Analysis by Geoffrey Miller

Jacinda Ardern intends to continue a more pro-Western foreign policy strategy, if her agenda from a hectic week of diplomacy is anything to go by.

New Zealand’s Prime Minister met with four G7 leaders – Liz Truss, Joe Biden, Justin Trudeau and Emmanuel Macron – in various settings while she was at the Queen’s funeral in London and at the United Nations in New York.

While at the UN, Ardern fitted in a meeting with Ukrainian Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal and spoke with Olena Zelenska, the wife of Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky.

Ardern also met with the Chilean president, Gabriel Boric, and with the UN Secretary-General, António Guterres. There were also shorter, more fleeting meet-and-greet opportunities on the UN floor – such as with Iceland’s Prime Minister Katrín Jakobsdóttir – and at a US-hosted reception for world leaders, where Ardern talked to Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif.

Ardern addressed Pacific Islands Forum leaders at the launch of the 2050 Strategy for the Blue Pacific Continent plan. And the expansion of a new US-led grouping, the Partners in the Blue Pacific, also took place while Ardern was in New York. The group previously included Australia, Japan and New Zealand, but it has now been widened to bring in Germany and Canada.

The PM’s ability to attract the attention of top world leaders is well-known and is a measure of her international standing. It was certainly not a one-off: this was her third meeting this year with Joe Biden. And it was her second with Trudeau and Macron, after she was an invited guest at the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) summit in Madrid in June.

Indeed, the common denominator for many of Ardern’s interlocutors seemed to be their commitment to supporting the Western-led coalition that has emerged from Russia’s war on Ukraine.

In a week in which Vladimir Putin mobilised 300,000 reservists and indirectly threatened to use nuclear weapons, it is probably no surprise that Ardern sought to show her solidarity through the company she kept.

The Prime Minister’s speech to the UN General Assembly was also very much in keeping with this theme: Ardern called Russia’s war ‘illegal’ and ‘immoral’, before highlighting New Zealand’s opposition to nuclear weapons.

A notable omission from Ardern’s speech was any mention of the word ‘food’, which stood out as a major theme in addresses from many countries in the Global South.

India’s foreign minister, S. Jaishankar, said that his country was ‘on the side of those struggling to make ends meet, even as they stare at the escalating costs of food, of fuel and fertilizers’, while Philippines president Ferdinand Marcos called food ‘an existential imperative, and a moral one. It is the very basis of human security’.

Indeed, a dedicated food security summit co-hosted by the US, European Union, African Union and Spain was held during UN leaders’ week. Ardern did not appear to attend the event, which was held on the same day as a ‘Christchurch Call’ leaders’ summit she co-hosted with Emmanuel Macron.

Food security did make it into the UN statement made by Australian foreign minister Penny Wong, however, who said the crisis amounted to a ‘growing scale of human suffering that threatens untold global instability’.

Wong also seemed to meet with counterparts from a more diverse range of countries than Ardern did – the Australian foreign minister’s agenda in New York included meetings with counterparts from India, Indonesia, China, Mexico and Turkey.

While many leaders choose to attend the UN personally, such as Ardern, it is also common for foreign ministers such as Wong to attend in their place. China and Russia were two other countries that dispatched their foreign ministers to New York.

A third strategy is to use both figures – an approach the UK pursued by sending both its new Prime Minister Liz Truss and foreign secretary James Cleverly. If New Zealand’s aim had been to maximise meeting opportunities after the Covid-19 pandemic, this tactic might have been considered. But Ardern decided to keep Nanaia Mahuta back in Wellington, where she welcomed new heads of mission and faced questions over domestic issues.

Back in New York, a key difference between the Global North and Global South at the UN unfolded over the approach to the war in Ukraine. Western countries largely pointed fingers at Russia. Joe Biden said ‘it’s Russia’s war that is worsening food insecurity, and only Russia can end it’, while Liz Truss told her audience that ‘we will not rest until Ukraine prevails’.

By contrast, non-Western countries such as India, Turkey and Qatar were keener to contemplate the idea of a negotiated settlement simply to end the war.

The Turkish president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, pointed to his country’s success in brokering the recent Black Sea grain export deal and called for a ‘reasonable, just and viable diplomatic solution’ to the war that would ‘provide both sides the opportunity of an “honourable exit”‘.

Qatar’s Emir, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al-Thani, even called for an immediate ceasefire – a word rarely used in current discussions about the war in Ukraine.

For his part, the Indian foreign minister, S. Jaishankar, argued his country was ‘on the side of peace’ and wanted an ‘early resolution’ to the conflict. He also noted that the global focus on Ukraine meant less attention was being paid to other crises in India’s immediate neighbourhood, such as Afghanistan, Myanmar and Sri Lanka.

These calls may fall on deaf ears.

With both sides keen on maximising their positions, a resolution to the war in Ukraine appears further away than ever.

As Jacinda Ardern inches New Zealand’s foreign policy towards the West, it is understandable that she might want to spend more time with like-minded counterparts.

It is natural to stand alongside those who we agree with.

But as the UN General Assembly showed this year, it is worth remembering that there are many other points of view.

Geoffrey Miller is the Democracy Project’s international analyst and writes on current New Zealand foreign policy and related geopolitical issues. He has lived in Germany and the Middle East and is a learner of Arabic and Russian.

