Intervention justified

Given Gaddafi's rants, proclamations and tortuous speech on TV a few hours ago, it is clear he is ready to spill as much blood as it takes to stay in power.

As such, it would be legitimate for others to come from outside, and shoot down any Libyan Air Force aircraft or helicopters that are firing at civilians, or to use force against his mercenaries to protect Libyans from the government they have.

The US wont of course, because Obama doesn't want to upset anyone and doesn't want to be thought of as George W.  Bush.  The rest of NATO wont either.  The regimes elsewhere in the Middle East and Africa are full of thugs and bullies who wouldn't dare.

So it should be possible for private citizens to step in and help support a revolution in Libya.  Of course, in New Zealand this isn't allowed because the last Labour Government, with full support of the Greens and United Future banned New Zealanders being paid mercenaries.  National opposed it, noting that Australia, UK and US are not signatories to the International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries.

Gaddafi says there will be house to house searches to find and kill all protestors, and he would rather die a martyr than surrender power.

Hopefully this can be arranged. Gaddafi came out from the cold only because the war on Iraq and overthrow of Saddam Hussein scared him.   An ultimatum from a US President might just do the very same.

The Libyan Jamahiriya News Agency is his official mouthpiece, and the website has deleted all news reports.  Let's hope that means that more of his vile police state is falling around him.   For the sake of Libyans this needs to end quickly, and if Gaddafi's head is disconnected from his body, then it may be for the best - as long as his family's bank accounts and foreign assets can be frozen.

Thoughts to Christchurch

I was awoken to the news at around 2am GMT, with reports coming through my wifi radio on ABC News Radio, as very little was on the international TV news channels I can get.   The events do not need me to express the sadness and horror about the destruction, the death, the injuries and the devastation of Christchurch.

Like all, I can only hope that the death toll does not grow, that people are all accounted for, as all those who I know in Christchurch are.  With both air and rail links into Christchurch temporarily severed, the difficulties of getting in and out are exacerbated.  

The effects are immediate for those who have lost family and friends, and those badly injured, and have lost precious possessions.   Think also for the tens of thousands who are now wondering if they should rebuild and remain in this city.   It is easy to say hasty decisions shouldn't be made, but the effects of this will be deep for the entire country.   Those who think that reconstruction after this is beneficial for the economy are of course fools.

I note Air New Zealand is putting on special NZ$50 one way fares for all domestic flights to and from Christchurch from tomorrow through till Friday, with a special Boeing 747 flight to and from Auckland to operate to get large numbers in and out efficiently.   I hope those who need to return, and those who are visiting and need to return quickly can get to do so with as little pain as possible.   I hope also Air NZ ensures the 747 isn't filled with planespotters seeking to fly in flat beds in business class in the nose or upstairs for cheap - by blocking such seats from pre-selection by non-status frequent flyers.

So I have put a photo of the cathedral up, because this is the symbol of the city- but the city itself is its people, and may the coming days, weeks and months they find their hearts and minds able to rebuilt and live, whilst for now the battle is to find those missing, and to keep safe and secure those who remain.  Hopefully also the Police and public can have sufficient presence to avoid the scum of looters seeking to profit from the misery of others.

My best wishes and thoughts to them all.

PS:  Winner of the most inappropriate comment from a New Zealand politician goes to Catherine Delahunty with this tweet: 

greencatherine Catherine Delahunty

 

"A grim day with the horror earthquake and welfare report came out worse than I ever imagined"

Yes, the government's welfare report is equivalent to an earthquake that has killed dozens of people.  I may disagree with your colleagues, but they are mostly capable of some thought before saying such things.

At least it is better than blaming the victims for their disaster.

Too little too late Saif

I watched the footage on Libyan state TV last night of Muammar Gaddafi's favourite son - his "Kim Jong Il" - Saif al-Islam Gaddafi - calling for an end to protests, blaming them on drug addicts, criminals and foreign troublemakers.

He threatened to fight to the last man and the last bullet.  He said that Libya risked civil war, and without the sharing of its oil wealth, Libyans would starve and be homeless.  Easy to say when you're the groomed son of a dictator who has access to billions in funds taken from the "Libyan Arab Socialist Jamahariya".  He parties while his people have a per capita GDP closer to Mexico, whilst having an economy 95% reliant on oil.

He offered reform, a "national dialogue" and some opening up.  Had he done this a year ago, and there had been substantive progress, then maybe the pressure might have been released.  Maybe.  However, Libya has had one of the most repressive regimes in the Arab world.  No private bodies or entities are permitted in Libya, without state authority.  Civil society, political parties, alternative media are all banned.  Even Egypt had a private sphere.

However, it is far too late now, and moreover his promise of reform was not done in any sense of seeking forgiveness, but with a bloody threat of death till the bitter end.

His father has long been proven to be a bloody vicious and unremittingly death worshipping thug, and the actions of some of the Libyan military and police have proven that, with reports of the air force gunning down civilians and two air force pilots defecting to Malta because they were ordered to shoot civilians. 

It is over, it is just a matter of time, but sadly a matter of bloodshed.  Actions there will continue to spooks the bullies in Bahrain, and across the Arab world.  I'm hoping Bashar Assad is next.

Botany by-election shows all that is wrong with NACT

The resignation of Pansy Wong for her corrupt misuse of taxpayers' money to pay for her husband to embark on a trip for his own business purposes was always right, but to hold a by-election a matter of months out from a General Election is quite absurd.  It was inappropriate for her to remain in Parliament, but remarkably wasteful to hold a by-election for such a short period.  A bit like Chris Laidlaw's hilarious winning of the 1992 Wellington Central by-election following Fran Wilde being elected Mayor of Wellington City, only to be turfed out in 1993 when Labour nearly won the General Election (but Pauline Gardiner won for the Nats in Wellington Central).

So a by-election it is, in a seat where Wong won around 56% of the vote in 2008, and National 61% of the party vote, it would appear that it is a sure thing for the National candidate Jami-Lee Ross (no, not a Vegas porn star).

This young man just about embodies the National Party in 2011.  Young, looks presentable (as a real estate agent), obsessed with running other people's lives and without a principle worth taping to a twig.   To him, contributing to his community means being a politician.  He has no background in business, either starting one or even working in one.  His whole adult life has spent deciding how to spend other people's money and how to regulate their lives.  

In the Press it was reported that his great achievement was this:

"The local athletics club really wanted a new athletics track and that was a big deal for them because they have got one of the best clubs in Auckland. So, together with my council colleagues, we built them an all weather athletics track."

What he should say is "together with my council colleagues, we co-opted some money forcibly taken from ratepayers to spend on the group that got my attention, and paid some people to build it for us".   Now he didn't build anything, didn't put his own money into it, but takes the credit for it.  How grateful people should be that he was there to choose the lobby group to benefit from money taken by force!

He thinks election is about the economy, crime and infrastructure, not that he expressed any ideas on any of it.  In fact his campaign website is bereft of anything of substance beyond a basic profile.   He is keen on there being a budget surplus, to be spent on the "services Kiwis expect and deserve", not to cut debt or taxes.

Of course he is following the script of National, say nothing, do little more and show no ambition for serious reform or change.  Maybe he has something more to offer, but a lifestyle politician is not someone who has learnt anything useful about the world - except a desire to tell people what to do.

