Peace Researcher

ISSN 1173-2679

Journal of the Anti-Bases Campaign November 2015

Number 50

INTELLIGENCE REVIEW WHITEWASH! In this issue: GCSB, CIA, Police Spy, Weapons Conference, Drones, Militarism Peace Researcher 50 November 2015

In this issue ... 2 The Government’s SIS And GCSB Review: Responses

by Warren Thomson

THE GOVERNMENT’S SIS AND GCSB REVIEW: RESPONSES - Warren Thomson

16 Stop The Spies! by Stop The Spies 18 Spooky Bits by Warren Thomson 21 Cops Pay Out Spy & Agent Provocateur For “Mental Pain” by Murray Horton 23 New Zealand’s Homegrown MilitaryIndustrial Complex by Valerie Morse 25 Militarist Market Strategy And Tactics. Global Capitalist Ideology And Growing Crisis by Dennis Small 36 CAFCA/ABC Organiser Account Financial Report For Year Ended 31/3/15

by James Ayers, Organiser Account Treasurer Reviews by Jeremy Agar 37 “Kill Chain: Drones And The Rise Of High-Tech Assassins”, by Andrew Cockburn 37 “We Kill Because We Can: From Soldiering To Assassination In The Drone Age”, by Laurie Calhoun

In

July 2015 an official media release from the Justice Department announced that Sir Michael Cullen and Dame Patsy Reddy would head a Review into NZ spy organisations, reporting by the end of February 2016. This represented the Government’s cynical manoeuvre in response to a promise made to MP Peter Dunne for providing Key and Co with the one slimy vote that enabled them to pass the new GCSB Act in 2013 and legislate on greater powers for the spooks; however the Review was greeted with scepticism from the start. Moreover, when the online questionnaire format was presented, many people, both academics and radicals, immediately dismissed the exercise as impossibly restrictive to the extent that it could only be viewed as a hollow charade designed to give public credence to the existing spook regime. While Anti-Bases Campaign (ABC) took the view that this was one of a very few opportunities we get to publicly attack the system, many interested people refused to take part, including some who have been victims of the system and have had serious grievances with NZ spook operations. It is very likely that the Review will be followed by more legislation further empowering the spooks. And the current full-on public relations exercises being carried out by the various directors of the spies points to further softening up in this direction. So, for ABC, any way that public attention can be focused on the Security Intelligence Service (SIS) and Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB), and the urgency of closing them down, should be pursued with commitment and perseverance. We reprint a selection of the submissions below, part of our efforts to contribute to a wider understanding of the serious problems posed by the activities of these secret organisations, and to encourage everyone concerned about the spook operations to come together, firstly to contain further legislative licence for the spies, and secondly, to close them down,

40 Tribute to Peter Williams

by Murray Horton

Here are four of the submissions made to the Intelligence and Security Review from: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Cover photo: Stop The Spies protest, Wellington, September 2015. GCSB Acting Director Una Jagose at mike. Holding banner: Valerie Morse (l) & Frances Mountier.

Published by Anti-Bases Campaign (ABC) PO Box 2258, Christchurch 8140, New Zealand [email protected] www.converge.org.nz/abc www.facebook.com/AotearoaABC 2

Peace Researcher 50 November 2015

Anti-Bases Campaign The Council of Trade Unions Former Green MP Keith Locke ABC Committee member Warren Thomson

Anti-Bases Campaign 1. Preamble The ABC wishes to express its very great disappointment with this Review. We are very aware that the Review will not truly reflect opinion in this country because a great number of people who oppose the activities of both the Government Communications Security Bureau and the Security Intelligence Service have refused to take part in a process which they see as a managed charade and an attempt to legitimise the operations and existence of the two spy agencies. The Review is seen as lacking any real authenticity because (a) the online format channelled the submissions into a narrow field which makes it difficult to address major problems with the two agencies and (b) the two reviewers appointed have no standing in the area under review.

vative) Home Office Minister, David Davis, who played a large part in promoting the Bill that set up the British ISC, recently asserted that the ISC had been “captured by the agencies they are supposed to be overseeing” and that Malcolm Rifkind (until recently Chairperson of the ISC) acted as “spokesperson” for the spy agencies rather than a watchdog. To quote two members of the British House of Lords: “Recent events have shown that the Intelligence and Security Committee, as currently constituted, is not really effective” (Foulkes) The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, which gives legislative justification for GCHQ surveillance, “… is plainly inadequate to deal with the situation caused by the advances in interception technology” (Sharkey). Citizens who wish to make a submission and choose to use the online format have been given very limited opportunity to express their major criticism of the spies, and in particular, the GCSB. This major criticism involves the integration of the GCSB into the Five Eyes network. Amongst NZ citizens there is widespread anger (a) with the association of the GCSB with massive surveillance – as demonstrated from the Edward Snowden revelations; (b) with murderous and exjudicial drone attacks (one of which killed a NZ citizen) and US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) renditions and torture (some of which may be based on information collected by the Waihopai spy base and/or GCSB personnel); and (c) with bullying small Pacific Island states and citizens and using intercepted communications as the basis for political and commercial manipulation, both by this country and, more importantly, by the United States. The two reviewers appointed to oversee this Review have no credibility. Firstly, Dame Helen Reddy has no background in the field and therefore none of the knowledge required to interrogate officials and experts who need to be asked some very penetrating questions. The spies have every opportunity to cover up whatever they want to. Unless the operational aspects of the agencies are investigated, this Review will be pointless.

Secondly, Sir Michael Cullen has demonstrated a complete inability to carry out duties related to review or oversight of the spies. He consistently maintained, when on the supposed oversight committee, that the GCSB did not spy on New Zealanders and has never apologised for this gross dereliction of duty since it was revealed that the GCSB had been spying continuously on New Zealanders when Cullen denied it was happening. It should be noted that ABC was one of the groups which persistently maintained that the spying was occurring and that oversight was a failure. 2. Oversight 2.1. Five Eyes. Throughout the Five Eyes collaboration there is a consistent pattern of systemic oversight failure. The CIA actually spied on the Senate Committee responsible for its oversight. In the UK, the Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) itself, responsible for oversight, has recently reported that legislation is “unnecessarily complicated” and the regime “lacks transparency”. In spite of the oversight in Britain the Government Communications Head Quarters (GCHQ) was illegally spying on Amnesty International and others. The documented part MI6 played in the rendition and torture of alleged terrorists was never subject to proper Parliamentary control. Even the UK’s former (Conser-

2.2 New Zealand. It would take an act of considerable hubris and stupidity to assume that in this country we have better oversight than the demonstrably ineffective ones in the UK or other Five Eyes partners. Although the warrant system here is more stringent (having the issue of warrants overseen by an independent Commissioner) there are fundamental issues related to preventing investigation of operational activities that make effective oversight impossible. This is why the ABC believes that the only truly democratic policy is to close down the GCSB and the SIS and pass their legitimate duties to more transparent agencies under Police control. Up to the time of the 2013 Kitteridge Report, all NZ Prime Ministers assured our citizens that oversight meant the GCSB did not spy on New Zealanders. Knowingly or unknowingly, they promoted an oversight system that was fundamentally flawed. The fact that no-one has been held to account for the illegal spying is a shame on our democracy. However, the worst aspect of this sorry saga is that Sir Michael Cullen, head of the current Review and a senior member of the socalled intelligence oversight committee, also consistently assured us that there was no GCSB surveillance of New Zealanders. Although NZ has an established warrant system in place there is no evidence of it providing proper overPeace Researcher 50 November 2015

3

sight. Firstly, warrants can be avoided by asking other agencies to do the surveillance. The GCSB and SIS have access to a vast amount of data, including data on citizens of this country, gathered by Five Eyes partners. Secondly, because of the closed nature of the spy agencies, operations can be carried out that are unwarranted and undetected (in 1991, a whistleblower from the GCHQ explained to media that when anyone came to investigate the organisation, files that they did not want outsiders to see were simply hidden away; there is no reason to doubt that this modus operandi continues today, and is even easier because computerstored data is much harder to penetrate than paper files.) Thirdly, in 2014, the GCSB was unable to present a proper count of the numbers of warrants it had open. Fourthly, this year (2015), the Acting Director of the GCSB and the Bureau’s Annual Report gave differing accounts as to whether the amount of surveillance was increasing or decreasing. While a Commissioner of Security Warrants has to approve a warrant there is no guarantee that the information given to him or her will be balanced. When Police are given a warrant on the basis of information that does not fulfil requirements, the issue emerges in a court case. If spy agencies present selective information to get a warrant, no-one can know. Finally, the current oversight committee is a charade as, firstly, it seldom meets; secondly, it is extremely limited in the matters that can be discussed; and thirdly, the Prime Minister has almost complete control over the agenda. Recent manoeuvres to eliminate minor parties from the committee demonstrate how easy it is for major players to control the process. 3. General Comments 3.1 Surveillance Abuses. Because of our Five Eyes subservience, the spy agencies are entangled in a system of domination by overseas interests. Our spies serve other countries’ interests in political and trade manipulation through spying on such as UN representatives, international trade representatives, and political activists. We participate in a “war on terror” that in spectacu4

Peace Researcher 50 November 2015

larly circular fashion requires surveillance to seek “terrorists” in this country who might be inspired by the war on terror to commit some criminal act. While we are committed to serving the hegemonic interests of the UKUSA axis, NZ has absolutely no possibility of limiting Western intelligence and security agency excesses - renditions, torture, drone attacks, subversion, blackmail (all documented over the last decade) although we, directly or indirectly, contribute to these. When a New Zealand citizen was murdered in a drone attack in Yemen in 2013, no judicial process or enquiry transpired. An April 2013 US National Security Agency (NSA) information paper highlighted GCSB intelligence gathering in Bangladesh as one of the Bureau’s “success stories”. It states that counter-terrorism work by the GCSB “provided unique intelligence leads that have enabled successful CT (counter-terrorism) operations by the Bangladesh State Intelligence Service, CIA, and India over the past year”. In its 2015 World Report, Human Rights Watch stated: “The Bangladesh government failed to prosecute security forces for serious abuses including killings, disappearances, and arbitrary arrests…” 3.2 Bureau Weaknesses GCSB staff have been kept on when not properly doing their jobs. Staff morale in secret organisations suffers because of closeted lifestyles. The secretive nature of the job encourages paranoia and inability to properly balance judgement. Released SIS files demonstrate systemic unwarranted suspicion and, more recently, it has been alleged that totally inappropriate comments were made by officers about Kim Dotcom’s wife, showing that the unacceptable attitudes of the past persist. 4. Recommendations 1. New Zealand immediately exits from the Five Eyes regime. 2. The GCSB and the SIS be closed down and their legitimate functions be taken up by properly transparent organisations. 3. The absolute minimum reform

must be that the current Intelligence and Security Committee becomes a proper Parliamentary Select Committee. The proceedings must involve outsiders with the required in-depth technical and/or legal knowledge, and wider community input. 5. Summary Oversight has failed and is ineffectual at best and a useful coverup at worst. Official secrecy means the failures and the mistakes of the agencies are buried in secret archives. The present review must incorporate the David Lange comments of 1996, that “… it is an outrage that I and other Ministers were told so little, and this raises the question of to whom those concerned [in the agencies] saw themselves ultimately responsible”. There is no evidence that anything has changed in the last 20 years, and considerable evidence that democratic control has actually weakened. No oversight system will secure the required effectiveness when dealing with extremely powerful secret agencies. Only closure of the GCSB and the SIS will achieve full and proper democratic control.

New Zealand Council of Trade Unions Te Kauae Kaimahi 1. Introduction 1.1. This submission is made on behalf of the 36 unions affiliated to the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions Te Kauae Kaimahi (CTU). With 325,000 members, the CTU is one of the largest democratic organisations in New Zealand. 1.2. The CTU acknowledges Te Tiriti o Waitangi as the founding document of Aotearoa New Zealand and formally acknowledges this through Te Rūnanga o Ngā Kaimahi Māori o Aotearoa (Te Rūnanga) the Māori arm of Te Kauae Kaimahi (CTU) which represents approximately 60,000 Māori workers. 2. Context 2.1. The CTU has, over many years,

consistently expressed a high degree of concern regarding the increase in powers and intrusiveness of surveillance in New Zealand society including both the SIS and GCSB and their increased powers and wide definitions regarding “terrorism”; the widening of authority to install and use surveillance equipment such as through the Search and Surveillance Bill; the widening of the definition of “security” to include “New Zealand’s international well-being or economic well-being”1; the increased use of private investigators by companies to watch people the SIS considers are working against its interests; the increased powers to make use of informants, aspects of the extension of powers regarding electronic surveillance; and other developments that could be used against people considered opponents of the Government of the day. 2.2. Unionists have long been targets for surveillance and accusations by security forces, despite having a firm basis of legitimacy in domestic and international law. We can provide examples of abuse of security powers and unjustified negative consequences for unionists and other people exercising their rights as citizens in New Zealand over several decades. Those consequences come from the State and from those with a degree of power over them such as employers.

Dominion Post, 25/5/13

2.3. The expansion of the remit of SIS and the GSCB2 to include protection of “economic well-being” meant that any actions or viewpoints with potential economic consequences could be subject to SIS or GCSB activities (the latter through its cybersecurity remit). Most union activity is deliberately concerned with economic wellbeing, as is much political activity in the community. The reach of the agencies is therefore too broad and this heightens the need for improved transparency, accountability and oversight. 2.4. The definition of National Security3 used by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC) in its coordinating role for all of Government is even more wide reaching and includes: 1 Preserving sovereignty and territorial integrity. 2. Protecting the physical security of citizens, and exercising control over territory consistent with national sovereignty. 3. Strengthening international order to promote security. Contributing to the development of a rulesbased international system. 4. Sustaining economic prosperity. Maintaining and advancing the economic well-being of individuals, families, businesses and communities.

5. Maintaining democratic institutions and national values. Preventing activities aimed at undermining or overturning Government institutions, principles and values that underpin New Zealand society. 2.5. Recent revelations include the surveillance of 88 New Zealanders by the GCSB with dubious legality, the events surrounding Kim Dotcom (again of questionable legality and having little to do with New Zealand’s security and much to do with pursuit of alleged economic rights by US copyright holders), and the provision of misleading material by the SIS Director to political operatives in the Prime Minister’s office which was clearly of use and used against his political opponents. These events aggravate concerns that extraordinary powers are at high risk of being used improperly or for mainly economic reasons, that the systems intended to protect against abuse are insufficient and the services lack sufficient public scrutiny. 2.6. In addition, the Edward Snowden revelations added substance and evidence to previous concerns regarding New Zealand agencies’ relationship with foreign agencies such as the National Security Agency (NSA) in the US. New Zealand agencies are collaborating with foreign agencies which can collect and use data to disadvantage New Zealand individuals or to monitor or disrupt legal activities which the foreign government considers against its interest. Data gathered by the NSA – some provided by New Zealand agencies – could be used in ways that are illegal in New Zealand but provide information to local agencies enabling them to evade legal responsibilities. 2.7. An exemplar of many of these concerns is the growing, now widespread, opposition to the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) negotiations and similar treaties regarding international commerce. The interests at stake are, in large part, economic ones and it is an entirely valid civic debate with themes similar to many common political discussions and election campaigns. The economic aspect provides a pretext for New Zealand intelligence agencies to surveil and Peace Researcher 50 November 2015

5

otherwise take an interest in the opponents of the TPPA in the guise of “the protection of New Zealand's international well-being or economic well-being” when the whole debate is about whether the TPPA adds to or subtracts from New Zealand’s well-being. This is far from the normal view of protecting security: it is deeply political. 2.8. The debate over the TPPA is also substantially about sovereignty and democracy with many concerned that it would significantly detract from the practice and principle of these values. It is also fundamentally about the establishment of a “rules-based international system”. The DPMC’s definition of National Security therefore encompasses many parts of this debate. It is unlikely this definition of security will lead to the intelligence and security agencies being used to rein in Government actions despite widespread concerns that those actions imperil national sovereignty, prosperity, economic well-being and democratic values and misuses “rules-based international systems”. Instead it leads to concern that legitimate debate is exposed to surveillance and democratic processes are undermined. 2.9. There is also concern that the New Zealand agencies are used to monitor the communications of small island states engaged in negotiations with New Zealand such as the long drawn out, unequal and sometimes bitter PACER-Plus negotiations (Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations), giving New Zealand even greater advantage. Documents released by Snowden showed New Zealand spying on Fiji and the Solomon Islands, for example. The allegations that Minister Tim Groser’s ambition to become Director-General of the World Trade Organisation was assisted by New Zealand surveillance of his rivals fall into a similar bucket. Ethical concerns are not limited to freedom of speech, political freedom, privacy and confidentiality. 2.10. There are fundamental questions as to whether and to what extent we need agencies for security and intelligence, or whether some or all of their activities would be better performed by (for example) the Police who are open to much more 6

Peace Researcher 50 November 2015

public and judicial scrutiny.

3.2. No.

2.11. We are therefore concerned that the terms of reference of this inquiry are not broad enough to consider many of the most important problems with New Zealand’s intelligence and security system.

3.3. The definition of “security” is far too broad, encompassing, as noted above, New Zealand’s “economic well-being” which opens virtually all political and union activity to surveillance. This should be removed from the definition. The status of the even broader DPMC’s definition of National Security, which presumably has practical effect in determining the activities and priorities of the agencies, should also be clarified.

2.12. We have not answered the multiple choice questions at the beginning of your submission form because it is impossible to do so accurately in such a simplistic way. We are concerned that reliance will be placed on the answers to those questions. They assume definitions (such as of “terrorism”, “New Zealand’s economic interests”, and “adverse foreign influences”) over which there is no agreement. 2.13. However, in general terms, we are as uncomfortable about corporate access to personal information and their potential use of it as we are about State access and use. New Zealanders’ interests are being compromised by the lack of regulation of (for example) sale of metadata and personal information. 2.14. We also draw your attention to our submission on the Government Communication Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill 2013 which contains a number of recommendations relevant to this inquiry. It is available at http://union. org.nz/policy/gcsb-ctu-submission 3. Responses To Questions About Topics In The Terms Of Reference 3.1. Here, we respond to some of the questions from 13 onwards in your submission form. Questions 14, 17 and 18 overlap so we answer them under question 14 but that should be read in conjunction with our reply to question 13. “13. Do you think the functions and powers the GCSB and NZSIS have under their governing legislation strike the right balance between allowing the agencies to effectively protect New Zealand’s interests and ensuring people’s rights are respected? Please describe what you see as the strengths and weaknesses with the current system in terms of striking this balance, and how you would suggest any weaknesses could be addressed”.

3.4. The definition of “terrorism” could be interpreted by an authoritarian Government or a politically prejudiced security agency (both of which have occurred in New Zealand’s history) to encompass political activities or industrial action in New Zealand or abroad which, even if unpopular, is far from what is commonly accepted as terrorist behaviour. For example, s5 of the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 which defines a “terrorist act” includes an act intended to cause major economic loss for the purpose of advancing an ideological or political cause with the intention to unduly compel or to force a Government to do or abstain from doing any act. There are many ambiguous terms used here, and these kinds of accusations are not infrequently made against workers taking strike action or citizens taking disruptive forms of protest. There is an attempt to address such concerns in s5(5) of the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002, but it is confusing and difficult to understand. It is not clear why terrorism should be distinguished from any other serious crime with which our statutes deal. The motivation is what defines it and that can be taken into account in sentencing rather than in broader powers which risk compromising civil liberties. 3.5. These mean that surveillance, threat of which or whose discovery can be intimidating to many people, can be carried out against citizens whose activities present no threat to New Zealand’s security in a commonly accepted sense. 3.6. Powers to use informants pay insufficient regard to the potential for abuse of the informants’ powers and the effect on employment relationships. Operatives who are not fully trained and do not have full

accountability to the head of the agency should not be used. 3.7. Public information about use of surveillance powers and warrants is far from sufficient for the public to know whether powers are being properly used or abused. More detail should be published more frequently. The blanket secrecy around agencies’ funding should be removed from the Public Finance Act and reporting should be public with withholding of specific information only where justified on reasonable grounds. 3.8. There is no longer protection against the GCSB surveilling or conducting mass surveillance over New Zealand residents. There should be a clear line drawn to prevent this surveillance. 3.9. The agencies’ relationships with international counterparts including sharing of personal information provide opportunities for abuse and damage to New Zealand’s international reputation. There is potential for these relationships to be used to avoid restrictions on the New Zealand agencies’ activities and powers with regard to New Zealand residents, and to aid foreign agencies in doing the same with regard to their own nationals. Legislation should protect New Zealand residents against surveillance by foreign powers. It should make clear that the agencies cannot use their international relationships to avoid restricttions on their activities and powers, nor to abet unlawful behaviour by other agencies. There should be public reporting on international relationships and what kinds of activities they entail. “14. Do you think the legislation contains adequate checks and balances on how the agencies exercise their powers and functions? 17. Do you think the current oversight arrangements are sufficient to ensure that the GCSB and NZSIS operate within the law and act appropriately? 18. Do you think the current oversight arrangements give members of the public confidence that the activities of the GCSB and NZSIS are adequately scrutinised?” 3.10. No. The checks and balances and statutory oversight of the GCSB and NZSIS are insufficient.

