The Land Looking after The Land

"The Earth regulates itself." So goes one of the stories reeled out by those advocating NOT acting on global warming and environmental degradation. You know, because it can look after itself.

And it's a fair point. In clean green NZ, it's easy to think, looking across the green fields of the Waikato, the Marlborough vineyards, or interchanging between padded cells in one of our big cities, that all is well. That it is impossible for our little pocket of existence, even multiplied 8 billion times, could have such an effect on a mass that is 75% water anyway.

And again, it's a fair point. Or would be - if we hadn't had 60 years of Post-war industrial development, gas and chemicals masticating the planet.

It's not our personal consumption that has caused this crisis. It is the engines of industry.

One example I like to use is in Australia where they're suffering a water crisis. Now, we know the planet is warming, and we know it's only going to get worse. So there are big billboards! all over Melbourne -everyone is doing their bit having short showers, hand watering plants every second day, not leaving taps running, turning off public fountains... complaining of course, but chipping in.
Unfortunately, the private water consumption of 26 million Australians only accounts for 10% of water use. Industry takes up most of the rest, including irrigating arid, otherwise unfarmable lands.
And, like here, they want more water.

It's the same with every industry, because our economies have been geared to growth, growth growth. We've been ramping them up and up and up, drawing on huge banks of investment and credit... Yes, credit - that thing banks just make up out of thin air to "create wealth", an endless snowball of funding so industry can keep digging, and making and selling; and when that product is made obsolete three years later, they make and sell again.

Unfortunately that credit does not come out of nowhere. It is value being extracted from labour, and from the earth. Basically it's like the credit crunch - we've been drawing too much too fast from the earth's resources, and now we can't pay it back fast enough to stop the whole system collapsing.

And after spending their inheritance, we'll leave future generations to clean up our mess.

Now we have a UN report that provides an answer. It is very positive, saying we don't have to go back to personal gardens to make all our climate/economy crunches so much better:

War against hunger, global warming can be won on farmlands –
Improvements in cropland and grazing land management as well as the restoration of organic soils and degraded lands are the most significant technical measures to lessen the impact of climate change.

Nearly, 90 per cent of this potential will come from capturing carbon in the soil before it escapes into the atmosphere, according to the report, "Food Security and Agricultural Mitigation in Developing Countries: Options for Capturing Synergies."

Now, I know there are a class of people that take some perverse pleasure in insisting that chemically augmented crops are "just as good if not preferable" to organic; but I hope they're not also convinced "the earth regulates itself". Because this report clearly, but tactfully states that yes, the Earth has a great organic potential to regulate carbon itself - but we've been poisoning it on a hyper-industrial scale for 60 years.

The chemical seeds and fertilisers corporations will not be happy with this solution. So expect it to be buried, like emissions, like renewable energy, electric cars, etc, etc. Chances are this report will lie around like the other 40 years of reports warning this very situation would happen.

Unless, maybe - we tell our governments to do something different.

We've poisoned the Earth's lungs and soiled its air. Some say we didn't know any better, fine - it's not about guilt. Just use our enormous creativity and wealth - and democracy - to fix the damn thing up.

More of this Balance needed in reporting on Israel

The Sunday broadcast on TV One last night was a rare gem.

It was regarding the demolition and evictions of Palestinians from their homes in East Jerusalem. East Jerusalem belongs to Palestine by the UN Mandate of 1948. However, upon declaring their statehood that year, Israel used the war with Egypt, Jordan and Syria to invade and occupy East Jerusalem and the Palestinian territories, consolidating their hold in the following war with these states in 1967.

It is worth mentioning that UN Secretary General Ban has recently reaffirmed that East Jerusalem should be the capital of a Palestinian state.
Repeated resolutions have been made by the UN to return this territory, but Israel claims the land as spoils of war, even though the Palestinians have never been at war with Israel; and Israel has revived historical claims to the land, even though they accepted the boundaries of the UN mandate when establishing their nation in the first place.