You'd think ACT might take a chance by putting forward a candidate who embraces the old ACT policies of abolishing income tax, allowing people to buy private education and healthcare, set up their own superannuation accounts, and radical reform.  No, it chose Lyn Murphy, possibly its wettest candidate yet who puts herself to the left of Jami-Lee Ross.   She has championed a few environmental causes and to get some cables buried, achievements that rival those of Ross!  She is a senior lecturer in management, and a member of the Counties-Manukau DHB, an entity that ought to be abolished.  She is campaigning on cutting government waste, zero tolerance on burglaries and ending Maori separatism.  Lots new going on there then.

Such a complete waste.  ACT knows it has no chance of winning this seat, it could have stamped free market and small government principles and policies all over this by-election.   Given Kenneth Wang got a credible 15% of the electorate vote in 2008, you might have thought it could have chosen someone who believed in something.

No.  National showed itself to be the conservative party of do nothing that selects career politicians with no experience of business (or even private sector employment).  ACT showed itself to be devoid of principle and devoid of anything left in a brand that can't even stand up for Sir Roger Douglas when the Prime Minister criticises him.

Labour naturally is standing someone to soak up the "give me something for nothing vote", although it has fierce competition from National and ACT candidates with similar views.    Then the wacky dimension is rounded off with the pro-Intellectual Property theft Pirate Party, the Asian immigrant New Citizen Party, the Join Australia Party and the foaming at the mouth rabid leftwing nutcase conspiracy theorist Penny Bright (I know this from a single phone conversation I had with her).   Other independents are just having some fun I suspect.

The only candidate a libertarian or even a small government classical liberal (or anyone who actually believes in the principles of National or ACT) could endorse is Leo Biggs from the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party.   Why?  He's the only candidate standing on a platform that actually explicitly endorses less government, in one area (although I suspect he personally has little else going for him, if all he does is vote on this issue, then it is something).

Standing back from this you can see the stark options for those who want less government in this year's general election.  In 2008, thousands voted National to oust Clark and bring an end to Helengrad, but Keynesia is Helengrad-lite, with more smiles and less principles.   Thousands voted ACT to give some backbone to a Key led government, and got a Minister for Local Government who adopted  and implemented most of Labour's local government policy, creating Australasia's largest local bureaucracy.  ACT voters elected Sir Roger Douglas, the man who did more than any politician in the last 30 years to stop the rot of New Zealand being the most socialist free-world economy, only to find ACT's leader wouldn't back him when he was telling the truth.   Now ACT is the party that brought you nothing.

Libertarianz on the other hand may not get anyone elected, but if 1-2% of voters who would have voted ACT or National tick Libertarianz, it will be a right shock to both parties.  Why?  Because it will deny them seats, show that there are quite a few New Zealanders who want less government, and may shock ACT in particular into actually reforming and becoming a proper party that advocates less government.   Given current polling nobody who would prefer to keep Labour out is likely to fear a change of government, but it would change politics and the political discourse in ACT and National.   It would show that there are enough people, who are not purist libertarians, who want governments committed to less tax, less government, one law for all and private property rights.   

If not, are you that enamoured by John Key after nine years of Helen Clark that you can't wait for another three years of it?

What Gaddafi thinks

Colonel Gaddafi is not a man who can readily be said to be a conventional dictator, except that many dictators expose themselves as being rambling ranters of peculiar philosophies.  His views are in what is his own rambling rant of incoherence, the Green Book (full text here).

What you see below are excerpts from it, most are good enough reason to relieve Libya from his rule!

He says of freedom of speech:

Democratically, private individuals should not be permitted to own any public means of publication or information. However, they have the right to express themselves by any means, even irrationally, to prove their insanity. Any journal issued by a professional sector, for example, is only a means of expression of that particular social group. It presents their own points of view and not that of the general public. This applies to all other corporate and private individuals in society.  The democratic press is that which is issued by a People's Committee, comprising all the groups of society. Only in this case, and not otherwise, will the press or any other information medium be democratic, expressing the viewpoints of the whole society, and representing all its groups.

It is basically a justification of a state monopoly media.  It justifies banning privately owned newspapers or other "means of information". Libya has shut down internet and mobile phone networks as it now proceeds to murder its citizens.

It gets more insane when he talks about economic matters:

"Wage-earners are but slaves to the masters who hire them. They are temporary slaves, and their slavery lasts as long as they work for wages from employers, be they individuals or the state. The workers' relationship to the owner or the productive establishment, and to their own interests, is similar under all prevailing conditions in the world today, regardless of whether ownership is right or left."

Nothing like totalitarians telling people they are slaves under alternative systems.

He doesn't think that people should own taxis or that anyone other than the state should own any transport operations:

In a socialist society, no person or authority has the right to own a means of transportation for the purpose of renting it, for this also means controlling the needs of others.

Don't think of living without a family because Gaddafi thinks you are worthless without one:

the individual without a family has no value or social life

On democracy and individual rights it is pretty clear as well:

Therefore, the only solution to the persistent problem of democracy is through The Third Universal Theory.

According to this theory, the democratic system is a cohesive structure whose foundations are firmly laid on Basic Popular Conferences and People's Committees which convene in a General People's Congress. This is absolutely the only form of genuine democratic society.

In summary, the era of the masses, which follows the age of the republics, excites the feelings and dazzles the eyes. But even though the vision of this era denotes genuine freedom of the masses and their happy emancipation from the bonds of external authoritarian structures, it warns also of the dangers of a period of chaos and demagoguery, and the threat of a return to the authority of the individual, the sect and party, instead of the authority of the people.

In other words there cannot be political parties, and "the authority of the individual" is a threat.  

 When he writes about women, his mental stability must be in question since he decides to embark on a lesson in biology:

According to gynaecologists, women menstruate every month or so, while men, being male, do not menstruate or suffer during the monthly period. A woman, being a female, is naturally subject to monthly bleeding. When a woman does not menstruate, she is pregnant. If she is pregnant, she becomes, due to pregnancy, less active for about a year, which means that all her natural activities are seriously reduced until she delivers her baby. When she delivers her baby or has a miscarriage, she suffers puerperium, a condition attendant on delivery or miscarriage. As man does not get pregnant, he is not liable to the conditions which women, being female, suffer. Afterwards a woman may breast-feed the baby she bore. Breast-feeding continues for about two years. Breastfeeding means that a woman is so inseparable from her baby that her activity is seriously reduced. She becomes directly responsible for another person whom she assists in his or her biological functions; without this assistance that person would die. The man, on the other hand, neither conceives nor breast-feeds. End of gynaecological statement!

Who knew??!!

However, in case you wondered whether he was just a rather odd tyrant, then consider he would ban adoption or fostering, so that such children can be reared by the state:

As for children who have neither family nor shelter, society is their guardian, and only for them, should society establish nurseries and related institutions. It is better for them to be taken care of by society rather than by individuals who are not their parents. 

Society indeed!

Master of tautology he is, with gems like:  "The living creature is a being who inevitably lives until it is dead." 

He wouldn't have liked Helen Clark:

The woman who rejects pregnancy, marriage, beautification and femininity for reasons of health abandons her natural role in life under these coercive conditions of ill health. The woman who rejects marriage, pregnancy or motherhood because of work abandons her natural role under similar coercive conditions. The woman who rejects marriage, pregnancy or maternity without any concrete cause abandons her natural role as a result of a coercive and morally deviant circumstances.  