3.11. While the office of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security has been strengthened, recent revelations about the agencies leaves strong concerns that they are still able to act in improper ways without sufficient and proactive oversight. The InspectorGeneral is still not empowered to stop the agencies from continuing with inappropriate or unlawful activities. While more rigorous investigations by the Inspector-General and her greater willingness to make public critical reports are a step forward, the investigations have been prompted by evidence that has come into the public arena. We do not yet have confidence that the kinds of behaviour criticised or whose lawfulness was brought into doubt by these reports would have been discovered or clamped down on, let alone prevented, if they had not been made public. There needs to be more frequent and detailed public reporting of the office’s activities and findings. Scrutiny by the Intelligence and Security Committee (but see below) should be open to the public. 3.12. The political oversight is still severely compromised. The Intelligence and Security Committee is not a Select Committee and does in general not meet or act openly. It is controlled by the Prime Minister and so is no substantial check on him or her. It has no interest in (or can be prevented from) investigating problems in the intelligence and security system if the Prime Minister is happy with the way the system is working or doesn’t wish to be embarrassed by revelations that might result. 3.13. The Committee should be a full Select Committee with membership not in Cabinet and not including the Prime Minister and with power to conduct reviews, question the Prime Minister, any responsible Minister and heads of the agencies. It should have independent expertise available to it on security and technical matters. The Committee’s proceedings should by default be open to the public and records of its proceedings and its reports should be made public with minimal redactions. 3.14. In short, there is no effective public oversight of the Prime Minis-

ter’s role in intelligence and security. The fact that there is now a separate Minister with responsibility for these agencies only diminishes this concern slightly: the Minister is likely to be unwilling to challenge the Prime Minister and to expose politically embarrassing activities of the agencies. 3.15. The reporting from the agencies is minimal and provides no ability for the public to judge them. The public is consequently reliant on the Prime Minister and the Intelligence and Security Committee to carry out this role, but it may not be in their interests to do so. There should be much fuller and frequent reporting. “15. Do you think the legislation has kept up with changes in technology and the nature of national security risks? If you answered no, please explain why and whether there any amendments you would suggest to respond to these changes”. 3.16. We are concerned that mass surveillance has been made practical by technology but there is insufficient protection against mass surveillance occurring either by the New Zealand agencies or from agencies abroad (such as through provision of data by New Zealand agencies or by monitoring international communications, including through stations on New Zealand soil). 3.17. We are equally concerned at the growing potential for the private sector to collect and use information gathered electronically. This is particularly true of information and communication technology suppliers such as Microsoft, Apple, Google, Facebook and Internet service providers (ISPs), but also retailers increasingly collecting information through loyalty schemes and other means. While most current use may be benign, the potential for surveillance for commercial purposes, which could then be acquired by State agencies, is high. 3.18. Storage of the information is also an issue. Where it is stored overseas it may be subject to surveillance and use by security and intelligence agencies in those countries, and there may be fewer protections for the data of nonnationals than for nationals. This is Peace Researcher 50 November 2015

7

true in the US. “Countering Foreign Terrorist Fighters Legislation 20. Do you think some or all of the current provisions should continue in their present form beyond 31 March 2017?” 3.19. The Bill was introduced and passed with unnecessary speed, allowing only two days for submissions. Such a process increases public suspicion at the motives for the legislation, and leads to poor legislation. It is disrespectful of the public and the democratic processes. 3.20. The changes allowed the SIS to carry out visual surveillance on private properties under warrant, and to conduct surveillance activities for up to 24 hours without a warrant in situations of emergency or urgency where activities related to terrorism are alleged. 3.21. Given that no evidence has been produced about the use or misuse of these powers, their successes and failures, it is impossible for the public to judge other than from first principles. Neither have we seen evidence that threat levels in New Zealand are so high that this legislation, which breaches basic human rights, was necessary. 3.22. Reports from the InspectorGeneral and the Privacy Commissioner on the use of the powers in this legislation should be requested and published, and then further opportunity given for public submissions. The report should cover the situation regarding “Foreign Terrorist Fighters” in New Zealand including numbers suspected of leaving to become “terrorist fighters”; the numbers surveilled and the numbers prevented from leaving New Zealand; the numbers of warrantless uses of the legislation and numbers of warrants issued for these purposes; the nature of the use of Customs data; the number of times it was used; whether or not it was effective in deterring the activities as intended; any concerns of its use or abuse; and whether the information could have been obtained by other means. 3.23. We do not believe that obtaining a warrant is an impossible barrier to urgent action. Provisions 8

Peace Researcher 50 November 2015

could be put in place for such emergencies to ensure that the Commissioner for Security Warrants and the Minister are readily available through secure electronic means. 3.24. While the limitation of its use to alleged terrorist activities is better than no limitation as originally proposed, it still suffers from the problems with the definition of “terrorism” and the possibility that suspicions of such activities were wrong. This comes on top of concerns that the agencies have a record of improperly using their powers (such as in the cases noted above). 3.25. On current evidence, we do not believe the current provisions for warrantless surveillance and special powers to search Customs data should continue. “Definition of ‘private communication’ in the GCSB Act 2003 22. What type of information do you think should be covered by the definition of ‘private communication’ (and therefore protected under section 14)? For example, should only the content of communications be protected, or metadata (e.g., the date and time of an email) as well? 3.26. The Act defines “private communication” as follows (s4): private communication (a) means a communication between two or more parties made under circumstances that may reasonably be taken to indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties to the communication; but (b) does not include a communication occurring in circumstances in which any party ought reasonably to expect that the communication may be intercepted by some other person not having the express or implied consent of any party to do so 3.27. We agree with the concerns of submitters when the GCSB Act was amended in 2013. According to the Commentary to the Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill 2013 which amended the Act: “Currently the GCSB does not consider metadata to be a ‘communi-

cation’”. Therefore metadata interception and collection does not require a warrant. Metadata, however, is according to some experts at least as valuable and possibly more valuable that the content of communications when large volumes of data are being intercepted. Information on who is communicating with whom, how often, from where to where and at what times can be highly intrusive and useful to the agencies. 3.28. We also agree with submitters who expressed concern that the “reasonableness to expect interception” test can create a vicious circle of increased surveillance: the more surveillance there is (or it is perceived or reputed there is), the greater the “expectations of interception” which in turn permits increased surveillance. 3.29. It is crucially important for privacy and confidentiality reasons to prevent mass surveillance and warrantless surveillance. This requires protection of the whole message being communicated including metadata. It also requires protection of communications between New Zealand residents and residents of other countries. 4. Conclusion 4.1. This Inquiry cannot be adequate because of its limited terms of reference. 4.2. We have longstanding concerns about the potential for misuse of security agency powers and these concerns are increased by evidence of the actions and attitudes of the agencies over many years, including recent events. 4.3. There is insufficient oversight of, and too little information available about, the activity of the agencies and it may well be that many of their functions could be better carried out by the Police with greater accountability. We have made recommendations on these matters. 4.4. On specific questions, the powers given by the Countering Foreign Terrorist Fighters Legislation should not continue; private communications should be defined to include metadata; and there should

volvement is redundant, or is adding unnecessary complexity. b. The extent to which the mandate provided by the legislation is too broad and undermines civil liberties and the right to dissent. 1. Security Intelligence Service

Keith Locke, when a Green MP, speaking at Waihopai protest, 2011. Photo by Hannah Coleman

be greater protection of private communications against interception. Endnotes 1

2

3

For example, the definition of “security” in s.2 of the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Act 1969 includes: security means - … (c) the protection of New Zealand from activities within or relating to New Zealand that - … (iii) impact adversely on New Zealand's international wellbeing or economic well-being. For example, s 7(3) of the Government Communications Security Bureau Act 2003 states that one of the three objectives of the Bureau is to contribute to “the economic well-being of New Zealand.” Similarly the definition of “security” in s 2 of the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Act 1969 defines security, in part, as the protection from actions that “impact adversely on New Zealand's international well-being or economic well-being”. “New Zealand’s National Security System”, May 2011, p3, http:// www.dpmc.govt.nz/sites/all/files/ publications/national-securitysystem.pdf, accessed 14/8/15.

Keith Locke In this submission I will address the following Terms of Reference in the Review: Point 1. The legislative frameworks of the intelligence and security agencies. Point 2. The oversight of the SIS and GCSB. Point 3. The Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Point 4. The definition of “private communication” in the GCSB Act. Point 5: The handling of securitysensitive information in court processes My recommendations will be made as part of the discussion on each point. Legislative Frameworks Of Intelligence And Security Agencies My main aim in this section is to look at the particular functions outlined in legislation covering the SIS and GCSB and assess: a. The extent to which these functions are best addressed by other Government agencies, and whether the SIS or GCSB’s in-

The legislated functions of the SIS fall into two broad categories, investigating activities which are illegal and investigating matters that are legal. The illegal activities, as specified in the NZ Security Intelligence Service Act 1969, are sabotage, terrorism, espionage, and “undermining by unlawful means the authority of the State in New Zealand”. In practice, the investigation of these specified illegal activities is mainly carried out by the Police, not the SIS. Take, as an example, the sabotage in 1985 of the Rainbow Warrior, which was successfully investigated by the Police, resulting in some of those responsible being tried and convicted. A more recent case of potential sabotage (whereby an anonymous person threatened to put 1080 in milk products) is being investigated by the Police (since this was written a man has been charged. Police said that the motive was financial, not political. Ed.). Espionage is now a somewhat esoteric offence. With the Cold War over New Zealand is no longer confronted by any “enemy” countries. People still steal confidential information, but when this happens they are not prosecuted for espionage but under other provisions of the Crimes Act. These investigations are invariably undertaken by the Police, not the SIS. For example, the Police were the agency delegated to investigate the theft of Don Brash’s Parliamentary emails. Terrorism is also the subject of Police investigation and prosecution, as in the case of the Rainbow Warrior sabotage, which also qualifies as terrorism, in that a civilian was killed. The only case where the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 has been brought into play has been in a Police investigation, Operation 8, regarding some arms training in the Ureweras. The terrorism charges were later dropped.

Peace Researcher 50 November 2015

9

In the NZSIS Act, “subversion” is defined in a criminal manner, as “attempting, inciting, counselling, advocating, or encouraging… the undermining by unlawful means the authority of the State in New Zealand”. However, a legal case would not be commenced under this broad definition. If there was such a case it would be dealt with by the Police under the conspiracy to commit a crime provisions of the Crimes Act. I am not aware of any SIS investigation in relation to “subversion” that has resulted in a prosecution and conviction of anyone, in the entire history of the SIS. Part of the definition of subversion in the SIS Act is quite dangerous, particularly in the hands of a relatively unaccountable State agency like the SIS, whose work is shrouded in secrecy. This is the part of the definition relating to the “undermining by unlawful means of the authority of the State in New Zealand”. Every day of the week, the Government’s critics (both inside and outside Parliament) are undermining “the authority of the State”. Occasionally this undermining “the authority of the State” takes a technically “unlawful” form as when Greenpeace members climb the Beehive to protest Government inaction on climate change, or sit on an oil rig. Such non-violent “unlawful” action is invariably handled by the Police, not the SIS, and usually in a respectful manner. The danger of the application of this definition of subversion is that it is used by the SIS to justify spying on political activists on the grounds that some political protest may be, even if only marginally, “unlawful”. The comprehensive spying on political activists, particularly those focusing on international issues, is illustrated by my own voluminous SIS file, which covers a 51 year period, from 1955 to 2006. It should be noted that I don’t have a criminal record and in the file there is no indication of illegal activity. Simply, by having dissident opinions I was deemed to be undermining the “authority of the State” and a legitimate target of surveillance – although clearly this was in breach of the NZ Bill of Rights. The definition of “subversion” in 10

Peace Researcher 50 November 2015

the NZSIS Act also encompasses inciting “the overthrow by force of the Government of New Zealand”, but this has almost no relevance to the situation in New Zealand now or in the foreseeable future. There is no evidence that anyone is contemplating the overthrow New Zealand’s well-entrenched democracy. Our best protection from any such views is for us to remain a democracy. In sum, when our security is threatened by the forms of illegal activity specified in the NZSIS Act our best protection is the Police. The Police have handled all the cases we know of in this respect. In this regard, having the SIS as an agency looking at illegal activity is an inefficient use of Government resources. There is an unnecessary overlap between Police and SIS work in this domain. If we didn’t have a Security Intelligence Service addressing criminal behaviour we could free up resources for a more effective and integrated response under the umbrella of the Police. Another reason for not having two agencies looking at politically motivated criminal activity is that we have so little of it, outside of episodic non-violent protest action of the Greenpeace type. We have had no terrorist incidents since the Rainbow Warrior bombing of 1985 and the Wellington Trades Hall bombing of 1984 (which may or may not have been politically motivated). We can’t rule out a future terrorist incident, but such incidents are likely to be rare and exceptional occurrences and the Police are well set up to detect them. It would be best if intelligence in this area was kept within one agency (the Police) rather than spread across two (the Police and SIS). The definition of “security” in the NZSIS Act also includes a mandate for the SIS to investigate perfectly legal activities conducted by foreigners that “are clandestine or deceptive, or threaten the safety of any person” that “impact adversely on New Zealand’s international well-being or economic wellbeing”. Such a definition is dangerous in a democracy because in practice it gives the SIS the mandate to spy on both New Zealanders and foreigners going about their legitimate business. Let’s look at the problems which flow from this

definition. Firstly, in our global age many, if not most, New Zealanders are involved in “foreign organisations” (as defined in the Act) be they social, political, economic, cultural, sporting or technological. We are more and more part of a world community. The attention in the legislation to foreigners and foreign organisations is a legacy of the Cold War times, when there were deemed to be adversary nations. Secondly, in any democracy you are entitled to be “clandestine or deceptive”, that is to act in a confidential manner. In the current political debate around whether New Zealand should sign a Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) both the pro and anti sides are working “clandestinely” (read confidentially) with “foreign” governments and international agencies to advance their cause. Also, both sides accuse the other of being “deceptive”. That is all part of democratic political debate. Thirdly, it is dangerous to give a secret intelligence agency the power to determine what might “impact adversely on New Zealand’s international well-being or economic well-being”. The spy agencies will inevitably see adverse impacts pretty much as the Government sees them, not as critics see them. The debate over the TPPA is again a good illustration. Both sides (the Government and its adversaries) accuse the other of advocating policies which (to use the words of the Act) “impact adversely on New Zealand’s international well-being or economic well-being”. Critics of our current Government also argue that the TPPA would place an extra burden on Pharmac, and by doing so (again in the words in the Act) “threaten the safety” (of New Zealanders). Government advocates would disagree. These are matters for debate, not SIS spying. With the SIS empowered to spy on those who it judges to be impacting detrimentally on our “well-being” they will almost always focus on critics of the Government, not the Government itself. Such an assessment of bias in the use of SIS surveillance powers is not fanciful. As my SIS file shows,

the SIS monitored me for 51 years purely because my political activities (such as opposing the Vietnam War and apartheid) were not deemed to be in New Zealand’s interests. Please note that this is not ancient history. My file goes up to 2006. It shows that when I was a Member of Parliament the SIS was monitoring, with concern, my visit in 2003 to Sri Lanka on a peace mission. The problem is not just that the definition of security in the NZSIS Act opens the door to SIS monitoring law-abiding critics of the Government. There are often negative consequences for those dissenters being spied upon. Many law-abiding public servants, for example, have had their careers inhibited by negative SIS security vets. That is, they have lost jobs, or promotion, purely because of their critical political views, not because of any suggestion of illegality, or their ability to keep confidences. I am aware this is still happening. Finally, under the legislated functions of the SIS, there is a requirement that the SIS, “obtain, correlate, and evaluate intelligence relative to security” and to advise Ministers and other agencies. The relevant question here is whether this function of gathering and relaying information needs a separate agency like the SIS, or whether those functions are covered adequately by other State agencies. On matters relating to politically motivated criminality we already have the Police with its own intelligence gathering units, its own surveillance capacity, and systems to exchange information with other State agencies, like New Zealand Immigration. In general intelligence gathering, unrelated to criminality, I believe there is sufficient capacity in the other state agencies, such as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the National Assessments Bureau. Both MFAT and the NAB, along with other State agencies, regularly update the appropriate Ministers. 2. Government Communications Security Bureau The key question when analysing the legislative framework of the GCSB is similar to that addressed above in relation to the SIS. That is,

what essential functions does the GCSB have that are not better addressed by other State agencies? The Police (with their already wide powers to intercept communications) are adequate to detect criminality, whether it be by New Zealand citizens or foreigners. There is no significant evidence, in terms of cases brought before New Zealand courts, that we need yet another agency, the GCSB, to detect criminality.

that its role in doing that conflicts with its other role, as an intelligence gatherer, in ensuring all computer systems have a “back door” enterable by the intelligence agency. As many computer system operators have pointed out, this requirement enforced by the GCSB only makes their systems more vulnerable to hackers.

There are actually more downsides than upsides to GCSB operations as currently pursued under existing legislation. The GCSB’s operations, as part of the Five Eyes network, seem largely concentrated on intercepting the private communications of governments in the Asia/Pacific and Latin America. This has drawn criticism from leaders in countries as diverse as China, Tonga, Brazil, and the Solomons. One can question whether offending such friendly governments is consistent with the Bureau’s objective in 7 (b) of the GCSB Act, to contribute to “the international relations and wellbeing of New Zealand”. The GCSB’s spying on China, as recently revealed, is hardly consistent with New Zealand’s desire to enhance trade with this economic superpower. However, it has been impossible to have a two-way debate with the Government on the pros and cons of such spying. To date, New Zealand governments have ruled out any debate on the nature of this spying on “national security” grounds, saying it is a matter for them and them alone to determine.

In terms of the useful functions of the SIS and GCSB, as laid out in legislation, they would be better served via other existing State agencies. This would end the bureaucratic overlap of SIS and GCSB work in these areas with that of other agencies, and lead to a better use of Government resources. Among the relevant State agencies to do this work are:

We can conclude, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that we are well enough served in collecting information from overseas by our diplomats, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the National Assessments Bureau, who also draw the best information that academics and journalists can provide. One of the GCSB’s functions is cybersecurity (Section 8B in the Act), helping to protect computers and information systems. This is valuable work, but would be better done by a stand-alone cybersecurity agency, with the involvement of other State agencies. One key reason why the GCSB is not the best agency to fully protect New Zealand computers from intrusion is

3. Conclusion Regarding Status Of SIS And GCSB

1. The Police, who already have a mandate to investigate all criminality, including politically motivated criminality; to use the surveillance tools already available to them; and to coordinate their crime-fighting with the Police of other nations. 2. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the National Assessments Bureau, who already have a mandate to collect all foreign intelligence relevant to the nation. It is a breach of our right to freely dissent, for a State agency to monitor the political activities of New Zealanders who are not engaged in either criminal or potentially criminal activity. We don’t need an SIS or a GCSB for this purpose. As a small, independent nation, New Zealand would be better off withdrawing the GCSB from the Five Eyes electronic spying network and as a consequence not engaging in electronic spying on other nations and naturally upsetting them, with no net gain for our nation. The State would conduct its cybersecurity tasks more effectively in a new stand-alone cybersecurity agency, which didn’t have the conflict of interest that the GCSB has when it is also an intelligence gathering agency. Going along the path I have just described would Peace Researcher 50 November 2015

11

logically result in the disbanding of the SIS and the GCSB, and then the repeal of the legislation which currently guides their work I am aware that my suggested disbanding of the SIS and the GCSB may appear too challenging for the Review Team, but I would favour any amendments to the SIS or GCSB legislation that are in line with the criticism I have made above. Oversight Of SIS And GCSB The present Intelligence and Security Committee is inadequate for purpose. It should be replaced by an Intelligence and Security Select Committee, as envisaged by my Intelligence and Security Committee Repeal Bill, which was drawn from the Parliamentary ballot in 2000, but voted down at the First Reading. Such a Select Committee would have several oversight advantages. It would be more representative of the Parliamentary parties; it would not have the person overall in charge of the intelligence services (currently the Prime Minister) chairing its sessions. It would also tend to be more open, being subject to normal Select Committee rules. Like any Select Committee it could hold hearings in secret, where necessary, but the bias would be towards openness, where practical, rather than the other way around, as is presently the case. The Review Team will no doubt look at those overseas oversight practices which are more open than ours. The robust public interrogation of intelligence officials conducted by US Senate is a case in point. There could also be more open discussion of the general targets of SIS spying (not individual targets, of course). For example, as an MP I could never get the Government or the SIS to engage in any debate over the extensive, but secretive, SIS spying on the Sri Lankan Tamil community which has detrimentally affected the immigration status and job opportunities of many Tamils living in New Zealand. This spying on Tamils raised several questions which should have been debated. 1. Was the general sympathy of the Tamil community for the Tamil Tigers based on support for its nationalist cause (greater autonomy or independence for northern Sri 12

Peace Researcher 50 November 2015

Lanka) rather than being support of terrorist activity which the Tamil Tigers sometimes engaged in? 2. Is it not true that the Sri Lankan Tamil community (including Tamil Tiger supporters) was law-abiding and members of it had no intention of involving themselves in violent action here? It should be noted that, to my knowledge, there have been no cases over the years of New Zealanders who support nationalist struggles abroad which have a terrorist element (e.g. Nelson Mandela’s African National Congress [ANC] or the Irish Republican Army [IRA] contemplating violence in New Zealand. Islamic State in Iraq and Syria [ISIS], however, presents a new and somewhat different problem). 3. Is it not true that supporters of Sri Lankan government repression of the Tamils were not targeted by the SIS even though all reports from Amnesty International, etc. show that the Sri Lankan government more than matched the Tamil Tigers in its terrorist activity (in terms of the kidnapping, murder or assassination of civilians)? The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security performs a useful function, and it is good the Office is now being better resourced. I suggest removing all restraints on which material the Inspector-General can access. In that respect I support the deletion of Section 11 (4) of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1996 which, except in cases where it is “strictly necessary” restrains the Inspector-General from inquiring “into any matter that is operationally sensitive, including any matter that relates to intelligence collection and production methods or sources of information.” We should be able to trust an Inspector-General to freely inspect such material. Countering Foreign Terrorist Fighters Legislation I favour the repeal of this legislation. My starting point is that the NZ Bill of Rights grants every citizen “the right to leave New Zealand”, and this is backed up by the UN

Declaration of Human Rights which states that “everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country”. Taking a citizen’s passport away when they haven’t committed an actual criminal offence runs counter to this basic right to leave one’s own country. It is dangerous for a Government agency to be given the power to judge a citizen’s “intention” to commit an offence after they leave the country, and penalise them accordingly. In practical terms, also, we don’t need this legislation. We are not swamped with New Zealanders going off to fight with ISIS and coming back to commit terrorist acts. In fact, there have been no terrorist incidents here. The legislation could end up being counterproductive in that it would drive any people becoming sympathetic to ISIS underground and further away from wise counsel that they should not go overseas to fight. It is much more productive, and in line with our basic human rights, to have an open debate on which wars New Zealanders should fight in. I have disagreed with New Zealanders going off to fight with the American and British Armies in Iraq, and the Israeli Army in Palestine, but I don’t think they should be prevented from going – despite the documented atrocities committed by those same armies, including atrocities that could be described as terrorism. Definition Of A “Private Communication” Point (a) in the definition of “private communication” in the GCSB Act is adequate for our purposes. It includes communications “made under circumstances that may reasonably be taken to indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties to the communication”. For example, an article on a Website is not a “private communication” but any Facebook site accessible only to one’s Facebook “friends” is a private communication. Point (b) in the definition should be deleted because it opens the door to the interception of communications participants thought to be private, and is subject to a variable interpretation. It excludes as “private communications” cases “in which any party ought reason-

ably to expect that the communication may be intercepted”. Law Processes For Dealing With Security Sensitive Information It is dangerous to depart from an open legal process in criminal matters, or other matters where one’s future could be detrimentally affected (e.g. in cases relating to one’s immigration status). Classified information is commonly politically charged, and subject to political bias. Also, the fact that it is secret, and thereby less likely to be subject to corrective challenges, means that it is often wrong, either in its presentation of facts, or in the interprettation of those facts. The introduction of “special advocates” for the affected person, as in the Immigration Act, offers limited protection for that person. The special advocate is legally unable to communicate any of the classified information to the affected person or their lawyer to enable it to be properly assessed. It may be worth the Review Team’s time to talk to lawyer Stuart Grieve, who was a special advocate in the Ahmed Zaoui case, on these matters. In practical terms, we don’t have a history of cases where guilty people haven’t been convicted because security sensitive information hasn’t been able to be used in the form of secret evidence. That is another reason for not departing from the guarantee in the NZ Bill of Rights that every defendant should be subject to a fair and open trial, with access to all the evidence against them.

