The failing nation-states of Western Europe are not peacemakers. They are warmongers, the ‘Coalition of the Willing’ – the Coalition of Sanctimony and Hypocrisy. They are trying to frame the current geopolitical struggle between a unipolar versus a multipolar world order as a struggle of the ‘Democratic’ Axis of Good against a strengthening ‘Autocratic’ Coalition of Evil located through most of Eurasia.

Germany’s new Chancellor, Friedrich Merz, says “whatever it takes“. Twice this year the coalition of sanctimony has derailed opportunities to end the Russia-Ukraine War through the re-creation of a neutral Ukraine. (The present war is already nearly as long-lasting as World War One.) The re-creation of a neutral Ukraine is the only available off-ramp to end this war.

The anti-peace phalanx that pretends to be pro-peace – headed by Merz, Keir Starmer, Ursula von de Leyen, and Mark Rutter (and formerly including Joe Biden and Boris Johnson) – represents the expression of a clear and open geopolitical strategy of eastwards expansion, both further into the Slavic Heartland (refer to Mackinder’s Democratic Ideals and Reality, free on Google Books, published early in 1919 though mostly written late in 1918) and in Southwest Asia (aka the ‘Middle East’). (France’s Emmanuel Macron is more ambivalent than these others, and is expected to fade from the presentCoalition as his political career comes to an end, and as France becomes consumed by domestic problems.)

Considered to be the academic founder of the discipline of geopolitics, Mackinder – born in Lincolnshire, England – was then the Conservative MP for a Scottish constituency. In late 1918 – a critical pivot moment in world history – he held his seat in the House of Commons, with a comfortable majority in Britain’s immediate-post-war election. Mackinder saw the necessity of establishing a group of smallish neutral nation-states between the two potentially resurgent “Going Concerns” of defeated Germany and defeated Russia (Russia, then in a post-war civil war, and in the process of becoming the ‘Bolshevik’ Soviet Union). In line with Mackinder’s analysis, the World War reignited in the late-1930s partly as a result of those smaller states eschewing neutrality in favour of various mostly-failed attempts to form security alliances with former antagonists, and/or with Britain and France.

On the matter of Mackinder’s relevance to the 2020s’ world, note this quote re Heartland: Three Essays on Geopolitics, by Halford John Mackinder: “Heartland is a fascinating introduction to a pioneer of geopolitics. Halford Mackinder’s trailblazing ideas have influenced international politics to this day. His concept that world domination depends on the control of the global ‘pivot area’ or ‘heartland’ – the centre of the large land mass of Europe and Asia – has informed the political tactics and wars in the Middle East and Eastern Europe through the decades. His theories have influenced politicians and political scientists for generations, most notably Zbigniew Brzezinski, adviser to a long line of U.S. presidents. In our times, the importance of Mackinder’s heartland theory for the United States’ fight to enforce global hegemony, Russia’s struggle to stay independent and relevant on a world stage, and China’s plans to establish a trade route between East and West, make Heartland essential reading for understanding our world.”

Ukraine and Israel as Western bridgeheads into the Eastern heartlands

In geopolitical context, both Ukraine and Israel can be seen as Western bridgeheads into the ‘Near East’ and ‘Middle East’ heartlands; bridgeheads against the west-resistant poles of Russia and Iran. Ultimately these geopolitical gambits seek as an end-goal the ‘containment’ of China; China being understood as the single biggest threat to the unipolar Western – essentially Christian, labelled ‘Democratic’ – world-order fantasy which prevailed especially in Washington in the 1990s. (In the Cold War, this geopolitical contest was presented as the battle of the Free against Communism.)

Since the demise of Joe Biden (dubbed ‘Genocide Joe’ by some, and not without reason), there has been a bifurcation of the western project.

The United States is most focussed on its Middle Eastern agenda (which, as in Obama times, very much includes geopolitical designs on Syria), so has doubled-down as Israel’s main sponsor of regional terror. Nevertheless, the self-appointed European coalition of sanctimony has been fully and consistently behind “Daddy’s” geopolitical interest in promoting Israel’s asymmetric war of aggression; and still is, despite some attempts to appear to be distancing itself from the Palestinian theatre of conflict. (On ‘Daddy’, see “Daddy” diplomacy: The politics of obsequiousness, Hugh Piper, Lowy Institute, 24 July 2025.)

Israel’s barbarism could only be tolerated by any group of countries if those countries had a ‘higher’ political purpose; namely opposition to a geopolitical adversary shared with Israel – an adversary which dares to resist western power. Any coalition facilitating Israel’s anti-human agenda (of erasing “human animals”, aka Amalek) has fully given up any claim to be considered The Good. In line with geopolitical realism, there are no Good Guys.

The European Coalition of Sanctimony quickly formed when peace threatened to break-out in Ukraine following the 28 February 2025 meeting in the White House. Their aim is to locate German soldiers in Ukraine; an insensitive act which to Russians would be as provocative as 1914 and 1941. If a post-war Ukraine is to have genuine peacekeepers, they cannot be belligerents; such peacekeepers would have to be there under the auspices of the United Nations, and only from countries which are verifiably neutral with respect to Eurasian geopolitics (India would probably qualify; so would South Africa, Brazil, Mexico, Indonesia, Vietnam, Philippines, Ethiopia, Egypt, Nigeria – and of course Fiji with its tradition of peacekeeping.)

The Coalition is, it claims, fighting for the ‘rules-based-order’ in one conflict while pushing-back against international law in the other (genocidal) conflict. A coalition of hypocrisy, indeed.

In the end, international rules are meaningless in a battle framed as Good versus Evil. Evil, by definition, does not follow the rules. So, if Good is to wage an unyielding war against Evil, why would Good handicap itself by following rules that Evil cannot be expected to follow? Laws can be applied to a real war – of A versus B – but not to a war when one or both sides claim to be Good combating Evil? For the sanctimonious, defeating the posited Evil is more important than following the rules.

These West European interests are pulling back from their unconditional support for Israel so that they can focus on their belligerence towards Russia. While they don’t admit the contradiction in their embarrassing support for one aggressor (Israel) and their adamant opposition to another (Russia), Israel’s war in Palestine has removed any possibility that the coalition can seriously claim the moral high ground.

In Aotearoa New Zealand – the little-West located in the far southeast – we need to show more empathy towards Asia, which has been invaded and abused many times by The West, and less towards West Europe which was last invaded by Asia in the fifth century (by Atilla the Hun). New Zealand (eg under Jim Bolger) once considered itself to be an Asian country. Now, New Zealand’s political class is at risk of reinterpreting the continent Asia – sixty percent of the world’s humanity – as a monolithic antagonist. Can the lands to the south of Asia – literally, Australasia – be trusted by Asia?

In geopolitical terms, the West are the aggressors – and the peace blockers – in both of the present faultlines.

The Central Issue: Unipolar versus Multipolar ‘World Order’

Realist scholars of geopolitics – including the conservative John Mearsheimer and the progressive development economist Jeffrey Sachs – are clear about the nature of and the openness of the western geopolitical project. They see the eastwards expansion of the west, cloaked in its narrative of sanctimony, as somewhat problematic.

A unipolar world order is not necessarily an overt dictatorship over every human on the planet. Rather, it is a system in which one central polity – potentially one man or woman, but more likely a technocracy of truth-guardians – has an effective global veto over the contest of ideas, should it choose to use that veto. In a multipolar world order, such vetoes may operate regionally, though there could be no ‘one-veto-to-rule-them-all’.

The first thing that people across the world should consider, is whether the one-empire world is a better aspiration than a multi-empire world; noting that empires come in both overt and covert forms, and that empires can vary from the somewhat benign (ie fraternal) to the severely malign. (Mackinder’s principal principle was that of ‘fraternity’.) Is a single benign empire best? The issues here are twofold: how easily can a benign empire become malign; and how can we be sure that a benign hegemon is really as benign as portrays itself? (We may note the more benign optics of Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World compared to the chilling repression underpinning George Orwell’s 1984.)

The West’s illusion of being non-violent in achieving its objectives is a result of it using violence only as a last resort; the West favours heavy-handed diplomacy, known in earlier imperial times as gunboat diplomacy. Importantly – as we have seen in Palestine and Iraq, and as we saw especially in World War Two, Korea and Vietnam – the West will always resort to extreme violence if it feels it has no other choice. The West will always bring out its ‘big bazookas’ if it feels sufficiently threatened or sufficiently punitive.

The coalition of sanctimony, through Mark Rutter, let slip the truth that the President of the USA is ‘Daddy’. Another ingratiating word that I’ve noted, for example in Berlin Briefing podcasts, is ‘uncle’; a word that this year cost the Prime Minister of Thailand her job (see Thailand’s PM suspended over probe into leaked ‘uncle’ phone call with Cambodian official, Euronews 1 July 2025).

Daddy! says it all. The coalition wants a military presence in Ukraine. Please Daddy! Don’t stop the war in a way that obliges Ukraine to become a neutral country (eg in the way that Austria was obliged after World War Two).

Mackinder claimed: “Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island [Eurasia-Africa]; who rules the World-Island commands the world.” (Not unlike the Muldoon political stratagem which contributed to New Zealand choosing to adopt MMP. “Who rules the Cabinet rules the Caucus. Who rules the Caucus rules the Parliament. Who rules the Parliament rules the Country.”)

Mackinder, in his later writing, emphasised the lands between the Black Sea and the Baltic Sea as the Heartland. The World Wars of the twentieth century can be seen as grabs by Germany for Ukraine, the heart of the Heartland. Which country is it today which – using ‘whatever resources it takes’ – most wants to gain effective control of all of Eastern Europe, including former Soviet republics. Who rules the European Union rules Europe. Who rules Nato rules the West. The United States’ role in Nato is diminishing. Who, who once played a back seat in Nato, is now muscling into the front row?