Further reading on International Relations

Thomas Coughlan (Herald): New Zealand will push for total ban on nuclear weapons – Jacinda Ardern
Thomas Coughlan (Herald): Jacinda Ardern tries to balance climate change and Ukraine war at United Nations (paywalled)
Craig McCulloch (RNZ): On the trail of Jacinda Ardern: Hijinks and hiccups in New York
Herald Editorial: Can online radicalisation be put back in the box? (paywalled)

Other items of interest and importance today

CLIMATE AND ENVIRONMENT
Ireland Hendry-Tennent (Newshub): Green MP slams Heather du Plessis-Allan after interview with teen climate activist sparks bullying allegations
Mia Sutherland (Stuff): As a former School Strike 4 Climate organiser, I am all too familiar with ridicule. But this interview surprised me
Rose Cook (Spinoff): Heather du Plessis-Allan should be ashamed of how she bullied my daughter
Martyn Bradbury (Daily Blog): Ummmm – HDPA shitting on a 16 year old ISN’T the problem with the climate strike
Michael Neilson (Herald): Climate Change Minister and Greens co-leader James Shaw calls for rolling strikes until election
Steven Cowan: The Cynical politics of James Shaw
Pattrick Smellie (BusinessDesk): We uncover NZ’s $30 billion carbon target ‘hole’ (paywalled)
Adrian Macey and Dave Frame (BusinessDesk): NZ’s climate commitments: is self-flagellation the price of global leadership? (paywalled)
Richard Harman: Too many trees (paywalled)
No Right Turn: Labour: From disappointment to deceit
Brent Edwards (NBR): National calls for more urgency in reducing farm emissions (paywalled)
Rod Oram (Newsroom): NZ distant from New York climate talks, isolated from the world
Angus Kebbell (Interest): The ETS is not fit for purpose: Rob Morrison
Brian Easton (Pundit) Should We Be Relying On Storing Waste Carbon In Trees?

AUCKLAND MAYORAL ELECTION
1News: Auckland mayoralty: Viv Beck exit sees Wayne Brown jump in poll
Todd Niall (Stuff): Auckland mayoralty: Wayne Brown extends lead in latest poll
Bernard Orsman (Herald): Auckland mayoralty: Brown leapfrogs Collins to take handy lead in latest poll
Simon Wilson (Herald): Unanswered questions for business about Wayne Brown (paywalled)
Simon Wilson (Herald): Change or no change: What that big new Auckland mayoral poll reveals (paywalled)
Heather du Plessis-Allan (Herald): Car-free and light rail backer Efeso Collins won’t fix congestion in Auckland (paywalled)
David Farrar: The race for Auckland
Martyn Bradbury (Daily Blog): Q+A review: Auckland Mayoralty Special
Shaneel Lal (Herald): Efeso Collins apologises to queer people through action
Damien Venuto (Herald): Phil Goff exit interview – Efeso Collins, Three Waters and Baby Boomer male councillors
1News: Brown: Road pricing to ‘play role’ in public transport shift

GOVERNMENT AND PARLIAMENT
Chris Trotter (Interest): Old prejudices in new packages
Janet Wilson (Stuff): Parliament not only attracts bullies, it breeds them
Thomas Coughlan (Herald): Ardern’s reconnected with the world, now to reconnect with New Zealand (paywalled)
Bridie Witton (Stuff): Jacinda Ardern’s popularity beams in New York, but remains rocky at home
Claire Trevett (Herald): Uffindell, Collins highlight a problem for National leader Luxon (paywalled)
Paula Bennett (Herald): It’s time the Government listened to the people (paywalled)
Lillian Andrews (Spectator Australia): More women in politics?!
Jo Moir (Newsroom): Nicola Willis strikingly absent from Uffindell report
Herald: Judith Collins’ 2023 plans, Jacinda Ardern mingles with the famous (paywalled)
Stephen Minto (Daily Blog): Labour centrists cut the path to death by a thousand cuts
Andrew Kirton (Herald): Length of Parliamentary term, voting age back on the agenda (paywalled)
Tim Murphy (Newsroom): Is the SFO too powerful for its own good?

MAHUTA INQUIRY AND INTEGRITY IN POLITICS
Max Rashbrooke (Stuff): The curse of cosyism in public life is hurting us all
Tracy Watkins (Stuff): Why the Mahuta investigation needed to happen
Herald Editorial: Contracts awarded to family of Nanaia Mahuta need a thorough review (paywalled)
David Farrar: Hipkins apologises for smearing English
Karl du Fresne: The Mahuta saga: shameful not just for the government, but for the media too

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS, THREE WATERS
Tina Law (Stuff): Quiet early voter turnout may be due to concern over controversial candidates – expert
Brooke Black (Stuff): Early voter turnout numbers down across South Canterbury in 2022
Karl du Fresne: Who represents the greater threat to democracy right now – Action Zealandia or the Dominion Post?
Tom Hunt (Stuff): Smears and unwanted endorsements: Wellington council election getting ‘dirtier’
David Farrar: The Herald’s Councillor ratings
Chris Lynch: Lianne Dalziel careful to not define her legacy
Russell Palmer (RNZ): Three waters on the boil as elections loom
Thomas Cranmer: Three Waters and Te Mana o te Wai

