United States of betrayal

As expected, Donald Trump just threw Ukraine under the bus, demanding that it accept Russia's illegal theft of land, while ruling out any future membership of NATO. Its a colossal betrayal, which effectively legitimises Russia's invasion, while laying the groundwork for the next one. But Trump is apparently fine with that too.

That's bad, but then it got worse, with US Defence Secretary (and chief drunk) Pete Hegseth effectively withdrawing the US from NATO, and telling Europe that it would not defend it:

Donald Trump’s newly appointed defence secretary told allies on his first international trip that the US was no longer “primarily focused” on European security and that Europe would have to take the lead in defending Ukraine.

[...]

The Pentagon chief said he was “here today to directly and unambiguously express that stark strategic realities prevent the United States of America from being primarily focused on the security of Europe”, though the language was notably toned down from a draft briefed in advance to the press.

I'm not exactly a fan of NATO, given its recent use as American expeditionary foederatii. But I'm willing to acknowledge that its original mission of deterring war in Europe was a necessary evil during the cold war, and one that has unfortunately - thanks to Putin - become necessary again. So the US basically abandoning it, and telling Putin "go ahead; invade the Baltics!", is terrible. It makes the world a much less safe place. It also tells the world that America's word can't be trusted on anything, even things which have been considered absolutely crucial for 75 years, and so no-one should make any deals with them - but that really sounds like an "America" problem now.

But its terrible for another reason too. Because NATO served another important purpose: nuclear non-proliferation. As long as NATO members felt that the US would defend them, including by deterring nuclear attack, they did not need to develop their own nuclear deterrent. And now that the US has said "we will not deter for you", that sets a very unpleasant precedent. Putin's invasion of Ukraine - a country which voluntarily gave up nuclear weapons - sent a very clear message that if countries with aggressive neighbours wanted to be safe, they needed nukes. US support for Ukraine (and for NATO) may have kept a lid on that. But now that that support has been withdrawn, and no country can rely on US promises, there is a clear incentive for those countries to get their own bombs. And that means not just Ukraine and Poland, but also Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan.

Nuclear weapons are dangerous. A world with more nuclear-armed states is a more dangerous world, with more trigger points for nuclear war, and a greater chance of nuclear famine. And the incentives set by nuclear weapons, to strike before your enemy can deter, leads to greater instability (just look at the last twenty years duelling between the US/Israel and Iran). So by betraying its allies and abandoning its commitments, the US has made the world a much more dangerous place for everybody. They've committed us to nuclear proliferation, regional arms races, and global instability. And as Eisenhower said, that has a cost: "every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed".

So, fuck Trump, and fuck America. And fuck their boss Putin, for starting this shitfest in the first place. They're wrecking the world. The quicker they're all run out of office, the better.

We should not be supporting foreign wars

Yesterday the government announced that it was sending a handful of New Zealand troops to the Middle East, to participate in the US bombing campaign against Yemen. The numbers and roles - six people, doing target selection - is very much a token contribution. At the same time it reveals a fundamental difference in outlook between this government and the previous one. When the US started bombing people, Labour would say "no thanks". National by contrast is eager to join foreign wars, sucking up to the Americans and British so they can be "part of the club".

The government's justification is protecting trade and the "rules-based international order". Sure, but rule #1 of that order is "don't commit genocide", and the US is currently preventing that rule being enforced against Israel. Rule #2 is "no war without UN permission", and the US is breaking that one too: there is no UN mandate for this operation. Basicly, National is siding with the lawless here, and we shouldn't be doing that.

What's the alternative? Simple: stay out of it. If the US wants to piss all over the rules-based international order while purporting to uphold it, let them do it alone. That would actually be consistent with our long-standing foreign policy of support for international law. By getting involved, National have shown themselves to be nothing more than sociopaths, willing to kill - or have others kill for them - for social status. They're utterly despicable, and we should regard them as criminals.