Press, 15/10/14

Warren Thomson 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Oversight Spying on New Zealand citizens Spying on MPs and officials Lies and Deniability Recommendations

Oversight • Historically, oversight of the GCSB and SIS has been a failure. A number of NZ Prime Ministers, and one of the persons leading this Review, gave solemn assurances that New Zealanders were not being spied on when this was not true. • Operational matters are not subject to scrutiny (for example, in the current investigation into GCSB support to get Tim Groser into the leading World Trade Organisation position). • Even members of the NZ government do not have the level of security clearance required to access Five Eyes top secrets. Sir Geoffrey Palmer told the media that Cabinet members were not allowed to know that Waihopai was to get a second antenna. • Meetings of the Intelligence and Security Committee are short, infrequent, and there is no Parliamentary control. • Current legislation relies on inspecting officials to have full access to stored data which relies on the full cooperation of the agency officers. Given that Prime Minister David Lange complained he was not given information

about key items, that officers from the British Government Communications Head Quarters (GCHQ) have stated they hid information when inspectors appeared, and that apparently some information related to the Kitteridge Report was redacted in the Prime Minister’s version, we can have little faith in oversight. Spying On NZ Citizens A fundamental problem comes from New Zealand’s participation in the totally integrated Five Eyes system where the close and secret cooperation between partners makes proper oversight impossible. To review NZ agencies without reference to the Five Eyes partners’ control of much of the activities of the organisations makes any review extremely superficial, if not indeed pointless. It is clear that if there is any difficulty in one partner obtaining information about its’ citizens then another partner will collect the information and make it available to the first. While agency bosses deny this, the systemic collection of information makes it impossible to not collect at least the metadata of NZ citizens. In the UK, access to partners’ data is official. “In July 2013, the Intelligence and Security Committee assured us that GCHQ access to NSA surveillance material, in particular through the Prism programme, was entirely lawful”. GCHQ’s access to NSA mass surveillance was also acceptable: It is “… lawful for GCHQ and the NSA to swap and share surveillance material…” (Carly Nyst, Guardian, 6/2/15). In a particularly appalling (if somewhat dated) example, Mike Frost, who worked for the Canadian Communications Security Establishment (CSE), stated to a public meeting in Christchurch (during his 2001 NZ speaking tour organised by Anti-Bases Campaign) that his organisation had spied on British Cabinet Ministers at the behest of Margaret Thatcher, who didn’t trust her colleagues. Amongst other things, the Edward Snowden papers revealed that British citizens have been caught up in American mass surveillance programmes, with one NSA memo describbing how “… personal data about Britons is being put in databases where it can be made Peace Researcher 50 November 2015

13

available to other members of the US intelligence and military community”. A separate draft memo, marked top secret and dated 2005, revealed a proposed NSA procedure for spying on the citizens of the UK and other members of the Five Eyes intelligence sharing alliance – Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. The memo makes clear that “… partner countries must not be informed about this surveillance or even the procedure itself” (Hopkins and Taylor, Guardian, 21/11/13; my emphasis). Canadian authorities have expressed concerns about bulk collection of citizens’ data on behalf of allies, but we should treat denials about GCSB/SIS allies spying on New Zealanders on the same level as earlier denials about the agencies spying on NZ citizens. For example, it is hardly credible that US monitoring of NZ journalist Jon Stephenson in Afghanistan was not accessed by the SIS and/or GCSB, if not requested by them. The ubiquitous and intrusive capabilities of the Five Eyes system means it is extremely simple for one country to spy on citizens of another. The total collection policies of the Five Eyes regime mean that all international communications of New Zealanders are hoovered up; the only point of dispute is how the data is used (revealed NSA documents and former NSA Directors have heavily emphasised that the Five Eyes mission is to: “Sniff it all, know it all, collect it all, process it all, and exploit it all”). One of the NSA documents released by Snowden records a 2009 meeting at NSA headquarters where a GCSB officer reported that a fifth of the Kiwi analysts at the time did not have access to key NSA databases (note: presumably, 4 out of 5 did so). “This is a particularly significant issue for the GCSB,” the officer stated “… as they provide NSA with [New Zealand] data” and it meant some GCSB analysts were “… unable to query or access NZL data”. It is extremely simple for other countries’ spies to collect information on New Zealanders which can then be accessed by the NZ agencies, thus circumventing any restrictions or warrants. ‘We are hugely grateful for the intelligence that we receive from other countries’ according to the Director of the SIS 14

Peace Researcher 50 November 2015

(speech by Rebecca Kitteridge, SIS Website). One very important question is: “How was such intelligence collected?” Former Director of the GCSB Sir Bruce Ferguson told the media that his agency carried out “… a kind of mass surveillance”. The Prime Minister has tried to deny this. The GCSB and other Five Eyes partners maintain that their systems are not “mass surveillance” because they only access a small amount of the data they collect. The UK Intelligence and Security Committee (IS C) report at the beginning of 2015 revealed that "bulk datasets" are acquired, but it claimed: "Given the extent of targeting and filtering involved, it is evident that while GC HQ's bulk interception capability may involve large numbers of emails, it does not equate to blanket surveillance, nor does it equate to indiscriminate surveillance”. However, the truly alarming aspect of current Five Eyes operations is the fact that the agencies are setting up data storage on an unimaginable scale; the new NSA data storage facility in Utah has a sufficient number of exabytes available to store the entire sum of human knowledge. Canada and Australia have just completed large modern secret data storage units. The Australian Parliament has a Bill on the table to allow Australian agencies to hold all communications intercepted for a period of two years. So while there may be misleading statements made about the small and immediately investigated amount of data intercepted; virtually all communications from all sources will be kept in storage for access if the agencies want to use it. In Terms Of Data Security We Should Note That: 1. Edward Snowden was able to access all the data he wanted, including, of course the vast amount of data on NZ citizens held by the NSA, GCHQ and partners. 2. In November 2013 UK Labour peer Lord Soley commented that it was terrifying for him that the files leaked by Snowden “could be accessed by 800,000 intelligence officers” (Guardian 21/11/13).

3. Recently the oversight authority for the GCHQ revealed that it had fired an officer for unauthorised access to data. There have been a number of similar cases where no staff member has been sacked. 4. A recent survey of NZ public servants brought the result that about a quarter of them had witnessed colleagues accessing data in a way they should not have. We have also had in NZ a number of high profile unintended releases of personal information from Government agencies. Given these facts it is clear that release or misuse of surveillance data is inevitable; however, it is probable, given the weak oversight of operational matters; that the NZ public would never find out. Lies And Deniability It is impossible to make a proper assessment of the GCSB and the SIS without constant reference to the fact that the NZ public were told lies about surveillance of NZ citizens and that lies, deception and deniability are an integral part of the Five Eyes operating system. Denials by those in charge of Five Eyes’ organisations and their operational partners have no credibility whatsoever. For example, in July 2014, the Director of the US Central Intelligence Agency, John Brennan, issued an extraordinary apology to leaders of the US Senate Intelligence Committee conceding that Agency employees spied on the oversight committee’s staff, after months of public denials that it had done so. “The CIA unconstitutionally spied on Congress by hacking into Senate Intelligence Committee computers” Diane Feinstein, Chair of Senate Intelligence Oversight Committee, Guardian, 31/7/14). For intelligence bosses, lying is part of the job. An NSA spokesperson stated in August 2013: “The department does not engage in economic espionage in any domain, including cipher”. Since then the NSA has been documented as spying on Brazilian energy transnational corporation Petrobas, economic summits, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, international trade representatives, international credit card systems, and the European

Union Antitrust Commissioner, amongst others. A fascinating historical example is the fact that security archives opened in 2013 revealed that the British security organisations were spying on Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson, which they vehemently denied for decades. The UK also offers other salutary lessons for this current NZ agencies review. In 2010, Jack Straw, the Minister overseeing MI6, told the British Parliament that the spy agencies were under “proper control”. On 5 September, 2011, the day after newspapers revealed that MI6 had cooperated with the CIA in torture of suspected terrorists, Straw stated: "No Foreign Secretary can know all the details of what intelligence agencies are doing at any one time". In NZ it is unlikely that the Government has any real idea what the agencies are doing. Recently, the UK Conservative Party’s former Minister responsible for the bill setting up the ISC said “this Committee monitoring the security services has been taken in by the ‘glamour’ of spying and is failing to do its job”. David Davis said the Intelligence and Security Committee had been "captured by the agencies they are supposed to be overseeing" – an occupational hazard for oversight and reviewing personnel (BBC, 27/2/15). Spying On MPs And Officials Further alarming news in July 2015 tells us that an investigation into GC HQ spying on Scottish National Party MPs was demanded by the SNP Leader and other leading politicians because of strong evidence that British MPs were under surveillance (BBC, 24/7/15). It was revealed that the Investigatory Powers Tribunal was told during a review of the UK intelligence agencies that MI5, MI6 and GCHQ were all operating their own internal policies that did not require them to inform the Prime Minister when parliamentarians’ communications were captured (my emphasis). In this country, SIS files in the past revealed that NZ Members of Parliament were under surveillance, (for example, Keith Locke). It is absurd, outrageous, and extremely damaging to the democratic process for such operations to take place. While

NZ has secret surveillance organisations, and proper oversight is almost unrealisable, the risk of such operations taking place is high, be it authorised or by a rogue agent. When UK Prime Minister Tony Blair said that he didn’t know all the things his spies were doing (“you don't know everything that is happening, that the security services are doing. I don't know about them"), we should note that is more than probable the democratic representatives of this country are in exactly the same situation. We should also note that the current Government has shown alarming signs of being prepared to use information from undisclosed sources for political advantage. It was entirely inappropriate, and deeply worrying for our democracy, that GCSB information about a briefing of then Opposition Leader Phil Goff was used for political advantage during an election campaign. In another instance, a top Cabinet Minister (now relegated to the back benches) was prepared to feed confidential information to a blogger which resulted in the vilification of a public servant. Even worse, the information was wrong. Given such examples, we can have no faith whatsoever that sensitive data gathered by the GCSB or the SIS will not be used for political gain or criminal purposes. Investigative reporters such as Nicky Hager and Andrea Vance have been bullied over sources. Journalist Jon Stephenson was monitored by US intelligence to prevent his reporting from Afghanistan. Another point to note is that in the illegal operations surrounding the surveillance and 2012 raid on Kim Dotcom, three GCSB officers refused to be interviewed by the Police and another one changed the story that he originally gave to them. As with other illegal spying on New Zealanders, GCSB officers have blanket immunity from criminal charges for their illegal activities. There has been little information about the activities of these agencies made available to the public. On the one hand there is no evidence available that these agencies have made any significant contribution to the core security of the citizens of this country; on the other hand, cases that have emerged – Choudry/ Small, Zaoui, MP Keith Locke, and

the personal files released by the SIS - show poor judgement and a preoccupation with surveillance on people who disagree with the Government and represent no threat to the security of this country. Similarly, GCSB activities – focusing on spying on small Pacific nations, and/ or other regions for Five Eyes - have little relationship to NZ needs or security. Most operations are carried out in the interests of the Five Eyes partners and have very little relevance to the security of this country. Note that on the 20th of May 2015, David Rutherford, the NZ Chief Commissioner for Human Rights, said: “Today your and my freedom of expression is threatened by overreaching surveillance”. And: “It is time to make sure that our Government surveillance programmes and businesses operating surveillance-based business models are fit for the purpose of protecting our freedom and not eroding it”. The current Review should take these words to heart. Recommendations 1. The work of the SIS should be handed over to the Police to ensure transparency. 2. Necessary operations of the GCSB should be put under the oversight of a Parliamentary Select Committee. This Committee should draw on experts from the NZ law and technology communities to monitor and develop the work of the agencies. 3. Future reviews of the spy agencies should be wide-ranging and under the auspices of citizen groups as well as insiders. As I expect points two and three to be dismissed as unrealistic delusions, consider the proposal in the UK of former MI6 Director Sir Richard Dearlove: “…an independent body, made up of ‘citizens groups’ and other outsiders, should be set up to scrutinise Britain’s security and intelligence agencies. Such a body, including non-government organisations (NGOs) and people who ‘really understood technology’, as he put it, could have authority and help to reassure the public, Sir Richard Dearlove told a security thinktank” (Guardian, 17/3/15). ■ Peace Researcher 50 November 2015

15

Dominion Post, 24/3/15

STOP THE SPIES! This is a shortened version of the People’s Review of the Intelligence Services, supplied by Stop The Spies. Ed.

Introduction The Stop the Spies coalition, formed in May 2015, is a mix of community and civil society groups across Aotearoa New Zealand. It includes the New Zealand Council for Civil Liberties, Professor Richard Jackson, Deputy Director of the National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies at Otago University, the Anti-Bases Campaign, Organising Against State Intelligence and Surveillance (OAS IS), the Dunedin Free University and the What If? Campaign. The coalition came together with the express purpose of raising public awareness of the intelligence services and the Five Eyes spying network during the time of the official “Review of Intelligence and Security”. This is an abridged version of the People’s Review; the full version is available at http://stopthespies.nz The People’s Review As part of the coalition’s work, we decided to solicit the views of members of the public about the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB), the Security Intelligence Service (SIS), the Five Eyes network, and any related issues that people thought important. The reasons for conducting this “People’s Review” were to: 1. Give an independent forum for members of the public to give their views. 2. Highlight a number of deficiencies with the State-sponsored process.

16

Peace Researcher 50 November 2015

The People’s Review ran during July-August 2015. The public were able to submit at four public meetings in Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch and Dunedin, with both oral and written submissions accepted.

Validity Of The Process • The terms of reference of this Inquiry seem to be too limited and pre-determined towards a conclusion of keeping the spy agencies.

The Official Review The Intelligence Review is a review of New Zealand’s intelligence services being conducted by Sir Michael Cullen (former Deputy Prime Minister and former member of the Intelligence and Security Committee) and Dame Patsy Reddy (State-sector lawyer and corporate board member). The State’s “Review of Intelligence and Security” is superficial and narrow. It does not contemplate a fundamental re-evaluation of these agencies. Rather, it assumes the necessity and legitimacy of both the agencies and their purposes. The terms of reference do not mention the Five Eyes network. As this report was being prepared, it became abundantly clear that the GC SB and SIS see these periodic reviews as an opportunity to put forward their wish-lists asking for more powers. It is likely that this Review, and future reviews, will be used to pass legislation further expanding the powers of the GCSB and the SIS. The People’s View We received dozens of submissions from around the country, covering a breadth of views and analyses of the intelligence agencies. All submissions were recorded anonymously. We have included a sample of the submissions we received, grouped into eight general themes.

• With regard to how the questions are framed (in the submission form) it is very reminiscent of recent consultation on NZ’s greenhouse gas emissions target to which there were a lot of leading questions about how we really shouldn’t do anything because it’s all too hard. Oversight • Well I’d like to see proper accountability and transparency in what takes place. • I am disgusted by the revelations that the GCSB was providing information to the Bangladesh Security Services. They have a well-documented history of human rights violations. One wonders if there are any human rights conventions that the GCSB adheres to when disclosing information, clearly not. Five Eyes • Waihopai is a US station in all but name. It links us to America’s wars. NZ should withdraw from the “5 Eyes” alliance and the GCSB should be closed along with the base. • If we hope for future friendly relations with China, is spying on them really a good way to start?

• Nicky (Hager) mentioned about Pacific Islands - what’s their threat to us? For me, I don’t think it’s a threat. They can never justify it – that’s why they can never tell us. Privacy • A citizen’s right to privacy, enshrined in the NZ Bill of Rights should be sacrosanct, inviolate, except in the most dire of circumstances, when judicial warrants to search are sought and sanctioned. • There’s the old saying: “If you’re not doing anything wrong you’ve got nothing to hide” – gosh the security services seem to have a lot to hide. • Digital “fishing trips”, “profiling” and “mass surveillance” should be declared illegal. Necessity Of The Intelligence Community • Where were our intelligence agents when Ernie Abbott (the victim of the still unsolved Wellington Trades Hall bombing. Ed.) was murdered and the Rainbow Warrior blown up (in 1984 & 85, respectively. Ed.)? • I guess going back to what is the question we’re asking, so I am in some groups and we wanted to ask the questions: “Do we even want these agencies? Whose interests do they serve?” And I strongly believe that they don’t serve our interests.

Effect On Society

a decent life is all around us.

• I think by and large there is a real chance that New Zealanders are sleepwalking into a future that it appears that they are going to hate enormously.

Instead of the Government’s “Review of Intelligence and Security”, we want to open up the possibility of closing these agencies down forever. We are not fighting to reform these agencies because we do not believe that it is possible for there to be any meaningful oversight of what are inherently secretive, politicallymotivated agencies that exist to interfere with people’s lives. We see the Review - including the Government’s call for submissions - as a whitewash.

• Let’s use that time to jump back to the bigger calls that were made nearly 30 years ago, “No Waihopai” “Get out of the GCSB – shut down the GCSB, shut down the SIS” so they cannot have those horrible impacts on people’s lives and they cannot have those horrible impacts upon our ability to organise together. • I am interested in what the implications are of the increased technological capacity for surveillance for who we think we are as subjects of State surveillance. Intelligence Community Establishment And Legality Of Activities • The lack of definition of NZ’s “economic interests” and “economic well-being” are so nebulous as to offer dangerously wide scope for surveillance. • It is impractical to use the GCSB both for spying electronically and being a cyber-protection agency. These objectives are fundamentally in conflict. • I am just a guy on the street and I think, “OH MY GOD - are there no laws?” It just seems like it. These people operate outside the law.

Abolition And Alternatives

Stop the Spies’ View

• The money could be spent on things like health and education, which are underfunded in New Zealand.

We join a long tradition of ordinary people who believe that NZ society would be better without the security services. We’ve come together because we don’t trust these agencies, and we don’t believe that they act in the interests of ordinary people in this country or anywhere else. By definition these agencies are political in their work - the security that they are charged with upholding is the security of those who hold power to maintain that power. Meanwhile life for ordinary people has become far more insecure - the struggle for jobs, housing, healthcare and

• Spy agencies should be progressively phased out, and given protective roles that work towards social integration and goodwill between cultures and nations. • Transfer vetting, law enforcement and information technology security to other agencies, then close the GCSB, close the SIS, exit Five Eyes.