ECONOMY, EMPLOYMENT AND INEQUALITY
Kirsty Johnston (Stuff): Migrant workers living at school camp forced to endure ‘unacceptable’ conditions: Labour Inspectorate
Michelle Duff (Stuff): ‘I can’t afford to work’: ‘Free’ childcare is a myth, and costs for parents are high
Martyn Bradbury (Daily Blog): The reason why Labour/Greens are failing the poor
Andrew Barnes (Herald): 14 years on from the GFC, have we learned anything? (paywalled)
Fran O’Sullivan (Herald): Mood of the Boardroom: Business leaders hammer Jacinda Ardern and Grant Robertson (paywalled)
Martyn Bradbury (Daily Blog): What everyone is missing in the negative Mood of the Boardroom rankings
Bill Bennett (Herald): Mood of the Boardroom: The corporate tax rate has cost us business (paywalled)
Graham Skellern (Herald): Mood of the Boardroom: New tech way of the future (paywalled)
Tim McCready (Herald): Mood of the Boardroom: View on government moves in banking and supermarkets (paywalled)
Fran O’Sullivan (Herald): Mood of the Boardroom: Are we at peak inflation? (paywalled)
David Farrar: 2022 Mood of the Boardroom scores
Liam Dann (Herald): Why so gloomy? Where’s the post-pandemic party? (paywalled)
Geraden Cann (Stuff): Chef position ‘with three months’ free accommodation’
Brianna Mcilraith and Tina Morrison (Stuff): What one man’s two-week job hunt can tell us about the NZ labour market
Damien Grant (Stuff): Ports of Auckland becoming an open financial sore

HOUSING
1News: Poll: Aucklanders divided on housing intensification
Miriam Bell (Stuff): Do good school zones really drive up house prices?
Madeleine Chapman (Spinoff): Why we’re talking about renting all week on The Spinoff
Emma Vitz (Spinoff): Here’s how much the cost of renting has increased since 1993
Mildred Armah (Stuff): Auckland family eating on mats outdoors to avoid mould in Kāinga Ora home
Federico Magrin (Stuff): No signs of Taranaki’s years-long rental crisis easing, says housing charity manager

TREATY, RACE RELATIONS AND ETHNICITY
Audrey Young (Herald): Kelvin Davis on the Treaty of Waitangi: ‘It’s the perfect document. It’s just we happen to confuse it‘ (paywalled)
Stephanie Ockhuysen (Stuff): John Campbell’s journey to understand racism and the damaging effect of colonisation
Te Rina Kowhai and Alka Prasad (Newshub): Increase in online racism towards Māori concerning, experts say
Brendon McMahon (Local Democracy Reporting): ‘They’ll have no bloody idea’ – bilingual signs on the West Coast
Henry McMullan (1News): Māori firefighter files treaty claim against FENZ
Lana Hart (Stuff): We’re maturing, but are we grown-up enough to strike out on our own?
Eda Tang (Stuff): ‘This is gonna be cringe’: Chinese Language Week falls flat for Chinese Kiwis
Eda Tang (Stuff): Please stop saying ‘ni hao’ if you want to be an ally to Chinese people
Tze Ming Mok (Spinoff): When are you White and when are you Black?

MONARCHY
Sharon Brettkelly (RNZ): What’s going to change under King Charles III?
Claire Trevett (Herald): Monarchy or republic? Sir John Key’s case for sticking with King Charles III (paywalled)
Luke Malpass and Katarina Williams (Stuff): New Zealand farewells Queen during sombre memorial service
Herald Editorial: The holiday we are having today is unusual (paywalled)
Sneha Jessica Gray (Herald): Queen Elizabeth death – re-imagining our relationship with the monarchy
Colin Peacock (RNZ): QE2, queues and cultural cues
Hayden Williams (ODT): Debating our head of state

HEALTH, COVID
Ian Powell (BusinessDesk): Health NZ’s transparency clear as mud (paywalled)
Alexa Cook (Newshub): Epidemiologists concerned after COVID-19 testing ditched, surveys delayed just as new variant arrives
Rachel Smalley (NBR): Silent survivors: kids paid high price for pandemic restrictions (paywalled)
Yvonne van Dongen (North & South): From both sides now

EDUCATION
Damien Venuto (Herald): Why the school decile system had to go
Michael Neilson (Herald): Former decile 1 school De La Salle College may cut programmes after losing out on funding in new equity index
Jonathan Milne (Newsroom): Schools cautiously upbeat as they receive new funding and staffing details

MEDIA
Damien Venuto (Herald): RNZ-TVNZ merger and the problem with Willie Jackson’s comments (paywalled)
Caitlin Rawling (Newshub): RNZ-TVNZ merger: Government to redirect nearly $85m from NZ On Air to new public media entity
Dita De Boni (NBR): TVNZ warned to ‘change its attitude’ to new ANZPM entity (paywalled)
David Farrar: Hartwich on the PIJF
Duncan Greive (Spinoff): An ambitious new NZ centre-right media platform is rising on YouTube
Martyn Bradbury (Daily Blog): Isn’t Spin-Offs hysteria against public broadcasting self interested?
Paul Little (Listener/Herald): From Clyde to San Fran: Meet the Kiwi behind global media phenomenon Substack (paywalled)

JUSTICE
Hayden Donnell (RNZ): The push for open justice
Jeremy Wilkinson (Herald): Two-year Human Rights Tribunal backlog causing stress for complainants (paywalled)
Luke Kirkness (Herald): Government is inviting vigilantism by lack of action against crime (paywalled)

OTHER
Yvonne van Dongen (North & South): Voice control (preview)
Dileepa Fonseka (Stuff): Inside the delays at Immigration New Zealand
Aaron Smale (Newsroom): A structure of impunity
Aaron Smale (North & South): The Misery-Go-Round
Georgina Campbell (Herald): Sea level rise threat behind Wellington’s new light rail route (paywalled)
ODT: Editorial – Police must heed privacy concerns
Grant Miller (ODT): Backing for passenger rail

A View from Afar (@ midday, Thursdays NZST): In this week’s podcast Selwyn Manning and Paul Buchanan debate:

Recently New Zealand Government confirmed its intention to be defined as an independent Pacific Island state, where its foreign policy should be considered against the collective values that its peoples share, and its diplomacy (if you consider human rights issues) will now be expressed multilaterally with likeminded countries.

