Since the attacks on the United States by 15 Saudi Arabian Islamic fanatics on 11 September  2001 — now known as 9/11 —  the world has been divided by a “war on terror” with any protest group defined as “terrorists”.

New anti-terror laws have been introduced both in the West and elsewhere in the past 20 years and used extensively to suppress such movements in the name of “national security”.

It is interesting to note that the 9/11 attacks came at a time when a huge “global justice” movement was building up across the world against the injustices of globalisation.

• READ MORE: ‘Fortress USA’: How 9/11 produced a military industrial juggernaut
• 9/11 should have led to a criminal investigation, not a war
• Other 9/11 reports

Using the internet as the medium of mobilisation, they gathered in Seattle in 1999 and were successful in closing down the World Trade Organisation (WTO) meeting.

They opposed what they saw as large multinational corporations having unregulated political power, exercised through trade agreements and deregulated financial markets, facilitated by governments.

Their main targets were the WTO, International Monetary Fund (IMF), OECD, World Bank, and international trade agreements.

The movement brought “civil society” people from the North and the South together under common goals.

Poorest country debts
In parallel, the “Jubilee 2000” international movement led by liberal Christian and Catholic churches called for the cancellation of US$90 billion of debts owed by the world’s poorest nations to banks and governments in the West.

Along with the churches, youth groups, music, and entertainment industry groups were involved. The 9/11 attacks killed these movements as “national security” took precedence over “freedom to dissent”.

Dr Dayan Jayatilleka, a former vice-president of the UN Human Rights Council and a Sri Lankan political scientist, notes that when “capitalism turned neoliberal and went on the rampage” after the demise of the Soviet Union, resistance started to develop with the rise of the Zapatistas in Chiapas (Mexico) against NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) and culminating in the 1999 Seattle protests using a term coined by Cuban leader Fidel Castro “another world is possible”.

“All that came crashing down with the Twin Towers,” he notes. “With 9/11 the Islamic Jihadist opposition to the USA (and the war on terror) cut across and buried the progressive resistance we saw emerging in Chiapas and Seattle.”

Geoffrey Robertson QC, a British human rights campaigner and TV personality, warns: “9/11 panicked us into the ‘war on terror’ using lethal weapons of questionable legality which inspired more terrorists.

“Twenty years on, those same adversaries are back and we now have a fear of US perfidy—over Taiwan or ANZUS or whatever. There will be many consequences.”

But, he sees some silver lining that has come out of this “war on terror”.

Targeted sanctions
“One reasonably successful tactic developed in the war on terror was to use targeted sanctions on its sponsors. This has been developed by so-called ‘Magnitsky acts’, enabling the targeting of human rights abusers—31 democracies now have them and Australia will shortly be the 32nd.

“I foresee their coordination as part of the fightback—a war not on terror but state cruelty,” he told In-Depth News.

When asked about the US’s humiliation in Afghanistan, Dr Chandra Muzaffar, founder of the International Movement for a Just World told IDN that the West needed to understand that they too needed to stop funding terror to achieve their own agendas.

“The ‘war on terror’ was doomed to failure from the outset because those who initiated the war were not prepared to admit that it was their occupation and oppression that compelled others to retaliate through acts of terror.” he argues.

“Popular antagonism towards the occupiers was one of the main reasons for the humiliating defeat of the US and NATO in Afghanistan,” he added.

Looking at Western attempts to introduce democracy under the pretext of “war on terror” and the chaos created by the “Arab Spring”, a youth movement driven by Western-funded NGOs, Iranian-born Australian Farzin Yekta, who worked in Lebanon for 15 years as a community multimedia worker, argues that the Arab region needs a different democracy.

“In the Middle East, the nations should aspire to a system based on social justice rather than the Western democratic model. Corrupt political and economic apparatus, external interference and dysfunctional infrastructure are the main obstacles for moving towards establishing a system based on social justice,” he says, adding that there are signs of growing social movements being revived in the region while “resisting all kinds of attacks”.

Palestinian refugee lessons
Yekta told IDN that while working with Palestinian refugee groups in Lebanon he had seen how peoples’ movements could be undermined by so-called “civil society” NGOs.

“Alternative social movements are infested by ‘civil society’ institutions comprising primarily NGO institutions.

“‘Civil society’ is effective leverage for the establishment and foreign (Western) interference to pacify radical social movements. Social movements find themselves in a web of funded entities which push for ‘agendas’ drawn by funding buddies,” noted Yekta.

Looking at the failure of Western forces in Afghanistan, he argues that what they did by building up “civil society” was encouraging corruption and cronyism that is entangled in ethnic and tribal structures of society.

“The Western nation-building plan was limited to setting up a glasshouse pseudo-democratic space in the green zone part of Kabul.

“One just needed to go to the countryside to confront the utter poverty and lack of infrastructure,” Yekta notes.

”We need to understand that people’s struggle is occurring at places with poor or no infrastructure.”

Social movements reviving
Dr Jayatilleka also sees positive signs of social movements beginning to raise their heads after two decades of repression.

“Black Lives Matter drew in perhaps more young whites than blacks and constituted the largest ever protest movement in history. The globalised solidarity with the Palestinian people of Gaza, including large demonstrations in US cities, is further evidence.

“In Latin America, the left-populist Pink Tide 2.0 began with the victory of Lopez Obrador in Mexico and has produced the victory of Pedro Castillo in Peru.

“The slogan of justice, both individual and social, is more globalised, more universalised today, than ever before in my lifetime,” he told IDN.

There may be ample issues for peoples’ movements to take up with TPP (Transpacific Partnership) and RCEP (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership) trade agreements coming into force in Asia where companies would be able to sue governments if their social policies infringe on company profits.

