Why workers need our own “foreign policy” based on solidarity

October 15, 2014 by
"Our allies are the genuine revolutionary fighters like those defending Kobane. They need support not from the US or Turkey who will only seek to dominate and betray them but from fellow revolutionary fighters... across the globe" (photo from timeturk.com)

“Our allies are the genuine revolutionary fighters like those defending Kobane. They need support not from the US or Turkey who will only seek to dominate and betray them but from fellow revolutionary fighters in Syria, Iraq, Turkey and across the globe” (photo from timeturk.com)

Article by Mike Treen, UNITE Union General Secretary (but the views expressed are his own and not necessarily those of UNITE). Reprinted from UNITE and the Daily Blog.

Working people in the advanced capitalist world should reject appeals by the rulers of their countries to support the foreign policy of “their” country.

Inevitably that foreign policy is simply a programme to advance the interests of the super wealthy owners of industry and services to grab the biggest possible share of the wealth available on the world market. They disguise their naked self interest with appeals to the so-called “national interest” with claims that we are fighting for lofty goals like “freedom and democracy”. We are even asked to wage war for these goals. Often it is the working people on both sides of these wars who are being shafted or killed. But inevitably a few years down the line we discover that it was all lies.

I want to touch on a few of these wars from my lifetime and the lies told to support them.

The New Zealand Army participated in the Vietnam war from 1965 to 1972 when the troops were withdrawn by the newly elected Labour government under Norm Kirk. The previous National Party Prime Minister Keith Holyoake had declared: “Whose will is to prevail in South Vietnam? The imposed will of the North Vietnamese communists and their agents, or the freely expressed will of the people of South Vietnam?” Every word was a lie. It was widely accepted that if the elections promised at the 1954 peace conference had been held the Viet Minh forces led by Ho Chi Minh would have won easily. Instead the US installed a puppet dictatorship in the South of extreme brutality. Twenty years later the US was forced to leave Vietnam, the southern dictatorship soon collapsed and the country was reunified. But Vietnam had suffered several million deaths and a legacy of destruction they still are recovering from today. The US lost 58,000 troops. NZ lost 38. Every one of the killed was murdered in defence of a world capitalist empire.

In 1975 the Indonesian military regime invaded Timor and annexed the territory. The action was taken with the support of NZ, Australia, and the US. What the imperialist West feared was that the Revolutionary Front for an Independent East Timor (Fretilin) would create what was dubbed “another Cuba” in the Pacific. Ten years earlier this same military regime in Indonesia (again with the support of Australia, NZ, and the US) slaughtered a half million of their own citizens to remove a nationalist left wing government. While the UN passed a resolution deploring the invasion of Timor no action was taken. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the US ambassador to the UN at the time, wrote in his autobiography that “the United States wished things to turn out as they did, and worked to bring this about. The Department of State desired that the United Nations prove utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook [with regard to the invasion of East Timor]. This task was given to me, and I carried it forward with not inconsiderable success.” Later, Moynihan admitted that, as US ambassador to the UN, he had defended a “shameless” Cold War policy toward East Timor. A quarter century and several hundred thousand dead later Indonesia was forced to withdraw and Fretilin won the subsequent election. That has not stopped Australia in particular from trying to bully tiny Timor out of access to oil and other resources off its coast.

In December 1978 the Vietnamese government intervened militarily to remove the genocidal Khmer Rouge regime from power in Cambodia. This was an very popular move inside the country. Cambodian forces opposed to the Khmer Rouge supported the Vietnamese action and a Cambodian run government was established. Vietnam was met my extreme hostility by the imperialist West who imposed a brutal economic blockade on both Cambodia and Vietnam. China, the US, Australia, the UK and NZ supported the Khmer Rouge keeping their diplomatic seats in the United Nations and claiming to represent the victims of their genocide for another 15 years after their overthrow. In addition they allowed the Khmer Rouge to take control of refugee camps in Thailand and military and financial aid poured into their coffers to use for attacks on Cambodia and Vietnam. Hundreds of thousands of people starved to death as a consequence.

In 1975 a conservative monarchy was overthrown in Afghanistan by forces associated with the Peoples Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA). It was an urban based based with broad support in the middle classes and professional layers. It was also deeply influenced by an authoritarian and bureaucratic approach to politics from its association with Soviet style Stalinism. Many of its leading cadre had also been trained as engineers and military officer in the Soviet Union under the monarchy. The programme of the government was however very popular, especially in the cities, and included expanded rights for workers, women, and peasants.