Conclusion The People’s Review has been successful in soliciting a wide range of views from ordinary people in New Zealand about the operations of the intelligence services. It has provided a public platform where there was none. It has provided a blue-sky canvas for ordinary people to imagine a different kind of world. Real questions about the intelligence agencies were raised and put on the table. Whose interests do they serve? Do we really need them? Should New Zealand be in the Five Eyes? In light of Edward Snowden’s revelations and the Kim Dotcom affair, and everything we now know about these agencies, what do people think should happen? The People’s Review has demonstrated the inadequacies of the Statesponsored Review. These are essentially twofold. First, the Review is limited and superficial with predetermined, and largely orchestrated, outcomes that will ultimately result in extending the powers of the intelligence agencies. Secondly, the people conducting the Review are totally inappropriate. One has a significant conflict of interest as a responsible Minister for past, highly questionable, if not outright illegal, activities of these agencies, and the second has not a shred of experience in either the field of security/ intelligence or in human rights law. In the past three years more evidence has come to light making it abundantly clear that the interests being served by these agencies is not that of ordinary New Zealanders: mass surveillance, illegal surveillance, foreign drone assassinaPeace Researcher 50 November 2015

17

tions, the provision of intelligence overseas to governments with records of human rights abuses, spying on diplomatic allies, and the use of these agencies to advance the specific political agendas of the ruling party. These activities smack of an authoritarian State, not an

open democracy. Despite protests going back decades and widespread contemporary disquiet, these agencies have continually enjoyed the nearly unquestioning bipartisan support of the two major political parties. As the

SPOOKY BITS - by Warren Thomson

Cyber Attacks As A PR Exercise For Anti-Bases Campaign, PR means Peace Researcher. For the spooks, it means Public Relations. And the attempt to gain public support for the formerly beleaguered Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) and Security Intelligence Service (SIS) has been full throttle recently. In September 2015 Una Jagose, Acting Director of the GCSB, was scheduled to deliver a speech to laud the GCSB cyber security virtuosity when protesters unfurled a banner labelling the unprecedented talk a propaganda exercise and it was called off. In a later release the GCSB claimed that in 2014 the National Cyber Security Centre, a division of GCSB, recorded 147 cyber attack incidents and that in 2015’s first six months alone, 132 were recorded. Jagose said that GCSB expected that by the end of 2015 this figure would be in excess of 200. 79 attacks were said to be reported by Government agencies. The figures should be treated with due suspicion as the GCSB doesn’t have a track record for accuracy in its statistics. Jagose has been giving out details about the “Cortex cyber shield” programme designed to protect Government agencies and other organisations, such as power companies, from cyber attacks. Cortex was the programme dished up to wow media by John Key before the 2014 election, when the GCSB was under attack for its mass surveillance and revelations about its activities from Edward Snowden‘s revelations. Cortex, of course, was a complete red 18

Peace Researcher 50 November 2015

herring, having no connection whatever to the reported massive spy programmes of the Bureau. Jagose claimed at a forum organised by the Privacy Commissioner in Wellington that the Cortex cyber-security programme has been successful in helping identify and mitigate a series of cyber attacks since its introduction. She outlined a plan to extend cover to local Internet service providers. Such a programme would, of course, integrate the GCSB tightly into the operations of the major Internet providers in this country. Cyber protection itself is a brightly coloured sea fish as it represents only a small part of GCSB activities. And what has not been given any serious discussion in this country is why the GCSB has been given the role of cyber police. A secret organisation with its own agenda, and one which is totally integrated into the system which does much of the cyber attacking, is not one that we can rely on to protect critical NZ assets or facilities. The Five Eyes system is itself a major purveyor of malicious software (and hardware) which Jagose claims Cortex will defend against. Furthermore, many of the most serious cyber attacks are going to be targeting information which is only of interest because of NZ’s integration into US military and intelligence operations. Becoming independent of the Five Eyes machinery would mean that cyber security could concentrate on commercial and criminal attacks – and this is a province that would be served much better by a Kiwi agency without the GCSB’s baggage.

State moves to further expand the resources and consolidate the power of the intelligence agencies, our opposition must become more organised, and our vision of a society free of these agencies more widely articulated if there is to be real change. ■

New Deputy For The Spy Boss Sought Jagose was appointed as a “temporary” Director of GCSB. In due course she will be replaced. As this edition of PR goes to print, the Government is seeking someone to be Deputy Director of the GCSB. In an advertisement placed in the New Zealand Herald's business section the Bureau was looking for candidates with "significant experience" in foreign intelligence or a closely related field". The job, based in Wellington, was described as offering “…. an exciting opportunity to deliver world class intelligence that is indispensable to New Zealand government decision makers and responsive to their changing needs". The new Deputy Director of Intelligence is required for “… the leadership and on-going development of the foreign intelligence function within the GCSB,” and a successful “Deputy Director Intelligence” is required to have “ … significant experience in foreign intelligence or a closely related field and be able to guide the Intelligence Directorate through a period of rapid business and technological change". The candidate has to be “… a talented leader with experience in change management looking for an exciting and challenging executive leadership role”. Nothing about being eager to suck up to the US National Security Agency (NSA), undermine basic democratic rights, or nose through people’s private affairs.

The “Legally Spying” Argument Earlier in 2015, John Key, responding to comments of former GCSB Director Sir Bruce Ferguson, that the spooks engaged in “mass surveillance”; repeatedly went back to the mantra that the GCSB was doing nothing illegal. It is likely there

will be much more of this in future. With the likelihood that the SIS and GCSB will be given wider powers in new legislation following the current Intelligence Review, the activities that the spies can carry out “legally” might cover a very wide range indeed. The other crucial point to note is the one that emerged in the UK when a ruling came from the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (a secret court set up so spooks do not have to appear in a real court) upholding complaints from Amnesty International and others that they were being spied on. The spying was only uncovered because the Government Communications Head Quarters (GCHQ) had broken its own laws about the handling of data. Other non-Government organisations (NGOs) that had complained were merely informed their communications had not been “illegally intercepted”, meaning not that they were not spied on, but that they could have been subject to spying within the law. So, in future, expect much more to hear Key rebutting claims of widespread snooping and antidemocratic behaviour by the spooks by simply maintaining that the GCSB and/or the SIS have been acting “within the law”. Furthermore, look out for Key emulating the UK government and introducing a new court here to bury court proceedings involving the spooks.

UK Spying On Its Own MPs British MPs have been demanding details of spying on politicians since a whistleblower named Peter Francis revealed back in March 2015 that Police compiled secret files on the political activities of a number of Westminster representatives. Those named included newly elected Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn and at least nine other MPs. The spying continued even after they had been elected to the House of Commons. Francis revealed that he had read the files on the ten MPs while he worked for the Metropolitan Police’s Special Branch (Guardian, 15/3 & 1/4/15). But now, spying on MPs has been deemed “legal”. MPs’ communications are not protected from surveillance by intelligence agencies, a court has ruled. The surprise ruling

from the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) found that MPs and other Parliamentarians were not protected by the so-called Wilson Doctrine. The Wilson Doctrine, long regarded as a basic right at Westminster, was put forward by Harold Wilson (Labour Prime Minister from 1964-70 and 1974-76) as an assurance that communications of MPs would not be intercepted. It has widely been understood as a basic premise of Parliamentary functioning. The IPT decision stated: “The regime for the interception of Parliamentarians' communications is in accordance with the law" (Independent, 14/10/15.) The IPT claimed that the Wilson Doctrine did not have “the force of law”. Given that, as mentioned above, the IPT is a kangaroo court set up by the current Tory government to avoid intelligence issues being heard in the traditional court system, the finding should not be such a surprise. Facing urgent questions in the British Parliament, David Cameron, the Prime Minister, has refused to comment on whether any Parliamentarians are currently having their communications monitored. According to the Independent, however, most Prime Ministers, including Tony Blair and Cameron himself, have previously endorsed the Wilson Doctrine. In this country, given the experiences of former Green MP Keith Locke, it would be a foolish MP who believed that his or her communications were protected. In March 2015 undercover Police agent Peter Francis revealed that he had personally collected information on Jeremy Corbyn and two other MPs while he was working undercover infiltrating anti-racist groups in the 1990s. Francis worked for the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS), a secret undercover unit that spied on hundreds of political groups between 1968 and 2008. Corbyn commented at the time: “I am a democratically elected person and it turns out I was put under surveillance for a long time because I campaigned on human rights issues and was involved in justice campaigns … At the Metropolitan Police somebody authorised this and I want to know who. I want to know who ordered the spying higher up, and whether there was any cooperation between the (SDS) and

MI5” (Guardian, op cit). What Corbyn’s current attitude is, now that he is Leader of the Opposition, is not known. Two politicians, Jenny Jones, a Green Party peer, and Ian Driver, a Kent Councillor who stood against UK Independence Party leader Nigel Farage at the 2015 general election, have established that the Police maintained files on their political activities in recent years. Neither of them have a criminal record. A Daily Express report stated that, amongst others, prominent Labourites Tony Benn, Jack Straw and Ken Livingston had been spied on (Express, 26/3/15). Former Police Ministers have told Westminster that the SDS was out of control, and requests by MPs to see files on themselves held by the Police have had the response that the Metropolitan Police neither confirms nor denies that such files exist. In 2013 it was reported that undercover officers in the Special Demonstration Squad targeted campaigners who were protesting against the Metropolitan Police, and who were calling for justice for people who had died in custody. At that time Francis stated that undercover Metropolitan Police officers were sent to spy on the family of murdered teenager Stephen Lawrence in a bid to discredit them. In 2013 it also emerged in a Channel 4 Dispatches documentary that a woman who had a child with an undercover Police officer who was spying on her said she felt she was "raped by the State". In October 2014 the BBC reported that Metropolitan Police paid the woman ₤425,000 in compensation.

The Power Of One The Five Eyes setup has received a significant blow from a 28-year-old Facebook user doing a PhD in law at Vienna University. In a solo legal battle against mass US surveillance he achieved a stunning ruling from the European Union’s highest court that outlaws data transfer between the European Union and the United States used by over 4000 companies such as Google, Facebook and IBM. Max Schrems took up his own privacy battle, inspired by Edward

Peace Researcher 50 November 2015

19

Snowden, and filed 22 complaints against Facebook in Ireland, where the company has its European headquarters. He set up a Website, called europe-v-facebook.org, with the aim of ensuring that Europeans' privacy rights are enforced against "tech giants like Facebook". He then lodged a complaint with the Irish Data Protection Commissioner, asking it to stop Facebook's transfers of European users' data to its US servers because of the risk of US government snooping. The complaint was thrown out as "frivolous and vexatious". But Schrems appealed, and the Luxembourg-based European Court of Justice struck down the framework underpinning the data transfers of thousands of companies, and consequent transfer of European data to the NSA and its cohorts (the US government's Prism programme allows it to extract private information directly from big tech companies such as Facebook). Snowden is reported to have tweeted his congratulations to Schrems, commenting that this could make for a better world (from a Reuters report on Stuff Website, 7/10/15).

CIA Torture And Deaths In Custody Whitewashed In 2011 the Obama Administration started investigating the deaths of prisoners in CIA custody. An earlier probe into a CIA official’s order to destroy interrogation videos taped at “black sites” around the globe failed to result in indictments. David Martine, Chief of the CIA’s Detention Elicitation Cell in Iraq, was one former CIA officer investigated. He was suspected of destroying evidence connected to the grisly 2003 death of “the Iceman,” an Iraqi detainee whose ice-packed corpse was spirited out of the infamous Abu Ghraib prison with an IV jammed into it as if he were still alive. Amongst the many Abu Ghraib photos which showed Americans humiliating and abusing Iraqi prisoners, some showed soldiers grinning over the Iceman’s battered corpse. Manadel al-Jamadi, who US intelligence suspected of being involved in a bombing of the Baghdad headquarters of the Red Cross, was ar-

20

Peace Researcher 50 November 2015

rested in 2003. He was reported to have resisted violently and suffered what an autopsy later determined were three broken ribs. Then, according to Newsweek (Website, 7/10/15): ‘“Before dawn, the injured, manacled captive, naked from the waist down and with a bag over his head, was seen being led into Abu Ghraib prison. A ‘ghost prisoner”, like many in CIA custody, Jamadi’s presence was never recorded in the facility’s log. Roughly an hour later, he was dead”. The autopsy report called the death a homicide, the result of “blunt force trauma” and “asphyxiation,” but the Justice Department declined to press charges (Newsweek, ibid.). An official Senate Report in 2014 listed the following CIA tortures inflicted on prisoners: (1) rectal feeding and rehydration; (2) placing the prisoners inside a confined box to restrict their movement; (3) the use of insects inside the box was also approved; (4) subjection to dousing in cold water during interrogation; (5) waterboarding; (6) many detainees reported being beaten by interrogators; (6) at least three detainees were threatened with harm to their families; (7) sleep deprivation was employed routinely and sometimes loud music (Guardian, 20/5/15). John Helgerson, the CIA’s Inspector General from 2002 to 2009, reportedly made eight criminal referrals to the Justice Department for homicides and other misconduct carried out by CIA interrogators. None resulted in indictments, but neither were there any statements that the accused had been cleared of wrongdoing. However, in June 2012, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Justice Department was closing the cases because of inadequate evidence. Few of the hundreds of prisoners held by the CIA in various prisons were ever indicted. Some were returned to brutal regimes to face a grim, and probably truncated, future. A few, in 2015, still remain in Guantanamo Bay, with Obama failing in his long ago pledge to close it down. At least three detainees, and possibly many more, died in CIA custody. The fact that America’s torturers and murderers seem likely to completely escape justice is just one more part of a sordid, dehumanising, and mostly

untold story.

Appalling Stuff From US Republican Candidates If you thought the present Washington Administration was bad enough in its anti-terrorist predations, take a moment to consider some of the alternative aspirants. Republican Presidential candidate Carly Fiorina has endorsed waterboarding, the controversial interrogation method that has been called torture, as an important tactic to be used when there is no other way to get information. The former Hewlett-Packard Chief Executive Officer, who shows up third in many polls of Republican primary voters, said the 2014 Senate report that called waterboarding – in which water is poured over a cloth on a prisoner’s face in order to simulate the feeling of drowning – tantamount to torture and said it produced little useful intelligence was “disingenuous” and “a shame” that “undermined the morale of a whole lot of people who dedicated their lives to keeping the country safe”. Fiorina also detailed how, as head of Hewlett-Packard, she provided the National Security Agency with a significant number of computer servers in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001. Then-NSA chief Michael Hayden phoned Fiorina and told her: “Carly, I need stuff and I need it now,” she said. The servers that she provided were used by the NSA to implement a warrantless surveillance programme called Stellar Wind. Fiorina also said “I’m not aware of circumstances” in which the NSA surveillance revealed by Edward Snowden “went too far”, although she said she agreed with “the checks and balances”. The Presidential hopeful has long been one of the leading hawks in the Republican field. In the most recent Republican candidate contenders’ debate, Fiorina endorsed a major build-up of the United States’ armed forces and a far more confrontational approach with Russia and Iran (Guardian, 24/9/15, and other sources). ■

COPS PAY OUT SPY & AGENT PROVOCATEUR FOR “MENTAL PAIN” - Murray Horton

The

cover of Peace Researcher 38, July 2009, was titled “Spies Amongst Us”, and featured a photo of Rob Gilchrist, Police spy and agent provocateur (the other photo on that cover was of the altogether more estimable Maire Leadbeater, to illustrate the other half of our cover story, namely the revelation that the Security Intelligence Service had spied on peace activists for decades – in Maire’s case since she was ten years old). The issue included three articles about Gilchrist and his dirty work of spying on, and trying to set up, a whole range of political activists, in Christchurch and the North Island. I wrote the one titled “Spies Amongst Us” and Mark Eden, of the Wellington Animal Rights Network, wrote one titled “Police Informer Caught After 10 Years Of Spying On Activists”. The most fascinating was the third one, by Rochelle Rees: “Busted! How Police Spy Rob Gilchrist Was Exposed By His Partner”. This laid out in extensive detail just how Rochelle did that, in December 2008. It was a major national story at the time. To refresh your memories I refer you to those three arti-

cles (http://www.converge.org.nz/ab c/pr38-180a.htm http://www.converg e.org.nz/abc/pr38-180b.htm http://w ww.converge.org.nz/abc/pr38-180c. htm). Barefaced Cheek Then, as these things do, the story disappeared from sight. As did Rob Gilchrist. But nobody could accuse him of not having barefaced cheek, not to mention a gigantic sense of entitlement. In February 2013 it was reported that he had filed a $500,000 damages claim against his former employers for “lost income, humiliation, distress and loss of reputation”, not to mention “mental pain” (Press, 25/2/13, “Spy Sues Cops For Pain Of Decade Of Deception”, http://www.stuff.co.nz/natio nal/8285326/Police-spy-sues-for-me ntal-pain). Later that same year he mounted a public relations offensive, featuring on TVNZ’s Sunday programme (6/10/13, “Licence To Lie”, http://tvn z.co.nz/sunday-news/licence-lie-vid eo-5600996). On that he revealed the cameras and microphones he had used to covertly film and record people at protests, meetings and in their homes. Among the still photos on the programme was one of him at a Waihopai spy base protest, and several that he supplied to Police of participants in various protest marches (ABC Committee member Lynda Boyd was in one of them). It was obviously a self-serving interview. Nothing was said about his role as an agent provocateur (instead he was described as a “protest leader”).

Nor was there any mention of the sleazy stuff that was exposed back in 2008 e.g. of his having taken nude photos of various sleeping girlfriends and then sending them to his Christchurch Police handlers with derogatory comments. The interview included a message from Gilchrist to those who had trusted him and admitted him to their ranks. When asked how he felt about spying on his mates, he answered: “They weren’t my mates… I was doing a job” (for which the cops paid him $600 per week, plus expenses). I need to point out that ABC was not among those he infiltrated and betrayed – we spotted him as a spy from the outset, back in the late 90s, and he quickly decided to have nothing more to do with us. And obviously he was no use to the cops or the spies when the Domebusters – Adrian Leason, Peter Murnane and Sam Land – got into the “super secure” Waihopai spy base in April 2008 and deflated one of its giant domes, exposing the satellite spy dish inside. The cops definitely didn’t get their money’s worth out of their mole in the movement on that one. I wonder if they docked his wages. And then the story, and Gilchrist, disappeared again. Until August 2015, when it was announced that he had reached a settlement in his claim against the Police, for a confidential sum. In his claim, Gilchrist, working under the codename “Muldoon”, said he was placed in dangerous situations without adequate support, saying he'd worked "alongside dangerous people who have been known to pour battery acid in things, threaten people, make and throw paint bombs, undertake bomb hoaxes, send razor blades to people, lace food with drugs, commit arsons, burglary, assaults and wilful damage" and had faced threats. It sounds like just the sort of bullshit an agent provocateur would claim, because those are the sort of acts that such agents try to provoke their targets into committing. “A Walking Search Warrant”

Rob Gilchrist

But Rochelle Rees, the former girlfriend who had exposed him (and who says she still feels some sympathy for him) presented a quite different and much more humdrum picture of his spying. “Intelligence Peace Researcher 50 November 2015

21

reports found in Rob's emails showed that far from investigating particular individuals or crimes, the question/answer format included broad questions from Rob's handlers such as ‘Climate Change Groups: What is happening with climate change groups in Auckland? Who is involved? What actions might they be considering for the future’ and ‘Anti War/Anti American Groups: What is happening within these organisations? Who are the key players? What sort of numbers are now involved?’ Rob was tasked with providing up to date addresses and photographs of activists. He was asked for details of who would be travelling to protests in Australia for APEC (Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation. Ed.) and where they would be staying. He was asked specific questions about infighting and relationships between individual activists. He was asked about fundraising activities for protest groups. By far the bulk of Rob's intelligence work involved subscribing to all of the internal mailing lists for every possible Leftwing political or protest group. He would forward these all on to his handlers at a secret email address. “Rob's intelligence reports included grim details of our personal lives and in one snapshot during a difficult period for Auckland Animal Action (in large part caused by ongoing Police harassment) he describes his thoughts on our personal motivations and feelings towards each other… Rob's lawyer has described Rob as a ‘walking search warrant’ and that is exactly what he was. Bugging phones and electronic communications is difficult – it usually requires obtaining a warrant and then is resourceintensive to filter for information of interest. Weighing the idea of undercover surveillance versus electronic surveillance, however, there is no question in my mind that someone befriending me under false pretences is far more violating than my phone being bugged or my emails being read. Yet somehow the ‘walking search warrant’ does not require any judicial oversight. “…Unlike a sworn Police officer who goes undercover, Rob had no job to go back to after he was outed. Despite being planted and tasked to infiltrate multiple activist groups for 22

