Nicky Hager welcomes the Op Burnham Inquiry report, the most serious findings against the NZSAS and NZDF in their history – This report was first published on TheDailyBlog.co.nz

Ref. Report-of-the-Government-Inquiry-into-Operation-Burnham-print-version (Sir Terence Arnold KNZM QC, Chair, Sir Geoffrey Palmer KCMG AC QC PC, Member, July 31,2020 [pdf]); + Inquiry-into-events-in-Afghanistan (Inspector General of Intelligence and Security, July 31, 2020 [pdf]).

“The Operation Burnham Inquiry report, released Friday, concludes that a child was killed and other civilians were injured during Operation Burnham, and that NZSAS officers denied and hid evidence of the civilian casualties. It finds a prisoner was handed over to torture and the same prisoner was assaulted by an NZSAS trooper. Thus, after nearly ten years of denials, the Inquiry has confirmed the main allegations in the book Hit & Run.”

The report says the book has “performed a valuable public service”.

“The report goes further than the book and finds that named SAS officers hid and denied evidence of civilian casualties following Operation Burnham” (see below).

“The report contains the most serious findings against the NZSAS and NZDF in their history. This should prompt a lot of soul searching inside the New Zealand Defence Force.”

“The report also recommends major changes to NZDF. This is a huge achievement. It is very important that New Zealand is prepared to investigate wrongful actions by its military, thoroughly and independently. The Operation Burnham Inquiry has done that,” he said. Mr Hager welcomes the findings and recommendations. “I thank the commissioners and their staff for two years of hard work.”

“I am very pleased. This is a tremendously important result.”

“At the same time, the public should know that the Inquiry process was highly unequal. NZDF and other government agencies spent millions of dollars of public money trying to deny any wrongdoing, while the authors and public were not allowed to analyse and contest the agencies’ secret submissions and evidence. Military officers were repeatedly given the benefit of the doubt; but not so the villagers.”

“However this makes it all the more significant that the Inquiry has confirmed the main allegations in the book. Moreover, the government has accepted the report’s recommendations, which is very important. These changes will strengthen civilian control of the military in the years ahead.”

“The report confirms most key allegations in the book. It….

Confirms civilians were killed and injured (and did not reach a decision for most other deaths whether or not they were civilians)

Confirms a child was killed (Mr Hager and the Inquiry differ over whether there is “sufficient evidence” to be sure she was called Fatima) (5/93)

Confirms that reports of civilian casualties were denied and hidden by named SAS officers

Confirms NZDF did not give aid to the wounded (Mr Hager and Inquiry differ on whether it was legally obliged to do so (6/144)

Confirms the NZDF mission failed in its objective; the troops did not capture or kill either of the insurgent leaders they were seeking

Confirms NZDF failed to investigate civilian casualties (9/149)

Confirms no weapons were fired at the NZ-led forces at any stage of the operation (5/38)

Confirms that, contrary to NZDF claims, the raid occurred in the two villages named in the book, Naik and Khak Khuday Dad (3/4)

Confirms that both target houses were burned during the raid, and one of them was further damaged at a later date (however Mr Hager and the Inquiry disagree over whether this was deliberate)

Confirms the NZSAS breached the Geneva Conventions by handing over a prisoner to torture (11/144)

Confirms an NZSAS trooper assaulted a prisoner while bound and blindfolded, again breaching the Geneva Conventions (10/28)

Confirms Ministers were misled by NZDF (eg ch 1, clause 7.5.2)

Finds the NZDF response to reports of civilian casualties was “deeply troubling”, reflecting conduct and events over a number of years (9/1)

Finds a “surprising level of ineptitude and disorganisation within NZDF Headquarters” (9/165)

“This is an extremely serious list of findings.”

Severe criticism of NZSAS officers for hiding and denying civilian casualties

“Four former commanding officers of the NZSAS are found to have acted improperly. This is unprecedented.” The officers are:

1. Brigadier Chris Parsons (NZSAS commanding officer 2010): when he sent a “seriously misleading” email (1/76(a)) from Afghanistan saying that there was no evidence of civilian casualties, his position was “implausible” (9/27), “fundamentally inconsistent” with what he knew (9/30), it was a “serious failure” (9/63), and “unreasonable and unacceptable”(9/63). He directed a subordinate to remove words from a report that acknowledged civilian casualties (9/51). His actions were “inexcusable” (9/70) and the commissioners said “we do not accept his denial”. (9/69) Parson’s quietly left his job as New Zealand’s defence attache to London after the draft inquiry report was circulated.