Very soon a rural based war was sponsored by the US and the right wing military regime in Pakistan against the regime. The conservative tribal leaders (who also doubled as the rural gentry) feared the land reform and abolition of usury. They used the proposed education of girls to mobilise opposition to the “athiest” regime in Kabul. The Kabul regime in turn responded in increasingly brutal manner to force the policy changes down the populations throat.

Billions of dollars in aid flowed from the US through Saudi Arabia and Pakistan into the hands of the Mujahideen. They were dubbed “Freedom fighters” by US President Reagan.

The mujahideen consisted of at least seven factions, who often fought amongst themselves in their battle for territory and control of the opium trade. To hurt the Russians, the U.S. deliberately chose to give the most support to the most extreme groups. A disproportionate share of U.S. arms went to Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, “a particularly fanatical fundamentalist and woman-hater.”‘ According to journalist Tim Weiner, ” [Hekmatyar’s] followers first gained attention by throwing acid in the faces of women who refused to wear the veil. CIA and State Department officials I have spoken with call him ‘scary,’ ‘vicious,’ ‘a fascist,’ ‘definite dictatorship material.”There was, though, a kind of method in the madness: Brezinski hoped not just to drive the Russians out of Afghanistan, but to ferment unrest within the Soviet Union itself. His plan, says author Dilip Hiro, was “to export a composite ideology of nationalism and Islam to the Muslim-majority Central Asian states and Soviet Republics with a view to destroying the Soviet order.” Looking back in 1998, Brezinski had no regrets. “What was more important in the world view of history?… A few stirred-up Muslims or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War”.Read more.

Tens of thousands of foreign fighters were recruited and got their baptism of fire in Afghanistan including the most famous “freedom fighter” Osama Bin Laden. In 1992, the Mujahedeen drove the Soviets out and seized power themselves. However they soon fell into a fratricidal civil war that killed tens of thousands more Afghans. The Taliban then ousted the Mujahideen faction in power in 1994.

The Taliban were ousted in turn in 2001 by US-led forces installing other factions from the old Mujahideen based in the north of the country. New Zealand has supported the military occupation since then and actively participated at times. All of the governments in Afghanistan since the US-led occupation are reactionary warlords, drug dealing despots and murderers. The current vice-president General Dostum earned notoriety for suffocating several thousand Taliban prisoners in shipping containers during the final offensive against them.

The lies associated with the Iraq wars are more well documented. NZ also played a more limited role. However the NZ government did support the criminal sanctions regime against Iraq between Gulf War One in 1990 and Gulf War Two in 2003. This led two leading UN officials who had been placed in charge of the sanctions to resign as it was obvious that hundreds of thousands of people were killed as a consequence. On May 12, 1996, Madeleine Albright (then U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations) appeared on a 60 Minutes segment in which Lesley Stahl asked her “We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?” and Albright replied “we think the price is worth it.” While not part of the invasion force in 2003 Helen Clark’s Labour-led government did send a unit of military engineers to assist the occupation forces in 2004 because otherwise Fonterra would miss out on lucrative oil for food contracts. The morality of the occupation was no different to that of the invasion so the culpability remains.

We should remain very suspicious of any claims the US has that their promotion of renewed military intervention in the Middle East has anything to do with naked self-interest. Oil and the control of where it is extracted remains a geo-strategic objective of immense value.

Preventing the people of Syria and Iraq from exercising any notion of genuine self-determination or democracy is part of that reality.

The Kurdish people in Syria and Turkey (or Iraq and Iran for that matter) are not considered allies of the US and its allies because they desire a genuine social revolution that will liberate their people from being divided up and exploited. The Kurdistan Workers Party has mass support in Turkey and Syria. That party has led the resistance in Kobane to the ISIS attacks. Turkey has killed more Kurds in Turkey this past week than ISIS fighters in Syria. On the BBC tonight I heard a Kurd who lives in Turkey declare “We don’t need your support, or your weapons, we just need you to stop supporting ISIS”. NZ, Australia, The UK and The US have all listed the PKK as a terrorist organisation because it also fights the recationary Turkish regime (and Nato ally).

