Hi all,
I'm reposting this preview of a radical article from another email list.
The article itself appeared in the New Zealand Listener magazine on the
"New Cold War" in the hope of stimulating some healthy comment on the
essential themes of the article. It was written by the NZ Peace activist,
Nicky Hager. Nicky has been well known in NZ for many years as a peace
activist, author and researcher on peace and security issues. He is the
author of many books on the SIS (Security and Intelligence Service), and
has been very active over the years in probbing electronic surveillance.
He is well known in New Zealand as a critic and analyst on security matters
on the NZ Political Scene and is not afraid to question the official line.
I would particularly like comment, by wiser minds than mine, on the major
theme of the article, namely, that the terrible events of September 11 and
the subsequent "war on terrorism" have been used to create a cover for
extreme shifts in policy.
Allied to that central theme are sub-themes which others might like to
comment on. Some of these are:-
1) The Bush Administration is the most conservative in modern times,
surpassing even Ronald Reagon.
2) The attacks of September 11 restored an enemy that had been missing
since the collapse of the Soviet Union.
3) Anti-communism has been replaced by Anti-Islamism.
4) Are our freedoms threatened, and if so, are we fighting this 'evil' in
the right way?
- this one seems to be provoking a lot of debate judging by the response
to the new 'anti-terrorism' legislation which is springing up in every
western country. New Zealand is no exception as our legislation, presently
before The House, has provoked extensive research on it's possible effects
if it is passed.
5) Us vs Them framework.
Has a new cold war framework created the climate for the US to pursue
relentlessly global ambitions using overwhelming military force? What has
been called "full spectrum dominance".
6) It is rather disturbing to read that it is suggested that following the
shock of the September 11 attacks, trade favours could be used in exchange
for supporting US policies ("Bombs for Beef")
Finally, I would like comment on the final paragraph of the article.
Are we witnesing the birth of the new George Bush world order?, where we
may find we cannot act independently as it is called anti-American, where
the US's enemies are automatically our enemies and where we turn a blind
eye to our own injustices. While the last thing we want is to let
terrorism destroy our freedoms, we don't want to be stampeded into
something diametrically opposite either.
Postscript
There was an interesting item on local radio the other day where they
attempted to explain the phenomenon where anyone who questions what the US
is doing in Afghanistan can expect 'brickbats'. Basically, according to
local radio, it is because it is seen as 'being unpatriotic', even though
freedom of speech is the essence of a democracy and anything that appears
on the media can be accepted or rejected, that is every citizens choice.
New Zealand and the New Cold War
Nicky Hager
As soon as the government offered soldiers for the "War on Terrorism" and
> declared our "total support for the approach taken by the United States",
> it started drawing New Zealand into the hidden agendas of the Afghanistan
> War. It began our involvement in what is, in effect, a renewed cold war.
>
> Essentially, the "War on Terrorism" has become the cover for extreme
> shifts in policy that have almost nothing to do with deterring terrorism.
> By riding the wave of September 11 patriotism, the Bush Government is
> trying to rebuild a bi-polar "for us or against us" world, where anyone
> disagreeing with US policies can be a target for disapproval or
> retaliation. How New Zealand responds will affect our foreign and defence
> policies, and civil rights, for many years to come.
>
> Since the Vietnam War and the fight to establish our nuclear free policy,
> most New Zealanders have rejected our Cold War role of dutiful US ally.
> Even so, a tension has always remained between this emerging national
> identity and our traditional role in a five-nation US-led alliance. Given
> the renewed cold war climate, New Zealand's moves towards an identity
> independent of the US, UK, Canada and Britain are now under threat.
>
> The Bush Administration was already taking the US to the right well before
> September 11. The key foreign policy advisers are former Cold War
> hardliners, with other top officials opposed to civil liberties,
> environmental protection and social programmes. The Washington Post
> described it as "the most conservative administration in modern times,
> surpassing even Ronald Reagan."