Let’s play Dominoes, noting that geopolitical advance is performed using various ways and means, soft power and economic power as well as hard power. From a European viewpoint, the final important dominos would be Georgia (an especially interesting prize, given the ambiguous statuses of Abkhazia as a seaside playground for Russia’s richest and South Ossetia), and maybe Belarus.

Further south, after Syria and Iran are neutralised by Israel and the United States (noting the events of 1953), there are – as dominoes for American imperialism – Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Kyrgyzstan. Russia, with Belarus and Kazakhstan, would then be encircled. The geopolitical West then would be literally on China’s border; adjacent to China’s sensitive Xinjiang province (aka East Turkestan). It was Zbigniew Brzezinski’s published dream; to contain China, to effectively veto China as a ‘player’. Something like this was Brzezinski’s open conspiracy.

Conspiracy Theories

Yesterday we heard this (Donald Trump says China, North Korea and Russia ‘conspiring against’ US, BBC News, 3 Sep 2025) from the American president. Yes, he was probably baiting the media. But we have been told that only feeble-minded people believe in conspiracies. Are conspiracy theories only lulu-lala when they are espoused by anti-ruling-class people? Is it OK to laugh-off other people’s conspiracy theories while quite earnestly promoting one’s own?

I heard this just the other day on Berlin Briefing, Why military service is back on the table in Germany(14 August 2025; 28’20”); the 2029 hypothesis which is gaining all the hallmarks of a Euro-conspiracy theory. Young soldier: “For example, 2029, the date that is put there out in the room from all Nato allies…”. Nina Haase: “Hang on there, to explain what that means, the date 2029 is the date when most military experts seem to agree that Russia will be in a position theoretically to test Nato’s Article Five, so to test an attack on one of Nato’s countries to see just how Nato will react, whether the other countries will come to help, because that’s what Article Five means, an attack on one is an attack on all.”

A good reference for the 2029 story is Germany’s Army Is Rebuilding. What Could Go Wrong?, Politico, Jessica Bateman, 29 August 2025, ‘”We are now moving from a war of choice to a war of necessity,” he [Carsten Breuer, the Bundeswehr’s highest serving general] explained. From security analysis he believes Russia will be capable of attacking NATO territory by 2029, with the caveat that this depends on the outcome in Ukraine and whether the war exhausts the Kremlin’. Remember Iraq’s ‘weapons of mass-destruction’!

Nobody ever says why Russia would want to attack a Nato country in 2029 or any other year; allegations-of-evil by western soothsayers notwithstanding. Russia has never aspired to possess Western Europe, and its hegemony over Eastern Europe from 1945 to 1989 was entirely in the context of the finality of World War in Europe. The coalition of hypocrisy simply asserts this conspiracy theory as a justification for the militarisation of a near-bankrupt Old Europe, to deploy Donald Rumsfeld’s2003 putdown.

Western Europe is undergoing an Economic Implosion

France, Germany, and the United Kingdom are all now in economic crisis; in fiscal crisis. Their spending cuts led to revenue constriction, meaning that less government spending has led to bigger (not smaller, as the neoliberals presume) budget deficits. With France it’s especially political, given the present fiscal crisis, the looming presidential election there in 2027, and the lack of unifying candidates to replace Macron in that role. (Marine Le Pen, who has become a potential unifier of the non-Centre has been barred from running.) The United Kingdom government is imploding too, and for similar reasons (though Nigel Farage, continuing to espouse fiscal conservatism, remains a less likely unifier). Many people in Britain think that the Labour Government cannot survive even half of its five-year term, despite Labour’s huge majority in the House.

In Germany, there is some pressure on the right for the CDU to dump its SPD coalition partner in favour of finding common ground with the populist-right AFD. But ‘Putin’ has become the number one political issue in federal Germany, and the AFD are – at least in Merz’s eyes – ‘pro-Putin’.

In principle, Merz could revive Germany’s economy – and enhance his own political fortune – by practicing Hitlernomics; reindustrialisation through a government-spending initiative to invest in rearmament. Whatever it takes. Hitler’s popularity in the 1930s increased because he got Germans working again. But Merz has agreed to buy Germany’s weapons from the United States, so that the arm-twisting United States can make more money and less war.

Most European countries are facing radical demographic change. To fight wars, they will need to exploit immigrant labour. Of course that happened in World War Two, too. One thing we hardly ever heard about, re WW2, was Germany’s reliance on and exploitation of ‘immigrant’ slave labour. Many of the victims of the Royal Air Force in wartime Germany were in fact slaves from the places the RAF was supposedly trying to save.

It all leaves the polities of the countries which make up the coalition morally, intellectually and financially bankrupt.

The Rise of the Conservative Left

The nuanced political chatter in Europe now is about the rise of the ‘conservative left’. And, indeed, it appears that the ‘populist right’ is moving leftwards on economic policy. In practice, that will mean a return to something like Keynesian economics. To a degree this is what is keeping Giorgia Meloni popular in Italy, while the handwringers and conservatives to her north are tanking in the polls.

In New Zealand, there is one authentic party of the conservative left; New Zealand First.

The three policy-axes which determine elections are: economic (progressive [left; fiscal pragmatism] versus neoliberal [right; fiscal conservatism]); cultural [multiculturalism versus dominant-culturalism]; and geopolitical [conciliation versus belligerence re foreign states].

In Europe and elsewhere, the Left (Die Linke in Germany) is ‘progressive’ on fiscal policy, ‘progressive’ on identity politics (including open to immigration), and pro-peace. The Right (AFD in Germany) is becoming ‘progressive’ on fiscal policy, is conservative on identity politics (including immigration), and pro-peace in Europe. Two-out-of-three (potential points of agreement) ain’t bad; especially as left-identity politics is slowly giving way to ‘bread-and-butter’ issues.

So the left-Left and the right-Left may be able to ally to form future coalitions which will oust the “Saatchi and Saatchi” (to quote the late Jim Anderton, as in ‘the difference between National and Labour is the same as the difference between Saatchi and Saatchi‘) centrist legacy parties of the hitherto mainstream political class. (We note that ‘coalitions of opposites’ are not unknown to history; for example, the alliance between the West and the Soviet Union in World War Two.)

The legacy parties, though divided on cultural/identity issues (as are the new parties), are firmly neoliberal (ie fiscally conservative, claiming the virtue of balanced budgets), supportive of Ukraine, and facilitating Israel’s genocidal erasure of Palestine’s indigenous population. The legacy parties can only survive if their opposition remains divided. With the rise of the conservative left – the right-Left – such division can no longer be guaranteed.

Prediction

My sense is that, on or before 2030, there is a one-in-five chance (20%) that there will be a nuclear exchange between the world’s ‘great powers’. That ‘Third World War’ will have been caused by the last-gasp resistance – on the part of the West – to the new reality of a multipolar world order. If such a ‘last gasp of the West’ exchange does take place, my prediction is that there is a 50% chance of a mass extinction event on a scale at least as great as that of 65 million years ago. That’s a 10% chance of a mass extinction event.

Nevertheless ‘nine-out-of-ten’ (or ‘four-out-of-five’) ain’t’ bad, meaning it’s more likely than not that the world does eventually settle down. I am predicting a 50% chance that the politics of Europe will decisively shift towards the ‘conservative left’ in this half-decade (or in the 2030s, towards the radical centre, parties like TOP in New Zealand); and that there will be enough common ground between the old-left and the growing conservative left to make it possible for the two-lefts to form coalitions against the withering centre; against the diminishing hurrah of today’s elite political class. Something like this did indeed happen in the 1930s; then the creation of a coalition against fascism pushed the old conservative politics to one side.

Summary

The world is facing a dangerous moment. Sanctimony and hypocrisy are not the answers. Fraternity, trustfulness, dialogue, neutrality, sympathy; they are the qualities we need to embrace and project.

*******

Keith Rankin (keith at rankin dot nz), trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.

It’s time that the nations of the world (or at least the influential western nations) accept the reality that all the lands that constituted 1920-1948 Mandatory Palestine should be formally recognised as a single nation-state; ideally called Palestine Israel or Israel-Palestine, but more realistically called Israel.

In other words, the never-viable notion of a two-nation-state division of ‘Israel’ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eretz_Israel) should be dropped as a viable solution in favour of the promotion of a liberal bicultural (or multicultural) nation-state. The role model for change could be South Africa.

Jewish and Non-Jewish intellectuals (such as Hans Kohn, Shlomo Sand and Yanis Varoufakis) – on the political left – have been arguing for this ‘one-state-solution’ for over 100 years. It’s just that their voices have always been deamplified by those on the political centre and the political right. (On the centre, we think of people like Joe Biden, Keir Starmer, and their predecessors. On the right, we may consider former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, a leader in the 1940s of the openly fascist Lehi, yet a moderate by today’s Israeli political standards.)

Shlomo Sand outlines the history of the arguments for a single ‘binational’ state in his 2024 book Israel-Palestine: Federation or Apartheid? His vision, which is not quite what I favour, emphasises binationalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/binationalism), and looks towards these successful liberal examples of bi- or multi- nationalism: Canada, Belgium, Switzerland.

The better framing of this approach, I believe, is biculturalism; though even that is not problem-free, because it is an exclusive concept. What I think would work best for Palestine Israel is also the same as what would work best for Aotearoa New Zealand: multiculturalism with a bicultural (treaty) emphasis. (Ireland could have become something similar, as in Irish rugby; but it went down a failed two-state path, and experienced two substantial civil wars last century.) The ideal is for Palestine Israel to become a liberal democracy in which all people born within its borders become citizens with equal citizenship rights; a nation state which commits to both the domestic and international norms of liberal democracy.