Peace Researcher 50 November 2015

the Police Special Investigations Group (SIG) and paid a regular weekly amount for ten years, Rob was not categorised as an employee. He was only a registered informer and as such the Police didn't exercise the same duty of care or responsibility to either Rob or his targets that would be required if they considered him an employee. “In a response to an Official Information Act request in 2009 the General Manager of Human Resources at the NZ Police stated that the Police Code of Conduct ‘applies to all Police staff, constabulary (sworn), employees (non-sworn), temporary and casual staff and contractors. The code of conduct does not apply to registered Police informers’. If Rob had been considered an employee, they would have had to follow a policy which states that employees may not have ‘unequal’ relationships with members of the public who disclose private information, and that Police managers can assess whether safeguards are needed to manage conflicts of interest or power imbalances. The Police coming to a settlement with Rob in his employment dispute, however secretive that settlement may be, is in effect a tacit acknowledgement that Rob was an employee and therefore they were responsible for his actions. “…I too want answers and I want to know that my experience will not play out for anyone else. I don't begrudge Rob his settlement – if it wasn't Rob, it would have been someone else. He brought this on himself, but that doesn't diminish the duty of care the Police failed to show him. I'm disappointed, however, that his case won't go to court where there was some hope some answers would transpire in public proceedings. Official Information and Privacy Act requests to the Police have failed with a response that refuses to confirm or deny the existence of the information I have requested. “Rob's claim filed against the Police was for $550,000. There is a Cabinet directive requiring any payments for compensation or damages in settlement of claims over $150,000 must be signed off directly by the Minister. I would like to ask Police Minister Michael Woodhouse

what, if any, information he holds relating to the settlement of Rob's case. Assuming Rob's settlement was for more than $150,000, Woodhouse should be privy to some of the answers I'm seeking. Almost seven years since Rob was outed, it's long overdue that more information about this case is made public. The excuses of ‘jeopardising ongoing Police investigations’ and ‘national security’ cannot go on forever. The public has a right to know how these operations are conducted, for what purpose and what safeguards and limits are in place to protect both the targets of surveillance and the undercover agents themselves. There must be a time limit on secrecy to allow for democratic reform and control” (Sunday Star Times, 6/9/15, “Police Spy’s Girlfriend: I Want Answers”, Rochelle Rees, http://www.stuff.co.nz/ dominion-post/news/politics/717447 81/Police-spys-girlfriend-I-want-ans wers). When Will State Compensate Gilchrist’s Victims? In the same article veteran Wellington activist Valerie Morse was a lot less forgiving. “Police spy Rob Gilchrist has been given a pile of cash from the cops based on his claim that he was in danger from the activists he spied on. Neither the Police nor Gilchrist is willing to discuss the situation further. This conveniently obscures the fact that the Police hired Gilchrist to spy on legitimate community groups, and the Police are not the least bit ashamed of their role. Let us remember that in all of the time that Gilchrist was employed as a spy, not one single arrest or conviction resulted from his work. “The Police were not interested in criminal activity. If they were, they would not have tasked Gilchrist to collect the intimate details of people's lives. Instead, the Police were interested in damaging and destroyying legitimate social protest and democratic participation. Gilchrist was an agent provocateur. I knew Gilchrist for many years. He loved playing the commando. In 2007 when the local peace group was organising a protest against the annual weapons conference, Gilchrist suggested that we carry out a bomb threat. He thought it would be a

great way to clear out Te Papa where the conference was being held. I declined. “Gilchrist held ‘training’ camps for activists where he could teach them skills including using Police scanners and conducting reconnaissance missions. At one point Gilchrist came to me and said he had been approached to become a spy for Thompson and Clark, a detective firm. He said he could be a ‘doubleagent’ and spy on them. I did not know at the time that he was already working for the Police, and that he had been approached for precisely that reason. I told him I thought it was a stupid idea. “Gilchrist spied on community groups at the behest of Police who had no reasonable cause to gather information on any of these groups or people. Gilchrist's activities mimic those of recently outed Police spies in the UK operating in activist circles. There, men who have had very long-term relationships with women activists and even fathered their children have turned out to be Police officers or paid informants. Gilchrist carried on a number of relationships with women who were deeply involved in political organising. In the UK, these women have labelled this ‘State rape’ as the men started these relationships for express purposes of gathering information and disrupting the activities of the groups. “Gilchrist did exactly the same. He sought to divide and rule small community groups by sleeping with some women, spreading rumours and generating paranoia that other members were informants. It is obscene that Gilchrist has been paid out for his ‘trauma’. Gilchrist, the Police and the Ministers involved should be held to account for their contempt of the fundamental freedoms we call human rights in this country” (ibid.). Exactly. And the question remains: when will Gilchrist’s victims be compensated by the State for their trauma and mental pain? ■

NEW ZEALAND’S HOMEGROWN MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX - Valerie Morse

For more information about action against the Weapons Conference, go to Peace Action Wellington’s Website at www.peacewellington. org

“A

weapons conference in New Zealand?” This is the slightly shocked response of most people on the streets in Wellington when we - Peace Action Wellington - are out doing our weekly campaign information stalls. Sadly, the answer is “yes”; the Weapons Conference is a yearly event held in Wellington where 200 weapons and war-related manufacturers converge for two days of networking and business building. The Weapons Conference is the public face of an industry which otherwise does not garner much public attention. The questions we get asked on Cuba Mall are: What is it? Why here in nuclearfree New Zealand? And who are these companies? As part of the Peace Action Wellington campaign to shut down the conference, we have begun to gather some answers to these questions, although much work remains to illuminate the full extent of the industry. What Is The Weapons Conference? The Weapons Conference is officially known as the New Zealand Defence Industry Association (NZDIA) Annual Conference. It is the annual trade gathering of both member companies and other military and weapons-related producers and suppliers. The NZDIA is the Government-recognised industry body for the defence sector. It has as its mission: “To create a platform which can be used to establish and enhance Defence Industry supply capabilities, either individually or in partnership with other members or overseas technology partners, thereby providing the opportunity to compete successfully for domestic and international defence contracts”.1

The annual conference is held over two days and includes a large trade show, an address by the Minister of Defence and workshops that typically cover how to enhance business. It also includes the annual Minister of Defence Awards of Excellence to Industry. The conference is sponsored by Lockheed Martin, the world’s largest manufacturer of weapons; its range of products includes intercontinental ballistic missiles, drones, rocket launchers and fighter jets. In 2014, Lockheed Martin’s total sales were US$45.6 billion,2 approximately one-quarter of New Zealand’s entire gross domestic product (GD P). Conference admission is limited to registered participants at a cost of $700 for members and $1400 for non-members. Significant sponsorship opportunities are also available for companies throughout the conference. Why A Weapons Conference? There are essentially two reasons for the New Zealand Weapons Conference. The first is to encourage the NZ government to spend more money on the military and weaponry. The second is to garner opportunities for companies to sell their products and services to overseas armies. There is a frequent refrain from militarists and even those on the Left3 that New Zealand has relatively low military spending. At present it is roughly 1% of GDP which translates to $2.4 billion in 2014. This is not pocket change however you look at it, and, moreover, some recent work4 has illustrated that such an assumption is misguided on two accounts. First, the GDP measure is a percentage, and since GDP steadily rises, it actually means more money in real terms is being spent on the military each year, despite the percentage remaining stable, or even declining. The second problem in the assumption that NZ doesn’t spend much on its military arises from the countries to which it is Peace Researcher 50 November 2015

23

being compared. Typically, NZ is measured against its traditional allies: Australia, the US and UK. But, as Tim Leadbeater illustrates, when measured against “the three countries which joined New Zealand in the top four most peaceful countries, according to the 2014 Global Peace Index put together by the Institute for Economics and Peace”, New Zealand is a relatively big spender. Iceland’s spending, for example, was .1% in 2012, onetenth that of NZ. Needless to say, there is plenty of money to be made in weapons and military-related production in New Zealand. Current contracts include a $446 million contract to Lockheed Martin for the upgrade of the frigate command systems, and an undisclosed sum for the replacement of individual firearms for the NZ Defence Force’s 8,500 active personnel.5 The prevailing view that New Zealand doesn’t spend much on the military helps to obscure the opportunity costs of that military money, money that is desperately needed for our schools, hospitals and housing. Moreover, the push for more military spending doesn’t just come from the companies, but from NZ’s allies, Canberra, London and Washington, that increasingly demand the “interoperability” of NZ’s defence forces with better-equipped Australian, British and American troops. The second reason for the conference and for the industry association more generally, is that it provides support and encouragement for companies to get involved in international weapons and militaryrelated contracts. Successive New Zealand governments have embraced weapons and military-related production as a trade diversification strategy. NZ Trade and Enterprise was a founding member of the NZ DIA, and continues to provide financial and trade support. Other Government agencies such as the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) and Callaghan Innovation have made sizeable grants to NZDIA members and other military suppliers. New Zealandowned companies are supplying military-related exports to Kuwait, Oman, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, USA, UK, Australia, Egypt, Lebanon, Singapore, South Korea, and 24

Peace Researcher 50 November 2015

Protest at annual Wellington Weapons Conference, 2008

various Pacific Island states. These products range from mortar-firing command systems to shoot/don’t shoot simulation training systems. Transnational members of the NZ DIA (such as Serco, Lockheed and Beca) export to nearly every country on Earth except Russia and China. Two trends are driving the continued growth in the world’s weapons and military-related trade. On one hand, military services are being privatised; essential maintenance and engineering services previously done by soldiers are now contracted out. This represents a significant growth area for the military-industrial complex. On the other hand, the relative downturn in spending of the post-Cold War era has receded into a distant memory, and emerging nation-states (and non-State actors) are rapidly arming and enhancing their military capabilities. Russia and suppliers from the Global South are seeing significant growth.6 War is, as they say, big business. Both the opportunities for sales to the New Zealand State and to overseas markets are significant. This is why the NZDIA exists and continues to grow. Who Are These Companies? The companies that are involved in weapons and military-related production, supply and export span a huge range of industries from engineering to clothing to communications and to the weapons themselves. Peace Action Wellington has adopted the definition of the Network Opposed to Weapons and

Related Production to categorise businesses. Companies or organisations that are involved in the production or supply of: Weapons or components for weapons systems or their guidance and control systems

•

Communications equipment, or components for such systems, used by armed forces

•

Military training equipment, including aircraft used for military training purposes, weapons and combat simulators, bomb scoring systems and remote detonation systems

•

Loading equipment, vehicles, vessels or parts of these for military use

•

Ammunition, clothing, rations or any other supplies for armed forces

•

All other products and services for military purposes, including information technology, management, consultancy, logistics, maintenance and refurbishment of military equipment7 are defined as being part of weapons & military-related exports industry.

•

At present, there are 83 member companies of the NZDIA, but the Australian and New Zealand Defence Directory8 lists 208 New Zealand suppliers suggesting that there are at least another 125 that do business with the military. There, of course, may be other companies that are neither members of the NZDIA nor listed in the Directory.

Some of these weapons and military-related companies are New Zealand-owned and operated; many of them are subsidiaries of transnational corporations. Information about the size and revenue of the industry is difficult to quantify. The list of companies includes many that are otherwise engaged in supplying civilian products and services so discerning the specific content of their work which is weapons and military-related is difficult if not impossible since financial reporting requirements for publicly listed companies is minimal, and for private companies, non-existent. Similarly, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s Strategic Goods list, which delineates dual-use items that could be used in the production of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons and some other military hardware/software, has a narrow scope by comparison with the more comprehensive definition we have adopted. What Is To Be Done? There are two broader interconnectted issues that arise in opposition to the Weapons Conference. First, if there is a military, it needs weapons. Therefore, the issue of the Weapons Conference goes to the heart of the military project in New Zealand. Does New Zealand need a standing army? The peace movement with a long trajectory back to the First World War would say no. Contemporary academics and commentators reject the very idea of the “Defence Force,” instead decrying New Zealand’s history of offensive engagement in foreign wars of empire and conquest. Quite aside from the issue of the necessity or otherwise of the NZ Defence Force, the State-sponsored support of a homegrown militaryindustrial complex, one that seeks to capitalise on military spending elsewhere seems deeply problematic and abhorrent, if not actually illegal. The idea that a country whose political elite prides itself on being “a good international citizen” and where law expressly prohibits nuclear weapons should then be an enthusiastic cheerleader (and funder) for war industries is absurd in the extreme. While serious questioning about the

existence of the military is not on the table at present given its ubiquitous Parliamentary support and absence of a sustained peace movement, when the issue is raised, there is widespread public disquiet about a homegrown military-industrial complex especially one that seeks growth through sales to repressive regimes. It does not take much for people to see the connection between the horrors being wrought on the peoples of Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen and the exponential profits of the world’s weapons manufacturers. New Zealand is in a good position to reconsider the ethical dimension of supplying weapons and military-related products to the world’s armies. It will take a committed peace movement to make that a reality.

MILITARIST MARKET STRATEGY AND TACTICS Global Capitalist Ideology And Growing Crisis - Dennis Small

The US Joint Chiefs of Staff have 1

New Zealand Defence Industry Association. Rules of Incorporation. Available at http://www.companies.govt.nz

2

Lockheed Martin Corporation Annual Report 2014. http://www.lockheedmar tin.com/content/dam/lockheed/data/co rporate/documents/2014-Annual-Repo rt.pdf

3

Chris Trotter, 26/6/15. “New Zealand's defences rely on the kindness of our friends” Stuff. http://www.stuff.co.nz/ national/politics/opinion/69649580/ne w-zealands-defences-rely-on-the-kind ness-of-our-friends

4

Tim Leadbeater. “New Zealand’s Military Expenditure” 100 Years of Trenches. http://100yearsoftrenches.blogs pot.co.nz/2015/07/new-zealands-milita ry-expenditure.html

5

NZDF Annual Report 2013. http://nzdf. mil.nz/downloads/pdf/public-docs/201 3/nzdf-annual-report-30june2013.pdf

6

Sales by largest arms companies fell again in 2013 but Russian firms’ sales continued rising. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. http://w ww.sipri.org/research/armaments/prod uction/recent-trends-in-arms-industry/ SIPRI%20Top%20100%20Press%20 Release%20ENG.pdf

7

Network Opposed to Weapons and Related Production. 2009 Petition to Parliament. “End Government Support For Military Exports” http://www.conve rge.org.nz/pma/nowarpet.pdf

8

http://www.austandnzdefence. com/ ■

released the new National Military Strategy of the US of America, 2015: “The control of resources remains a core factor in US considerations for sustaining global US hegemony in the face of rising geopolitical influence of its major rivals… This American strategy is ‘a blueprint to shore up a dying empire [and] reveals much about the reigning ideology of US military supremacism’” (“The Anglo-American Empire Is Preparing For Resource War”, 7/7/15: www.middleeasteye.net /) “An American reconnaissance aircraft flying over artificial islands being constructed on disputed reefs about 1,300km from the Chinese mainland was warned to leave the area eight times . . . Michael Morell, a former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Deputy Director, said that the situation highlighted the risk of the US and China going to war. ‘China is a rising power. We're a status quo power. We're the big dog on the block. They want more influence. Are we going to move a little bit? Are they going to push? How is that dance going to work out?’” (Press, 25/5/15). Today, such Social Darwinist competition is potentially a most deadly power game for everyone. “Our present Navy is mainly a 'blue water' force responsible for the peacetime management of vast oceanic spaces … and one that enables much of the world's free trade. The phenomenon of globaliPeace Researcher 50 November 2015

25

sation could not occur without American ships and sailors” (“How We Would Fight China”, The Atlantic, June 2005, Robert Kaplan, www.the atlantic.com/magazine/archive/). The human experience is certainly riddled with irony, contradiction and paradox. If a benign alien intelligence were to survey the conflictridden record of human history, it (or she or he) would surely consider this record most lamentable and human pretensions to date pretty ludicrous to say the least. This is assuming, of course, that such an intelligence can actually survive the cosmic evolutionary forces and the Darwinist imperatives stemming from the “Big Bang”. The famous astronomer/astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle considered that intelligence and aggression must go hand in hand and so potentially constitute an ultimate contradiction in terms of longer-term human survival (see his profound “Ten Faces Of The Universe”, WH Freeman & Co., 1977, p171). It is well worth examining Professor Hoyle's views on the prospects for humankind a bit more in this introduction. This will help to set the stage for examining some of the capitalist ideological and military aspects of the global crisis that we face today and the need to redouble our efforts in trying to counter them. Re-Emergent Nuclearism Post-Cold War in the 21st Century, dangerous nuclear issues have come to the fore again. There are highly charged conflict situations prevailing in the Ukraine, Syria, the Korean Peninsula, the South and East China Seas. However, one such situation that seemed so perilous just a couple of years ago, or even less, now seems to have been thankfully quelled for the moment, i.e., the US-Israeli stand-off with Iran. The world had seemed to be on the very edge of a major war, even on the brink of a possible WWIII with the US/Israel nucleararmed brigade threatening imminent attacks to purportedly stop Iran from getting its own nuclear weapons (“Towards A World War III Scenario: The Dangers Of Nuclear War”, Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 2012). Professor Chossudovsky has noted how so-called “rogue states” like first Libya and later Iran became potential nuclear 26

Peace Researcher 50 November 2015

targets of the Anglo-American axis (ibid. see Preface). He gives the relevant historical background to the current geopolitical context. “With regard to nuclear doctrine, the concept of a US-sponsored pre-emptive nuclear attack applies to a number of countries or 'rogue states', including Libya… Libya was the first country to be tagged for a preemptive attack using tactical nuclear weapons” (ibid.) During the Bill Clinton Administration in the 1990s, a planned scenario strike was targeted “against Libya's alleged underground chemical weapons plant at Tarhunah”, with the Gaddafi regime always subject to a possible “pre-emptive nuclear attack” (ibid.). Ideally, according to Western imperial doctrine, only hegemonic rogue states like US and Israel should have weapons of mass destruction (WMD). In the case of Libya, this threat was in place until a deal was struck. There was “a rapprochement between Libya and the West in 2004. The Libyan leader promised to renounce WMD in exchange for help from global oil companies to tap into his country's reserves” (Press, 1/9/15). British Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair brokered this deal assisted by BP. Later, the CIA and MI6 even used Libya as a torture site in the Anglo-American rendition programme for jihadist suspects. The West's rapprochement with Gaddafi happened during the reign of President Bush II, who had earlier

included Libya on the American hit list. “The (GW) Bush Administration, in a secret policy review … ordered the Pentagon to draft contingency plans for the use of nuclear weapons against at least seven countries, naming not only Russia and the (so-called) 'axis of evil' (trio of) Iraq, Iran and North Korea but also China, Libya and Syria” (“Towards A World War III Scenario”, op. cit; note nuclear specialist William Arkin's article “Thinking The Unthinkable” for the original revelation of this strategy, Los Angeles Times, 9/3/02). Of course, while the US did not actually come to use nuclear weapons on Libya, the Western bombing campaign to end Gaddafi's regime in 2011 resulted in the tragic social mess in which this country is now stuck – with a civil war in process, and various militant Islamist groups active and contending for power. In 2012 in Benghazi, the American Consulate and a CIA location were themselves the targets of fatal assaults, including the death of the American Ambassador. Islamic State (IS) terrorists have established a haven there. So now the US & co. are covertly intervening again in Libya. As ever, we can look forward to more blowback and fallout! (for more examples see Robert Fisk: “Syrian War Of Lies And Hypocrisy”, 29/7/12: www.independent.co.uk/; “Middle East Turmoil And Beyond: Political Blowback In Action”, Peace Researcher 43, May 2012, http:// www.converge.org.nz/abc/pr/43/pr4 3-008.htm).