But Dr Jayatilleka is less optimistic of social movements rising in Asia.

Asian social inequities
“Sadly, the social justice movement is considerably more complicated in Asia than elsewhere, though one would have assumed that given the social inequities in Asian societies, the struggle for social justice would be a torrent. It is not,” he argues.

“The brightest recent spark in Asia, according to Dr Jayatilleka, was the rise of the Nepali Communist Party to power through the ballot box after a protracted peoples’ war, but ‘sectarianism’ has led to the subsiding of what was the brightest hope for the social justice movement in Asia.”

Robertson feels that the time is ripe for the social movements suppressed by post 9/11 anti-terror laws to be reincarnated in a different life.

“The broader demand for social justice will revive, initially behind the imperative of dealing with climate change but then with tax havens, the power of multinationals, and the obscene inequalities in the world’s wealth.

“So, I do not despair of social justice momentum in the future,” he says.

Republished under Creative Commons partnership with IDN – In-Depth News.

It is now certain that any decisions on the future of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) minus the US will take place after New Zealand’s general election this month.

Last week’s meeting of the negotiators from the remaining 11 TPPA countries rebuffed the National government’s wish to proceed with the agreement basically unchanged aside from new provisions for its entry into force.

They have all agreed to suspend (but not remove) some of the most controversial intellectual property provisions that hiked the price of medicines. Other countries want parts of the actual text and countries’ schedules reopened.

Each country has to come back with its wish-list at another meeting in Japan later this month, probably while the New Zealand government is in caretaker mode after the September 23 election.

Post-election, a Labour-led government would inherit a poisoned chalice. But its position to date gives no confidence that Labour will take a stand against the resurrection of the deal, despite the groundswell of opposition from its own core membership.

READ MORE: Response of the opposition parties to the 10 bottom lines for NZ’s future trade policy

Labour Party leader Jacinda Adern recently defended the party’s “bloody minded” opposition to the agreement. But its only firm position is an objection to a single, very specific provision in the entire 30-chapter deal: the right to discriminate against foreign purchasers of residential property in the schedule on investment.

Does Labour really intend to agree to the TPPA-11 if that minor matter is changed (as it has been in a leaked copy I have of New Zealand’s proposed schedule to the now-suspended Trade in Services Agreement negotiations)?

Hiking the price of medicines
What about the intellectual property provisions the US insisted on that will hike the price of medicines and put taxpayer money into the pockets of Big Pharma – money Labour will desperately need to upgrade our rundown hospitals and fund primary health care for our poorest communities?

To date they will be suspended, but not removed, so they can be reactivated if the US rejoins. If the New Zealand Medical Association can call for those rules to be dropped, surely it’s a safe enough bet for the Labour Party to do so?

Or the investor-state dispute mechanism. David Parker’s position is that Labour would prefer not to have them. Grow a spine! Even Crawford Falconer, the ex-MFAT official who is now the UK’s new free trade negotiator, says it should be dropped from such deals.

Parker also insists that the Treaty of Waitangi exception is the best possible drafting imaginable, and claims the Waitangi Tribunal endorsed it. In fact the Tribunal said:

“The Crown however goes further and says that nothing in the TPPA will prevent the Crown from meeting its Treaty obligations to Māori. We have some reservations about this. … Our concern is that by qualifying the Treaty exception clause to that aspect of the Treaty relationship which may allow the Crown to adopt or implement measures more favourable to Māori, the full constitutional reach of the Treaty relationship may not be as clearly protected and preserved under the TPPA as it might be.”

A Labour Party that is pitching to reclaim all the Māori seats can, and must, do better.

So far as I can see, Labour has not even called for the government’s new modelling on the TPPA-11 to be made public, despite having pointed to the failings of the initial modelling in its minority report on the original TPPA.

Leadership on record
Labour’s leadership needs to go on record before the election with some more detailed and convincing answers to these questions, and its position on other toxic provisions affecting the right to regulate on state-owned enterprises, government procurement, financial services and taxation.

Above all, Labour needs to commit now to a genuine consultation about what position New Zealand should take on the TPPA-11 (given the massive input into the original select committee hearing that was arrogantly ignored); to publish any future mandate it takes into the negotiations (as the EU does in its negotiations); and to support its position with a comprehensive, independent and public cost-benefit analysis.

Or does Labour intend to retreat behind the same wall of secrecy as National has in these renegotiations?

Jacinda Ardern, Grant Robertson, David Parker, anyone in the Labour leadership – can we know your real position on the TPP-11 before the election please?

Dr Jane Kelsey is a professor of law at the University of Auckland and a prominent New Zealand critic of globalisation. This article is republished from The Daily Blog with permission.

Indonesia has proposed the setting up of a new trade bloc that could counterbalance the dominance of the United States and China.

The US dominated the APEC forum in Lima, Peru, last week with its lucrative Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), championed by outgoing US President Barack Obama, which comprises 12 of the 21 APEC members, including Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam.

However, the future of the TPP, a US initiative to contain the dominance of China in APEC, is uncertain under president-elect Donald Trump, who has pledged to shore up the US domestic economy and to review the trade agreement once he is sworn-in as president on January 20.

With the fate of the TPP uncertain under a Trump presidency, China has stepped up its effort to prop up the Beijing-backed Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), which excludes the Americas and includes Australia, India and more than a dozen other countries.

The RCEP is now seen as perhaps the only path to broader free trade areas of which APEC aspires.

Given its strategic position as a member of both ASEAN and APEC, Indonesia has called on APEC members to consider forming a free trade bloc between ASEAN and the Pacific Alliance countries if Trump decides to kill off the TPP.

Vice-President Jusuf Kalla, who attended the Second Informal Dialogue with the Pacific Alliance session on the sidelines of the APEC summit last week, said Indonesia had officially tabled the proposal and urged countries in the two groups to consider.

