Lest we forget Afghanistan, the Solomon Islands and Timor Leste

What freedom, ANZAC Day is used both in Australia & NZ to build its settler mythology and to legitimize the presence of NZ troops around the world. War mongering Imperialism then, War mongering Imperialism Now. Troops out of the Middle East, Troops out of the Pacific Haere Atu
Fantastic protest. Solidarity love and kaha to the arrestees.

Check out the comment posted here... could do with some refutation I feel.

http://www.tv3.co.nz/tabid/184/articleID/25774/Default.aspx

I might reply soon... but it'd be good to show there's more support for peace than just one 'crackpot'.

Although to be honest I have a bit of an issue with the way the Wellington protesters in question went about it. I just think that poster on the TV3 site is way off target.

the troops in the pacific are up there helping to prevent two countries from collapsing, they are peace keeping not starting a war. you people are too narrow minded to see that. shame on you for insulting the memories of the dead!

by that i ment the troops out now protesters, i fully agree with the last comment

Bush Regime Strategic Thinkers/Advisers/Power Players Specialising In Asia Pacific

* RAND Corporation (funded by Pentagon particularly US Air Force; formerly chaired by Donald Rumsfeld with Zalmay Khalilzad as senior consultant);

* Council on Foreign Relations;

* Center for Security Policy (which is also identified with Rumsfeld) - headed by Frank J Gaffney Junior with eight top chief executive officers [CEOs] from defence contractors on its board);

* Carlyle Group (headed by Frank Carlucci, ex-Deputy Director of CIA and former Defense Secretary of Reagan; with former US President, George Bush Senior, and former Philippine President, Fidel Ramos, as Asian advisers). Carlyle is actually the US's 11th largest defence contractor with significant interests in Asia;

* Heritage Foundation (official Rightwing think tank of the Republican Party)

In 2001, RAND came up with a report, "The United States and Asia: Toward a New US Strategy and Force Posture" (Lead Author: Zalmay Khalilzad). This report recommends shifting US forces toward the Philippines, Guam, Southeast Asia and other countries close to Taiwan.

A year earlier, this think tank in a report, "The Role of Southeast Asia in US Strategy Toward China," also stressed that China's emergence as a major regional power over the next 10-15 years could intensify US-China competition in Southeast Asia and increase the potential for armed conflict. "Economic growth in the region, which is important to the economic security of the US, depends on preserving American presence and influence in the region and unrestricted access to sea lanes," RAND said.

The COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, on the other hand, in a Memorandum to Bush in May 2001 ("The US and Southeast Asia: A Policy Agenda for the New Administration") argued for a more assertive US military stance in the region: "The (Bush) Administration should preserve a credible military presence and a viable regional training and support infrastructure" specifying "high-priority efforts" in the areas of "joint and combined military training exercises and individual and small group exchanges and training".

The HERITAGE FOUNDATION also said that the "war against terrorism" would ultimately be pursued in Southeast Asia with or without the express approval of local governments.

Again, PNAC envisions some specific operative plans for Asia Pacific:

* In Asia, deploying more troops to beef up the presence of 100,000 US forces to address new challenges for the 21st Century;

* Key to coping with the rise of China to great-power status is the increase in military strength in East Asia and Southeast Asia;

* A heightened US military presence in Southeast Asia will provide the core around which a de facto military coalition (a la the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation [NATO]) will be formed;

* Reduce the frequency of aircraft carrier presence in the Mediterranean and the Gulf while increasing US Navy presence in the Pacific;

* For this reason, it is preferable, for strategic and operational reasons, to create a second major home port for a carrier battle group in the southern Pacific - in the Philippines or Australia;

* Establish a network of "deployment bases" or "forward operating bases" to improve the ability to project force to outlying regions. Prepositioned materiel would speed the initial deployment and improve the sustainability of US forces when deployed for training, joint training with the host nation, or operations in time of crisis. (e.g. the Military Logistics Supply Agreement, between the US and the Philippines).

