New Zealand foreign minister repeats call for increased US role in Pacific

By John Braddock
25 July 2019

New Zealand’s foreign minister, Winston Peters, used a visit to Washington last week to
renew the Labour-led government’s appeals for a stepped-up US presence in the Indo-Pacific
to counter China’s growing influence.

In Washington to attend a “Religious Freedom” gathering hosted by US Secretary of State

Mike Pompeo, Peters made no criticism of Trump’s fascist rants directed at four
congresswomen, including Somali-born Ilhan Omar. Ludicrously, he hailed the US as a beacon
of religious freedom and tolerance.

Nor did Peters, who leads the anti-immigrant NZ First Party, a partner in Jacinda Ardern’s
government, mention the fact that Trump was one of the political heroes of Brenton Tarrant,
the fascist terrorist who killed 51 Muslim worshippers at two Christchurch mosques on
March 15.

Peters was silent also on the Trump administration’s brutal treatment of immigrants and
asylum seekers. Peters held a separate meeting with US Vice President Mike Pence, on the
heels of the latter’s return from inspecting immigrant detention centres at the Mexican
border. Peters reportedly has cultivated a close working relationship with Pence as part of
efforts to strengthen New Zealand’s military and strategic alliance with the US.

In a speech to the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Peters warned that
the US was being left behind economically in the region and said its “limited engagement in
trade agreements in the Indo-Pacific is of real concern to New Zealand.”

Peters said it was in Washington’s interests to secure more free trade deals (FTAs) in the Asia-
Pacific, pointing out that its share of exports to the region had declined significantly over 30
years. In that time Washington had negotiated only three FTAs, with Australia, Singapore and
South Korea, which between them represent just 12 percent of Asia’s economic output.

Peters noted that in 1990, 17.4 percent of all goods imported to Asia came from the US. By
2018, that share dropped to 7.4 percent. US exports to NZ fell from nearly 18 percent of its
total to 10 percent. “That means that the US has lost half of its market share over a 28-year
period,” he declared. China’s exports to NZ grew from 1 percent of the total to 20 percent
over that time, becoming the country’s largest source of imported goods.

Peters said New Zealand stood ready to take up Trump’s offer last year to negotiate bilateral
trade agreements with any country in the region. Peters was not just making a pitch for
greater trade access with the US. He highlighted China’s “staggering economic growth,” in
contrast to the US decline. Concluding a trade deal with NZ would, Peters declared, “send a
signal into the Indo-Pacific that the US is in the region to stay.”

Peters may have been voicing broader fears among the region’s ruling elites about the
impact of the intensifying US-led trade war with Beijing. China recently recorded its lowest
quarterly growth rate since 1992. Singapore, one of Asia’s key trading hubs, suffered a 3.4
percent decline in its growth rate for the second quarter of 2019, with non-oil exports down
by 17.3 percent in June.
New Zealand’s largest company and exporter to China, the dairy giant Fonterra, last year
produced its first annual loss since its creation in 2001. Fonterra’s net loss came to $NZ196
million, compared with a profit of $745 million in 2016-17. Currently as many as 1,000
forestry jobs are under threat from a 15 percent collapse in the price of logs sent to China.
The wood industry provides the country’s third most valuable exports, accounting for $NZ3.6
billion.

New Zealand faces an ongoing dilemma because of the escalating global tensions. While the
economy relies significantly on trade with China, NZ has aligned itself with the Trump
administration’s belligerent moves against Beijing and preparations for war.

Peters has led the coalition government’s “Pacific Reset” strategy, aimed at boosting
Wellington’s presence in the Pacific through stepped-up diplomatic, aid and military
measures to counter China. New Zealand and Australia, both minor imperialist powers, view
the Pacific as their sphere of influence and are alarmed at growing Chinese investment and
diplomatic influence in the region.

Peters’ speech reprised, on the trade front, issues he raised last December in an address at
Georgetown University, where he called for a stronger US-New Zealand military and strategic
alliance. Referring to China, Peters had noted that “larger players are renewing their interest
in the Pacific with an attendant element of strategic competition. The speed and intensity of
those interests at play are of great concern to us.”

Last week, Peters declared that “six months on we re-affirm the logic of that speech” and
issued a reminder that strategic partners “need to support each other economically.”

The NZ media is trying to stoke anxiety over China’s activities in the Pacific. On July 11,
the New Zealand Herald published an article titled: “China’s largesse in Tonga threatens
future of Pacific nation.” It claimed that in addition to aid packages to the tiny island
kingdom, China offered low-interest loans that “could prove Tonga’s undoing.”