Pacific option
“If the TPP is voided, then ASEAN and Pacific Alliance members should establish a trade cooperation, which could be better than the TPP. It is the right moment to think about such an alternative,” Jusuf told reporters in Lima.

Jusuf said although many APEC members expected Trump not to follow through on his campaign promises over ending the TPP, the countries were still prepared with alternatives should the US, the initiator of the TPP, withdraw its commitment.

In addition to the Pacific Alliance meeting, Jusuf attended APEC Business Advisory Council (ABAC) with 21 leaders of APEC countries, including top international leaders like Obama, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeaux, Chinese President Xi Jinping, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

During the APEC summit, Indonesia joined Brunei, China and New Zealand in a group to discuss the theme of “Growing Global Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises [MSMEs] and Promoting Sustainable Development”.

“The results from this discussion will be drafted as an official statement; all issues discussed during the meeting were related to the economy and business sectors. The main takeaway from the forum was that we agreed to establish connectivity between domestic and international businesses,” Jusuf said.

Meanwhile, Chinese President Xi pledged to open its economy further as leaders of Asia-Pacific countries sought new free-trade options following Trump’s promise to scrap and void the TPP.

As Obama is winding down his administration, he has now stopped trying to win congressional approval for the TPP deal, which was signed by 12 countries in the Americas and Asia Pacific, excluding China.

Without US approval, the current agreement cannot be implemented.

“China will not shut its doors to the outside world but instead open more doors,” Xi said in a keynote address at APEC.

“We?re going to […] make sure the fruits of development are shared,” Xi said.

OPINION: By Barry Coates

There is a myth going around that President-elect Donald Trump killed the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA). It is true that he has made withdrawing the United States from negotiations his number one job when he gets into office, and without the US, the TPP is dead – it would need years of re-negotiation to resurrect it in any form.

But the reality is that the TPPA was already on its last legs by the time Trump made his announcement. The TPPA was defeated by a powerful global campaign.

Citizens across each of the 12 countries in the TPPA built a strong movement against the excesses of corporate rights represented by the TPPA, as we have done twice before in defeating these proposals in the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (1998) and in the World Trade Organisation (1999 and 2003).

Citizens mobilised on the streets, in meetings and on-line against the TPPA, around issues such as jobs and inequality, access to affordable medicines, public health, climate change, internet freedom, indigenous rights, animal welfare, small business and especially against the erosion of the sovereign powers of government to act in the public interest.

The TPPA was rejected by this huge public movement. It was the voice of citizens that was decisive. They influenced public opinion so that it was strongly against the TPPA in New Zealand as well as the US.

Donald Trump recognised the strength of this public groundswell. The TPPA’s demise came long before his election.

What happens now is important. Defensive protectionism that raises tariffs against imports won’t help workers get their jobs back, and it won’t protect the environment and the other rights that are under threat from Trump’s policies.

Process of re-regulation needed
There needs to be a process of re-regulation of the global economy, supporting local economies and requiring multinationals to pay their fair share of taxes, reversing the processes of deregulation and privatisation that has taken power away from democracy and handed it to corporations.

Hopefully there may be other casualties in the wake of the TPPA. The planned ministerial meeting where they were close to concluding the dangerous Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA) has been cancelled.

But the China-led Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) is moving ahead, and recent analysis by citizens’ groups show that New Zealand and other countries are trying to stack it with TPPA-like provisions.

We need to remain vigilant about RCEP, TiSA and other agreements. We also need to use this opportunity to fundamentally change New Zealand’s trade and investment policy so that it is transparent and accountable, good for small business and the local economy, protects the environment, promotes worker’s rights and equality, and respects human rights.

Barry Coates is a Green Party list Member of Parliament in New Zealand. This Daily Blog commentary is republished with the permission of the author.

I spoke at my first parliamentary Select Committee hearing in New Zealand this week.

It was on the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) and in front of 10 parliamentarians who were all male and (as far as I could determine) all middle-aged and Pakeha. The majority of them, including the chairman, were National Party MPs.

I attended the hearing to speak to my written submission opposing the TPPA knowing that this particular Select Committee process is a waste of money and time because we cannot change a single word in the document our government negotiated in secret and signed in the Auckland Casino building last February.

I attended knowing that the Cabinet can ratify the signed TPPA document without putting it to the vote on the floor of parliament and even if they do , they will have the numbers to pass it.

I attended because I wanted the committee members to hear that if the TPPA was ratified it would not be done in my name.

Three New Zealanders gave their submissions before it was my turn and I have to say I was incredibly impressed by the intelligence and thoughtfulness of their remarks.

The woman who spoke immediately before me introduced herself in Maori. No one on the committee acknowledged her words with as much as a “kia ora”.

Flawed banking system
Naani Abercrombie then spoke eloquently about our flawed banking system and its relationship to the TPPA and how more of the profits banks make will go offshore. Surely the committee would ask some questions about her engaging ideas. But no.

Thank you for coming. Next?

In the 10 minutes I was politely allocated I chose to speak about four moral and philosophical issues surrounding the TPPA.

1. I put it to the committee that trade should help to build a more peaceful world not divide it. I pointed out that we know from statements by President Obama and Prime Minister John Key that the underlying geopolitical purpose of the TPPA is (to quote Obama) that “China doesn’t rule in that area – We do!”

I said that deliberately excluding China from an Asian and Pacific trade agreement would not only continue to take us down the road to a divided world, but risk alienating our biggest trading parter.

2. I pointed out that the United Nations Human Rights Office has condemned Investor State Dispute Settlement clauses in free trade agreements as a mechanism that punishes impoverished countries, threatens the rights of indigenous peoples and the environment.