Blowback Such blowback is endless and multifarious from the machinations of American State terrorism, as in the latest revelations about its support of jihadist rebels in Syria, including IS elements (e.g., http://ori ginal.antiwar.com/brad_hoff/2015/09 /18/isis-leader-omar-al-shishani-fou ght-under-us-umbrella-as-late-as-20 13/, 19/9/15; http://theantimedia.org/ us-spent-500-million-training-4-or-5moderate-syrian-rebels-now-in-com bat/; & http://3tags.org/article/official s-islamic-state-arose-from-us-suppo rt-for-al-qaeda-in-iraq). The references cited at the end of the previous paragraph give relevant background and context (note also: http:/www.w ashingtonsblog.com/2012/09sleepin g-with-the-devil-how-u-s-and-saudibacking-of-al-qaeda-led-to-11.html). By the end of August 2015 the air war in Syria had already cost America a total of $US3 billion. As ever, the mainstream media peddle their pernicious and highly hypocritical propaganda on the West's role in the Syrian conflict. For example, take a couple of TV reports on a single day: Jeremy Bowen of the BBC said the West had had little to do with Syria (One News at Midday, TV1, 29/9/15), while Jonathan Rugman of Channel 4 only blamed the Assad regime and its Russian backers for atrocities against civilians (Noon 3 News, TV3, 29/9/15). As well, Rugman criticised the Russians for targeting jihadists other than IS (ibid.). TV3 smartly continued its propaganda line with another ITV report by its Washington correspondent Robert Moore (taking his cue from Obama & co), accusing Russia of bombing the so-called “moderate” Free Syrian Army (FSA), i.e. the main Western proxy force in the imperialist bid to topple Assad (Noon 3 News, TV3, 1/10/15). Moore instead presented the FSA, a highly suspect force guilty of human rights abuses and having extremist Islamist input, as a viable alternative to both Assad and IS (ibid.). This item also featured former US military and North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) boss Wesley Clark charging Russia with nasty power games in the region (ibid.). And so it goes. For the most part, NZ TV specialises in the official version of the Western world-view, all shown with

its shining trademark superficiality, whether dictated from Wellington or Washington. TV3 and Prime are the most Americanised propaganda agencies with TV1 close behind. The exception to the general rule is public-funded Radio NZ (RNZ), which occasionally airs other perspectives, e.g. those on Syria by the proregime Professor Tim Anderson (htt p://www.radionz.co.nz/national/prog rammes/thepanel/audio/201772559/ the-clash-at-the-u-n; see also: http:// www.globalresearch.ca/why-syria-is -winning-advancing-towards-a-strate gic-victory-that-will-transform-the-mi ddle-east/5468277). But Russia regards any armed resistance to the ruthless Assad regime as “terrorists”. Meanwhile, Western-backed Saudi Arabia, the world's biggest sponsor of Muslim fundamentalism and violent jihadism - especially in the Syrian civil war - continues to fulminate threateningly against both Syria and Iran. It has been estimated that there are up to 2,000 militia groups involved in the sectarian fighting in Syria! The compounding geopolitical complications of this particular conflict, which are proving so tragic for the country and its people, are also potentially very inflammatory in import further afield. Chossudovsky's book “Towards A WWIII Scenario”, cited above, focused in particular on the danger of a war against Iran (op. cit., ch. V). But he sets this focus within a damning broader portrayal of the Pentagon's preparations and provocations for WWIII. He stresses how all this is constantly legitimated by the Western media. “Central to an understanding of war is the media campaign, which grants it legitimacy in the eyes of public opinion. A good versus evil dichotomy prevails. The perpetrators of war are presented as the victims” (Preface, ibid.). Western warmongers employ the “Big Lie” technique, justifying an endless war of conquest as a “War on Terror”. “This profit-driven military agenda destroys human values and transforms people into unconscious zombies”, resonant with the media and Hollywood-cultivated ‘brain-dead’ zombie culture (ibid.). The predatory Anglo-American and wider Western agenda is aimed at grabbing as much as possible of what's left of the world's resources - in competition with a range of other countries while facilitating related investment,

as well as fostering markets (“The Race For What's Left: The Global Scramble For The World's Last Resources”, Michael Klare, Metropolitan Books, 2012). In turn, this has elicited correspondingly aggressive behaviour by rising big powers like China and India. These nations are driven by their own material needs and ambitions for economic growth and greater consumption, and so to grab resources and protect investments (ibid.). But at the same time more and more people are responding constructively to the evils of global capitalism. Along with established social justice, environmenttal, peace and disarmament groups, the recent emergence of international mass movements for positive change like Avaaz and SumOfUs spanning the globe brings a great, new dimension of energy and hope for the future. “Big Bang” Dangers As earlier remarked, it is worth pursuing a bit further Professor Fred Hoyle's views on the state of the world. A big irony so emblematic of Hoyle's general position is that he actually coined the term “Big Bang” in derision and opposed the theory all his life, believing in a “steady state” universe. The brilliant but highly contrarian Hoyle continually courted controversy throughout his career on variety of issues in subjects from astronomy to evolution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fre d_Hoyle). With regard to our concerns, he saw the biological manifestations of life on Earth in constant evolutionary competition and struggle. In the conclusion to his book “Ten Faces Of The Universe”, he remarked that: “Our society is built not on the joy and happiness of the past, but on the agonies experienced by the long line of our predecessors” (p203). The challenges and the absolute imperative of striving to ensure a more peaceful future are larger and more urgent than ever in the 21st Century. Above all, we must strive to help create better conditions for more cooperative, sustainable, and humane behaviour everywhere we can. Professor Hoyle articulated such a vision for human survival, although admittedly expressed in pretty sobering fashion (ibid. ch. 10, “Everyman's Universe”). At the time of the publication of his book in 1977, Hoyle Peace Researcher 50 November 2015

27

saw the global crisis created by humankind very much in terms of coping with population growth by the provision of sufficient economic productivity (ibid.). He thought a mandatory cultural change was needed in favour of a drastically reduced birth rate, or that we should switch to nuclear power in order to increase energy, and so productivity, enough to cope with the existing birth rate, or some sort of mixed solution. Hoyle foresaw huge challenges ahead with successfully implementing such scenarios. But he warned that otherwise the looming crisis would probably peak about 2025, threatening the collapse of human society because of the population's overshoot of its carrying capacity (ibid.). Humans would no longer be able to sustain their material civilisation and their planetary population. Consequently, “Big Bang” conflict could well wipe out humankind. Thus, astrophysicist Professor Hoyle, like a number of prominent biologists including Professor Paul Ehrlich of “The Population Bomb” fame (Ballantine/Friends of the Earth, 1968/71), presciently predictted the central ecological threat to the survival of our species, although he seemed to assume that humans could prevail indefinitely given sufficient sources of energy to maintain, and indeed, keep growing production and consumption. Somehow humans might evade the inevitably accumulating and constricting conditions on a small, vulnerable planet. In this sense, Hoyle was certainly no environmentalist whatever his Malthusian bent. He was obviously otherwise very much a technological optimist or, I would say, fantasist. He wrote science fiction as well. This observation is not intended to be disparaging of science fiction as a literary genre, which can at times be most insightful and prophetic. Sir Fred Hoyle is certainly recognised as one of its foremost exponents. But there is often a penchant in science fiction for futurist technological fantasy. More to the point for our purposes, Hoyle showed no real sense of the vast and complex spectrum of biological and geophysical limits to human impact on the planet. These limitations are continuing to elude any human technological control, and are in fact constantly caused and violated by 28

Peace Researcher 50 November 2015

human technological innovation, intrusion and abuse (for this spectrum see: “Earth Has Crossed Several 'Planetary Boundaries', Thresholds of Human-Induced Environmental Changes”, https://scripps.ucsd.edu). This scientifically defined syndrome of ecological derelictions can be considered aside from all the other values relating to the conservation of the natural world (i.e. other than our own survival), which still to a considerable number of us are absolutely valid and imperative in their own right, e.g., the right to life of other species to flourish in their natural state; the sanctity of wilderness and jungle regions; the glory of the whole range of natural eco-systems and biodiversity, etc. Australian Professor Tim Flannery expounds a holistic approach to sustainability and environmental conservation in his very perceptive treatise dedicated to long-term human survival, “Here On Earth: An Argument For Hope” (The Text Pub. Co., 2010). Flannery complements both traditional Darwinism, and neo-Darwinism as expounded by Richard Dawkins of “The Selfish Gene” fame, with the approach of Darwin's fellow co-discoverer of evolution, Alfred Russel Wallace. Rejecting reductionist science, Wallace embraced what is today called “astrobiology” or “Earth systems”. Professor Flannery follows this line of thought and analysis in emphasising the special nature and wonder of biological life on Earth in the universe, and so the absolute need to protect the web of life in which we live, and on which we depend for our very existence (ibid., e.g., see pp. 29/30 for special emphasis). Flannery extends his argument with practical proposals for action in his latest book “Atmosphere Of Hope: Searching For Solutions To The Climate Crisis” (Text, 2015). Besides the War on Terror, global warming has been the most obvious problem for the West's neo-liberal capitalist creed in recent years, along with the so-called Global Financial Crisis (GFC) in 2007/8 and the ramifications since. The problems are deepening (see my articles “Globalisation, Capitalism & Crisis”, Foreign Control Watchdog 122, December 2009, www.converge.org .nz/watchdog/22/06.htm; and “The Challenge Of Climate Wars: Countering Resource Conflict And Geno-

cide”, PR 46, December, 2013: www.converge.org.nz/abc/pr/46/pr4 6-007.html). The horrible Syrian crisis was sparked in part by a massive, unprecedented drought (2006-10) made worse by climate change, forcing “the country from a 'groundwater-intensive breadbasket' of the region to a net food importer”, and causing great socio-economic stress, which also included the problem of more than one million refugees from conflict-stricken Iraq (“New Study Says Climate Change Helped Spark Syrian Civil War”, 2/3/15, “Future Tense: The Citizen's Guide to the Future”: www.slate.co m/). In 2015, Pacific Island states have been highly critical of the lack of action on climate change by Australia and NZ. Both these latter countries have a deplorable record on the issue. Both have refused to meaningfully increase active assistance to the island states. Nevertheless, with the hugely important Paris summit on climate change due at the end of 2015, some international momentum seems to be building for more positive action at the top decision-making level. For instance, US President Obama is signalling greater resolve. The reigning system is now increasingly subject to a host of contradictions, as the limits to growth bite home on various fronts, and competition and conflict increase (see my “Crunching NZ: Globalist Contradictions Bite Home”, Watchdog 131, December 2012, www.converge.org .nz/watchdog/31/10.html). In September 2015 President Obama visited Alaska, on the edge of the Arctic, in order to highlight the importance of acting to offset climate change. But he still pushes on with drilling for oil and gas in the state's off-shore waters. As the Arctic melts, the US, Russia, and other nations are beefing up their military deployments in the region as they stake out areas to prospect. At the time of Obama's Alaskan visit several Chinese warships were even signalling their presence in the Bering Sea. Capitalist competition is almost literally hotting up on multiple fronts, and all very deeply interconnected of course! NZ is similarly committed to ultimate self-destruction. “GNS Science has been awarded funding for a four-year research programme to improve the chances of finding oil and gas accumulations in NZ's se-

dimentary basins” (“New Research Programme Aims to Lift Oil & Gas Exploration”, 3/9/15: www.Scoop.co. nz). The reigning Rightwing government has consistently dismissed Green Party proposals for greater sustainability and reduced greenhouse emissions. In September 2015 a coalition of several non-government organisations (NGOs) 350.org, Coal Action Network Aotearoa, and Greenpeace NZ called on the NZ government not to attend the Paris climate summit (“Key Told Not To Attend Paris And To Pull NZ Delegation”, 25/9/15, www.Scoop.co.nz). Given its poor record, continuing policies and performance, NZ will obviously be an obstacle to a constructive conference outcome, as it has been at so many international environmental meetings over the years whenever short-term economic and trade objectives have been involved. China Runs Aground! In the meantime, China, America's great politico-economic and military rival for world hegemony, has hit the rocks, or at least run into choppier waters. It has slowed down dramatically in economic momentum. This will adversely affect China's grossly exuberant culture of get-rich-quick at any cost. For all its criticisms of China, the West has depended on such wealth creation, and many Westerners have exulted in the resulting conspicuous consumption. The West has been hanging on to China's coat-tails to get enough impetus for global growth. Capitalism's goal of endless production and consumption is at stake here. But China's cargo cult appeal has taken a big hit. Following the sudden slide, various media reports have warned about how we will all be poorer if such trends continue. According to one such report: “China's slowdown is having a profound effect on our nearest neighbour, Australia”, which has already been suffering from the “downturn (in overseas demand for iron and coal, particularly from the Asian giant) in the mining sector and the continual fall in commodity prices” (“Chinese Slump Continues To Rattle The World”, Greymouth Star, 5/9/15). A BBC report painted a dire picture of China's predicament: after a quarter of a century of racing

economic growth, the “world's factory” had virtually collapsed as it were (TV1, One News at Midday, 27/8/15). This item referred to financial and socio-economic problems like plunging stocks, soaring debt, empty apartment blocks, disused factories, broken dreams, and a host of suddenly stressed and impoverished people. Internal contradicttions and problems are mounting there with more signs of domestic conflict (e.g., “[President] Xi Faces Revolt As Economy Flounders”, Press, 31/8/15). Both traditionalist Leftwing and Rightwing critics have previously emphasised problems like deepening socio-economic divisions, rampant corruption, unproductive investment, and the lack of democracy (see e.g., “Red Cat, White Cat: China And The Contradictions Of Market Socialism”, Robert Weil, Monthly Review Press, 1996; “The Coming Collapse Of China”, Gordon Chang, Arrow Books, 2002). And this is not even mentioning the greatest ultimate problem of all – China's (and the planet's) deteriorating environment. We have continually warned in the past about the contradictions of the Chinese economic bandwagon, predicting that the wheels would fall off in the relatively near future as the ruts in the road got worse. NZ was hugely keen to jump on this bandwagon. Our Governments have proudly preened ever since about signing the first free trade agreement (FTA) of any government with China. Its’ perceived economic benefits have been lavishly celebrated by mainstream politicians and their media machine. The NZ “Establishment” has happily committed us to a typical capitalist pattern of boom and bust, to eventual angst for short-term gain. Our dairy export industry has suffered a severe setback. The great Western free trade myth is that governments have only needed to step aside and let business enterprise run loose. In actuality, the West has long employed governmental guidance, protection, and a whole variety of statist mechanisms to foster so-called “free trade” (“Bad Samaritans: The Guilty Secrets Of Rich Nations & The Threat to Global Prosperity”, Ha-Joon Chang, Random House, 2007). Since WWII the US has been the foremost practitioner of governmentally backed

and manipulated “free trade”; and since the 1980s, the prime peddler of “neo-liberalism”, purportedly a creed of free markets. From its commanding and pivotal position as the planet's most powerful nation, America has dictated a lot of the terms of globalisation. This position is now eroding fast with perilous instability ahead if the United Nations (UN) and related international forums fail to chart a more cooperative and sustainable future. The environmental costs have been enormous and are accumulating fast, with climate change the most dramatic manifestation of this syndrome. Ironies Abounding! In his effort to counter what he sees as “myths” about globalisation, or at least exaggerations, American political geographer John Agnew argues that globalisation also has other aspects having little to do with neo-liberalism. For instance, he emphasises the statist-led economic growth of China and countries such as Singapore, Kuwait, and Abu Dhabi (“Globalisation & Sovereignty”, John Agnew, Rowman & Littlefield Pub., 2009, p17). While globalisation certainly cannot be identified with neo-liberalism, the neo-liberal creed has played a central part since the 1980s, whatever its actual forms and manifesttations. Fundamentally, globalisation is an outcome of capitalist growth and technological applications directed to this goal. The intensive nature of military research, particularly American research, both in war-time and in so-called peace-time (or rather “limited war” time), has fuelled so much of this growth. During the last few decades, its’ most dramatic and pervasive product in the shape of the Internet has accelerated global communications on a remarkable scale and level of development and interaction. Previously, even much more mundane but still very significant things like shipping containers for sea transportation have resulted from US military research programmes. Drone technology is a recent military researchspawned product currently getting a lot of media attention. Overall, Western “progress” has very much been military-driven. Despite his expressed reservations, Peace Researcher 50 November 2015

29

John Agnew acknowledges that globalisation “has appeared under US geopolitical sponsorship” (ibid. p18). Indeed, he himself has “developed a neo-Gramscian* argument” about the globalist hegemony orchestrated by the US and its allies (ibid. p141). He recognises, too, that the role of the Anglo-American axis has been crucial in both ideology and practice, with a concerted effort to even try and identify the market with democracy. Corporate pundits and practitioners, particularly a host of politicians and their agents in the media, have strenuously promoted this most perverted of doctrines (ibid. pp16/17). Such globalism is actually driven by “free-trade imperialism” which “prevails under the auspices of a relatively open State providing public goods (especially those construed for corporate welfare and geopolitical goals), as well as the capacity to coerce others” (ibid. p133). Western globalism is expressly pitched as benign. “In many parts of the world, however, the perception (accurately enough) is that this is simply a new version of an imperialist regime” (ibid. p135), one in which NZ unfortunately has been deeply involved. Ensuing conflicts have spread around the globe. *Named after Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937), neo-Gramscianism “analyses how the particular constellation of social forces, the State and the dominant ideational configuration define and sustain world orders” (Wikipedia). Ed.

market as articulated and promoted by economist Milton Friedman* & co. has failed to match reality. Even its cynically contrived US manipulations have gone awry in crucial aspects. As indicated above, the case of China is a dramatic example. “Indeed, China's very economic success has had much to do with its State-organised response to new global opportunities rather than being a simple outcome of increased free trade” (“Globalisation & Sovereignty”, op. cit., p13). Many manufacturing jobs have been lost in the US “because of competition from China” (ibid. p158). Managed exchange rates and State-managed and sponsored trade have been hallmarks of China's rapid growth. While Agnew's thesis of dynamic and pluralistic complexity, as expounded in “Globalisation & Sovereignty”, has merit for sure in many respects, the challenge of achieving real democracy, especially the vital matter of politico-economic democracy, is greater than ever. This is an essential question of sovereignty in a globalising world. The international petitioning and other activities conducted on various issues by Avaaz, SumOfUs, and other such organisations using social media are vitally important means currently employed to address this very question. *Milton Friedman (19122006) was the father of neo-liberal economics. Ed.

An immense irony lies in the fact that during the last quarter century China has used the Western free trade myth according to its own State-prescribed plan. Western hypocrisy continues to backfire across the globe (http://www.thenation.com /article/14-years-after-911-the-war-o n-terror-is-accomplishing-everything -bin-laden-hoped-it-would/). “Western Global Crusade Continues to Backfire! Blundering Into The Valley Of Death”, PR 49, June 2015, Dennis Small, http://www.converge. org.nz/abc/pr/49/pr49-006.html). In arguing the case that the binary conceptualisation of sovereignty versus globalisation is too simplistic, John Agnew explores and analyses much of the complexity of the world economy by examining the dynamic interaction of these two poles. As he aptly remarks at one point, the free

Against a background of internal socio-economic tensions and souring of relations with the West, China's power elite conducted a huge and unprecedented military parade in early September 2015, (costing some US$2 billion!). The excuse for this dramatic display of power was the 70th commemoration of the end of WWII and the defeat of the Japanese enemy. This sort of bellicose and dangerous political posturing is clearly intended to try and unify the nation vis-a-vis potential external enemies. At the same time, it is meant to project a powerful message warning off any such foreign antagonists. China's bellicose stance is particularly directed at Japan, the old foe and new rival, in the ongoing dispute over territorial claims in the East China Sea. In Orwellian fashion, President Xi Jin-

30

Peace Researcher 50 November 2015

Macho Power And Mounting Costs

ping preached peace while parading the machines of war, and reviewing his goose-stepping soldiers marching with totalitarian, machine-like precision. Given an aggressively nationalist government in Japan, keenly encouraged by the US to remilitarise for overseas deployments, such developments have a most ominous import. In a deeply insightful article, Professor Alfred McCoy explains how the US used the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) negotiations to try and combat China, and in a similar fashion the US-European free trade (Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership [TTIP]) negotiations against Russia (Tomgram: Alfred McCoy, “Maintaining American Supremacy In The Twenty-First Century”, 15/9/15: www.tomdispatch .com). In all, the Obama Administration is employing a classic pincer movement with a strategy of divide and rule at the same time, and with US firepower surrounding both Russia and China. The grand Western aim is clearly to surround Russia on its very borders with a ring of armed steel, and a "Star Wars"-type missile defence system; and the same strategy applies as much as possible to China, with the US improving its missile defence system on the Korean peninsula as well. As former CIA Director Stansfield Turner pointed out, the market and military power are flip sides of the same coin for the US. In his own words: “The ability of the US to compete economically in world markets in peacetime is as vital an element of our national security as having a strong military” (“Secrecy & Democracy: The CIA In Transition”, Sidgwick & Jackson, 1985, p272). The militarist market merges these aims together. From a military angle, the US wants to make full use of its two de facto unsinkable “aircraft carriers” in the Northern Hemisphere – Japan and Britain, conveniently positioned on either side of the Eurasian continent. Such “unsinkable aircraft carriers” are strategic assets in multiple ways, not only very manifestly as launch-pads for strike weaponry. Among the military purposes of these strategic assets is also a hidden agenda. The militarised areas of Japan and Britain are intended to draw as much enemy fire as possible away from the American

homeland. Blowback from both America's militarist market strategy in the Ukraine and Syria (stemming from its war on Iraq), and its military posturing in the Asia/Pacific region, has meant that Russia and China are now openly uniting against a perceived common threat. President Putin attended China's display of marshalled armed might in September as an honoured guest whereas Western leaders were conspicuous by their absence. One Western attendee, however, was the grossly ubiquitous and obnoxious Tony Blair, who has so blatantly enriched himself by his war crimes and other militarist market manipulations. More uncertainty and instability are the inevitable outcomes of increasing tensions. If China claims to be reducing the size of its army, the regime is boosting instead its overall firepower, technological capacity, armed mobility, and air and sea forces. Russia, at the same time, has embarked on a big boost in armaments and bases, coupled with heightened exercise manoeuvres. It has now dramatically deepened its involvement in the Syrian conflict, with greatly heightened tensions. Contesting Racism And Reactionary Politics In the ongoing blowback from the Anglo-American destabilisation of the Middle East, and much of Africa due to all the various Western State terrorist invasions and interventions, the multitudes of refugees pouring out of these countries in 2015 have reached unprecedented levels of numbers and desperation. These

Sunday Star Times, 6/9/15

refugees have been accessing Europe across the Mediterranean and through the Balkans. Such access is being severely restricted. There have been heart-rending tragedies, incidents and scenes on both sea and land. Britain has sealed off the Channel Tunnel to its island fortress while Hungary and other states are set on building secure border walls, the sort of extra solid structure that American Republican Presidential contender Donald Trump has advocated for the US/Mexican border, which of course is already fenced and closely patrolled and monitored. Israel, as part of the Anglo-American axis, has similarly walled off many Palestinian refugees in Gaza and part of the West Bank. The deleterious consequences stemming from capitalist globalisation and market militarism inevitably induce such divisions (“Walls, War And Globalisation”, Journal of Critical Globalisation Studies, 2010). Whatever the relative perspective adopted - whether local, national, regional, or international - the welloff are increasingly preoccupied with their own security. From walled-off palatial homes and rich community enclaves to fenced off affluent countries around the globe, the powerful and privileged of the planet are feeling more and more besieged. Nationalist, racist, ethnic, and neofascist movements like Germany's Pegida and its various country offshoots, in association with political parties like France's National Front, are on the march in the West. These movements are particularly active in

parts of Europe and the US, but also elsewhere including Australia, near neighbour and close military mate of Aotearoa/NZ. Such Rightwing reactionary movements target Muslim immigrants and even Muslims in general, refugees, boat people, and various scapegoat minority groups like gypsies or indigenous peoples; and increasingly those who stand up for the rights of such peoples. Human rights advocates, including UN agencies, have strongly criticised Australia's treatment of boat people (for either turning them back or for harsh incarceration in overseas detention camps). In Aotearoa/NZ, the National government, backed by much of the media, pushed through Parliament in 2012/13 a blatantly racist piece of legislation on immigration to supposedly counter the touted risk of “boat people” reaching our island state. But public pressure has forced the NZ government to take on board 600 more extra refugees (over three years) over and above an annual quota of 750 people that has stood for nearly 30 years. To be fair, it must be said here that on this particular issue the NZ TV channels have so far been very supportive of the current campaign to accept more refugees. This has been really good to see. Aotearoa/NZ is now a member of the UN Security Council in a world which is facing the biggest refugee crisis since WWII. There are now some 60 million refugees or displaced people. Lamentably enough, NZ has been a long-time laggard among the family of nations on this most important issue, being presently ranked 90th per capita in its intake of refugees. Opposition political parties and a wide range of NGOs and institutions, including the Red Cross, Amnesty International, and church leaders, have strongly criticised the Government's stance. The current priority, however, for our corporate-oriented PM John Key is to spend $26 million on two referenda for a new flag, an obviously contrived distraction ploy, which most of the NZ public have so far spurned. It is actually quite sinister that Key, already notorious (at least for those who care about democracy) for his poisonous “black-ops” games of “dirty politics”, explicitly wants to try and instil overt “patriotism” by the adoption of new flag (for damning revelations of his toxic Peace Researcher 50 November 2015