(In a bicultural nation-state, the principal divider is religion; normally people’s religious loyalties are discrete, meaning that being, say, a Muslim or Jew or Christian is mutually exclusive. The word ‘national’ is increasingly used in the 21st century as it was in the 19th century; to refer to a ‘people’ or a ‘race’ rather than to relate to a territory defined by its borders and its sovereign institutions. Ethnicity – the better word is ‘ancestry – is not a discrete concept such as ‘religion’; individual people have multiple ancestries, and should not be required to identify as one over another.)

How can this be achieved?

First, we should note that the status quo in Eretz Israel is at least as unacceptable as Apartheid South Africa was to our world of mostly ‘internationally-civilised’ nation-states. (An internationally civilised state is one that accepts agreed norms in the ways that it relates to other nation states, meaning that it does not indulge in offensive hard-power geopolitics – such as ‘gunboat diplomacy’; and it practises cultural equality. Terrorism is understood as criminality. Such a state does not have to be a ‘democracy’ in the Westminster or American sense; but it should meet open liberal standards in the ways it treats its resident denizens – non-citizens – and it should subscribe to international treaties on matters such as climate sustainability and nuclear energy and election authenticity.)

Second, this desired outcome will not come about by force. The community of liberal nations should simply recognise Eretz Israel as a nation state, based ideally on the prior borders of Mandatory Palestine.

While there should be no demands, such a new nation-state would be risking discriminatory sanctions if it abuses liberal norms; in particular if it implements laws (including civil-marriage laws) that discriminate on the basis of sex, religion, or ancestry. Again, the obvious model is Apartheid South Africa, and the ways that South Africa was excluded from international sport so long as it implemented laws which discriminated on the basis of ethnicity. (Palestinians and many Israelis have Levantine ethnicity. Many Israelis have European, African or Asian co-ethnicity; that non-indigeneity should never be held against them. Nor should the indigeneity of the Palestinians.)

In recognising Eretz Israel as Israel-Palestine (or even just under the name ‘Israel’), a Levantine nation state, Israel’s nuclear status should be addressed and normalised. (Likewise, India and Pakistan should be pressured to join the ‘nuclear club’. One of the most problematic regional asymmetries at present is the advanced nuclear-status of Israel versus the embryonic nuclear status of Iran; Israel at present hides behind its non-membership of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons to make it seem that Iran is a bigger nuclear threat to the world than Israel is.)

Recognition of Eretz Israel as a sovereign nation state, under any name, should come with overt expectations of democracy, amnesty, truth, reconciliation, and press freedom. There should be no formal or informal mechanism of ‘settling scores’, no matter how reprehensible anyone’s past or present behaviour has been. Truth trumps vengeance cloaked as ‘accountability’.

Lebanon was an initially successful, but now largely failed, version of a similar attempt at creating a tolerant multicultural nation state in the Levant. Lebanon’s main problem was its belligerent southern neighbour. Israel-Palestine would not have Israel as a neighbour.

Abandon the naïve two-state solution.

There is no way a Palestinian nation-state can be viable. At the very best it could become like a mini-Pakistan or mini-Bangladesh; and even that would take decades. (And the last Israeli prime minister to formalise a two-state future – Yitzhak Rabin – was assassinated in 1995, having achieved a Nobel Peace Prize in 1994.) The two-state-solution agenda seems to be more about deescalating sufficiently for the Palestine issue to disappear from its media prominence; and not at all about ending a forever war which began in 1948.

The present forever war – now in its hottest phase – followed a brutal war for Israeli-Jewish independence and non-Jewish expulsion waged by fascist and non-fascist ‘non-state actors’ from 1939 to 1948 against the British ‘protectors’. That, in turn, followed a prior Palestinian insurrection against the British and the settlers from 1936-1939 (though overshadowed in the international media by the Spanish Civil War), which in its turn followed the 1929 Palestine riots. That’s 96 years of escalating forever violence.

In Summary

Recognise a new expanded state, with or without a new name, but with certain (unenforceable, but well-publicised) expectations. This expectation should be a multi-cultural Levantine sovereign state, embracing adherents of the three Abrahamic faiths (as well as people of other religions, or no religion, as citizens; people born in Israel or Palestine, and documented immigrants): Levantine Jews, Levantine Muslims, Levantine Christians, plus others. All Israelis. And all Palestinians.

*******

Keith Rankin (keith at rankin dot nz), trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.

In this episode of A View From Afar political scientist Paul Buchanan and host Selwyn Manning will analyse how conflicts are expanding, arguably with warring sides taking an opportunity to take as much territory, while a ‘Lame-Duck Window’ exists in the United States.

For example;

In Syria, opposition-baked forces have taken Aleppo city and other strategic centres in an attempt to remove Syria’s authoritarian leader Assad. Assad’s forces are resisting on the ground while Russian air forces attacked the opposition force’s positions. Israel announced it may strike Syria government munitions sites in a move to ensure opposition forces do not take possession of such weaponry.

Meanwhile, fighting has intensified on the Ukraine-Russia frontlines after:

• North Korea deployed a 10,000-strong assistance force to the Kursk region;
• Outgoing US President Joe Biden authorised Ukraine to fire ATTACM missiles deep into Russia;
• Ukraine indeed fired ATTACMs into the Russian motherland and has increased its drone attacks on military targets in cities once regarded as safe from attack.
• Also, and significantly, Russia fired into Dnipro City in Ukraine a hypersonic “experimental” Medium-Range-Ballistic-Missile – and followed up with the biggest barrage of drone and missile strikes on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure since the conflict began.

So-called “red-lines” have been crossed and all sides appear determined to take as much territory as possible before US President-Elect Donald Trump is sworn into office in January.

Paul and Selwyn will assess what we can expect to witness in the next two months, how other state actors are being drawn into conflict, and what objectives are driving warring sides at flashpoints around the world.

Live Audience: Remember, if you are joining us live via the social media platforms, feel free to comment as we can include your comments and questions in this programme.

INTERACTION WHILE LIVE:

Paul and Selwyn encourage their live audience to interact while they are live with questions and comments.

To interact during the live recording of this podcast, go to Youtube.com/c/EveningReport/

Remember to subscribe to the channel.

For the on-demand audience, you can also keep the conversation going on this debate by clicking on one of the social media channels below:

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

RECOGNITION: The MIL Network’s podcast A View from Afar was Nominated as a Top Defence Security Podcast by Threat.Technology – a London-based cyber security news publication. Threat.Technology placed A View from Afar at 9th in its 20 Best Defence Security Podcasts of 2021 category.

You can follow A View from Afar via our affiliate syndicators.

In this episode of A View from Afar political scientist and former Pentagon Analyst, Paul G. Buchanan and journalist Selwyn Manning discuss: The Murky World of Israel’s Booby-Trapped Pagers and Walkie-Talkies.

Paul and Selwyn reveal Israel’s long-form planning that led to it sabotaging hand-held communication devices that Hezbollah used to communicate with.

This episode’s questions include:

• Who was behind the manufacturing of the booby-trapped devices?
• How long has Israel been planning last week’s attack – an attack that saw thousands injured and many killed in Lebanon after Israel remotely pulled the virtual-pin and exploded the devices indiscriminantly?
• And why now? Presumably the devices were also programmed to be tracked. So why did Israel decide to abandon tracking Hezbollah and to attack?
• Was it to cause chaos among its enemies in a preemptive move immediately prior to its widespread bombing and targeting of communities in Lebanon?
• And what of international law? Has Israel gone so far beyond the Rubicon with Gaza that it senses international law no longer applies to Israel?
• And, finally, has the United Nations abandoned its right to protect principles, its peacemaking and peacekeeping responsibilities in favour of aid, development and an overly bureaucratic institution?

INTERACTION WHILE LIVE:

Paul and Selwyn encourage their live audience to interact while they are live with questions and comments.

To interact during the live recording of this podcast, go to Youtube.com/c/EveningReport/

Remember to subscribe to the channel.

For the on-demand audience, you can also keep the conversation going on this debate by clicking on one of the social media channels below:

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

RECOGNITION: The MIL Network’s podcast A View from Afar was Nominated as a Top Defence Security Podcast by Threat.Technology – a London-based cyber security news publication. Threat.Technology placed A View from Afar at 9th in its 20 Best Defence Security Podcasts of 2021 category.

You can follow A View from Afar via our affiliate syndicators.

In an analytical essay titled ‘A moment of friction’ political scientist Dr Paul Buchanan wrote how we are living within a decisive moment of world affairs.

A decisive moment of transition for the world’s contrasting and conflicting powers, where, as Paul has written; “… because it is the period where force has become the major arbiter of who rises and who falls in the systemic transitional shuffle.”

So today, the first episode of A View from Afar, Series 5, Paul and I will focus on this writing, and take a journey through this example of strategic study that will help us to place a context to the world, as we are currently experiencing it.

Before we cross to Paul, here’s an invitation to our live audiences: Feel free to interact with us while live via YouTube. If you do so, we will be able to engage with you.

And remember, if you do make comments or lodge questions, your interaction may be included in this broadcast.

Okay… let’s cross to Paul Buchanan to unpack this complex and tragic set of issues….

(Ref. https://www.kiwipolitico.com/2024/04/a-moment-of-friction/ )

*******

INTERACTION WHILE LIVE:

Paul and Selwyn encourage their live audience to interact while they are live with questions and comments.

To interact during the live recording of this podcast, go to Youtube.com/c/EveningReport/

Remember to subscribe to the channel.

