Making the world a more dangerous place

Like much of the rest of the world, I've been watching in horror for the last week as nuclear-armed, genocidal Israel started a war of choice against Iran, bombing its military facilities and cities, then screaming like a Russian when its victim hit back. And now they've dragged the nuclear-armed US into their little war, making things even more dangerous.

Firstly, the war is clearly an illegal act of aggression under international law. Iran had taken no aggressive action against Israel, let alone the US, and there was not a clear and imminent threat of it doing so which would justify a pre-emptive strike. Instead, its just Israel kicking over another neighbour in an effort to distract from its ongoing genocide in Gaza. It is a clear international crime - the supreme international crime, even - and its architects should be facing trial in The Hague for it. Which makes the New Zealand government's refusal to condemn the attacks pure cowardice, a betrayal of our long-standing support for peace and international law.

The ostensible purpose of the war is to "stop Iran getting a nuclear weapon". Which is ridiculous on a number of levels. Most obviously because Iran has been a member of the non-proliferation treaty for over 50 years, and had renounced weapons of mass destruction in 2003. Israel and the US didn't believe them, so they signed an anti-nuclear deal in 2015, which subjected them to enhanced monitoring in exchange for a relaxation of sanctions. The first Trump administration tore it up, simply out of hostility to anything done by his predecessor. In response, Iran began to gradually do the things it was no longer forbidden to do, to remind the US of why it had signed the deal in the first place, and the US finally seems to have figured out that withdrawal was a mistake. They were due to restart negotiations to restore it a week ago - the day before Israel started bombing. And then, when Iran was about to start talking to the EU (who were also partners to the deal), the US started bombing. You'd almost get the impression certain countries had simply renounced diplomacy entirely...

But even taking the supposed goal seriously, it seems unlikely to succeed - and more likely to have the opposite effect. On the immediate level, the US has now admitted that it has no idea where Iran's stockpile of highly enriched uranium is anymore, while Israeli bombing means the IAEA has lost track of all sorts of stuff. Nuclear material and equipment may have been destroyed, or it may have been moved to be used in secret later, so any future monitoring effort is basically doomed. But given that the bombing has destroyed all trust between Iran and the IAEA, that's pretty much moot.

In the longer term, if Iran didn't already have a Bomb, it now has a very strong incentive to get as many as possible as soon as possible, to deter future bullshit. And apparently a bunch of countries are willing to help them with that. Along with the invasion of Ukraine, its basically the death of the NPT, and the birth of a more dangerous, nuclear-armed world. Oh joy.

And that's the real tragedy here. Nuclear weapons were invented 80 years ago, and are now well-understood technology. There are now nine nuclear-armed states, a bunch of countries like Japan, Germany, and South Korea who can build them at the drop of a hat, and a much larger group who could build them if they set their mind to it. Iran is one of those countries. Its a large, modern state, with universities, research institutes, and a nuclear power program. The interesting question isn't whether it has nuclear weapons, it's why it doesn't. And the answer to that is the same as for other large, modern states: because it didn't want them. Because weapons are wasteful, and it didn't feel the need - even when its spent the last 20 years being constantly threatened by Israel and the US. The Israeli-US bombing campaign has almost certainly destroyed that, both for Iran and a bunch of other countries who feel threatened (or might feel threatened) by the hegemon or their neighbours. It is stupid, counterproductive, and dangerous. But its the world Netenyahu and Trump have given us. And we should curse them forever for it.

(As for the Iranian regime, fuck ‘em, they’re tyrants. But that’s a problem the Iranians will deal with in their own time and in their own way. And again, its hard to see how Israel or the US are helping to do anything other than keep the tyrants in power...)

Disarm the police to save lives

RNZ has launched a major investigation into killings by police, revealing that we have one of the most violent police forces in the western world:

New Zealand police kill at 11 times the rate of police in England and Wales.

[...]

The police in England and Wales have fatally shot 77 people over that time - twice as many as in New Zealand but in a population more than 10 times greater than ours.

When taken over the last 10 years, the rate of fatal shootings is 11 times higher in New Zealand than in England and Wales - or six times higher dating back to 1990.

Specialist firearms lawyer Nicholas Taylor said the high rates of police shootings were the result of poor weapons training, a shoot-to-kill policy and a police culture which put risk taking ahead of deescalation.