But how does this work in practice?

Many see multilateral bodies like the United Nations being controlled by large global powers such as China and the United States of America. That this reality renders the UN’s security council as toothless, cumbersome, and slow to act in times of crisis.

Basically, this form of multilateralism seems designed to create a stalemate between great powers that assert their respective competing agendas. The affect; small countries lose their voice and influence.

• So how do small powers like New Zealand express themselves on the world stage?
• How do small countries shape reform of global bodies, so that they can work as forces of good in a world where geopolitics is divided between polarised blocs?
• Is microlateralism (a global collective of likeminded states) the answer?
• Is New Zealand about to stride out on the world-stage to assert this new form of multilateral collective bargaining?

WE INVITE YOU TO PARTICIPATE WHILE WE ARE LIVE WITH COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS IN THE RECORDING OF THIS PODCAST:

You can comment on this debate by clicking on one of these social media channels and interacting in the social media’s comment area. Here are the links:

• Facebook.com/selwyn.manning
• Youtube
• Twitter.com/Selwyn_Manning

If you miss the LIVE Episode, you can see it as video-on-demand, and earlier episodes too, by checking out EveningReport.nz or, subscribe to the Evening Report podcast here.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern is winning praise for her campaign to clean up the internet, and in particular for her announcement of the “Christchurch Call” Summit to be held with French President Emmanuel Macron in Paris next month. And if they can come up with some meaningful and effective ways to make the internet less available to terrorists and violent extremists then this will be a major accomplishment.

Regulating the internet is notoriously difficult, however. It might be one of the big issues of our time, but no one seems to have the answers for how to do it in a way that will be both effective and satisfactory. There’s a good chance the whole episode will amount to yet another talkfest of platitudes and politicking. This is certainly the view of Newstalk ZB’s Barry Soper, who forecasts an outcome of “full, frank and meaningless words” – see: Irony to New Zealand and France’s terrorism summit next month.

Not only this, Soper suggests that the motivations for the summit are opportunistic: “The idea no doubt came from the French President Emmanuel Macron who’s been haemorrhaging in the opinion polls at home… The international voice of reason and compassion Jacinda Ardern would have immediately come to mind and the pledge she’s now calling the Christchurch Call was born.”

The Herald’s political editor takes umbrage at such scepticism, declaring this type of view out of place: “They are the sort of critic who would never start anything unless success were guaranteed. The suggestion that Ardern do nothing after the murders of 50 people in New Zealand were live-streamed and shared on social media is to deny human nature and New Zealand’s own instincts” – see: Jacinda Ardern is knee-deep in planning joint initiative with France.

Audrey Young predicts real change will emerge from a difficult area of reform: “It won’t eliminate the evils that lurk within social media. But it won’t be nothing either.” She sees it as a positive sign that Ardern and Macron are being so inclusive in their approach: “Ardern’s natural instincts are to collaborate as broadly as possible… That factor alone makes it important to get co-operation from social media themselves, rather than using heavy-handed regulation or attempting to bully the corporates into participation.”

However, as with other international agreements, the more people you bring to the table, the greater the likelihood of a watered-down outcome. And this is the point made in Tom Pullar-Strecker’s article, The devil will be in the detail of the ‘Christchurch Call’. This reports Colin Gavaghan, director of the Centre for Law and Policy in Emerging Technologies at Otago University, as cautioning against going too broadly: “The risk, he argues, is you can end up with texts that are pitched at such a level that ‘no-one could disagree with them’ but which don’t tend to mean anything in practice.”

Pullar-Strecker’s article emphasises the uniqueness of this summit, as normally the outcomes are relatively pre-determined, with a text negotiated in advance for participants to sign up to. This won’t necessarily happen in this instance.

The success or otherwise of the initiative will be determined, it seems, by how ambitious the internet regulation campaign ends up being. Ardern, herself, is very keen to see a narrow focus for the regulations, which deal specifically with the online sharing of terrorist acts. Ardern says: “This is not about freedom of expression. This is about preventing violence and extremism and terrorism online”.

This approach is easier than going down the route of attempting to take on “hate speech” and extremist politics in general. And that is also the advice of Paul Brislen: “There are a number of things they should be looking at. The trick will be narrowing it down to something that is achievable because there are so many things that are getting out of control with the world of social media that need a regulator to step in… Trying to stay focused is going to be critical” – see Thomas Coughlan’s Speculation rife on value of ‘Christchurch Call’.

But even a focus just on violence and terrorism could be incredibly difficult. The same article makes this point: “Victoria University of Wellington media studies lecturer Peter Thompson said just defining what terrorism was presented difficulties. ‘It’s not a straightforward thing to decide what is and isn’t terrorism: live-streaming mass murder, well yes, but how do you decide which groups are considered terrorists or not?’ he said.”

