Prudent security or police state in action?

Canada's "Dr. Dawg" blog reports on the heavy-handed actions of police in St. Paul, Minnesota in advance of this week's Republican National Convention in that city. Alleged abuses of police powers include illegal raids, arrests and detention of anti-war protest leaders on trumped-up charges. An apparent attempt to disrupt plans by anti-war activists to protest at the Convention.

The police tactics used are the sort of thing repressive regimes get up to and which the US has strongly criticised in the past.

Where are Bush's "disappeared"?

UK blogger and columnist, George Monbiot, asks "What has happened to Bush’s secret prisoners?"

Monbiot cites the 770 being held without charges at Guantanamo as well as the 22,000 being held without charges in Iraq and asks how many more are being held in the dozens of other facilities in many countries and on board ships.

It's hard to argue with Monbiot when he says he thinks Bush will probabl go down in history as the worst ever US President.

What I wonder is how many of these disappeared, who were never charged with any crime or tried in any credible court, have been buried in unmarked graves after being killed or died in custody? Their families may never know what happened to them. Their guilt or innocence ultimately unknown.

It's sad to see the United States going the way of formerly brutal and unaccountable regimes in Argentina, Chile or Paraguay. Of course, they claimed to be fighting terrorism, too.

McCain illiterate on US Constitution

The US Supreme Court ruled the other day prisoners held in US overseas prisons should have access to the federal courts. It is a decision entirely in keeping with the US Constitution and obviously so.

Surprisingly, presumptive Republican Party nominee for the Presidency, John McCain thinks this was wrong. His arguments aren't Constitutional arguments, they are (in his view) practical arguments rooted in his belief that the US military prisons in Guantanamo and elsewhere serve some useful purpose in the so-called "War on Terror".

From where I'm standing, the US has already suffered more than enough due to the current President's apparent lack of respect for the Constitution, they do not need to elect yet another one who would put the Constitution on the shelf to gather dust while his 'war for forever' stretches into the indeterminate future.

That McCain doesn't seem to understand this is just one more indication he shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the White House unless handed a mop and bucket.

NZ's Taser future? A case study

Highly regarded Canadian blogger, Dr. Dawg, posts today about Taser use by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP).

The RCMP is Canada's federal police force. They provide police services throughout Canada in any city or area where the local or provincial authorities do not.

Drawing on a report by Canadian Press (CP), Dawg reports:

A new report, the results of a joint investigation by Canadian Press and CBC Radio-Canada of more than 3200 Taser incidents between 2002 and 2007, shows that multiple use of Tasers on individuals by the RCMP is on the rise.

In 43% of the cases, more than one shock was administered. In 31 cases, the cops used 7 or more jolts.

In two-thirds of the multiple-shock incidents, the citizen at the receiving end was unarmed.

The cops are apparently ignoring an internal policy bulletin that warned of the hazards of repeated shocks, and advised officers not to inflict them "unless situational factors dictate otherwise": a loophole, of course, that you could drive a truck through as your superiors nudge-nudge and wink-wink and close ranks as usual.

This may be a look into the future of taser use here in New Zealand. It's not pretty. It indicates that all the assurances about "safe" use go out the window over time and the usual (and understandable) police practice of watching each other's backs kicks in.

Do we need to go there?

Beijing Olympic Drama

In July 2001, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) 56 countries out of 105 voted in the second round to give the 2008 Olympics to China. The March 2001 IOC report on biddersfor the 2008 games doesn't mention civil rights. The only "rights" mentioned at all are property right relating to Olympic logos and insignia. Several times in the report the "strong governmental control" is cited as a positive advantage with respect to infrastructure, traffic and environmental concerns. One line in the report says there is no concern about terrorism at Beijing.

They knew then what China is and how China operates. There was considerable debate at the time.

Chinese people are clearly very proud of their country and what it has achieved over the past several decades. This is evident from the pro-China demonstrations taking place all over the world as a reaction to the anti-Chinese / pro-Tibet demonstrations that have disrupted the movements of the Olympic torch.

From what I know of Asia, the "insults" directed at China preceding and perhaps during these Olympics by individuals and governments will not soon be forgotten in China if they were widely known about. In some ways, I think we should all be relieved that the Chinese media is filtering these out. Far from creating awareness of human rights issues within China, the more likely reaction from ordinary Chinese to some of the scenes we have seen in our media would be an angry one. They live there. They know what China is better than any of us.

