Sunday, 28 January 2018

United States (US) vs Aotearoa NZ Values - Do These Correlate?

This essay was written for the benefit of the New Zealand Parliament's Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade (FADT) select committee's Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) treaty examination process required by Parliament's Standing Orders. The paper was written for and delivered with my public evidence 28 April 2016.

As well as this paper I provided the FADT committee with a dozen papers addressing various aspects of the TPP and its implications, most to the treaty examination March/April 2016 and a few to the subsequent TPP legislation select committee hearings conducted mid 2016.

I place the essay here as it is very relevant to the consideration of the relationship between Aotearoa NZ and the United States.

The truth about the 9/11 Crime and the resulting Global War on Terror (GWOT) a global and endless war that ought be considered World War III is missing from the Official Information records. I will follow with a post about my knowledge of those issues in the near future.

Realism is what follows. Please hold in mind the fact that New Zealand is a partner to the UK/US Five Eyes or Echelon spying agreement, which makes NZ a willing and complicit partner in the multitude of International Crimes and Aggressions around our planetary home!

If you are not interested in reality and wish to maintain a fantasy view of the US mafia state (I also refer to it as the United States of Aggression), please stop reading now!


United States (US) – Aotearoa NZ Values - Do These Correlate?
Some observations from a google search.1
In the spirit of Anzac – Lest we Forget.
NZ National Interest – What is it?
I wrote the GCSB and NZSIS asking 37 questions relating to our warmaking since the events of the 11th September 2001 known as 9/11. One question that I asked the two security services, to which they provided a substantial answer, was in respect to the definition of the National Interest2;
Most people who reside in Aotearoa New Zealand are ethical or moral characters. I’ve spoken to many of your political peers and they all desire security and peace. They also want prosperity and the ability to do the best they can for their constituents. Sure there is a bit of empire building and pork-barrelling in any game that involves people with power or seeking favour – hopefully this is usually reasonably discernible (no institution is free of corruption – the trick is to ensure that the corruption is not in the fundamentals of the system) in the relatively transparent NZ political economy.
The point being that most of the politicians I meet are reasonable people. I’ve met hundreds of local government politicians and their administrations in the work I’ve undertaken in the past several years as a public advocate in relation to the TPP treaty.
A reasonable person is the entity that the Westminster system is designed to foster and relies upon for its general consent. A reasonable and genuinely liberal character is the epitome of the classically trained enlightenment age gentleman and lady. We were approaching civilisation with liberal values in the middle of the nineteenth century with the classical philosophical observations of John Stuart Mill.3 Is the relative size of the middle class a measure of civilisation? The middle class most benefit from diverse cultural offerings and the trappings of humanistic civilisation. It is the upper middle class that lead society and set the pace of change, they are the managers and professionals and academics who provide the intellectual foundations. US middle class has been losing numbers at both the top and bottom.4
This graph highlights the effect of US government policy settings over the long term:
Inflation adjusted percentage increase in after-tax household income for the top 1% and four of the five quintiles, between 1979 and 2005 (gains by top 1% are reflected by bottom bar; bottom quintile by top bar).5
The USA figures reflect a global trend, which is hardly surprising given the economic system the world largely follows is dictated from imperatives that suit USA interests. The following tract is from a 1994 assessment ‘The arcana of empire and the dilemma of American national security’ on US Foreign Policy:
The demand for new strategies for a new world springs from the assumption that the Soviet "threat" fundamentally determined US diplomacy from 1945 until the end of the Cold War. Now that the USSR has disappeared, it would seem reasonable that American security policy would change profoundly. But this view presupposes that Washington's Cold War grand strategy was--and that foreign policy in general is--a response to the pressures of other states. If, however, US security policy has been primarily determined not by external threats but by the apparent demands of America' s economy, then it would be no wonder that, despite the collapse of the Berlin Wall, those who call for new strategies are unable to devise them. Persuasively, albeit unwittingly, this is the argument that the foreign policy community advances today in its post-Cold War strategic reassessments. It is a view that traps the United States in a quandary, for as long as that community believes that America's prosperity depends upon its current national security strategy, the country cannot free itself from the exhausting and perilous task of ordering the world, a task that was supposed to end with the Cold War. To appreciate the dilemma that arises when the United States seeks its domestic well-being in sources beyond its borders, we must examine those internal imperatives that dictate our foreign policy; in other words, we must explore that policy from the inside out. 6
Only 5 years later the prophetic ‘Rebuilding America’s Defences’ by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) think tank states;
"It is not a choice between preeminence today and preeminence tomorrow. Global leadership is not something exercised at our leisure, when the mood strikes us or when our core national security interests are directly threatened; then it is already too late. Rather, it is a choice whether or not to maintain American military preeminence, to secure American geopolitical leadership, and to preserve the American peace" (p. 76).
I’ve extracted from Bette Stockbauer’s summary of ‘Rebuilding America’s Defences’ (RAD)7:
The building of Pax Americana has become possible, claims "RAD," because the fall of the Soviet Union has given the U.S. status as the world's singular superpower. It must now work hard not only to maintain that position, but to spread its influence into geographic areas that are ideologically opposed to our influence. Decrying reductions in defense spending during the Clinton years "RAD" propounds the theory that the only way to preserve peace in the coming era will be to increase military forces for the purpose of waging multiple wars to subdue countries which may stand in the way of U.S. global preeminence.
Their flaws in logic are obvious to people of conscience, namely, 1) a combative posture on our part will not secure peace, but will rather engender fear throughout the world and begin anew the arms race, only this time with far more contenders, and 2) democracy, by its very definition, cannot be imposed by force.
Following is the preamble to the document:
"As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world’s most preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievement of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?
