.
.
Reported in the NZ Herald today (10 February 2019), this curious incident;
.
.
The story continued;
Shortly after 11.30am this morning, Hundman was sent a txt from Air NZ saying “As you were advised onboard, the aircraft operating your flight did not have regulatory approval to land in China and was required to return to Auckland.”
An Air NZ spokeswoman was not immediately able to say why the flight could not gain permission to land. The airline is waiting on an update from its operations team.
“I would be stunned if Air NZ had allowed a plane full of passengers to take off without being quite sure they would be able to land it in Shanghai,” Hundman says.
“They are telling us it has been ‘rescheduled’ to depart tonight at 11pm – though I tried to check in before leaving the airport and they told me the new flight hadn’t been set up yet.”
Reparations offered so far has been meagre, Hundman says.
“We were given hotel vouchers for the Crowne Plaza, $30 of meal vouchers for use at the airport, and taxi vouchers. There’s been no compensation offered for time lost or hassle Hundman says.
He says passengers were woken up by the pilot with the turnaround announcement four or five hours into the flight. He was one of a handful travelling business class, so could only gauge the reaction of a handful of passengers around him, but he says all were shocked.
Hundman, taking advantage of inflight wi-fi, took to social media:
.
.
Flight passenger, Eric Hundman, said;
“I would be stunned if Air NZ had allowed a plane full of passengers to take off without being quite sure they would be able to land it in Shanghai.”
He’s right.
There appears to be no rationale for the Air New Zealand flight to have been aborted. There was no mention made of any technical or mechanical problems. Instead, the reason given was “regulatory approval to land in China“.
Air New Zealand has been flying to Shanghai since June 2006. It seems strange that, thirteen years later, there would be a problem with one of our aircraft having “landing permission” problems.
The incident comes barely two and a half months after the GCSB advised the Coalition Government to block Chinese company Huawei from contracting to build New Zealand’s 5G Network. Unspecified “security risks” were cited by Minister Andrew Little, but no reasons were made public. The reasons were “classified”.
Four days prior to the government announcement banning Huawei, the US government had put pressure on it’s allies (including New Zealand) not to do business with the Chinese company;
The US government has initiated an extraordinary outreach campaign to foreign allies, trying to persuade wireless and internet providers in these countries to avoid telecommunications equipment from Chinese company Huawei, according to a Wall Street Journal report.
A month later, on 6 December last year, it was reported that the Chinese state media was threatening a backlash over the Coalition government’s decision to ban Huawei;
Chinese state media warns there will be a backlash to New Zealand after the controversial decision to block Huawei equipment in the planned 5G mobile network.
Officials and experts have told Chinese tabloid Global Times that the ban will “only hurt [New Zealand’s] industry and consumers”.
Xiang Ligang, a Beijing-based veteran industry analyst, told the Global Times the move will backfire.
“New Zealand has taken this action just after the US reportedly asked its allies to say ‘no’ to Huawei equipment. It’s following the US’ lead on this matter, but it will only end up hurting itself,” he said.
It would not be the first time that inexplicable “problems with paperwork” had impacted on New Zealand commerce with China.
In May 2013, New Zealand there appeared brief reports that New Zealand exports to China had been held up at at a Chinese port;
New Zealand’s beef and lamb is still being blocked from entering China.
The meat industry says it’s a huge concern and is already costing a lot of money.
The issue was revealed on 3 News last night and it’s understood the problem arose because Chinese authorities weren’t informed of the name change of a New Zealand government ministry.
The meat is not allowed into the country and hasn’t been now for nearly a week.
The problem was again described officially as “incorrect paperwork”;
The problem is believed to have arisen after the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries recently became the Ministry of Primary Industries and Chinese border controls aren’t recognising the new names and logos on the export certificates.
“We’ve got MFAT officials and MPI officials working around the clock to resolve this,” says Minister for Food Safety Nikki Kaye. “We’ve been providing technical documentation through to Chinese authorities and we remain confident that this will be resolved in the near future.”
It prompted this blogpost;
.
.