He goes on about women being equal, although then says:   It is equally unjust and dictatorial for women to find themselves under the working conditions of men. 

Apparently, he thinks they should get easier conditions.

His view on race leave me speechless with its random nonsense:  

 In addition, the inevitable cycle of social history, which includes the Yellow people's domination of the world when it marched from Asia, and the White people's carrying out a wide-ranging colonialist movement covering all the continents of the world, is now giving way to the re-emergence of Black people.  Black people are now in a very backward social situation, but such backwardness works to bring about their numerical superiority because their low standard of living has shielded them from methods of birth control and family planning. Also, their old social traditions place no limit on marriages, leading to their accelerated growth. The population of other races has decreased because of birth control, restrictions on marriage, and constant occupation in work, unlike the Blacks, who tend to be less obsessive about work in a climate which is continuously hot.

 

Education seems peculiarly libertarian, unlike reality in Libya:

State-controlled and standardized education is, in fact, a forced stultification of the masses. All governments which set courses of education in terms of formal curricula and force people to learn those courses coerce their citizens. All methods of education prevailing in the world should be destroyed through a universal cultural revolution that frees the human mind from curricula of fanaticism which dictate a process of deliberate distortion of man's tastes, conceptual ability and mentality.  

He argues for free schools with the widest choice of learning.  Something Libya doesn't exactly have by any stretch of the imagination.

  

Funny for a police state to be based on:

"Ignorance will come to an end when everything is presented as it actually is and when knowledge about everything is available to each person in the manner that suits him or her."

Shutting down the internet and mobile phone networks is consistent with that apparently.

He thinks sport shouldn't have spectators only participants:

When the masses march and play sport in the centre of playing fields and open spaces, stadiums will be vacant and become redundant. This will take place when the masses become aware of the fact; that sport is a public activity which must be practised rather than watched. This is more reasonable as an alternative than the present costum of a helpless apathetic majority that merely watches.

Grandstands will disappear because no one will be there to occupy them. Those who are unable to perform the roles of heroism in life, who are ignorant of the events of history; who fall short of envisaging the future, and who are not serious enough in their own lives, are the trivial people who fill the seats of the theatres and cinemas to watch the events of life in order to learn their course. They are like pupils who occupy school desks because they are uneducated and also initially illiterate.

Nurse!! Nurse?? Get his pills!

Libya has no official opposition of any kind, Gaddafi is murdering protestors again and again.  Protestors have appeared, bravely, outside the Libyan Embassy in London (brave given how Libya once started shooting from its embassy some years ago, murdering a policewoman).  

Good luck to them, Gaddafi is the Arab ruler who has most exported murder and death of any of those currently in power.  He deserves at the very least, a bullet.

Libya is different

Following on from Egypt, the protests in multiple other Middle Eastern countries demonstrate one simple point - politicians with absolute power corrupt absolutely.  Algeria and Yemen have long been wracked by insurgency and civil conflict, with dictatorial regimes challenged primarily by Islamists in both cases.  Algeria had a brutal bloody civil war following the election of Islamists in the early 1990s, but today, especially for a country with ample oil and gas reserves, life is fairly bleak there.   Yemen has not got the same resources, but it has become a base for a branch of Al Qaeda and has gotten progressively more dangerous in recent years.

In both cases there is a real risk that organised Islamists will take over.  Algeria is too close to Europe for comfort, whereas Yemen's location adjacent to the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden could hamper shipping in a strategic location.   However, both have been somewhat failed states since independence, run by either militarist or Marxist strongmen again and again, swinging back and forth between Western and non-Western supporters.

Bahrain is different, as an oil rich absolute monarchy with sectarian issues, it is a surprise that would send shocks through its autocratic neighbours.  Simply being a benevolent dictator dishing out the proceeds of being part of an oil cartel may not be enough anymore. 

Yet Libya is another story altogether.  Gaddafi has been a totalitarian dictator for over 41 years.  He runs a personality cult that has parallels with those in North Korea.  There is no semblance of freedom of speech, open political discourse or democracy in Libya.  He had published his own special political thoughts in the "Green Book" equivalent to Mao's "Little Red Book", in which he rejects liberal democracy and embraces socialism and "people's committees".

Gaddafi is an accomplished murderer and oppressor, he expelled the small Italian community shortly after gaining power.  He imposed an Islamic legal framework, banning alcohol and putting himself up as an authentic Muslim.  His police state includes thousands of informers, his family share in the abundant wealth he has taken for them, and live essentially outside the law.  Not quite Saddam Hussein's sons, but not that far removed.

Some of his achievements:

- Sending hit-squads to assassinate political opponents residing in other countries, nine were killed;

- Sent troops to protect Idi Amin's dictatorship from Tanzanian troops that were fighting Amin's attempt to annex part of Tanzania.  Gaddafi gave Idi Amin safe haven after he fled Uganda;

- In 1984, a gunman at the Libyan Embassy in London shot and killed policewoman Yvonne Fletcher as he shot at protestors outside the Embassy.  Ten other people were hit;

- The Chad-Libyan conflict as Gaddafi sought to annex the Aozou Strip.  He failed, but around 8,500 were killed in the war;

- Bombing of UTA Flight 772 in 1989, killing 170 people;

- Bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988 (Lockerbie), killing 270 people;

- Bombing of a West Berlin discotheque in 1986, killing 3 and injuring 230;

- Supplies of weapons, ammunition and bombs to the IRA in the 1970s and 1980s;

- Weapons and arms training to ETA in the 1970s;

- Weapons and funding for the Moro National Liberation Front (Islamist rebels) in the Philippines in the 1970s;

- Financing for the Black September Movement that murdered 12 at the Munich Olympics in 1972;

- Weapons to Iran after the 1979 revolution saw ties severed with the US and USSR;

- Support for the PLO during its terrorist phase, and subsequent expulsion of 50,000 Palestinians when the PLO started negotiating with Israel;

- 1200 prisoners killed in Abu Salim prison in 1996.

He thinks a lot of himself saying "I am an international leader, the dean of the Arab rulers, the king of kings of Africa and the imam (leader) of Muslims, and my international status does not allow me to descend to a lower level." at an Arab League summit in 2009. 

So he is quite a piece of work.  Whilst Libya has liberalised moderately in recent years, largely due to access to the internet being allowed, it is still one of the most oppressive states in the Arab world.   No organisations are permitted that are not state authorised.  Political parties are banned.  The media is severely restricted, with journalists prosecuted for criticising the regime.   

If Libyans can overthrow this murdering thug then good luck to them, it can only be a good thing, but it will be especially hard.  It is perhaps only more difficult to overthrow the Saudi autocracy or Syria's one party police state.

Though I have noticed a distinct lack of leftwing commentary cheering on those seeking to overthrow Gaddafi, who makes Mubarak look like an angel.  Maybe because too many of them miss the days when this mad anti-American thug would fund and arm them?   Bearing in mind that a handful of Maori nationalist thugs once visited Tripoli to learn about revolution - not that the New Zealand media at all holds people to account for having sympathies with murdering leftwing dictatorships.