2. Peter Kelly (NZSAS commanding officer 2004-6, Director of Special Operation 2009-11) produces a ministerial briefing paper denying civilian casualties that was “inaccurate in fundamental respects” (9/74) and “misleading” (9/158), despite it being “contradicted by other information available to NZDF, including video footage, intelligence reporting and ISAF’s own media releases” (ch1, clause 7.5.3.) He told the Inquiry he was unaware of a second US civilian casualty investigation but his own email shows he knew about it (9/78-79).

3. Jim Blackwell (NZSAS commanding officer 2006-9, Director of Special Operations 2011-15): the Inquiry members “do not accept his account” of how he obtained a report on civilian casualties that he quietly deposited in an NZDF safe (9/89 and 99). They do not believe him when he said he had told other NZDF officers about the report (9/100). They were “concerned” that he “failed to mention in his evidence that he visited Afghanistan” (9/93). He appears to have misled the Inquiry.

4. Tim Keating (NZSAS commanding officer until 2001 and Chief of Defence Force 2014-18) His claims publicly and to ministers that Hit & Run was not about an operation NZDF conducted were “implausible” (9/136) and “ignored, unfairly, what was accurate in the book” (9/137). Keating had “erred in giving the prominence he did to the location errors in Hit & Run and not acknowledging that the book was accurate in important respects” (9/133).The report adopts the names of the villages used in the book as the location of Operation Burnham (3/4), contradicting Keating.

Chapters 8 and 9 on the “cover up” are deeply embarrassing for the NZSAS and NZDF. This includes finding that someone in the SAS had deleted a video of the child’s funeral off the SAS computer system (see “Other important parts of the report” below).

NZDF lobbied the Inquiry recently with an “expert opinion” trying to disprove that the funeral video showed the wrapped corpse of a child (9/167). Mr Hager says this gives the public a picture of the way NZDF has fought the Inquiry from beginning to end. Disputing a dead child, who had already been conceded by the Chief of Defence Force, is “astonishingly bad taste”, he said. It seems the Inquiry thought so as well: it restated its opinion that the video showed a child and asked why NZDF had not done “this style of forensic analysis” immediately after Operation Burnham (ie to investigate the reports of a dead child). Mr Hager: “We get an unattractive snapshot of NZDF, just in recent months, using yet more public money to try to deny the child was killed. I doubt many NZDF staff will be impressed by this behavour.”

Errors in the book accepted

“The Inquiry report acknowledges the difficulty of researching the long-hidden subject and unsurprisingly finds some errors in the book relating to Operation Burnham. Mr Hager has agreed with the Inquiry about various errors identified, including acknowledging that three men were seen carrying weapons on video he obtained under the US Freedom of Information Act. The book also appears to have had the age of the child Fatima wrong and several photos used as illustrations in the book, including of the child, are incorrect. Fortunately these errors are minor compared to the main findings.”

“’The main force of the Hit & Run allegations does not start until chapters 8-12 of the Inquiry report: the actions of SAS officers in response to reports of civilian casualties and the abuse of a prisoner. The book is found to be correct on nearly every point here. This is what the Hit & Run title of the book was about: NZDF not investigating the reports of civilian casualties (which at the time appeared twice in the New York Times), and the torture, and instead trying to pretend nothing had happened.

Claimed errors not accepted

There are other issues where Mr Hager does not agree with the Inquiry. “We were never going to get every point over the line, against an army of lawyers and massive resources.”

Mr Hager does not agree with the Inquiry report on the dead child’s name, whether the acknowledged burning and blowing up of insurgents’ homes was deliberate, and the civilian status of various unarmed people who were killed, including four unarmed men shot in a separate valley and an unarmed man shot by an NZSAS sniper. (The main areas of disagreement are listed in the attached notes.)

The chapter 1 summary of findings gives a very one-sided account of these issues. Of the five “key allegations” on Operation Burnham listed in Chapter 1 para 9, the report finds the book correct or largely correct on three, 9(b), (d) and (e), we disagree on 9(c) and we had already conceded 9(a) last year.

Mistreatment of a prisoner

The report devotes chapters 10 and 11 to the subject of mistreatment of a prisoner, agreeing in full with the allegations in the book about torture and assault. It finds that NZSAS delivered a prisoner to the NDS secret police in the knowledge that NDS was torturing prisoners. The prisoner was indeed tortured and when NZDF learned this it did nothing about it.

The report says delivering a prisoner to possible torture makes New Zealand in breach of international law. When NZDF heard about the torture, it had an obligation to report the torture and investigate it, but it did not (11/129). The report recommends that the government take action on these breaches, including developing new policies, procedures and training programmes (Ch12, recommendation 4). This is a very important result.