As pointed out in my blogpost at the time, New Zealand was in the process of conducting a Free Trade Agreement negotiation with Taiwan. Beijing claims sovereign jurisdiction over Taiwan, describing it as a “renegade province”.
Negotiating a separate FTA with Taiwan would have been viewed with alarm by the Beijing government which insists on a “One China” policy that includes Taiwan. According to Xinhua News Agency – the official state-run press agency of the People’s Republic of China – Beijing’s position on Taiwan was non-negotiable;
Chinese State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi said here on Wednesday that Washington should abide by its commitment to the one-China policy.
Wang made the remarks while speaking at a press conference with U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo after their meeting.
He made a stopover in Washington D.C. on his way back from Argentina on Wednesday.
Wang noted that the Taiwan issue concerns China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, as well as China’s core interests.
China has already threatened the US should Trump abandon the decades-old One China policy;
State-run Chinese tabloid Global Times warned US President-elect Donald Trump that China would “take revenge” if he reneged on the one-China policy, only hours after Taiwan’s president made a controversial stopover in Houston.
Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen met senior US Republican lawmakers during her stopover in Houston on Sunday en route to Central America, where she will visit Honduras, Nicaragua, Guatemala and El Salvador. Tsai will stop in San Francisco on 13 January, her way back to Taiwan.
China had asked the United States not to allow Tsai to enter or have formal government meetings under the one China policy.
So when Beijing got wind that the Key-led National government was conducting negotiations directly with Taipei, as if it were a sovereign government, it seems utterly feasible that Beijing flexed it’s economic muscle to warn New Zealand that it was treading on dangerous ground.
The stalling of exports at a Chinese port was a message sent to the Key government: don’t mess with China over the Taiwan issue – your trade will be at risk.
Fast- forward six years and it is again feasible that Beijing has sent a “stern message” to the New Zealand government over our caving to Washington over Huawei.
This incident may have been a covert reminder to New Zealand that in choosing to side with the American Empire, we have put our trade with the planet’s second largest economy at risk.
If so, it may be to our peril. If there is a second global financial crisis looming, and if China abrogates our FTA with that country, we may end up regretting taking sides in the current US-China rivalry.
Mice tend to get trampled underfoot when elephants are rampaging for supremacy.
.
.
References
NZ Herald: Air NZ flight to Shanghai forced to turn back to Auckland mid-flight
Air New Zealand: History – New routes and exciting initiatives
Radio NZ: Reasons to block Spark’s 5G rollout ‘classified’
NZ Herald: US asks allies to drop Huawei
Mediaworks/Newshub: Chinese state media warns of backlash over New Zealand’s Huawei ban
Mediaworks/Newshub: Meat held up in China costing NZ industry
Wikipedia: Xinhua News Agency
Xinhua News Agency: Chinese FM urges U.S. to stick to one-China policy
EWN: End ‘One China’ Policy And China Will Take Revenge, Trump Warned
Previous related blogposts
Taiwan FTA – Confirmation by TVNZ of China pressuring the Beehive?
.
.
.
.
.
= fs =
.
.
It seems that our Aussie cuzzies are taking matters in hand and implementing their own “Buy Local” policies. A few overly-zealous supermarket operators have even taken to removing New Zealand-made products from their shelves,
.
.
According to Tracy Watkins’ story in the Dominion Post, Key will raise the problem when he meets Australian PM, Tony Abbott in Sydney, later this week.
Raise what, precisely?
This is capitalism/free market/whatever at work. Supermarket owners can stock whatever goods they like. If an owner took it upon him/herself to stock goods only from Outer Mongolia – that’s his/her call in a free market.
In fact, like the Scottish Shop in Dunedin, some retailers are very specific in what they stock.
Food and Grocery council CEO, Katherine Rich, complains that this policy “undermined the spirit of CER and risked a backlash in New Zealand as well”,
‘‘It’s an issue we’re watching closely because both major supermarkets, Coles and Woolworths, have come out with a very pro-Australia stance. There have been some high profile delistings of some New Zealand brands for no other reason than that they are not Australian.’’