The Sunday story pretty much speaks for itself. Israeli courts and interests rule Palestinian land. So if a court decides that a sector of East Jerusalem has always been under Israeli rule, woe betide the Palestinian family living there. Also, the fertile Palestinian population is not able to acquire building permits for everything from houses to schools to water bores; unlike Israelis.

The beauty of the Sunday piece by Ian Sinclair is that it is small, the hard facts are indisputable, and it sums up the hopeless oppression of the Palestinians without the violence and emotive clouding issue of Palestinian "terrorist tactics". If the Palestinians build their houses without permits, they break the law and they're destroyed; if they do nothing, Israeli settlements take their land.

You can decide what you like about the "legality" of the eviction. Truly to have your home taken from you by a police raid at 5am should resonate with most Kiwis, who love their family home. New Zealand also has its own history of land being taken, so we should be able to look on the situation with wiser eyes.

In my view, it has long been clear that Israel is an oppressive apartheid state. The Palestinians have no recourse to justice in the state governing them.
The Israeli government's attitude is a clear parallel to the mid-colonial government of NZ, particularly from 1873 to 1909, where it was deemed Maori were dying out and so land confiscations were legitimised and accelerated on that basis. This was legalised internally by the colonial courts, and carried out by force. Resistance was a crime.

As I have said previously, a fully integrated state like Aotearoa New Zealand would be the best answer, but impossible while Israel is committed to being a dedicated Jewish state - which is their right - so long as they accept the reality that won't cover the entire territory they'd like. Because of the UN resolutions the answer in Israel would seem a fairly simple case of "give it back", but the fact they have such power and domination over the Palestinians means they have not had to accept that reality.

Also the USA has chosen to support Israel's flouting of UN resolutions and international law, and every tragedy, death and disaster for the last 40+ years has flowed from this. Any perception of the US as being "committed to the peace process" must be seen in this context. They could fix things, easily; but they're choosing to accommodate the Israeli tactics, which appears to be to delay and appropriate as much land as possible, with the goal of annexing the entire territory with the Palestinians ghettoised into the Gaza strip or fled into Egypt or Jordan.

Certainly the views of Michael Kuttner, a Kiwi turned Israeli citizen, encapsulate this agenda. Again, the beauty of this report was that it was small, and yet it managed to capture the essence of all that is wrong in Israel.
Kuttner is a member of a group "Kiwis for Balanced Media Reporting on Israel", and it has to be said we need more of his sort of balance aired. The holier-than-thou air of "this IS our land, who cares how we claim it" and his bald assertion they'll wait as long as they have to claim the entire territory for Israel is a real reflection of the logic behind the Israeli government's strategy and their fanatical support base, know as "Zionism". They believe their millennia old quest for a nation-state did not end at 1948, even though they accepted the UN Mandate. They don't feel bound by that, because they don't feel bound by any law, much less international law, in claiming what they believe God promised them.

Of course this view is never broadcast by the Israeli government. In fact, in classic power-politics style, they project this agenda on to the Palestinians., and the various resistance/terror groups. Actually, after what they've suffered for 60+ years, I'm fairly sure any true Palestinian government and its people would be pretty relieved just to get their fair share. They deserve a representative state that can deliver them justice.

Possibly the best moment in the Sunday report came when Sinclair asked Kuttner if it might make more sense to have integrated communities.
"Oh they like living with their own people," he said, projecting his perfect apartheid racism, "It's only natural..."

We do need more balance in reporting on Israel. Let's hear less of Mark Regev and way more of these bigots speaking for themselves in their own words. Because these are the ideas that infest the Israeli state, government and courts, the unseen poison in this country and why it is intolerable for even average Palestinians who hardly want a war. We only see the poison's results, when someone goes mad with injustice, a truck or a bulldozer, or blows themselves up. Written off, as just another terrorist.

More Bloodshed

Afghanistan and Pakistan suffer further. Of course it's been happening for a while, but I felt it worthy of a brief post, in relation to my earlier post on Iraq.