The CARLYLE GROUP, which is worth $US13.5 billion, a private empire which operates in the shadows of government, military and industry and spans three continents including Asia; owns companies making tanks, aircraft wings and other military hardware.

In the company are former US President George Bush Senior (head of the Asia advisory board); former British Prime Minister John Major; Frank Carlucci, who was President Reagan's Defense Secretary; former Philippines President Fidel Ramos (Asia advisory board); and other world leaders.

Carlyle has large investments and big acquisitions in South Korea, Taiwan and China. Carlyle has a $US4 million infrastructure project in the southern Philippine island of Basilan, part of the joint US/Philippine military exercise, Balikatan 02-1.

Summary

At this point, let me summarise that most public declarations and policy statements made by the US government emphasise that the targets of America's current security objectives are to prevent the rise of a regional hegemonic Power like China, "regime change" in North Korea for possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), to wage war against "transnational terrorism" and insurgencies and other security threats.

But the secret reports, security strategies and doctrines of the US government that give emphasis on the use of military power reveal beyond reasonable doubt that the main objective is to consolidate and preserve US hegemony and domination in Asia Pacific and the whole world. The objective is to prolong Pax Americana through the 21st Century.

Current US Hegemonic Operations In Asia-Pacific

* US maintains the largest military command here (US Pacific Command [PACOM]). PACOM interacts with the armed forces of 14 of Asia Pacific's 45 countries;

* The number of US troops on land and afloat in the region has surpassed those forward deployed in Europe: 100,000 troops are based in Japan (60,000) and South Korea (37,000), with the rest in Guam, afloat or on various attachments.

* US-Japan alliance - the lynchpin of US security in the region, with Japan playing an increasingly aggressive role;

* Bilateral military alliances with Australia, Thailand and the Philippines; reinforced by access or basing agreements with Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong and Sri Lanka;

* A stronger military partnership with Australia;

* New strategic partnership with India and Pakistan;

* Plan to reinstall its military bases in Southeast Asia (either in the Philippines, Vietnam, Australia, Indonesia or Singapore)

* Laying the ground for a regional military alliance or treaty in the guise of fighting terrorism

The September 11, 2001 events, which ignited Bush's "war without borders" (or "Operation Enduring Freedom") were seized upon by Bush to reverse the decline of the US military presence in Asia Pacific and to aggressively assert US hegemonic interests. They:

- Opened the "second front" in Bush's "war without borders" using the Philippines as a template (or model) for greater military presence and power projection in the region. The Philippines will serve as the epicentre in the new US military strategy in the circumference of Asia Pacific.

- Increased military aid to Taiwan, Indonesia, the Philippines and other countries; increased arms sales;

- Increased military training and funds to support these;

- Increased "forward deployed forces" and enhanced their capability through the deployment of Special Operations Forces, covert operations, war materiel and other equipment;

- Launched offensive moves against North Korea, hastened plan to build a missile defence system in the Korean Peninsula.

Conclusion

US hegemony in Asia Pacific is a reality and is the concrete expression of an American Empire that is undergoing consolidation with a vision that will last through the 21st Century.

I submit that the debate on whether there is really US imperialism or a global American Empire should now be put to rest. In the United States itself, there is a growing advocacy or acceptance even in many conservative circles, institutions, think tanks, universities and media that there is indeed an American Empire. The only distinction which they want the world to believe is that, unlike empires in past centuries, this American Empire is "benign" and "benevolent" and is performing a role which no other nation can in order to preserve "democracy and freedom" across the globe and resist threats posed by "evils," "rogue regimes" and forces of radicalism.

But this American Empire is something the American people themselves loathe simply because they also suffer under the rule of the US oligarchs and their freedoms and civil liberties continue to be threatened. It is an empire imposed upon the world by America's ruling regime on behalf of corporate giants, the military-industrial-media complex, oil oligarchs and other elite interests. It is an empire that is supported by Rightwing power players, militarists, free market ideologues, Jewish neo-conservatives, leaders of the Christian and Catholic Right and anti-socialists. Under Bush the military-industrial complex is no longer invisible - it has become the most visible, most articulate and most aggressive driving force behind America's wars for world hegemony and domination today.