ISIS is a product of the attempt over three years to overthrow an autocratic, nationalist regime in Syria that won’t bow down completely before the US empire or Israel. Billions of dollars in arms and fighters have poured across the border since the revolt began against the Assad regime in 2011. The most reactionary gulf states (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait) funded like-minded individuals and groups. Turkey opened its borders to foreign fighters and promoted their own groups. No one cared if fighters went from the UK, Australia or NZ. The main allies that the imperialists and their local allies are able to find in their fight against these increasingly unpopular governments were often the most reactionary and gangster like tribal leaders, warlords and businessmen.

But once you unleash reactionary forces like this they can take on a life of their own that gets out of control. This is exactly what occurred in Afghanistan with the Taliban and Libya with the armed gangs vying for control of that country.

We must completely reject the propaganda of the empire. Our allies aren’t the US military or the local gangsters they support. Our allies are the genuine revolutionary fighters like those defending Kobane. They need support not from the US or Turkey who will only seek to dominate and betray them but from fellow revolutionary fighters in Syria, Iraq, Turkey and across the globe. Those fighters cannot be the ones who sell their souls to the empire but ones who want a genuinely progressive and democratic transformation of their country.

Filed Under: Uncategorized

10,000 Workers Strike in Support of Hong Kong’s Protests

October 10, 2014 by

hong-kong-umbrellas-cops

Article by Michelle Chen, reprinted from The Nation.

The umbrella is a perfect icon for Hong Kong’s uprising: inclusive, aloof, a bit Anglophile and pragmatically defiant of the elements (and according to cinematic lore, readily convertible to a lethal kung fu weapon). It embodies the central plea of the protesters amassed in “Democracy Square”: a civilized demand for self-determination. Yet the biggest worry in Beijing right now isn’t the threat of universal suffrage, but what comes afterward—the struggle for social justice that Hong Kongers face they pivot between post-colonial limbo and authoritarian capitalism.

That’s what the labor movement is taking to the streets with young protesters. The Equal Times reports that as of Wednesday—China’s National Day—“According to the latest HKCTU [Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions] figures, some 10,000 workers across all sectors have downed tools.” As unions representing industrial, service and professional workforcesrallied alongside the youth and condemned police suppression of the demonstrators, Hong Kong labor echoed the former colony’s long legacy of worker militancy. In a call for mass strikes, the HKCTU declared, “Workers must stand up against the unjust government and violent suppression…. To defend democracy and justice, we cannot let the students fight the suppression alone.”

The immediate spark for the protests was the controversy over the electoral process. Activists were incensed that following Beijing’s decree via the proxy authority National People’s Congress, candidates for Hong Kong’s 2017 executive election would be pre-approved by the mainland authorities.

But even prior to the electoral betrayal, students revolted against the imposition of Beijing-controlled nationalist curricula on public schools. Longtime residents chafed at mainlanders’ perceived aggressive economic encroachment on local neighborhoods and businesses. And even the symbols of the protest express a yearning for a change in the social and cultural reality, rather than just liberalizing political mechanics. Like the “Hands Up” iconography of the Ferguson protests, the sea of umbrellas exude both civility and defiance in the face of brutality, not looking for trouble, just demanding dignity.

At the center of their struggle for dignity is the desire to control their economic destiny. A statement issued last week by dozens of labor and community groups draws the link between unaccountable government and the divide between the plutocracy and the people:

The Chinese Communist Party has followed and reinforced almost every governing strategy used by the British colonialists. Working in tandem, the CCP and business conglomerates have only worsened Hong Kong’s already alarming rich-poor gap. …

It is true that even a genuinely democratic system may not be able to bring immediate improvements to grassroots and workers’ livelihoods. However, the current political system and the NPC’s ruling are flagrant violations of our political rights as well as our right to be heard. A pseudo-democratic system will only install even more obstacles on our already difficult path to better livelihoods and a progressive society.

But the group’s demands go beyond electoral freedom: it wants expanded housing protections and welfare policies and a government that is responsive to the economic and social concerns raised by civil society groups. With this aspiration toward a fairer as well as freer society,according to City University of Hong Kong professor Toby Carroll, many leaders fear primarily that “people in Hong Kong will convert demands for increasing suffrage into robust demands for redistribution; that in the face of plenty, those with little or no positive prospects won’t stand for obscenely concentrated wealth, power and privilege anymore.”