Rick Shera from Netsafe and Internet NZ is also pleased that the Government is focused on dealing to the narrower and less contentious issue of terrorism: “I’m glad we are sticking to violent extremism and terrorism. Once you go into fake news, damage to democracy and other forms of online harm it becomes very difficult. Freedom of speech and the US position on that make it hard to make gains, so if the target is narrow it may be easier” – see Colin Peacock’s Does social media reform have the law on its side?

In this article by Peacock, the major issue of the United States is brought into the debate. After all, the US tech companies are based there, and benefit from that country’s very strong ethos and constitutional protections of political freedoms. This is lamented by some participants in the debate. For example, Internet NZ’s chief executive Jordan Carter is quoted, saying “The nature of their black and white constitutional protections on free speech in the US – and the current state of their politics – don’t leave me with any confidence that they will be able to drive change in this area”.

Clearly, the strong US resistance to censorship and over-regulation of speech means that Ardern’s “Christchurch Call” could run into problems. And it’s not just the US Constitution that might stymie reform, as explained by tech expert and journalist Bill Bennett, in Peacock’s article: “The problem with the US is they have two things that stop them from acting. One is the First Amendment which is all about free speech and not censoring people. The second thing is something called Section 230 that gives social media companies an out. They are not responsible for things posted on their site”.

There are, however, some major debates going on in the US about Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. And the above article reports internet law academic Eric Goldman suggesting that any subsequent changes from that debate might be crucial: “He thinks cutbacks of Section 230’s scope do pose serious risks to free speech online. So is it the outcome of this behind-the-scenes legal argument playing out in the US right now – and not a headline-making political summit in France – which will really determine whether internet giants take responsibility for extreme content on their platforms?”

For the best discussion of these political freedom issues, see Gordon Campbell’s column, On Ardern and Macron’s campaign against violent social media content. In this, Campbell explains what might be coming after two decades of self-regulation of the internet, given the strong political appetite for serious regulation.

He worries that Ardern and co will end up going beyond just the clampdown on terrorist and extremist violence, and might produce something that impacts on general political activity: “Once you get beyond those low hanging fruit….it becomes difficult to censor online content without doing real damage to freedom of expression, and to genuine political dissent. It would be unfortunate if the best friends of the Ardern/Macron initiatives turn out to be the tyrants in countries that would (a) dearly love to see tech companies forced to hand over the keys to encryption, and (b) would readily embrace further restrictions being put on the online content their dissidents are allowed to post.”

He also believes regulation could ultimately prove unpopular, which is why Facebook and the like want it to be carried out by governments, “presumably, so that the politicians then get to wear the backlash once people realise the full implications of allowing the state to define and police the content deemed acceptable on the Net.”

Mostly likely, there will be simple progress made in Paris, such as tightening up of Facebook Live. The big question will be whether online providers end up having to do more vetting of content before it’s published, which would be of huge consequence, and what Campbell calls a “disastrous outcome”.

And he gives the example of his own media platform, Scoop: “Every year, Scoop also publishes close on a million New Zealand press releases issued by all and sundry. In that respect, Scoop functions as a national community noticeboard. It rejects press releases that contain libels and/or socially inflammatory hate speech. Imagine though, if Scoop was required to pre-check every one of those press releases for accuracy, balance and for whether or not they might hurt the feelings of people in public office. It would not be remotely practical or affordable for Scoop to do so – and its efforts would be gamed by those with malice in mind against the organisations issuing the press releases in question.”

Similarly, Internet NZ’s Jordan Carter suggests that relying on artificial intelligence to vet and remove content could be a problem: “Applying overly tight automated filtering would lead to very widespread overblocking. What if posting a Radio New Zealand story about the Sri Lanka attacks over the weekend on Facebook was automatically blocked? Imagine if a link to a donations site for the victims of the Christchurch attacks led to the same outcome? How about sharing a video of TV news reports on either story?”.

Carter has his own list of “six thoughts” about how to make the regulation of the internet work, including keeping the scope of the exercise narrow, and striking the right balance between “preventing the spread of such abhorrent material on the one hand, and maintaining free expression on the other” – see: How to stop the ‘Christchurch Call’ on social media and terrorism falling flat.

There really will be difficulties, no matter what approach is chosen. Claire Trevett points out: “As with climate change, making the right noises and getting the desired results are two very different things. It will be something akin to Hercules wrestling the Hydra. As soon as one head is chopped off, another two will appear” – see: PM Jacinda Ardern gathers allies to wrestle the social-media Hydra.

And it’s the politicians themselves who might have the most to lose, given their increasing preference to use Facebook and the like “to bypass the filter of the traditional media and speak directly to supporters and voters. This has some pluses for those politicians – but not necessarily for democracy. Over-reliance on social media over journalistic media allows them to escape questioning on issues they may not want to face. Macron has also come in for criticism for trying to stifle the ‘Yellow Vest’ protest use of social media. Ardern herself has been known to vote with her fingers when it comes to expressing her disapproval with certain social media platforms.”

Facebook and Instagram have been key parts of Ardern’s campaigning, and Trevett points out that “in the last election, Labour spent $475,000 on advertising on Facebook – four times as much as National – as it tried to appeal to younger voters.”

Finally, for the lighter side of the debate and some apparent irregularities in social media regulation, see Hamish McNeilly’s Gone in 20 minutes: Facebook strips student nude mag cover and Andrew Gunn’s We’re taking urgent steps to address this.

EDITOR’S NOTE: This article was written for, and first published by, German magazine Cicero.de (ref. Attentat in Christchurch – Willkommen in der Hölle). Thanks also to Prof David Robie, Pacific Media Centre AsiaPacificReport.nz for providing the featured image for this article.