In order to preserve the American Empire that will rule the world for as long as can be sustained, the strategists and politico-military leaders of this grand project are more and more relying on the use of military power precisely because America's economic power is on the decline. America's Rightwing leaders and militarists believe that economic impositions through the instruments of the Bretton Woods institutions (the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade-World Trade Organisation) no longer suffice to preserve American hegemony and domination of the world. With arrogance and self-righteousness, they believe that the American Empire cannot exist under current international law, ethical concepts, multilateralism and global institutions like the United Nations because of the constraints and impediments that these pose on America's will and action. To them, concepts of national sovereignty, territorial integrity, self-determination and dignity are just concepts best learned only in school. To them, the concept of Pax Americana should be asserted through unipolar military superiority, warlordism, aggression, moral absolutism and a global ideological offensive using US media oligopolies. Their ideological offensive centres on drumming up an apocalyptic conflict between "Good and Evil".

It is clear how this strategy is being applied in Asia Pacific and across the globe under the Bush Administration and I personally do not see any change coming even if Bush is no longer President of the United States. Using the pretext of "war against terrorism" and other so-called threats to the security of the region, the US government is increasingly and steadily deploying its forces, rebuilding its military bases, securing stronger and more reliable military alliances and security partnerships, gaining more access to ports, airfields and air spaces. But soon the combat missions that we now see in the Philippines, particularly in Mindanao, will be replicated throughout the Philippines, in Southeast Asia and other parts of the Asia Pacific. America's objective in Asia Pacific is to maintain a strong military power never seen before in the entire history of the region.

US military power in the region addresses the American Empire's strategic objectives to contain the rise of power competitors such as - but not limited to - China, and deter the growth of other threats to its hegemony including revolutionary movements and the rise of independent regimes.

Because Asia Pacific is a vast mass of land and sea territory with huge economic and geopolitical potentials, and because it is contiguous to the American mainland and its Pacific territories, this region remains of strategic interest to the United States. Without a strong power projection in Asia Pacific, America's drive for global hegemony and domination will be threatened.

To the peoples of Asia Pacific however the threat to their independence and security is and will always be US imperialism. So much blood has been spilled because of US imperialism, which has been asserting itself here for more than a century. The independence, sovereignty, freedom, self-determination and economic growth of many nations - including the possible reunification of countries divided by post-WW2 US intervention in the region - are always threatened because of US imperialism. Tensions and instabilities particularly in the Korean Peninsula, between China and Taiwan, and other hot spots in the region are heightened because of US interventionism.

But, just as the previous world wars led to the rise of independence and liberation movements throughout the world, the US "war on terrorism" has led to the reawakening of the peoples of Asia Pacific to the real threat to humanity. More and more peoples are standing up against US imperialism. Especially in Muslim countries, the "war against terrorism" is beginning to appear as a war against the world particularly against Muslims who oppose foreign domination. Today, the more US imperialism displays its arrogance and military power, the more resistance it will generate.

George Bush has declared a "war against terrorism" - a "war without borders" and without time limit. This, he said, is America's "war of the century." Let us instead turn America's "war of the century" into the "Century's War Against US Imperialism".

http://www.converge.org.nz/abc/pr28-84.html

This comment of mine below was posted on another thread, but I'd like to apply it to the argunets on this one also.

____________________
I chose not to go to this demo, mostly, to be honest, because I have to get up early every other morning for work in a factory and being tired from various activities, wanted the rare chance to sleep in. I was also not sure if disruption of the ceremony was the most productive tactic. To be honest, I felt quite torn about whether I should go down or not.
However, I completely respect the choice of those who went to demonstrate. Whatever differences we have about tactics and details, I know they are sincerely anti corporate and anti war.
The politicians and editors and other capitalists who manipulate publilic opinion are not sincere. They are playing on peoples feelings for their own interests. They don't give two shits about the fallen; they only leech off their long forgotten agony. The protesters are actualy the ones according the dead proper respect.
The flag that was burnt today is a flag of imperialism.
The anti war movement can only suceed when it becomes a mass movement again and cannot be rebuilt just by a few small occasional protest actions. But those small actions are a part of that process and should be supported.