Gaddafi is now using snipers to take down protestors and has thugs storming homes of suspected dissidents according to the Daily Telegraph.  One report goes:

"The soldiers are vicious killers. People are so terrified of them that they've been doing everything possible to get away.  Women and children were seen jumping off Giuliana Bridge in Benghazi to escape. Many of them were killed by the impact of hitting the water, while others were drowned.
Fatih, 26, another Benghazi resident, said: "A lot of the thugs he's employing are not Arabic speakers. They're armed to the teeth and only use live ammunition. They don't ask questions – they just shoot. Buildings and cars have been set on fire here, and the situation is getting worse. The dead and injured are everywhere."

Nice.  However, am I wrong in thinking how remarkably quiet the left in the West is about Libya, simply because Gaddafi can't by any sane stretch of the imagination be seen as the result of Western interference?

I blame Roger Douglas

The retirement of Sir Roger Douglas is not surprising given he could be described as the venerable man of New Zealand politics, particularly since none of his generation remain in Parliament.   He has outlived his first finance nemesis, Rob Muldoon, for some years.  Outlived the man who led him into power (David Lange) by some as well, and all subsequent Prime Ministers bar Helen Clark have long left direct involvement in politics (as did his successors, David Caygill and Ruth Richardson).

Yet he had a profound effect that I blame him for.  He got me passionately interested in politics of principle not pragmatism.

See I was in my teens when Labour was elected in 1984, having remembered nothing other than Muldoon grumpily always being in charge, in an almost personality cult like perpetual presence on the news.  I remember, barring the exceptions outlined by Peter Cresswell (and voluntary unionism), Muldoon banning inflation, banning interest rate increases and directing the economy like someone who was always in control.

Yet all he did was fiddle and create unintended (but predictable) consequences.  Muldoon was known to get government departments like the Railways Department to hire people en masse in the year before the election, to soak up unemployment numbers, almost Maoist like to control politics.   Roger Douglas was something else.

David Lange's rhetoric about "consensus" and the banal anti-nuclear policy were the touchstones of the 1984 campaign, which was only made more exciting by Bob Jones and the New Zealand Party putting the boot into the insipidly spineless National Party.   However, behind the scenes Roger Douglas was ready to dish out the medicine New Zealand needed, to correct the gross distortions of many years of intervention, regulation, sclerotic state sector and stifling levels of taxation.

There is far far too much to recall about what life was like before the reforms started by Douglas, stifled by Lange, extended by Richardson and only slightly rolled back.   The left in New Zealand would rather forget about that era, because most were too blinded by the carrots of the anti-American anti-nuclear policy, the creation of the Treaty of Waitangi grievance industry, a bevy of new government departments (Women's Affairs, Pacific Island Affairs, Environment, Conservation), return to compulsory unionism and the hijacking of the education agenda.  You see whilst all of the things they liked were happening, Roger Douglas took a multi pronged approach, one which the economically illiterate left didn't understand, and which made the reforms of Reagan, Hawke and even to an extent Thatcher seem a bit wet.

Let's just briefly recall some of his biggest steps:

- Ending the wage, price and interest rate freezes, that had choked off credit and choked off any chance of prices and wages reflect demand and supply.  After a few years of intense pain, it all settled down;

- Floated the exchange rate, so the Reserve Bank wouldn't be pouring taxpayers money into propping up the NZ$, the immediate result was dramatic devaluation which eventually returned to somewhat higher levels;

- Tearing down the walls of import licensing, that gave a handful of businesses profitable monopolies to extract rents from consumers, whilst shutting out innovation, and dramatically reducing import tariffs so New Zealand would stop assembling TVs, telephones (and eventually cars) at prices several times that of other countries, and along with the acceleration of CER saw a wider range of food, clothing, shoes and other consumer goods at cheaper prices;

- Abolish umpteen statutory monopolies on market entry, and foreign investment restrictions which was visibly seen in new banks, domestic airline competition, new rental car firms, competing telephone companies for long distance and international calls (initially), new radio and TV stations, new service stations;

- Abolished subsidies for agriculture and most businesses, which saw many farms foreclose, but also the rise of diversification in agriculture.  The viticulture sector was able to take off, along with horticulture and the rise of more specialist producers.  The start of the phasing out of producer board saw exporters become more competitive, as they searched for new markets in Asia, South America and the Middle East, whilst Europe proved less and less accessible for agriculture;

- Reformed tax by abolishing the 66% top rate, flattening income tax rates, abolishing sales taxes that peculiarly penalised cameras and records at rates of up to 40%, replacing them all with a flat 10% on everything.  This simplification of the tax system killed all but the very high end tax advisory industry (H&R Block disappeared from NZ) and increased revenue;

- Drastically reformed and then privatised ailing state industries. From electricity generators to petroleum exploration, postal services, three banks, a steel company, television, state radio, land holdings, forestry holdings, coal mining company, the telecommunications company, two insurance companies, an airline, the weather forecaster, the air traffic control service, an international shipping company, a film company, a print works, a hotel company and a civil engineering company, were all either just restructured into commercial structures or sold.  Several subsequently went bankrupt, others had success (Peter Jackson bought the National Film Unit), but all dramatically improved performance.

Most of all he brought to politics a new honesty of principle and purpose.  In essence, New Zealand was going bankrupt and was so tied up in regulations and monopolies it was stagnating its way to developing country status.  New Zealand had dropped from being one of the three countries with the highest GDP per capita in the world in the 1950s to being ranked below Spain by the 1980.   He stopped the rot, and set the stage for a more service, export and dynamically oriented economy to emerge.

The magic of his approach was speed, he liked to say that he would aim at multiple targets at once, so at any one time those who might oppose would be split between multiple causes - causes of course based on spending other people's money, protecting monopolies or protecting failure.   However, it was the slowing down that started the failure to complete his "unfinished business".

What hamstrung him was the growth of the "new-left" public service that came with Labour, the reintroduction of compulsory unionism and the unwillingness to go further and faster with spending cuts, and cutting taxes (to a flat rate of income tax).  With the heavily unionised health and education sectors subject only to base level reform, it proved difficult to seriously address the underlying issues of those monopolies - and so it remains.

He didn't do what was popular, he thought of the long term, and I appreciated that.  I saw through the calls from those wanting their businesses protected, businesses that ripped off consumers and taxpayers by charging more than the excluded competition, and taxpayers by demanding subsidies.  I saw through the bleets of the worshippers of state owned trading departments, having experienced the ineptness of the Post Office, the extortion of its national phone service (the days when making a "toll" call required careful planning and was for birthdays or emergencies only), the infamous railways that lost freight, manufactured its own rivets, bought cheap and nasty underpowered buses and couldn't make a profit even while it had a statutory monopoly on most of its business!   

Roger Douglas rescued New Zealand's autarchic import substitution economy, that enriched a select few monopoly holders, kept tens of thousands in easy low productivity employment, inflated prices of everything from appliances to cars to shoes to records.   Only a tiny handful of Alliance retards would turn the clock back, prop up farmers with subsidies, have the Post Office run all of the phones and have a monopoly on delivery services, have Air NZ protected from "too much" foreign competition, and expensive locally produced clothes.

I supported Labour in 1990 because of Roger Douglas and the ongoing courage that government showed in doing what was unpopular in the face of a media that was consistently in favour of more state.  It sold Telecom months out from the election, whilst National gutlessly got elected on the back of a moaning public.  Of course after that Ruth Richardson carried the banner and did more of the good work for three years, till National's conservative gutless instincts took over, and reforms were stopped, reversed or slowed down.  Douglas wrote Unfinished Business, and it had a grand plan to move health, education and superannuation into personalised private accounts, with choice, and despite the mean spirited lies of the left - he wanted universal coverage.

You see Roger Douglas still believed in an element of socialism.  He wanted to retain the welfare state, funded from GST, with no income tax.  He wanted universal pensions, just provided with private accounts, topped up from GST for those who didn't save enough.  He wanted compulsory health insurance and education accounts for children, which would be topped up for those who didn't earn enough.  He believed in universalism, he believed in taxation, he even believed in ACC (just full competition between private providers that were compulsory to buy insurance from).  He simply believed that state providers are rather inept and monopolies deliver poor service inefficiently.

So while he is no libertarian, I am glad he got me fired up.  There is no compare between him and Bill English.  He is a giant compared to other MPs and it is a travesty of politics and New Zealand that he couldn't be a Cabinet Minister in the current government.

You see the revolution he started was, as Lindsay Perigo once said, not a revolution in the hearts and minds (although quietly most MPs wouldn't reverse what he did).  

For John Key to appoint him a Finance Minister would have required testicular fortitude that is scarce in the National Party, after all it was Jim Bolger who opposed Douglas in Opposition, and did nothing to reverse any of his policies as PM.   However, National just reflects the appalling inability of so many New Zealanders to understand their own history, in part because the minority who would turn the clock back have bulwarks in the media and education sectors.   National doesn't have it in them to defend Douglas - but he doesn't need defending.

With the exception of the economically illiterate socialist Greens, Jim Anderton, remaining Alliance retards (and the Alliance retard wing of Labour) and Winston Peters, Douglas's legacy is quietly acknowledged. 

His faults were real, for he was no libertarian, but I'm not going to dwell on those today.  For quite simply I blame Roger Douglas, for showing me that politics can include politicians brave enough to take on the braying mob, to not be a smarmy populist like Winston Peters, or a shrieking harpie like Pam Corkery, or a hand-wringing compromiser like Jim Bolger.  

I didn't always agree with Roger Douglas's principles, but I often agreed with his policies and he did far more good than harm in New Zealand.  Had his business not been unfinished, it wouldn't be quite what I would agree with, but I don't doubt New Zealanders as a whole would be a lot wealthier,  happier, healthier, better educated and have a far more vibrant and diverse economy.

The fact that we don't can be laid at the memories of David Lange, Margaret Pope, Jim Bolger, Jim Anderton, Winston Peters, Helen Clark, and the million or so New Zealanders who consistently vote for dependency, mediocrity and mundane fear driven politics of envy.

So farewell Roger, this government never deserved you and in some ways neither did New Zealand.   However, I'm glad I lived and grew through you being courageous and steadfast - and I know you don't need the endorsement, recognition and gratitude of others to know you were largely right.

Oh and Rodney? You are not even half the man he is, and you know it.

Laugh at Kim Jong Il day? (UPDATED)

Be glad you can, for around 24 million people who live north of the Korean DMZ, they can't because they are forced to celebrate his 69th (actually 70th) birthday on February 16.  They are forced to buy "gifts" to give to senior party cadres, in order to avoid being singled out, ostracised, criticised, punished and taken to a gulag to celebrate the birthday of the Great Leader and the boundless feats he has performed for the country.   Usually birthday includes extra rations, this year it appear they are not going to happen.

Kim Jong Il is short, apparently has a speech impediment that would have made King George VI seem confident, losing his memory, is ill from various chronic illnesses due to a life of alcohol, rich food and lazy living, and absolute hates the Team America movie.   Because it makes him look ridiculous.

So does this blog, which is simply called "Kim Jong Il looking at things", and is exactly what is says, and if it came from North Korea the person producing it would get executed.

So spare a thought for the folk who have to endure a public holiday, being forced to celebrate a man who they cannot hope to express their views about, who lives a rarified existence of sumptuous luxury paid for by the virtual slave labour of the prison state inherited from his murderous, megalomaniacal, mendacious, mediocrity of a father.

You see, the main trend of the international media is to ridicule and think absurd this prison state, with far too little attention given to the atrocious way of living they endure. 

Outside this place, you might like to ask a couple of questions.

First, consider this phrase from a North Korean broadcast and think how alike it seems from its unwitting intellectual companions in the West who share a hatred for capitalism:

"The youth of Eastern Europe, who were at the forefront of the destruction of socialism, were soaked in the rotten, sick culture of capitalism, and this resulted in the destruction of the fruits of the revolutionary war previous generations had accomplished...When the young became soaked in the ideology of a capitalism that knows nothing beyond money, they came to fall into a materialism that thought not of the Party and state’s benefits, not even the people’s benefits"

It takes little to see what an absolute absence of capitalism results in - mass starvation, totalitarian brutality, mass regimentation and an almost complete culture of reality evasion, suppression, denial and manufacturing.  Bear in mind this place provided inspiration for Nicolae Ceausescu and Mobutu Sese Seko.  What happens when you suppress capitalism?  It is fairly obvious.

Secondly, what gift were New Zealand taxpayers forced to give to Kim Jong Il, via Winston Peters, when the last government was the first Western country to improve relations with North Korea after the nuclear test? I'd like to know without having to visit the Kim Jong Il International Friendship Exhibition.

UPDATE: Funny how today the NZ Parliament has been debating whether students should be allowed to choose whether they belong to student unions.  No issue in New Zealand today quite so starkly exposes the hypocritical empty hatred of individual freedom, the craven self-interested desire for power and control and the mealy mouthed "wider interests, greater good" excuses the left can roll out.   It boils down to whether individuals have freedom of association.  If you can't get that, then you can't talk about human rights or anything of the like, when you think it is ok to make people belong to and pay for an organisation that they do not agree with, and for that organisation to persistently claim it somehow is representative.  It is immoral, it is fraudulent, and Kim Jong Il would approve.

Forgotten Eritrea

Eritrea is mostly known as the part of Ethiopia where some of the worst famines happened in the 1980s as a result of the socialist collectivisation and forced relocation policies of the Mengistu dictatorship.   It gained independence in 1993 following a referendum, and then the rot really set in.

Eritrea has a constitution proclaiming multi-party democracy, shame it is ineffective.

Eritrea is in truth a one-party police state.  No other parties are allowed to exist.  No independent media is permitted.  In 2001 all independent newspapers were closed down.  Critics of the government are arrested and imprisoned without trial.  There are no foreign correspondents in Eritrea, resulting in Reporters without Borders rating it as less free than North Korea (which does at least allow foreign journalists in sporadically).   Eritrea only recognises Catholic, Orthodox and Lutheran Christianity, persecuting other faiths and Christian sects, prohibiting private meetings of worship of other faiths. 

20% of Eritrea is under control of rebel forces of various groups, including Islamists.

It has shut down the limited internet access it had.  Banned satellite TV because of the news in Egypt.

There was a lot of support for Eritrea getting independence from Ethiopia given the mistreatment of Eritreans by the socialists who were in power in Ethiopia.