>
> What these Cold War veterans needed to recreate their preferred operating
> environment was a renewed atmosphere of threat. As Ignacio Ramonet,
> Editorial Director of French Le Monde Diplomatique, wrote, "At a stroke,
> the attacks of 11 September restored what had been missing since the
> collapse of the Soviet Union 10 years ago - an enemy. At last. The enemy
> may be known officially as terrorism but everyone knows that the real name
> is radical Islam.. You enjoyed anti-communism? You're going to love
> anti-Islamism."
>
> Similarly, here was Bush in full cold war mode on 6 November: "For more
> than 50 years, the peoples of [Eastern Europe] suffered under repressive
> ideologies.. Today, our freedom is threatened once again. Like the
> fascists and totalitarians before them. we see the same mad, global
> ambitions.. Given the means, our enemies would be a threat to every nation
> and, eventually, to civilization itself. We're determined to fight this
> evil. [and] lift this dark threat from our age."
>
> This agenda is much bigger than catching terrorists, or of gaining access
> to Central Asian oil resources. It marks the beginning of a new cold war,
> and its outlines are clear. It entails a new 'us vs them' framework within
> which the conservatives running the US Government can get on with their
own
> mad, global ambitions - sidelining the UN, interfering in other countries
> and using overwhelming military force wherever it suits US economic or
> political interests. The Pentagon's new name for this is "full spectrum
> dominance".
>
> How does New Zealand fit into this? Only a handful of countries were
> willing to go to war in Afghanistan. The reason New Zealand's SAS is there
> is a 50-year old alliance configuration: US, Britain, Canada, Australia
and
> New Zealand. This US-led, Anglo-Saxon alliance was the basis of all New
> Zealand military and intelligence activities during the Cold War - albeit
> as the least influential member. For intelligence, the alliance has the
> classified name "UKUSA". The five-nation Army co-operation is called
> "ABCA". For Navy it is "AUSCANNZUKUS", Air Force "ASCC" and military
> science "TTCP".
>
> Since the end of ANZUS, the five-nation alliance had gone underground -
the
> United States is not mentioned once in the Clark government's defining
2000
> Defence Policy Framework. Yet it remains the hidden agenda in most
military
> and intelligence decisions, quietly trying to tug New Zealand back into
> line with the expectations of the UKUSA club.
>
> Sending the SAS to Afghanistan may mark the official resumption of New
> Zealand availability for US operations around the world. US ambassador
> Charles Swindells has been "very satisfied" with New Zealand's
> contribution. "I think we have in place the right structure, the
commitment
> that's necessary. It's gonna work and be longer term and proceeding."
Helen
> Clark spoke in Parliament of a "lengthy" and "worldwide" campaign which
"we
> have to be prepared to support for the long term".
>
> Maybe in the shock after September 11 political expediency seemed to
> require following Australia to war. However, if this attitude continues
> "long-term" - and if Helen Clark accepts trade favours in exchange for
> supporting US policies ("Bombs for Beef") - then her parallel moves
towards
> a New Zealand-oriented defence and foreign policy will be rendered
> meaningless.
>
>
>
> NEW Zealand's has three main Cold War services - SAS commandos, SIS
> internal spies and NZCSO (later GCSB) external spies. All three were
> founded almost simultaneously in 1955-56, and integrated into the allies'
> operations.
>
> The SAS's role was "unconventional" warfare in US and British resource and
> influence wars during the Cold War. Within the context of 1970s Middle
East
> oil politics, for instance, our SAS soldiers fought in Oman (the Dhofar
> War), protecting western oil interests by defending a
> western-backed sultan against a local uprising. Our SAS helped British
> forces control Northern Ireland. In South East Asian conflicts they
tracked
> and killed Malays, Indonesians and Vietnamese, to whom they gave the
> self-justifying label "CTs" - "Communist Terrorists". Today, these would
> just be "Terrorists". The public rarely hears about these missions, and
> won't for Afghanistan either.