Don Franks

Shame on you. Burning the flag that our people died for.....You think this will get your ideas across? You have let gone too far.

I for one would fully support the police dishing out an arse whipping on my behalf.

In the Pacific we have huge bases in Hawaii, Guam, Australia

Declaration: International Conference for the Abolition of Foreign Military Bases
Friday, 09 March 2007
Quito and Manta, Ecuador

We come together from 40 countries as grassroots activists from groups that promote women’s rights, indigenous sovereignty, environmental justice, human rights, and social justice. We come from social movements, peace movements, faith-based organizations, youth organizations, trade unions, and indigenous communities. We come from local, national, and international formations.

United by our struggle for justice, peace, self-determination of peoples and ecological sustainability, we have founded a network animated by the principles of solidarity, equality, openness, and respect for diversity.

Foreign military bases and all other infrastructure used for wars of aggression violate human rights; oppress all people, particularly indigenous peoples, African descendants, women and children; and destroy communities and the environment. They exact immeasurable consequences on the spiritual and psychological wellbeing of humankind. They are instruments of war that entrench militarization, colonialism, imperial policy, patriarchy, and racism. The United States-led illegal invasions and ongoing occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan were launched from and enabled by such bases. We call for the immediate withdrawal of all foreign troops from these lands and reject any planned attack against Iran.

We denounce the primary responsibility of the U.S. in the proliferation of foreign military bases, as well as the role of NATO, the European Union and other countries that have or host foreign military bases.

We call for the total abolition of all foreign military bases and all other infrastructure used for wars of aggression, including military operations, maneuvers, trainings, exercises, agreements, weapons in space, military laboratories and other forms of military interventions.

We demand an end to both the construction of new bases and the reinforcement of existing bases; an end to and cleanup of environmental contamination; an end to legal immunity and other privileges of foreign military personnel. We demand integral restauration and full and just compensation for social and environmental damages caused by these bases.

Our first act as an international network is to strengthen Ecuador�s commitment to terminate the agreement that permits the U.S. military to use the base in Manta beyond 2009. We commit to remain vigilant to ensure this victory.

We support and stand in solidarity with those who struggle for the abolition of all foreign military bases worldwide.

Foreign Military Bases Out Now!

Manta Si! Bases No!

http://www.no-bases.org/

I find all this anzac day protesting offensive. Having an American spokesperson for the event is totally wrong. Peace Action my ass.

What do you know about Anzac Day Valerie? How many of your forebears fought or fell?

Many people would see this as an insult to our grandfathers and great grandfathers.

Congratulations Valerie! I was at the Wellington service and can assure you that nothing your opponents could ever dream up would do as much damage to your cause as that stunt this morning. Keep up the bad work.
Che Guava

while i dont like the way that the protest was organised, i support the motivation people had to protest on anzac day.

Anzac day disgusts me. How dear the government, RSA etc re-write history. Its not even like everyone had a choice to fight. How many men were drafted and killed, wounded or mentally scarred from fighting in a rich man's war?

my grandad fought and was wounded in the pacific, and many of his friends died. If he was still alive he'd probably be pretty pissed off right now. But that doesnt make war right or honorable. My tupuna also fought against the colonial troops in the North Island. I guess, that history doesn't count.

Here's a simple test:

Which upsets you more?

a) The fatal shooting of two civilian protesters by Anzac forces in East Timor's Comoro refugee camp on February the 23rd

or

b) The destruction of a New Zealand flag a few weeks later in Wellington.