Thanks to the key whistle blower

“The book and Inquiry would probably never have happened without the assistance of insiders. I especially thank my main confidential source – the person who first talked about “Operation Burnham” and a tortured prisoner called “Qari Miraj” – without whom the book would not have been written. He is an outstanding example of the importance of whistle blowers. Thanks to the numerous other people who helped, notably lawyers Deborah Manning and Simon Lamain who represented the affected villagers.

Background notes follow:

1. Areas where Mr Hager does not agree with the Inquiry findings

2. Other important parts of the report

Areas where Mr Hager does not agree with the Inquiry findings

1. Mr Hager believes that the NZSAS Joint Tactical Air Controller should have checked and questioned much more carefully before clearing the 1.19 am helicopter attack into the midst of a civilian village. NZDF shares responsibility for the civilian deaths and injuries in that village, and for the breach of international law that resulted.

2. The Inquiry found that the NZSAS did not search for and give aid to the wounded during Operation Burnham, but accepts the NZDF’s excuses. Mr Hager believes giving aid during or at least soon after the operation was necessary morally and under international law.

3. Four men were killed in a separate valley, far from the NZ ground forces and posing no threat, by a US helicopter late in Operation Burham. The attack was cleared by the NZ commander. They were identified as being unarmed. In the absence of strong evidence to the contrary, the Inquiry should have concluded that they were civilians. They appear to have been persuaded not to conclude this as otherwise it was a breach of the laws of war.

4. The Inquiry found that the NZSAS ground force commander ordered an NZSAS sniper to shoot an apparently unarmed man during Operation Burnham. The report states that the Inquiry has been “unable to reach a definitive conclusion” on whether this man, Abdul Qayoom, was a civilian or an insurgent.” (5/100) But, “although there are arguments either ways and reaching a view is not straight forward” (6/98), the Inquiry decided the ground force commander’s decision was justified in case he turned out to be a threat (6/98). Mr Hager believes that the man posed no immediate threat and there were other options available to continue to monitor him. He believes that if the commander was in doubt about whether the man was a civilian, he should have erred on the side of not ordered the shooting. The troops were under specific orders from the US commander avoid civilian casualties.

5. Mr Hager believes that the NZSAS inflicted more damage to houses in the villages than can be accepted as necessary or accidental. Operation Burnham targeted the homes of two known insurgents (as stated in the book) and the NZSAS managed to burn down a substantial part of both of them. NZDF says both were accidental. With the first, Abdullah Kalta’s house, the NZSAS troopers set half the house on fire, blew open one wall trying to gain access, blew up more building walls a second time while disposing of some munitions — all during Operation Burnham — and then the remaining wing of the building was destroyed entirely sometime more than a week later (the report proposes unconvincingly that it may have fallen down on its own). With the second house, Naimatullah’s, the report says an NZSAS officer saw a small fire had started inside but told the Inquiry there was no time to put it out and that NZSAS are not trained to put out fires. These five separate pieces of damage seem too much to be credibly dismissed as accidents. Most NZSAS missions involved no such damage to buildings. Mr Hager believes that the Inquiry gave NZDF too much benefit of the doubt.

Other important parts of the report

Video evidence hidden by NZSAS: The video showing the funeral of a child following Operation Burham was obtained by NZSAS staff in Afghanistan shortly after the raid, but mysteriously could not be found in the NZSAS records when the Inquiry asked for it. The report says “This raises an obvious question: why was NZDF unable to produce the funeral video from its systems when it had been able to produce other videos provided to TF81 at the same time? In the circumstances, we consider the most likely explanation is that the funeral video was deleted or misfiled, most likely in Afghanistan.” (9/168) “All witnesses who recalled the video continued to believe that it showed the funeral of a child.”(9/167(b)) The video “had a file name indicating that it may have shown casualties of Operation Burnham.” (5/91)

CRU-led: NZDF repeatedly claimed, including in written briefings for the Minister of Defence and Prime Minister, that Operation Burnham was “CRU-led” (referring to an Afghan Police commando unit) and only supported by the NZSAS. The implication was that the NZSAS was not responsible for what happened. However the Inquiry says that “to suggest that the CRU planned or led the operation, or were even involved in planning or leading of the operation in a meaningful way, is simply inaccurate and misleading” (4/46).