OUT OF THE BLUE:

It was 1:39pm, Friday March 15. As was usual for a Friday hundreds of people had turned up to pray at the Al Noor Mosque in Riccarton, Christchurch. All was peaceful, women, children, men, people of all ages young and old, both Sunni and Shia, were in contemplative repose free of worry. It was a mild, late summer, 20 degrees celsius day. Earlier, the touring Bangladesh Cricket Team had briefly visited the mosque, but left early to attend a press conference. By 1:39pm, they had returned and were outside exiting a bus, intending to continue with their prayers inside the mosque.

At 1:40pm, ahead of the team, a man entered the mosque walking quickly up the front steps. He was carrying an assault rifle and dressed in combat uniform. He immediately began shooting people who were kneeling in prayer. The shots rang out and the Bangladesh team members realising they were witnesses to an attack, retreated, and fled on foot to nearby Hagley Park.

Back inside the Al Noor Mosque scores of worshipers were being gunned down, some killed instantly, others bleeding to death. The victims included little Mucaad Ibrahim who was three years of age.

Mucaad was known by his loved ones as a wise “old soul” and possessed an “intelligence beyond his years”.

Eye witnesses said that once the killer began shooting people, little Mucaad became separated from his family. In the chaos, his family could not find him. The next day Police confirmed he too had been shot dead by the killer.

The murders continued at the Al Noor Mosque until the killer’s firearms ran out of bullets. Then, he simply walked out of the mosque, got in his car, and drove six kilometres to the Linwood Mosque. There too were people who had gathered for their regular Friday afternoon prayers.

Mr Aziz picked up an EFTPOS (electronic funds transaction) machine from a table inside the mosque. He ran outside. He saw a man he describes as looking like a soldier. He said to the man: “Who are you”. Mr Aziz then saw three people lying on the ground dead from shotgun blasts. He realised the man was the killer. He approached the attacker, threw the EFTPOS machine hitting the killer, who in turn took from his vehicle a second firearm (a military style semi-automatic assault rifle) and fired four to five shots at Abdul Aziz, missing him. Then, in an attempt to lure the killer away from other people, Mr Aziz shouted at the killer from behind a car: “Come, I’m here. Come I’m here!”

Mr Aziz said he didn’t want the killer to go inside the mosque and kill more people. But the killer remained focussed. He walked directly to the entrance, once inside the mosque he continued his killing spree. Survivors speak of the killer wearing “army clothes”, dressed in “SWAT combat clothing”, helmeted, wearing a vest and a balaclava.

Inside the Linwood Mosque, another witness, Shoaib Gani, was kneeling in prayer. He heard a noise like fireworks but he and others weren’t too concerned and continued with their prayers. Then, as he and his fellow worshipers were kneeling speaking verses from the Koran, the man next to him fell forward with blood pouring from his head. He had been shot and killed instantly, Mr Gani said. Then others too began falling to the floor dead.

Mr Gani crawled under a table. He saw the killer and his firearm. “Written on the rifle were the words, ‘Welcome to hell’,” he said.

Victims, who were wounded and bleeding, were pleading with Mr Gani to help them. But he was frozen to a spot under a table knowing that the killer was walking around the mosque killing as many people as he could. Mr Gani believed he too would also soon be dead, so he reached for his cellphone, he called his parent’s back home in India. But no one answered. He tried to call his father’s number, but the phone kept ringing. He saw people around him bleeding to death. Others with fatal head-wounds “their brains were hanging out. I just couldn’t do anything. I didn’t know what to do.” Mr Gani phoned 111 (the New Zealand emergency number) and told the authorities people were dead and injured: “The lady on the phone asked me to stay on the line as long as I could.”

Outside, Abdul Aziz picked up one of the killer’s discarded shotguns. Inside the mosque, the killer’s assault rifle ran out of bullets. The killer then “dropped his firearm” and ran back to his vehicle. He got in the driver’s seat. Mr Aziz then ran toward the car. He threw a discarded shotgun at the killer’s vehicle: “I threw it like an arrow. It shattered his window.” Mr Aziz thinks the killer thought someone had shot at him with a loaded gun. The killer turned. He swore at Mr Aziz. When the window burst it covered the inside of the car with glass. Mr Aziz said the killer “then took off” driving in his car. He then turn right away from the mosque driving through a red traffic light and out into Christchurch suburban streets.

Some minutes later, Police and ambulance officers arrived at Linwood Mosque. Anti-Terrorist armed Police entered the mosque. Inside, Mr Gani said the survivors were ordered to put their hands up above their heads. The mass murder scene was covered in blood. The Police then secured the area. Some victims survived because they were under the bodies of the dead. Police told survivors to gather near a grassed area outside. There, people began weeping for their husbands, wives, parents, children, friends.

THE ARREST:

Seventeen minutes later, two Police officers identified the killer, apparently driving his car. They drove the police car into the killer’s vehicle, ramming it against a curb. Immediately, they disarmed the killer, cuffed him, noticed home made bombs in the vehicle – IEDs (improvised explosive devices). They arrested the man and secured the scene.

The rest of Christchurch was in lock-down, children were kept safe inside their classrooms, hospitals began to prepare for casualties, the city’s streets became eerily quiet, people were locked in to libraries, shops, their homes. Police and armed forces helicopters networked the skies. No one knew if the terrorist attacks were committed by a group of people or a lone gunman.