Meanwhile, if we don't want our governments to do this sort of shit in future, we need to take a hard look at the capabilities of the NZDF, and start removing the ones which enable this. NZDF performs many useful functions for us - disaster relief, search and rescue, peacekeeping. But getting involved in foreign wars is not one of them. There's no reason for a country without an air force and which opposes American bombing campaigns to have people trained in choosing who to murder from the sky. Likewise, there's no reason for us to have an SAS, or frigates, or gold-plated ASW aircraft. These capabilities serve no purpose other than allowing governments to drag us into illegal and immoral military operations. And as a peaceful nation which supports international law, we are better off without them.

Decarbonisation for peace

When Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine, people were quick to point out that his war was funded by fossil fuels. 60% of Russia's export revenue comes from oil and gas. Europe's dependence on Russian gas is effectively funding Putin's war to the tune of US$285 million a day. Cutting that revenue would limit Russia's ability to wage war and commit acts of aggression against its neighbours.

Meanwhile, we are in the middle of a climate crisis, and desperately need to reduce global emissions to avoid destroying our civilisation and making the planet uninhabitable. And suddenly, the solution to one of these problems is looking like the solution to the other. The US has banned Russian oil. The UK is doing the same. The EU is cutting its dependence on Russian gas. In all three cases, making things work is going to require crash investment in decarbonisation - renewables, energy efficiency and EVs - to avoid significant damage. Meaning a permanent shift away from fossil fuels, and permanent emissions reductions.

But its not just Russia: globally, some of our worst tyrannies - Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Venezuela - are petrocracies, and rely on oil revenues to fund their wars and repression. (The USA, the world's largest oil producer, also engages in wars of aggression, but it is not a petrostate like the others are). Again, cutting those revenues will make them less powerful, less capable of hurting their own people or others. Reducing emissions is a way of defunding war everywhere. Sadly, it has taken a major war of aggression to remind everyone of this. But now it has been bought to our attention, we should seize the opportunity, decarbonise, and watch the tyrants shrivel.

Send Putin to The Hague

The International Criminal Court has formally opened an investigation into war crimes in Ukraine, after being asked to by 39 countries:

The prosecutor of the international criminal court (ICC) in The Hague has announced that he will launch an investigation into possible war crimes or crimes against humanity in Ukraine.

Karim Khan said that although Ukraine was not a member of the ICC, it had awarded jurisdiction to the court. He said that there was grounds to open an investigation based on a previous preliminary investigation on Crimea and the Donbas published last year, and on current events in Ukraine.

“I have already tasked my team to explore all evidence preservation opportunities,” Khan, a British lawyer, said.

Which is good, because war crimes and crimes against humanity are undoubtedly being committed by Russian forces in Ukraine, and they need to be prosecuted. But thanks to a quirk of the Rome Statute, the real crime here - the crime of aggression ( "the supreme international crime" which "contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole") - will not be part of the investigation. Neither Ukraine or Russia is a party to the Rome Statute (though Ukraine has accepted jurisdiction), so the ICC cannot prosecute for aggression. Which means firstly, that we need to reform the Rome Statute so that it can; and secondly, that until that happens, we will need a special-purpose tribunal to prosecute this crime and hold Putin accountable.

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.

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.

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.

100 seconds to midnight

The Doomsday Clock is a tracker created by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists for how close we are to global destruction. Created in 1947, it got worse as the Cold War started, then improved as it cooled down, then got worse again as Ronald Reagan tried to confront the "evil empire" and blow up the world. And then, when the Cold War ended, we were pretty safe for a while: the world was still shitty, but we weren't really trying to kill ourselves. But for the past decade, thanks to US aggression and climate change, it has been counting down again. And now, it is at 100 seconds to midnight:

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists announced its symbolic “doomsday clock” has moved forward to 100 seconds to midnight, the closest to catastrophe that the scientists have judged the world to be at any point since its creation in 1947, at the outset of the cold war.

“The world needs to wake up. Our planet faces two simultaneous existential threats,” said Mary Robinson, chair of an independent group of global leaders called The Elders, and the former president of Ireland and former UN high commissioner of human rights.