The Inquiry’s recommendations: Chapter 12 of the report has important recommendations. The commissioners say “We have not arrived at our views lightly. Change is necessary.” (12/2). They make four main recommendations:

1. that the Minister of Defence take steps to satisfy him or herself that NZDF’s

a) organisational structure and

b) record-keeping and retrieval systems are in accordance with international best practice and are sufficient to remove or reduce the possibility of organisational and administrative failings of the type identified in this report (Ch12 Recommendation 1); for instance the commissioners expressed concern about “a culture of exclusivity and secrecy associated with the NZSAS” (12/20));

2. the establishment, by legislation, of an office of Independent Inspector-General of Defence “to be located outside the NZDF organisational structure” (Ch12 Recommendation 2); and

3. NZDF produce a Defence Force Order “setting out how allegations of civilian casualties should be dealt with” (Ch12 Recommendation 3).

4. the Government develop and promulgate effective policies and procedures for people detained in overseas operations.

“These are very serious recommendations, reflecting the seriousness of NZDF’s wrongdoing.”

The role of “crown” lawyers:

Throughout the Inquiry a team of lawyers representing the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet and intelligence agencies made submissions and spoke at hearings, in virtually every instance presenting legal advice that implied that NZDF had at no stage done anything wrong. The Inquiry has concluded that these “crown” positions are in various instances incorrect. The activities of this pro-NZDF public service group, resisting all suggestions that NZDF had done wrong, is a worrying situation revealed by the Inquiry process.

Can we trust New Zealand’s military? There must now be serious doubt, given the landmark report released on Friday concluding the investigation into allegations made in the book Hit and Run by Nicky Hager and Jon Stephenson about a 2010 SAS killing raid in Afghanistan.

The most recent Colmar Brunton Public Sector Reputation Index found the New Zealand Defence Force has the second best reputation with the public of any government agency in the country (behind the Fire Service, but ahead of agencies like the Department of Conservation, Customs, and Met Service). Trust in the agency is extremely high and has been improving lately – see: Public sector reputation 2020.

Yet Friday’s report would suggest the Defence Force can’t be trusted. Attorney General David Parker even stated, in releasing the report, that Government Ministers have been unable to exercise political control of the military. That is a serious problem in a democracy.

Severe criticisms of the military over Operation Burnham controversy

A Stuff newspaper editorial on Saturday says New Zealanders “will probably be shocked and saddened” by the report – see: A mix of shock and relief in the SAS report. Although the inquiry had some good news for the military, in that the raids were found to be legal and professionally carried out, the newspaper notes, “in significant ways the report agrees with the journalists” Hager and Stephenson.

The editorial is severely critical of the military, saying “a picture emerges of a defence force that does not consider itself to be answerable to its political masters and the wider public. Civilian control of the military is an important principle of New Zealand’s democracy.”

Today’s Otago Daily Times editorial is equally scathing, saying “there should be no chance of the Defence Force sitting back with satisfaction” after the report was so critical of its handling of the controversy – see: Operation Burnham.

Here’s the newspaper’s most interesting point: “These findings will sting the Defence Force, and rightly so. The New Zealand public needs to have confidence its national forces will not only operate in battle zones with the highest levels of integrity and professionalism but will come clean when things go wrong. It is of deep concern that multiple senior commanders at NZDF let the side down with actions that, to paraphrase Defence Minister Ron Mark, showed serious deficiencies. The inquiry has also shone a mostly favourable light on Hager’s work, and the worth of investigative journalism.”

The Spinoff’s political editor, Justin Giovannetti has summed up the report’s criticisms of the NZ Defence Force, saying it “reveals a military headquarters that is inept and disorganised. Records couldn’t be found. Contradictory reports were ignored. A senior officer in Afghanistan was misleading his superiors in Wellington about civilian casualties. Those superiors didn’t question reports, despite evidence that civilians had been killed in the August raid. As a result, the military misled the public for seven years” – see: SAS did nothing wrong, but senior military officers misled public: report.

Giovannetti reports on the Attorney General’s reaction to the report: “Parker was clear earlier in the morning that one of the country’s bedrock constitutional principles was compromised” by the operations of the military. He quotes Parker: “During those years, as a consequence of the ineptitude and the suppression of documents that should have been coming to ministers, ministers were not able to exercise the democratic control of the ministry. The military do not exist for their own purpose.”

Blogger No Right Turn says the operations of Defence Force bosses “obviously undermines the principle of civilian control of the military, striking at the heart of our democracy. These people need to be held accountable, dishonourably discharged and stripped of their honours, pour encourager les autres. Careers need to end over this, otherwise there is no incentive for NZDF not to do it again in future” – see: Vindicated.

According to Alexander Gillespie, professor of law at Waikato University, the actions of the military – particularly in their relationship with Government – have been a “disaster”, and the institution “has now bombed its own position as the trusted military arm of the state” – see: Operation Burnham: the New Zealand military’s self-inflicted wounds will not heal by themselves.

