Last month saw two New Zealand soldiers wounded in Afghanistan and the
first New Zealand soldier killed.

Led by Prime minister John Key, who ordered an unprecedented lowering
of national flags across the country, politicians and news media
launched a lengthy storm of militaristic propaganda.

As Unite union secretary Matt McCarten wrote in his NZ Herald
column, “Predictably our politicians fell over themselves in
Parliament to express their condolences to the soldiers’ families and
praised their bravery. Phil Goff echoed all the party leaders when he
intoned that he wouldn’t be invoking politics into the tragedy.

What bunk. It was politics that has sent hundreds of our youth to
death’s door.”

McCarten concluded:

“…to all those MPs who voted to send Tim O’Donnell to his death, I
want you to know you have his blood dripping from your hands.

One of the few MPs voting against New Zealand troop deployment to
Afghanistan was Green Party Defence Spokesman  Keith Locke.
Keith now claims to be: “proud of the good peacekeeping and
reconstruction work that our Provincial Reconstruction Team has done
in Bamian Province, and we mourn the loss of one of its members.”

In an unanswered open letter email to Keith Locke I wrote:

“ People die every day in the course of their calling. The NZ army
officer killed by Afghanistan people trying to evict invaders from
their land is the first invading New Zealand trooper to die there
since 2003. How many industrial deaths have there been in New Zealand
since that time? How many flags were lowered, how many media voices
theatrically quavered and how many Prime ministers broke routine for
those working class victims of the class war?”

(According to the official website http://www.whss.govt.nz/statistics.shtml
there are about 100 fatal work related injuries each year, which
would put that number at around 700. That figure does not include
premature death from workplace related disease, which is estimated at
being 700-1000 deaths a year.)

Keith Locke’s claims about ‘good reconstruction work’ don’t wash.

As Matt McCarten pointed out:

“Having our non-SAS contingent there to rebuild infrastructure at the
same time we are destroying other parts of the country is merely a
propaganda stunt and makes our politicians feel better about our
involvement.

Of course, elements of the Taleban are brutal and monstrous to their
own people. But that’s not the reason we are there. Our presence isn’t
needed for military purposes, it’s to build good will with our US ally
in the hope of a free trade deal and other associated considerations.”

The death of any person is a tragedy to their family and friends.
Lieutennant Tim O’Donnel was treated as a “national tragedy” to
justify ongoing New Zealand involvement in a murderous imperialist war
that workers  should be actively opposing.

I read this in the Herald, attributed to you:

“We are proud of the good peacekeeping and reconstruction work that our Provincial Reconstruction Team has done in Bamian Province, and we mourn the loss of one of its members.”

If those words are not misquoted, then I’m really angry at your misrepresentation.

What’s going on here?

You’ve read all the books and been constantly active in the anti imperialist movement for literally half a century. You must be much more acutely aware than most people that the so called Provincial Reconstruction Team that the New Zealand state sent to Afghanistan is not about peacekeeping, or reconstruction , or is, in any way, “ours”.

You must similarly know that unless someone belongs to or chooses to identify with the New Zealand ruling classes, or is a bought hack journalist, or has not had access to the most rudimentary understanding of class politics, that: “our Provincial Reconstruction Team” is not based in Afghanistan for peacekeeping, good or otherwise.

Death in war is an understandable trigger for human emotions. So lets get the whole picture here. How many Afghanistan people have been killed by New Zealand invaders of their country?  When do we mourn and how do we begin to try and make amends?

People die every day in the course of their calling. The NZ army officer killed by Afghanistan people trying to evict invaders from their land is the first invading New Zealand trooper to die there since 2003. How many industrial deaths have there been in New Zealand since that time? How many flags were lowered, how many media voices theatrically quavered and how many Prime ministers broke routine for those working class victims of the class war?

Let the ruling classes do their barbarous inhuman dirty work alone and unaided.

Our little time on this earth has more urgent and honorable calls on it; to revive the antimperialist antiwar movement in this country.

Don Franks

“It’s simply a new, Chinese, version of the British economic colonisation that dominated this country’s agriculture up until the 1970s” cried a press release from the Campaign Against Foreign Control of Aotearoa (CAFCA). Federated Farmers described the move as an “unintended consequence” of the free trade agreement between China and New Zealand. The Green Party said the New Zealand dairy industry “risked falling into the hands of overseas investors” if the government continued to loosen overseas investment rules. And 3 News repeated the claims, scaremongering that “all the milk will go to China.”

The impression that is given is that New Zealand has an economic situation in common with sub-Saharan Africa, and that China is coming to take the milk out our mouths. This view is at odds with the reality of dairying in New Zealand. All that Natural Dairy NZ is going to be taking is a share of the Chinese market for dairy products. The big losers will be the worlds largest dairy company, New Zealand based Fonterra. A large amount of dairy produced in New Zealand already goes to China, which is New Zealand’s fourth largest market for dairy exports. Dairy exports to China increased 72% in 2008 and a further 43% last year. The only way the general population of New Zealand –  that is, those of us who aren’t Fonterra shareholders or suppliers – could be affected is if the growing market for dairy in China (and elsewhere) were to push up prices. Yet that would occur regardless of who owned the land Natural Dairy New Zealand is aiming to buy. As Fonterra sells its products at the global market price, it doesn’t actually matter if a particular dairy company is incorporated in New Zealand, China, or the Cayman Islands- as Natural Dairy NZ is for tax purposes.

The economic nationalism and calls for protectionism seem ironic given the fact that Fonterra itself is a large multinational, which in addition to having farms in China, has since 2002 been in partnership with global food giant Nestle in the Dairy Partners Americas (DPA). DPA produces milk products in South America for local markets as well as circumventing US protectionism that allows South American -but not New Zealand- dairy products to enter its markets. When DPA was formed then Prime Minister Helen Clark described the deal as allowing Fonterra to “go in behind the backs of tariff barriers” in the USA. If you’re a large New Zealand farmer, you might have something to lose when Natural Diary NZ arrives, otherwise, you shouldn’t be worried.

The Situation so far

On 10 August 2009, Prime Minister John Key announced that the SAS (Special Air Service) would return to Afghanistan. This announcement had been predicted for some time so came as no surprise. The troops are being deployed in three rotations over 18 months and the full deployment involves 70 soldiers over that time period. At the same time, over that 18 months the NZ Army’s Provincial Reconstruction Team – NZ’s major commitment to the war – are being gradually reduced and eventually withdrawn, their work to be replaced by civilian work on agriculture, health and education. But the SAS deployment may in fact last much longer. The war in Afghanistan is going badly for the US -led coalition and few military people or civilian analysts are prepared to go public with an estimate of how much longer it could go on. A time frame as short as 18 months seems unlikely and if the war continues for years, there will be further requests for extensions to the troop commitment. With the Obama administration massively expanding the war effort, not just through increased troop numbers in Afghanistan, but an increasing involvement in Pakistan also, the war could well drag on for years.  read more

Spark: It’s been 8 years since New Zealand troops were sent to Afghanistan – why did the Labour-Alliance government send them in the first place?

It needs to be understood in the context of New Zealand’s involvement with US and British imperialism. New Zealand is a partner in this bloc, and Labour enthusiastically signed up to the so-called War on Terror. When it comes to involvement in military adventures Labour governments have been just as warmongering as National.

Daphna Whitmore (left)at May Day march 2009

The Alliance Party split over the issue of support for the invasion of Afghanistan, with the majority of its members rejecting the war. It highlighted the problem of being in government with an outright capitalist party like Labour.

Spark: New Zealand companies aren’t trying to make major sales in Afghanistan – why all the risk and expense over such a long period of time?

 In its last term the Labour government did scale back the involvement, recalling the SAS and sending instead “reconstruction” forces. This tended to obscure the reality – that these are military forces, participating in an occupation. It dressed it up to look like it was simply a humanitarian mission.

Now Obama, facing a humiliating defeat in Afghanistan, is sending in more troops. His call has been heeded by the National government. As you point out, there are no major sales in Afghanistan; it is much more a case of being on board with the strategic goal of subjugating the region. It’s tricky for the NZ ruling class, because while they are aligned with US interests, there are also interests they have with European powers. Having a foot in both imperialist camps was something that Helen Clark was a master at.

Spark: why have successive governments kept up involvement in the war?

To withdraw and accept the Taliban’s resumption of power would be a major climb down for the US, Britain and its allies. They invaded for strategic reasons, and to show who was boss in the world, and to demonstrate the US had gotten over the Vietnam complex. It was important for them to beat the guerrilla forces on the ground. Of course, they have shown again how the world’s most powerful army can be tied up for years by a determined guerrilla resistance. That the Western powers are being beaten by the Taliban and other local forces in Afghanistan is humiliating for them.

Spark: What about the argument that these troop deployments are helping make the world a safer place by slowing down the terrorists?

The Taliban were never a force outside of Afghanistan, just as there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. All wars of aggression have their pretexts.

When you see pictures of villages bombed, and whole families killed by the occupying forces in Afghanistan it’s clear who are the terrorists.

Spark : New Zealand has a name for being anti nuclear warships – how does that sit with your description of it as “imperialist”?

There was a mass movement in New Zealand, which was part of an international movement, for disarmament. The movement succeeded in New Zealand in banning nuclear warships; and it is such a popular position that no government has dared to revoke it since. However, it proved to be a concession that the ruling class (in NZ and the US) could live with. There was no blockade, no US led coup or any response that you’d typically see when an oppressed nation stands up to the US. And the reason was that New Zealand was an imperialist partner – not an oppressed country.

The same government that banned the visit of nuclear warships carried out a harsh neo-liberal programme, selling off state assets, privatizing services and slashing the living standard of working people. That Labour government was one that Margaret Thatcher would have felt at home in.

Spark: Labour is saying that it was right to send NZ troops 8 years ago, but its not appropriate today – has something changed?

They are in opposition, and words are cheap. If they wanted to get out of Afghanistan they had 9 years to do so.

Spark: If it’s so wrong for NZ troops to be in Afghanistan why aren’t more people protesting about it?

It seems a world away to most people. The Taliban and the various war lords in Afghanistan do not inspire people in the West, understandably. While the Taliban and the Afghan resistance are playing a positive role resisting the invasion, they are not a socially progressive movement. Also, the way the invasion has been dressed up as a humanitarian effort, and one that claimed to be about modernizing society and liberating women, concealed the true character of the war. In New Zealand the minimal troop involvement has meant that most people are barely conscious of this country’s involvement.

Spark: What does the Workers Party think should be done about NZ overseas troop commitments? What about the deployments of peace keeping troops?

Imperialism uses both the carrot and the stick. In the seventies and eighties Washington wielded power by backing military dictatorships throughout Asia and Latin America. When these became thoroughly discredited it adopted a humanitarian face and conducted invasions under the banner of “democratization”.

New Zealand has no business invading and occupying other countries, even under the guise of peace keeping. We need to consistently oppose all these military adventures, whether they are “legal” or “illegal”; sanctioned by the UN or not. They are unjust wars and are not liberating.

Spark: You’ve been agitating against NZ imperialism for two decades. That’s a long time and some would say not a lot has changed. What keeps you motivated and what changes do you expect to see in the future?

Vietnam showed that the US – the biggest power in the world – could be beaten. The resistance in Iraq and Afghanistan have again shown that military might is not invincible.

The decline in of the secular, progressive and Marxist movements in the world is a challenge facing us today, but there are some promising signs. In Nepal, and in Venezuela there is something like dual power where the old rulers are being overthrown. In the Philippines, and in parts of India communist movements have held their own and are growing.

The resistance of oppressed people is a constant source of inspiration.

The picket coincides with the Court of Appeal hearing for an anti-war protester convicted of burning the NZ flag at anti-war protest in 2007. It also coincides with the government’s announcement of the return of the SAS to combat in Afghanistan. All welcome…and please pass it on…

Organised by Peace Action Wellington

In a press release on 4 June 2009 the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions deplored the Government’s removal of the minimum wage protection for workers on the Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE) scheme.

“There have been significant examples of unauthorised and unfair deductions from RSE workers’ pay even under the existing regulations,” said Wagstaff. “Relaxing the minimum wage rule will only result in more blatant exploitation of already vulnerable workers as unscrupulous employers shift costs onto them.”

“Allowing employers to make deductions which will reduce pay rates below the minimum of $12.50 per hour will significantly increase exploitation of RSE workers and undermine the credibility of the scheme”, said CTU Vice-President Richard Wagstaff.

Richard Wagstaff is dead right about the exploitation, but from a workers point of view, RSE has no credibility to be undermined.

The New Zealand Labour Department says:

“The RSE scheme facilitates the temporary entry of overseas workers, mainly from the Pacific, to plant, maintain, harvest and pack crops in the horticulture and viticulture industries to meet labour shortages in order to remain competitive with the rest of the world.”

In other words, grape picking in this country is so shit paid that it can only be done by abusing desperate Third World labourers.

Workers under the RSE Work Policy may return to work in New Zealand at a future time provided they have not previously breached the conditions of their RSE work permit conditions.

The Labour Department smugly observes:

“The possibility of returning the following season will encourage workers to play by the rules”.

There’s no corresponding obligation for the employers to play by rules that disadvantage them.

Employers “may choose to pay their workers’ entire airfare”.

But the bosses’ other legal option is that:

“During the course of employment deductions may be made from workers’ wages for half of that airfare.”

Such deductions are the means by which minimum wage protection is torn away.

Overseas employees are not eligible for free New Zealand health care except under ACC. The Labour Department washes it hands of any responsibility by suggesting:

“Employers are encouraged to organise health insurance for their workers.”

Wages and conditions for workers in New Zealand horticulture have been atrocious for years. Underpayment and non payment in the industry has caused local workers to avoid the fields and orchards of this country. Even in a recession.

The International Trade Union Confederation’s 12 June 2009 report on Core Labour Standards in New Zealand comments: 

“Cases of forced labour continue to be reported in horticulture, viticulture and in prostitution. Additional government inspections are required to eliminate such core labour standards violations. Minimum wage protections need to be reinforced in respect of workers on the Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE) scheme.”

The pro boss New Zealand Labour Department policies’ quoted in this article show the futility of “additional government inspections”. Until there’s some serious union organising on the sites in New Zealand horticulture the injustice to all workers will continue and most likely get worse.

The RSE scheme is nothing less than brutal racist capitalist oppression.

The Council of Trade Unions should follow up their criticism of the scheme by creating some new paid organiser positions to work among local and immigrant horticultural workers.

Wellington 12 -1pm on Friday, May 29, at Kelburn Parade (by Victoria University)

Students Alastair Reith, Joel Cosgrove and Ian Anderson have been expelled from Victoria University for burning the New Zealand flag. They did this in protest against New Zealand imperialism and New Zealand’s involvement in such imperialist ventures as Iraq, East Timor, the Solomon Islands, Tonga, the occupation of Afghanistan and elsewhere.

The students are not allowed to reenrol until next trimester, and are banned from sitting their exams. As a result they will fail all their courses, and as they are not being issued a refund they are essentially receiving a fine of several thousand dollars each.

The University is claiming that they were expelled for “health and safety” reasons. However this is clearly not the case. The flag was burned outside, in the rain, on the soaking wet smoker’s smokers’ deck outside the Mount Street Bar, and despite the false claims of the University the students had a bottle of water with them with which to put the fire out, and extinguished it themselves with water taken from inside the bar.

And if this was really about “health and safety”, why is Ian Anderson being expelled for filming the event? He had no direct role in burning the flag, and his only involvement was recording on camera what took place. Another student and Workers Party member, Marika Pratley, has been issued an official warning for simply being present on the deck while the flag was burned!

You don’t have to agree one hundred percent with the expelled student’s students’ politics, or with the act of burning the flag. But whatever way you look at it, this is an outrageous abuse of power by the University which sets a worrying precedent. This is an issue of freedom of speech, freedom of expression and the right to engage in political activity without fear of reprisal. If you support basic civil liberties and democratic rights, you should do everything you can to oppose the University’s decision and support Alastair, Joel and Ian being reinstated.

This coming Friday (the 29th), midday on Kelburn Parade, there is a protest being held against the expulsion of the students. If you think this is an over the top punitive action and support the right of student’s students’ to protest and take part in political activism in a free, open and democratic environment, you should come along and make your voice heard. Don’t let the University silence free speech!

Workers Party press release on the expulsions.

Why burn the New Zealand flag?

The New Zealand flag is a symbol of imperialism. This is most obvious in its design, a tribute to the British Empire. This design was adopted after the Second Boer War, which devastated South Africa but resulted in a surge of Kiwi patriotism.

Lest we forget

A simple re-design, while reflecting our emergence from the shadow of the British Empire, would not change the imperialist nature of the flag. It’s a tool of the ruling class, inseparably linked with militarism. From the Boer War through WWI and II, right through to armed involvement in Vietnam and Afghanistan, the flag has marked New Zealand’s presence. Flags mark military conquest, the subjugation of nations.

Flags and borders divide the working majority. ANZAC soldiers had more in common with their Turkish counterparts than with the bureaucrats who sent them to Gallipoli. The working majority has interests in common worldwide, including an end to imperial war. Ruling class nationalism is a barrier to recognising this.

What purpose does ANZAC day serve?

Kevin Rudd used ANZAC Day to facilitate a new ANZAC Task Force.

Many argue that ANZAC Day is not a glorification of war, but a commemoration of those who’ve lost their lives. However, the rhetoric of ANZAC Day does not simply honour the soldiers who lost their lives, it justifies those who sent them to die. This facilitates moves such as Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s decision to form a new ANZAC Task Force.

Every year we are told that the young men whose lives were snuffed out at Gallipoli died gloriously for our freedom. We are told that the liberties we enjoy in New Zealand today exist only because of the sacrifice of these soldiers. The message is that the soldiers’ deaths were worth it, and that the cause they died for was just.

Gallipoli was not about defending democracy or free speech. The Ottoman Empire did not pose a threat New Zealand. The Allied High Command ordered the invasion of Gallipoli for strategic reasons, primarily opening a supply route to arm their then ally, the Tsar of Russia. This battle served ruling class British interests.

If we truly wished to avoid a repetition of these horrors, we would use Anzac Day to teach this basic truth: Do not believe what you’re told. Imperialist war is never glorious, and the soldiers who bled to death in the Belgian mud and at Galipolli died for nothing.

To honour the men who lost their lives, we must condemn imperialist war. Only when ANZAC Day facilitates disarmament and solidarity with those resisting imperialism, only when the War Memorial is showered with white poppies, when speeches are made about a generation of men slaughtered to serve imperialist interests, only then will the Workers Party support it.

Afghanis burning NZ flag.

New Zealand: an imperialist nation

While New Zealand has eked out a degree of independence from the US, it remains a junior imperialist nation. Contrary to popular myth, New Zealand was a member of the coalition of the willing which legitimised the wars on Iraq and Afghanistan, sending troops to both countries.

Afghanistan is in the mess it is today because of Western involvement. Since the nineteenth century, Britain and the United States have deliberately stirred up communal divisions in the Middle East in a bid to prevent the formation of any united resistance to their plans for plundering the economic wealth of the region. During the Cold War, the CIA funded and recruited an army of Islamic mujahideen fighters based in northwest Pakistan to fight the Russians and their Afghan allies. Sectarian violence was exacerbated by this and by the subsequent occupation. The pro-Western government that replaced the Taliban has shown its stripes by legalizing rape within marriage. Yet the US and its NATO allies continue to peddle the line that the only solution to the worsening violence is greater Western military intervention.

Imperialism in the Pacific

More locally, we have treated Pacific neighbours as sources of cheap labour and trade, often interfering in governance.

While capital may flow freely across borders, workers only move when it suits the ruling class. When the post-war boom ended in the 1970s, the NZ ruling class turned to shutting off working class immigration, especially from the Pacific. 100,000 Samoans were stripped of citizenship rights, in a piece of legislation that has been maintained ever since. The Workers Party calls for open borders and full rights for migrant workers.

Despite the line of “democracy promotion” in the Pacific, the ruling class is primarily interested in having stable elites to trade with. In 2006, New Zealand and Australian troops were deployed to quell pro-democracy riots in Tonga. Only 9 of the 34 seats in the Tongan parliament are elected, and Tongans have voted for pro-democracy candidates in all 9 of those seats. However, New Zealand backs the monarchy, a major source of trade.

Yet paradoxically, New Zealand has isolated Fiji since the coup carried out by Bainamarama; why advocate democracy in Fiji and not Tonga? We did not isolate those who carried out the Fijian coups in 1987 and 2004. In fact, Fiji has never been a full democracy, with a voting system that entrenches a tribal elite, at the expense of Indo-Fijians. The current interim government however, is pledging to hold elections once there has been electoral reform, disestablishing the racially segregated voting system and instituting one person one vote. This may yet be shown to be empty rhetoric, indeed some of the actions of the interim government seem rather undemocratic and should be of concern, but New Zealand’s stance is clearly not based on democracy. There are powerful New Zealand interests in Fiji, which is New Zealand’s largest export market amongst the Pacific Islands. New Zealand’s attitude to Fiji is not based on humanitarian interests, but on the interests of capital.

*      *      *      *      *

Accompanying every justification of New Zealand militarism and imperialism is the national flag. It stands for unthinking obedience to orders and the false god of nationalism – the idea that working class New Zealanders share common interests with their bosses against the rest of the world.

Workers and all oppressed people of all countries , unite to resist imperialism.