If you're a leftist who turned up in the comments boxes at indymedia frothing at the mouth over b), but didn't see fit to talk about a), then you probably need to reexamine your political priorities.
(Scott)

I agree with all the stuff said about ANZAC day being nationalistic and jingoistic but what was the point of protesting the dawn service, I thought the idea was to make libertarian and socialist ideas as mainstream and popular as possible and this is clearly not the way to go about it. Why couldnt you have just had a vigil to the CO's or victims of New Zealand war crimes, how was burning the flag at the dawn service anything but unproductive, but I guess if your more concerned with a self-righteous ideological purity rather than actually making socialist ideas popular then it was the perfect thing to do. Conratulations you made a bunch of potential sympathisers hate our ideas.

if a) had anything to do with anzac day then I would maake a comment on it. dont try and change the fact that what you did at the dawn services was totally wrong and is, in my view, an act of treason to this country.

I am not pro war but the people died for your right to protest, you have insulted their memory!

This has caused some ranting and raving in the pop media. Check out http://www.stuff.co.nz/thepress/4038278a10.html to see some of it.

AEQUITAS, the latin meaning for justice, justice is what i plan to fight for when i join the forces, justice (among many, many other things) is what the men of 1914-1918 -and again in 1939-1945- fought for, from all over the commonwealth and further, for people they would never know, for parts of the world they would never visit.
They fought and died for my country, for your country, for every country that believed in the freedom of people and their beliefs all over the world.
and this is how you honour them?! with banners desecrating what they did for YOU and burning your national flag!!
Those who fought and survived deserve the utmost respect (as do those who did not return) for the sacrifice they made, not to be told what they did and what those men and women did following their example was a waste of time and unapreciated.
92 years ago i would have been landing in Anzac cove along with my friends, 1 in 5 of which would be killed within minutes, that thought, most of all is the most humbling and fills me with respect for the bravery of those men, no boys!
your actions at the cenitaph yesterday morning filled me with hatred toward your insensitivity to the events that have taken place in the past, where boys and men and women for that matter, fought, survived and died believing that they made a difference. they did make a difference. that difference deserves to be remembered, not scorned!
nztroopsoutnow.org; you are a disgrace!

How many wellington anarchists does it take to put in a light bulb? Answer:4

One to put in the bulb, one to collect the weekly dole money,the third to roll the joint and the fourth to plan a pointless protest that only their scenester friends will show up to while alienating thousands of people.

Has anybody here who has cited the defense of freedom for the pointless loss of life reflected on what the word freedom meant for NZ's involvement in the early wars?
From what I can ascertain it meant providing support to the empire in return for future protection.

On an offside note, it is amazing how Anzac day has gained a momentum to become a centerpiece calender day for national identity?

James (assuming you're also the one posting all the messages about the Maori Battallion, etc):

you need to question a few of those assumptions.

Being Maori doesn't mean having to take part in the wars of the British and American Empires. Did you know that the very first Anzacs fought not at Gallipoli but in the Waikato War of 1863-64, when land-hungry Europeans attacked the independent Waikato Kingdom? They're buried in the yard outside St John's Church in Drury, where I grew up.

When the first World War broke out, Tainui and several other iwi refused to take part. 'Why should we fight for an Empire that stole our land and resources?' they asked.

Princess Te Puea, the great leader of the Tainui people, made an alliance with Pakeha trade unionists and socialists and led a campaign of resistance when attempts were made to conscript young Maori men. In his biogrphy of Te Puea, Michael King describes how thousands of men who refused to serve gathered at Mangatawhiri Marae near Mercer, where they were arrested. They were imprisoned in places like Mt Eden Prison and Narrowneck Naval Base; dozens were killed by the inhumane conditions there.

The year after the bungled invasion of Turkey that you want to celebrate, armed Pakeha cops attacked the town that Tuhoe had established underneath their sacred mountain Maungapohatu in the Urewera Ranges. Because the leader of the Tuhoe, the prophet Rua Kenana, had advised Maori to refuse to fight in the war, the town at Maungapohatu was destroyed and two of its inhabitants were shot dead.