For the on-demand audience, you can also keep the conversation going on this debate by clicking on one of the social media channels below:

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

RECOGNITION: The MIL Network’s podcast A View from Afar was Nominated as a Top Defence Security Podcast by Threat.Technology – a London-based cyber security news publication. Threat.Technology placed A View from Afar at 9th in its 20 Best Defence Security Podcasts of 2021 category.

You can follow A View from Afar via our affiliate syndicators.

In this the tenth episode of A View from Afar for 2023 political scientist Dr Paul Buchanan and journalist/analyst Selwyn Manning will examine the current Israel-Palestine Atrocities.

As we prepare for this podcast, representatives of Arab states have presented a united front at the United Nations, criticising the UN Security Council of doing nothing to protect civilians from Israeli bombing and missile attacks on Gazan civilians and locations.

These civilian facilities include Hospitals, schools, residential areas. The targeting of civilians has resulted in the deaths of thousands of people – around one-third of those deaths are children.

Additional to this, Israel has sealed the borders of Gaza while it prevents food, water and medical supplies from reaching civilians – in breach of international law requirements and laws of conflict.

Israel ordered Gazan civilians, who wish to get to safety, to get out of North Gaza and move toward the south, to the border with Egypt. But as people fled south toward what appeared to be safety, Israel bombed the southern Gaza region killing more civilians and sealing off that corridor for others who sought refuge.

As a consequence of the bombing, Egypt responded by sealing the Gaza-Egypt border. Humanitarian aid now sits on trucks, waiting, on the Egypt side of the border, while United Nations officials implore Israel and Egypt to allow medical supplies, food and water to get through to those who are injured and dying.

The Israel Defence Force strikes followed a surprise-attack on Israeli citizens by soldiers operating under the Hamas banner. Civilians were slaughtered and others taken hostage, only to be used as bargaining chips in and leverage against their enemies.

Even Palestinian advocacy groups like the Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa suggested that breaches of international humanitarian Law, crimes against civilians, have been committed by those Hamas-aligned fighters. But they are clear, as others are too, that crimes against humanity, war crimes, have been committed by Israel, without consequence, as we all give witness to its response which is disproportionate, brutal, and disregarding of the thousands of Palestinian lives that have already been taken.

That’s the current situation. It is likely to get much worse.

In this episode, our questions will include:

What are the world’s leaders doing to stop the carnage?

Are the world’s nations being drawn into what will be an ever-expanding war?

Are we witnessing the beginning of a war where on one side authoritarian-led states like Russia, Iran, the wider Arab states, and possibly China stand unified against the United States, Britain, Germany, and other so-called liberal democratic allies representing the old world order?

Is what we are witnessing, what happens when a global rules-based order, multilateralism and institutions like the United Nations no longer have influence to prevent war, or restore peace and stability, or assert principles of international justice and enforce the rights of victims to see recourse to the law?

Why has this slaughter become an opportunity for the US and Russia to square-off against each other at the UN Security Council – a body that was once designed to advocate and achieve peace, but has now become a geopolitically divided entity of stalemate and mediocrity?

Eventually, will humanitarianism prevail? Will the world recognise that all people, the elderly, women, children, people of all ethnicities and religions, that they all bleed and die irrespective of their state of origin, when leaders of all sides, while sitting back in their bunkers, unleash weapons designed to kill as many people as is possible?

In this episode, Paul and Selwyn will examine this most grave situation from a geopolitical vantage point. It may appear as dispassionate, and as so even disturbing, but we will take this approach in an attempt to aide an understanding of why this is happening in Gaza and why it is happening now.

INTERACTION WHILE LIVE:

Paul and Selwyn encourage their live audience to interact while they are live with questions and comments.

To interact during the live recording of this podcast, go to Youtube.com/c/EveningReport/

Remember to subscribe to the channel.

For the on-demand audience, you can also keep the conversation going on this debate by clicking on one of the social media channels below:

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

RECOGNITION: The MIL Network’s podcast A View from Afar was Nominated as a Top Defence Security Podcast by Threat.Technology – a London-based cyber security news publication. Threat.Technology placed A View from Afar at 9th in its 20 Best Defence Security Podcasts of 2021 category.

You can follow A View from Afar via our affiliate syndicators.

In this the ninth episode of A View from Afar for 2023, political scientist Dr Paul Buchanan and journalist Selwyn Manning examine why there is a trend toward military dictatorships in North Africa.

And, in particular, Paul and Selwyn analyse the reasons why countries like Sudan, Chad, Niger, Mali, Burkina Faso and Guinea have all become part of a challenge to a weakened western-led global order.

In this podcast, Paul and Selwyn examine why events in North Africa are connected to authoritarian multipolarity, a realignment of global power that favours the Russian Federation’s Putin regime.

And, within this context, Paul and Selwyn address the complexities of Russian Federation involvement in the African continent – involvement that includes the notorious Wagner mercenary group; Russian state controlled energy giants like Gazprom that act as envoys of the Kremlin; and how Western powers appear unable to address geopolitical and terrorist-caused instability in the region.

The Questions include:

• How and why have Africa’s dictators found a powerful ally in the Kremlin?
• Who benefits from the Russian-North African alliance and what does this association look like?
• Where does all of this leave terrorist groups, such as ISIS, in the region?
• Why has Africa become a divide between liberal democratic and authoritarian power blocs in the emerging multipolar global constellation?

INTERACTION WHILE LIVE:

Paul and Selwyn encourage their live audience to interact while they are live with questions and comments.

To interact during the live recording of this podcast, go to Youtube.com/c/EveningReport/

Remember to subscribe to the channel.

For the on-demand audience, you can also keep the conversation going on this debate by clicking on one of the social media channels below:

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

RECOGNITION: The MIL Network’s podcast A View from Afar was Nominated as a Top Defence Security Podcast by Threat.Technology – a London-based cyber security news publication. Threat.Technology placed A View from Afar at 9th in its 20 Best Defence Security Podcasts of 2021 category.

You can follow A View from Afar via our affiliate syndicators.

In this the ninth episode of A View from Afar for 2023, political scientist Dr Paul Buchanan and journalist Selwyn Manning will examine why there is a trend toward military dictatorships in North Africa.

And, in particular, Paul and Selwyn will analyse the reasons why countries like Sudan, Chad, Niger, Mali, Burkina Faso and Guinea have all become part of a challenge to a weakened western-led global order.

In this podcast, Paul and Selwyn will examine why events in North Africa are connected to authoritarian multipolarity, a realignment of global power that favours the Russian Federation’s Putin regime.

And, within this context, Paul and Selwyn will address the complexities of Russian Federation involvement in the African continent – involvement that includes the notorious Wagner mercenary group; Russian state controlled energy giants like Gazprom that act as envoys of the Kremlin; and how Western powers appear unable to address geopolitical and terrorist-caused instability in the region.

The Questions include:

How and why have Africa’s dictators found a powerful ally in the Kremlin?

Who benefits from the Russian-North African alliance and what does this association look like?

Where does all of this leave terrorist groups, such as ISIS, in the region?

Why has Africa become a divide between liberal democratic and authoritarian power blocs in the emerging multipolar global constellation?

INTERACTION WHILE LIVE:

Paul and Selwyn encourage their live audience to interact while they are live with questions and comments.

To interact during the live recording of this podcast, go to Youtube.com/c/EveningReport/

Remember to subscribe to the channel.

For the on-demand audience, you can also keep the conversation going on this debate by clicking on one of the social media channels below:

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

RECOGNITION: The MIL Network’s podcast A View from Afar was Nominated as a Top Defence Security Podcast by Threat.Technology – a London-based cyber security news publication. Threat.Technology placed A View from Afar at 9th in its 20 Best Defence Security Podcasts of 2021 category.

You can follow A View from Afar via our affiliate syndicators.

Paul and Selwyn will deep dive into the battle to control a narrative, waged by all sides in a polarised combative world, and how modern mainstream media institutions, like Radio New Zealand, fall vulnerable in the absence of robust all-sides-considered analysis and debate.

In this episode, Paul and Selwyn will analyse how fourth Estate bias, propaganda, and conflict-force fact-vacuums are the challenge of our times in this disinformation age.

Upon this context, Paul and Selwyn will consider:

* Why Is the Radio New Zealand sub-editor pro-RU-content debacle symptomatic of a fact-vacuum environment?

* Why is all media vulnerable to disinformation in the absence of robust NATO-Ukraine-Russia analysis?

* What are the unspoken of ‘big picture’ shifts in Russian Federation / Global South relations?

LINKS and REFERENCES:

• https://KiwiPolitico.com
• https://www.dekoder.org/de/person/ekaterina-schulmann-0
• https://www.rnz.co.nz/media/180
• https://www.rnz.co.nz/programmes/news-extras/story/2018893905/rnz-editorial-audit
• https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/top/491788/nz-entering-ukraine-conflict-at-whim-of-govt-former-labour-general-secretary
• https://meduza.io/en/feature/2023/02/25/russia-ends-nowhere-they-say
• https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/why-russian-elites-think-putins-war-is-doomed-to-fail

INTERACTION WHILE LIVE:

Paul and Selwyn encourage their live audience to interact while they are live with questions and comments.

To interact during the live recording of this podcast, go to Youtube.com/c/EveningReport/

Remember to subscribe to the channel.

For the on-demand audience, you can also keep the conversation going on this debate by clicking on one of the social media channels below:

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

RECOGNITION: The MIL Network’s podcast A View from Afar was Nominated as a Top Defence Security Podcast by Threat.Technology – a London-based cyber security news publication. Threat.Technology placed A View from Afar at 9th in its 20 Best Defence Security Podcasts of 2021 category.

You can follow A View from Afar via our affiliate syndicators.

