Helen Clark goes to war for trade deal?

[Dave Homewood]

This is a report currently on Teletext but I cannot find more online yet:

Defence Staff 'leaked details'
SeniorDefence Ministry staff told the United States Embassy that former PM Helen Clark had decided to send soldiers to Iraq to stop Fonterra losing lucrative Oil For Food contracts, Wikileaks cables reveal.

The US Embassy in Wellington said the identities of the unnamed defence staff should be "strictly protected", after they briefed embassy staff on a cabinet meeting in which Clark's government did an about turn on sending troops to Iraq, the Dominion post reported.
Source: NZPA

[lesterpk]

www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/4475134/Clark-bowed-to-sending-Iraq-troops

[strikemaster]

Well I can honestly say aside from combat experience and training I can/could see no reason for the NZ military to be there. Especially considering the already dwindling budget. There had to be an ulterior motive.

[ErrolC]

Dec 20, 2010 15:17:50 GMT 12 strikemaster said:

Well I can honestly say aside from combat experience and training I can/could see no reason for the NZ military to be there. Especially considering the already dwindling budget. There had to be an ulterior motive.

There is presumably an element of providing some assistance when asked, for reasons of general relationship health. And it is easier to 'sell' a mission there (or anti-'terrorist' patrols in the IO) than a longer mission (than what we did) in Iraq. There is rarely a single 'reason' for any act.

Edit: Sorry, thought you were talking about Afghanistan - didn't connect Iraq with combat experience (not saying it wasn't dangerous).

[Dave Homewood]

You have to question how much of a backhander Clark and Cullen may have received from Fonterra for breaking their supposed anti-war principles and u-turning in their stance. They will not have done it purely to please a multi-national corporation without having something in return.

[corsair67]

Free milk for the rest of their lives? ;D

[kiwithrottlejockey]

Dec 20, 2010 17:42:31 GMT 12 Dave Homewood said:

You have to question how much of a backhander Clark and Cullen may have received from Fonterra for breaking their supposed anti-war principles and u-turning in their stance. They will not have done it purely to please a multi-national corporation without having something in return.

One could also question the motives of National for doing a u-turn on the anti-nuclear matter. Either it was a cynical votes-grab, or there was something hidden in it for them.

[30sqnatc]

Dec 20, 2010 18:59:11 GMT 12 kiwithrottlejockey said:

One could also question the motives of National for doing a u-turn on the anti-nuclear matter. Either it was a cynical votes-grab, or there was something hidden in it for them.

Blue vein cheese for life

[obiwan27]

Well, it kind of makes sense, but it was an engineering team plus troops for protection as a means to placate the left-wing elements in the nation. However people are getting a bit of a 'behind the scenes' lesson on what happens in foreign affairs between countries. Welcome to the real world I say. While it is via leaks I think people might realise that there are not many countries in the world with a squeaky-clean ledger.
The latest news leaks-wise is about China destablising the Pacific Region:

www.stuff.co.nz/world/south-pacific/4478131/Pacific-destabilised-by-China-Wikileaks-cables-show

This is the sort of info that should be out in the public arena when it comes to justifying defence expenditure.

[strikemaster]

Sorry Errol, should have been clearer. Afghanistan is a different ball game but I'm assuming the lads in Iraq are getting shot at or targeted on occasion. But yeah, playing ball with the other allies is a valid reason but I think the rational behind it was enough to want to keep out of it.

[Dave Homewood]

I have to say I find it very interesting that a privately-owned corporate entity, Fonterra, can influence the Government's Defence policy in something so critical as sending troops into a war. Sure it happens all the time in the USA, but that's arms dealers and oil companies twisting the government. But a dairy company has that much power it can force a Government to u-turn on policy? Just what else have Fonterra influenced in Defence matters I wonder. What a pity they didn't see trade issues surrounding the culling of the Air Combat Wing, or closing of vital bases.

[kiwithrottlejockey]

Dec 21, 2010 10:12:49 GMT 12 Dave Homewood said:

I have to say I find it very interesting that a privately-owned corporate entity, Fonterra, can influence the Government's Defence policy in something so critical as sending troops into a war.

A bit like the “pickpockets” around every corner, according to Paranoia Fortress the US Embassy in NZ.

One really has to wonder which planet they live on, or what they have been smoking when you see some of the idiotic stuff that was in the leaked diplomatic cables. Perhaps the Americans really do see the bogeyman in every shadow and around every corner? ;D


A couple of very apt newspaper editorials published by The Dominion Post and The Southland Times on Wednesday....



Editorial: US diplomats need to get out more

The Dominion Post | 5:00AM - Wednesday, 22 December 2010

NOW WE KNOW. United States diplomats in Wellington live for gossip and devote inordinate amounts of time to strategising. One other thing emerges from the diplomatic cables published by WikiLeaks. Embassy staff need to get out more often.

The cables sent from Wellington to Washington offer a remarkably narrow view of this country. If the embassy is to be believed, gangs of pickpockets roam the streets waiting to prey on unsuspecting American visitors, New Zealand is "depressive", our politicians are particularly devious and untrustworthy and the population can be divided neatly into two categories.

One — the first worlders — is composed of military, intelligence, foreign affairs and business professionals and a few politicians. The second — the other worlders — contains most politicians, the media, academics and much of the public. The first group is rational, recognises that New Zealand is too small to influence events on its own, but is keen for the country to do its share internationally. The second views the US as a source of global corruption and instability, is suspicious of US motives, and naively believes New Zealand's isolation will protect it from harm. For former US ambassador Charles Swindells, it was personified by former disarmament and non-proliferation minister Marian Hobbs. Ms Hobbs, a minor figure in the Clark government who earned the nickname "Boo Boo", will be delighted to learn she figured so prominently in his thinking.