It's true that some Maori took part in the First World War and more took part in the Second. The Maori Battalion was set up by leaders like Apirana Ngata, who believed that Maori should turn their back on their history of resistance to colonialism, and instead try to win the 'respect' of the Pakeha establishment by fighting in wars on the other side of the world.

There's no doubt that Maori did fight and die with courage in both World Wars. They died in such great numbers that many whanau and hapu were deprived of a generation of males. But was the sacrifice worth it? Ngata’s hopes that the blood Maori spilt on the mud of the western front and the deserts of North Africa would persuade Pakeha governments to honour the Treaty of Waitangi and reverse the land and resource theft begun in the nineteenth century were disappointed. After the war, Maori remained second-class citizens in their own country. The path of compromise with the government in Wellington and its imperialist allies did not bring justice.

It was only in the 1970s, when a generation of Maori radicals rejected Ngata's moderation and launched land occupations and other protests, that progress began to come. By taking direct action, and forging alliances with trade unions and left-wing groups, Maori have won back some stolen land at places like Raglan and Bastion Point, as well as state recognition of and funding for their language and other parts of their culture.

At every step of the way, though, the state forces which you want to celebrate have been used against Maori trying to reclaim what is rightfully theirs. There’s a movie from 1980 called 'Bastion Point: Day 507' which you should watch. It documents the day in 1978 when a convoy of massive New Zealand army trucks rolled through Auckland to Bastion Point, where Ngati Whatua and their supporters had been occupying land stolen from the tribe. Soldiers from the army you want to celebrate were used to demolish the village Ngati Whatua had built at Bastion Point, as hundreds of Maori and their supporters were arrested (Ngati Whatua would eventually win their land back a decade later).

The events of that day in 1978 show that the army is a tool of the New Zealand state, a state that was founded on the dispossession of Maori. And the army acts in the same way abroad as it does at home. In Korea, Malaya, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and now East Timor Maori soldiers have acted as foot soldiers for the same sort of aggressive imperialism that stole their own land and resources in the nineteenth century. Half of the Kiwi troops who fought in America’s war on Vietnam were Maori; many of them have never recovered from the experience.

Last February, Anzac troops launched an attack on a refugee camp near the East Timorese capital Dili which had many parallels to the attack on Bastion Point. Supported by two tanks, the Anzacs smashed their way through barricades into the camp, whose homeless residents had been refusing government demands that they move away. Three Timorese of the same age as you were shot in cold blood by these heroic Anzacs; two of them died of their wounds.

If you become an Anzac, you’ll end up on missions like the one to Comoro refugee camp, doing the dirty work for American and Australian imperialism. With US imperialism in crisis and lashing out desperately around the world, there will be no shortage of new wars and colonial occupations for you to take part in. You might find yourself on the streets of Kabul, or in the mountains of Iran, or in the jungles of South America. You might even find yourself aiming a gun at protesters in Aotearoa. Wherever you go, though, you’ll be despised, as a hired thug for imperialism. Go and talk to one of the soldiers who fought against the tangata whenua of Vietnam, and are still filled with self-hatred.

There are easier things to do with your life, comrade.
(Scott)

Well, maybe the Govt wasn't listening to PAW before, but I was. Not anymore tho. This is the dumbest thing you've ever done.
Maybe I should protest at the next 'reclaim the night march' to draw attention to the men in jail over false rape claims, and the children and men killed by women. But, no, I wouldn't do that, because even tho those issues are serious and deserve debate, I've got respect- and brains. The Wellington action was rude and counterproductive.

"All little soldier boys deserve to die." - The Sicfux

monday 26 June 2006
Philip Cunliffe
Aussie rules in the Pacific
Why Australian prime minister John Howard is slated for supporting the war in Iraq but cheered for reconquering the Solomon Islands and East Timor.

