Friday 6 May 2016

Outmanoeuvred.

Action Man: Andrew Little with Lt-Gen Tim Keating at Camp Taji, Iraq. Brought face-to-face with Kiwi men and women in uniform, no Leader of the Opposition is going to do anything but praise their courage and dedication. Such praise, however, is all-too-easily perceived by the ordinary New Zealand voter as a vindication of the Government’s decision to send them into harm’s way. That perception was not in any way dispelled by images of Little wearing a flak jacket and walking at the Chief of Defence Force's side.
 
READING JOHN KEY’s 3 May speech to the NZ Institute of International Affairs, I found myself longing for an effective Opposition. The Prime Minister’s bland recapitulation of the tired old neoliberal narrative: the twenty-first century equivalent of the God, King and Empire speeches of a century ago; offered nothing even remotely comparable to the uplifting oratory of Norman Kirk and David Lange.
 
Labour’s leaders were once renowned for their ability to convince the world that New Zealand is a lot bigger than it looks. Their unique blend of idealism and pragmatism; courage and caginess; attracted considerable international attention. Kiwis were not only admired – they were liked.
 
Mr Key’s vision of New Zealand sees us as a vast South Pacific shopping-mall, set in an even larger tourist resort, and serviced by a polyglot community of free-trade worshipping buyers and sellers, entrepreneurs and tour-guides, from all over the world. A sort of Singapore with ski-fields.
 
Does any of it matter?
 
There’s a school of political thought which answers “No – not at all!” It plays down the notion that voters are ever motivated primarily by foreign policy issues. Such thinkers are fond of quoting the famous aide memoire attributed to Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign managers, Paul Bergala and James Carville: “It’s the economy, stupid!”
 
But political campaigns do not live by bread and butter alone. Those who insist that economic issues must always come first have clearly forgotten the extraordinary role played by the Vietnam War, Apartheid Sport and Nuclear Weapons in the political history of late-twentieth century New Zealand.
 
By challenging the voting public to make difficult and often unpopular moral choices, the mass movements spawned by these international issues ennobled public life. Politics became something more than the rather sordid “what’s in it for me?” electoral auctioneering so dear to the hearts of the bread-and-butter brigade.
 
Perhaps it’s his many years as a staunch bread-and-butter trade unionist that explains Andrew Little’s failure to grasp the important role foreign policy issues play in lifting Labour up and into power. It is certainly difficult to imagine Norman Kirk, David Lange or Helen Clark allowing themselves to be so easily outmanoeuvred and compromised on an important foreign policy issue as the current Labour Leader was recently in Iraq.
 
What on earth possessed Little to tag along with Defence Minister, Gerry Brownlee, on the latter’s visit the Kiwi troops at Camp Taji? Labour’s position on New Zealand’s Iraqi commitment was admirably clear. It saw no benefit, and considerable risk, in this country once again involving itself in the conflicts besetting the Middle East.
 
According to Labour, the Iraqi regime was riven with corruption and its armed forces, as a result of that corruption, lacked both the will and the means to mount an effective counter-offensive against the forces of the Islamic State. While Labour did not doubt the ability of New Zealand Defence Force personnel to ready Iraqi soldiers for battle, it had absolutely no confidence that, once removed from Camp Taji and their Kiwi instructors, they would stay ready.
 
These were all good, practical objections to New Zealand’s involvement in Iraq – and every one of them was undermined by Little’s presence. Brought face-to-face with Kiwi men and women in uniform, no Leader of the Opposition is going to do anything but praise their courage and dedication. Such praise, however, is all-too-easily perceived by the ordinary New Zealand voter as a vindication of the Government’s decision to send them into harm’s way. That perception was not in any way dispelled by images of Little wearing a flak jacket and walking at Brownlee’s side.
 
The journalists accompanying Brownlee and Little reported that it looked as though Labour was preparing to re-establish bi-partisanship of matters relating to foreign policy and defence – and they were right.
 
The only defensible position for Labour on the Middle East is the one that demands the disengagement and withdrawal of all Western forces – including our own – from the entire region. Its intractable conflicts are the malign legacy of  British, French and American imperialism, and they will not be ended by the intervention of the very same entities that gave them birth.
 
No National Party Prime Minister could adopt such a policy. That a potential Labour Prime Minister allowed his party’s principled foreign policy stance to be so easily compromised is deeply depressing.
 