Even at the height of the Cold War, when the US and Russia had developed the hydrogen bomb and were ready to nuke each other on a moment's notice, it never got closer than 2 minutes (hell, for all his shit Reagan didn't manage to push it past 3). But now, we are closer to doom than ever before. And what are our leaders doing about it? Still making excuses. Still trying to protect the status quo. Still trying to compromise with physics.

When we say we need to save the world, they say we can't afford it. The truth is that we can no longer afford them. Our current global leadership isn't just morally and intellectually bankrupt - they are actively working for our destruction. And if we want to survive - not just as a species, but as individuals - we need to vote them out on their arses and get better ones.

A hundred years

Today marks the centenary of the end of the first world war. While it wasn't quite the world's stupidest war - that title probably goes to the Football War or the War of Jenkins' Ear - it ranks among them. Greedy, self-important aristocrats piled up the tinder for decades, with their bullshit concerns about empire and prestige and spheres of influence, so that in the end all it took was one spark. One dead Archduke killed 17 million of us.

Not that they did well out of it. Their empires fell, and in the "winners", their class was almost annihilated (I guess noblesse oblige was good for something). But we got the worse end of the deal. Their selfish war fucked up the entire twentieth century: the Russian Revolution, the inevitable rematch with Germany, and the subsequent Cold War can all be traced to the First World War. And we're still living with the aftermath, in the shape of the contradictory promises made by Britain to conquer the Middle East, and the artificial countries it left there.

The First World War is a warning of the danger of giving our political elites the power to wage war. While their stupidity couldn't kill all of us then, it can now. Stupidity, greed and selfishness being inevitable amongst elites, the only way we can defend ourselves from them is to disarm them. Peace is our only protection. And next time they tell us to fight, we should tell them to go fuck themselves.

New Zealand should ratify the Kampala Amendment

In 2010, the parties to the International Criminal Court agreed the Kampala Amendment, which finally gave a formal, legal definition to the crime of aggression (you know, the one they convicted the Nazis of), allowing the court to prosecute it. 35 states have since ratified the amendment, and it finally came into force today. But strangely, New Zealand wasn't one of them. Writing in Stuff, lawyer Roger Clark and former Green MP Kennedy Graham argue that we should ratify:

Should New Zealand join? Of course it should. If it is good enough for the German chancellor and the prime minister of Samoa to be accountable under law for aggression, it is good enough for our own leaders. New Zealand signed on to the Kampala Amendment back in 2010. Liechtenstein ratified in 2012, Germany in 2013. New Zealand could also have done so then. No reason to delay further.

In the New Zealand Parliament back in 2009, a member's bill making aggression a crime was given a first reading debate. The penalty for a New Zealand leader could stretch to 10 years in prison, a sobering consideration. The bill was voted down, but the vote was close – 64 to 58.

It is time for the Kampala Amendment to be brought into the House, and for that vote to be reversed.

And they're right. New Zealand's fundamental foreign policy position is for a peaceful, rules-based international order. But such an order is impossible where aggression is legal. As a small country, all we have is our voice. So if we want a peaceful, law-governed international order, we need to put our money where our mouth is, agree to be part of one, and do our bit to strengthen and spread those norms. I'm actually boggled we haven't done so already, but I guess that's what happens when you have a previous government obsessed with grovelling to the aggressive US...

A positive sign

While Donald Trump seems trying to start nuclear wars with both North Korea and Iran, there's abeen a positive sign: the UN has outlawed nuclear weapons. And New Zealand was one of the first countries to sign up to the ban:

Dozens of countries, including New Zealand, have signed a treaty to ban nuclear weapons amid tensions over North Korea's nuclear and missile tests.

The US, Britain, France and others, including Australia, boycotted the event at the annual United Nations gathering of world leaders.

The treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons will enter into force 90 days after 50 countries have ratified it. Only a few states were due to deposit their ratification on Wednesday.