Printer-friendly version Email-a-friend Respond

The government of Australian prime minister John Howard was widely criticised for its loyal support of the American ‘war on terror’, including its despatch of troops to bolster Coalition forces in Iraq. But Australia’s recent burst of militarism in the Pacific is rarely challenged; in fact, it is often celebrated. Why is this?

Howard’s government was bitterly criticized by anti-war activists and commentators for supporting the US-led invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet Australia already has more troops in East Timor than it has in either of those countries, as well as a further 400 troops in the Solomon Islands. Unlike Iraq, these military operations have been almost universally welcomed, both in Australia and the wider world. Following the despatch of troops in May to East Timor, Australia’s Daily Telegraph argued that ‘Australia has a continuing responsibility – having acted as “midwife” when East Timor was issued into independence – to supervise her transition from wobbly infancy’. The Sydney Morning Herald claimed that, ‘As a good international citizen and regional power Australia has a moral obligation to support East Timor.’ (1)

These sentiments were echoed in a leader in The Economist, which lauded Australia’s ‘policing’ of the Pacific, but wanted such policing to be pushed further: ‘Asia needs a posse, not just a lonely sheriff’, it argued (2).

Australia’s ‘policing’ activities are not limited to military expeditions. Its bureaucrats run the finance ministry, central bank and police force in the Solomon Islands, as well as overseeing the finances of Nauru. As part of the ‘enhanced co-operation programme’ with its former colony of Papua New Guinea, Australian police officers and civil servants oversee that state’s policing, border controls, justice system and economy (3).

The origins of Australia’s new sphere of influence in the Pacific can be traced back to its military intervention in East Timor in 1999, when the United Nations authorised an Australian-led force to quell the violence that followed the international community’s coercion of Indonesia into holding a referendum on the Timorese independence. This intervention was followed in July 2003 (after the invasion of Iraq) by the despatch of another Australian-led force, this time to the Solomon Islands.

Australia offers two basic justifications for this new interventionism. The first is human rights. So officials claimed they were sending troops to East Timor to protect the Timorese from retreating pro-Indonesian forces. But the extent of this humanitarian compassion has proved remarkably limited on other occasions. Howard’s government is well known for mistreating asylum seekers, even sending naval special forces in August 2001 to round up 400 Afghan asylum-seekers adrift in international waters, before dumping them for ‘processing’ in Nauru, at a safe distance from Australia’s shores. In November 2003, a boat containing 14 Kurdish asylum seekers was towed back into international waters and re-routed to Indonesia.

In 2001, Australian minister for immigration Phillip Ruddock defended this policy on the grounds of protecting Australia’s sovereignty, ‘including Australia’s sovereign right to determine who shall enter Australia’ (4). But this concern for the rights of sovereign states does not extend to those of Indonesia, or of those Pacific Island states where Australia has despatched its soldiers and bureaucrats. Evidently, some sovereigns are more equal than others. Humanitarian compassion recognises some borders (namely, Australia’s), but not others (such as Indonesia’s). When refugees try to cast off their status as telegenic human rights victims, to seek out a better life in rich countries, they are quickly relabelled as ‘threats’ to the stability of our societies.

The second justification for Australia’s new sphere of influence is a bizarrely paranoiac notion of pre-emptive defence. The argument is made that Australian power is necessary to prevent ‘failing states’ in the Pacific from becoming part of an ‘arc of instability’ (5), which would offer havens for terror and organised crime to take root.

But the idea of the Taliban using the Solomon Islands as a launch pad for the invasion of Australia is even more absurd than the notion that Saddam Hussein’s elusive WMD posed a threat to civilisation. At the time of the 2003 Solomon Islands intervention, the Prime Minister of PNG, Sir Michael Somare, argued that: ‘In Papua New Guinea we are concerned about the way foreign academics, journalists and governments try to determine the fate of small developing countries. Our performance is being judged by past records. Yet no one wants to acknowledge the positive steps that we are taking…. The designation of the term “weak” or “failed” to a developing nation seems…to be rather arbitrary.’ (6)

The fact that such thin justifications and paranoid geopolitics can become the basis for foreign policy indicates the extent to which Western military intervention in the developing world goes unquestioned. The West’s moral authority to govern the affairs of poor countries is taken for granted. The only debate is on the technicalities – which country to intervene in; how to secure the patina of multilateral legitimacy; how to spread the burden of troop deployments and logistics, and so on. The Solomon Islands only achieved independence in 1978. Yet since 2003, they have been restored to foreign rule on the grounds of preventing terrorism and organised crime.

