager said that the authors stood by the whole story and that at most the NZDF denials might mean that the events in the book occurred two kilometres from where we thought they were, ie. a slightly different location in the isolated mountain valley.

We have checked the NZDF maps shown at the press conference and it appears the location of the raid and the villages is indeed slightly different to what our local sources told us. But the villages at that location are definitely called Naik and Khak Khuday Dad, and all the rest of the story in the book is unchanged.

Likewise the photos in the book of the villages attacked in the raid are correct, as are the photos of the victims and destroyed houses.

The Defence Force leapt on this and tried to sow doubt about the rest of the book. Keating said the “central premise” of the book was incorrect; that there were “major inaccuracies – the main one being the location”.

But the location is a minor detail, difficult to establish in mountains with no roads or detailed maps (there are no known maps of the valley that include the locations and names of the villages along it).

Contrary to what Keating said, the central premise of the book is that the actions of the SAS and its allies in the villages of Naik and Khak Khuday Dad led to civilian deaths and injuries, destruction of houses, neglect of wounded people and then a cover up – and none of that has changed.

4. The NZDF has now replied to the allegations in the book: INCORRECT

The defence force has not replied to most allegations in the book. Most strikingly, Keating’s presentation did not address the deaths and injuries suffered by children, mothers and elderly people who were obviously not insurgents – which are the most important allegations in the book.

Three-year-old Fatima, one of the alleged civilian casualties in the 2011 Afghanistan raid by NZ SAS soldiers. Image: Hit & Run

The allegations that the defence force has avoided or answered inadequately to date are:

• SAS-controlled attack helicopters fired at civilians in Khak Khuday Dad village with many casualties, including the three-year-old child Fatima;
• SAS snipers appear to have shot at least one civilian, a recently graduated school teacher home on holiday;
• SAS-controlled attack helicopters pursued two farmers who opposed the Taliban along the valley and killed them;
• Twelve houses were destroyed despite there being no military necessity to do so;
• No assistance was given to the wounded at the time, including in houses that Defence now says it knew might have contained civilians;
• Nor did the SAS go back to render assistance later, despite knowing that civilians were likely to have been injured;
• The SAS returned for a second raid on the village Naik and blew up a house or houses;
• A bound and blindfolded prisoner was beaten by an SAS trooper while his colleagues looked on and did nothing;
• The prisoner was then handed over to the Afghan secret police who were known to have a notorious reputation for torturing prisoners;
• That prisoner was then tortured by the Afghan secret police and when the defence force learned about this it kept it secret;
• The SAS arranged the extra-judicial killing of some other insurgent suspects; and
• The NZDF repeatedly denied and covered up what the SAS have done, and continue to do so to this day.

5. An ISAF investigation has already occurred, there is no need for another inquiry: A WEAK SELF-SERVING ARGUMENT

First it is important to explain about the investigation done in August 2010 by the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) coalition headquarters, which was cited repeatedly during the NZDF press conference. In 2010 the subject of civilian deaths was very sensitive in Afghanistan and so ISAF was attempting to investigate all suspected cases of civilians being killed by ISAF forces. But these “assessments” were very far from being full or independent.

The ISAF investigation into the 22 August 2010 raid was completed in less than a week and did not involve anyone going to the area or talking to the affected villagers. It included a review of attack helicopter weapons system video and concluded that several “errant rounds”, caused by a gun sight malfunction, “may have resulted in civilian casualties”.

However reports from SAS members and local people interviewed for the book describe multiple heavy attacks that wounded and killed civilians in different locations. Thus the hastily-conducted ISAF review appears far from being adequate. It is silent on most of the allegations in the book.

There is no need for New Zealand to rely on the brief and inadequate ISAF review. Most of the information needed to confirm whether or not the allegations in the book are correct is located here in New Zealand, in the SAS files. The best option is an independent inquiry where this information can be gathered and assessed.

6. Keating said the insurgents may have used civilians as human shields; aircraft video showed insurgents were killed; the conduct of the New Zealand ground forces was “exemplary”; and so on: UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS AND SELECTIVE INFORMATION

Much of Keating’s presentation was unsubstantiated assertions. This does not help the public find the truth since the defence force has an obvious interest in avoiding bad news about itself. He also said that the book claimed the SAS “deliberately killed civilians”, which we did not say. If we are correct that bad things are being covered up, we cannot expect the people at the heart of the cover up to provide impartial information.