3. I told them that 100 distinguished international jurists and the Chief Justice of Australia had all warned of the perils of Investor State Dispute Settlement Tribunals and there was no reason to risk our country being sued in these dodgy kangaroo courts when we have a robust domestic legal system that overseas investors can rely upon to correct any injustice.

4. And, lastly, I put it to the committee that it was morally wrong to extend patents on new medicines because to do so would increase the suffering of some of their fellow New Zealanders and they would be surely signing a death warrant for some of us who would die waiting for a cheaper generic to become available.

’10 minutes up’
Midway through my last sentence I was told by the chairman that my 10 minutes was up.

There were no questions.

I left.

On the way home I thought…

Did I just waste half a day of my life today?

And my answer is no.

I had the opportunity to look into the face of shamocracy that day – last Thursday – and, if anything, it has made me even more determined to do my bit to make us a fairer society again – where the economy benefits the many and not the few.

Bryan Bruce is an independent documentary maker and social justice commentator. This was first published on his Facebook page and is published here with permission.

‪#‎stoptpp‬ ‪#‎nowaytppa‬ ‪#‎tppanoway‬ ‪#‎BryanBruce‬

Advocacy groups are criticising what they see as the harmful impact the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement could have on the environment.

Several critics have also highlighted fears for Pacific Island nations on the climate change frontline and a lack of environmental coverage from mainstream media.

A recent paper by Simon Terry, executive director of the Sustainability Council of New Zealand, found that “the environment is a significant casualty under the TPPA”.

Governments can be sued by corporations — under the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provisions — over environmental regulations such as changes to the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) and restrictions on the mining of fossil fuels.

The words “climate change” were removed from the final TPPA text, as was any reference to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

One of the deal’s strongest critics is Barry Coates, spokesperson for the It’s Our Future campaign. He outlines two ways the TPPA would negatively impact on the environment if it comes into force.

“One is that action on climate change would be undermined by the ISDS mechanism in particular – if we look at cases that have been taken under ISDS around the world … calculations by Public Citizen show that around 85 percent of those are related to environmental regulation of some sort,” he says.

‘Chilling effect’
The other is a “chilling effect” that the threat of lawsuits would have on a government’s willingness to enact environmental reform.

Laura O’Connell-Rapira, campaigns director for ActionStation, points to recent ISDS examples in North America as evidence of the difficulties that governments are already facing when addressing climate change, such as a US$15 billion lawsuit filed by TransCanada against the Obama administration for rejecting their proposed Keystone XL pipeline.

She is “deeply concerned” about the environmental ramifications.

“In the 21st century, should we be allowing arguably antiquated trade rules to trump climate agreement?” she asks.

Environmental organisations such as the Sierra Club and Greenpeace have pointed out that threats to endangered species would increase under the TPPA, as the unrestricted reduction of tariffs and taxes on imports would include trade in shark fins, palm oil and ivory.

The controversial free trade deal was signed in Auckland last month amid peaceful demonstrations by a crowd of more than 20,000 people, say some reports.

The march was organised by It’s Our Future in collaboration with ActionStation and Real Choice. Several groups of protesters managed to gridlock the city by blocking major arterial routes.

Coates acknowledges that the TPPA is a “complex” issue to grasp, but he believes that the public “understand the big principles behind it … I think there are a lot of people worried that big businesses have too much power”.

Concerns such as secrecy surrounding negotiations, insufficient public discourse, and the perceived threat to New Zealand’s sovereignty as well as Māori rights under the Treaty of Waitangi have been major points of contention among critics since details of the TPPA were first released in November.

‘Liberalising’ trade aims
The TPPA aims to liberalise trade and investment between the 12 member nations — Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore,  United States and Vietnam — which represent approximately 36 percent of the world’s GDP (or about US$28 trillion).

In an official statement, Trade Minister Tim Groser described the TPPA as “a very positive agreement for New Zealand,” breaking new ground as the country’s first Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with the United States, the world’s largest consumer market.

Climate change is increasingly becoming an existential threat to Pacific Island nations, with small states such as Kiribati and Tuvalu facing a bleak future if rising sea levels persist.

Dr Pala Molisa addressed the urgency at the Pacific Climate Change Conference at Victoria University last month, saying, “we’re going to lose islands – we’re going to lose whole countries – because of rising sea levels …

“The Pacific is one of the most vulnerable areas to these super storms and extreme weather events.”

On TPPA, Dr Molisa said it “undermines our ability to respond effectively to these climate crises”.

Biggest issue for Pacific
Economist Dr Biman Prasad, leader of Fiji’s opposition National Federation Party, says “the whole issue for Pacific Island countries right now is climate change adaptation and mitigation”.

He says the touted benefits of a free trade agreement like the TPPA are not key concerns for many Pacific Islands nations, which are “talking about non-tariff barriers, non-trade issues,” including labour mobility and quarantine issues.

Prasad also worries that Pacific nations may find “to their dismay” that the deal impacts on their ability to access funding for climate change adaptation.

350 Aotearoa national director Niamh O’Flynn also expressed concern for Pacific Island nations on the climate change frontline, calling attention to New Zealand and Australia’s “duty of care” to their smaller neighbours.

“If we are unable to carry out that duty it’s a big problem for the Pacific”.

New Minister for Climate Change Paula Bennett has said she wants New Zealand to be a global leader in transitioning to a low-carbon economy. However, she remarked at the Pacific climate conference that “support for climate action has to support sustainable economic development”.

O’Flynn suggests that “actions speak louder than words” and the government has “certainly not shown any action” on Bennett’s recent climate change rhetoric.

“Coming back from Paris [2015 Climate Conference] and instantly opening up more parts of New Zealand’s coastline to be bid for oil shows that the National government is seriously uncommitted to taking any kind of action on climate change”.

