- Date published:
10:31 pm, May 12th, 2019 - 29 comments
Categories: China, Spying, surveillance, telecommunications, us politics - Tags:
Mike Pompeo has just been in Britain trying to bully the UK government out of using Huawei for its 5G network. He and other officials have been heavying countries around the world. Its not working, but one thing is clear. It makes GCSB’s head Andrew Hampton’s assertion that its decision to reject Huawei was independent is simply not believable.
News reports that the FiveEyes partners had met in Nova Scotia last year to plan the campaign against Huawei have meant Hampton’s assertion always lacked credibility. But as more nations including in Europe and Asia decide to use Huawei, the US neocons are resorting to increasingly open threats. It is their diplomatic style.
Mike Pompeo is not one who has a great regard for the truth. How do I know? Because he has said it himself, speaking to cadets at Texas A & M University earlier this year. He referenced the West Point oath not to lie, cheat or steal that he had taken when there, but went on “Hey, I worked for the CIA. We lied, cheated and stole all the time.”
Ain’t that the truth.
Go back thirty-five years: we had a Labour Government that had the integrity to stand up to bullying by the United States and France.
Now we have a Labour Party that fawns at the feet of the new Bonaparte, as his thugs crack open the heads and shoot at the eyes of working class French citizens.
The anti-nuclear stance was clearly a muddle that saw Lange talk himself into a corner and if he could have got us out of it, he probably would have..
The resultant uproar proved to be a talismanic moment for a nascent middle class nationalism that had been on the rise since the early 1970s, a nationalism built on anti-American Vietnam war protests, the anti-nuclear movement from Moruroa, the shock of the UK's entry to the EU and a blooming of cultural identity as expressed by the explosion of NZ content on TV and the radio at the time.
But in hindsight, it was a high water mark. The Lange government began the sell out culturally, a sell out that was enthusiastically built on by National and complacently managed by Labour. Our cultural identity has been wrecked by three decades of neoliberalism and it's homogonised global culture.
What that means is for an entire of generation of boomer NZers, their hollowed out sense of what it means to be a New Zealander remains rooted in an increasingly anachronistic anti-American dualism and not much else. It is a threadbare return but it’s all they’ve got.
Labour's anti-nuclear stance was a strongly held policy about the Pacific, dating back to Norm Kirk and Moruroa. Now that the world stands on the brink of disaster with the doomsday clock closer to midnight than at any time since the second world war it is still a priority in my view
I do recall there was a distinction between nuclear armed and nuclear powered. Lange at first was open to the latter, but then the Americans cancelled all ship visits nuclear armed or not, and so Lange achieved a ban on both as a result of the way events flowed. In any case, he deserves all the credit for it – things happen partly by design partly out of contingent events and then thats that
As part of the movement at the time, it was nuclear arms we were protesting. The demonstrations were against nuclear, armed ships, as the USA was not prepared to say if the weapons were on board or not, it became a ban on all US, ships.
Actually it was nuclear powered ships that triggered the widespread movement in NZ. It was only a small group that protested the first visit of the (potentially nuclear armed) Buchanan.
Funny how the past changes on you 🙂
I was on the water that day. Definitely anti Nuclear weapons.
The nuclear powered ship was a marker, then, for ships carrying nuclear weapons.
Janes (the publisher of military shipping material) pretty much settled the issue by observing that nuclear powered vessels were invariably nuclear armed, being the best equipped to survive a first strike.
As opposed to one that finds itself squirming like a fish on a hook trying not to upset the barbaric savages who run China?
Watching an ex-high official of the NZ Labour Party abase himself before the altar of the Chinese Communist Party in order to satisfy an unyielding anti-American fanaticism would be sadly pathetic, if it wasn't for the fact it is part of a continuim of useful idiots and Quislings that unites Standard readers and Jenny Shipley alike and includes in its ranks plenty of the establishment elites.
Could you explain what you're trying to say there, please? That was more than a tad incoherent.
Mike Smith is an ex-general secretary of the NZLP from the Clark days.
Given how much he was able to accommodate Helen Clark, who was a complete sellout to capitalist neoliberal managerialism, I find the sudden purity of his anti-Americanism more than a little ridiculous.