Once again, this means that the only acceptable option is a full and independent inquiry.

7. Lieutenant General Tim Keating told the press conference: “The ground force commander was an NZSAS Officer who controlled both the ground activities and provided clearance, after the appropriate criteria had been met, for any involvement of the aircraft. These elements were co-ordinated by an air controller in his location.” CORRECT AND IMPORTANT INFORMATION

Chief of Defence Force Lieutenant-General Tim Keating at Monday’s media conference. Montage: The Daily Blog

This statement contradicts earlier statements by the government (in 2014) where ministers suggested that if there had been any civilian deaths they were the responsibility of the US pilots, not the New Zealand SAS. It confirms what we said in the book: that the SAS commanders in charge of the raid have responsibility for deaths and injuries caused by the US attack helicopters, which they controlled and had requested to be part of the raid.

8. Finally, Keating told the press that there were legal complications for having an inquiry: INCORRECT

This is not correct. We are not proposing an inquiry by the Defence Force about itself. The government has the power to launch a full and independent inquiry at any time. We believe the NZDF is trying to avoid a full and independent inquiry precisely because some officers are scared of what it will show. But the issue will continue to fester, as it has for years, until that happens.

]]>

AsiaPacificReport.nz

Professor Welby Ings … talking “disobedient thinking” at TedxAuckland in 2013, some of the ideas underpinning his new book. Video: TedxTalks

Despite being expelled from secondary school and suspended from teachers college, AUT Professor Welby Ings’ new book is about a lifetime of inspirational teaching.

Professor Ings … challenges “dehumanised learning”. Image: AUT

Disobedient Teaching: Surviving and creating change in education was launched at Auckland University of Technology tonight.

Professor Ings says he wrote the book because he has for a long time questioned the “dehumanised systems of learning” and New Zealand’s preoccupation with micromanaging teachers.

“In the book, I question the obsession we have with assessing performance, and argue for higher levels of creativity in learning, teaching and educational management,” he says.

Disobedient Teaching takes a stand against our national obsession with testing and reporting. It calls for higher levels of teacher agency and learning that operate away from the restrictions of performance indicators, predetermined criteria and tick-box teaching.

Professor Ings argues that “positive disobedience” is a fundamental teaching behaviour among successful practitioners, and the ability of excellent teachers to change learning and learning environments is predicated on it.

His book examines creativity, assessment, passion, our obsession with “success”, and how teachers influence change. To do this it tells stories from the chalk face. Some are funny and some are heartbreaking, but they all happen in New Zealand schools.

Disobedient Teaching suggests that the essence of what makes a great teacher is the ability to stand up to, and change educational practices that have been shaped by “anxiety, ritual and convention”.

In the face of New Zealand’s increasing and uncritical political obsession with accountability and reporting, his book argues the transformative power of teachers who think, critique, defy and act.

]]>

AsiaPacificReport.nz

By Kendall Hutt

In light of news of President Donald Trump’s executive order today — undoing integral climate change policies implemented under former President Barack Obama — Greenpeace New Zealand has brought forward the timetable for its new boat.

Greenpeace New Zealand’s executive director, Dr Russel Norman, says the boat, recently named Taitu, will aim to be out on the water next week.

“The naming ceremony is on Saturday, so we’re hoping to head off sometime after that. It’s all weather dependent.”

Norman would not give an exact date when pressed, however, in order to preserve the element of surprise.

“Of course, we’re not going to reveal all of our tactics.”

Norman says Taitu, formerly the MV Friendship, will be used to confront the Amazon Warrior, and therefore big oil, led by the “CEO of the global oil industry” – Trump.

Norman explains this is because we are “in a war for the survival of humans and civilisation”, a ‘war’ Greenpeace “takes extremely seriously”.

“It’s so we, our kids, the people of the Pacific, have a future.”

‘First mission’
The world’s largest seismic surveying vessel, the Amazon Warrior is currently in New Zealand searching for oil.