As Eli Friedman points out, Hong Kong is both an amazingly sophisticated and intensely unequal economy, compared to other “developed” nations. One-fifth of the population lives in poverty. The minimum wage, just recently implemented at the rate of US $3.60, hardly offsets the astronomical costs of housing, inflation and unemployment. The former colonial trade hub has lost about 80 percent of its manufacturing jobs since the early 1990s, as industries have shifted to the mainland. The most impoverished are often migrant laborers, youths and women. The radicals at the core of #OccupyCentral represent twentysomethings who are tired of the volatility of the economy and the stagnation of the country’s political system.

The latest uprising was portended last year when dockworkers staged a major strike to demand stable, fair working conditions. They galvanized international solidarity in criticizing multinational corporations’ degradation of global labor rights.

So far, Beijing shows no signs of heeding the demands for free elections or the resignation of mainland-aligned Chief Executive C.Y. Leung. Protesters are doubling down, too, heartened by a groundswell of international solidarity actions. And so the brittle “one country, two systems” policy is steadily unraveling. Not necessarily because Beijing has tried to impose its rule directly—for the most part, Hong Kongers enjoy infinitely more civil freedoms than their mainland counterparts—but because Hong Kong, on principle, just wants to be able to claim full freedom and self-rule for the first time in its modern history.

The voices of Hong Kong’s workers are instructive for international observers. It’s too easy to draw a simple parallel to the Tiananmen Square pro-democracy protests. The idealism is there, but universal suffrage is a means to an end, the first step away from decades of being lorded over by reactionary ruling elites—one building block toward social democracy.

Sophia Chan, an activist with Left 21, tells The Nation, “We see free elections as a major blow to business-government collusion and capitalist privilege.” She emphasized that the current parliamentary government, dominated by business leaders, has been structured “to protect the interests of capitalists.… although we do think that a democratic political system is only the first step to real change, we also think that that in itself would already be a huge improvement for our fight against capitalist oppression in Hong Kong.”

In 1997, Hong Kong was handed over by Britain to its “motherland,” the crown jewel of China’s new empire. But the deal turned out to be more than what Beijing had bargained for. The mainland regained a piece of territory, but it never conquered the hearts of a people who are ready for true decolonization and will settle for nothing less.

See also

Filed Under: Hong Kong, International

ANZ workers strike

October 10, 2014 by

secure hours ANZ courtenay place

ANZ workers across Aotearoa/NZ (members of FIRST Union) went on strike today, for secure hours and better wages.

ANZ rat frank kitts
ANZ indebts customers and undermines staff, while CEO David Hisco makes over $2000/hr.

ANZ Hisco rat

With more attacks on unions, workers and beneficiaries on the way, collective action like this is exactly what we need. Kia kaha!

See also

Filed Under: Workers in Struggle

Hone Harawira’s farewell speech

October 4, 2014 by

parliament steps MANA Movement

Ten years ago I led 50,000 Maori on the historic FORESHORE AND SEABED MARCH from Te Rerenga Wairua to the very steps of this parliament, in a march against the greatest land grab in the history of this country – Labour’s theft of the foreshore and seabed – a watershed moment for Maori because it wiped away any illusion that Labour would put Maori rights ahead the interests of big mining; because it showed that the colonial past of land thefts was still very much alive; and because it led to the formation of the first ever independent Maori political party – THE MAORI PARTY.

Those were the wonderful days when it seemed all of Maoridom spoke with one voice – days that quickly ended when the Maori Party did A DEAL WITH NATIONAL at the next election in 2008, and although it quickly became clear that we were being overwhelmed, the leadership of the Maori Party ignored my pleas for us to stop accepting National Party lies over the advice of our own experts, and supporting tax cuts for the rich, billion dollar bailouts for failed finance companies, benefit cuts and the privatisation of prisons.

But the final straw came when the Maori Party accepted National’s version of the Foreshore and Seabed Bill – the MARINE AND COASTAL AREAS BILL – a bill which has seen not one grain of sand returned to Maori in the 5 years since it became law.

That was the when I resigned from the Maori Party, resigned from parliament, and with the support of the people of the north and tautoko from around the country, won the seat back as the leader of the newly minted MANA MOVEMENT, and held it again in the election of 2011.

MANA defined its position when we announced that our constituency would be those we call TE PANI ME TE RAWAKORE, the poor and the dispossessed, and our last three years have been a challenging and vigorous time where we have staked out our place in the political world – a commitment to ending poverty for all and particularly those most vulnerable in our society, our kids; a commitment to putting an end to the grinding homelessness affecting tens of thousands of New Zealand families; a commitment to putting the employment of people ahead of the sacrifice of jobs in the endless pursuit of wealth for the few; and a commitment to a future where the Treaty of Waitangi is honoured as the basis for justice and good governance in Aotearoa.