But back inside and entrances to the two mosques, 50 people were dead – one of the dead was discovered the next day by Police, the body was laying beneath others who had been killed. Scores of others were in hospital fighting for their lives, at least another ten were in a critical condition in intensive care. Pathologists from all over New Zealand and Australia were heading to Christchurch to help with documenting the method of murder of the dead.

Within hours of the killings, Australian media named the alleged killer as an Australian born citizen named Brenton Tarrant, 28 years of age. On Saturday morning The Australian newspaper’s front page read “Australia’s evil export”.

Other media in New Zealand followed with details of the man’s background. Brenton Harrison Tarrant appeared in court the next day charged with one single count of murder. Other charges will follow. His duty lawyer did not seek name suppression nor bail, the lawyer told the judge: “I’m simply seeking remand and a high court next-available-hearing date.” Tarrant stood cuffed, smiling at those in the courtroom, at one point signaling with his fingers a ‘white supremacist’ sign. He will next appear in the Christchurch High Court on April 5.

THE AFTERMATH:

New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern later told media: “It was absolutely his [the offender’s) intention to continue with his attack.” PM Ardern said: “Police are working to build a picture of this tragic event. A complex and comprehensive investigation is (now) underway.” To balance the requirement of investigation with the customs of Muslim burials, PM Ardern said liaison officers are with the victims’ loved ones to help “in a way that is consistent with Muslim faith while taking into account these unprecedented circumstances and the obligations to the coroner.”

PM Ardern said, survivors of the massacre had indicated that this attack was not “of the New Zealand that they know”.

One day later, Survivor Shoaib Gani (mentioned above) told media he still could not sleep or eat. The sounds and sights were still vivid in his head: “I still can feel myself lying on the floor waiting for the bullets to hit me.” He said, he will travel back to India to visit family, but he will return to Christchurch: “It’s just a few people, you know. You can’t blame the whole of New Zealand for this… It’s a good country, people are peaceful. Everybody has helped me here. One right wing (person) doesn’t mean everyone is bad. So I can come back here and live and hope nothing like this happens in the future.”

In the hours after the attacks, all around New Zealand, in the cities and in small country areas, Police were stationed and were ready in case others were involved and were preparing further crimes.

Beside the Police officers, people, of all races and religions, began laying flowers at the steps to their local mosques. Messages included read: “Salam Alaikum, Peace be unto you”, and, Aroha nui”, “Peace and love”, “You are one of us”. The outpouring of grief swept the South Pacific nation, and as this piece was written, a mood of support, comfort, reassurance and solidarity with those of Muslim faith was in evidence.

In Australia, Sydney’s landmark Opera House was like a beacon in the night; coloured blue, red, and white – the colours of the New Zealand flag embossed with the silver fern (Ponga) an emblem of Aotearoa New Zealand. Australia’s peoples, like in New Zealand, began laying flowers at the steps of its mosques in a gesture of inclusiveness.

In the aftermath, New Zealand’s Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has committed to ongoing financial assistance to dependents of those who have died or are injured, and assistance, she said, will be ongoing.

Questions are being leveled as to how a person with hate can enter, live, and purchase weapons in New Zealand while expressing hate toward other cultures and harbouring an intent to kill others.

PM Ardern said: “The guns used in this case appear to have been modified. That is a challenge Police have been facing, and that is a challenge that we will look to address in changing our laws… We need to include the fact that modification of guns which can lead them to become essentially the kinds of weapons we have seen used in this terrorist act.”

When asked how she was coping personally with the tragedy, she said: “I am feeling the exact same emotions that every New Zealander is facing. Yes, I have the additional responsibility and weight of expressing the grief of all New Zealanders and I certainly feel that.”

That responsibility includes ensuring New Zealand’s Police, the nation’s intelligence and security services and “the process around watch-lists, including whether or not our border protections are currently in a status that they should be, and, including our gun laws.”

THE BACKSTORY:

Indeed, New Zealand is part of the so-called ‘Five Eyes’ intelligence network that includes the USA, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Global surveillance is coordinated and prioritised among the Five Eyes member states. While significant resource, technology and sophistication is committed to the Five Eyes intelligence agencies, New Zealanders fear that those who find themselves as targets, or within the scope of intelligence officers, are predominantly of the Muslim faith.

In contrast, the accused killer who allegedly committed the horrific Christchurch mosque attacks, has been active both on social media and the dark web expressing, with an intensifying degree, his ideology of hate and intolerance. It does appear of the highest public interest, certainly from an open source intelligence point of view, to ask questions of why New Zealand’s (and indeed the Five Eyes intelligence network’s) surveillance experts did not detect the expressed evil that had radicalised the heart and mind of the perpetrator of this massacre.

It is also fact, that New Zealand is a comparatively safe and peaceful nation. But within its midst are people and groups fermenting on racially-based hate ideas. Whether it be in isolation or among organised groupings, the threat of racially driven terror crimes exists.

The alleged killer, Brenton Tarrant, has lived among those of New Zealand’s southern city Dunedin for at least two years. It appears he was radicalised around 2010 after his father died and he toured Europe. He wrote about becoming “increasingly disgusted” at immigrant communities. In early 2018, Tarrant joined a Dunedin gun club and began practicing his shooting skills and allegedly planned his attacks.

Regarding Christchurch, while it has a history of overt white racist gangs, at this juncture, it does not appear they were directly involved in this series of crimes.