Greenpeace campaigner Steve Abel echoes Norman’s statement, saying Taitu’s “first mission” is to confront the 125-metre ship, here on behalf of international oil giants Statoil and Chevron.

“The main thing we’re focused on right now is the immediate oil campaign.”

The Amazon Warrior is currently surveying the Wairarapa to Wellington Basin, and does so by blasting the sea floor every 8 seconds with compressed air guns.

At 200 decibels per blast, Greenpeace has raised concerns about the effects on whale and dolphin populations in the area.

Abel says it is therefore important to “get out there”.

“It’s really important for us to send that message that that exploration is not welcome here and those guys have been out there for weeks and months now seismic blasting the ocean, which both torments whales and dolphins, but also they’re looking for oil we can’t afford to burn.”

The newest member of Greenpeace’s fleet, Taitu … purchased through crowdfunding. Image: Nick Young/Greenpeace NZ

The newest member of Greenpeace’s fleet, Taitu was bought last week after supporters crowdfunded $100,000 in just 7 days.

Greenpeace received around 3000 suggestions for a new name after it put out a call for public submissions, with the country voting on a final three up until around 1pm today.

‘The People’s Boat’
Abel says the purchase of the boat entirely through crowdfunding and ‘people power’ reflects an important part of its identity and makes the nickname ‘The People’s Boat’ apt.

“It’s a real affirmation of public support for what we’re doing and it also shows how passionate New Zealanders are about looking after our oceans and our coastlines and our environment in general.”

Abel says the 15-metre kauri-hulled boat has led a relatively quiet life until now, although much of its 81-year history remains relatively unknown.

“It must have done all sorts of things and we’ve still got to find out exactly what all of those things are. We’re getting bits and pieces of information from everywhere.”

Abel says Greenpeace is therefore still “piecing together the history”, but does know it was a postal delivery boat in Queen Charlotte Sound, ferrying mail and people around the Sound.

Greenpeace also understands the MV Friendship may have worked as a pilot boat in Wellington, guiding larger ships into port, as it was built as a pilot boat for the Marlborough Sounds.

Tradition, legacy
The purchase of the vessel also marks a bit of a Greenpeace tradition, Abel says.

“What it means to us, I guess it’s a boat in the strong Greenpeace tradition of getting old boats and repurposing them.

It’s incredibly exciting to have a boat like this as part of the Greenpeace New Zealand fleet. We figured we need to have our own boat down here.”

Painting the rainbow on the new Greenpeace fleet member – Taitu. Image: Nick Young/Greenpeace NZ

Former original Rainbow Warrior first mate Martini Gotjé says this is a first for Greenpeace New Zealand.

“It’s not very often a national office buys its own boat. It’s new, especially for New Zealand.

“It’s good to see.”

Both Abel and Gotjé hope to see Taitu have a legacy, like the Rainbow Warrior before it.

“Any Greenpeace boat has to build up its legacy,” Gotjé says.

“The legacy goes both ways I think. It both taps into tradition, an incredibly proud and successful tradition of campaigning in New Zealand to become a nuclear free beacon of hope.

“I think the legacy is one of public participation and caring for our environment, our planet, and really to any degree this boat can assist us in successes for the greater good of the planet and society, then that becomes this boat’s legacy.”

Abel adds: “I sincerely hope this boat succeeds in helping us with this legacy.”

Kendall Hutt is Pacific Media Watch contributing editor of the Pacific Media Centre. She also works for Greenpeace in a part-time capacity.

]]>

AsiaPacificReport.nz

Bruno Barrillot talking about the legacy of French nuclear testing in the Pacific in the Witnesses of the Bomb programme in a 2013 multimedia historical record. Video: cdgr0820

By Mathilde Régis

Campaigner and former priest Bruno Barrillot, who devoted his life to challenging French nuclear tests in Algeria and the Pacific and who sought justice for the victims, has died. He was aged 77.

In 1984, he founded the Lyon-based Centre de Documentation et de Recherche sur la Paix et les Conflits (CDRPC) and the non-government organisation Arms Observatory.

Bruno Barrillot … campaigner against French Pacific nuclear tests and for compensation for the victims. Image: Lyon Capitale

Finding that he could not work against the tests from within the Catholic Church, he resigned to devote his efforts to the campaign against the tests.