In Pakistan, it was Orna Guerin from the BBC who fronted for pictures of death and destruction after a bomb blast killed more than 90 people. The bomber "parked his car outside a mosque" apparently, which is interesting to hear - no evidence it was necessarily a suicide bomber. It would have been interesting to know if any notables were killed, but this was apparently a very soft civilian target.

The online account from Reuters said no one has claimed responsibility, but blame immediate fell upon the Taliban. Naturally.

But that makes no sense. Killing your own people, undermining your own support base in a time when therre are foreign forces rampaging through your country? Crazy - but, ah, yes: a story we in the West have become used to hearing.

Just for a quick check, let's go through the other possible suspects:

"Al-Qaeda" - Hmm, these guys usually claim responsibility, with some frown-worthy digital transmission. Motive? The ever-successful plan of taking over the world with an Islamic Jihad, based on the brilliant strategy of blowing up your own people.
Maybe that's why the mighty octopus with arms and cells all across the world has dropped off the radar lately.

Other previously unknown terrorist group: Well, if it's a publicity stunt, they'd do well to put out a press release. Or some statement of their cause. Maybe they've got lazy because the US Department of Defense usually writes them for them. Otherwise they fall into the "Amazingly well-resourced Crazies" Al-Qaeda basket.

Pakistan Military or Intelligence (ISI): Ahh, now we're getting somewhere. Resources? Check. Motive? Pleasing their American funders, check. Justifying military incursion, check. Justifying their internal authority in the struggle with the democratic government, check. Eroding the support base for the "Taliban in Pakistan" (read, anyone who opposes Pakistan's role in the War since 9/11) by vilifying them, check. Maybe there was even a specific leader killed in the blast.
This is entirely in line with the strategy of stalwarts of the War on Terror, such as Indonesian Intelligence, who have a long history of supporting terror in their own country to justify moving their military into disputed regions.

CIA black-ops or NATO/US sponsored mercenaries: yes, it could even have been NZ's own SAS, we don't know. Motive? For all the reasons above. But with the ISI being so compliant, I don't think it would have been necessary. First rule of Colonialism is let the natives do the work where you can.

False-flag Terror group: this is where native mercenaries are paid to act like a terror group. Motive? For all the reasons above. See "First Rule of Colonialism" above, and the entire digital existence of the Amazing Al-Zarqawi and Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

Taliban: Or of course, this "Taliban" problem that has popped up in Pakistan, particularly since US troops started redeploying from Iraq. Crazy, crazy, Taliban. See "Al Qaeda", above.

And of course, lets not forget the Kabul shooting.
Interesting that Reuters let the copy read as "a blast", when it was in fact a targeted shooting of UN officials and foreigners. The TV report I saw admitted "this was incredibly unlike the Taliban and daring" but justified by saying it showed how insecure the situation in Kabul is, and it was an attack in the lead up to the presidential run-off.

Maybe, although it shows poor tactics. It is crucial with shootings to know who the victims were, what they were doing. The UN always comes under attack, because occupying armies do not want them and local resistance see them as soft targets who are facilitating the occupation.
Needless to say, the shooting could have been committed by any of the groups above, or their equivalents.

It is worth pointing out that the American commander of the region is now General Stan McChrystal. To have a beer and a laugh with the General, go here. Otherwise, let's end with a quote from Global Research about this little smiler:

McChrystal was a special favorite of Rumsfeld and Cheney because he was in charge of the ‘direct action' forces of the ‘Special Missions Units. ‘Direct Action' operative are the death-squads and torturers and their only engagement with the local population is to terrorize, and not to propagandize. They engage in ‘propaganda of the dead', assassinating local leaders to ‘teach' the locals to obey and submit to the occupation. Obama's appointment of McChrystal as head reflects a grave new military escalation of his Afghanistan war in the face of the advance of the resistance throughout the country.

Ah well. Sorry, sorry... if I manage to keep away from the news, hopefully my next post will be more heartening.

Newsflash: Media "speechless" at distrust

I do mean to come back to Dr Wayne Cartwright's talk on strong sustainability - it'll find it's time. But my day started with a brief segment on tV3's "Sunrise" programme with Oliver Driver and co and a couple of media mavens discussing a poll of "only 750" who said they hated/distrusted the media.