"[What we require is] a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States’ global responsibilities.
"Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of the past century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership" (from the Project’s Statement of Principles).
Four Vital Missions
PNAC members believe that there are four vital missions "demanded by U. S. global leadership," but claim that "current American armed forces are ill-prepared to execute" these missions.
Homeland Defense. America must defend its homeland. During the Cold War, nuclear deterrence was the key element in homeland defense; it remains essential. But the new century has brought with it new challenges. While reconfiguring its nuclear force, the United States also must counteract the effects of the proliferation of ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction that may soon allow lesser states to deter U.S. military action by threatening U.S. allies and the American homeland itself. Of all the new and current missions for U.S. armed forces, this must have priority.
Large Wars. Second, the United States must retain sufficient forces able to rapidly deploy and win multiple simultaneous large-scale wars and also to be able to respond to unanticipated contingencies in regions where it does not maintain forward-based forces. This resembles the 'two-war' standard that has been the basis of U.S. force planning over the past decade. Yet this standard needs to be updated to account for new realities and potential new conflicts.
Constabulary Duties. Third, the Pentagon must retain forces to preserve the current peace in ways that fall short of conduction major theater campaigns. A decade’s experience and the policies of two administrations have shown that such forces must be expanded to meet the needs of the new, long-term NATO mission in the Balkans, the continuing no-fly-zone and other missions in Southwest Asia, and other presence missions in vital regions of East Asia. These duties are today’s most frequent missions, requiring forces configured for combat but capable of long-term, independent constabulary operations.
Transform U.S. Armed Forces. Finally, the Pentagon must begin now to exploit the so-called 'revolution in military affairs,' sparked by the introduction of advanced technologies into military systems; this must be regarded as a separate and critical mission worthy of a share of force structure and defense budgets" (p. 6).
"In conclusion, it should be clear that these four essential missions for maintaining American military preeminence are quite separate and distinct from one another – none should be considered a 'lesser included case' of another, even though they are closely related and may, in some cases, require similar sorts of forces. Conversely, the failure to provide sufficient forces to execute these four missions must result in problems for American strategy. The failure to build missile defenses will put America and her allies at grave risk and compromise the exercise of American power abroad. Conventional forces that are insufficient to fight multiple theater wars simultaneously cannot protect American global interests and allies. Neglect or withdrawal from constabulary missions will increase the likelihood of larger wars breaking out and encourage petty tyrants to defy American interests and ideals. And the failure to prepare for tomorrow’s challenges will ensure that the current Pax Americana comes to an early end" (p. 13).8
One of the crucial calls by the RAD report was the following under the heading; ‘Creating Tomorrow’s Dominant Force’
... The Internet is also playing an increasingly important role in warfare and human political conflict. From the early use of the Internet by Zapatista insurgents in Mexico to the war in Kosovo, communication by computer has added a new dimension to warfare. Moreover, the use of the Internet to spread computer viruses reveals how easy it can be to disrupt the normal functioning of commercial and even military computer networks. Any nation which cannot assure the free and secure access of its citizens to these systems will sacrifice an element of its sovereignty and its power...9
We also require dominance in space for the US and our allies (which must include NZ);
Space and Cyberspace
No system of missile defenses can be fully effective without placing sensors and weapons in space. Although this would appear to be creating a potential new theater of warfare, in fact space has been militarized for the better part of four decades. Weather, communications, navigation and reconnaissance satellites are increasingly essential elements in American military power. Indeed, U.S. armed forces are uniquely dependent upon space. As the 1996 Joint Strategy Review, a precursor to the 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review, concluded, “Space is already inextricably linked to military operations on land, on the sea, and in the air.” The report of the National Defense Panel agreed: “Unrestricted use of space has become a major strategic interest of the United States.”
The RAD report places space warfare in crystal clarity in the following passage;
Although it may take several decades for the process of transformation to unfold, in time, the art of warfare on air, land, and sea will be vastly different than it is today, and “combat” likely will take place in new dimensions: in space, “cyber-space,” and perhaps the world of microbes. Air warfare may no longer be fought by pilots manning tactical fighter aircraft sweeping the skies of opposing fighters, but a regime dominated by long-range, stealthy unmanned craft. On land, the clash of massive, combined-arms armored forces may be replaced by the dashes of much lighter, stealthier and information-intensive forces, augmented by fleets of robots, some small enough to fit in soldiers’ pockets. Control of the sea could be largely determined not by fleets of surface combatants and aircraft carriers, but from land- and space-based systems, forcing navies to maneuver and fight underwater. Space itself will become a theater of war, as nations gain access to space capabilities and come to rely on them; further, the distinction between military and commercial space systems – combatants and noncombatants –will become blurred. Information systems will become an important focus of attack, particularly for U.S. enemies seeking to short-circuit sophisticated American forces. And advanced forms of biological warfare that can “target” specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.
This is merely a glimpse of the possibilities inherent in the process of transformation, not a precise prediction. Whatever the shape and direction of this revolution in military affairs, the implications for continued American military preeminence will be profound. As argued above, there are many reasons to believe that U.S. forces already possess nascent revolutionary capabilities, particularly in the realms of intelligence, command and control, and long range precision strikes. Indeed, these capabilities are sufficient to allow the armed services to begin an “interim,” short- to medium-term process of transformation right away, creating new force designs and operational concepts – designs and concepts different than those contemplated by the current defense program – to maximize the capabilities that already exist. But these must be viewed as merely a way-station toward a more thoroughgoing transformation.10
This on the revolution coming in the art of war;