Gillespie says the military has “proved itself untrustworthy” in crucial ways, humiliating itself. He predicts the conclusion of the report “will almost inevitably mean it is stripped of the relative autonomy it has enjoyed to this point.”

Does the report agree with the military or Hager and Stephenson?

For a good summary of the report, see Thomas Manch’s Operation Burnham inquiry: Child was likely killed, SAS soldiers misled, prisoner was tortured. Here’s the top line version: “A damning report into the Defence Force’s handling of 2010 SAS-led raid in Afghanistan says a child was likely killed during the raid, elite soldiers misled ministers and the public about allegations of civilian deaths, and an insurgent captured by New Zealand troops was beaten while detained.” Most disturbingly, the report finds that New Zealand troops handed over one of their prisoners to the Afghanistan forces, knowing he would be tortured, meaning the “Defence Force was therefore in breach of Geneva convention.”

The official report doesn’t agree with all of the allegations made by Hager and Stephenson. Most importantly, it finds that the raid was legal and professionally carried out, and that there was no strategic cover-up by the military of the civilian killings.

Hager has responded – see: Nicky Hager welcomes the Op Burnham Inquiry report, the most serious findings against the NZSAS and NZDF in their history. He argues that “after nearly ten years of denials, the Inquiry has confirmed the main allegations in the book Hit & Run.” And he concludes “The report contains the most serious findings against the NZSAS and NZDF in their history. This should prompt a lot of soul searching inside the New Zealand Defence Force.”

Gordon Campbell doesn’t accept the report’s findings at all. He has written a scathing response, suggesting it amounts to a whitewash and does not sufficiently deal with the military misadventure and misinformation in question – see: On the virtues (and fluffed opportunities) of the Operation Burnham report.

Campbell doesn’t accept there was no Defence Force cover-up. Furthermore, he does not believe the Defence Force will fix the problems identified: “Can we really expect an organisation with this bunker mentality to reform itself voluntarily, from the inside?”

The response of the NZ Defence Force

Defence Force chief, Air Marshal Kevin Short, has responded by saying that the military must change as a result of the report, becoming more accountable and open, involving structural and cultural change – see RNZ’s Operation Burnham report: NZDF ‘deeply sorry’ for misleading ministers and public. Here’s his key statement: “If we are to maintain the trust and confidence of the people we serve, we must be accountable. We must be better at the way we record, store and retrieve information, and then subsequently present that information to ministers and the public. I will ensure this happens.”

But has the Defence Force really learnt anything from the report and demonstrated genuine willingness to change? Justin Giovannetti questions this, pointing out that on the release of the report, the military’s obfuscation has continued: “There seemed to still be a lingering reluctance today by the NZDF to take responsibility for what happened during the raid. In a prepared statement, Short said that the inquiry confirmed ‘New Zealand forces were not involved’ in the civilian deaths. That’s not correct.” In fact, although it was the US military that killed the civilians, it was in an operation in which New Zealanders were in control and gave the orders.

This is also dealt with by Thomas Manch, who points out that Air Marshal Kevin Short’s “charitable interpretation of the facts is what got the Defence Force into this mess in the first place” – see: Operation Burnham: An apology from the Defence Force, but redemption has just begun.

So, are the military bosses still playing down the severity of what happened? That’s the view of Hit & Run co-author Jon Stephenson, who says he feels vindicated by the report but “is worried its severity is not being fully conveyed” – see Katie Scotcher’s Operation Burnham: Former Minister Wayne Mapp ‘forgot’ about civilian casualties.

Here’s Stephenson’s view: “I’m concerned that they are being downplayed by the Defence Force, not only initially and throughout the inquiry, but even now it seems like the Attorney General is not really prepared to accept the extent to which the inquiry has condemned some of the actions of the Defence Force.” According to this article, Stephenson also says he has “serious doubts” on “whether the Defence Force could change because of their record and their performance throughout the inquiry”.

The role of former Defence Minister Wayne Mapp

Former Defence Minister Wayne Mapp, has been asked to account for his role, and has been contrite. He claims he continued to tell the public that allegations of civilian deaths were unfounded – despite being briefed that they were possible – because he forgot about a briefing informing him of this.

This is dealt well with in Katie Scotcher’s Operation Burnham: Former Minister Wayne Mapp ‘forgot’ about civilian casualties. Mapp is quoted as saying that it was “a major failing on my part” and that he had asked himself “a huge amount of times” how he could forget such a crucial piece of information.