In what John Key has described as sending “a strong message” Pacific Forum leaders voted earlier this year to suspend Fiji from the Forum unless the interim government sets an election date before May 1. The suspension means that Fiji cannot attend meetings between forum leaders, ministers or officials; it will also be excluded from benefiting from any regional initiatives run under the forum. Both Mr Key and forum chairman Toke Talagi said the decision was made by consensus, a surprising result given smaller Pacific nations were expected to vote against suspension, with Papua New Guinea Prime Minister Sir Michael Somare stating in his speech (released to the media before the meeting) “I am of the strong view that adopting an isolationist approach would be unhelpful.”

Fiji has already lost the benefits of one “regional initative” – participation in the seasonal work scheme allowing Pacific Islanders to work in New Zealand. Fiji was suspended from the scheme by the previous Labour government. So far this sanction has done little – if anything – to destabilise the military regime, instead it has effected ordinary Fijians. The Fiji based Coalition for Democracy and Peace, consisting of citizens’ groups and non-governmental organisations, had said that the poor are the ones most affected by sanctions imposed by New Zealand. Even when New Zealand sent aid to Fiji (via the Red Cross) in the wake of horrific floods, local Fijians said a better way for the New Zealand Government to help them would be to let them work in New Zealand, rather than give aid money. A petition was circulated asking Prime Minister John Key to issue special directions for one-year work visas for flood victims, and for an equivalent to the Pacific Access Category for Fijian citizens already in New Zealand.

Its doesn’t take a stretch of the imagination to conclude that Australia and New Zealand used their influence as imperialist powers in the region to sway the votes of other forum members. New Zealand governments -both the current National led government and the previous Labour led one- have taken a strong stance against Fiji’s interim government. The line from the Beehive has commonly been that Fiji should “Return to democracy”; this phrase can be seen in government media releases, or editorials in the mainstream media, but what “democracy” does Fiji have to return too?

Fiji has since colonial times had a racially segregated voting system, 46 of the 71 seats in parliament are ‘communal’ electorates in which voters vote according to their ethnicity. The electorates are based on provinces, not population distribution, leading to further inequality of representation. Crosbie Walsh of the University of the South Pacific wrote of the 2006 election;

” [T]here were on average only 9,437 registered voters in [Ethnic] Fijian, 4,607 in General Voter, and 5,373 in Rotuman communal electorates. This compared with 16,065 for Urban Fijian electorates and 11,014 for Indo-Fijians. Urban Fijians and Indo-Fijians were grossly under-represented”

Walsh goes on to note that the over-represented electorates are among the least “developed” making voters prone to influence by chiefs and church ministers. Those electorates where people were under represented had in the past produced multi-ethnic parliamentary leaders from the Labour Party; Dr Timoci Bavadra, the first Labour Party prime minister, ousted by the “Rabuka” coup in 1987, and Adi Teimumu Vuikaba Speed, Deputy Prime Minister in the Mahendra Chaudhry Labour-led government ousted by the “Speight” coup in 2000.

New Zealand’s attitude toward Fiji after these coups was remarkably different from their stance toward the current regime. After the 1987 coup New Zealand engaged with the coup installed government for 5 years following the removal of the elected leader Timoci Bavadra and the 1970 Constitution, it also engaged with the government installed after the 2000 coup, despite it being ruled illegal by Fiji’s high court (unlike the current interim government). Today New Zealand continues to support the undemocratic monarchy in Tonga, despite a strong movement there calling for democracy. The difference in stance toward Fiji seems to be that the previous coups both represented the overthrow of governments led by a party formed along class lines rather than ethnic ones, with a strong union movement as its base. The 1987 and 2000 coups were both led by racially motivated leaders pledging to protect native Fijian interests (in reality meaning the interests of Fiji’s elite).

The current interim government however, is pledging to hold elections once there has been electoral reform, disestablishing the racially segregated voting system and instituting one person one vote. This may yet be shown to be empty rhetoric, indeed some of the actions of the interim government seem rather undemocratic and should be of concern, but New Zealand’s stance is clearly not based on democracy. Could it be that New Zealand took a soft attitude to the governments installed after previous coups because it does not want to see a left-leaning government in Fiji influencing other countries in the region, not to mention the large Pacific diaspora in New Zealand? This doesn’t take a stretch of the imagination either. There are also powerful New Zealand interests in Fiji, which is New Zealand’s largest export market amongst the Pacific Islands. New Zealand’s attitude to Fiji is not based on humanitarian interests, but on the interests of capital.