The vast majority of people will wonder where they fit in the embassy's scheme of things. Where does it put the New Zealanders who are grateful for the contribution the US makes to global stability, share US values, admire its vitality, wear American clothes, watch American movies and listen to American music but think small countries should choose which military operations they contribute to and should be able to take a principled stand against nuclear weapons, even if it inconveniences a friend?New Zealand cannot be the easiest posting for a US diplomat. In addition to having to run the gauntlet of pickpockets every time they step outside the Thorndon embassy, staff suffer the continual frustration of banging their heads against the brick wall that is the anti-nuclear policy. Enormous amounts of time are fruitlessly devoted to trying to persuade politicians to change the policy and almost as much time to urging Washington to stay staunch and not leave the embassy exposed.

However, the embassy's peevish, simplistic, stereotypical portrayal of New Zealand does neither this country nor the US any favours.

Its staff should venture beyond the cocktail circuit where they will discover the majority of New Zealanders are incredibly well disposed towards Americans, proud of their country, delighted to show it off to visitors and do not blame individual Americans for heavy-handed US government attempts to persuade them to change their minds.

If they're particularly concerned for their wallets, they could always tuck them in an inside pocket.

www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/opinion/4483230/Editorial-US-diplomats-need-to-get-out-more




Editorial: As others see us

The Southland Times | 5:00AM - Wednesday, 22 December 2010

MAYBE OUR United States diplomats just need to get out more.

You have to wonder whether spending too much time isolated in the otherworldly climes of his embassy led US Charge d'Affaires cable writer David Burnett to warn incoming counter-terrorism officials in 2005 to be on guard against the daily activities of pickpockets and scammers in the streets of our major cities. This will be news to most of you. Or, indeed, most people who don't spend quite so much time in embassies.

Even in those bygone times when so many of our menfolk were to be seen wandering around with their chequebooks flapping half out of the back pockets of their pants, there were few attempts to filch them, perhaps because people were more honest back then, or perhaps because the male habit of having pants a size or two too small would have made those chequebooks much, much harder to prize free than they looked.

We do find ourselves potentially imperilled by scammers; just not in the street. Aside from spasms of card skimming in Queenstown parking buildings, the problem tends to be more from the distant attentions of Nigerians who need access to our own bank accounts to help them manage their own considerable fortunes. Or people from former Soviet states who are sure they can trust us. Or, oddly enough, American bankers.

So what, in the absence of a skerrick of proof, prompted the pickpocket/scammer warning? Maybe Mr Burnett did foray into the mean streets, only to lose his wallet at a New Zealand Cup meeting.

Duly released by WikiLeaks his cable is, in several respects, so hapless that it should not be met with anger. Some of it is just too ludicrous for that. We are entitled, at least in a schoolmasterly way, to irritation at the calibre of the research. In many respects, most of the pupils at your neighbouring secondary school should have been able to Google up a more accurate report.

Have we not, then, been defamed? In a minimal way. It was circulated among a fairly small readership. If anything, the publication of this dated communique might be seen as helping divert the the attentions of the world's pickpockets from the reality that we remain an untapped market, so to speak. And for the record, when the TripAdvisor website last year listed the top pickpocket traps, they were mostly splendid tourist venues. Rome, Prague, Paris, Florence, Athens and the like. Would Wellington really mind being counted among that little lot?

We are on lower ground when it comes to protesting the observation that car crashes are common. Even then, however, Mr Burnett's advice to any dinged diplomat is decidedly dodgy. Apparently, if the locals are all het up and unreasonably anti-American at a crash scene, perhaps because a visitor missed the bit in paragraph G about driving on the left-hand side of the road, the advice is to bolt. Charming. In fairness, less widely reported parts of the cable were sort of reassuring. The local taxi service is generally safe, reliable and frequent. Demonstrations are usually small and peaceful, the threat from transnational and indigenous terrorism is low.

And we love this one. "Wellington and Auckland have experienced an increase in violent and petty crimes, but they are usually non-confrontational in nature." Feel free to discuss among yourselves how a violent crime can be classed as non-confrontational. Understand the subtle distinctions being drawn there and you're well on your way to a better understanding some of the trickier aspects of US foreign policy.

www.stuff.co.nz/southland-times/opinion/4483136/Editorial-As-others-see-us



Anyway, about the US Embassy in Wellington and their paranoid views on things:

About three years ago, I was walking along Murphy Street in Wellington on the opposite side of the road from the US Embassy when I stopped and took a few photographs of the embassy. The US Marines at the main gate did not look very happy about it. One of them crossed the road and asked me what I was doing. I replied that I was standing on a public footpath on a public road taking photographs. With that he crossed back over the road to the main gate and entered the guardhouse and I continued walking along Murphy Street and into Mulgrave Street. A few minutes later, just before I got to Thorndon Quay, a grey Ford cruised slowly past with a couple of suits inside closely checking me out. I presume they were the diplomatic protection squad. It was rather amusing, actually. I took a couple of pictures of them as they passed and I got the impression they also weren't very happy about being photographed.

[hawkeye]

Apologies to everyone. Before christmas I saw Helen flying her broom home. Just missed with the PA-28.

[nige]

Time for you to upgrade to a Warbird and do some "buzzing" next time? :-)

[hawkeye]

Dont worry than plan is already in action.
www.supermarineaircraft.com/About.htm

[shorty]

Dec 20, 2010 17:46:59 GMT 12 corsair67 said:

Free milk for the rest of their lives? ;D

Why would the biggest cow New Zealand has produced need more milk?

[hawkeye]

Hang on,
Dont, cows actually mate with opposite gender and have cow babies?
Ooooooo low blow.