Mind you – being so highly principled brings with it enormous risk, not least the fact that KIDS CAN’T VOTE AND POOR PEOPLE DON’T, but I am proud of what we have achieved in our short time in parliament.

When we first raised our FEED THE KIDS policy three years ago, everybody laughed, so we took our kaupapa on the road, we built a support coalition of more than 30 national organisations, we pushed the policy into the top 5 issues of the year, and with the support of a standout series on Campbell Live, we got a poll last year that showed more than 70% supported a government-funded food in schools programme.

When we called for 10,000 NEW STATE HOUSES EVERY YEAR until the housing crisis was over, other politicians squirmed, but after challenging them at a Housing Action protest outside parliament, Labour took up the same call for 10,000 new houses a year, albeit theirs was more a pitch to woo middle-class voters than a bid to help the poor.

We took up the call for FULL EMPLOYMENT because to accept anything less was to accept failure, and by pushing for the minimum wage to be the LIVING WAGE OF $18.80 AN HOUR, we forced other so-called left-wing parties to follow suit.

We created a space for those of the Ratana faith to meet in parliament, out of respect for TW Ratana’s commitment to the Treaty of Waitangi, a space that I sincerely hope that Rino Tirikatene and Adrian Rurawhe will honour in my absence, and we also allowed my parliament offices to be used as neutral ground for warring gangs – not exactly parliamentary business but certainly the business of MANA.

And as I leave, I lay down a challenge to this parliament.

My FEED THE KIDS bill is live in parliament as we speak, a bill which already has the support of Labour, the Greens, New Zealand First and the Maori Party, a bill to provide what the people of New Zealand have called for – a comprehensive, government-funded food in schools programme. It is ready to be passed at the first sitting of parliament, and if it did, I know it would gladden the hearts of all good Kiwis, please the mums who are struggling to get by, and fill the stomachs of the 100,000 children still going to school hungry every day. This is not my bill. This is a bill for the children. And I call on this parliament to pass it as a show of faith in our own future, and a show of love for those of our children who desperately need our help.

We have a full-blown housing crisis in Aotearoa, with 30,000 families officially listed as homeless – families living in cars, cowsheds, cockroach-infested caravans and garages, or in cold, damp, overcrowded, unhealthy homes, because rents are too high, and the cost of a new home is out of reach. I call on this parliament to stop the sale of New Zealand homes to non-resident foreigners, to stop the sale of state houses to private developers, to renovate or replace those that need them, and to commit to a full programme of building 10,000 new state houses every year until the housing crisis is over. All it takes to eliminate homelessness and employ thousands of people in the housing industry is political will.

Government also has the responsibility of managing the economy, and just as importantly, ensuring that that economy meets the needs of its people rather than the profits of its parasites, and I call on this parliament to restructure our economy to suit just such a purpose; to invest in community work programmes; to give life back to communities all around our country devastated by asset sales, asset stripping and corporate greed; to create employment for all of its citizens so that instead of wasting billions and billions of dollars every year in needless and mindless welfare dependency, that that money is used to engage communities in rebuilding their future, engage whanau in rebuilding their lives, and engage people in rebuilding their love for work.

And as I leave, I do so in good heart, for over the past couple of weeks I have travelled the MANA nation, and felt the love and the passion that is the lifeblood of MANA, and the commitment to continue our work: from Kaitaia to Kaikohe, Whangarei to the North Shore, West Auckland to Southside, Waatea to Waikato, Hamilton to Gisborne, Rotorua to Taihape, Christchurch, and here in Wellington.

Our meetings have not been the sombre and tearful farewell tour for Hone Harawira that others may have hoped for, but rather a joyous and uplifting revival tour for a Movement that takes up the challenge of being the conscience of the nation, and of taking action in support of our kaupapa.

I hear the mean-spirited and ugly voices of those who are desperately keen to see me go, but I don’t have time to respond because we’re too busy focussing on the tasks ahead.

We are already organising to FEED THE KIDS, and working with other groups to get in behind our campaign.

We will be calling on iwi up and down the country to open their marae to HOUSE THE HOMELESS.

We will be organising INTERNET CAMPS for senior students and Maori communities so that our young people can fly the highways of the world.