Mapp says New Zealand now must remedy the damage caused by Operation Burnham: “I’ve always been of the view that New Zealand as a nation owes compensation to the victims. I have always felt that we haven’t done enough as a nation to find out. Well now we have the report, we have more information. And I think is now incumbent upon the government now having got the report to do more for the villagers.”

An apology is also being demanded by the Hit & Run campaign group. Spokesperson Sarah Atkinson says: “It is a huge injustice and the New Zealand Defence Force owes apologies and reparations to the Afghan families of the victims” – see RNZ’s Call for NZ Defence Force to apologise to villages where civilians were killed.

Others involved in the campaign for uncovering the truth about Operation Burnham are celebrating the release of the report. Amnesty International’s Meg de Ronde has written about how the report vindicates human rights defenders like Stephenson and Hager who have fought “tooth and nail to hold those in power to account”, and have had to battle not just an inquiry that was stacked in favour of authorities, but also faced ridicule – see: We shouldn’t have to work this hard to get transparency from our government.

Finally, cartoonists have been scathing over the years about the official version of what happened in Afghanistan, so for an updated view, see: Cartoons about Hit & Run, and NZ in Afghanistan.

The announcement came in the form of the New Zealand Defence Capability Plan 2019, which projects details on new military expenditure for the next 11 years. This is best reported in Jason Walls’ article, The Defence Force $20b spending plan includes a commitment to ‘space-based activities’.

Here’s the key part: “Big ticket items include more than $3.5b for new and replacement naval vessels and maritime helicopters, and up to $2.5b for upgrades to New Zealand’s Air Force. The Government also plans to bolster New Zealand’s army personnel to 6000 by 2035 – up from the current number of 4700 troops. As well as the traditional land, sea and air funding, the plan includes money for ‘space-based systems’ as well.”

At the top of the spending list is a decision to purchase “a fleet of so-called Super Hercules planes… costing more than $1 billion” – see RNZ’s NZ Defence Force spends $1 billion on newer aircraft fleet. And, both heavy and light “tanks” (or “armoured vehicles”) are also high up the military’s wish list that is being steadily ticked off by Defence Minister Ron Mark.

Such a massive military spend-up doesn’t really fit with the Government’s stated new “Wellbeing” approach, especially when so much of the reaction to the Budget was about the perceived inadequate spending on health, education and housing. As National leader Simon Bridges was self-righteously able to point out, the Government seems to be prioritising “tanks over teachers”.

Indeed, according to Zane Small, “National’s defence spokesperson has labelled the Government’s $20 billion defence spending plan ‘disingenuous’ and questioned how it fits into its ‘wellbeing’ mantra” – see: National questions how $20 billion defence spend is ‘wellbeing’. However, spokesperson Mark Mitchell also claims the Labour-led Government is simply continuing what National had been planning, saying the spending announcement “is reconfirming that we were on the right track with our 2016 Defence Capability Plan – they’ve confirmed that”.

Will Labour and Greens supporters be troubled by the Government falling into line with National’s pro-military plans? A backlash is unlikely. As with this government’s last big military spending announcement – see my column from last year, Where are the protests over the Government’s new ‘submarine-killers’? – opposition will be muted. Peace Movement Aotearoa and other progressive and protest groups are likely to be soft on this expenditure because it’s coming from a government “from their side”.

It’s more than tribal loyalty that might prevent a backlash though. The spin and framing of the military spend-up means that the essence of the escalating militarism is well camouflaged.

This can be seen in the almost Orwellian attempts to recast the military as some sort of “peace”, humanitarian, or environmental force. This is brilliantly conveyed in Stacey Kirk’s opinion piece in which she channels the military’s thinking on why they need more money, with a justification for liberal concerns – see: Why does NZ need a military? For more reasons than you might think.

Summing up why the military spending can be sold as being part of a “wellbeing” approach, Kirk says: “Guns, ships, planes and drones don’t bring ‘wellbeing’. Peace and security do though. Sustainable food sources do, ongoing climate science hopefully will, disaster and humanitarian relief does in a very direct and measurable way”.

Kirk concludes that the Government is therefore doing the right thing: “A $20b spend on defence equipment is a lot of money. Personal politics is likely to dictate whether that’s seen as wasteful or necessary. But New Zealand relies on the defence force for its protection in more ways than may be obvious. A defence force is necessary. Having one ill-equipped to do what it needs to would arguably be a more definitive waste.”