This essay was originally published in The Waikato Times, The Taranaki Daily News, The Timaru Herald, The Otago Daily Times and The Greymouth Star of Friday, 6 May 2016.

20 comments:

Anonymous said...

You seem to be the only commentator drawing this conclusion. I note you don't give a single quote of what he said in the media, including his strongly reinforcing Labour's position on the deployment. I also not you don't cover his advocacy for the refugee quota increasing and his trip to Jordan, which was followed closely by the government u-turning on lifting the quota. This is an issue of progressive national identity and going beyond bread and butter if ever I saw one.

Furthermore, this week has seen Little outmanoeuvre Key on healthy homes, has seen National fold to Labour's pressure on Pharmac funding, and has seen Key skewered on his dodgy foreign trust links.

You seem to have lost perspective Chris.

Guerilla Surgeon said...

But... But... Wayne says it's stable. I suspect Wayne is used to giving politicians' answers to people and then walking away from them. Can't do that here Wayne. :)

jh said...

Andrew Little’s failure to grasp the important role foreign policy issues play in lifting Labour up and into power.

As in
The attitudes of New Zealanders in the mid-1990s towards immigration may not have reflected the positive perspective on the value of diversity in our society that is contained in the Review of Immigration Policy August 1986. But this does not mean that the globalisation of immigration to New Zealand was an “unintended consequence of policy changes in 1986”. It was a deliberate strategy, based on a premise that the “infusion of new elements to New Zealand life has been of immense value to the development of this country to date and will, as a result of this Government’s review of immigration policy, become even more important in the future” (Burke 1986:330).
and
This process of population replacement is occurring at a time when natural increase amongst all components of the New Zealand resident population is falling.

And now politicians have the gall to blame the housing crisis on Kiwis coming home.

I heard Noam Chompsky on Nine to Noon. The globalisation aspect of discontent amongst sections of American society wasn't on his radar at all

jh said...

By challenging the voting public to make difficult and often unpopular moral choices, the mass movements spawned by these international issues ennobled public life. Politics became something more than the rather sordid “what’s in it for me?” electoral auctioneering so dear to the hearts of the bread-and-butter brigade.
........
The "mass movement" became a tail wagging a dog. Frank Salter argues that universities in the western world lost the battle to neo marxists (who train journalists and beaurocrats). The politicians set up institutions (HRC, Race Relations Office etc) lavishly funded, pumping out propaganda.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIzqDwYlEVs

Anonymous said...

First of all thank goodness that the Russians are involved in Syria, the Americans and their allies lost their way the moment they disbanded the defeated Saddam Husseins army instead of using them to keep order.
This army turned against the Americans/ allies and chaos reigns.
I agree with our government's commitment and troop training contribution and at the time of making those decision's Andrew Little did not support the government decision's.
He made a lot of noise and argument ensued across our country.
How on earth he can now make a goodwill visit to our troops with the Defence Minister Gerry Brownlee is beyond my comprehension, where does this leave him and his supporters if the tour of duty is lengthened or increased in commitment by the government.

"up the creek without a paddle" seems about right, surely the Labour party and their supporters must be in despair.

Anonymous said...

Chris, you posted this at 12.20.p.m. - as I write, it's 3.20.p.m. and nary a comment. What is this saying..................

Anonymous said...

That David Lange, Labour Prime Minister, allowed his party’s principled ideology to be so easily compromised and destroyed by the right wingers is deeply depressing. Because everybody rolled over! And so here we are!!

Anonymous said...

Little does have an aspect of naivety about him; a kind of unworldliness.

It's one thing to thump a smoko room table in a stirring speech to the workers but quite another to get about the world and advance foreign policy positions that are at the forefront of global thinking.

I doubt Little is up to the task.

He should have gone to Camp Taji by himself and spoke to the officers and ranks not only of the NZers but other forces in the region - in private.

Little's main problem is who surrounds & 'advises' him. Dyed-in-the-wool unionist lackies with limited world experience hamper him greatly.

I understand a former Womens Weekly editor works in his office. Doubtless she contributes substantive foreign policy thinking...

It's time for Little to break the shackles and surround himself with people that actually know how to win an election. If he doesn't do that it'll be 4 on the trot.

cricket? said...