Radio New Zealand reports that last year, the French Polynesian government reinstated Barrillot – three years after the previous administration, led by Gaston Flosse, had sacked him as the head of the territory’s body dealing with the aftermath of the French nuclear weapons tests that ended in 1996.

Barrillot’s duties included work on the rehabilitation of the former test-related military sites on Moruroa and Fangataufa as well as assisting in efforts to amend the French nuclear testing compensation law.

After the French sinking of the Greenpeace vessel Rainbow Warrior in July 1985, Barrillot focussed on the damage caused by the nuclear tests in the Pacific, reports Radio NZ.

He was also the co-founder of French Polynesia’s nuclear test veteran organisations.

Barrillot was described by the online publication Lyon Capitale as an “ordinary hero” who had done great work for victims of the nuclear testing.

France carried out 210 nuclear tests between 1960 and 1996 — 17 in the Algerian Sahara Desert and 193 in French Polynesia.

Bruno Barrillot will be buried in Tahiti.

]]>

AsiaPacificReport.nz

]]>

AsiaPacificReport.nz

]]>

AsiaPacificReport.nz

]]>

AsiaPacificReport.nz

]]>

AsiaPacificReport.nz

By Christina Milligan

The multi-award winning feature film The Bonfire has been screened to a small but appreciative audience at Auckland University of Technology following its successful screenings at the 2017 Māoriland Film Festival in Otaki.

The film tells a heart-wrenching story of friendship between an old man and a young boy after both of them have lost connection with their families.

Made in 15 days with an amateur cast and mostly amateur crew, The Bonfire is a remarkable achievement for first-time director Dimitrii Davidov, who is a school headmaster from the Amga district where the film was shot.

Davidov and his cast and crew are from the Yakut people who live in a remote region of Eastern Siberia, 725 km south of the Arctic circle. It is an area which suffers from high unemployment, and the film does not flinch from showing the pain of poverty and alcoholism that lack of work can cause in remote villages.

The Bonfire is the first feature to be made by the Yakut people in the Yakut language and it has been warmly received and honoured at a number of film festivals around the world, including being awarded Best Dramatic Feature at the 17th ImagiNATIVE Film and Media Arts Festival in Toronto in 2016.

Davidov and his producer Anzelika Krastina were hosted at AUT by Te Ara Poutama and the Television and Screen Production curriculum of the School of Communication Studies.

Christina Milligan is a film director and producer and lecturer at Auckland University of Technology.

]]>

AsiaPacificReport.nz

With dozens of US military bases encircling China with a “giant noose,” and America’s historic nuclear presence in the Pacific region, a war between the greatest military power and the world’s second largest economy “is no longer unthinkable,” journalist John Pilger says.

In his documentary, The Coming War on China being launched in New Zealand next week,  the multi-award winning journalist and filmmaker says he aims “to break the silence”.

Pilger sets out several remarkable historic facts which bear testament to America’s “sabre-rattling” in the Asia-Pacific region.

RNZ Sunday’s Wallace Chapman talks to John Pilger today about his new documentary.

‘Giant US noose’ around China
In the West, “the threat of China is becoming big news, the media is beating the drums of war as the world is being primed to regard China as a new enemy,” the UK-based Australian journalist says.

The mainstream media such as CNN get exclusive access to classified US surveillance flights over disputed islands in the South China Sea, which “have become a flashpoint for war between China and America”.

But “what is not in the news is that China itself is under threat.”

“American bases form a giant noose encircling China with missiles, bombers, warships all the way from Australia through the Pacific to Asia and beyond,” Pilger’s documentary states.

As one of the film’s contributors, author of The China Mirage book, James Bradley put it, “if you were in Beijing and stood on the tallest building and looked out at the Pacific Ocean, you would see American warships, you would see Guam is about to sink because there are so many missiles pointed at China.”

The Coming War documentary by John Pilger … “so many missiles pointing at China”. Map: Base Nation

1. ‘The secret of the Bikini Islands’
The site of US atomic bomb testing for many years, which notoriously lent its name to the swimsuit design, the Bikini Atoll within the Marshall Islands is “America’s strategic secret.”