31

style and how the media constantly protect and promote him, thus systematically stifling democracy, see “Dirty Politics: How Attack Politics Is Poisoning NZ's Political Environment”, Nicky Hager, Craig Potton, 2014; see also my articles “Media Manipulation”, Watchdog 136, September 2014, www.converge.org.nz/ watchdog/36/07.html; & “Subverting Democracy”, in Watchdog 137, December 2014, www.converge.org.nz /watchdog/37/04.html). Avaaz has well warned that: “Governments worldwide are passing gag laws, prohibiting protest and closing down organisations in the biggest crackdown on civil society in a generation”. The John Key-led NZ government is to the fore in this crackdown in the use of insidious methods of suppression and manipulation. It has been well said that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. In true American bullshitstyle, the corporate image of “NZ Inc.” is everything, never mind the actual substance. Key's reactionary flag-waving ploy fits with the USmandated policy of endless warfighting, whether at present given NZ's neo-colonial role in Iraq, ostensibly against Islamic State, or future such militarist activities. More generally, it is tailored to the West's resource war on the world's poor. PM Key keeps peddling the idea of boat people as some sort of menacing threat (e.g., “People-Smuggling Boat ‘Credible Risk And Threat’ To NZ”, 2/6/15, http://www.stuff.co.nz/ national/69027808/peoplesmuggling -boat-credible-risk-and-threat-to-nz). Hearteningly again, there is at present plenty of vigorous international activism opposing all this prejudice and inhumanity, including here in Aotearoa/NZ. In Europe, Pegida, the National Front, and other xenophobic groups have encountered strong resistance. What we all so desperately need are more viable forms of international social cooperation; otherwise the mounting global problems will soon overwhelm us with ensuing chaos. Compounding Contradictions To date, the Western politico-economic system has yet so very arrogantly and smugly preened itself on shaping the course of history and mapping future progress. We need to examine the role of the market in this respect a bit further. To be sure, 32

Peace Researcher 50 November 2015

the materialist, consumerist delusions of Western capitalism have become the ruling mantra of global capitalism in general as promulgated by Goldman Sachs & co, and are nowadays shared by aspirant countries like the so-called BRICs, i.e. Brazil, Russia, India and China, along with other touted “emerging countries” (as expounded in “The Growth Gap: Economic Opportunity In The BRICs And Beyond”, Jim O'Neill, Portfolio Penguin, 2011). Jim O'Neill, the author of the book just referenced, is the original pundit of the “BRICs”. O'Neill coined the term symbolically enough in 2001, the year of the world-shaking events of 9/11 and the official launch of the endless (!?) “War on Terror”. As the former Chief Economist at Goldman Sachs, O'Neill led the team there that conducted the first BRIC analysis. He went on in 2010 to become Chairman of Goldman Sachs' Division of Asset Management in which position he managed over $US800 billion in assets by “leveraging his global perspective on world markets” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ji m_O%27Neill_(economist)). Goldman Sachs is “very bullish” about the fact that emerging markets (like the BRICs and others) are “the future” (ibid.). In August 2015, the SumOfUS - the international, social campaign NGO - put out an online petition calling on Goldman Sachs to pay back money it had made out of the Greek debt crisis. SumOfUs asserted that finance giants like Goldman Sachs had exploited the crisis enormously in their favour at the expense of the Greek people: “Goldman Sachs made €450 million in profit from crashing the Greek economy”. The world's most powerful investment bank/firm had got involved in manipulating Greek debt to its advantage in 2011 - some of Jim O'Neill's “leveraging” of his “global perspective on world markets”?! (Wikipedia, ibid.). In 2011, Goldman Sachs “created complex financial swaps” that disguised the extent of debts while inveigling Greece into the Eurozone, giving Goldman also access to billions of Euros in easy credit that the Greek government was unable to pay back. Now the people of Greece are paying the price for such monetary machinations. As SumOfUs says of Goldman Sachs: “It's a world leader in

disaster capitalism, with a long history of profiteering from human misery. It inflates bubbles only to profit when they burst. It sells toxic assets and then bets they will crash. From food speculation to global tax evasion, the bank is a symbol of everything that is wrong with capitalism”. But in true Anglo-American style, the British Conservative government in 2015 has made O'Neill a life peer for his services to global Big Business, and to evolutionary overshoot. Bizarrely, British PM David Cameron also appointed O'Neill “to head an international commission to investigate global anti-microbial resistance” (ibid.). It would be surely more appropriate, albeit very ironic, if Jim O'Neill were to head a commission to - for instance - look at the hotly disputed issues associated with China's activities (including allegedly building artificial islands and runways) in the South China Sea and the implications of all this conflict, especially for international security. According to the Pentagon's military strategy released in 2015, “China's actions are adding tension to the Asia-Pacific” region, referring to China's “aggressive land reclamation efforts that will allow it to position military forces astride vital international sea-lanes” (“The AngloAmerican Empire Is Preparing For Resource War”, 7/7/15, op. cit.). Oil and gas resources are at stake in the South and East China Seas, and elsewhere, as competition heats up on an Earth now under siege as never before from rampant industrialisation and super-tribalism, let alone global warming, etc. “Defence Minister Gerry Brownlee has travelled to China to meet military leaders as tensions increase over disputed islands in the South China Sea” (Press, 28/9/15). NZ is even cuddling up to the Chinese military (ibid.). It could be a neutral peacemaker but is in danger of being caught and squeezed to death by its own contradictions (“Crunching NZ: Globalist Contradictions Bite Home”, op. cit.). In his book, “The Growth Gap” cited above, Jim O'Neill and Goldman Sachs blithely and optimistically project endless prosperity from the adoption of capitalist growth in China, etc. This book's index has no entries for “resources”, “conflict”, “war”, and similar key words (op.

cit.). There is only one page reference for the index entry “environment”. The relevant single sentence comment reads thus: “Striving for optimal global solutions in areas beyond economics, including such fields as security and the environment, will allow the entire world to thrive and prosper” (ibid. p146). You can't get more superficial, stupid, and trite than that! In the 21st Century, we continue to be ruled by the dogmas of mad economists and even madder military strategists. Various dimensions of political economy apply here. While the market and the military are inevitably overlapping more and more in their preoccupations and activities, these perspectives, as we have just illustrated in the case of the very influential Goldman Sachs, have often been at odds in Anglo-American capitalist doctrine (i.e. when considered from a rationally logical viewpoint). The message of “The Growth Gap” is that the West should not fear the rise of the BRICs, etc, but indeed welcome “the great swing to the East” since we are all going to benefit from this development. On the other hand, of course, the Anglo-American axis has also long been openly posturing in belligerent fashion from time to time against major potential enemies like Russia and China, besides all its Third World interventions. Global Swingers And Military Madness! Recently, and again most ironically for Jim O'Neill's thesis, the Obama Administration has carried out its socalled military “swing to the Pacific”, or “swing to the East” (or Asia/ Pacific) in order to try and counter China's rise. In July 2015 Australia saw the biggest ever war game scenario yet played out on its lands and waters. Exercise Talisman Sabre was orchestrated by the US with the Pentagon as the grand puppet master. This war game scenario “was the largest combined military exercise undertaken by the Australian Defence Force. Defence forces from NZ (500 personnel) and Japan (40 personnel) joined the exercise for the first time this year” (https:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exercise_Talis man_Saber). Manoeuvres were conducted in two Aussie states – Queensland and Northern Territory. Talisman Sabre is a biennial joint

Australian-US war game, alternating between the two countries. It started in 2005. According to the promulgated policy line: “The exercise focuses on crisis-action planning and contingency response, enhancing both nations' military capabilities to deal with regional contingencies and the ‘War on Terrorism’“(ibid.). The focus of the Exercise is in fact aggressively directed with the emphasis on amphibious landings, paratrooper assaults, and similar invasion-oriented activities. During the latest scenario (or scenarios) involved, peace protesters disrupted some of the action. Acting Australian Green Party Leader Scott Ludlam condemned the Exercise as “inflammatory”, and for sending the wrong message to neighbouring countries (Guardian, 9/7/15, “Joint Military Exercise Talisman Sabre Is Inflammatory Says Scott Ludlam”: http://www.theguardian.com/australi a-news/2015/jul/09/joint-military-exe rcise-talisman-sabre-is-inflammatory -says-scott-ludlam). He spoke out strongly in support of the protesting peace activists, who were risking their lives at the time (ibid.). Talisman Sabre, he said, “is about expeditionary wars and invasions” (ibid.). Senator Ludlam indeed warned about “preparing for a war with China” (ibid.). Given that the training is in “high-end” warfighting, the scenarios these days have obvious application to possible situations of confrontation in the North Pacific. The fact that Japanese personnel took part for the first time is highly portentous and certainly likely to exacerbate regional tensions. “Neo-Conservatism” Into NeoFascism?! Professor Richard Tanter, of the University of Melbourne and a Senior Research Fellow at the Nautilus Institute for Security and Sustainability, remarked that the “war games” Exercise “wasn't in Australia's best security interests” (ibid.). Tanter aptly expanded on this point. “These war games, I think, are an unwelcome increase in our integration not only with the US but with Japan, where Japan has the most nationalist government that country has had since 1945” (ibid.). He emphasised that it encouraged a regional arms race as the Exercise coincided with serious tensions in

the South China Sea. Yet while Australia mourns its economic downturn largely due to China's falling demand, it is not only helping to beat the war drums in regard to the North Pacific but across the Indian Ocean as well. Australia and India (another BRIC) have together been marshalling maritime manoeuvres with more martial posturing directed at China. They practised anti-submarine warfare (ASW) “war games” in September 2015 as part of a US defined strategy to counter China's growing naval reach in this area as well (“Joint Naval War Games Aiming To Rattle China”, 27/8/15, Press). Japan is also being inveigled into such games (ibid.). Australia has been on the doomsday track for a long time now with an ever-growing commitment to the apocalypse (e.g., “The New Australian Militarism: Undermining Our Future Security”, ed., Graeme Cheeseman & St. John Kettle, Pluto Press, 1990). It is deeply embedded in the Pentagon's war machine, a vital part of its first-strike system. ASW is indeed NZ's own very special contribution to ending the world (“NZ's Doomsday Commitment: Anti-Submarine Warfare”, Dennis Small, PR 6, [first series] 1984, pp2-9, http:// www.scribd.com/doc/33723181/Pea ce-Researcher-Vol1-Issue06-1984). The Anglo-American nuclear war fighting system is being renewed and upgraded. For example: “Britain will spend more than $NZ1.2b. refurbishing its nuclear submarine base in Scotland over the next ten years… The Faslane naval base on the River Clyde, east of Glasgow, is home to the fleet of four Vanguardclass submarines, one of which is on patrol at all times, that [according to the media] form Britain's 'Trident' nuclear deterrent” (Press, 2/9/15). In reality, the Trident system is very much a first strike system, part of the eminently mad and evil commitment of the Anglo-American axis to apocalyptic Armageddon (“First Strike: The Pentagon's Strategy For Nuclear War”, Robert C. Aldridge, South End Press, 1983). At the same time as all this recent maritime sparring and associated war preparations and posturing, the US and its allies have got bogged down in the Middle East/Central Asia with the struggle for control of the planet's fossil fuels. The latest pretext is the touted fight against IS, Peace Researcher 50 November 2015

33

a direct outcome of previous predatory depredations. President Obama and British PM David Cameron condemn IS as an “appalling terrorist death cult” even as they “modernise” their nuclear weapon systems for ultimate planetary destruction. Many areas in Africa, Asia and Latin America are suffering from both overt and covert US interventions, with violence applied in the usual cavalier, brutal, and neoimperialist fashion (e.g., “Tomorrow's Battlefield: US Proxy Wars And Secret Ops In Africa”, Nick Turse, Haymarket Books, 2015). The US is currently involved in very many wars, mostly screened from public scrutiny thanks to the corporate media (“How Many Wars Is The US Really Fighting?”, Nick Turse, 24/9/15: www.bit.ly/1G9aY9b). Billionaire property developer Donald Trump, the current front-running Republican Presidential candidate, is now expressing American Social-Darwinist ideology at its rawest and reddest in bloody tooth and claw. The new spin according to Trump is that America is a victim, being ripped off by countries like China, Japan, and Mexico – alleged abuses that he would strongly address if he were President; and add Russia and Iran, and any other such trouble-makers for good measure (e.g., TV3, Noon 3 News, 17/8/15). The very embodiment of greedy and unashamed neo-liberal exultation in the power of wealth, Trump says he is beholden to nobody since he makes $US400 million a year anyway and has had politicians doing his bidding all of his career (ibid.). Thus the corruption of Western democracy by the narcissistic American super-rich is now brazenly paraded on the world stage, and even fulsomely celebrated, whatever the reservations and criticisms publicly expressed by some other members of his class and party. Mainstreaming Predatory Capitalism Unfortunately, given America's history and culture in the context of today's world, Donald Trump can appeal to a large constituency (www.a lternet.org/election-2016/what-trump s-surging-popularity-says-about-gop -base, 20/7/15). As NZ satirist Joe Bennett says: “Trump is holding a 34

Peace Researcher 50 November 2015

mirror up to the electorate and that electorate is whooping with delight at what it sees. He is the zeitgeist made flesh” (“With Trump In Charge What Fun There Would Be”, Press, 23/9/15). As one of the “Knights Errant of Global Capitalism”, Trump is a “brand” among other things, and “that object of contemporary worship: an entrepreneur” (ibid). Thankfully, many Americans also strongly oppose him. A few years ago, the NZ Lotteries Commission actually had Trump as its promotional frontman. Besides kleptocratic self-indulgence, what is also illustrated so graphically here in the extremist belligerence of Donald Trump, along with his followers and imitators, is the ideology of the militarist market in action. Trump even once proclaimed that he would just take over the Middle Eastern oil resources by force. Note, however, that for the likes of Trump & co. the ideology of the militarist market can get very confused and confounded with even close American allies Mexico and Japan, among others, being considered antagonists of some sort. Social Darwinism is really running riot these days! Everything that the Occupy Wall Street movement so valiantly protested against is rebounding against them, and the rest of us, in the worst manifestation of greed and naked power posturing yet. The mere 1% (or even 0.1%!) the capitalist financial and propertied elite - who effectively determine so much of America's politico-economic destiny are truly riding high in the saddle. This represents not just control by a bunch of plutocrats or rich, self-interested rulers; it represents control by a bunch of thieving rich rulers. Publicly displayed conspicuous consumption and its maintenance at all costs have advanced to new and obscene levels on a planet with diminishing resources and so many desperate, deprived people. “Since 1980, under the age of neo-liberal globalisation, even as GDP per head has risen, the 'vast majority of countries' have experienced 'a sharp increase in income inequality', as documented by a flagship 2014 report by the Organisation for Economic and Development (OE CD)” (“The Anglo-American Empire Is Preparing For Resource War”, 7/7/15, op. cit.). Two leading scholars, Peter Christoff and Robyn Eckersley at the

University of Melbourne, “have shown that global environmental degradation was clearly manifest well before the rise of neo-liberal economic globalisation in the 1980s, and that this degradation was predominantly the result of a much longer wave of modernisation that began with European imperial expansion in the early modern period. A flow of cheap raw materials had enriched the West at the expense at Africa, Asia and Latin America, and the planetary biosphere. The neo-liberal phase of economic globalisation has yet dramatically accelerated and intensified environmental degradation to the point where it threatens to undermine both the broader processes of globalisation and Earth's life-support systems. The global spread of capitalist markets, aided by new communication and transport technologies, has radically accentuated the compression of time and space that is the hallmark of the modernisation process” (“Globalisation & The Environment”, Rowman & Littlefield Pulbishers, 2013, pp161/2). Economic growth, technological innovation, increased trade, and the promise of prosperity are the main goals of governments everywhere, and of almost all political parties whatever the “green” pretensions of some. This is the essence of what is meant by being “mainstream”, which in turn is the essence of global “overshoot”. “Houston, we have a problem!” Christoff and Eckersley outline a framework to address and answer this central problem of human development in their book, following the example so many other environmentalists before them. War And Capitalism In the wake of its post-WWII enforcement of the “free market”, the Anglo-American axis went on to develop neo-liberalism via the vehicle of FTAs and so steam-roller environmental concerns. In 2015, socio-economic inequalities are symbolised, and even actually expressed, at physical eye-level on the skyline of New York city today - at the very heart of neo-liberal capitalism. In New York, the American and wider global elite have been buying multi-million dollar apartments in new super skyscrapers from where they can look down disdainfully on the roughly half of

Exercise Talisman Sabre protest, Australia, 2015

the city's inhabitants who live either below or around the poverty level (TV1, One News at Midday, 17/8/15). Even the TV item cited this trend as an example of the growing gap internationally between rich and poor, a process reflected in Aotearoa/NZ since the Thatcher-Reaganinduced advent of neo-liberalism in the form of “Rogernomics” during the mid-1980s. While the Reagan Administration tried to undermine the David Lange-led fourth Labour Party Government with a CIA-spearheaded covert action operation, the US would, no doubt, have been even more determined and viciously anti-democratic in its efforts if Labour had been true to its political colours. For details of the CIA role in the successful overthrow of Gough Whitlam’s 1972-75 Australian Labor government, see Murray Horton’s obituary of Gough Whitlam in Peace Researcher 49, June 2015, http:// www.converge.org.nz/abc/pr/49/pr4 9-008.html. Ed. At this point in my exposition, it is important to take account of a very summary overview of human history to date in recapping our argument about how the militarist market has come to prominence again. War has played a major role in human cultural and societal evolution. A definition of “war” is: “an act of force, usually on behalf of the State, intended to compel a declared enemy to obey the will of the other. The aim is to render the opponent incapable of further resistance by destroying its capability and will to bear arms in pursuit of its own aims. War is therefore a continuation of politics carried on with violent and destructive means, as an instrument of policy” (“The Hutchinson Dictionary Of

World History”, Helicon Pub., 1993, p617). The political economy of capitalism has developed in intimate tandem with military technology and its applications. Over the history of capitalism, the role of the military has shown much fluctuation in accordance with a whole host of factors. No comprehensive theory of the causes of war has emerged out of Marxist doctrine, while the ecological perspective on human conflict has added in recent years a huge new dimension for critical consideration. There has been continuing discussion and debate on the Left about the issues involved. The overriding question today obviously concerns one's understanding as to how global capitalism is shaping up for the future and the consequent outlook for conflict (see, e.g., “Global Capitalism Is In The Midst Of Its Most Severe Crisis”, interview with American Sociology Professor William Robinson, www.kouroshziabari .com/). For a growing number of us, as signalled by the Avaaz and SumOfUs movements and a multitude of other NGOs, the great mission is clearly to try and counter all of this as constructively and positively as we can in working for a better future. These days NZ is once more dutifully aligned in highly provocative military posturing, as mandated by the US and Pentagon objectives, with the ever present underlying threat of instant conflagration (“Obama Backs First-Strike Nuclear War As US Policy|” Scoop News, 25/6/13, http://www.scoop.co.nz/sto ries/HL1306/S00159/obama-backsfirst-strike-nuclear-war-as-us-policy. htm; http://warisacrime.org/content/ obama-backs-first-strike-nuclear-wa

r-us-policy, Francis Boyle, author of “The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence”, Clarity Press, 2002; “Five Things You Don't Know About Nuclear Weapons”, www.globalzero.or g/). As observed earlier, during June 2015 NZ joined in Australia's biggest ever war-fighting exercise involving also the US and Japan. The region off China's east coast is just one of the globe's potential “flashpoints” for all-out war, i.e. nuclear disaster (htt p://nationalinterest.org/feature/5-pla ces-where-world-war-three-could-br eak-out-11487?page=show). Matthew Hill, a student who is studying for his PhD. at Cornell University and obviously getting a suitable American indoctrination, enthusiastically advocates NZ's involvement on the frontline in the “high-intensity risk” conditions of US-induced Social Darwinist wars, whether in the Middle East or against China, a scenario in which he has a special interest (http://www.incline.org.nz/ho me/will-the-2015-defence-white-pap er-go-far-enough, 12/5/15). Fortunately, such doomsday enthusiasm can be publicly countered by wiser thoughts, even from within the international strategic and military affairs community, among other commentators (e.g., http://www.incline.org.n z/home/new-zealands-strategic-obj ectives-in-a-contested-asia, 9/6/15; http://www.globalresearch.ca/u-s-po licy-towards-china-the-skirmish-in-th e-spratlys/5454193\; http://nationalin terest.org/feature/sorry-obama-amer ica-cant-contain-china-13097?page =show). We must constantly challenge, engage, and contest the militarists and warmongers wherever they reside on planet Earth. Growing The Counter-Culture In the last analysis, we can try and put politics aside (as much as humanly possible) in examining the growing global crisis. It comes down in the end to the question of human enterprise industrialising a small, “Goldlilocks” planet. Consequently, this must mean increasing competition and conflict for diminishing resources until the peak of evolutionnary overshoot is reached, followed by a population crash and die-off (as in extermination by war). Most certainly, in the contest between the environment and capitalism, biological conditions will inevitably have the final word. But Professor Tim Flannery reminds us that: “If comPeace Researcher 50 November 2015