‘Lazy’ media coverage
Coates has been “pretty disappointed” by much of the TPPA coverage in New Zealand, claiming “a lot of the media have been lazy and unquestioning of the government’s spin”.

O’Connell-Rapira and O’Flynn echoed these thoughts, criticising a lack of serious reportage on climate change, “the most important issue of our time”.

Coates emphasised that “New Zealanders care deeply about their environment, they care about climate change” and would like to see the media focusing on some of the threats to the environment and climate change.

When asked whether we can expect future anti-TPPA actions, Coates promised “lots”.

“In the meantime [Prime Minister] John Key tends to get confronted in every place that he goes … and I think the government’s very much on the back foot around the TPPA”.

Shortly before going to press, Climate Change Minister Paula Bennett responded to questions for this article, rejecting claims about the environment chapter of the TPPA draft as “simply not true”.

“The environment chapter is the most comprehensive and ambitious outcome that New Zealand has achieved in any free trade agreement and includes a specific article on the transition to a low emissions economy,” she said in a statement to Asia Pacific Report.

Dominic Pink is an Auckland-based student journalist reporting on the Asia-Pacific Journalism course.

• It’s Our Future
  

By Josie Butler

This week marks the beginning of the New Zealand government’s national roadshow on the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA), a roadshow that was meant to address the people’s questions and concerns regarding this “trade agreement”, with a focus on public consultation.

I put “trade” in italics, because out of the 29 chapters of this agreement, only 5 are actually related to trade, the other 24 are to do with investors rights.

If we wanted to call it what it is, we would call it an investors rights agreement, with a sprinkle of trade making for an excellent public spin.

Anyway I digress. I attended the roadshow at the Rydges Hotel in Christchurch on Friday, March 11.

When I arrived there was quite a heavy police presence, with all entry points into the hotel covered by police and security. The hotel/restaurant/bar was on a complete lock-down and not open to the public.

Unfortunately the heavy police presence thwarted our original action against this atrocity, which I wont go into details of, but let’s just say if someone’s pants are on fire from lying so much it seems logical that a fire alarm could go off, and that friendly protesters might be kind enough to put out said fire.

Thankfully I had registered for the event so me and my pink squeaky phallic friend (carefully concealed in my jacket) decided to go in.

Military on security
I went to the first security check point which was at the front driveway to the hotel. The guards asked for my ID, and while I was getting it out I noticed one of the guys had an army badge pinned to his lapel.

I asked him if he was military and he confirmed that all security present today were army personnel. Bloody hell! Seemed a bit excessive for a “trade” roadshow!

Finally I got to the actual entrance to the building, which was covered by numerous security guards and police. More ID checks, bag searches, and even some photographs taken.

The police informed me they had quite a presence here today, and pointed to one of the conference rooms which was filled with numerous police personnel.

I told them that I hoped to make an interesting work day for them, they laughed and left me to it.

One of the waiter staff came over to me, and warned me to be careful inside as one lady had been kicked out literally for saying “boo” when MFAT were presenting. I was appalled that this could even happen, so I went in to check it out for myself.

I arrived at the Q&A session, which was meant to be an opportunity for the public to voice their concerns and questions to MFAT and David Walker (Chief Negotiator of the TPPA).

Enforcer of propaganda
Sean Plunkett was meant to be MCing the event, but a more accurate description of his actual role would have been enforcer of propaganda.

I stood at the back of the room and listened for a while. There is full video footage of this event, but the general gist was every time someone stood at the microphone and politely voiced a concern they had about the TPPA they were immediately shut down by Sean Plunkett who informed them that they were to ask a question or sit down.

A lot of people tried to explain that to ask their question they needed to explain the background information, but they were repeatedly shut down. Any time someone’s question went for more than 10 seconds, they were shut down.

And the very few questions that actually were able to be asked were either danced around by the officials, or flat out lied about.

It would be like if you asked someone what their age was, and they responded by saying, “I have an age, it’s a very good age, I’ve been this age for a while, and it’s the best age for New Zealand at the moment”, but without at all addressing the actual question!

People were getting understandably upset by this reception, one elderly lady even told Sean Plunkett “it is a very scary thing to stand up here and ask my question in front of a large group of people, and I’d like to think you’d show me some respect”.

He didn’t. He interrupted her, shouted at her, and told her to either ask her question or sit down. She was shaking and tearful by the end of it. It was absolutely disgusting, and it honestly hurt my soul to see the community trying to honestly and respectfully partake in this “rogue show” only to be disrespected and cruelly bullied by our government and their henchmen.

My turn at the microphone
I’d decided that I’d seen enough, so lined up at the microphone for my turn to have a say. I got to the microphone and announced that on behalf of the vast majority of New Zealanders I would like to present David Walker with New Zealand’s very first Dick of the Year Award.

I whipped out my pink friend, and held it staunchly in the air for the room to see. Sean Plunkett at this point tried to interject, at which point I loudly and proudly told him “you were a very close second for this award ‘Shane’ with the way you were carrying on today”.

I knew his name was Sean, I just wanted to show him a sliver of the disrespect that he had shown the good people of Christchurch today. Security came and escorted me away (very gently I must say!) from a room full of applause, cheers, and yahoos!

As I was being taken away I shouted, “but you are so deserving of this award dear David, you have put in so much work to earn this honour, you simply must accept it!”

Police came and walked me out of the building, stating they thought it was pretty funny, and that they were very surprised I didn’t actually throw the toy at David.

We laughed, and I said that I would have absolutely loved to but that I’d probably pushed the boundaries with the law enough currently.

I went back to the beautiful and vibrant protest group that was outside the event….all day I must add. Big ups!