East Timor’s period of independence has proved even more shortlived. Having been granted independence from the UN only in 2002, the former Timorese resistance leader Xanana Gusmão recently pleaded for the international community to re-occupy the country (7).

Australia’s new interventionism has provided a platform for Howard to pontificate about how Australia’s neighbours should run their affairs. ‘I have a right as prime minister of Australia’, he proclaimed earlier this year, ‘to say to the political leadership [of East Timor] it carries a very heavy responsibility.’ (8)

Whatever moral authority nation-building in the Pacific has given Howard, the legacy it has bestowed on the peoples of the Pacific is another matter. The ‘arc of instability’ used to justify Australia’s interventionism has now become a self-fulfilling prophecy, with the failure of nation-building projects in East Timor and the Solomon Islands used as justification for another round of intensified nation-building. Whatever hopes were raised by ideas of pre-emptive intervention, nation-building and human-rights intervention as a solution to the problems of Pacific states in the late 1990s, they have clearly been confounded. The results are in, and they are disastrous. It is high time we challenged the nation-building experiment.

Philip Cunliffe is co-convenor of the Sovereignty and Its Discontents working group. Email him at philip.cunliffe@kcl.ac.uk.

(1) BBC Monitoring, ‘No quick fix for Timor, says Australia press’, 26 May 2006

(2) The Economist, ‘Policing the Pacific’, 3 June 2006

(3) The Economist, ‘Policing the Pacific’, 3 June 2006

(4) Phillip Ruddock, cited in Katharine Gelber and Matt McDonald ‘Ethics and exclusion: representations of sovereignty in Australia’s approach to asylum seekers’ Review of International Studies, April 2006, 32:2, p.269

(5) Guardian News blog, ‘Australia’s “arc of instability”’, 26 May 2006

(6) Sir Michael Somare, ‘The new face of the Pacific: continuity and change’, Address to the Pacific Cooperation Foundation and New Zealand Institute of International Affairs, 12 August 2003

(7) See East Timor: when nation-building destroys, by Philip Cunliffe

(8) John Aglionby, ‘Back to square one’, Guardian, 6 June 2006

The day I would really like to see over-run by protest is V-J day or Victory over Japan day.

It is obscene to see people parade up the main street to celebrate dropping nuclear bombs on civillians.

You blew a trumpet? Great way to end imperialism. Do you feel stupid now?

Hindsight of course is always 20/20. But how many of us have the insight to actually go against societal norms especially in such a Confucian and heirarchical society as 1940s Japan. Unless you were actually in Japan in the 1940s and experienced first hand the Emperor worship and jingoism then it is not your place to judge. In any event the Kamikaze squads were formed towards the end of the war, not to invade, but to defend Japan from the Americans invading them. And unlike us they had no internet, no Indymedia and no mass communications to help them decide what was right or wrong. All they saw was an invader threatening to take over all they held dear. The kamikaze would not have known they were on the wrong side until they understood the whole war and its historical context. It is to my friend's credit that instead fo committing suicide afterwards at the Emperor's betrayal, as did many of his colleagues, he instead chose to come to terms with his mistake and help build up Japan in peacetime.

There may be slightly more blame attached to those who went off to Gallipoli to be slaughtered, they at least knew they were invading a foreign country, not defending their own. But even there, the propaganda machine was far too strong for most of them, again in an age largely before telecommunications.

Surely the reason to protest against wars is to prevent others from being duped in the future. It makes no sense at all to sneer at those who were taken in. It shows disrespect to the victims of the wars you are supposedly protesting against.