Its a long article, looking at who they shoot (disproportionately Māori and/or the mentally ill), whether they had weapons (not always) or had injured anybody before being shot (mostly not), and how often they were shot in the back or while fleeing (disturbingly often). Its an ugly picture, which gets worse when you remember that the Independent Police Conduct Authority has never ruled a police shooting unjustified, even when they shoot innocent bystanders (RNZ will apparently be doing more on that issue later).

Killings by police were historically low, but seemed to escalate in 2007, and again after 2015. I'm wondering what caused those changes, and my suspicion is that it is readier access to firearms (the police started installing gun safes in every vehicle in 2012, and it will have taken time for that change, and the change in mindset from an unarmed force to one with guns everywhere, to filter through). And as the article makes clear, the police now have a mindset of getting their guns, charging in, and putting themselves in a situation where they "have" to kill someone, where previously they would have called for help, contained and de-escalated the situation, and waited for the armed offenders squad to arrive. We need to force them back into the latter mindset. And the best way to do it is to take their guns away, and restrict them to specialist, trained officers, rather than giving a lethal weapon to any yahoo in blue.

We also need to make sure that police officers who use lethal force (or any force) face meaningful oversight, and prosecution where their decisions are legally questionable. The current situation of effective impunity is effectively an ongoing incentive for the police to kill. And that is not something we should tolerate in our society.

An armed police force would endanger the public

Last week, the police announced changes to weapons policy, which would see more police trained for Armed Offenders Squad work as an alternative to general arming. Today, we got to see why: because an internal report made it clear that more guns in the hands of police would make the public less safe:

More than 90 people could have been shot, 43 of whom would have been killed, if police officers had been armed during serious incidents over the past 11 years, a new report has estimated.

The report, first undertaken by police last year following the death of Constable Matthew Hunt, and reviewed again this year, concluded general arming of officers would increase the risks to public safety and the number of people shot.

It was inconclusive whether arming officers full-time would make officers safer and found routine arming could negatively impact the relationship between police and some members of the community.

“This would undermine New Zealand Police’s commitment to policing by consent, diversity in our workforce, and strong relationships with communities,” the report said.

Not mentioned: this is necessarily backwards-looking, and averaging over the past decade masks the real escalation in police firearms use since they put military-grade weapons in the boot of every police car. So, the actual body count would be even higher. [Corrected: paragraph 83 makes it clear they used shooting rates from 2019 and 2020].

Its good to see that police made the right decision here in rejecting general arming. But there's also stuff in that report which should raise significant public disquiet. For example, the formal finding that giving police greater access to pepper spray and tasers endangered the public for no benefit whatsoever [p29]:

The limited available research reviewed in this section suggests that officers are more likely to use CS sprays and TASERs (instead of lower-harm tactical options) on their shifts if they have access to them. Additionally, the use of these alternative tactical options does not seem to lead to a decrease in assaults against officers, potentially instead leading to an increase in these assaults. Thus, new tactical options brought in with the intention of improving officer safety, and that may make Police Officers feel safer in their work, may have unintended consequences which could lead to an escalation in harm.

[Original emphasis]

This is a disturbing finding, which suggests that we should be looking at removing these weapons, or shifting them from on belts to in gun safes in cars (or better, back in police stations) to improve public safety.

Its also interesting to look at what the police didn't ask, namely "would we be better off with lower levels of police arming?" Because we used to have that - not too many years ago guns were kept in police stations, for use by specialised units in real emergencies, not in every police car for use by every plod who feels threatened. How many fewer shootings and deaths would we have if we moved back to that model? What impact would it have on public safety? And if the finding is negative at present, given the (blatantly obvious) finding that guns use by criminals is driven by the availability of guns in the community, how many guns do we need to take out of circulation to get back there? Because the police - and certainly the Police Association - seem to act like an armed police force is some sort of goal. It shouldn't be. Instead, the goal should be an unarmed police force. Because that's the real sign that our communities are safe.

Against the militarization of space

RocketLab is a cool company. Its right there in the title: "rocket". As someone who loves space exploration and the knowledge it brings, I love the fact that they're launching from New Zealand, and I love the fact that they're planning to send probes to the Moon and Venus (and now Mars) to learn more about those places. But like many kiwis, I'm also deeply uncomfortable with their work for the US military and the use of New Zealand to launch payloads which aren't just for technological research, but which are actively part of the US military intelligence system and part of its kill chain. Fortunately, the Greens are now speaking up for us, and pushing a members bill to ensure that New Zealand isn't used as a launchpad for weaponising space:

The Green Party has drafted a member's bill that would stop companies like Rocket Lab launching "military hardware" into space.