Water pistol protest
About ten minutes later the roadshow broke for lunch, so I went and grabbed a water pistol (onsite from our thwarted original action idea), and eagerly waited at the gate for one of the villains to exit the premises.

I was rewarded rather quickly, as an MFAT officially approached me almost immediately. He smiled, laughed and said, “before you shoot me can I please explain to you why the TPPA is so good”.

I said cheekily to him “you can try!” He went on to tell me that the TPPA is so wonderful for New Zealand and that we need to be in it to win it, wank wank wank.

I smiled at him and yelled “not good enough!” and squirted him, a lot, in the face with the water pistol. It was all very friendly, and we both had a good laugh.

Suddenly I was grabbed from behind by a police officer, I had my arm twisted behind my back, heavy flexion put on my wrists and was marched down the street. He shouted at me, “you are under arrest for disorderly conduct!”

I was incredibly shocked by this heavy handed approach to a bit of playful protest. The MFAT official came over and told the police officer that it was fine, and that he most certainly did not want to press charges.

Our film crews came over and started recording. The police officer continued to put heavy flexion on my wrists, repeating that I was under arrest.

A potential martyr
I asked him to please loosen his hold on me because he was hurting me. He ignored me. I appealed to him again and said that I was not resisting or any risk to anybody, and would he would please stop hurting me.

I reminded him the cameras were recording everything, and that he was potentially about to make a martyr for our cause by arresting me.

He confirmed that the MFAT official did not want to lay charges, and then let me go, telling me to “pull my …… head in”. It is worth noting that apart from this specific police officer, all of the police on site were polite and pleasant, and seemed supportive of our cause.

From my observations today these roadshows labelled as public consultation were actually heavily enforced propaganda missions dead set on annihilating any public discussion.

They were policed and secured to such a high level, one has to wonder if this “trade” deal is so great for our country why on earth would 30 police and 40 military personnel be required to protect a presentation about it?

The vast majority of New Zealanders remain staunch against this absolute violation of our sovereignty, and the government are frightened. We can and we will still stop this.

As with any movement, things need to gain momentum to continue progressing and growing. If we look at previous successes such as the Suffragettes, the Civil Rights Movement, the Springbok tour, Nuclear-Free NZ, it is clear that direct action and strategic civil disobedience are required.

Every time you see a National MP, every time Prime Minister John Key tries to come to your town, I strongly encourage you to stand up and let our “dear leaders” know that if they try to trample on our country and our human rights then they are no longer welcome here!

Josie Butler is a human rights activist. This column was published first on The Daily Blog.

Background on the TPPA

Protests against the Trans Pacific Partnership at Waitangi were reported around the world last week after nurse Julie Butler threw a squeaky penis-shaped toy at Economic Development Minister Steven Joyce, reports Radio New Zealand’s Mediawatch.

And there was no shortage of columnists, media personalities and pundits giving their take on the merits or otherwise of marking the closest thing New Zealand has to a national day at Waitangi each year.

But where were the columns by Māori exploring why literally thousands of Māori took to the streets to protest against the TPP? Well, they weren’t in the mainstream media.

Mana magazine editor Leonie Hayden tells Mediawatch:

“You can’t accurately reflect New Zealand as a society if you don’t have Māori and Pacific voices … So if you’re running a media outlet that you want to appeal to New Zealanders then you need to include the voices of all kind of New Zealanders.”

In the latest Mana magazine, Geopolitical blogger Graham Cameron takes a look at the Treaty of Waitangi exception in the TPPA meant to safeguard Māori rights and the Government’s Treaty obligations.

—

More than 2000 activists marched through Santiago late last month to protest against the TPP agreement which Chilean President Michelle Bachelet signed on February 4 in New Zealand.

The signing ceremony, hosted by New Zealand Prime Minister John Key, was also challenged by more than 25,000 people protesting in the streets of Auckland.

The top video from Ruptly TV shows the Santiago protest while the bottom one shows the protest in Auckland (CCTV).

OPINION: By Bill Rosenberg

Politicians, journalists and commentators who cannot understand why the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement marks the end of bipartisan support for similar international commerce agreements have missed the crucial point.

Key refused to come to Waitangi because he said he was being gagged from speaking freely.

Marae trustees had insisted he leave politics and any mention of the controversial Trans Pacific Partnership – signed on Thursday in spite of massive protests that blocked the central city in Auckland – out of his speech, and instead address the issue afterwards in an open forum in the speakers’ tent beside the marae.

Henare told Radio Waatea the tikanga was that the person holding the floor should be listened to respectfully, and it was a missed opportunity the tribes could not hear what the Prime Minister had to say.

“You know there’s a lesson here for Ngapuhi and for the people of Te Tii Marae that regardless of whether or not they decide to invite him or not, I think the important thing is to protect the mana and integrity of the marae and I don’t think that’s what happened in this case.

“I would rather see the mana and the integrity of the marae and the people up north here looked after, protected and enhanced, not thrown through the mud like we’ve seen over the past few days.”

Radio Waatea’s reporter in Waitangi said the Prime Minister may have consulted a weather forecast before opting to skip the official Waitangi Day commemorations in the north.

There has been rain off an on through the morning, including a heavy downpour as a hikoi of about 100 anti-Trans Pacific Partnership protesters led by Hone Harawira and Reuben Taipari waited to be welcomed on to the marae.

>> Listen now to Radio Waatea

—

By Tyler Durdan, a blog commentary written after the anti-TTIP protests in Berlin last October when more than 250,000 people demonstrated.

FLASHBACK: When it comes to official and media opinion on President Obama’s crowning trade “achievements”, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade And Investment Partnership (TTIP), the party line is united.

As previously noted, Barack Obama has assured the population that this treaty is going to be wonderful for everyone:

In hailing the agreement, Obama said, “Congress and the American people will have months to read every word” before he signs the deal that he described as a win for all sides.