No nuclear states are signing - but the treaty effectively criminalises them in international law and declares them to be outlaw regimes, providing a solid basis for international justice if they ever use the things. Assuming there's still people left to care, that is. And while a treaty without the nuclear powers doesn't sound like much of a step forward, its a start towards a safer world.

Good news for a change

The world seems to be turning into a darker place at the moment, with endless war in the Middle East, and Donald Trump threatening to start even more of them. But over the weekend, there was some light, with the UN formally adopting a treaty to ban nuclear weapons in international law:

More than 120 countries have approved the first-ever treaty to ban nuclear weapons at a UN meeting boycotted by all nuclear-armed nations.

To loud applause and cheers, Elayne Whyte Gomez, president of the UN conference that has been negotiating the legally binding treaty, announced the results of the "historic" vote - 122 nations in favour, the Netherlands opposed, and Singapore abstaining.

"We have managed to sow the first seeds of a world free of nuclear weapons," Whyte Gomez said. "We (are) ... saying to our children that, yes, it is possible to inherit a world free from nuclear weapons."

The treaty is simple, committing its parties to being nuclear free: they won't develop, manufacture, test, transfer, use, or even allow the stationing of nuclear weapons within their territory. And while no nuclear-armed state has joined (and NATO, as good little US vassals, refused to participate), they can, by renouncing their weapons and conducting an IAEA-verified disarmament process. While that probably won't happen soon (again, Trump: an aggressive US makes disarmament less likely), it leaves the door open for gradual denuclearisation. Meanwhile, by establishing a clear prohibition in international law, the treaty has effectively redefined every great power as a rogue state, while reducing their operating scope and providing a basis for future sanctions against them.

New Zealand has been at the heart of this struggle, and we're expected to be one of the first states to sign and ratify it (the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act 1987 means we're already compliant). Its an actual foreign policy success! Not that National seems proud of it - they blocked a motion in the House to celebrate it last week. But formally prohibiting nuclear weapons in international law is a major achievement, and one all kiwis can be proud of.

NZDF should not be allowed to recruit children

There was a disturbing article in the Independent a few weeks ago about the UK's recruitment of child soldiers. The UK is one of the few countries which allows people under 18 to join the armed forces, and the British Army specifically targets schools for recruits. Under-18's make up a quarter of their total recruits, and as they lack formal qualifications, end up being assigned to the infantry. Where they end up as cannon-fodder in America's imperial wars:

Sharrocks joined the Army in 2006, aged 17. He left in 2013 and has since suffered mental health problems. The UK is the only country in Europe – and one of only a handful in the world – that recruits under-18s into its Armed Forces. Groups campaigning against the practice argue that the youngest recruits are most susceptible to developing mental health problems such as PTSD – and dying in action.

[...]

From 2015 to 2016, the Army enlisted 8,020 soldiers of whom 1,790 were aged under 18, according to CSI. Even though the latter will not see battle until they come of age, the organisation’s study of Afghanistan suggests they will remain twice as likely to be killed once they do.

Like Britain, New Zealand also allows the recruitment of minors (though like Britain, they are forbidden from serving on active service). According to an OIA I lodged last week, roughly an eighth of New Zealand army recruits are children. Unlike the UK, we don't fight for America, so the effects aren't nearly as bad. Still, its disturbing - especially when New Zealand was one of the lead campaigners for the Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict. We're consistent with its wording - no children in combat - but not its spirit, in that we still train children to be killers.

This isn't something we should do. Instead, we should follow civilised countries and prohibit minors from enlisting. It would be an easy amendment - simply replace section 36 of the Defence Act with a statement that "a person under 18 years of age shall not be eligible to enlist or be accepted for service in the Armed Forces". The question is whether MP's want to behave like a civilised country or not.

A gap in our defence policy

Last week, under cover of a major earthquake, the government announced it was spending $20 billion on new toys for the defence force. New frigates, new ASW aircraft for finding submarines (rather than lost fishermen), cyber-woo - all of it wasted money stolen from the mouths of the poor. And in the Herald today, Brian Rudman points out the obvious: that all of this spending mis aimed at the wrong target:

What is missing is a chapter, or even a page in either the White Paper or the shopping list, outlining plans for dealing with our most immediate and potentially deadly threat.