This video is one of a large number to be found on YouTube that puts Tibet and recent Chinese history into a context we in the rest of the world may not be familiar with. In China, this is the context that matters.



Absolutely we should continue to press China on human rights issues. Though there has been some imrpovement, they have a long way to go. But wrecking these games won't advance human rights in China and is more likely to be counter-productive. Attitudes to dissent in China may well harden as a consequence of any violence or disruption to the games. Many Chinese have bought into the Olympic Games as a reason for national pride. The Chinese government may well find itself benefiting from popular support if they reacted harshly to any attempts to wreck these games.

I'd say it would be profoundly hypocritical to fill our stores with inexpensive, Chinese goods we happily buy by the truckload, while sanctimoniously advocating we boycott or denigrate the Olympic Games in Beijing over human rights concerns. The time to boycott with ANY credibility would have been July 14th, 2001 - the day after the vote. Now is FAR too late. Now would just be dumb. The Chinese government must laugh quietly to itself when the Guantanamo-operating United States, lead by a President who recently vetoed a bill that would outlaw torture, pretends to lecture it on human rights.

We exaggerate our own importance if we imagine that we can change China from the outside. That isn't how China has EVER operated, as anyone who follows Chinese history will know. Real change will have to come from within China, by the efforts of Chinese people over time.

Enjoy the Games. If China feels good about all this, we may well see some improvement in human rights in China. If China is humiliated or worse, I can't see how that will do anyone, anywhere, any good at all.

NZ's soul for sale?

Wonders never cease. Today I had the rare treat of reading something (no link to it) in the Weekend Herald by Fran O`Sullivan that was (indirectly) complimentary to Helen Clark and Labour. The subject was a free trade agreement with China and Ms. O`Sullivan is all on board. To say she is enthusiastic would be an understatement. So much so that she fully endorses the agreement....whatever it is. We don`t know yet. She says she has a few hints.

On the flip side, Ms. O`Sullivan was dripping with venom and contempt toward anyone who might have any doubts about the still-secret agreement. Especially people who might wish to put human rights ahead of (unknown, but presumed) benefit to their wallets. Well...someone's wallet if not your own.

I'm always amazed that principles don't seem to be worth anything to people like Fran O'Sullivan when there's money to be made. That's the same sort of thinking that would lead some people to think that whoring the lives of your country's soldiers in - say - an invasion of Iraq would be a worthy thing to do in order to (maybe) win a free trade agreement with the United States....as National's Wayne Mapp and Simon Power briefly did in 2003, before getting their chains yanked by more thoughtful and senior colleagues for being so silly.

Anyway, it's not often one sees a staunch advocate of right-wing policies like Fran O'Sullivan blindly and unquestioningly supporting Helen Clark and Labour!

I'm neither in favour of, nor opposed to, the FTA with China. How can I be? I've got no idea what's in it. I am inclined to be optimistic about it.

I have no problems with a free trade agreement with another democratic country that operates under the rule of law and where we know the justice system is generally reliable. Even an FTA with the United States would make some sense, despite their considerable history of ignoring the terms of the free trade agreements they sign when they are contrary to politically powerful domestic interests, as Canadians well know after 15 years of NAFTA.

China is a whole other thing. They arrest and imprison or kill people who simply want to vote for who governs their country.

I do have real concerns that binding New Zealand's future to an unaccountable and ruthless dictatorship disrespectful of human rights will leave a small country like ours little latitude for action when major human rights issues do arise. How large an outrage would be required to make us draw back? A thousand dead? A hundred thousand? A million? Or are we ready to do anything, pay any price, for the "baubles of office" associated with an FTA with China?

Some people clearly are. Fran O'Sullivan, and people like her, clearly have no problems there. Their own words make that clear. Liberal values like democracy, justice, liberty and the people who uphold them are to be held in contempt if they obstruct making money.

Read her article "Cuddling up to China" (Weekend Herald, Review, B1). You'll see what I mean.

It's important to make clear that I'm not disagreeing with Ms. O'Sullivan about free trade that's conducted fairly. That can be a very good thing for all concerned.

Instead, I'm suggesting we not sell our liberal democratic souls for a few pieces of silver. So whatever is in the agreement to be signed, we would be imprudent to not also consider what else we will be giving up in order to maintain the relationship with a China that is not only not democratic, but a ruthless dictator.

In case anyone thinks otherwise, I'm a huge fan of Chinese people and culture. But I'm able to distinguish between a people and the government they find themselves lumbered with.