Green Party MP Teanau Tuiono​, the party’s security and intelligence spokesman, announced the proposed legisation and attended a protest outside Rocket Lab’s Auckland headquarters on Monday.

Tuiono said, in a statement, that New Zealand’s space industry should not be “used by military actors to launch weaponry”, and the existing Outer Space and High Altitude Activities Bill had “so many gaps and grey areas”.

“Foreign military powers are literally launching rockets through it ... Launches from Mahia have carried at least 13 payloads for US military or intelligence agencies.

“The Government has a responsibility to make sure technologies sent into orbit from New Zealand soil do not assist other countries' armies to wage war.”

The bill is here, and bans any launch of "military hardware", defined as "weapons, equipment, machinery, or any other thing intended for use for military purposes by any armed force, paramilitary force, police force, or militia". A lot hangs on that term "military purposes", but it would seem to obviously include communications and intelligence collection, not just weapons. Note that there's no exclusion for New Zealand; NZDF is treated the same as the CIA. Which is fair enough: space should be used for peaceful purposes for the benefit of all humanity, not as a military base. And while other countries have based plenty of military hardware in space already, we can refuse to be part of the problem, and encourage other countries to join us in that commitment.

An accomplice to war crimes

That's the only way to describe MFAT, who are merrily approving weapons exports to help the United Arab Emirates' ongoing crimes against humanity in Yemen:

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade approved the export of weapons systems sent to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) despite officials warning they could be used in Yemen.

Since 2016, at least seven export permits have been approved for military equipment sent by New Zealand companies to the UAE and Saudi Arabia, both of whom are accused of war crimes over their military intervention in Yemen.

At least 100,000 people have died in Yemen's civil war, which has also displaced millions and pushed the country to the brink of famine.

As the story makes clear, this is not a matter of ignorance. MFAT knows the weapons will be used in Yemen, which makes their export both a violation of our export control regime. And they know that what is happening in Yemen is a crime against humanity. But they seem willing to ignore both to enrich the immoral weapons industry (and in fact seem to see that, rather than enforcing international law, as their major role).

This is not acceptable, either legally or politically. And MFAT needs to be held to account for it.

Kicking English nukes out of Scotland?

Scotland is going to the polls on Thursday in parliamentary elections which look likely to be won by the SNP. The most obvious outcome is likely to be another independence referendum and the potential breakup of the UK. But there's something else at stake: the UK's nuclear weapons:

Trident could be forced to the US or possibly France if Scotland became independent because there is no alternative port immediately available elsewhere in the UK, according to a retired admiral responsible for Britain’s nuclear policy.

Unless Scotland were to agree to lease back the Faslane submarine base to the rest of the UK, continuing Trident would probably require the help of an allied country or the nuclear deterrent would have to be halted completely, the expert said.

[...]

“A Scottish secession would therefore generate fundamental operational and fiscal issues for the UK’s nuclear deterrent,” Gower wrote, because Faslane base, the warhead loading site at Coulport, and nearby testing ranges are all based in Scotland or Scottish waters.

Which is England's problem, not Scotland's. Whether to play host to nuclear weapons is ultimately a decision for the Scottish people. They're currently denied that right and forced to host English nukes by the Westminster government (which seems oddly reluctant to base them in England - a prime example of how Westminster treats the rest of the UK like colonies rather than partners). If they vote for independence then kick out these immoral weapons, then England only has itself to blame. And as someone from a country which is already nuclear-free, I'm hoping they do just that.

MFAT has no conscience

RNZ reports that hot on the heels of approving weapons exports to saudi Arabia, MFAT was also approving weapons exports to the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia's partner in committing war crimes in Yemen:

New Zealand's Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) approved export permits for military equipment that was sent to the United Arab Emirates (UAE), a key partner in Saudi Arabia's military intervention in Yemen, in 2018 and 2019.

Experts say the information heightens concerns that New Zealand may have contributed to war crimes in Yemen following revelations last month that similar exports were approved for Saudi Arabia. It comes as MFAT reviews its export controls regime to ensure it's fit for purpose.