A View from Afar – In this podcast, political scientist Paul Buchanan and Selwyn Manning analyse hostilities and the pathway ahead for Taiwan, China, Asia Pacific nations and the United States of America.

Buchanan and Manning examine why hostilities have intensified, what defence and pre-emptive security moves have been actioned, and what we all should expect next, including the ramifications impacting on Asia Pacific nations’ foreign policies and what the short, medium and long term consequences will be.

The Questions:

What to expect from a deterioration of China / Taiwan relations?

What’s next in the PRC Taiwan stand-off?

What impact will PRC Taiwan hostilities have on the foreign policy positions of Asia Pacific nations?

And is the USA’s Indo-Pacific security/defence realignment a help or a hindrance in the region?

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.

The MIL Network’s podcast A View from Afar was Nominated as a Top  Defence Security Podcast by Threat.Technology – a London-based cyber security news publication.

Threat.Technology placed A View from Afar at 9th in its 20 Best Defence Security Podcasts of 2021 category. You can follow A View from Afar via our affiliate syndicators.

Editor’s Note: Here below is a list of the main issues currently under discussion in New Zealand and links to media coverage.

Today’s content

Welfare
Tim Watkin (Pundit): Another chance to be transformational rejected… Labour’s cautious welfare response
Sue Bradford (Spinoff): No hope for progressive welfare reform from this government
Henry Cooke (Stuff): Greens fail to win major change with welfare review
Zane Small and Lisette Reymer (Newshub): Welfare reform: National says Greens received ‘nothing’
Chris Trotter (Interest): The State and welfare: Opportunity or cost?
Isaac Davison (Herald): Analysis: Government acts quickly, but serious reform of welfare not on the horizon (paywalled)
Dan Satherley (Newshub): Social Development Minister Carmel Sepuloni defends no increase to benefits in ‘wellbeing’ Budget
Sarah Robson and Craig McCulloch (RNZ): Government response to welfare expert advisory group ‘more rhetoric than action’ – Poverty group
Steven Cowan: Government response to welfare report is a shocker
Max Rashbrooke (RNZ): At last welfare emphasis will move from punishment to support
Māni Dunlop (RNZ): Whanau ora group says government needs to responsible to Māori while overhauling welfare
Danielle Clent (Stuff): Removing benefit sanction could help women leave violent relationships, domestic violence charity says
Brad Flahive (Stuff): Government to scrap benefit sanction for solo mums, among welfare changes
Isaac Davison (Herald): Beneficiaries will be able to earn more, face fewer penalties after review finds welfare system failing NZ’s most vulnerable people
Sarah Robson (RNZ): Recommendations on welfare system reform released
Leo Horgan (Māori TV): Whakamana Tāngata report calls for welfare “overhaul”
Jenée Tibshraeny (Interest): $72 million welfare tweaks announced as $5 billion overhaul recommended
Alex Braae (Spinoff): Big changes to the welfare system just announced: all you need to know
Thomas Coughlan (Newsroom): Benefit increases put on hold
Mike Wesley-Smith (Newshub): Pregnant by rape and forced to pay child support

Cannabis referendum, medicinal cannabis
Craig McCulloch (RNZ): Little guarantees binding cannabis referendum – but yet to define ‘binding’
1News: National’s Simon Bridges concerned cannabis referendum could see ‘Brexit-type situation’
Dan Satherley (Newshub): Simon Bridges won’t smoke out cannabis Cabinet source
Duncan Garner (Newshub): Talk of cannabis referendum flip-flop
Lucy Bennett (Herald): Leaked Cabinet paper from National proposes age 20 for legal cannabis use
Lucy Bennett (Herald): National releases cannabis referendum options ahead of Cabinet discussion
Thomas Manch (Stuff): National party claims cannabis referendum document leak, showing cannabis referendum won’t be binding
1News: Paula Bennett reveals leaked Cabinet Paper on cannabis referendum
Sam Farrell (Newshub): Leaked Cabinet document proves New Zealand not ready for cannabis referendum – National
Derek Cheng (Herald): Cabinet set to consider cannabis referendum on Monday
RNZ: Cabinet tipped to discuss cannabis poll next week
Pete George: Andrew Little vague on timing and form of cannabis referendum
Charlie Dreaver (RNZ): Health experts want medicinal cannabis to meet same standards as other medicine
John Roughan (Herald): Why the ‘health approach’ to marijuana won’t work

National Party
John Armstrong (1News): Collins’ seeming praise of Bridges maintains fiction she’s not plotting to oust him
Thomas Coughlan (Newsroom): Who is the National Party?
Tracy Watkins (Stuff): National’s sinking feeling after Jacinda Ardern springs engagement news
Audrey Young (Herald): Judith Collins’ meteoric rise from dead last to first contender (paywalled)
Peter Wilson (RNZ): Week in Politics: National leadership speculation starts from the inside
Heather du Plessis-Allan (Herald): National needs a coalition partner (paywalled)
Bill Ralston (Noted): Simon Bridges can save himself, but not with slushies

Southern Response 
1News: Under Surveillance 
John Campbell (1News): Exclusive: Major Australian law firm backing around 3000 Canterbury homeowners in class action against Southern Response

Political party donations
Henry Cooke (Stuff): National Party donations in 2018 topped $700,000 – more than any other party
RNZ: National Party donations dwarf Labour’s by more than $500k
Zane Small (Newshub): The Government coalition partner with the least donations revealed
David Farrar: 2018 party donations
No Right Turn: Labour’s MPs don’t support their own party

Ardern engaged, marriage and divorce in NZ
Spinoff: Jacinda and Clarke: the wedding planner
Kristin Price (Herald): Wedding of the year: Ideas for Jacinda Ardern and Clarke Gayford nuptials
Emma West and Stacey Kirk (Stuff): Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Clarke Gayford engaged
RNZ: Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern engaged to partner Clarke Gayford
Herald: Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Clarke Gayford engaged
Eleanor Ainge Roy (Guardian): ‘Clarinda or Jarke?’: New Zealand PM Jacinda Ardern and Clarke Gayford engaged
Stuff: Leaders send well-wishes to Jacinda Ardern and Clarke Gayford over engagement
Dan Satherley and Delphine Herbert (Newshub): How Jacinda Ardern’s engagement bucks the trend
Emily Brookes (Stuff): Finances, unnecessary, and not important – why Kiwi marriage rates are dropping
Herald: ‘We don’t’: NZ’s marriage rate lowest since 1971
RNZ: Marriage hits lowest rate in almost 50 years
Susan Edmunds (Stuff): Later-life divorces a financial hurdle for New Zealanders

Shelly Bay
Tom Hunt and Hamish Rutherford (Stuff): Long shadow over development of Wellington jewel Shelly Bay
Georgina Campbell (Herald): Shelly Bay land sold to fund Eastbourne development

Media
Colin Peacock (RNZ): Tapping the readers for revenue
Martyn Bradbury: 5 reflections on a week of the Herald’s Paywall
Colin Peacock (RNZ): Mediawatch: Uncharted waters for media freedom
David Robie (Asia Pacific Report): Pacific media freedom and news ‘ black holes’ worsen for World Press Day
Bonnie Flaws (Stuff): Court order to reveal Campbell Live story sources overturned
RNZ: Court order forcing two reporters to give up documents quashed
David Farrar: International criticism of NZ media for collective decision on the Tarrant trial
Dale Husband (E-Tangata): Indira Stewart: When one of us wins, all of us win
Hayden Donnell (Stuff): John Campbell’s first week on Breakfast – the good, the bad and the bizarre
Joanna Hunkin (Herald): A marvellous start? TVNZ positive as John Campbell debuts on Breakfast
Karl Puschmann (Herald): Can you stomach John Campbell’s hard-hitting Breakfast? (paywalled)
John Roughan (Herald): From Muldoon to Key: 45 years in the middle of it all (paywalled)

Cancer
Herald: Cancer series: Experts on failing system, need for medical accountability (paywalled)
Emma Russell (Herald): Cancer: $15 million paid to cancer sufferers let down by public system (paywalled)
Emma Russell (Herald): Cancer: Couple’s dreams shattered after man waits months for life-saving scan (paywalled)
Emma Russell (Herald): Cancer: Woman watches two loved ones fighting cancer suffer ill treatment (paywalled)

Health and disability
Oliver Lewis (Stuff): Intellectually disabled man has spent 15 years in a locked mental health unit, in breach of his rights
Oliver Lewis (Stuff): Emaciated mental health patient received ‘excellent’ care – CDHB
RNZ: Woman under DHB care was emaciated, injured – brother
Libby Wilson (Stuff): Clock ticking on health minister’s commissioner call for Waikato DHB
Raniera Harrison (Māori TV): Rural Northland school raises $20k for meningitis vaccines
Lois Wiliams (RNZ): Meningitis vaccinations: ‘This is such a relief’
Hannah Martin (Stuff): Nearly 100 New Zealanders have contracted measles so far this year
Jonathan MItchell (RNZ): Petition for better disability access gains momentum
Nicholas Jones (Herald): Filthy fountains: Auckland’s dirty public drinking fountains (paywalled)
Te Aniwa Hurihanganui (RNZ): Emergency medical staff to get te reo, tikanga training
Helen Harvey (Stuff): Mother’s terrifying ambulance ride highlights St John’s funding issues
Meriana Johnsen (RNZ): Serious dog attacks rise: Researcher calls for review of breed ban
Jessica Long (Stuff): Celebrating New Zealand Sign Language Week and working toward an accessible future
Jessica Long (Stuff): Deaf children need better access to New Zealand Sign Language to close the education gap
Eric Janssen (Stuff): Together we stand: Why The Dominion Post has a sign language masthead
Alice Wilkins (Newshub): ‘We miss out’: Deaf Māori plead for more trilingual sign language interpreters

