Subject: Re: The Hierarchy of Death
Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 09:17:35 +1300


Salil,

Re ANZUS, I didn't say that NZ does not "like" ANZUS.  Liking or not liking
has nothing to do with it.  I said that New Zealand has not benefited from
ANZUS.  That is my view as a private person.  Some people in government also
have this view.  Staying in ANZUS is not entirely a voluntary matter.  As I
said, if NZ does something the US does not "like", the US can simply impose
a stiff tariff on NZ produce sent to be sold in the US, and NZ farmers will
suffer.

Re the Rainbow Warrior episode, David Lange did not call it an act of war.
He called it "a sordid act of international state-backed terrorism".  Sound
familiar?

But Lange's words were not hyperbole.  The French government admitted that
the perpetrators of the bombing were French secret agents in New Zealand,
sent there to "gather intelligence" on Greenpeace.   These secret agents
confessed and were found guilty of blowing up the Rainbow Warrior.  The
government of France denied that it had ordered the agents to blow up the
boat and kill the people on it.

Although the magnitude of this event cannot compare to the event of Sept 11,
the nature of the event was still the same:  it was an act of international
terrorism.  Moreover, the evidence of state-backing was very strong.   True,
New Zealand did not declare war on France.  But France did not even get a
slap on the wrist from the US government because of this act.

Has the United States declared war on Afghanistan?  It has not declared war
on any state, it has announced a general "war against terrorism."   NZ has
joined forces with the US in this undeclared war.  Did the US "ask" New
Zealand to "help"?  Yes - just like a bully "asks" a smaller child on the
playground to hand over his lunch to the bully.

Margaret



>
> Margaret,
>
> To elaborate a bit from my earlier 7 am response. One, if NZ does not like
> ANZUS, what's preventing it from leaving it? And two, I do remember the
> Rainbow Warrior episode. I don't think at any stage New Zealand called the
> French action an act of war against itself, nor did it seek military
> assistance from Australia or the US. One of the principles of such mutual
> aggression pacts is, indeed, that other states that are part of the pact
> respond when asked. Examples? Nato, Indo-Soviet "Peace" Treaty, etc. If
that
> principle is not observed, we'd find all pact-signing countries jumping
the
> gun to respond to a perceived act of war against one of the members. And
> since NZ, in 1985, did not term the French action as an official act of
war,
> nor did it seek support from US or Australia, the question of ANZUS being
> useless doesn't arise -- and indeed, NZ can walk out if it wants to. That
it
> does not do so is a matter of choice made by the citizens of New Zealand.
To
> that extent, the people do want the best of both worlds -- a US security
> umbrella, and yet the personal satisfaction of striking a posture against
> nuclear arms.
>
> Salil
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
>
>
>
>      --- from list postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>



     --- from list postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---