Absent a rigorous program of experimentation to investigate the nature of the revolution in military affairs as it applies to war at sea, the Navy might face a future Pearl Harbor – as unprepared for war in the post-carrier era as it was unprepared for war at the dawn of the carrier age.11
Which brings us back to the commencement of this part of the report to the following statement which is the nub of the thinking.
Any serious effort at transformation must occur within the larger framework of U.S. national security strategy, military missions and defense budgets. The United States cannot simply declare a “strategic pause” while experimenting with new technologies and operational concepts. Nor can it choose to pursue a transformation strategy that would decouple American and allied interests. A transformation strategy that solely pursued capabilities for projecting force from the United States, for example, and sacrificed forward basing and presence, would be at odds with larger American policy goals and would trouble American allies.
Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and industrial policy will shape the pace and content of transformation as much as the requirements of current missions...12
This is the point where one then introduces the catastrophic and catalyzing event known as 9/11.
I offered evidence to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Select Committee in respect to the then Countering Foreign Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill, where I identify clearly that the US authority’s 9/11 Commission report misrepresents the facts of that event. This evidence was not questioned by the FADT committee members bar some observations by the Hon Phil Goff in respect to the role of NZ service personnel in Iraq to gain a feed at the ‘oil for food’ trough. The questions I directed to our GCSB and NZSIS on the 25th December 2015 were aimed at unravelling the 9/11 misrepresentation. Our Intelligence organisations appear to have a view of the world that doesn’t match a physical reality easily uncovered by discerning research in publicly available material.13
Made to order terrorist strike advances the project almost as if the PNAC report was a blueprint. It is of note the numerous signatories of the Rebuilding America’s Defences report that were awarded plum positions in the US administration. John Pilger awarded journalist in his film ‘Breaking the Silence’14 provides insight into the PNAC personnel and their roles;
John Pilger dissects the truth and lies in the 'war on terror'. Award-winning journalist John Pilger investigates the discrepancies between American and British claims for the 'war on terror' and the facts on the ground as he finds them in Afghanistan and Washington, DC. In 2001, as the bombs began to drop, George W. Bush promised Afghanistan "the generosity of America and its allies". Now, the familiar old warlords are regaining power, religious fundamentalism is renewing its grip and military skirmishes continue routinely. In "liberated" Afghanistan, America has its military base and pipeline access, while the people have the warlords who are, says one woman, "in many ways worse than the Taliban".
In Washington, Pilger conducts a series of remarkable interviews with William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, and leading Administration officials such as Douglas Feith, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, and John Bolton, Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security. These people, and the other architects of the Project for the New American Century, were dismissed as 'the crazies' by the first Bush Administration in the early 90s when they first presented their ideas for pre-emptive strikes and world domination.15
The case for the US and the coalition of the willing being guilty of waging aggressive war is well made. It is also well made the case for the US being the main architect for most of the wars since 1945 which provided the closure of World War Two.16
The USA and the coalition of the willing are guilty of waging aggressive war. The aggressive war standard was determined as the test for criminality at the Nuremburg Trials organised to determine World War 2 culpability. Aggressive war encompasses all other war crimes. The US prosecutor at Nuremberg
The issue of war crimes was considered at the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission in 2011.
The Star (Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia) reports: Bush Found Guilty of War Crimes KUALA LUMPUR: The War Crimes Tribunal has convicted former US President George W. Bush and seven of his associates as war criminals for torture and inhumane treatment of war crime victims at US military facilities.
However, being a tribunal of conscience, the five-member panel chaired by tribunal president judge Lamin Mohd Yunus had no power to enforce or impose custodial sentence on the convicted eight.
We find the witnesses, who were victims placed in detention illegally by the convicted persons and their government, are entitled to payment of reparations,” said Lamin at a public hearing held in an open court at the Kuala Lumpur Foundation to Criminalize War yesterday.
He added that the tribunal’s award of reparations would be submitted to the War Crimes Commission and recommended the victims to find a judiciary entity that could enforce the verdict.
The tribunal would also submit the finding and records of the proceedings to the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, the United Nations’ Security Council.17
The trial conducted by the Allies at the conclusion of World War Two is known as the Nuremberg Trial. It was established by the European victors to try the Germans that were scape goated for the war.18
The Nuremberg Principles for jurisdiction and the nature of the crimes they considered from the text;
Article 6.
The Tribunal established by the Agreement referred to in Article 1 hereof for the trial and punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis countries shall have the power to try and punish persons who, acting in the interests of the European Axis countries, whether as individuals or as members of organizations, committed any of the following crimes.
The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility:
(a) CRIMES AGAINST PEACE: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing;
(b) WAR CRIMES: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity;
(c)CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war; or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated.
Leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan.
Article 7. The official position of defendants, whether as Heads of State or responsible officials in Government Departments, shall not be considered as freeing them from responsibility or mitigating punishment.
Article 8. The fact that the Defendant acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior shall not free him from responsibility, but may be considered in mitigation of punishment if the Tribunal determines that justice so requires.19
These last are in effect part of the rationale for bringing the war crime charges before you.
And funny enough NZ has a seat at the Security Council, and has had a turn as the Council Chair in July of 2015. And most of the people of Aotearoa NZ are seekers of security and peace. Do our leadership follow the lead and desires of the people of Aotearoa NZ.
Who do we align with?
Are theses players benign and seekers of peace and security?
If the answer is yes then there is no issue, carry on. However that is not the case.
Surely it is timely to review the arrangement and work out if it suits our ethical frame.