Sugar tax
1News: Renewed calls for sugar tax as research finds Kiwis more addicted to sugary drinks than ever
Ben Leahy (Herald): Tax needed to curb New Zealand’s deadly sugar rush: University of Auckland study
RNZ: Sugar more harmful in drinks than food, study finds
Stephanie Ockhuysen (Stuff): Sugary drinks are worse for you than sugary food
Bridget Grace (Newshub): Sugary drinks even worse than sugary food – study

Education
Laura Walters (Newsroom): Public onside as teachers vote on mega-strike
Hayley Jacobsen and Dan Satherley (Newshub): Public overwhelmingly backs more money for teachers – poll
John Gerritsen (RNZ): Primary and secondary teachers to vote on mega-strike
Belinda Feek (Herald): New Zealand’s shame: Kiwis lead the world in student bullying (paywalled)
Simon Collins (Herald): Modern learning: It’s reading, but not as we knew it (paywalled)
Simon Collins (Herald): Modern learning: Maths – getting the right answer is not enough (paywalled)
Simon Collins (Herald): Cellphone ban helps propel low-decile Māori school to top of NCEA ranks (paywalled)
Talisa Kupenga (Māori TV): More support needed to increase Māori teacher numbers – Iwi leaders
Dan Satherley (Newshub): Teaching still a tough job few people want to do – National
Ernie Barrington (E-Tangata): The history I wasn’t taught
Deena Coster (Stuff): Māori language programme for educators gets underway in Taranaki
George Heagney (Manawatū Standard): Manawatū schools shun overseas qualifications for NCEA
Alex Loo (Manawatū Standard): Students struggle to make ends meet on government allowances
Dominic Harris (Stuff): Academic accused of ‘racism’ for saying ‘Pākeha’ after championing ethnic communities
Brittany Keogh (Stuff): Discrimination, climate change and mental health: The big issues worrying young NZ leaders

Parliament
Andrea Vance (Stuff): Ex-Parliament staffer accused of breaching NDA, Speaker Trevor Mallard says they shouldn’t exist
Alison Mau (Stuff): Gag orders don’t work, here’s why
Phil Smith (RNZ): Feeding the hand that bites you
Daniela Maoate-Cox (RNZ): A briefing, a farewell, and a paycheck at Parliament
Jessica Mutch-McKay, Maiki Sherman and Benedict Colins (1News): Inside Parliament: Slushies, census and Brian Tamaki (video)
Pamela Wade (Stuff): Wellington’s Parliament Tour provides an inside look at our government buildings

Māori MPs
Jo Moir (RNZ): Prime Minister reins in MPs over attacks on Paula Bennett’s Māori heritage
Jamie Ensor (NEwshub): Willie Jackson claims he ‘attacked’ Māori National MPs as they didn’t support Nuk Korako
Daily Blog: Willie Jackson hits back
Jo Moir (RNZ): National’s Paula Bennett and Labour’s Willie Jackson in ‘racism’ row
Anna Whyte (1News): National’s Paula Bennett and Labour’s Willie Jackson locked in spat around ‘racist taunt’

Pike River
Jaime Ensor (Newshub): Andrew Little open to cancelling Pike River re-entry if progress cannot be made safely
Katie Fitzgerald (Newshub): Faulty monitoring equipment ‘almost certain’ to be behind Pike River delay – Andrew Little
RNZ: Pike River: Families accept conveyer belt finding, Anna Osborne says
Heather MCarron and Dan Satherley (Newshub): Pike River: Finding cause of first explosion more important – widow
RNZ: Pike River: No evidence 2nd explosion from conveyor belt
Scott Palmer and Laura Tupou (Newshub): Pike River: Police conclude conveyor belt didn’t cause second explosion
RNZ: Pike River: Faulty monitoring equipment likely to blame for re-entry delay
RNZ: Pike River delays: ‘We’ve just got to carry on’
Herald: Pike River: Speeches and ceremony to go ahead despite delay
Stuff: Oxygen in Pike River tunnel didn’t get in through mine entrance
Patrick Gower (Newshub): ‘The man in the mountain’: Pike River child visits resting place of father she never met

Environment and conservation
Judy Lawrence (stuff): New Zealand needs transformational change for a changing climate
Sarah Thomson (Spinoff): Hey, Jacinda. Listen to Greta
Amber-Leigh Woolf (Stuff): Survey reveals most of us believe climate change is man-made
Michael Cropp (RNZ): Kaipara ‘sending a signal’ about climate change
Isobel Eweing (Newshub): No plans for New Zealand to ban polystyrene – Government
David Williams (Newsroom): Why ecologists think Govt’s high country plan will fail
RNZ: New Great Walk decision delayed, more work needed – Department of Conservation
Jamie Morton (Herald): Fears of overuse as crowds flock to ‘People’s Beach’ at Awaroa, long-visiting ecologist says
Anusha Bradley (RNZ): Wood plant’s illegally leaking waste to be fixed
Brianna McIlraith (Taranaki Daily News): National MP Erica Stanford backs school climate strikes, unlike party leaders
Piers Fuller (Stuff): Conservation minister launches wetland project in South Wairarapa 
Carla Penman (1News): Surge in Northland Kiwi numbers offers new hope for survival of national icon

Primary and extractive industries
Richard Harman (Politik): Green Minister under pressure over gold mine turndown
Grant Bradley (Herald): Row over oil exploration heating up ahead of Just Transition Summit (paywalled)
Leigh-Marama McLachlan (RNZ): Māori disappointed ancestral land up for tender for oil and gas drilling in Taranaki
RNZ: Company’s application to buy land for mining waste declined
Virginia Nicholls (ODT): Cleaner hydrocarbons needed for transition
Emma Dangerfield (Stuff): Farmer-led group lobbying for changes to Waimakariri water plan

Transport
RNZ: Auckland Transport to cancel 40 bus services next week
David Farrar: Govt tries to fix problem they created
RNZ: NZTA suspends three more vehicle inspectors from issues WOFs
Marty Sharpe (Stuff): Roads would be safer if last government focused on safety, not big road projects – Genter
Matthew Rosenberg (Stuff): E-scooters strain emergency departments, cost ACC $1.4m reports show
Katie Fitzgerald (Newshub): Truck driver not at fault in Dunedin lime scooter crash – report
Rikihana Smallman (Stuff): Hamilton City Council joins e-bike revolution
Dan Satherley (Newshub): Infrastructure not keeping up with cycling boom – researcher
Bernard Orsman (Herald): Protesters to march across Auckland Harbour Bridge to demand action on bridge walkway and cycleway
Bernard Orsman (Herald): A look at how Auckland’s motorway projects and transport plan is progressing (paywalled)
Bernard Orsman (Herald): Auckland Transport told to change its culture after claims it is ‘arrogant’ and doesn’t listen to people (paywalled)

Employment, migrant workers
Debrin Foxcroft (Stuff): Better pay and more support for migrant builder
Tema Hemi (Māori TV): Positive changes to employment law for Kiwi workers
Susan Edmunds (Stuff): Court backs posties who want compensation for being available for work
Maria Slade (Spinoff): The robots are not coming for your job. With a few exceptions
Tom Hunt (Stuff): A 59-year career with the arts in Wellington ends with an email

Treaty settlements
Te Aniwa Hurihanganui (RNZ): An iwi nearly extinct reclaim identity through treaty settlement
Stuff: Ngāti Hinerangi and Crown settle Treaty breaches
Taroi Black (Māori TV): Waikato iwi gifts land to Tauranga Moana

Insurance
Susan Edmunds (Stuff): Insurance price rises: Govt told to take responsibility for its part
Rob Mitchell (Stuff): Fears rising insurance and body corp costs could make apartment living unsustainable
Rob Mitchell (Stuff): Wellington apartment owners walking away from insurance
Sam Farrell (Newshub): Wellington apartment owners abandoning insurance as premiums spike
Dominion Post Editorial: Risk-averse insurers creating threat to NZ economy

Local government
Henry Cooke (Stuff): LGNZ say online voting could be needed for local elections as postal votes cannot be guaranteed
David Farrar: Postal voting is dying
Todd Niall (Stuff): Phil Goff’s first election policy: Review Auckland Council agencies
Bernard Orsman (Herald): Auckland Mayor Phil Goff promises review of council-controlled organisations if re-elected
Debrin Foxcroft (Stuff): Controversial Waiheke marina passes another hurdle as court rejects extension request
Dominic Harris (Stuff): Christchurch City Council tightens belt over spending on consultants
Thomas Manch (Stuff): Wellington mayor’s attack ‘grossly unfair’, says developer accused of neglecting dangerous building
Debbie Jamieson (Stuff): Proposed Queenstown bed tax drops to 5 per cent after concerns

Christchurch mosque shootings
Veronica Schmidt and Max Towle (RNZ): Chch families desperate as Victim Support holds onto donated millions
RNZ: Mosque terror attacks inquiry to begin hearing evidence this month
Sam Sherwood (Stuff): Conspiracy theorist claims police have visited him five times after Christchurch terror attack
Derek Cheng (Herald): United Nations head Antonio Guterres to pay respects in Christchurch visit (paywalled)
Carolyn Meng-Yee (Herald): The unremarkable town where Brenton Tarrant grew up: Accused Christchurch gunman’s family, friends scared of retribution (paywalled)

Social media
Branko Marcetic (Spinoff): Jacinda Ardern must not let Emmanuel Macron co-opt the Christchurch Call
Paul Brislen (RNZ): Opinion: Facebook changes will let extremists flourish in peace
Max Towle (RNZ): Anonymity on the internet and fighting extremism
Jamie Ensor (Newshub): More copies of Christchurch mosque attack video found on Facebook, Instagram – report
Taroi Black (Māori TV): “Fat, useless, ugly- I should’ve died” – the rise of digital self-harm
Simon Draper (Stuff): Kiwi leaders blind to power and reach of Asian social media in New Zealand

Firearms
RNZ: Gun lobby seeks legal advice on new legislation
Florence Kerr (Stuff): Gun equipment company’s remarkable ‘red tape’ excuse
Joanna MacKenzie (RNZ): Reports Auckland shooting club continuing to operate despite court order

Crusaders name change
RNZ: Rebranding the Crusaders
Steve Deane (Newsroom): (Almost) nobody says it better than us

Oranga Tamariki, child abuse in state care
Newshub: What is Oranga Tamariki doing to improve our child abuse rates? (video)
Dan Satherley (Newshub): Oranga Tamariki confident Budget will deliver ‘hundreds’ more social workers
Duncan Garner (Stuff): Our rotting dark shame is worse than we think
Kerri Cleaver: The Royal Commission into Abuse in State Care: Where is the survivor voice?