Lying in the vast Pacific Ocean between the US and Asia, the “once bountiful” atoll is a “stepping stone to Asia and China” for the US.

In 1946, the US took over the Marshall Islands as a trust territory, but turned it into a “laboratory for the testing of nuclear weapons, and its people into guinea pigs,” the film says, adding that effects of the atomic bomb were also tested on animals.

While the revealing swimsuit was named after US H-bomb detonations in Bikini Atoll, the bodies of the people on the islands were less celebrated than its wearers. They were among “the most radiated in the world”.

With test sites at sea, in the air, on reefs and underwater, the total yield of the nuclear experiments on and around the Marshall Islands was equal to 7200 Hiroshima bombs, meaning the equivalent of more than one Hiroshima bomb was exploded in the area every day for 12 years, Pilger says.

Bikini Island is till nowadays unfit for human life, he adds.

The area surrounding the crater of one of the greatest man-made explosions, from a hydrogen bomb called Bravo, is “by far the most contaminated place on Earth,” the film cites a US atomic energy official as saying.

“It will be interesting to get a measure of human uptake when people live in a contaminated environment,” the official added, while the film explores the sufferings of the atoll locals, many of whom died of cancer.

“What the Americans did was no accident. They came here and destroyed our land. They came to test the effects of a nuclear bomb on us,” a local woman told the filmmaker.

In a weekend interview on Radio NZ’s Sunday with Wallace Chapman, Pilger also talked about US research on the impact of nuclear radiation on Marshall Islands “guinea pigs”, notably on Rongelap Atoll just 120km from Bikini where the islanders were encouraged to return to live.

In May 1985, the Greenpeace flagship Rainbow Warrior ferried the Rongelap people to a new home on Mejato island on the rim of Kwajalein Atoll just weeks before the vessel was bombed by French secret agents in Auckland Harbour.

Rongelap Islanders on board the Rainbow Warrior bound for Mejato in May 1985. (c) David Robie from Eyes of Fire.

2. ‘Apartheid in the Pacific’
Moving to another American base in the region, cited as “one of its most important and secretive” locations, known as the Ronald Reagan Test Site, the journalist explores the US missile launch pad that, according to him, “commands the Pacific Ocean all the way to Asia and China.”

With weapons of mass destruction being “designed for a coming war,” the base is part of a “remarkable” US Space Command plan known as Vision 2020. Devised in the 1990s, its aim is officially described as “full spectrum” dominance, the film says.

But while Washington spends huge amounts of money on military ambitions, with the US Air Force testing its intercontinental missiles by firing them at the Marshall Islands from California almost 5000 miles away, locals have been subjected to poverty.

America’s treatment of people living across the bay from the US base Kwajalein is called the “Apartheid of the Pacific” by Pilger, and their native island Ebeye “the slum of the Pacific”.

More than 12,000 people, most of whom are refugees from what is now a US missile base, and from islands poisoned by nuclear testing, are brought to work on that very base site to water golf courses for the Americans. After a whole day of work, they are “ferried back to their poverty”.

3. ‘Island people against the greatest military power on Earth’
Japan’s island of Okinawa has become the “frontline of a beckoning war with China,” while the outstanding non-violent resistance of the local people challenges US’ pivot to Asia.

The documentary reveals that in 1962 America’s atomic weapons were almost launched from the island, when a military base there allegedly received an order to prepare an attack on China, but then was abruptly ordered to stop.

One of the American servicemen whose job was to fire Mace cruise missiles told Pilger that China was Washington’s nuclear target during the Cuban missile crisis.

“We must not have the misery of war ever again,” one of the leaders of the protest movement on Okinawa told the journalist, adding that her “duty” as a survivor of World War II is to see the US military bases leave the Japanese island.

READ MORE: Stationing American troops in Japan will lead to bloody tragedy – ex-PM of Japan

Yet, American aircraft are constantly flying low on Okinawa, the film shows, with its author saying that “the threat is a constant presence”.

Teachers often can’t teach because of the noise and the fear, with a memory of a US fighter crashing into Miyamori Elementary School and surrounding houses still vivid for many. Back in 1959, the pilot ejected to safety, but the plane caused carnage, with more than 200 people, mostly children, having been killed and injured in the accident.