Since 2015, at least 100,000 people have died in Yemen's civil war, which has also displaced millions and pushed the country to the brink of famine. In February, a UN expert group urged states "who continue to supply arms to review their positions in line with the requirements of international law".

Despite its ongoing review, MFAT has staunchly defended the approval of export permits for weapons sent to Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

Which really makes you wonder what the fuck is wrong with them. Saudi Arabia and the UAE are engaged in a war and committing war crimes. Any weapons supply prolongs the war and so contributes to the crimes. Banning weapons exports to them ought to be a no-brainer, regardless of whether the exported weapons will be used in that way or not. We're supposed to be a peaceful nation committed to peace and disarmament, for fucks sake; it would be nice if MFAT actually represented that official policy, rather than a money-grubbing, sociopathic domestic weapons industry.

MFAT's blocked nose

Last week, the public was appalled to learn that our national airline had been helping saudi Arabia commit war crimes in Yemen by servicing their military equipment. Jacinda Ardern was right that this sort of deal doesn't pass the sniff test. Meanwhile, her own Ministry of Foreign Affairs was approving weapons exports to Saudi Arabia:

New Zealand's Foreign Affairs Ministry granted export permits for military equipment that was sent to Saudi Arabia's forces in 2016 and 2018, raising concerns the government may have breached its human rights obligations.

[...]

[Documents obtained under the Official Information Act] showed that in May 2016, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) approved a permit for military simulation training equipment to be sent to Saudi ground forces. In December that year, sign-off was also given for hand-held computers, radios and range-finding binoculars bound for the Saudi Navy.

The exporter, whose identity has been kept secret by MFAT, applied for an extension to its December permit after that shipment was delayed, the documents showed. This was granted in May 2018. The quantity and value of the equipment exported was also withheld.

While there are no specific international prohibitions on exporting weapons to Saudi Arabia, when MFAT considers an export permit it must assess whether there are any serious violations of humanitarian law. Waikato University international law professor Al Gillespie said officials may have breached this obligation.

I guess MFAT must just have a blocked nose - probably from constantly inhaling bullshit from promoting dairy exports. But this is just as unacceptable to the public as Air New Zealand's support for war criminals. Hopefully rather than making excuses the Minister will immediately put a stop to it (and if the weapons industry doesn't like that, they're welcome to fuck off to the UK, where they'd clearly fit in much better).

Banned

The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons came into force today, making the development, possession, use or threat of use of nuclear weapons illegal in international law. Every nuclear-armed state is now a criminal regime. The corporations and scientists who design, build and maintain their illegal weapons are now criminals under international law, as are the soldiers who prepare them and the generals and political leaders who threaten to use them. There are no trial and extradition procedures - yet. But that's only an amendment or optional protocol away. And the mere fact of illegality will influence behaviour, particularly by corporate suppliers. To see how this works, we just have to look at the landmine and cluster weapons treaties, which faced similar opposition and boycotts from militaristic states, who have gradually been forced to conform to those treaties even if they still refuse to be parties to them. And hopefully the same will happen to the nuclear powers.

Building a norm against nuclear weapons

Back in 2017, the UN General Assembly approved the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, and New Zealand was one of the first countries to sign. Now, a 50th ratification is finally going to bring it into force:

Campaigners have hailed a "new chapter" after a key step by the United Nations towards banning nuclear arms.

Honduras has become the 50th country to ratify the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons so it will now come into force in 90 days' time.

New Zealand and many Pacific nations including Samoa, Fiji, Niue, Tuvalu, Cook Islands and Kiribati are among the signatories.

Some media outlets (in nuclear-armed states) are calling the Treaty "symbolic", but that's missing the point. Sure, nuclear-armed states and their NATO vassals have refused to sign. But the rest of the world has, and as with a landmine ban, the cluster bomb ban, and the chemical weapons ban, that will be enough to establish a norm that the possession (let alone use) of nuclear weapons is a violation of international law, effectively defining the great powers and their lackeys as rogue states, and companies which support their nuclear weapons as criminal enterprises. The latter are the real weak point, because these multinationals are going to be forced to choose between supporting nuclear weapons programmes, or doing business with the rest of the world. But it should also increase the pressure on governments to disarm - which is an obligation they've already signed up for under the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Even NZ First gets it

NZ First is a party normally associated with racist "law and order" dogwhistling. But even they think our police are over-armed:

New Zealand First is calling for an independent review into the arming of frontline police officers with military-grade assault rifles.