We are talking with work trusts about COMMUNITY EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMMES that can become a model for other communities to adopt.

We will create COMMUNITY HUBS where the MANA message of hope and action can become the core of the communities we serve.

We will MONITOR GOVERNMENT’S PERFORMANCE on steps they are taking to create real jobs with decent wages and safe working conditions, to house the homeless, and to eliminate child poverty, and we will also be challenging the opposition to keep the pressure on to achieve these goals.

And we will march against THE HATED GCSB; we will mount a legal challenge against the MASS SURVEILLANCE that this government is conducting illegally against the people of New Zealand; we will continue to oppose THE TPPA that threatens the sovereignty of our very nation; and we will campaign for the return of OUR ASSETS.

Believe me when I say that MANA will not be going gently into the night.

And as I leave, I thank the thousands of NZers of all creeds and cultures for their fabulous support for me personally, and for their recognition of the work that MANA has done and continues to do as the voice for the voiceless.

And I leave you all with the words of a National Party voter who wrote to me just two days after the election, who said

“Hone, I hope you get to read this.

I am a 57 year old pakeha centre right voter (don’t throw up just yet) who was delighted with the result of the election, with one exception. That exception is a big one, and one I believe all NZ is poorer for, and that is, you are for the present, no longer in our Parliament.

I have talked about this today with a large number of people who, like me, have had a reasonable amount of success in life, who support the current Government, and would on the surface appear to have little in common with you. The common feeling was that you are an honourable man with a strong and decent vision.

While you made a bad call with your partners for this election, this shouldn’t define you, and I and the people I mix with, genuinely hope that after a little time out, you will regroup and then start the next campaign shortly. Good government needs strong opposition and Labour is too factional to provide that, the Greens are too narrowly focused, and the rest are a bloody joke.

I like the fact that with you what one sees is what one gets. At times I wish you would learn to play with others better, but that’s you, so what the hell.

I guess what I’m trying to say is that there is a strong feeling out here that NZ needs you; that not only Maori, but all New Zealanders will be missing out, by not having you in our House of Representatives.

I hope out of this you will come back stronger than ever in your own right, without partners with baggage that you don’t need. Be your own movement!

Good luck and Stay Strong.

E te whanau – there is a saying that has fed my soul all the years of my adult life, a saying that you all know well, and a saying that says it all …

Happy are those who dream dreams, and are prepared to pay the price to make those dreams come true.

Our dream, MANA’s dream, is for a society where Maori can stand tall, where te pani me te rawakore is just a line in a song, and where everyone can feel good about the contribution they can make as a citizen of Aotearoa.

When I first came to parliament my people brought me here.

Today I thank the MANA whanau for making the long journey to take me home. Your love and your support has sustained me through the darkest of days, and your joy and your happiness has been a constant source of strength. Long may it continue.

And finally, to my darling wife, thank you for just being you, and for always being there for me.

Filed Under: Mana Party

MANA and resistance to the next National government

September 28, 2014 by

Protest

Fightback is committed to the MANA Movement, however we are still in the process of assessing the 2014 electoral defeat and future prospects. Grant Brookes (Fightback/MANA Poneke) offers one perspective.

Over the coming week, MANA leaders Hone Harawira and Annette Sykes will tour the country, talking with members and supporters about where next for the Movement after the election.

The media called it a “landslide victory” for National, a “catastrophe” for the opposition. John Key was labeled a “rock star politician”, said to be “even more popular” than he was three years ago.

National won 61 seats in Parliament – enough to govern alone, based on the provisional count.

The election turnout, at 77 percent, appeared slightly higher than the 74 percent of registered electors who cast a vote in 2011. But fewer people registered to vote this time. So the percentage of the population who voted in 2014 is much the same as in 2011. That was the lowest election turnout since 1887.

Of the 3.4 million eligible voters in New Zealand, just over a million of them wanted three more years of National. But over 2.3 million – 70 percent of the people – didn’t vote for that.

John Key does not have the support of the majority of New Zealanders. And popular opposition to National appears to be solidifying.

There is the potential for resistance, leading to a change of Government in 2017. Where will the resistance come from?

John Key has already outlined his three primary targets for the next National Government: “the economy, reforming the education system and changing the New Zealand flag” (http://www.3news.co.nz/politics/keys-priorities-economy-education-and-the-flag-2014092209)

According to the New Zealand Election Survey, non-voters are predominantly young, poor and Brown. John Key’s talk of focusing on “the economy” is code for helping the rich get richer. The suffering of the million non-voters will increase.