Driver blamed the focus on selling and rating, and the celebrity focus. Some tried to blame "us" for not understanding how hard it was for them to put together the news, while "only a poll of 750" was scoffed at several times. Like they ever headcount any other poll that makes a story.

And despite all the noise and talking over each other, they were actually at a loss to explain it. Speechless. And, almost contemptuously dismissive of their low standing. Like they knew better.

Fortunately for them, Media Lens also put out a story today, and it answers their exact question. Why the media are so utterly unworthy of our trust.

A quote: (emphasis mine)

Last month, Milton Coleman, senior editor at The Washington Post, sent a memo to staff on the issue of use of “individual accounts on online social networks, when used for reporting and for personal use”. The memo warned staff to "remember that Washington Post journalists are always Washington Post journalists". It added:

"All Washington Post journalists relinquish some of the personal privileges of private citizens... Post journalists must refrain from writing, tweeting or posting anything—including photographs or video—that could be perceived as reflecting political, racial, sexist, religious or other bias or favoritism that could be used to tarnish our journalistic credibility. This same caution should be used when joining, following or friending any person or organization online.”

These rules echo BBC editorial guidelines. In 2005, we asked the BBC's World Affairs correspondent, Paul Reynolds, if he thought George Bush hoped to create a genuine democracy in Iraq. Reynolds replied:

"I cannot get into a direct argument about his policies myself! Sorry." (Email to Media Lens, September 5, 2005)

Reynolds explained to one of our readers:

"You are asking for my opinion about the war in Iraq yet BBC correspondents are not allowed to have opinions!" (Forwarded to Media Lens, October 22, 2005)

As these comments suggest, media guidelines require that journalists relinquish, not just "personal privileges", but also moral responsibility.

Journalists are not free to declare their “bias” even in abhorring mass murder, war crimes and climate chaos, if doing so "could be used to tarnish" their employers' "journalistic credibility". The problem is that the people with the power to do the tarnishing are overwhelmingly of the right - big business and political centres of power dominated by big business.

In reality, the demand for ’balance’ means that journalists can say pretty much what they like in favouring powerful interests, but they will be severely castigated for losing ‘balance’ when they criticise the wrong people. Thus we find that it is not ‘biased’ to suggest that Britain and America are committed to spreading democracy around the world, but it +is+ ‘biased’ to suggest that they are responsible for crimes in the Third World. In short, the demand for ‘balance’ is a weapon of thought control - it is a way of policing and enforcing bias in media performance.

The full article is pitched perfectly. The issue is there are actually three sides to any story. The interests of power; those with interests oppostie to those in power; and the status quo. Most media tries to place itself in this "objective" status quo place, without acknowledging that the status quo is already firmly weighted towards those in power, and get dragged along with it. In our extremist capitalist society, that is inexorably in favour of the wealthy, towards the "Right".

The obeisance to power was shown only yesterday, with the change of pseudoephadrine to a Class B drug, doubling the cost to those who use it for colds and flu, just because some criminals use it. Just because Paul Holmes' daughter got on P, and the upper class got frightened. The whole pitch from the media was "good, strong government". No opposition voice of note.

Roll back a year, and if the Labour government had tried this there'd be huge cries of "nanny state".

The most painful example of the blind media bias is of course in the Middle East. Look at the status quo there:

If the Palestinians do nothing? They lose their land to Jewish settlements.
If they attack? They get massacred, persecuted, and still lose their land. Oh, and their persecutor cries "victim".
If they go along with the "US peace process"? Well they can't agree to anything because Israel won't define its borders in line with UN resolutions - after more than 40 years. (bet Iran wishes it had that sort of deadline).
And hey, what would happen if the supposed "cycle of hate" ended; what if the Palestinians and Muslims said, "you know? this isn't worth it. Lets make it one country. We'll live in Israel. You call it it that. We call it Palestine. We'll be a peace-loving democracy sharing the same land holy to us both. No problem."
Well, that's not possible, of course. Not because normal people in both countries don't want peace. But because Isreal is a jewish state. That's a theocracy - not a democracy. The government of Israel has been committed to a Jewish state across the holy state since inception, and if they let whoever they want live in Israel, they'd be an ethnic Muslim state within years.