In another article on the spend-up, Kirk points to the more traditional – and perhaps, accurate – reasons that the Government is giving for building up a stronger military: “rising tensions between competing super powers, resource competition and plays for military dominance in the region and further abroad. New Zealand’s military had to be able to meet international obligations with coalition partners, and the Government expected the defence force to operate in the South Pacific on the same level it does in New Zealand territory. It would be a key plank of supporting the Government’s Pacific Reset” – see: NZ military $20b shopping list: Planes, boats, soldiers, satellites and drones.

Clearly the supposed threat of China looms large in the spending decisions, as Gordon Campbell explains: “this latest round of Defence purchases is our membership fee for defence alliances that were conceived way back during the Cold War era of the 1950s, some 70 years ago. The force configurations and related projections of military power belong to a bygone era, and the steeply mounting cost of the hardware can no longer be justified by any realistic threat scenarios in the Pacific, or the South China Sea. The only conceivable ‘enemy’ to justify these expenditures is China. Are we really planning for war with our main trading partner?”  – see: On the military withdrawal from Iraq.

Campbell suggests the decision, together with the announcement on Iraq and Afghanistan, shows “the Greens have been fobbed off, once again”. The Greens, have indeed, largely come on board with the escalating military expenditure, which is explained today by Richard Harman in his column, How Ron Mark persuaded the Greens to support our defence forces. Interviewing the party’s defence spokesperson, he says “Golriz Ghahraman was full of praise for Mark, for his approach to policy and for the way he has undertaken the review of the Plan.”

Clearly the Greens have been been won over on the basis of the justification of climate change and a military that takes on more humanitarian work. Ghahraman explains that the military’s “core work is going to be much more focused on things that are not to do with violence and war which is what we’ve been advocating for really strongly over the years”.

But have the Greens fallen for the green-washing of the military? According to Harman, the Greens’ traditional opposition “is tempered with a recognition of the role that Defence can play in civilian situations, particularly in the Pacific”.

Ghahraman also seems to have found a connection with the Defence Minister, which has enabled them find common ground. She says: “I think we do have incredibly high levels of mutual respect and we’ve come to this from a position of wanting to collaborate”.

Ghahraman explains: “I think, for him, has been dealing with someone who has also seen war in the Middle East… So we’ve we connected with each other because we both know what the work of Defence is really like.” She adds, “We’ve been able to kind of have a conversation at a really detailed level and also a really human level…. And I really do respect him.”

Nonetheless, despite defending the general plan, the Greens have still argued for lower spending and some different military priorities. Ghahraman has gone on RNZ today to say: “That is a lot of money and defence equipment costs a lot – but again we could have invested in smaller planes and done without the war-making capability that we’re renewing” – see Jonathan Mitchell’s Defence Force’s $1b spend unnecessary – Greens.

Ghahraman also told Richard Harman, “that the Plan needed to be read alongside the decision announced yesterday to end the New Zealand army deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan.” And surely that is precisely why the Government made sure the troop departure was announced prior to the spend-up report. The “good news” departure announcement will have helped inoculate the Greens and Labour against criticism for then being so gung-ho on militarism.

For the announcement on New Zealand’s departure from its military deployments in the Middle East see Jason Walls’ ‘Time to go’: NZ to pull troops out of Iraq by June 2020, says Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern. Here’s the key detail: “There are 95 non-combat Defence Force personnel in the Taji Military Complex – their job is primarily to train Iraqi Security Forces. Following cabinet’s decision, that number will be reduced to 75 next month, then to 45 in January next year. The remainder would withdraw by June 2020.”

The Greens have claimed victory with the decision, despite the decision to extend the deployment for the time being. This caused some strong push back from the Deputy Prime Minister, who said: “It’s a bit hard to argue you’ve won when the troops are still there until June of next year – let’s be logical about it… How can it be a win if they’re still there?” – see Jason Walls’ Winston Peters: ‘A bit hard to argue’ decision to bring Kiwi troops home was a ‘Green win’. Furthermore, on the idea that the Greens had influenced the decision, Peters said “first time I had ever heard that”.

Finally, former Defence Minister Wayne Mapp has written a thoughtful response to the (delayed) decision to withdraw troops from the Middle East, suggesting that, in the end, this shows that Labour – despite its protests to the contrary – actually has a similar approach to National on foreign affairs and war – see: This belated withdrawal suggests the 2015 Iraq controversy wasn’t all it seemed. Mapp says that this episode illustrates that “Labour is not nearly as radical as their rhetoric would sometimes indicate. There is much more continuity with this government than some of their members would like to pretend.”

OPINION: By Gary Juffa

In the ongoing saga of stopping illegal logging in Papua New Guinea’s Oro province, our facts reveal that the PNG Forest Authority is failing our people.