The vast majority of us were born after the deadly Napier earthquake. But three major shakes in the South Island in the last six years, have highlighted how the enemy we are most likely to have to front is the one within. "Bishop" Tamaki paints him as a scary homophobic Old Testament God. Science tells us we're at the mercy of tectonic plates rubbing against one another.

It's not an enemy we can fight. But it would be nice to think that some of the $20 billion Defence spend-up over the next 15 years, was being earmarked for disaster rescue, relief and reconstruction.

From NZDF's procurement plans, you'd think they were planning to refight the Battle of the Atlantic to protect Mother Britain, or a major tank battle on the North German plain against the forces of the (long dead) Soviet Union. Meanwhile, what actually threatens us is... earthquakes. They've shown how useful they can be in such situations (again, the Canterbury, basicly a Cook Strait ferry painted battleship grey, is our most useful defence asset). It would be nice if their future spending plans were focused on what they actually do and improving their capabilities towards actual threats.

Here's a suggestion: if the government is so concerned about the cost of 24/7 earthquake and tsunami warning, maybe they should take the money from the defence budget? Spending it that way would be far more effective in protecting our lives than buying toys for fantasy wars we will (and should) never fight.

New Fisk

The poppy has become a symbol of racism – I have never worn one, and now I never will

National bans protesting against US ship visit

Next month the US will be sending a non-nuclear-armed (but possibly cluster-bomb-armed) ship to New Zealand to participate in the New Zealand Navy's birthday party. As the representative of a military currently bombing children in at least seven countries, the USS Sampson is likely to attract protests on the water. So National has simply banned them:

Protest boats will be banned from parts of Auckland's harbour during a historic visit by a United States warship.

The US Navy is sending the USS Sampson to Auckland for the Royal New Zealand Navy's 75th birthday next month - the first visit by an American ship in 33 years.

Transport Minister Simon Bridges today declared the International Naval Review a Major Maritime Event.

That meant vessels not taking part in the review would have to stay clear of restricted areas in the Waitemata Harbour, Rangitoto Channel and parts of the inner Hauraki Gulf.

Bridges said the restrictions were intended to "ensure the safety of everyone on the water, including people who are not part of the event"

Bullshit. What it's actually intended to do is prevent the navy's birthday celebration being "marred" by the visible presence of people who don't like them or their choice of friends. And that's simply not a legitimate public purpose. This protest ban is a clear violation of the rights of freedom of expression and assembly enshrined in the Bill of Rights Act. The only question is whether the courts find that before or after National's police arrest someone under it.

The law means nothing

Another day, another case of the "impartial" police refusing to prosecute the rich and powerful for their crimes. This time, its investing in cluster bombs:

KiwiSaver providers will not face a criminal investigation after the Police and Financial Markets Authority decided not to progress a complaint about investments in banned weapons.

[...]

In a statement today Police said a review by themselves and the FMA of the Cluster Munitions Act had revealed "significant threshold issues" and an investigation would not be progressed.

"At this stage there is no evidence to indicate offending. Should there be any new evidence that comes to light this will be assessed and acted on as required."

Compare this with the zealousness with which they prosecute minor drug offences, and its clear that the police think there's one law for the rich and another for the poor. And with the rich, its all just too much work... apparently despite the law saying it is an offence to knowingly invest in forms which make cluster bombs, that's "unclear". Which means not only that these scum walk free, but that they'll keep on making such investments.

The natural response is to call for Parliament to clarify and strengthen the law, as Rob Stock does. But I suspect the problem goes deeper than that. The police seem to be very good at finding laws to be "unclear" when they want them to be - just look at the lack of prosecutions over criminal GCSB domestic spying, or over electoral overspending. The central problem instead is that the police are reluctant to challenge the rich and powerful and hold them to account. But if that's the case, and the law applies only to the poor and the weak, then we have no moral reason to obey it.