Yes Chris as you state its hardly the line Clarke and Lange would have taken and as we are buried knee deep in debt which is the ultimate weapon of the rich and powerful to keep the masses down in this modern time, by Key, we find our Labour party losing its way in securing power in 2017
History should teach us that our country in war it has been great in victory and it has been despondent in terror and failure and to our service people in each world war we have suffered in great proportions for the size of our country
But with people like Key in power we are following the line of the US to give the poor a secure future if you survive by serving whatever bs rhetoric twerps like Key can dish out and sadly if Labour do not make a clear policy on the future of the armed forces in the current conflicts the people will be left with no future to decide for themselves when they vote

Gary Young said...

Anonymous @15:22, it may be saying no more than people are at work and won't read the article till they get home.

Anonymous said...

Let's be frank - in the 18 or so months Little has been Leader of the Opposition I don't recall him putting a 'hit' on the government at Question Time or anytime.

I seriously doubt Little has the intellectual clout or force of character to be Prime Minister.

Little is not quick & witty like Lange or big-hearted & 'down home' like Big Norm.

Lange & Kirk advanced NZ both at home and abroad with principled policy.

Little is a unionist dullard.

jh said...

It's one thing to thump a smoko room table in a stirring speech to the workers but quite another to get about the world and advance foreign policy positions that are at the forefront of global thinking.
.....
Huh? since when did Labour visit it's working class? does the working class post on the Standard or public Address? Do the working class have their letters (chortle, chortle) read out on "RNZ"?
....
foreign policy positions that are at the forefront of global thinking:
1. The worlds problems can be managed by the erosion of borders. Poor migrate to rich> rich absorb poor > "good for economy". John Key, Barrack Obama, Hilary Clinton
2. "NZ needs all [and any] the capital it can get" "all ships rise through globalisation" Jamie Whyte.
3.?
People are starting to look to nature. "Othering" is (essentially) a healthy response where a nation looks after it's own (upon reaching a developed state). I'm reminded of a TV drama where all the walls were knocked down between the units in a Coronation street style tenement block. I don't know if I watched the whole thing (it was in black and white) but in the last scene one of the protaganists was laying bricks: the experiment was a failure.

Two men looked out from prison bars, one saw mud the other saw stars. One was Rod Oram who foresaw "world class city", the other saw a cross leased summer hill stone flat with a little concrete landing and twisted paling fence for a view (in a ramshackle neighborhood). Rod represents the elites who have all the say- Superdiversity and all that.

David Stone said...

Hi Chris
I don't think our military presence in Iraq now can fairly be separated from our involvement from 2003. I googled to remind myself at what stage we got involved and got an article by The World Socialist Web Site dated 21/June/2003 referring to Clark's announcement "last week"of a deployment. Thus it was 3 months into ' Shock And Awe'. It was for reconstruction of course but I don't think we were invited in by the Iraqi people or any Iraqi based government. This article describes a diplomatic furore between the Bush administration and Clark in which the dear old TPPA was waved as Clark was told there would be no trade agreements with US unless she contributed .She of course denied that this threat had anything to do with the deployment that was announced 2 wks after the threat; But whether one wants to believe the threat influenced her or not the exchange highlights the fact that in a globalised world a little country that exports most of what it produces in order to pay the price of importing most of what it consumes, is completely at the mercy of the dominant economic powers. So with no effective economic sovereignty we have no moral sovereignty either and thus not Clark not Little far less Key and not Lange either could do anything much to defy U S whim and stay in power in the face of "your either with us or against us".
So New Zealand. To quote Bic Runga out of context...

C'mon where's your soul?
Is that it crumpled on the floor ?

True Lange presided over the highly popular nuke ban and poked the US in the eye a bit but remember that move, which Anderton had to work hard on him to agree to ,bought his government the approval necessary to allow Rogernomics to be established . And Rogernomics would have been highly approved of in Washington.
To return to topic the 2003 deployment of a tiny force can not have made a significant difference physically, it was a symbolic gesture . A gesture of solidarity with the major forces involved, namely the original invading forces of the U S and U K' Again we were not invited in by the Iraqis , and the legacy of this invasion left to Iraq and her neighbours is Isis. So do we now leave the people of Mosul , and the Yazidi woman and girls throughout the territories occupied by this monstrous collection of psychopaths, spawned by theU S / U K action with which we gave that tacit approval ,to their fate?
If there is a way that we can now help to repair some of the ghastly mischief that has been made then there is infinitely more justification for being there now , in that endeavour, than there ever was in 2003. But having said that I can't claim confidence that we can even now do anything there that won't just prolong their agony.
Cheers (though I'm not providing much here)
David J S

aberfoyle said...