A network exists whereby a few corrupt public servants in both Oro and the PNG Forest Authority have helped facilitate fraud and theft of resources worth millions. This network exists in every province where there is illegal logging occurring.

In Oro we have identified those involved and they shall be dealt with.

Meanwhile, our investigations reveal that PNGFA is negligent in its efforts and has been facilitating the theft of our forest resources for decades, it is complicit in the transnational crimes being committed and those who process the paperwork are in fact accomplices.

Despite all the government rhetoric about stopping illegal logging such as the SABLs and being concerned about the environment, the truth is, that this government entity, designed and created for the purpose of protecting PNG interests – PNG resources –  is in fact failing miserably in its mandate and is assisting transnational criminal cartels steal our forest reources.

What is the point of an organisation we pay for with our taxes to serve transnational criminal cartels and sell us out?

-Partners-

Pretext and fraud
Every month, shipments worth millions leave our shores – forest resources obtained under pretext and fraud, leaving behind destroyed landscapes, polluted waterways, and miserable landowners who have either been fooled or contemptuously mistreated and intimidated by corrupt elements of the public service and police.

But we can stop it.

Yes, you and I.

If we know about it and do nothing, we too are complicit.

I am doing something about it. I need you to stand with me and demand that the PNGFA and its Chairman, David Dotaon,a and its minister, Douglas Tomuriesa, and its entire department act to stop these crimes against Papua New Guinea and our people and protect our forest resources.

How?

Immediately review all licences granted to logging and you will find:

• They are illegally granted via fraudulent processes and corrupt public servants;
• The so-called landowner companies don’t represent our landowners at all;
• All machinery is unregistered – it can all be impounded;
• All foreign workers are without permits – they can be immediately detained until deported with the cost being met by the company, and their companies fined and banned from doing business in Papua New Guinea ever again;
• Significant environmental damage to waterways and reefs and logging on gradients that are in contravention of the permit restrictions. Your sister agency, the conservation Environment Protection Authority, will at this stage be brought in to inspect the results, and fine and ban the company from any future agriculture or forest development projects.
• That tax evasion and transfer pricing mechanisms have allowed the company to evade paying for decades. At this stage, the IRC and Customs can be brought into carrying out these audits and raise assessments and commence recovery and prosecution action. They can use the double tax treaties to recoup any taxes due.
• Significant evidence of corruption involving many public servants and landowners. They can be referred to the police fraud squad for arrests and prosecution.
• Much of our resources have been stolen and, as this is a crime, the principals of these companies can be charged and prosecuted when you lay the complaint. You can also seize properties as proceeds of crime.

Engage army and police
You can engage the army and the police to shut down all such operations and seize and auction all machinery.

If they sue us, so what? They are running illegal operations of a transnational criminal nature and they will lose in court.

Finally, some of the proceeds can be used to compensate genuine landowners.

And if you can’t do this, ask me. I will do it. For free.

Just give me the resources and let me select a team of great, patriotic policemen, soldiers; Labour, Migration, IRC and Customs officers, state lawyers – and watch.

The mandate of this forests department besides protecting Papua New Guinea interests at all times is to develop clever innovative strategies to use our forest resources in a sustainable manner.

There are options whereby the vast forest resources that provide us such a rich life do not need to be destroyed. We don’t need to destroy our forests so that we can progress.

Illegal logging in Oro province … “We don’t need to destroy our forests so that we can progress.” Image: Gary Juffa/FB

Sustainable alternatives
At a time when the world is facing a global warming disaster, we can do our bit by preserving our forests and finding alternative means of income using forest products in a sustainable manner.

Yet after 40 years, we have silently and meekly allowed pirates to raid our shores and accept a few measly kina in compensation.

For each shipment worth about K6 million (K2.6 million), we accept less then K100,000 (NZ$43,000). Where is the common sense in this? For each forest cut down, thousands of species of flora and fauna are devastated and some may never recover.

We are destroying our natural home so we can live in an unnatural home … in pursuit of money and material goods so we can be “happy” because someone who we thought was more educated and civilised told us so.

But we will never be happy in this endless pursuit of the unnatural, living in an unnatural world where unnatural leaders make unnatural decisions that cause us more misery – naturally. We are only chasing illusions of happiness.

Certainly if we continue to allow this, if we are thinking, intelligent patriots, as we so often like to tell one another, then we are truly failing ourselves, our nation and our future.

It can be done  – it just needs all of us to rise up and do it together.

Gary Juffa is an Opposition MP in the Papua New Guinean National Parliament and Governor of Oro (Northern) Province. This commentary was first published on his Facebook page.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz