Re: Aussie/NZ imperialism

[Philip L Ferguson <PLF13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Gary writes:
>The NZ ban on nuclear warships was important, but sometimes it is hard to
>see it if one is up close.

I wasn't up close at the time.  I was 8,000 miles away.  That enabled me to
get a more level-headed grasp of the significance of the ban.  It was not a
victory for the left; it was a victory for NZ nationalism and the Labour
government.


>In the Brisbane
>peace committee I suggested we invite a NZ Labor parliamentarian to explain
>the ban and one duly came over. I do not remember the name of the speaker.
>But she was terrible.  She spent her whole speech to a crowded enthusiastic
>audience assuring people that the ban had no significance, that people
>should not be making a fuss about it.  It was more like the kind of speech
>one would make to an audience of American  generals than to a group of
>peaceniks desperate for a victory.

This is interesting Gary.  This is exactly what I would have expected.  And
if this was what they were saying to a Brisbane peace committee, imagine
what they would have said to American generals.

Remember, by the way, that when they implemented the ban, they stepped up
NZ military activity in the Pacific to levels not seen since WW2.

NZ doesn't have nuclear weapons, so banning some other country's nuclear
warships - and it was only a ban on nuclear ships not conventional US
weaponry, which is the weaponry that actually kills people in the Third
World - is hardly 'radical'.  If France banned US nuclear warships from its
harblurs and then increased the oppression of Kanaky/New Caledonia, would
you see such a ban as a step forward?

This is where stuff like understanding the *imperialist* nature of Aussie
and NZ capitalism is crucial.

>That is not to say that the ban did not have significance. Lou is correct
>here. It certainly gave the peace movent in Australia a focus to campaign
>around and for a time a feeling that we could be winning. But it is a
>complex matter.  I can readily understand Phil's rather jaundiced appraisal
>of something which turned out to be left cover for the worst assault on the
>NZ working class since the Great Depression.

The ban had heaps of significance.  It was an integral part of the policy
of the most economically right-wing government in NZ since the Tories
during the Depression.  It is a mistake to try to segmentise the policies
of that government and say some were good and some were bad - they were all
part of the same package and all had the same end in mind.  And all of them
had the effect of politically disarming the 'left' opposition.

As I pointed out before, some of the most right-wing members of the
government, like Richard Prebble - now the leader of ACT, the
Hayek-inspired party - favoured the ban, while a liberal like Lange was
originally opposed, but came round to seeing the political usefulness of it.

The real task of the left was not to tail-end government policy, but to
take the offensive.  This could be done by explaining what the government
was up to and how it all fitted together.

Unfortunately, the left in NZ has never really been independent.  It is a
kind of para-statal left, which follows along behind the Labour Party,
congratulating these assholes on anything 'liberal' they do and suggesting
they just do a little more.

The result is that the left is weaker and more irrelevant than at any time
in NZ history this century.

Interestingly, one of the few leftist currents which was not enamoured of
the ban was a little group of FI supporters in Christchurch called the RCL,
who had a much better analysis of the Labour Party than the rest of the
left - they saw that Labour was basically by that time a bourgeois-liberal
party - and therefore were less inclined to be dazzled by moves like one
imperialist government banning another imperialist government from parking
nuclear warships in its harbours.

Lastly, on the republican thing.  I don't think this is really analogous at
all.  I would vote 'yes' to both Australia and NZ becoming republics, and I
would vote so without any qualms at all.  It is a small democratic step
forward, regardless of the horrible nature of much of the republican
movement in either country.  (In NZ the last National Party PM, Bolger, has
been the main advocate of NZ becoming a republic, with Labour being
opposed!)

The question of a republic - ie a further democratisation of
Australasian society - is a quite different situation from one (non-nuke)
imperialist government banning another imperialist government's nuke ships,
a ban which *facilitated* the NZ government's greater military engagement
in the Pacific - as well as assisting its attack on the working class.

Keep up the good work on East Timor!

Cheers,
Phil