But this leads to many unanswered questions, including:

• Was the killer a lone mass murderer, a sleeper in a cell of one?
• Were those with whom he communicated and engaged with on the web in extreme white racist ideologies aware of his plans?
• Was Christchurch chosen by the killer for logistical reasons?
• Was it because the city is easier to drive around than Dunedin, Wellington or Auckland?
• Was it because Christchurch has at least two mosques within easy driving distance?
• Were the Bangladesh Cricket team in his scope of attacks?
• Was the killer attempting to incite a violent response from Christchurch’s burgeoning Muslim community, or, expecting a response from the Alt-Right, from white racist groups such as the Right Wing Resistance (RWR), the Fourth Reich, and Christchurch’s skinhead community?

THE FUTURE:

Survivors of Friday 15th’s terrorist attack say they have complained of an increase in racism and expressed hate in recent times. They say, their concerns have not been taken seriously. These are the concerns that Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has committed to listen to, has committed to represent, and, as the prime advocate for her country’s peoples, to act on to ensure cracks in New Zealand’s border, security and intelligence apparatus are corrected.

And, what of New Zealand’s social culture? How will it be affected? That will be determined by the actions of each individual person, each community, town and city and how as a nation New Zealand redefines “The Kiwi Way”.

Members of New Zealand’s media will also need to act responsibly. It is fair to say some have a reputation for argument that verges on alt-right intolerance, for example, on Twitter only two days after the mass murders, a prominent radio journalist, who is employed by one of New Zealand’s largest networks, tweeted: “28 years on an [sic] we still haven’t stopped madmen getting guns. #ChChMosque… [Replying to @Politikwebsite] And the neo nationalist right are the result of the virtue signaling exclusionary left.”

Perhaps such examples are out of step with New Zealand’s population. But such attitudes do create a dialogue of justification for those who harbour intolerance. However, if the outpouring of love and compassion continues to bind rather than divide, then perhaps New Zealand has received, as they say, ‘a wake-up call’, where racial intolerance and extreme ideologies have no place among peoples of all kinds, Maori and Pakeha, of all religions, political persuasions and creeds.

One thing is certain; to stamp out the evil of hate extremism, New Zealanders will pay a price that will be charged against the Kiwi lifestyle. Personal liberties of freedom, of expression and privacy will certainly be eroded further as this nation of the South Pacific grapples with how to keep its peoples safe. The means of how to achieve relative safety will be hotly debated, but it is a necessary juncture in this nation’s history, a moment when we all must confront and challenge ourselves so that people of innocence, people like little three year old Mucaad Ibrahim, can go about their days in trust, in peace, in joyful purpose and achieve their deserved potential. Anything less is a second killing for the victims of Friday 15, New Zealand’s darkest hour.

Flashback to Fiji in 2015 and the Pacific call for NZ to do more on climate change. Reporter Niklas Pedersen Video: Pacific Media Centre

By Pasifik/Pacnews

Fijian Prime Minister and incoming COP23 president Voreqe Bainimarama says he intends to use his position to reach out to US President Donald Trump to find common ground and move the global agenda forward on Climate Change.

“It is no secret that the United States federal administration under President Trump appears to be less enthusiastic about the Paris Agreement,” Bainimarama told the Fiji Parliament.

He said during their meeting with United Nations top climate change administrator, Patricia Espinosa last week in Suva, both agreed that the world cannot afford to drop the ball at this critical stage.

“More than 120 countries have so far ratified the Paris Agreement, pledging their commitment to address the issues of climate change and to also reduce their carbon emissions so that we can keep the global temperature as close as possible to one-point-five degrees above that of the pre-industrial age,” Bainimarama said.

“But as you all know, there are worrying signs that the momentum for decisive action may be slowing.”

“As incoming COP president, I also intend to work closely with some of the big players such as China, India, the European Union, Japan, Canada, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Australia, New Zealand and others to keep the momentum rolling.

“And, of course, to work closely with our Pacific Island neighbours, international NGOs, civil society and the private sector.

‘Representing the world’
“My brief as incoming COP president is to represent the interests of the entire world. To be impartial and achieve consensus between all parties on the best way forward.

“But it is only natural that as Fijians we have a special interest in the needs of Small Island Developing States in our own region and beyond.”

Bainimarama said in the lead-up to the main COP gathering in Bonn in November, Fiji intends to hold a “Climate Champions” meeting in Suva.

“And bring Pacific leaders, NGOs, civil societies and representatives of the private sector together to discuss a common agenda for COP.

“And then in October, a month before Bonn, we will host a pre-COP gathering in Denarau of many of the major players to hone our approach to the main event itself.

“As the year progresses, we will be making a special effort to engage the Fijian people – and especially our young people and our artists – in the COP process. And that engagement has already begun, with the advertisement on Saturday calling for ideas for the COP logo.

“We are putting together a dedicated Fiji Secretariat to make preparations here in Fiji and to liaise with the UN Climate Change Secretariat in Bonn.

Team effort
“Our UN friends have stressed that this is a team effort in which Fiji will work closely with them and the German Government to make COP 23 an unqualified success. And we have hired the same expert team of consultants that assisted Morocco with its successful hosting of COP22.

“As to meeting the cost of our commitment, we have already begun the task of raising the necessary funds in the form of donations from an array of nations and foundations.

“These funds will be deposited into a trust fund here in Fiji that we are establishing with an Act of Parliament. The Bill setting up the fund will be tabled this week,” Bainimarama told Parliament.

COP23 climate action