Four years of confrontation over national standards, Novopay, charter schools and executive principals have turned teachers ¬– especially those belonging to the NZEI union – into implacable opponents of this Government. Key’s plan for further “education reform” is a recipe for even greater tension. Lining up ACT pup David Seymour for the associate education portfolio could be one provocation too many.

Key has also signaled “the biggest shake-up of the State Sector so far”. This will mean renewed privatisation and attacks on public sector workers. So teachers could be joined in struggle by other groups – like nurses, who enter negotiations for a new national collective agreement in November.

The coalition deal with the Māori Party will ensure that some of the lucrative fruit carved off the state sector will go to Māori service providers, widening the rift between the favoured few around the tribal elites and the sufferers at the flaxroots.

New anti-union laws set to be rammed through before the end of the year will deepen the divide between the Government and organised workers. Workers could expect to have to fight for their rights after Saturday’s election, said Council of Trade Unions president Helen Kelly.

Key has also said he also expects rapid progress on signing the unpopular Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) after the election. The Petroleum Summit in Auckland next week is expected to announce new offshore oil drilling projects.

These could also be flash points for opposition. But in reality, this National Government is propped up by a minority of the population which is cocooned from the realities facing wider New Zealand society. The disconnect between the Government and most of the people means that resistance could emerge from just about anywhere.

As a smokescreen for all these unpopular moves, John Key will surf a wave of patriotism around the Gallipoli centenary next year to launch his great distraction – a referendum on the New Zealand flag. On issues like this, even small groups of socialists with clear ideas – like those in Fightback, the International Socialist Organisation and Socialist Aotearoa – can play an important role in stopping the opposition from being side-tracked.

To translate into long-term change, however, the struggles which emerge will need to connect with other streams of resistance. And they will need to articulate viable alternatives, as well as protesting against the Government’s agenda. This means that the struggles will need connections back into the political arena.

Three days after the election, MANA leader Hone Harawira wrote to his supporters, “The next three years will be tough, with National continuing to pass laws to make the rich even richer, destroy our environment, attack beneficiaries, and make even more families homeless. On top of that you can expect to see more attacks on Maori as people interpret the win as a license for Maori bashing.

“Unfortunately I don’t see anyone in the Opposition having the balls to lead the fight back. Sure there will be ‘outrage’ and ‘condemnation’, but after the big talk… nothing.”

Labour MPs have already shown they’re more interested in scrapping amongst themselves for the top job than in taking the fight to National.

“That’s why MANA is so important”, added Hone, “and why you are so important, because unless MANA campaigns for these issues and stands up for those who are vulnerable, the people will suffer.”

It was a call for MANA activists to be active in the resistance. This will not only reduce suffering. Visibly identifying with the struggles will allow MANA to publicly voice alternatives, and rebuild public support. The call will be well received. Most of us came to MANA from the Movement, and we are at home there.

But we shouldn’t just be resisting National’s agenda. MANA members should also represent our kaupapa by working in positive programmes to help the community, from volunteering in school breakfast schemes to teaching free classes in Te Reo Maori. Many of the million non-voters have switched off from “politics” to such an extent that they won’t notice our flags on protests and picket lines. But they might notice the MANA t-shirt worn by a volunteer over the counter at the soup kitchen.

Finally, where does this leave the Internet MANA alliance?

When MANA members agreed to a temporary alliance with the Internet Party, lasting until six weeks after the election, we accepted that it was gamble, but one worth taking for the chance to expand our appeal beyond Māori and a radical fringe and to get more MPs. The gamble did not pay off. The election result has badly damaged the public image of the alliance. It could be beyond repair.

If the perspective for MANA over the next three years is to turn “back to the streets” – joining the resistance and embedding ourselves in our communities – it is unclear how well-equipped the Internet Party is to join us.

Some Internet Party members have already joined MANA, including leading candidates like Roshni Sami and Miriam Pierard. But the party as a whole does not have the same roots or experience in struggle.

Laila Harré has said that the Internet Party will hold a general meeting to consider its future in the next few weeks. She said all options were open – including winding up the party.

If the Internet Party disappears, or decides not to join MANA in returning to the streets, I hope we will welcome any new friends willing to support our kaupapa.

Filed Under: Mana Party
«Previous Page
Next Page»