However today it is virtually ignored.  Yes, once again, Mubarak might have been a murdering thieving dictator, but he was a lover of freedom and virtue compared to the People's Front for Democracy and Justice.

Northern Gateway should be sold

The news that the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA), which if you haven't been keeping up is the result of Labour merging Transit NZ with its funder  Land Transport NZ (because the then government was tired of one government agency holding another accountable), has not prosecuted a single toll evader on the Northern Gateway toll road is not surprising.

Quite simply NZTA has not a smidgeon of experience in running toll roads as there have been no state highway toll roads (the Tauranga ones have been council owned) since the Auckland Harbour Bridge.   On top of that, the decision to toll a road once called ALPURT B2 and before that the Orewa Bypass, was very political, as Transit NZ wanted to prove it was competent as a tolling authority under the Land Transport Management Act - a child of the Labour, United Future and the Greens during the last government's second term.

The rate of evasion at 4% of trips is good by international standards, but reports such as those in the NZ Herald today undermine this significantly.   I know about good practice with toll roads, I have designed business rules for them, and one of those is to pursue repeat recividist non-payers with prosecution.  You see, in effect, non payment is trespass.

All of the net toll revenue is used to service and repay debt used to pay half the cost of the road (the rest has been funded through fuel tax and road user charges, so motorists effectively half pay for the road without the toll).  If there was a private owner, you can be sure that it would pursue prosecution and seek court costs from motorists who continue to not pay.  

Moreover, a private owner would likely run the tolling operation more efficiently than the government.  The reported NZ$0.75 transaction cost is rather high by international standards, it should be around a third less.   Why is it high?  For starters it is being run by a long established government bureaucracy called the Transport  Registry Centre.  Sure it does the best job it can, but it is not commercially driven, so is unlikely to be able to be as efficient as foreign counterparts.  Secondly, the sheer volume of transactions is pitifully low.  Thirdly, without the experience it is unable to adopt best practice easily or automatically.  Finally, unless it goes offshore it cannot get decent professional advice on these things, given the lack of experience in the country at all.   

So why not sell the Northern Gateway?  There is an alternative route after all, the original highway through Orewa (and even SH16 off to the west).  It would showcase how no one should fear privately owned highways.  Given many French and most Japanese motorways are privately owned, it shouldn't be a big deal, but the New Zealand left is rabidly irrational about such things.

Indeed, selling it ought to pay off the debt and some and it might mean the Tauranga Eastern Motorway is run better (that should be privately funded as well).   It might also mean the NZ Herald writes no more editorials that have involved the complete absence of research or journalism on the topic.   Given the NZ Herald somehow links this to regional fuel tax, when Labour approved tolls on the road in the first place, shows once again how incredibly shallow and nearly useless the media can be.  

Egyptian democracy and majority views

There are good reasons to support democracy.  For any fully functioning liberal democracy (not nonsensical "people's", "Islamic" "traditional" or other fake versions) a country needs free speech, free and independent media and for key state functions (justice/law and order) to be relatively free of corruption.  Those are all good things in and of themselves.   Free and fair elections cannot exist unless all political views can be expressed, and media outlets and options are not controlled, censored or monopolised by the state or ruling parties.   Free and fair elections also cannot exist if electoral authorities are corrupt, courts are corrupt or biased politically and most of all police and other forces of law and order are used as personal thugs by politicians.   Again, it is a good thing for the courts, police, electoral officials and the state as a whole to be politically neutral.

In that respect I like liberal democracy because with it comes some rather important foundations of a free society.

The other positive is that it gives people a peaceful means to debate and discuss politics and public policy, it provides a way to ration political power that provides A check on politicians.  I say "a" check, because it is far from adequate.  The best that can be said is that it provides a means to remove politicians from power.   Yet, without the most basic constitutional limits it is itself threatened by politicians who can be elected and abolish liberal democracy, free speech and the foundations that make it all work.  That is what happened in Germany when the Nazis got elected.   Unfettered majoritarian rule can destroy itself, let alone what it can do to the minority.

That's why advocates of freedom talk of constitutionally-limited government more than democracy.  Democracy is useful, but inadequate.  Constitutionally-limited government has a residual use for democracy to debate the role of the state within the limits of that constitution.  

So what this means for Egypt is that democracy, based on the majority will of Egyptians may not mean freedom.

Amy Peikoff points out in this article, the results of a Pew Research Center poll, conducted of Egyptians last year, paints a negative picture of this new "freedom" if politicians are elected to embrace the following:

95% prefer religion play a large role in politics.  Consider what that means for those not of the majority religion, or any religion.  A non-secular state doesn't exactly leave room for views not of the dominant religion.

84% favor the death penalty for people who leave the Muslim faith.  This is the situation already in Afghanistan, Iran, Mauritania, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, United Arab Emirates and Yemen.   Nice.

82% support stoning adulterers.  Great.

54% support a law segregating women from men in the workplace.   Modern.

54% believe suicide bombings that kill civilians can be justified.  Comforting.

Without a constitutionally-limited government which guarantees some minimum individual rights, Egyptians wont have freedom, because so many of them want to vote away the freedoms of others.

What is astonishing are those on the left who rightfully damn the dictatorship under Mubarak, but who are completely non-chalant and don't give a thought to freedom in Egypt as long as they have some form of democracy - like Iran's witless idiot in New Zealand, a man who think if Egypt becomes an Islamist state "so what".   That's right Bomber, fuck the people who get executed for leaving Islam, fuck the people who get imprisoned for insulting Islam, fuck the people who get beaten up, imprisoned and summarily executed for political protests.  Look forward to the cheering on of a Syrian revolution as well, except that doesn't have the hated USA backing the current regime, so it doesn't really matter does it?

Egypt - Now what?

Mubarak resigns.  Millions cheer.

Iran is joyous.

Hamas says it is "beginning of the victory of the Egyptian Revolution".

I am pleased, cautiously.  I am slightly optimistic on balance.   Let's look at the overall picture.

Mubarak gained power at a critical time when Islamists had assassinated Anwar Sadat, because he made peace with Israel.   The real risk was that Egypt would fall into Islamist hands, but Hosni Mubarak took charge and maintained the status quo.  That was a good thing at a time when the USSR was actively seeking to use the Muslim world to wage war against the West and Western allies like Israel.

Egypt had already been rewarded by the US for peace with Israel in the form of aid.   However, Mubarak's first priority was to avoid another Iran.  Islamist backed terrorist actions were sporadic in the 1980s against Christian and tourist sites.  Tanzim aj-Jihad was led by Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman (most recently convicted of seditious conspiracy to commit terrorism in the US and now serving a life sentence), who called for attacks on Christian Copt targets including robberies.   Israeli tourists were also targets in the 1980s and 1990s, as were foreign tourists more generally.   1993 being one of the bloodiest years with over 200 killed.   Gama'a al-Islamiya was responsible for the infamous 1997 Luxor massacre where 62 tourists were murdered by Islamists.

In short, Egypt has spent much of the past three decades under siege from within by Islamists.  Let's be clear, the Muslim Brotherhood itself has not been the instigators of these attacks, but it has not been unsympathetic.  Mubarak's regime has been authoritarian because of its response to attempts to destroy Egypt's tourist industry through terrorism.