Housing
Peter Lyons (ODT): We need to know just who home buyers are
Damian George (Stuff): Record numbers of people buying first homes as rent prices continue to escalate

Ihumātao
Taroi Black (Māori TV): Where are they going to go when Auckland gets too big? – Nanny Betty
Melanie Earley (Stuff): Fletcher Building to close road, blocking home of protesters at Ihumātao

Inequality, poverty
Hinemoa Elder (Stuff): On luxurious Waiheke Island whānau are sleeping rough, the Wellbeing Budget must deliver
Rob Stock (Stuff): How rich are you? Stats NZ’s wealth calculator will tell you

West Coast floods
RNZ: Govt’s Fox River landfill clean-up cash falls short – Forest and Bird
RNZ: $400k more to help West Coast recover from March flooding

Auckland Pride
Felix Desmarais and Kelly Dennett (Stuff): Rival Auckland pride group set to run own parade – with uniformed police
Felix Desmarais (Stuff): Police Inspector ‘really offended’ in email to-and-fro with Auckland Pride

Other
Charlie Mitchell (Stuff): Who is this public agency’s chief executive? It won’t say
John Anthony (Stuff): New Zealand will not always see eye to eye with China, Prime Minister says
Tom Dillane (Herald): HBO hoping NZ Government will pay for Game of Thrones visual effects done by Peter Jackson’s Weta Digital (paywalled)
Matt Shand (Stuff): Domestic violence victim encouraged to accept cash and halt prosecution
Southland Times Editorial: Pokies need better official watchdog, not citizen underdog, vigilance
Finn Hogan (Newshub): NZ embracing gene-editing is a ‘no-brainer’ – Geoff Simmons
Rod Oram (Newsroom): There should be more to capitalism than capital
Kirsty Johnston (Herald): Documentary ‘Fighting The Demon’ inside New Zealand’s methamphetamine crisis launches
Bruce Logan (Herald): NZ law already covers prosecuting ‘hate speech’ (paywalled)
Stuff: Lottery Grants Board chips in $792,000 for Tasman fire relief
RNZ: Controversial statue of Captain James Cook to be moved
Newshub: Capt Cook statue going from mountain to museum
Martin van Beynen (Stuff): Give the royals a break – set them free
RNZ: Waitohiariki Quayle is the world’s first Māori woman bishop
Albert Redmore (Newshub): Maori Council leader Matthew Tukaki bombarded with hateful messages
Liam Dann (Heald): Big Wednesday looms on Reserve Bank rate-cut chances (paywalled)
BusinessDesk: Reserve Bank’s rate cut decision on a knife edge
Matthew LIttlewood (Timaru Herald): Andrew Falloon, Jo Luxton will vote in favour of End of Life Choice Bill
Nicholas Boyack (Stuff): Museum exhibits under threat, as the way we see museums changes
Heather McCarron and Dan Satherley (Newshub): ‘The reality is we’re hunters’: Duck season scrap over claims thousands of injured birds will be left to die
Richard Meadows (Stuff): Easy money: How the new era of tax refunds affects your back pocket
Tamsyn Parker (Herald): Battle heats up to become the cheapest KiwiSaver provider

by Dr Bryce Edwards

The Christchurch terrorist attacks have led to an important debate over the degree to which New Zealand society is characterised by intolerance and discrimination. Severe racism, Islamophobia, and general xenophobia appear to be the driving forces that led to the killing of 50 Muslims in Christchurch three weeks ago. It’s important to examine whether there are any connections between this extreme intolerance and wider prejudice in New Zealand society.

There have been many personal testimonies of discrimination, and analysis, highlighting religious and racial intolerance in New Zealand. But a debate needs more than anecdotes and assertions. Rigorous evidence and analysis is also required. In this regard, Simon Chapple of Victoria University of Wellington has just released some useful analysis of survey evidence about New Zealand attitudes and experiences of discrimination.

Chapple is a veteran social science researcher, and now heads the Institute of Governance and Policy Studies in Wellington. In a summary titled “How discriminatory and intolerant are New Zealanders?”, (not yet online), he explores a range of survey evidence about people’s experience of discrimination and how much tolerance New Zealanders have for others. Chapple concludes that, although discrimination exists, particularly towards ethnic and migrant communities, its occurrence can be seen as relatively small.

Looking at details from the most recent Statistics New Zealand General Social Survey, Chapple finds that levels of people reporting discrimination are relatively low, and don’t differ markedly between different ethnic groups: “Of New Zealand Europeans, 85.4 percent report no discrimination. Rates for Pacific (80.1 percent), Maori (74.4 percent) and Asian New Zealanders (73.4 percent) are lower, but still very high.”

Overall, “most New Zealanders – 83.1 percent – report no discrimination”. But what about different types of migrants? Chapple says: “there is little difference in reported discrimination between New Zealand-born people (83.5 percent report no discrimination) and long-term migrants (83.7 percent). However, while a large majority of recent migrants (74.3 percent) also report no discrimination, the figure was smaller.”

Looking at how comfortable people say they are about living amongst people with religions or ethnicities that differ from their own, the survey is also instructive: “In terms of acceptance of religious and ethnic diversity, the vast majority of New Zealanders indicate they are comfortable or very comfortable with a neighbour with a different religion (87.4 percent), and a neighbour from a different ethnic group (88.7 percent).”

Furthermore, the survey evidence suggests that there “is no notable difference in the tolerance expressed towards religious and ethnic groups as neighbours by migrant status, main ethnic category, or region.” Also, looking at the results for people living near where the Christchurch terrorist attacks took place, Chapple concludes, “Canterbury on this evidence is not a local hot-bed of discrimination and intolerance.”

Chapple then draws attention to the New Zealand Attitudes and Values Study, which is run out of the University of Auckland, and is specifically interested in attitudes to Muslims, Asians and Arabs. In this, respondents are asked to indicate their feelings towards people from this group on a 1-to-7 scale, in which 1 means “no anger”, 4 means “neutral”, and 7 is “anger”. The mean average results, according to Chapple, are: Muslims 2.93; Arabs 2.85; and Asians 2.55.

Obviously, there will be different interpretation of all this data. But according to Chapple, it clearly backs up Jacinda Ardern’s post-Christchurch message of inclusion: “This is not us”.

One of her most famous statements was: “We were not a target because we are a safe harbour for those who hate. We were not chosen for this act of violence because we condone racism, because we are an enclave for extremism. We were chosen for the very fact that we are none of these things.”

However, some have strongly objected to Ardern’s “This is not us” formulation, and proposed the exact opposite: “This IS us”. This was best illustrated by cartoonist Toby Morris in a very powerful comic strip – see: This is us. The cartoon concludes with a reply, seemingly directed at the prime minister for underplaying racism and separating New Zealanders from the killer: “But when we don’t say anything, we let a vile seed grow. This bullshit idea of US and THEM. But that’s wrong. There’s only us. All of us. This is us.”

For an even stronger reaction to Ardern’s “This is not us” statement, see Sahar Ghumkhor’s The hypocrisy of New Zealand’s ‘this is not us’ claim, which is published on the Al Jazeera news website. She says, “As a Muslim who grew up in New Zealand, this statement didn’t sit well with me”, and the statement itself reflects a ‘narcissistic self-view’ that actually arises out of racism itself.

Ghumkhor argues that the terrorist was neither an aberration nor an exception from New Zealand life, but instead “an integral part of the collective ‘we’ in New Zealand”. To suggest otherwise “is plain denialism and a cowardly flight into the white liberal sanctuary of the ‘third way’ from the discomfort of reality.”

She says Ardern’s words “signal that the majority is refusing and rejecting shame, the experience of which is key in the pursuit of restorative justice.” Instead, the reality is that “rampant Islamophobia in the political scene has been amplified by equally racist media which have systematically portrayed Muslims as inherently violent and ‘backward’ and Islam as an ideology justifying violence and the subjugation of women.”

A more mainstream version of this was also put forward by historian Anne Salmond: “After this terrible tragedy, let’s be honest, for once. White supremacy is a part of us, a dark power in the land. In its soft version, it looks bland and reasonable. Eminent New Zealanders assure their fellows that Māori were ‘lucky’ to be colonised by Europeans, that te reo Māori is worthless, that tikanga Māori have nothing to teach us” – see: Racist underbelly seethes just beneath surface.

Salmond elaborates on the extent of the problem, as she sees it: “After Māori, the indigenous people of this country, this sense of white superiority spills out over ‘other’ groups – Pasifika, Asian people, and now Muslims in Christchurch. Many of these people have been sworn at, punched and jostled, treated as aliens who have no place among us. Contempt breeds contempt, and hatred can breed hatred. Sometimes they strike back, as you would expect — although more often than not, at those close at hand.”