But like I said a broad alliance of NZer’s – from virulently Anti-American “socialists” to neoliberal purists who believe the nation state to be quaint and democracy to be a hindrance to business via Quislings who are willing to sell their souls if there is a buck in it for them – are more than willing to turn a blind eye to Beijing and the monstrous regime that runs China.
As an alliance, it is pretty ugly to contemplate, but I guess they all find a way to rationalise their squaring of the circle.
Sudden purity? I just don't like people in high office like a US Secretary of State who openly admits that they lie, cheat and steal. I prefer truth and peace. I've opposed that behaviour by the CIA for the last forty years.
For "CIA", read U.S. Government.
you have that backwards longhair
for U.S Government, read CIA.
For US Government read US corporate.
Most of us are unhappy about the murdering Governments in the USA, and, China, and many other bunches of babykillers.
We have enough maturity to know that the majority of people probably don't support their murdering Governments, as we all have, buggerall say in the matter.
Arguing which is worse, is pointless. We are just talking about relative numbers murdered. It is still murder.
I think you will find NZ, "socialists" rather like Americans.
After all, the "New deal" was the most extensive and successful piece of "socialism" by any Government before, or since.
And most USA'ains genuinely think they are a force of piece and democracy in the world. Like Star Trek. If they knew the truth, they would be horrified. As one Soviet leader said to a US diplomat. "How is it, that your citizens believe, your propaganda?"
And. What Mike said in 126.96.36.199
It makes GCSB’s head Andrew Hampton’s assertion that its decision to reject Huawei was independent is simply not believable.
In what way does it make his statement unbelievable? Has Pompeo been to visit him too?
The UK response to Huawei was hard-won, evidence- based, and clearly independent.
The approved investment and operational scope Huawei now has there is by far the more important story for NZ. Not whatever the US official has to say.
Thanks Ad That was also my take on the UK response
What a remarkable expression of faith in the veracity of the British state.
nope i just read up the report of their process that was posted on here a while back . in my view they are going about it in the right manner ….. (in this case!)
Great points, Mike!
We would all do well to remember the record of Western 'democracies' in the Pacific, from 'blackbirding' in the late 19th early 20th centuries, mass deaths due to neglect (Western Samoa during the influenza epidemic), nuclear testing directly over the heads of Pacific islanders, and state sponsored terrorism (Rainbow Warrior).
On the Marshall Islands the Americans "premeditated, minutely planned and cynically executed experiment to establish the long-term effects of radiation poisoning on humans" and " On Rongelap, children played in highly radioactive incinerated coral, thinking it was storybook snow."
Whereas the Chinese come simply offering the opportunity for trade and the development of sorely needed infrastructure.
I don't think the Chinese Government are any more benevolent than the USA. certainly there are no Noam Chomsky's allowed to speak freely, in China. However the Boxer wars are being repeated by the USA, even now. In Iraq, Syria and soon, Venezuela.
China is starting to flex their muscles, also.
very very simplistic and shallow. Its never 100% or 0%.
The first part of the discussion has some merit ….indeed I wrote something similar here just the other day: https://thestandard.org.nz/us-china-trade-talks-and-new-zealand/#comment-1616203
The rest is mainly baloney, particularly promoting the stereotype of Chinese being robotic drones who work non-stop. A half truth is far off the whole truth.
Chinese being hard workers? – it all depends. The older generation, my in-laws included, who grew up in the Mao years are languid workers, who go home to sleep for an hour or so at mid-day. Have not been to China for many years, so not sure if that is still the case though.
particularly promoting the stereotype of Chinese being robotic drones who work non-stop.
Well it's a stereotype reinforced by the likes of Jack Ma talking up the wonders of a 72 hour work week:
Well, I did say that I had not been back for a long time —last time I was there was 2004.
In any case it is true that Chinese were traditionally languid, lazy workers, and at the same time they can churn out the hours that Jack Ma talks about. The point being that both truths exist side by side, and so to just harp on about one aspect provides an unbalanced view of things.
In any case I think Jack Ma is right. When a country is in a stage of development, there is nothing wrong in having long work hours. I myself am happy to put in 60 to 70 hour weeks. The early pioneers did not have a 40 hour week and golf on saturdays and sundays. The issue is exploitation. If the people are willing to work long hours to build up their country and they themselves are ultimately the beneficiaries of that hard work and not some feudal baron or Dalai Lama, then that is great and to be admired.