Only blind anti-Americanism would ignore the good done by maintaining confrontation against such thugs.

Yet Mubarak himself and his cronies have been politicians, and with that comes corruption, nepotism and theft.  His family's reported wealth of US$42 billion is scandalous.  Whilst he did open the economy, it is strangled by privileges, monopolies, a sclerotic bureaucracy and a judicial/police system that is barely independent.  I say barely because it outdoes most others in the Arab world which tells you how bad it is elsewhere.

In other words, he acted as a politician.  He wielded power to benefit those he liked, took it from those he didn't, and enriched himself, his family and friends like a mafia don.  The best that can be said is that he stopped far far worse outcomes for many years.  The worst is that he ran an authoritarian state, with strict press controls (although next to none on the internet) and a rabidly cruel and random police force that would use torture and brutality against whomever it wished.  It is no excuse that he is not even in the same league as Qaddafi, Saddam Hussein, Hafez or Bashar Assad, or the oil rich Wahhabi royal kleptocracies.

The problem with any such authoritarian rule is that at the same time as suppressing the forces of darkness of Islamism, it suppresses legitimate criticism, public debate and discussion.  It protects the inept and incompetent.   It protects those who thieve, bully and sideline other citizens. 

Without an independent judiciary, a police force that is remotely accountable for its actions and a thriving independent press, politicians and their lackeys could act with impunity.  Mubarak's downfall is of his, his family and his supporters' making.  Egyptians do have legitimate concerns with the misrule that has suppressed accountability and has brought much injustice to so many of them.   It is the way of any authoritarian administration, and also the way of politicians who are above the law, and politicians who are given the power to act in ways private citizens never could.

That is the problem not just of Mubarak, but unfettered government.   Politicians have only one set of tools that make them special - the ability to use force.  Unless that is kept in check to only be used to protect citizens from force, it ends up being used against them.

So for now Egypt will have a transition.  It is probably more free now that it will be for some time, as the screws are removed from the press and political discourse.  The main goal of many will be elections, but what matters more is civil society, discussion, debate and the freedom of expression that is so rare in that part of the world.   May Egyptians keep that, but they need more.

A rewritten constitution must defend the rights of all Egyptians to freedom of speech, including freedom of religion and for the state to not discriminate on the basis of religion (or no religion).  Alas, this mere guarantee of a secular state is unlikely.   What is likely is for Egyptians to get perhaps free and fair elections, and select a new set of politicians, seeking to enrich themselves and wield power over people.

Yet there is no alternative likely.  It is likely that no single political group will win an election, so a coalition will emerge that will seek compromise, that may erode the freedoms that now exist.  Yet the priority must be to clear out corruption, raise the performance of the judiciary and police to levels of accountability, balance and objectivity.   This wont happen quickly.

As much as Israel is not popular in Egypt, the appetite for war will also be low.  The army is dependent on US aid, and knows that will end if there are any attempts to take on Israel.  Of course Israel does possess the ultimate deterrent.

So I suspect Egypt will muddle along, get an election and have a government of compromises, coalitions with a strong Islamic tinge to it.   Egypt is not Turkey, but it may be more like Indonesia.

As for the rest of the Arab world, there have been protests in Algeria, which already suffered a civil war with Islamists in the 1990s.  Yemen faces the same, with Al Qaeda waiting in the wings.

Political freedom is always to be welcomed, as is free speech.  However, some want to use that freedom to gain power then shut it down.  That must be the great fear.  For now strength must be given to liberal minded Egyptians who do believe in secularism and do believe in maintaining that freedom, and peace.

NZ newspaper websites useless on Mubarak resignation

It has been well over an hour since Mubarak resigned.

This is the page on Stuff world news and on the NZ Herald.

Useless, lazy, small town, small country, gossip mongering, celebrity and sports obsessed small minded amateurs.

Even the official Xinhua News Agency of the People's Republic of China, which has provided cursory coverage, has the story, in English and Chinese.

For shame.

TVNZ had it.  Radio NZ had it.  

TV3 joins the useless pile, for not having it, but that's an entertainment channel.

So the story is in NZ, you use foreign websites for foreign news.

Kim Jong Il is losing his memory, as collapse inches forward

Whilst the mainstream media understandably focuses on Egypt, signs that the world's most totalitarian and brutal dictatorship by far is slowly unravelling are becoming more prevalent.

The latest being a series of reports of Kim Jong Il's increasingly erratic and unpredictable behaviour, including losing his memory.  The most profound example being one when he forgot his father - "Great Leader" and officially eternal President Kim Il Sung - has been dead since 1994.

Daily NK reports:

“In December, 2009 when he visited Sungjin Steel Manufacturing Complex in Kim Chaek, North Hamkyung Province, Kim received a report on the ‘Completion of the process for the manufacturing of Juche steel.’ Taking up the report, he said, ‘Report this fact immediately to the Suryeong!’ The people there were totally embarrassed.”

Suryeong is Korean for "Great Leader" and was a commonly used pronoun for Kim Il Sung. 

The same article cites Kim Jong Il being angry in 2009 about the name of a college having been changed, even though it was he who did it in 2003.  He also was angry at the dismissal of a man who he had fired the year before.

There are plenty of example of dictators losing the plot due to drug use (Macias Nguema, Ali Soilih), but this would indicate Kim Jong Il 's day are very much numbered.

Meanwhile, the elder brother of designated successor Kim Jong Eun, Kim Jong Nam has held a press interview with Tokyo Shimbun where he hopes his brother opens up the country to reform., but acknowledges it could bring systemic collapse of the entire political system.   Kim Jong Nam reportedly lives in China or Macau, and has been fairly open with foreign press about the situation in the country.   He personally opposes his brother succeeding his father and claimed Kim Jong Il himself opposed it, but has proceeded to ensure "political stability".   He has also claimed no interest at all in returning to North Korea to have a political life.

Other reports are:

- Black market DVDs of South Korean films, music and TV programmes are seeping in showing for the first time life in South Korea, which has been officially depicted as poverty stricken and brutal.  Youth of higher officials and Party members have this material.  Such material entering the country was unheard of a decade ago.

- Leaflets denouncing the regime are circulating, as more and more people bravely seek to undermine the regime.   Be clear that this was completely unheard of for the last 60 years in a country that has consistently had the worst or second worst press freedom in the world.

- Video of a group called Young People's League for Freedom openly defying the regime, desecrating images of Kim Jong Il (video not online).

Meanwhile, 154,000 political prisoners are held in the most brutal gulags on the planet in North Korea.  You'd think human rights organisations and so called peace campaigners would be holding placards outside North Korean embassies and demanding change.  However, given the US has always been an implacable enemy of the country, and virtually no foreign companies have a presence there, I don't think their heart would be in it - which tells you a bit about what that agenda really is about.  After all if torturing and enslaving children as political prisoners can't get you agitated, then can you really be said to be interested in human rights?

Unlike the organisations like HRNK, North Korea Freedom Coalition and Liberty in North Korea which campaign openly about the atrocities in North Korea, and actively provide help for refugees who flee via China, where officials happily hand refugees back to the regime to be executed or brutalised. 