>
> Meanwhile, the SIS was fighting the Cold War inside New Zealand, by spying
> on Russian and Chinese diplomats and local "communists". This role grew to
> include socialist groups, students, Springbok and anti-globalisation
> protesters, Maori political groups and more. By the 1990s, the SIS had to
> devise barely credible purposes to justify its existence, such as
> protecting New Zealand's agricultural secrets. Now, the September 11
> attacks and the coming cold war are reviving its role as the local office
> for the US and British intelligence agencies. Its chief target will be
> "terrorism", its powers are being increased and its budget will rise.
>
> In line with that trend, Phil Goff's Terrorism Bill has been based on US,
> British, Canadian and Australian legislation. Within the US, the draconian
> Patriot Act is undermining what is best about the US: its commitment to
> civil rights. Goff's worryingly broad definition of terrorism, and the
> provisions in his draft legislation to declare people "terrorists" based
on
> secret information "from other governments" will provide scope for SIS
> operations for many years to come.
>
> Electronic eavesdropping will increase. A week after the September 11
> attacks, a New Zealand woman was questioned by the SIS for three hours
> because of a phone call made to Boston after the attacks. In it she had
> mentioned an Arabic friend - and got onto the FBI's suspect list because
> one of the hijackers had the same (very common) Arabic name. Luckily, she
> was respectable and her explanations were accepted.
>
> Last year, an Afghan refugee in Auckland was not so fortunate. He had his
> home raided twice and endured six hours of interrogation about a supposed
> terrorist plan against the Sydney Olympics. The Police said the "plot" was
> uncovered during smuggling investigations. In fact the SIS had been
> prompted by US intelligence services, after they noticed a satellite phone
> call into Afghanistan from the refugee's phone. There was no plot. Both of
> these cases illustrate the power of the electronic spying systems to which
> our other Cold War agency - the GCSB - belongs. These phone calls were
> among millions going in and out of the US and Central Asia, with just a
> name or country code being enough to trigger the eavesdropping systems.
>
> The New Zealand's GCSB facilities monitor Pacific e-mails and other
> communications. Many of the names, addresses and voices they search for
are
> provided by the US, in pursuit of its - not New Zealand's - policies.
Since
> September 11, Helen Clark has offered greater use (if that was possible)
of
> these facilities. In sum, the SAS, SIS and GCSB are 45-year old Cold War
> creations now being mobilised again for the new Cold War. Whose enemies
> will our SAS be fighting? Whose prejudices will determine who our spy
> agencies choose to target? In the new cold war, the answer may simply be
> anyone who George W Bush and his advisers see as a threat to "US
interests".
>
> Pre-1945 this was called colonialism. After 1945 it has happened under
> cover of the Cold War, and "free trade" systems. It is part of the
> explanation why the US, with less than 5% of the world's population,
> controls such a large share of the world's resources and wealth. So when
US
> and British leaders declare that the War on Terrorism will stretch around
> the world and last for years - some talk of decades - we should take it
> seriously. It is what they want. Noam Chomsky wrote recently: "Terror
> attacks, and the escalating cycle of violence they often engender, tend to
> reinforce the authority and prestige of the most harsh and repressive
> elements of a society." He was talking about both al-Qaeda and the members
> of Bush's Administration.
>
> Here, many government ministers may quietly support a different response
to
> the Afghan situation - act through the UN and an international court,
don't
> let terrorism destroy freedoms - but are being stampeded into something
> diametrically opposite. We are joining the war, degrading civil rights and
> endorsing the new George W Bush world order. If this continues it will be
> back to the bad old days: where to act independently is called
> anti-American, where the US's enemies are automatically ours and where we
> turn a blind eye to "our" side's injustices, even where, as Helen Clark
> told Parliament, it is these that "breed the conditions for terrorism".
>
>