 

“If we can get this agreement to my desk, then we can help our businesses sell more Made in America goods and services around the world, and we can help more American workers compete and win,” Obama said.

The mainstream media’s chorus of support for these trade deal is likewise deafening: here are some indicative headlines from this past Monday:

• Time Magazine: “Pacific Trade Deal Is Good for the U.S. and Obama’s Legacy”
• The Washington Post: “The Trans-Pacific Partnership is a trade deal worth celebrating”

The far less popular opposing view, one repeatedly presented here, is that like with every other “free trade” agreement that the US has entered into since World War II, the exact opposite is what will actually happen: the outcome will be that the US trade deficit (which excluding petroleum is already back to record levels) will get even larger, and we will see even more jobs and even more businesses go overseas, thus explaining the secrecy and the fast-track nature of the TPP and TTIP’s passage through Congress.

And while the US population, which is far more perturbed by what Caitlyn Jenner will wear tomorrow than DC’s plans on the future of world trade, has been mute in its response to the passage of the first part of the trade treaty, the TPP – after all the MSM isn’t there to tell it how to feel about it, aside to assure it that everything will be great even as millions of highly-paid jobs mysteriously become line cooks – other countries are standing up against globalist trade interests meant to serve a handful of corporations.

Case in point Germany, where today [10 October 2015] hundreds of thousands of people marched in Berlin in protest against the planned “free trade” deal between Europe and the United States which they say is anti-democratic and will lower food safety, labor and environmental standards.

TTIP critics fear that it would lead to worse safeguards in Europe, bringing down standards for consumer safety, food and health or labor rights down to those in America.

European nations have stricter regulations for things like genetically modified foods or workers benefits than the US does. There is also discontent with the secretive nature of the negotiations, which prompts sceptics to assume the worst about the document they would eventually produce.

The organisers – an alliance of environmental groups, charities and opposition parties – claimed that 250,000 people were taking part in the rally against free trade deals with both the United States and Canada, far more than they had anticipated.

Read the full commentary here

—

More than 35 protests were organised in US cities to mark opposition to the signing of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a huge international trade deal between 12 Pacific Rim nations representing 40 percent of the global economy.

Protesters with the Stop Fast Track coalition rallied outside the White House in Lafayette Park on Wednesday to expose the consequences of the TPP and encourage people to join the campaign.

Protesters held aloft a huge yellow banner that read, “TPP equals Betrayal.”

The Washington, DC, protest kicked of two days of protests in 38 other US cities, as well as in seven other countries.

The coalition claims that under the trade agreement, 9000 corporations could sue the US if laws are passed in the public interest that undermine their profits.

The deal, negotiated between Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the US and Vietnam, is said to cut trade tariffs, improve access to markets and set common ground on labour and environmental standards, and intellectual property protections.

The countries have two years to ratify or reject the pact.

Secret talks
However, the negotiations took place over seven years, in secret, and led to the suspicion that the agreement would largely benefit corporations and their shareholders. People only got an idea of how the extensive trade deal would affect lives when a draft copy was leaked on WikiLeaks and triggered worldwide protests.

In New York, protesters with an allied group called Flush the TPP held an equally large banner outside The New York Times news building on Thursday afternoon, criticising the newspaper’s lack of coverage on the biggest trade deal.

The Stop Fast Track coalition claims the TPP is a threat to jobs that will both outsource them to countries with lower wages and insource foreign corporations that would bring their business to the US along with their employees.

Critics also argue the TPP threatens internet freedom and privacy, food safety and healthcare.

Margaret Flowers of Popular Resistance, who helped organise the national protests,

OPINION: By Professor Jane Kelsey

One of the biggest and most controversial trade deals in history has been signed by ministers from the Asia-Pacific region and the Americas, as tens of thousands of protesters hit the streets to denounce it.

Security was stepped up across Auckland for representatives who travelled here to sign the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) – a deal involving 12 economies worth about $28 trillion.

Prime Minister John Key said the deal would benefit everybody.

“The opening of our markets will enhance the lives of our people. The TPP will make new trade opportunities. It is overwhelmingly in the best interests of our countries and our citizens,” Key said.

The TPP is a free trade agreement promising to liberalise trade and investment between the 12 nations, which make up about 36 percent of the world’s GDP.

The deal – which will cut tariffs, improve access to markets and sets common ground on labour and environmental standards and intellectual property protections – was finally reached in October after five years of negotiations.

It includes Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the US, and Vietnam.

Cheaper access
The TPP is supposed to ensure everyone from Vietnamese shrimpers to New Zealand dairy farmers get cheaper access to markets and bring in economic benefits.

Ministers received a traditional Māori welcome from members of the Ngati Whatua tribe – including a hongi, which involves the pressing of noses and exchange of breath.

But the welcome wasn’t as warm in downtown Auckland where thousands of protesters from different groups blockaded the inner city in a rally against the deal.

Many carried flags and banners and chanted outside the SkyCity convention centre where the signing took place.

Protest organisers estimated the crowd to be more than 20,000 – it was one of the biggest protests seen in New Zealand since the 1981 Springbok tour.

‘No balance of interests’
Rowan Brooks, a protest organiser, said he was concerned about the power the agreement would give to big corporations.

“Basically it eats away at New Zealand’s sovereignty and the whole process was undemocratic… The agreement gives power to corporations and takes it away from the people,” Brooks said.

Jane Kelsey, a law professor at the University of Auckland, is one of the agreement’s fiercest critics.

She said she was concerned about how the deal could be used by the US to counter China’s influence in the region.

“It’s kind of a Cold War by proxy of trade and investment agreements,” Kelsey said. “And that’s a real worry because not only do the corporations who have special insights and input to this agreement get to be centre stage but there is no balance of interests.”