Semi-automatics are routinely stored in a lock box in patrol cars.

The party says scrapping the Police Armed Response Teams was the right move, but examining police use of guns shouldn't stop there.

Now is the time to also rethink the firearms that officers have access to, their training to use them, and when they used, MP Ron Mark says

"In light of global events, and the fact that we have just confiscated all the semi-automatics across New Zealand, let's have a rethink. We strongly believe police are inappropriately armed against a reduced threat of a disarmed public."

On the one hand, this is welcome. On the other, if Mark really thinks that, then the answer isn't an inquiry, but legislation to restrict ordinary use of firearms to designated specialist units and place safeguards and oversight around their use. Because the level of force police are allowed to use and how is absolutely a political question, and one our politicians can and should be held responsible for.

Armed Response Teams were racist

How racist were the Police's "Armed Response Teams"? Half of all the people they arrested or used force against were Māori:

Māori made up more than 50 percent of arrests and uses of force by members of the now-scrapped Armed Response Teams (ARTs), police data shows.

During the six-month trial, the armed teams went to more than 200 mental health and suicide threat incidents, more than a dozen cannabis offences, and even checked how 17 businesses were adhering to pandemic rules.

[...]

Of the 1651 offence or weapon incidents where a person's ethnicity was known, 51 percent were Māori, 36 percent Pākehā, 10 percent Pacific, less than 3 percent Asian and less than 1 percent Middle Eastern, Latin American or African.

There were 49 uses of force towards people; of which 53 percent were used against Māori people, 41 percent against Pākehā, and 4 percent against Pasifika.

16.5% of the population are Māori, so that's a pretty big disparity.

But its not just racism which is the problem, but also the sheer inappropriateness of using armed police for the jobs they were doing. Not just the traffic stops which were the majority of their duties - in addition to the mental health incidents and suicide threats mentioned above, they also turned up, with guns, to 746 family harm incidents. And then there's this:

One suicidal man was pepper sprayed. Others who were suicidal or in mental distress had Tasers presented towards them.

I'm appalled that people with health problems are threatened with chemical or electric torture. It smacks of C19th barbarism.

It is not appropriate for police to be responding to these calls with guns, tasers, pepper-spray and rubber bullets. Instead, we need specialist mental health teams to deal with them. As for how to pay for them, given that police are already doing it, we should take the money straight out of their budget. Defund the police, and fund something better.

Our tone-deaf police

Yesterday, the Police announced that Armed Response Teams would not be part of policing in New Zealand. This morning, Police Commissioner Andrew Coster was on RNZ talking about the "trial". And the first thing he talked about was giving police more weapons:

Coster: The example that we've seen through the course of the ART trial was sponge rounds. They're a less-lethal option that allow incapacitation of someone from a safe distance, and that can avoid the need to actually use a firearm.

Espiner: So like a rubber bullet type of thing?

Coster: Its a sponge round. If you can imagine a 40mm sponge projectile that can wind people or incapacitate them sufficiently to get close and arrest them without needing to use a firearm.

What he's talking about is this. The NZ police bought 850 of them back in 2013 for the armed offenders squad. They're used primarily by oppressive regimes - Israel, Hong Kong, the US - for "crowd control": to suppress protests. They're being used in the US right this minute against Black Lives Matter protesters and the journalists covering them. As for what they do, while Coster talks of "wind[ing] and incapacitat[ing]", in reality these weapons break bones, blind, and kill. A quick google will show you distressing pictures of what they do to people and turn up news reports of kids being killed by them. For the police to be talking about deploying them now, when this is on all our feeds, shows how completely tone-deaf they are on the issue of militarisation. We don't want them to have these weapons. We don't want that sort of policing - the American, beat people and shoot them style - in our country. We can see, right now, what it means and where it goes. And the police just are not getting the message.

The police's enthusiasm for more and more weapons with which to hurt us and their refusal to listen to the public shows that they need to be bought under control. Parliament needs to legislate immediately to do so.

A victory for public safety

The Police have today announced that "Armed Response Teams" - gangs of heavily-armed police cruising Māori-Pacifica neighbourhoods in juiced-up gun-trucks looking for people to shoot - will not be part of policing in New Zealand. Good riddance. Their "trial" was a bad joke, and really just an excuse to intimidate the public with gun-toting cops (who mostly did traffic stops). But the change in Commissioner has led to a change in policy, with Andrew Coster recognising that policing in New Zealand happens by consent, and waving guns around erodes that consent.