Toys for the boys

The government released a defence white paper today, basicly a long-term plan for the NZDF. Or, in English, their shopping list. So what does NZDF want? Big, fancy ASW planes, for hunting down Soviet (not an error) submarines. Big fancy cargo planes for hauling tanks to the Middle East, the same ones Australia has. Some of that sweet "cyber" woo-money GCSB, SIS and all the other cool kids are getting, so they can be all hip and cool and William Gibson like SF fans were in the 80's. And they want us to spend $20 billion over 15 years to buy them all this.

Bluntly, we should tell them to fuck off. Because what's apparent from this wish-list is that NZDF are wanting toys for the boys, not anything related to our actual defence needs. Meanwhile, the cost will be at the expense of higher-value investments, such as schools and hospitals.

NZDF wants the same kit everybody else has, both for status reasons, so they can keep up with the Americans and Australians, and for "interoperability" - so they can fight other people's wars, the wars the New Zealand public opposes. Their case for better armoured vehicles is all because the Middle East is an "increasingly challenging and higher threat environment for defence force deployments". Or, we could not fucking go there. Its not like we want to be there anyway, after all. Buying NZDF this gear, giving them these capabilities, puts them on the table as an option when the US wants to form another coalition for its next stupid imperialist adventure. Denying them that capability keeps us out of the US's stupid wars, keeps us safe.

Especially when the capability they want comes at the expense of things we actually want the NZDF to do. The big fancy cargo plane NZDF wants as a replacement for the current Hercules? It will need a long runway to take off, won't be able to land on rough airstrips, and there will be only one of them rather than four. So, the basic role of delivering aid to the Pacific after disasters, the one the planes actually get used for and that the public overwhelmingly supports, will be sacrificed for a gold-plated status-symbol useful only for providing logistical support for other people's wars. Those ASW planes? What we actually need is something to monitor illegal fishing, do post-disaster damage assessments, and look for lost ships - not fucking imaginary submarines from thirty years ago. As for "cyber", it's woo and always has been, a buzzword used to scam funding from gullible politicians. And insofar as its not, don't we already have an agency, the GCSB, supposedly dedicated to that already?

And then there's the opportunity cost. Because that $20 billion over 15 years, more than a billion dollars a year, is a shitload of money and will come at the cost of other programmes. That billion dollars a year? That's not just the pathetic paid parental leave extension the government is currently threatening to veto, but a full year (and probably more). Its two thousand new state houses every year. Its a 50 percent increase in police numbers, or the elimination of tertiary fees, or a doubling of science funding. Or its the annual increase required in our health budget - which to be blunt, saves more lives than NZDF ever has and ever will. All of these investments are worth far more to us as a society than a bunch of useless planes and guns so defence ministers and generals can play at their fantasies of war (really, can't they just fuck off and start a larp?)

Eisenhower was right:

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed.

Time to stop stealing. Time to stop paying for NZDF's toys.

At least we're not paying them much

Last month I highlighted an FYI request about the Public Advisory Committee on Disarmament and Arms Control (PACDAC), which appeared not to be fulfilling its statutory duties. They haven't performed their core function of advising the Minister of Foreign Affairs on disarmament issues, or the Prime Minister on nuclear issues, for the last six years - despite plenty of such issues arising. Which invites the question: who are these people and how much are we paying them to not do their job?

A followup on FYI has answered these questions. The membership of PACDEC, appointed in December 2015 without any public announcement, is Natasha Barnes, Treasa Dunworth, Ross Miller, Sarah Paterson, Kevin Riordan, Paul Sinclair, Angela Woodward, and (of course) former National MP and nuclear-ban-abolitionist Wayne Mapp. They're paid according to the standard Cabinet fees framework as a group 4, level 5 committee, which translates to $140 - $190 per meeting (and $190 - $245 for the chair). Which is appropriate for a group which largely spends its time handing out grants. At the same time, these people have a statutory duty, and no shortage of issues to advise on; shouldn't they be doing it?