The deal has not only triggered protests in New Zealand but has also drawn international criticism.

Former World Bank economist Joseph Stiglitz said it “may turn out to be the worst trade agreement in decades”.

Investors’ right to sue
In an opinion piece for the Guardian, Stiglitz wrote: “It gives foreign investors the right to sue governments in private international tribunals when they believe government regulations contravene the TPP’s terms.

“In 2016, we should hope for the TPP’s defeat and the beginning of a new trade era of agreements that don’t reward the powerful and punish the weak.”

The TPP is expected to come into force within two years, once countries have completed their domestic legislative procedures.

Questions have been raised over the ratification process as it coincides with the buildup to this year’s US presidential election. But US trade representative Michael Froman is confident it will be passed by the US Congress.

“We all have our domestic processes to go through and ours is clearly laid out… I believe at the end of the day… We will have the necessary bipartisan support for it to be approved,” he said.

A version of this article first appeared on Al Jazeera.

Earlier story, video and more images

Mana leader Hone Harawira says Prime Minister John Key has deliberately set the stage for protest at Waitangi.

The former Te Taitokerau MP, who joined today’s march against the signing of the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement in Auckland, said that protest now moved back to the north.

But news media reports said tonight Prime Minister Key had pulled out of his Waitangi schedule, but denied he was “running scared”.

He said he would not attend after failing to get a response from Te Tii Marae at Waitangi to his queries over an attempt to prevent him making a political speech.

Television One News tonight quoted him saying: “”I can’t go and I won’t go to Waitangi with a gagging order on me, especially when elders are encouraging acts of violence.”

Radio Waatea reports Harawira had said the TPPA was a treaty between governments and corporates and the citizens of the 12 countries involved have been ignored and kept in the dark.

“The Prime Minister seems happy to not only sign it but to sign it two days before the Treaty of Waitangi Day and then … expect to get a pat on the back for it.

“No, I think he’s asking for trouble. I think he’s created a flashpoint and I think he needs to answer for his actions, ” said Harawira.

Before the cancellation, the Prime Minister had been due to be welcomed on Te Tii Marae in Waitangi tomorrow morning, after the arrival of the hikoi.

More pictures, video

—

Video and photos by Del Abcede in Auckland

Māori protesters at the forefront of a massive people’s protest for democracy in Auckland today against the controversial Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA).

Trade ministers from the 12 countries involved in this agreement signed the biggest trade deal in history. But a growing groundswell of opposition has shaken politicians in the government.

Many Māori and other New Zealanders believe the pact will erode democracy and undermine the country’s founding document, the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi.
#TPPabuse

TPPA: It’s our future

More Del Abcede pictures

—

Protests against the TPPA protests, the climate change movement post-Paris 2015, and the run up to Waitangi day …

Unite Union’s Joe Carolan talks to climate activist Gary Cranston, E TU organiser Chris Rigby and the Mana Movement’s Repia Trei on this week’s Workers Voice at PlanetFM radio in Auckland.

>> Listen to PlanetFM

By Selwyn Manning in Auckland

New Zealand Trade Minister Todd McClay yesterday released the National Interest Analysis (NIA), a document tasked to examine the pros and cons of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

McClay said on releasing the document that it “comprehensively analyses what TPP means for New Zealand, across the entire agreement”. He added: “It finds that entering TPP would be in New Zealand’s national interest, adding an estimated $2.7 billion to GDP by 2030.”

However, TPPA critics suggest the National Interest Analysis document is far from an independent analysis and is designed to spin the National-led Government’s (and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s) view.

University of Auckland law professor Jane Kelsey said the formal National Interest Analysis (NIA) on the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) released by Trade Minister Todd McClay was simply an expanded version of the so-called “fact sheets” prepared by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT), which sought to justify the deal that officials and the National government have negotiated.

“The NIA is a totally predictable cheerleading exercise that talks up the supposed gains and largely ignores the huge downsides of the TPPA,” Professor Kelsey said.

She added an Australian Senate Inquiry into the treaty making process last year dismissed similar exercises produced by MFAT’s counterparts in Australia as totally inadequate, and called for a genuine independent, in-depth study before as well as after the conclusion of negotiations, including the TPPA.

“The flimsy NIA contrasts to the careful and detailed analysis in five peer reviewed expert papers on the implications of the TPPA that have been produced so far as part of a series supported by funding from the New Zealand Law Foundation,” Professor Kelsey said.  

These expert papers examined the impacts on New Zealand’s regulatory sovereignty, the investment chapter, climate change and the environment, the economics of the TPPA, and the Treaty of Waitangi and are available at tpplegal.wordpress.com. More papers are to come on financial regulation, public services, and IT and innovation.

“If the government wants its assessment of the national interest of the TPPA to be taken seriously it needs to engage with these independent expert papers and attempt to rebut the analyses by which the authors conclude that the deal is not of net benefit to New Zealand, now or in the future,” Professor Kelsey said.

McClay insisted New Zealand has published an “unprecedented amount of information” on TPP.

In a statement yesterday, he said, released information included 10 fact sheets released following the conclusion of negotiations on 5 October. The TPP text was first made public on 5 November, together with additional information on the estimated economic benefit and details of potential costs.

“The government will also be running roadshows for the public to learn more about TPP, and to help businesses prepare for the economic opportunities will bring,” says McClay.

Professor Kelsey, international TPPA expert Lori Wallach of the USA’s Public Citizen and other key public figures talked about the TPPA, the latest research, politics, analysis and actions at a public meeting in the Auckland Town Hall last night.

More information: ItsOurFuture.org.nz

Rousing, inspirational public challenge to the ‘no way’ TPPA deal