But while this is good news, the fact that this "trial" was even run was appalling, as is the fact that the politicians meant to be supervising the police let them pass it off as an "operational matter". There needs to be accountability for that. And the police still have pistols and assault rifles in every car, with few limits on their use. That needs to change. As for how, Parliament can and should legislate to restrict the ordinary use of firearms to designated specialist units, and implement safeguards and oversight of their use by other officers, including Ministerial signoff and Parliamentary veto for any temporary general arming of the sort we had in the aftermath (rather than immediate response to) the Christchurch Mosque attack (thanks to Graeme Edgeler for the details beyond the first bit of this). And they should implement better oversight of "non-lethal" weapons such as tasers and pepper-spray, to require regular pro-active publication of information on how they are used, and mandatory use-of-force reviews of officers who use them (or any other form of force) too often, with an eye to sacking or desking officers who cannot be trusted. Because as we're seeing from the regular IPCA reports, police are increasingly abusing force. As they are incapable of holding one another to account, Parliament needs to.

Its not an experiment if you don't collect data

When the New Zealand Police started using Armed Response Teams - gangs of heavily-armed police cruising Māori-Pacifica neighbourhoods in juiced-up gun-trucks - they told us it was a "trial". But it turns out that those armed police - who were mainly doing traffic stops and bail checks, rather than the "high-risk incidents" we were told they'd be handling - weren't even bothering to collect data on their callouts:

Police in the Armed Response Teams failed to record their callouts properly on almost every occasion during the trial's first two months.

The six-month experiment ended in April. The trial involved a group of officers in three regions - Counties Manukau, Waikato and Canterbury - equipped with guns on their hips at all times.

Officers were expected to record and submit data on every single call-out. In the first two months, data from five out of every six callouts was missing.

Police did not provide the total rate of responses for the remainder of the trial when asked by RNZ. Instead a spokesperson said the evaluation of the trial would "only be one of the factors taken into consideration as part of our decision making".

Which is just heaping bullshit on bullshit. It's not an experiment if you don't collect the data. But we already knew that this "trial" was a lie from start to finish. Its primary purpose was to accustom the public to a US-style, permanently-armed, militarised police-force. And what's happening in the US at the moment ought to be a warning against ever going down that path.

Meanwhile, the Police Minister is still pretending that the question of whether police are armed is an operational decision for police, rather than a political one for politicians. Bullshit. To point out the obvious: politicians pass the laws which set the parameters for police use of force. They make the financial decisions around what sorts of weapons police can buy and how many. And they make the decisions about how they can deploy them. The decision to "trial" Armed Response Teams was signed off by the Minister, and he announced it on the beehive website - hardly an "operational" decision then. Which means that if we want to keep having an unarmed, rather than a US-style militarised police force, then we need to vote for politicians who will insist on it and refuse to fund militarisation. Rather than chickenshits who will sign off on whatever the police say they want. Sadly, at the moment, we have the latter. But we will have a chance to fix that in September.

The Americans are trying to kill us all again

The Treaty on Open Skies is one of the most effective mechanisms for preventing war curently in force. By letting countries make surveillance flights over each others' territory, it eliminates fears that they are secretly preparing for war. So naturally, the US is planning to withdraw from it:

The Trump administration is determined to withdraw from a 28-year-old treaty intended to reduce the risk of an accidental war between the west and Russia by allowing reconnaissance flights over each other’s territory.

Despite the coronavirus pandemic, which has put off a full national security council (NSC) meeting on the Open Skies Treaty (OST), the secretary of defence, Mark Esper, and secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, have agreed to proceed with a US exit, according to two sources familiar with administration planning.

A statement of intent is expected soon, with a formal notification of withdrawal issued a few months later, possibly at the end of the fiscal year in September. The US would cease to be a party to the treaty six months after that, so if a new president were elected in November, the decision could be reversed before taking effect.

As with their withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, the Trump administration is pretending that this is because of Russian non-compliance. But really its because of an ideology that the "world's greatest nation" shouldn't be "constrained" by agreements with "lesser" countries and a belief that its so powerful that it doesn't need them. And that is both toxic and dangerous - not just for America, but for the whole world.