Tonga, a country of 106,000 people, owes about $US108 million to China’s Export-Import
bank, equivalent to about 25 percent of Tonga’s annual economic output.

China has advanced $US1.5 billion in aid and low-interest loans in the South Pacific since
2011, putting it behind only Australia, according to an analysis by the Lowy Institute, an
Australian think-tank.

Last August, Tongan Prime Minister ‘Akilisi Pohiva called on Pacific nations to join it in
demanding debt relief, claiming that China could snatch buildings and other assets. But he
reversed his position days later, saying Tonga was “exceedingly grateful” for China’s help.
Tonga had been given a reprieve and did not need to start repayments for another five years.

Tonga subsequently announced it would join China’s Belt and Road Initiative, the global
investment-and-lending program launched by Beijing to push back against Washington. The
announcement followed a meeting in Fiji in March involving agriculture ministers from China
and eight Pacific states to promote the Belt and Road as the basis for agricultural
cooperation.

In response to these developments, NZ is ramping up its alliance with the US and Australia.
On July 16, Radio NZ gave air time to Hugh White, professor of Strategic Studies at the
Australian National University, who said the cost of trying to stop China moving into the
Pacific might “prove impossible to bear.” Australia, and by implication New Zealand, would
be better off building military defences “for times of war.”

In his recently published, How to Defend Australia, White argued that Australian
governments should consider acquiring nuclear weapons so they did not rely entirely on the
US in a “more contested and more dangerous” region.

ustralian government demands police-state powers over protests and exclusions of citizens

By Mike Head
24 July 2019

With the Labor Party’s help, the Liberal-National Coalition government is this week pushing
through parliament “national security” bills that expand the powers of the government and
the police-intelligence apparatus to outlaw dissent.

The bills are being rushed through just weeks after Australian Federal Police raids on
Australian Broadcasting Corporation and News Corp journalists, a direct threat to media
freedom. Ministers have confirmed that the journalists face prosecution for publishing
leaked reports on Australian war crimes in Afghanistan and plans for mass domestic
surveillance.

Building on police-state measures imposed over the past two decades, the bills would,
among other things:

 jail people for up to five years for using the internet to promote protests against
agribusinesses

 allow the home affairs minister to exclude Australian citizens from re-entering the
country for at least two years if the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation
(ASIO) deems them likely to participate in “politically motivated violence”

 extend ASIO’s powers to secretly detain and interrogate people.

Together with the laws already passed since 2001, mainly on the pretext of the “war on
terrorism,” these bills would hand governments and ASIO, the political spy agency, the most
authoritarian powers since the repressive measures imposed during both world wars.

The corporate media depicted the rush by Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Home Affairs
Minister Peter Dutton to pass the bills as a plot to “wedge” the new Labor Party leadership of
Anthony Albanese on “security” issues. In reality, Labor declared its in-principle support for
the bills, pledging to retain Labor’s record of bipartisanship on every such piece of legislation.

The truth is that the bills are a further preparation by the corporate and parliamentary
establishment as a whole to suppress political and social unrest amid the growing danger of
involvement in catastrophic US-led wars, worsening social conditions and inequality, and
signs of economic slump.

Around the world, governments are increasingly turning to dictatorial methods of rule in the
face of the resurgence of working class struggles, from France to Ecuador and Hong Kong.

Labor’s only reservation was that some measures could prove “ineffective” because they are
unconstitutional. In particular, permitting a minister to bar citizens from returning to
Australia strips them of their constitutional “right to abode.” Outlawing internet promotion
of protests violates the implied constitutional freedom of political communication.

In a display of indifference to constitutional rights, the government brushed aside

recommendations by a bipartisan parliamentary security and intelligence committee for
modifications to ensure that the measures could survive a High Court challenge.

Each bill goes far beyond its official justification, whether it be to punish animal welfare
demonstrators, stop the return of “foreign fighters” or foil “terrorist plots.”

The Criminal Code Amendment (Agricultural Protection) Bill outlaws online political opinion
that “incites” protests that trespass on, or cause damage to, “primary production” premises.
It covers a wide range of industries, including abattoirs, forestry, fishing and farming, setting
a precedent that could be extended to other corporate activities.

The government is simultaneously working with state and territory governments, Labor and
Coalition alike, to impose harsher jail terms on people physically participating in protests.
The bill extends that criminality to anyone who even advertises such political activity via
social media, on-line chats, emails or phone calls. Morrison declared that “cowardly
keyboard warriors” would “be classed as criminals as well.”