35

petition is evolution's motive force, then the cooperative world is its legacy. And legacies are important, for they can endure long after the force that created them ceases to be” (“Here On Earth: An Argument For Hope”, op. cit., p31). Human interdependencies reflect ecosystem interdependencies in the great web of life. Creative growth of cooperative sustainability should be our ultimate goal. The big over-

arching challenge is the one posed by Sir Fred Hoyle at this start of this article and the issue analysed and discussed in depth by biological scientists from Professors Paul Ehrlich to Tim Flannery. If we want the next generation to survive and we want a sustainable future, then we need to help grow the widest activist international movement possible for positive change. As we have seen, there is a lot of momen-

tum on various fronts and in various quarters. So let's keep it all going and build this movement ever stronger! Endnote: Thanks are due to John Gallagher for some very useful information he researched off the Internet. John has an excellent international peacemaking Website at: http://www.village-connections.com/ blog/ . ■

CAFCA/ABC ORGANISER ACCOUNT Financial Report For Year Ended 31 March 2015 - James Ayers, Organiser Account Treasurer Presented to Campaign Against Foreign Control of Aotearoa Annual General Meeting, 23/9/15 2015

2014

$26,307.20 $10,267.96 $2,758.63 $36.00

$30,292.73 $8,137.00 $39.88 $539.40

Income Pledges Donations* Interest** Other Total Income

$39,369.79

$39,009.01

Expenditure Contractor*** Phone**** Internet Printer Other

$37,344.00 $702.90 $0.00 $88.00 $55.25

$38,528.00 $665.10 $584.35 $153.65 $156.50 $38,190.15

$40,087.60

$1,179.64

-$1,078.59

Opening bank account

$6,597.01

$7,675.60

Add surplus deficit

$1,179.64

-$1,078.59

Closing bank account

$7,776.65

$6,597.01

Term deposit (incl int recd $826.07)

$20,494.49

$19,668.42

Total funds organiser Account

$28,271.14

$26,265.43

Cash surplus (Deficit) Summary

Notes * Donations are largely one-offs. Regular pledgers: 58 ** Interest received from CAFCA term deposits was shown under pledges in 2014 *** Contractor now receives the living wage of $19.25 per hour Lower this year due to timing of payments. Expected to be $40k in current year **** Phone and Internet are shown combined in 2015 Pledges were 67% of income; donations 26% and interest 7% ■

36

Peace Researcher 50 November 2015

REVIEWS - Jeremy Agar

KILL CHAIN: Drones And The Rise Of High-Tech Assassins by Andrew Cockburn, Verso, London and New York, 2015

WE KILL BECAUSE WE CAN: From Soldiering To Assassination In The Drone Age by Laurie Calhoun, Zed Books, London, 2015

Here

are two books that are so much on the same topic that they have several of the same words in their titles. Despite this, they are very different. Andrew Cockburn provides a historical background to the use of drones in wars. A desire to wage war from the air has been a preoccupation with American military strategists since at least the Vietnam War in the 1960’s and 70’s. The obvious attraction lay in the overwhelming – and often unchallenged - US technological superiorrity over pre-modern adversaries. If American air power could destroy Vietnamese – or Taliban - forces on the ground, there might be no need to risk the mess that would accompany those clichéd boots on the ground. The ongoing example right now is Syria, where the US has resisted sending in the infantry so that the Air Force boys can have a go at

Pakistan protest against drones

Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and/or the Assad regime. From all accounts, though, air superiority alone is not going to be enough to secure victory. Neither writer discusses Syria, possibly because it’s hard to know what’s going on there in that murkiest of murky wars, but Cockburn would argue that drones and bombers alone will never do the job. Cockburn, a journalist based in Washington, has previously undermined some key assumptions of the war fighting Establishment, yet he seems to have enjoyed the confidences of the generals, whose opinions are so liberally shared that one of the commonest sentence constructions in the book is: “As (important person) says…”. Why would the US brass be so ready to reveal their own inadequacies? There are two answers. Some of Cockburn’s interviewees, usually the more perceptive ones, disagree with prevailing orthodoxies and were thus banished from Washington polite society, where no deviation from the official line is OK. They’re happy to tell him what they think. Others, usually those with the ear of the top men, are so “enmeshed in a network of preconceptions” that they have never been able to think things through and might not realise they are subverting their own cause. The Kingpin Strategy As an example Cockburn looks at what he calls the “kingpin strategy”, a hunch that’s been around so long that the received wisdom has long accepted it as self-evident. Knock out the kingpin, it’s said, and the

whole rotten bunch of crooks/jihadists/Nazis will collapse. Cockburn starts with Hitler who, in his opinion, would have been better left alive. That’s because the Fuhrer made so many arbitrary and bad decisions, overruling his generals. The assassination attempts having failed, that theory can never be tested. With drug cartels, taking out the figurehead, often a famous name, typically results in more competition, lower prices, more killing, and more drugs on the market. With the jihadists, too, eliminating the kingpin might be emotionally satisfying, but it has often increased the nastiness, as new, young replacements find the need to prove themselves by acts of spectacular cruelty. The devil you don’t know can be unpredictable. Machines Get It Wrong: Afghan Example A second and complementary tendency is that, given a choice between trusting a machine or a human being’s brain and eye, Washington powerbrokers will take the machine every time (just as money speculators and derivative traders will prefer their computer programmes to common sense – but that’s another story). If machines are superior, then American machines, expressing American power, are insuperable. This certain knowledge informs the way the US has operated in Afghanistan, from where Cockburn relates a comically awful series of events in a sortie to the mountains in 2002, a time when there were few targets, al Qaeda having decamped to PakisPeace Researcher 50 November 2015

37

tan and the Taliban having retired temporarily to their villages. Being outputs-based, requiring a meaningless precision, the military was tasked with killing as many jihadists as possible so that, in Cockburn’s words, “supply met demand”. Despite all the supposedly impersonal expertise guiding events, the man in charge, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, was moved by untidy human passions. In Washington, as in all human societies, petty feuds and rivalries get in the way. Irked by the rival Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) having been credited for the initial overthrow of the Taliban, Rumsfeld wanted his military to muscle in on the action. He needed some HVT’s – “high value targets”. Apparently Rumsfeld’s habitual greeting to his man on the spot in Afghanistan was: “Have you killed anyone yet?” That seems to have been the prevailing mood. Cockburn discusses a colonel who confessed to having been “frustrated by the lack of actionable intelligence for high value targets”. Meanwhile the Taliban was going through its own office politics. When a commander who had retreated into the mountains was opposed by locals, he wanted to stop fighting but the Yanks rejected his overtures. The order came to attack. Operation Anaconda was launched. The summit of the mountain above the valley where the Taliban were thought to be hiding out looked like a good spot from which to control events, and according to all the fancy equipment, which included electro-optical and infrared cameras and radar, no-one was up there. But the enemy was in fact dug in on the mountain top, hidden under snow, trees, a tarpaulin and some goat skins, none of which the high-tech surveillance had detected, just as it had missed the washing on the line and the footprints. So when the troops landed, they were shot up. Below in the valley the Army could see that things were going wrong, but the drone operators, who were looking on from Oman and Florida and a trailer parked at CIA headquarters in Virginia, knew better: “We don’t need you getting all worked up on the radio. Get off the net, we’ve got it”. 38

Peace Researcher 50 November 2015

But they hadn’t got anything right, basing their actions on false information about the number and location of enemy fighters, and the number and location of nearby civilians. Distrusting empirical evidence and harbouring no doubts, the commanders had shut themselves away from reality. Then they saw an SUV carrying a man in a white robe and turban. bin Laden! At last a real HVT. ‘Go get ‘em.’ 16 tons of bombs spattered SUV and white robe. This Boys’ Own fun, this embrace of chaos, is known as “Total Situational Awareness”. TSA doesn’t come cheap. There’s satellite bandwidth, rented at $1,000,000 a day, and up in the sky “battle management” was conducted from a plane with a $244,000,000 JSTARS (Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System) and a $270,000,000 AWACS (Airborne Warning and Control System). Then there were the 39 separate Joint Terminal Attack Controllers (JTACs). A rule of thumb: the more and longer the acronyms, the greater the delusion of precision. Then, in a realm more exalted than even the providers of TSA, are the US Navy SEALs (Sea, Air, Land Special Forces), the glamour boys amid glamour boys. They constitute a Task Force which operates separately from the rest of the military. The SEALs are free to do their own thing. Cockburn reflects on the result: “In the gathering darkness, fighters, gunships and helicopters thronged the airspace, moving at hundreds of miles an hour, all ignorant of each other’s position and missing each other often by mere yards”. Operation Anaconda was judged to be an unqualified success. Lots of the bad guys were killed - but none of the big three HVTs who had been the original rationale for the mayhem. The now non-existent man in the white robes remained anonymous and forgotten. Officialdom Gives Itself A 100% Pass Mark To officialdom all such operations, no matter how disastrous, are said to be complete successes, because they justify those who devise and

report on them. Officialdom, that is, gives a 100% pass mark to itself. Thus the failures are guaranteed – and the worse the failure and the longer the sequence of failure, the greater the need to declare success. Cockburn traces the technological pyrotechnics from the Cold War tracking of Soviet tanks through to Vietnam and the Balkans. Much of the stuff had never worked; some had worked, but poorly. Congress – let alone the public – can never be told the truth. Back Stateside a simulated battle featured the Blues – USA – v the Reds – Islamists. Cockburn interviewed the leader of Reds, given command because he was an independent thinker and meant to lose. He told his side they were to “speak English”, vetoing acronyms. Then he based tactics on the sort of low-tech expediencies that Islamists – and, previously, and decisively, the Vietnamese - had deployed successfully. The Blues’ database Operational Net Assessment (ONA) claimed to have all information about the Red enemy, but the Reds’ didn’t use radio to replace destroyed communications, and thus rendered the high-tech redundant. They sent motorcycle couriers. The Reds won. Whereupon the Blues’ sunken ships were ordered refloated, the Reds’ missile strikes were declared not to have happened, and the Red commander was told he must use radar. Officialdom was determined to not learn from past mistakes. “None of (the Blue battlefield dogma)”, the Red commander told Cockburn, “was scientifically supportable. They claimed to be able to understand the relationship between all nodes or links, so that, for example, if something happened to an enemy’s economy, they could precisely calculate the effect on his military performance” As though in self-parody, the High Command touted its 2003 real life invasion of Iraq as exhibiting “near total or absolute knowledge and understanding of self, adversary and environment; rapidity and timeliness in application; operational brilliance in execution; and (near) total control and signature management of the entire operational environment”. That was the nature of the infamous

“shock and awe”, after which, as the destruction was just beginning, Dubya Bush declared “Mission Accomplished”. The costs are huge. As is the norm in the US, politicians who bleat about cutting spending to the bone are happy to lavish billions on untested or useless weapons. The Predator drone, which could serve as an symbol of the excess, features prominently in Cockburn’s account. It requires a staff on the ground of 168. The Congressmen and generals will never say no. As one dissident remarked to the author, “I cannot see a situation when someone is going to say: ‘Hey, I can do with less of that’”. And however they pan out, no matter how clumsy or wayward, the weapons will be lauded by the likes of George Bush as the epitome of “agile, lethal, pinpoint accuracy”. Emotive Generalisation The shenanigans in Afghanistan are just one excerpt in Cockburn’s detailed and balanced account. In contrast, “We Kill Because We Can” relies on emotive generalisation. In her introduction, Laurie Calhoun asks: ‘What proportion of the people killed have been civilians? Is it onethird or is it one-half? Or perhaps only 20%…”. It’s a necessary question, her main theme being the morality of drone strikes. There’s a

natural follow-up question: Of the civilian deaths, how many have been the result of technical failure? Mistaken identity? Plain lack of care? Calhoun never answers the questions. Like Cockburn, she relates some of the worst of the many examples of innocents being targeted but, unlike Cockburn (whose research concludes that most of the killed are in fact intended targets), she provides few specifics. To say that the US kills because it can is to simplify a more nuanced reality. It’s easy to be angry about drones, but readers expect more than rhetoric. They expect facts. Calhoun has Ivy League degrees in philosophy and chemistry. In 1997, when deconstruction was the rage, she published “Philosophy Unmasked”, the thesis of which was that “philosophy is a subjective enterprise, devoid of facts. Philosophy amounts to imposing one’s values upon the phenomena with which one is confronted”. She seems to have followed her own advice here, providing few facts and a heavy imposition of her subjective values. When Calhoun does lay off the rhetoric the discussion tends to be random. We’re given one piece of philosophical background: “More sophisticated supporters of drone killing appear to be thinking

along utilitarian lines. In utilitarianism, John Stuart Mill championed the idea that the right action maximises the positive outcome… for the greatest number of people. The aim prescribed by utilitarianism is essentially the ‘greater good’, which may sometimes require the sacrifice of the interest of the few”. No quotations are offered and no specific incidents are analysed to back up this assertion. Yet Calhoun is able to conclude that “they think it’s permissible to torture or kill to make the world safer for others”. Worse, the statement is - excuse the expression - factually wrong. Although Mill was an early adherent to utilitarianism, his place in the history of ideas is as a classical liberal. His is not the name that historians cite to discuss utilitarianism (that would be Jeremy Bentham). Liberalism is a very different belief system. Nor is utilitarianism the crude instrument she makes it out to be. Similarly we’re offered one piece of historical background, an attempt to provide a context for thinking about terrorism. In Europe, we read, there were “terrorist factions throughout the Cold War, as such groups found support among Communists wishing to spread their ideology around the globe”. At least we’re given one example to make this point, one fact as it were, and that’s Carlos the Jackal. This too is entirely wrong. There was no terrorism “throughout” Europe. There was some in Italy, where the Communist Party was known as “Eurocommunists”, a term denoting their habit of working within Parliamentary politics. And why, in a book which contains so few capitals, the capital C? Communism never stopped condemning terrorism, and however he would have described himself, Carlos would not have used the “c” word, largely because “spreading their ideology around the globe” was what the Russians were criticised for not doing. Calhoun is at least right to note that European terrorism didn’t work. Of course not. It had no support among the people of Italy or – the other main scene – the former West Germany.

Drone protest against CIA Director John Brennan, 2013

Peace Researcher 50 November 2015

39

No Facts Calhoun sometimes italicises big questions, two of which are: “Why is this targeted killing deemed acceptable only within poor lands governed by autocrats?” and “If the captured suspects are never going to surrender worthwhile information…, then why not just kill them instead?” Is it? Why not? Who knows? We’re not given any facts on which to base an answer. Because she wants to berate US policy, Calhoun misses no opportunity to talk up their enemy, telling us that “terrorist factions have coalesced specifically in response to the US being a military behemoth”. As she says it is US power itself which has created terrorism – an obviously inadequate explanation this means that “terrorism is the only possible way to react militarily”.

This offers us no way out from the current madness, the chances of America disarming being nil. So the futile violence will bang on indefinitely. And after America? There will always be an imbalance of power. Does Calhoun not perceive that this mindset, this futile terrorist tilting at windmills, is what informed the European terrorists she rightly condemns? We’re told that the perpetrators of terrorist attacks in Pakistan on the Sri Lankan cricket team and a police academy “genuinely believed that the US is unjust”, and, that they “all believed themselves to be eliminating persons guilty of crimes” - such as the warmongering office workers in the New York Twin Towers. Yes, we know that. Fanatics are always genuine. Hitler genuinely believed it was OK to kill Jews. Calhoun even tries to put a smiley face on bin Laden by remarking that he “saucily” denied US claims.

It might be a good thing that Calhoun offers no detail at all about her own country because she seems to be working on some personal issues and her … facts might have been even more ill-advised than her take on European history. There’s so much unrecognised bias on display. Throughout there are musings on “just war” theory, a Catholic notion, but inevitably the theory itself is never outlined and any exponents are not identified. Perhaps the author was educated by nuns. To imply that drone strikes are the expression only of gratuitous nastiness or to repeat the truism that American violence often begets more violence, as Calhoun does repeatedly, doesn’t get us beyond repetitive circles of tit for tat. Cockburn’s reliance on facts and his more realistic take on human nature offer the better alternative. ■

TRIBUTE TO PETER WILLIAMS - Murray Horton

Anti-Bases

Campaign pays tribute to Sir Peter Williams QC, who died in June 2015, aged 80. Our 1997 Waihopai spy base protest resulted in 20 arrests, the highest ever number (and the last time anyone was arrested at an ABC Waihopai protest). This attracted a lot of national media coverage and Williams, a very high profile Auckland Queen’s Counsel, offered his services free of charge. We’d never had any previous contact with him, as QCs’ rates are way out of our range (I should explain that what lawyers mean by “free” is not what you and I mean by “free”. He didn’t charge for his services but there were still not insubstantial fees to be paid for court filings and the like. These are the sort of things that the legal system regards as incidentals, just the cost of doing business). That was the only time I ever met him and I found him a very friendly and personable sort of bloke. He probably found the Waihopai 20 light relief after the heavy duty crims he usually represented.

40

Peace Researcher 50 November 2015

You can read the full story of what happened in the Blenheim District Court in Peace Researcher 13, August 1997, pages 2-4 (“The Waihopai 20 Have Their Day In Court: 19 Convicted & Discharged – Warren Thomson Fined $300”, by Warren Thomson and Murray Horton, http://www.scribd.com/doc/33726204/Peace-Re searcher-Vol2-Issue13-Aug-1997). Here’s a sample: “The prosecution case was over in minutes. Williams rose to give the opening statement for the defence. He placed his papers on a lectern; then told the judge that we sought a discharge under Section 19 of the Criminal Justice Act. The reason for this was the defendants had acted on the day in an exemplary fashion and there was no element of ‘moral turpitude’ i.e. criminality; the defendants were acting in the public good. He proceeded onto a long exposition on the importance of civil disobedience in a ‘mad’ world; one in which progressive reforms had come from those who stood up against the Establishment of the day. Occasionally his peroration wandered but much was impressive and

NZ Herald, 13/6/15

sometimes moving. He traversed the global history of the protest movement and waved aloft the book of the moment, John Ralston Saul’s ‘The Unconscious Civilisation’”. Having a legendary Auckland QC appear in the Blenheim District Court attracted a crowd of local lawyers and their staff to watch him perform. Unfortunately, Judge “Amazing” Grace was having none of it, nor any other “political” content introduced by defence witnesses such as Nicky Hager and the late Green Party Co-Leader Rod Donald MP. As far as the judge was concerned this was a straightforward criminal case of wilful trespass, he wouldn’t accept any evidence as to the function of the spy base, and he convicted

everybody. But it wasn’t from lack of trying by Peter Williams. And, of course, in the Wellington District Court in 2010, a jury acquitted the Waihopai Domebusters – Adrian Leason, Peter Murnane and Sam Land – of much more serious charges, having accepted a “moral” defence and interpretation of the law from defence lawyers Mike Knowles and co (none of whom were QCs). The shock waves of that were so profound that the Government promptly changed the law so that nobody else could ever use that defence. Proving once again that the law is what those in power say it is, until that comes back to bite them on the bum, so then they change it. So much law; so little justice. ■

ABOUT PEACE RESEARCHER Peace Researcher is published by the Anti-Bases Campaign. The Co-Editors are Murray Horton and Warren Thomson; the Layout Editor is Becky Horton. Our journal covers a range of peace issues with emphasis on foreign military bases and intelligence topics. Contributed articles will be considered for publication based on subject matter and space requirements. We are particularly interested in reports of original research on peace topics in Aotearoa and the wider region of Australasia and the Pacific. Our address is: Peace Researcher PO Box 2258, Christchurch 8140, Aotearoa/New Zealand e-mail: [email protected] You can read Peace Researcher online at our website, www.converge.org.nz/abc ■

Peace Researcher 50 November 2015

41

2015 marks ten years since the deaths of both Owen Wilkes & Rod Donald. Anti-Bases Campaign salutes these two sorely missed friends, colleagues and leaders of the anti-bases and peace movements. Gone but never forgotten.

JOIN ABC AND GET PEACE RESEARCHER Peace Researcher is the newsletter and journal of the Anti-Bases Campaign. If you would like to join ABC, please fill in the form below. All ABC members receive Peace Researcher. Membership is $20 per year (ABC is not registered for GST). Cheques payable to ABC, Box 2258, Christchurch 8140, Aotearoa/New Zealand. Name

Sub $

Address

20.00

Donation $

Ph/Mobile

Total $

E-mail Overseas subs: Australia $NZ25; Rest of world $NZ30. Donations welcome. To pay online, our bank account name, number, and branch address are: | ABC

| 389000-0619007-00

| Kiwibank, 7 Waterloo Quay, Wellington, New Zealand

|

Please include your name and "Sub" as references so that we can identify your payment, and please e-mail [email protected] when the deposit has been made so that we know to look out for it.

42

Peace Researcher 50 November 2015