The argument is made by a number of commentators that racism and Islamophobia has been “normalised” in New Zealand in recent years, and this has in some way enabled the terrorist to carry out the atrocities in Christchurch.

For example, according to former Race Relations Conciliator, Susan Devoy, even those people who disagreed with her own controversial campaign around how to celebrate Christmas are complicit: “If you were one of those commentators: do not write an op-ed today crying about how shocking yesterday’s murders were. Because you helped make it happen. You helped normalise hatred in our country. You helped those murderers feel that they were representing the thoughts of ordinary New Zealanders” – see: Hatred lives in New Zealand.

Monica Carrer has put forward her problem with Ardern’s statement: “The danger, however, is to dismiss the fact that we do have a problem with race, and it is deeply entrenched in our society. We cannot simply hope that it was just the act of a mad bunch of people, and that once they are caught it will all be OK. We need to do something about this, we need to address the uncomfortable everyday reality of racism. Not just the open racism that ends up in violence, but also all those invisible everyday acts that silently hurt every single day” – see: We need to address everyday reality of racism to shut down acts of terror.

Some of the strongest recent statements about the extent of racism, have come from Green Party MPs. Co-leader Marama Davidson spoke at a vigil in Auckland in the week following the killings, where a number of those attending walked out, complaining the event was more focused on racism than mourning – see Michael Neilson’s Christchurch vigil or political rally? Why some people walked out of Auckland Domain event.

According to this report, “official speakers strongly challenged the rallying cry that last week’s atrocity that killed 50 Muslim worshippers and injured dozens more was ‘not us’. Muslim and tāngata whenua speakers covered experiences of everyday racism and violence they face, and spoke to New Zealand’s white settler history and colonial violence.”

Critics of the event said that the anti-racism campaigning and general politicisation was “too soon”, which led Marama Davidson to argue it was actually “too late” to be having these conversations. Furthermore: “A lot of people wanted to separate what happened in Christchurch from politics, but if we have any hope of truly honouring those who passed we need to listen to our Muslim, Māori, Pacific and migrant communities, all saying this is not just about a violent shooter, but about everyday racism.”

Finally, for some other recent evidence about tolerance and racial attitudes, Lincoln Tan reported last month on a survey, the Perceptions of Asia and Asian Peoples from a Te Ao Māori Perspective – see: Māori feel positive about Asians, but not if they’re immigrating – study. Here’s the main findings: “Māori feel a strong cultural connection with Asia and eight in 10 have positive feelings about Asians, a new study has found. But just three in 10 welcomed Asian immigration – with 38 per cent viewing it as negative and 32 per cent neutral.”

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.

by H.E. Mr Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Turkey

This week Istanbul will host two separate but related international conferences on mediation. One will be devoted to the state of play in the conflict map and capacity for mediation within the membership of the Organization for Islamic Cooperation (OIC). The second one will adopt a broad scope and discuss the connections between sustainable development, peace and mediation; the ways to increase gender and youth inclusion in mediation processes; and a thought provoking session on the role of big data and artificial intelligence in conflict and mediation analysis. It may be thought that conferences are conferences but the Istanbul Mediation Conferences have proven rather influential in cultivating a shared understanding of issues and an agenda for action in the field of mediation and peaceful conflict resolution. As the host of these conferences and the only country that co-chairs the Friends of Mediation Groups in three distinct important international organizations, namely the United Nations, the OIC and the OSCE, Turkey has the ability to share the findings of these conferences in these international organizations.

The fact of the matter is that humanity is facing a distinct challenge in the 21^st century. Just when many people thought that the glass is half full in terms of the achievements in international law, institutions, democracy and the rule of law, accountability, free trade, gender equality and others, the empty half of the glass has begun to reassert itself. The symptoms are known to all of us and need no reminding. Trade wars, new forms of international exploitation, geopolitical competitions, great power proxy wars, disintegrating nation states, terrorism, xenophobia, animosity against Islam, raging inequalities and injustice count among the contemporary trends that make up the glass half empty. The challenges of humanity are eating away the achievements and opportunities of humanity. Which side will prevail? The answer depends on how we respond to challenges, including on how much we humans can work together towards positive outcomes. One point is clear: unless we take initiative and be enterprising and humanitarian, the bad will prevail. Wait-and-see attitude is no longer tenable. Policy options differ from mediation to actual use of force against terrorists.

Take the situation in Syria. Turkey’s enterprising and humanitarian approach cleared a total of 4000 square kilometers from two terrorist organizations, DEASH and PKK/PYD/YPG. Had we not intervened, our people would have been under continued assault from these terrorists and a political solution to the Syrian tragedy would have been unreachable. Turkey is doing utmost to relieve humanitarian suffering, hosting the greatest number of refugees worldwide, spending more than the biggest economy in the world as the world’s top humanitarian spender. Turkey is also brokering agreements that save tens if not hundreds of thousands of lives and promoting a political solution based on the territorial integrity of the neighboring Syria.

I gave the example of Syria for a reason. Syria demonstrates to us once again that prevention is important because once the fire of conflict engulfs a nation, then the only thing that remains predictable is that there will be unpredictable consequences on that state. One generation of citizens will be wasted in one way or the other; the future will also be bleak. Everyone, including those who are thousands of kilometers away will come to suffer, either in the form of terrorist threat, economic shock, irregular migration, or wounded human conscience.

If prevention and peaceful resolution of conflicts are of paramount importance, then we must take it seriously. This appreciation is driving Turkey’s efforts in the field of mediation as the co-chair of the UN, OSCE and OIC friends of mediation groups and the host to a capacity building mediation training program and the two mediation conferences that we will organize in Istanbul this week.

EDITOR’S NOTE: This is an unofficial English translation of the original French text.

***

Nowadays, the hardest challenges European countries confront are fighting against terrorist organizations such as DAESH and the management of migration flows. Turkey continues to hold an essential role within the context of international efforts in overcoming these challenges.

It is Turkey, who has enabled the European Union (EU) to regulate the Syrian migration flow. Turkey has not only hosted three and a half million Syrian refugees, but also saved the lives of thousands of people by halting their risky attempts to get across the Aegean Sea in order to reach Western Europe.

Turkey is one of the first countries to recognize DAESH as a terrorist organization. Moreover, our country is a member of the International Coalition, established to counter DAESH.

Whereas some Western countries have not been able to control even the transiting of jihadists through their airports, Turkey has denied the entry of more than four thousand suspected travelers on her territory; deported almost six thousand terrorists; arrested more than ten thousand DAESH and Al-Qaida members; and exerted great efforts to ensure the security of her 911 kilometers long land border with Syria.

While other coalition members have not gone beyond a very symbolic presence on the field, only Turkey has fought with her land forces against DAESH alongside with the Free Syrian Army since 2016. 

Operation “Euphrates Shield” is an exceptional -even unique- operation to serve as a model in this respect, which was directed by the Turkish Army and ensured the liberation of Jarabulus, Al-Bab and surrounding cities, as well as the peaceful return of hundreds of thousands of Syrians back home.

In that case, could we say that Turkey, against which the Europeans lean their back in terms of their security, is understood correctly? Could we say that our country’s actions are conveyed correctly and that they are appreciated? Unfortunately, this is not the case.

Anti-Turkey discourse prevalent in the West today, is a partial reflection of the increase in xenophobia and Islamophobia, which are fed by Western extremists’ instrumentalization of migrant flows. Furthermore, some unscrupulous politicians, with the goal of satisfying their voters, have tried to conceal their anti-Muslim and xenophobic messages, disguised as their “political truthfulness” in their opposition against Turkey’s EU accession.

This discourse also stems from those underestimating threats faced by Turkey in recent years, and blaming its leaders of becoming authoritarian, and violating individual rights in an unfounded way. However, which European country could have further respected these rights in the face of violent acts by terrorist organizations such as DAESH and PKK/PYD/YPG that have taken control of the frontier areas; the bloody coup attempt by Fethullah Gülen and his terrorist organization on 15 July 2016; the threats and challenges Turkey has faced, such as the economic and social burden of Syrian refugees at Turkish taxpayers’ expense? Actually, no country except for Turkey could have better dealt with such various challenges simultaneously.

Turkey, which is a founding member of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, is a party to the European Convention on Human Rights. This Convention guarantees that individual rights of all citizens are respected by also the Turkish Justice as in other European countries. Accordingly, no one could allege that these rights are less respected in Turkey than in any other country in Europe.

Thanks to its determination, Turkey today manages to prevent terrorist organizations such as DAESH or PKK/PYD/YPG from taking any action on her territory. Advances recorded in the fight against FETO will soon allow the Turkish Government to lift the state of emergency. One can recall that it took seven hundred and nineteen days to end the state of emergency in France.

Today, Turkey enjoys a sound political stability and has the highest economic growth rate among European countries. Turkey, welcoming nearly forty million tourists each year, also continues to be one of the world’s safest tourist destinations.

Turkey’s priority, as a country exerting every effort in finding a political solution in Syria, is to eliminate any terrorist presence on her border with this country, which also constitutes the border of Europe and NATO with the Middle East.

Operation “Olive Branch” conducted in Afrin against the PKK/PYD/YPG and their associate DAESH, will therefore continue until this goal is fully achieved. At all costs, Turkey will not allow this terrorist organization to occupy Syrian territory on her borderline and will do her best to demonstrate the gravity of their mistake to her allies who falsely think that using PKK/PYD/YPG terrorists as mercenaries in their so-called fight against DAESH is a good idea.

Our allies will realize that Turkey is, and will remain, their best ally for the security of Europe and the region.