“Another tragedy waits to happen on Okinawa, with US military aircraft having been involved in 44 accidents on the island,” Pilger says, while also recalling cases of violence and sexual assault against local women, allegedly committed by American servicemen.

One more outstanding “US war station” is located on the South Korean island of Jeju, where a resistance movement has also been persistent against America’s naval base.

“One of the most provocative military bases in the world” has been built on the world heritage site land, less than 400 miles from Shanghai.

According to the film, it’s aimed at China’s lifelines to the world in oil trade and resources.

There are also numerous secret bases constructed by Washington within a hosting country base to disguise the US presence, with such locations generally not referred to as “bases,” the film claims.

Many have been “set up to combat China’s worldwide economic influence,” while bases on China’s doorstep are “a provocation of war”.

4. ‘Gold mine of drugs’ and Mao ‘paranoia’
Starting from the 19th century, an anti-Chinese “racial stereotype” has been spread across the United States.

According to the film, such a policy concealed a deeper agenda – opium. For the American elite back then China was a “gold mine of drugs”.

Warren Delano, the grandfather of America’s 32nd president Franklin D. Roosevelt, “was the American opium king of China,” author James Bradley says. “Much of the east coast of America – Columbia, Harvard, Yale, Princeton were born from opium money.

“The American industrial revolution was funded by huge pools of money which came from illegal drugs [from] the biggest market in the world – China,” he says, adding that of course it wasn’t talked about, but called it “the China trade.”

Later in the 20th century, a new way to present China as a threat was invented, with Mao’s revolution having ignited paranoia in Washington. With Richard Nixon proclaiming China “the basic cause of all of our trouble in Asia” in 1953, the father of the H-bomb, Edward Teller over a decade later claimed a defence was needed against the eastern power.

“I believe that for the sake of our safety it is necessary to be prepared for the possibility of a Chinese missile attack on the United States,” the film quotes him as saying.

“China … matched America at its own great game of capitalism, and that is unforgivable,” Pilger says.

The journalist uncovers a secret message that was sent by Mao Zedong to Washington five years before the communist revolution of 1949. “China must industrialise right now, this can only be done by free enterprise.

“Chinese and American interests fit together economically and politically. America need not fear that we will not be cooperative – we cannot risk crossing America, we cannot risk any conflict,” Pilger cites Mao’s message as saying.

But the Chinese leader got no reply, and his “reaching hand was tossed away,” as Bradley put it.

5. ‘Smartest weapons need enemies, money is the prize’
The film suggests that a “stereotype of communist dictatorship” is widely spread by the US, preventing from understanding “China as it is”.

“In America you can change political parties but you cannot change the policies. In China you cannot change the party, but you can change policies … China is a vibrant market economy, but it is not a capitalist country,” entrepreneur and social scientist, Eric Li says.

He adds that in China, “capital does not rise above political authority,” and there is no way a group of super rich people can control the politburo, “as billionaires control America’s policy making.”

Chinese soldiers …. Beijing government “trying to prevent US domination”. Image: New Matilda/Jonathan Kros-Reid/Flickr

The Chinese government is “not trying to run the world, they are not even trying to run Asia Pacific. I think they want to keep America from dominating [the region], so they have what they believe is their rightful place because of the long history of civilisation,” Li says, adding that Chinese “objectives are really modest compared with their capacity.”

As the world’s economic power moves rapidly towards Asia, the response of the United States is to deploy the majority of its naval forces to the region, according to Pilger.

“This massive military build-up is known in Washington as the ‘pivot to Asia’. The target is China,” he says, also citing president Barack Obama, who in 2011 said that creating an American presence in the Asia Pacific was his “top priority”.

“For America’s unchallenged arms industry, the annual prize is huge profits from almost $600 billion of military spending,” the journalist suggests, adding that “the smartest weapons need enemies”.

]]>

AsiaPacificReport.nz

]]>

AsiaPacificReport.nz

]]>

AsiaPacificReport.nz

]]>

AsiaPacificReport.nz

]]>

AsiaPacificReport.nz

Dr Teresia Teaiwa featured in a Tagata Pasifika video when winning the Manukau Institute of Technology Pacific Education Award prize at the SunPix Pacific Peoples Awards in 2015.