The Israel/Palestine situation is a very simple story of power and injustice, but you wouldn't know it by the way the media fret and follow the narrative spooled out from the US.

And they wonder why we don't trust them.

Mists of Truth and Narrative and Power

The Standard points to our greatest dislike of the blogging scene, and the media in general. In changing his position just because it is National delivering the policy on the Electoral Finance Act, David Farrar of Kiwiblog is showing his adherence to battlelines, to a party over principles. To power.

This can be seen across the blogosphere now that National are in power, with hypocritical crowing from Right-wing bloggers - Cactus Kate, Roarprawn - knowing that they personally benefit from the big business mentality of the National-Act - screw democracy, screw any ambition other than money-making - and they screw up their own avowed principles (such as Roarprawn's "hate on political corruption"). This is sad. And you won't see it here, because no NZ party is really moving in a direction Fantail would like to see. The parties don't understand the question our country is facing - because we haven't asked it of them properly.

What is that question, you ask? It's a good question. It's simple, but obscure. I'll tell ya later. And you won't hear the media asking it, not on our behalf because they lack the self-awarness and clarity to see how they hinder democracy, instead of aiding it. They are arbiters and gatekeepers, like the three monkeys. Deaf. Dumb. Blind.

As with John Key's follow-up performance after Letterman. I can't find a mainstream report on it, but apparently he walked out on Iranian president Ahmedinajad's speech to the UN - following the coat-tails of the uS and UK, like a good pup.

This is a worrying sign. He personally could benefit greatly from listening to the leaders of countries 20 times our size, facing threats that make "Oh, KiwiRail is losing money" look absolutely infantile. His political pedigree isn't impressive, but the answer is not to play "follow the leader". Stay in your seat. Listen. Learn. That's what you're there for. Ask questions. Think for yourself - don't just follow the cool kids around.

I wonder what he thought of the Swiss leader's comments regarding the G20 elite, who met alongside the General Assembly in Pittsburgh. That is, the biggest national economies in the world, and those who are too strategically important to ignore and aren't upstarts that the US wants to bomb back into their place. We're never going to make either hit list, so we should listen to Switzerland's concern that the UN, much less the General Assembly (the most democratic body in the world) is being made ever more redundant by these swaggering elites.

It would be nice if we could stop the rot hang on to some principles - show some real ambition - rather than always spreading our legs for the money.

Link to UN General Debate

Not Happy, John: Pt. 2

In the little reading I've managed over a busy weekend, I note that the ineffable business reporter Fran O'Sullivan echoes our feelings entirely on the Letterman mistake.

Unfortuately, Mr Key then comes out the next day and says New Zealand should have a seat on the UN Security Council.

Really? Seriously? Is anyone there still taking him seriously?

He talks about New Zealand's anti-nuclear credentials, but that just seems to be another thing he is "trading on". Using our reputation to get the seat, but what then? Given the emphasis on nuclear proliferation at this Assembly (note, NOT disarmament, as was initially reported), it is a legitimate concern that a New Zealand Security Council vote would belong to the USA - a world power that is very focused on removing the Islamic Republic of Iran's legal right to nuclear power, by any means necessary.

("But, Fantail," I hear, "Iran's a bad guy?" That is a fair question. But to be addressed another time, perhaps.)

There is a precedent to this National Government trading like this - earlier this year we declined to continue our VERY proud record on the UN Human Rights Council in order to give USA a chance at gaining a nomination.

So, it's a two-edged sword. We're a small country. Our reputation, our principles are all we really have. If we did secure a Security Council seat, we would have a strong platform to act on democratic principles in defence of international law, to prevent another illegal war in the Middle East - it would be something to be proud of.

But we don't want the damn seat if it'll be used to terrorise another country in our name.