For “inciting” trespass, the penalty would be one year’s imprisonment and/or a fine of up to
$12,600. For “inciting” property damage, the punishment would be five year's jail and/or a
fine of up to $63,000.

The bill also threatens whistleblowers, journalists and anyone else reporting on such
protests. There is a narrow defence for reporters, but only if their coverage is “in the public
interest” and they are employed as “professional journalists.”

This is another move to censor the internet, block access to dissenting sites and imprison
whistleblowers and journalists, following the lead set by the Trump administration’s
persecution of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and whistleblower Chelsea Manning.

Likewise, the Counter-Terrorism (Temporary Exclusion Orders) Bill has a misleading title. The
government and the media are presenting it as an urgent measure to stop the return of pro-
ISIS “foreign fighters.” Last weekend, the government suddenly claimed, without any details,
that 40 such individuals had returned to Australia already.

That is to disguise the fact that the bill would hand arbitrary power to ASIO and the home
affairs minister to bar citizens from Australia on political grounds. Without any judicial
hearing or procedural fairness (the right to a fair and unbiased hearing), the minister could
issue two-year “exclusion orders.”

The minister would only have to assert a “reasonable suspicion” that an exclusion order
would “substantially assist” the prevention of a terrorist-related act, or that ASIO had
classified the citizen as likely to support “politically motivated violence.” The definition of
“politically motivated violence” includes acts directed to “assisting in the overthrow” of a
government, which could mean voicing anti-government or socialist views.

The home affairs minister, who is in charge of ASIO, the federal police and the Australian
Border Force, could extend such orders beyond two years by refusing to grant “return
permits.” Those permits also could be issued subject to extensive conditions, requiring
constant reporting to ASIO on places of residence, employment and internet usage.
Labor proposed that these powers be exercised by a government-appointed judge, retired
judge or tribunal member. But that was only to remove constitutional doubts, not out of
concern for the basic political and legal rights of citizens.

This bill sets a far-reaching precedent. No government is known to have tried to block a
citizen from returning to the country since the Menzies Coalition government refused to
issue an Australian passport to Wilfred Burchett, a journalist who had reported on the lies
and crimes of the US and its allies in the Korean and Vietnam wars.

In 2015, the Coalition government, backed by Labor, took an earlier step down this road by
introducing powers to strip Australian citizenship from dual nationals convicted of a terrorist
or espionage-related offence carrying a sentence of six or more years in prison. A new bill
would allow the home affairs minister to revoke citizenship from people convicted of lesser
such offences, if the minister was merely “reasonably satisfied” they were entitled to
another citizenship.

Another bill would extend ASIO’s power to secretly detain people for up to seven days,
without charge, and question them for periods adding up to 24 hours. The powers were due
to expire in September. The bill proposes a further 12-month extension to enable the
government to draw up new interrogation and detention powers.

In key aspects, the latest bills go beyond parallel measures in Britain, keeping Australia in the
forefront of the worldwide attacks on basic democratic rights. These bills are not simply the
product of Morrison’s government. They are part of a US-led global offensive. As the federal
police chief revealed last month, the raids on journalists were conducted to assure the US-
led “Five Eyes” spy network—which is integral to mass surveillance and war preparations—of
the reliability of Australia’s police-intelligence apparatus.

Australian cancer victim sues Bayer-Monsanto

By Frank Gagliot
23 July 2019

On June 4, in the first such case in Australia, the Melbourne lawn mowing service operator
Michael Ogalirolo launched legal action in the Supreme Court against the global chemical
giant Bayer, the current owner of Monsanto, which manufactures the herbicide Roundup.

The case follows similar recent cases in the US that have heightened concerns internationally
over the use of the herbicide. Bayer, the German pharmaceutical company, bought out
Monsanto, the original producer of Roundup, in 2018. The US agrichemical company had
been founded in 1901.

Ogalirolo has developed the potentially lethal cancer, non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), which
he claims is due to 18 years of exposure to glyphosate, the active component of Roundup.

His writ declares: “The defendant [Bayer] knew or ought to have known that the use of
Roundup products were dangerous for the plaintiff… in particular causing DNA and
chromosomal damage in human cells, cancer, kidney disease, infertility and nerve damage
among other devastating illnesses.

“As such, Roundup products are dangerous to human health and unfit to be marketed and
sold in commerce, particularly without proper warnings and directions.”
Ogalirolo’s case follows three successful legal actions against Bayer in the US. School
groundskeeper Dewayne Johnson sued Bayer after contracting an extremely aggressive and
lethal form of NHL and was awarded $US289 million in August 2018.