The director of director of Va’aomanū Pasifika at Victoria University in Wellington, Dr Teresia Teaiwa, has died following a short illness.

She was described in a statement by Victoria University today as a friend, colleague, renowned scholar and poet, and a generous and warm personality of the academic community.

Dr Teaiwa died yesterday in close company of friends and family after a short battle with cancer.

Assistant Vice-Chancellor (Pasifika) Luamanuvao Winnie Laban said the loss would be felt widely among the Pasifika community in New Zealand, the Pacific region and elsewhere around the world.

“She was a wonderful Pacific woman and leader who was a role model for all Pacific people. She was hugely committed and passionate about people and social justice in the Pacific, and she will be missed dearly.”

Dr Teaiwa was internationally known for her ground-breaking work in Pacific studies.

Her research interests in this area embraced her artistic and political nature, and included contemporary issues in Fiji, feminism and women’s activism in the Pacific, contemporary Pacific culture and arts, and pedagogy in Pacific Studies.

Marsden Fast Start
In 2007, she was awarded a Marsden Fast Start research grant for her oral history and book project on Fijian women soldiers.

In 1996, Dr Teaiwa turned down a job with Greenpeace to take up her first lecturer position at the University of the South Pacific in Fiji.

During this time, Dr Teaiwa enjoyed being part of intellectual communities that stemmed from the university environment such as the Niu Wave Writers’ Collective, the Nuclear-Free and Independent Pacific Movement and the Citizens’ Constitutional Forum.

In 2000, she moved to New Zealand to join Victoria University to teach the world’s first undergraduate major in Pacific studies, of which she was programme director until 2009.

Most recently she was promoted to director of Va’aomanū Pasifika, home to Victoria’s Pacific and Samoan Studies programmes.

Dr Teaiwa’s talents in the classroom were formally recognised in 2015 when she won the Pacific People’s Award for Education, in 2014 when she received the Victoria Teaching Excellence Award and as the first Pasifika woman awarded the Ako Aotearoa Tertiary Teaching Excellence Award.

In 2010, she received the Macaulay Distinguished Lecture Award from the University of Hawai’i.

Outside of her Victoria role, Dr Teaiwa was co-editor of the International Feminist Journal of Politics (2008-2011), and was an editorial board member of the Amerasia Journal and AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples.

Pacific Media Centre director and Asia Pacific Report editor Professor David Robie, a contemporary of Dr Teaiwa at the University of the South Pacific, described her as an extraordinary academic and creative talent and cultural icon, adding she was “an inspiration to Pacific peoples right across the region”.

A memorial service will be held for Dr Teaiwa at Victoria University in the coming weeks.

]]>

AsiaPacificReport.nz

By Kendall Hutt

Young environmentalists were on the front lines of the fight against oil and gas exploration in New Zealand today with the People’s Climate Rally blockading an industry summit in New Plymouth.

Jesse Sheehan, a musician and Greenpeace supporter, and Poonam Maharaj, who has been fundraising with Greenpeace since late January, both took part in the blockade of TSB Showplace to peacefully disrupt the Petroleum Summit.

The People’s Climate Rally has been organised by a coalition of groups opposed to the expansion of the fossil fuel industry, including 350 Aotearoa, Break Free, and oil free groups from Wellington and Auckland.

Maharaj says she was “so excited” to be taking part in the rally, which was her first action.

“A day into the job I found out about the climate rally, and it’s something I would love to be a part of, actively making a change.”

Sheehan, who has kept his “toe in the water” volunteering with Greenpeace both here and in the United Kingdom since 2015, admits this wasn’t his first protest.

“I’ve stopped a coal train in the past.”

Similar motivations
Both Sheehan and Maharaj have similar motivations behind taking part in the rally.

“I hope that oil companies know that they can’t run and hide, and that they know there will be opposition to them being in New Zealand, because the government have sort of sold them this idea ‘come to New Zealand and you won’t have any resistance, you’re welcome and New Zealanders want you here.’

“So I hope they will realise that is not the case and they will reap resistance and it won’t be as easy as the government said it would be,” says Sheehan.