Egypt is a holiday camp compared to North Korea.  Yet although North Korea has nuclear weapons and a destructive ideology, it is not as destructive and aggressive as Islamism.  Nobody gets called a racist for damning those who think Kim Il Sung was great or that Marxism-Leninism is destructive and pernicious.  Nobody thinks that criticising the North Korean political system is a criticise of people themselves or derogatory towards them.  

In that respect, whilst North Korea's collapse will be interesting and highly relevant to its neighbours, and potentially dangerous in the short term.  Egypt's future has a far more existential influence about our lives.   I am not too worried about the handful of useful idiots in New Zealand who sympathise with North Korea, but Islamists are another story altogether.

Veitch vs Harawira

So whilst John Key gets excoriated by the left for engaging in an interview with convicted violent criminal Tony Veitch.

The stony silence about Titewhai Harawira.  

What's the difference?

Veitch was a man abusing a woman, Harawira was a woman abusing people of both sexes.

Veitch is a New Zealander of European extraction, Harawira is a New Zealander of Maori extraction.

Veitch's crime was in the context of a private relationship, Harawira was contracted and paid by the taxpayer to provide care.

Veitch's victim was a woman, clearly unable to defend herself against his strength, Harawira's victims were mentally ill, clearly unable to defend themselves.

Veitch is never forgiven by those who claim to oppose violence in all its forms, Harawira's past is conveniently forgotten.

Nothing is quite as empty as the hypocritical judgment of the pseudo-liberal, "violence is ok when it suits us", peace loving "except when fighting for human rights" left.  Titewhai Harawira is as guilty and as violent as Tony Veitch, but to condemn a Maori woman just wouldn't be on would it?  After all, it is not about judging the content of people's character or their actions, but judging them on their ancestry and their genitalia.

Individualism means judging every person on their actions, and leaving race and sex out of it.   Leftwing collectivism means judging the same actions as different, according to who does them.

That's how a Maori woman can violent abuse mentally ill people, and be forgiven. Because she is a Maori woman.

Just some kind of democracy, not freedom, not peace for Egypt

That's what the Greens want for Egypt.

Well you'd think that if you believe the Green Party official blogger "Toad" with its comments, after I called for secular liberal democracy in Egypt that doesn't wage war with its neighbours.   This was the response (10.19PM 4 February):

@Libertyscott 9:58 PM

I will welcome an open free secular liberal democracy in Egypt, as long as it does not wage war against its neighbours directly or by proxy through terror.

How about just a “democracy”, without the qualifications. Not necessarily secular, not necessarily liberal (I suspect you probably mean libertarian). You know, one where the people decide!

And if the people of Egypt (as determined by genuinely democratic process) want to wage war, that is their democratic right.

But I would counsel anyone anywhere, including in Egypt, that war should be a last resort in resolving international disputes and should be engaged in only in response to serious human rights violations.

Read that again "not necessarily secular" so a theocracy is "ok" for the Greens?  OK if a religion takes charge and the only thing you can vote for is whatever shade of religion is ok?  Who'd have thought!! The Greens think religious based government is ok, better than dictatorship, though you might wonder what the real difference actually is when one sees Iran.

Not necessarily liberal?  Really?  Presumably the Greens don't mean "people's democracy" where a single party represents the "people", like North Korea.  Surely not, although the Greens have more than a couple of MPs who have been sympathetic to such regimes in the past.  Do they mean "third world democracy"? A patronising self serving justification of dictatorship based on traditional values that means societies are unified, not competitive, and work together in a grass roots party.  Like Zanu-PF likes to think itself as being.  No, surely not.   It has to just be Toad being ignorant of what "liberal democracy" means.

However it is clear freedom isn't important as long as people get to vote.

Moreover, Egyptians are allowed to wage war as a democratic right.  I thought the Greens believed in peace, and the UN Charter.  Hardly very peace loving is it?  On top of that war should only be in response to serious human rights violations.  On that basis Britain should not have declared war on Germany because it invaded Poland (but when?), but presumably the US could have invaded Afghanistan and Iraq if only to improve human rights.

However, we know what this is code for.  Egypt could invade Israel, because of human rights violations committed against Palestinians.  That would be ok.  As would Hamas setting up an Islamist democratic theocracy in the Palestinian Territories. 

Peace?  No the Greens think a theocratic democracy can vote to wage war, but only to address serious human rights concerns in another country.   Quite what a theocracy knows of rights would be a fascinating question.   It's simpler than that, the Greens have never believed in freedom, have no real belief in secular liberal western style democracy and so their belief in human rights is vacuous. 

For the rights of those who don't belong to the religion of a theocracy by definition will be neglected.   However, far more sinister, is the belief that as a last resort, democratic theocracies can wage war, but not in self defence, but rather to remedy "human rights".

US can't win with Egypt according to the left

Let's be clear, there is absolutely NO foreign policy option available to the US that would satisfy its detractors.  It doesn't matter if the US intervenes or stays apart from what happens, it will do wrong.  For its critics offer no real options at all.  

The US has previously engage in armed intervention to overturn dictatorships and to institute a form of democratic rule, and was damned for it.  What regime has been more vile in recent history than the stone age Taliban, which explicitly wanted girls kept as uneducated chattels for men, and which banned music?  Yet overthrowing that regime and allowing more moderate, yet Muslim forces to come to power in Afghanistan is damned and condemned.  The USA was meant to take 9/11 as a moment to reflect, except for those 3,000 or so murdered in that attack.   It was meant to let Al Qaeda operate freely, and indeed fold to its demands to get out of the way of it imposing its deathly will upon the Middle East.  The US did provide support for Saddam Hussein in the early 1980s, as a failed proxy against Iran.  That was criticised and still is, as if Reagan was still in power.  Then the US overthrew the regime, and it was criticised, because dictators shouldn't be overthrown by external force.

So the US ought not to overthrow Mubarak.

Yet supporting Mubarak, a policy which, to be fair, Obama inherited, is also unacceptable to its critics.  Mubarak is a kleptocratic authoritarian bully, so should get no support at all.

So should the US simply withdraw aid from Egypt and not care what happens?

No.  That too would be criticised.  If Mubarak remained, it would be the fault of the US for... having supported him before.  

Should the US say Mubarak should go and there should be free and fair elections?

No. That would be interference in Egypt's internal affairs.  

So what should the US do?  Rather simply, it should ignore the vacuous hypocrisy of those who appease dictatorships they like, and look after its national interest.

That interest is to defend the security of the US and its allies.  At the moment, preserving as much of the foreign policy status quo of Egypt is that.  Maintaining peace between Egypt and its neighbours is paramount.   A free secular liberal democratic Egypt is likely to be the best way to ensure this, but the likelihood of this happening spontaneously is fair less certain.

As Janet Daley wrote in the Sunday Telegraph:

Democracy consists of more than elections (even if they are “free and fair”, as everybody keeps saying): it is freedom under the rule of law. That involves institutions such as an independent judiciary (which Egypt does have a semblance of), mechanisms for holding government to account after it has been elected, and disinterested agencies of public order which rely on an abstract idea of justice rather than loyalty to the ruling elite. All of this relies on the vigilance of a citizenry that has been specifically educated in these principles and in the quite complex system that embodies them.

The absence of this is not a reason to leave Egypt to dictatorship, but it is enough reason to promote more than just elections for Egypt to have a peaceful future.