Greg Rzesniowiecki
April 2016
1 I wrote on the GCSB and NZSIS on the 25th December 2015 seeking answers to 37 questions. The answer after a 40 day extension could be summed up as we don’t look at stuff that causes us discomfort. You can have the answers see attached letter from the GCSB and NZSIS dated 12 April 2016. (Note 29 Jan 2018 - dropbox link to the GCSB and NZSIS answers here:  I have since followed up with more OIA requests on similar matters, see blogpost from Dec 22 2016: more soon)
2 Image capture from above letter.
After the financial crisis of 2007–08, inequality has further increase. As William Lazonick puts it:
"Five years after the official end of the Great Recession, corporate profits are high, and the stock markets are booming. Yet most Americans are not sharing in the recovery. While the top 0.1% of income recipients – which include most of the highest-ranking corporate executives – reap almost all the income gains, good jobs keep disappearing, and new employment opportunities tend to be insecure and underpaid."
6 Schwarz, Benjamin C.: ‘The arcana of empire and the dilemma of American national security’ Salmagundi: a quarterly of the humanities & social sciences 101-102 [Winter/Spring 1994] , p.182-211:
8 "Rebuilding America's Defenses" – Blueprint of the PNAC Plan for U.S. Global Hegemony, Summary by Bette Stockbauer; ‘Some people have compared it to Hitler's publication of Mein Kampf, which was ignored until after the war was over’
12 Pages 50 and 51 of RAD and 62-63 of the pdf.
14 Breaking the Silence, watch it here – must watch made in 2004 and shows clearly the illegality of the War on Terror waged by the US and the coalition of the willing:
15 I recommend that you watch the film so you apprehend the thesis offered for it is valid and actionable.
16 It is well established the US is a war criminal. The issue is ‘what to do about it?’ Can we carry on being an ally and trading partner to the largest despot on the planet, one who is world policeman in Pax Americana? Who can continue and maintain their professed status as a humanitarian, following humanitarian law?
18 The Nuremberg Trials only considered a few of the possible candidates. Many German professionals and military personnel were uplifted to the USA in Operation Paperclip:

No comments:

Post a comment