In a statement to jurors, a lawyer for Johnson, Brent Wisner, condemned Monsanto for
putting profits first. He said that he had seen internal Monsanto company documents
“proving that Monsanto has known for decades that glyphosate and specifically Roundup
could cause cancer.”

In a second case in March, the US District Court in California found that Roundup caused
Edwin Hardeman to develop NHL after using Roundup for 30 years on his property. Farmers
Alberta and Alva Pilliod were awarded $2 billion in May, the biggest settlement so far, after
developing NHL.

Alva Pilliod told the media after her court hearing: “We wish that Monsanto had warned us
ahead of time about the dangers of using Monsanto [weedkiller]… And that there was
something on the front of their label that said ‘danger may cause cancer.’”

Currently, there are 13,400 claims pending in US courts and a number of other Australian
cancer victims considering taking action against Bayer.

As a result of the law suits and significant scientific studies, action is being discussed in a
number of countries. Vietnam and France banned glyphosate products in April and July
respectively, and other European administrations are considering bans.

In Australia, municipal councils are reconsidering the use of Roundup.

On July 4, 500 outdoor workers from Blacktown council in suburban Sydney walked out over
safety concerns over the use of Roundup. The strike took place after six workers were told
that they would be placed on other duties if they refused to use the herbicide.

The workers returned to work after an Industrial Relations Commission hearing ruled that
the council should trial an alternative weed control process. One crew would trial the
alternative but the majority of workers would still have to use Roundup.

In June, residents reacted angrily to the Illawarra council’s annual aerial spraying of Roundup
to control weeds on the local escarpment, south of Sydney. Petitions opposing the spraying
were signed by thousands of residents.

One petition signed by 2,500 people stated: “Roundup is extremely dangerous as proven in
court now multiple times… The health implications for residents, their pets, and small
children is simply unacceptable.”

The Illawarra District Weeds Authority officer David Pomery rebuffed residents’ concerns,
stating Roundup was the “only practical and feasible method to control.”

The chemical giant Monsanto introduced Roundup in 1974. According to figures published in
2016, Roundup is the most heavily applied weed killer in the history of chemical agriculture
internationally. There are 500 glyphosate products available to farmers and gardeners in
Australia.

The huge expansion in the use of glyphosate products occurred after 1996 when Monsanto
developed genetically modified seeds, including corn, wheat, soy, canola and cotton that are
immune to the effects of the herbicide. This enables farmers to spray plants throughout their
lifecycle, suppressing weeds but leaving the crop unharmed. Roundup-resistant seeds are
marketed as Roundup Ready. This effectively ties the farmer to the continued use of
Monsanto products, including having to rebuy seed every year.

According to a scientific paper, Trends in glyphosate herbicide use in the United States and
globally, published in 2016, the introduction of Roundup Ready seeds enabled a 15-fold
increase in the agricultural use of Roundup and allowed Monsanto to dominate the world
herbicide market.

Glyphosate is also used for pre-harvest crop desiccation: That is the application of a
herbicide near the end of the growing season to cause crops to dry and die uniformly,
making them easier to harvest, and increasing the risk of chemical contamination of food
products.

Bayer and Monsanto have conducted relentless campaigns against critics of the herbicide
and Bayer continues to aggressively promote Roundup as a safe product.

Bayer has not responded to the Australian writ, but in the US it has indicated it will challenge
the court victories of the successful litigants.

“We continue to believe firmly that the science confirms that glyphosate-based herbicides do
not cause cancer,” Bayer stated in March in response to the Hardeman case.

A number of scientific reports have questioned Roundup’s safety record. In 2015, the World
Health Organisation’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified the herbicide as
“probably carcinogenic to humans,” based on a review of existing research.

A study published in February concluded that exposure to Roundup increased the probability
of developing NHL by 41 percent. One of the co-authors, Lianne Sheppard, professor in the
Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences at the University of Washington, told
the Guardian that “from a population health point of view there are some real concerns.”

An Australian Broadcasting Corporation program, “The Monsanto Papers,” broadcast in

October 2018, published an internal email from Monsanto’s chief toxicologist that
contradicted the company’s promotion of the herbicide’s safety record. “[Y]ou cannot say
that Roundup is not a carcinogen… we have not done the necessary testing on the
formulation to make that statement,” the scientist stated.

Thus, there is mounting evidence that the continued promotion and sale of Roundup is
another glaring example of the pursuit of corporate profit with scant concern for the
potential consequences for health and the environment.