Maharaj, however, says she was protesting due to the harm seismic blasting and oil drilling had on marine life.

“My sort of main reason why I’m going is because of the impact it’s having on our marine life. It’s not very fair on the animals and they haven’t done anything wrong to deserve this.

“It’s not something I feel our government should be encouraging.”

Future in own hands
Amanda Larsson, a Greenpeace campaigner involved in organising the rally, speaking to Asia Pacific Report from Taranaki, says it is important to include youth voices in the fight against deep sea oil drilling.

“It’s their future that they’re fighting for, and again for them to have a future the oil industry can have no future, so it’s really important for young people to kind of take their future into their own hands.

“What we’re finding is that the government is not standing up for their future, so it’s really important for people like you and me and the young people of this country to take that responsibility into their own hands and ensure we put a stop to oil and gas drilling in this country.”

The People’s Climate Rally also recognises the work of local organisations in Taranaki, such as Climate Justice Taranaki, Ngatiawa ki Taranaki Trust, and Parihaka Papakāinga Trust, who have been opposing oil and gas activities including drilling, flaring and fracking for many years.

“This is their land, their territory, and their fight,” says Larsson.

“Now that that conference has moved to Taranaki with strong local opposition, it’s very important for us to support what people are already doing on the ground and to give them all the support they need to carry on here.”

Responsibility to Pacific
Larsson, Maharaj and Sheehan also agree New Zealand has a responsibility to its Pacific neighbours to amends its stance on oil and gas exploration in the country.

This is due to the fact Pacific countries bear the brunt of the effects of climate change.

“It’s often Asia-Pacific and the developing countries within the developing world that are hit the hardest by climate change, less so than Western countries,” says Sheehan.

Maharaj also feels New Zealand should be setting an example in terms of renewable energy solutions.

“We should be starting that now so our Pacific neighbours can start following suit and we can have an oil free country and world.”

Small island states such as Kiribati, Marshall Islands and Tuvalu have already been affected by rising sea levels, while fresh water and food supplies across the Pacific are affected by salt water intrusion.

Tropical cyclones have plagued the Pacific on an increasing basis since the 1970s as the effects of El Nino have drastically risen, the most recent effect being Cyclone Winston, devastating Fiji in early 2015.

“I think as a Pacific nation New Zealand has a responsibility to the people who are most going to be affected by climate change which is our Pacific neighbours.

‘Stand together’
“It’s really important for the New Zealand public to stand together with the people of the Pacific in opposing the oil and gas industry which is the main driver of climate change,” Larsson says.

New Zealand has been criticised on the world stage for its commitment to scaling back fossil fuels.

This is because New Zealand’s fossil fuel production subsidies have increased seven-fold since former Prime Minister John Key’s election in 2008.

The government has received four “Fossil of the Day” awards at climate change talks since 2012, the most recent being at the COP21 conference in Paris in 2016.

Since National came to power in 2008, over half a million square kilometres of land and sea have been proposed for release for international oil companies to search and drill for oil.

Multiple opposition welcome
Although the rally is considered a continuation and escalation of previous protest in Auckland and Wellington at the yearly summit, it is a “family friendly event” where people concerned about climate change can show their opposition in multiple ways, says Larsson.

“Some people will kind of choose to put their bodies on the line and engage in non-violent direct action. Other people might choose to just hold some banners, attend some workshops and display solidarity by just being there in support and this rally is sort of being about open to everyone to show their opposition in their own way.”

Sheehan will also be taking part in the protest as a musician “to keep spirits high” and “use my voice that way as well”.

Eight hundred people have registered to attend the rally, but organisers expect at least 200 people will take place in the protest activity across today and tomorrow.

Thursday’s focus is on solutions, with talks and workshops delivered by a host of researchers and industry professionals on sustainable energy, including former Green Party co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons and Ecotricity director Al Yates.

]]>

AsiaPacificReport.nz

]]>

AsiaPacificReport.nz

Author and investigative journalist Nicky Hager and war correspondent Jon Stephenson have teamed up, in a book released last night, to tell the story of a dark and guilty secret of New Zealand’s recent history.

]]>

AsiaPacificReport.nz

]]>