Anonymous,above,how scoffing or scowling your scurrilous drivel,of Union officials being naive of employers unknowing world exploitation.

For me the man who should be holding the opposition to account,and every night in Parliament he destroys them every time he gets up to speak.

Saying that,that does not give creedence to your slur that Unions and their employers the workers, are ignorant of our world,and the undisputed evidence,that free range capital with friendly friends,have and still abuse human labour rights.

greywarbler said...

Cripes so many Anonymouses. Why don't you go boil all your heads, you ephemeral pixies. That's an interesting bunch of mixed metaphors I offer!

Chris I really liked this picture you drew of Kiwis in the not too distant past. I agree and repeat it here as a well-rounded statement that should be printed on a card and kept in a vantage point, like the photo of Michael Savage that used to hang in many houses. Inspiration and a credo to express it, just what we need.

Labour’s leaders were once renowned for their ability to convince the world that New Zealand is a lot bigger than it looks. Their unique blend of idealism and pragmatism; courage and caginess; attracted considerable international attention. Kiwis were not only admired – they were liked.

Anonymous said...

I did not see Winnie in Iraq, now he can legitimately criticise Key and National when the increase in commitment is called by Key.

Winnie understands MMP, Little and the Labour party at large do not.

Guerilla Surgeon said...

"So do we now leave the people of Mosul , and the Yazidi woman and girls throughout the territories occupied by this monstrous collection of psychopaths, spawned by theU S / U K action with which we gave that tacit approval ,to their fate?"

Er... That is sentimental nonsense, and yes we should. Firstly because we didn't cause it. That's down to the US and Britain. Secondly, because is not going to do the slightest bit of fucking good – it's just supporting yet another corrupt government as we did in Vietnam ad nauseam. And thirdly because it's putting our young men's lives at risk for no reward.

What's really going to happen in this oh-so stable country as Wayne is enamoured of saying, is that we are going to train the troops, and they are going to run away – again. As happened in Vietnam, as happened in Afghanistan Yemen and Syria. $25 billion worth of Iraqi training, and they threw down their weapons and ran away. If $25 billion can't solve it, I doubt we can.

The thing is, we can train them, but we can't motivate them. Every one of these runaway armies has been better trained and equipped than their opposition – just before they ran away. What we should be doing is making sure that they have a government they're willing to fight and die for. Now that's a lot harder.

All this of course is complicated by the fact that in Iraq at least, Shiites don't want their kids dying for essentially what they see as a Sunni problem. In Afghanistan, there are high rates of desertion because of tribal loyalties. It's FUBAR as they say.

Not only that, but we are also training troops with pretty dubious human rights records.

You know what, even if we could see some tangible benefits in our US relationship from this, we still shouldn't do it. But we can't. I've said this a number of times on this site – countries have interests not ethics. A truism perhaps, but if the US wants to throw us under a bus because it's in their interests to do so they will. And all the arse kissing in the world will not alter that.

greywarbler said...

The USA may come and hold maneouvres here to show that they are keen and ready to act if there is a scenario that irritates. Or Australia will put our people in gaol on spurious charges.

Wait - they already are. We are thinking in grandiose terms if we think that the Middle East is going to be turned to the pretty path if we go over there and do our thing.

Perhaps we have a mental illness. Or what might be called small country neurosis.
Refer to Wikipedia for grandiosity:
Search Results
Grandiose delusions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandiose_delusions
Grandiose delusions (GD) or delusions of grandeur are a subtype of delusion that occur in patients suffering from a wide range of mental illnesses, including two-thirds of patients in manic state of bipolar disorder, half of those with schizophrenia, patients with the grandiose subtype of delusional disorder, and a ...

David Stone said...

@ GS I don't apologise for my sentimentality And I don't disagree with your depiction of the probable futility of us being there now. I just think there is more justification for trying to help now than there was for going in there in the first place.
In pointing out how globalisation and trade dependancy compromise our political and moral independence , I don't approve that situation. It's a significant cost that gets ignored in the debate on operating an "open economy". I think it is more sensible to
foster what necessary industries we can here and prioritise full employment and self sufficiency .
Cheers D J S

Guerilla Surgeon said...

David – fine – let's be there, but let's not be training troops. Let's be trying to build a country that people are willing to fight for maybe. What we're doing at the moment is totally futile, and quite possibly adding to instability in the Middle East.