No investments for criminal industries

Over the weekend, the government banned default Kiwisaver funds from investing in fossil fuels and weapons banned under domestic and international law. And predictably, both the fossil fuel industry and the climate change deniers in the National Party are losing their shit over it.

Apparently, the government shouldn't be telling people what they can and can't invest in. Except it does, all the time: you can't invest in child pornography, for example, or in heroin production, because those things are crimes (as is investing in cluster bombs, BTW). And in this particular case, these are government-established schemes, which are already subject to all sorts of regulation about risk and reporting and so forth. The government already forbids providers to gamble with default customers' savings; its no great extension to say that they also shouldn't expose them to the risks of the carbon bubble or of having their funds seized for investing in illegal weapons. And on the flip side, I hardly think its onerous that if you want to invest in the destruction of the planet and killing your fellow human beings, you actively choose to do so, so people know you're an arsehole.

The fossil fuel industry should be grateful that the government is allowing continued investment in their toxic, destructive industry at all, rather than sticking them all in jail for ecocide. Simply being told that the government won't provide suckers to hold the bag when everyone recognises that it has no future and is valueless seems fairly moderate compared to what this criminal industry deserves.

This is not what armed police are for

Last month, the police announced a trial of specialist roaming armed units, which would drive round (poor, brown) areas in armoured SUVs, armed to the teeth. When they announced the trial, they told us it was about having armed police "ready to attend major incidents at any time if needed". What it actually means is armed police doing traffic stops:

Residents and politicians fear new armed police teams are being used for lower-risk responses and "preventative patrolling" after an arrest in suburban Hamilton over the weekend.

Video footage shows police from the newly formed Armed Response Teams pulling over a car linked to a dishonesty crime on a suburban Hamilton road.

The footage showed two officers, at least one with a Glock pistol, talking to a man sitting in a car on the side of the road. No other police cars or officers can be seen.

Police later said the stop was entirely appropriate, and resulted in the man being arrested without incident for "breaching conditions".

Basicly they're sitting by the side of the road running number plates and looking for people to pull over and point guns at - exactly the sort of shit you get in America. It is not what armed police are for in New Zealand, and it is likely only a matter of time before some twitchy, hyped-up cop machine-guns someone.

We need to take guns off police

Today's IPCA report of police criminality: a police officer unalwfully tasered a fleeing suspect who posed no threat to anyone:

The police watchdog has found an officer unlawfully tasered an Auckland man who broke his ankle jumping off a balcony to escape arrest.

[...]

To avoid arrest, the man jumped over his apartment balcony's railing onto the concrete about four metres below and broke his ankle, the IPCA said.

The arresting officer fired his taser at him twice, missing the first time, unaware the man had broken his ankle, it said.

The authority has ruled it was unlawful of the officer to use the taser to carry out the arrest or prevent the man's escape.

"The Authority is not satisfied that the officer fired the Taser to defend himself or others, because the man had just run away from the officers and his partner, removing any imminent threat the officer believed he posed to them.

"Nor did the man pose an immediate danger to anyone else after he jumped from the balcony. Additionally, the officer was not justified in using the Taser to prevent the man's escape."

There's the obvious question here: why isn't this cop in court for assault with a weapon? Because if you or I did anything like this, that's where we'd be, and the law surely must apply to those who enforce it as well as those it is enforced upon. But also, its a perfect demonstration of why we need to take guns off police except for specialist units: because they clearly cannot be trusted to use them appropriately or lawfully. Instead, they're behaving like Americans. It is time to take their toys away.

Contempt

Back in June, the UK Court of Appeal ruled that that country's continued arms sales to Saudi Arabia were unlawful. So you'd expect that the UK government stopped approving them, right?

Of course not:

The government has apologised for breaching a court ruling against the sale of weapons to Saudi Arabia that could be used in the Yemen conflict.

International trade secretary Liz Truss admitted the government approved two licences for military equipment which could be used in Yemen.

This is despite the government freezing new arms licences for Saudi Arabia in June after the Court of Appeal ruled that it was “unlawful” for the government to license weapons exports without assessing whether there was an “historic pattern of breaches of international humanitarian law” by the Saudi-led coalition.

An apology isn't enough. The Minister has clearly acted in breach of the court ruling, and they should be prosecuted for contempt, just like anyone else would be.