Which is supremely ironic as Ms Rich was a one time member and National Party minister from 1999 to 2008.
So she should know how the free market, capitalist system works. It’s a bit too late in the day to start whinging that another nation’s private companies have adopted their own, specific retail policies.
After all, this is something the “invisible hand of the free market” will work out. According to neo-liberal dogma, if consumers want to purchase New Zealand goods, they will go elsewhere, to other retailers. Or buy via the internet. Or hop on a flight to do their grocery shopping here in New Zealand, at a Pak N Save.
That is how the Free Market works, right?
In fact, as Ms Watkins correctly reported, CER binds governments – not private companies;
One option would be for the Government to lodge a formal objection but sources say the situation is complicated by the fact that CER is a government-to-government agreement, and it is not ‘‘straight forward’’ whether supermarkets are captured by that process.
Very astute.
After all, wouldn’t it be a form of “communism” to bind private companies to buy certain goods?!
On the other hand, free trade agreements such as the CER, or the China-NZ FTA, or the impending TPPA, do bind governments in the way they must purchase goods and services.
A New Zealand government wanting to implement a procurement policy that favours locally produced goods and/or services would immediatly be sued by other nations or foreign corporations, via the World Trade Organisation. (In fact, New Zealand sued Australia at the WTO, over the latter’s refusal to allow New Zealand applies into that country. We won.)
So free trade agreements bind governments – but not private companies (those Kiwi apples can be exported to Australia – but no law can force an Aussie retailer or chain-stores to stock them).
This is something that New Zealanders might consider as the issue of the TPPA nears resolution; signatory governments – like our government – would be bound by a TPPA. But private companies would not (or only in peripheral ways) be bound.
As for Katherine Rich?
Tough luck, lady. This is the capitalist system at work.
Suck it up.
Welcome to the corporatisation of human civilisation.
.
.
References
TV1: Sweet success after bitter battle over NZ apples
Fairfax media: Supermarket stoush sours CER
.
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen
.
.
= fs =
On 24 May, I blogged about an apparent trade crisis between New Zealand and China, as our meat shipments were held up at Chinese borders – ostensibly for “incorrect” paperwork;
.
See previous blogpost: What’s the beef, guv?
.
Minister for Food Safety, Nikki Kaye said,
“We’ve got MFAT officials and MPI officials working around the clock to resolve this,” says Minister for Food Safety Nikki Kaye. “We’ve been providing technical documentation through to Chinese authorities and we remain confident that this will be resolved in the near future.”
Acknowledgment: TV3 – Meat held up in China costing NZ industry
It’s interesting that TV3 report stated,
“The problem is believed to have arisen after the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries recently became the Ministry of Primary Industries and Chinese border controls aren’t recognising the new names and logos on the export certificates.”
Acknowledgment: IBID
Other media also repeated the official government line – that this was a bureacratic “paper work problem”. Ministers were even muttering dark threats at disciplining MPI staff who might have been responsible for this “incorrect paperwork” mess.
However, I found this excuse to be weak and unbelievable. Why?
Because as I wrote on 24 May, the MAF (Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries) became the MPI (Ministry of Primary Industries, well over a year ago.
So why had this crisis arisen only now?
My contention is that the meat export problem was politically motivated. A free trade agreement was in the process of being negotiated between Taiwan and New Zealand,
.
Acknowledgment: Fairfax Media – NZ close to Taiwan free trade agreement
.
China was flexing it’s political muscle over a free trade agreement being negotiated between New Zealand and Taiwan – a state which China regards as a “renegade province”.
China was reminding New Zealand “who’s boss”.
On 10 June, TV1 News reported that the free trade agreement with Taiwan had been concluded and signed.
However, the news story was curiously reported from two different angles. The TVNZ website reported a purely trade-driven story,
.
Acknowledgment: TVNZ – NZ signs trade agreement with Taiwan
.
There was no mention of any political dimension in the about report. China (mainland) was not even mentioned, even in passing.
Contrast that to the evening news story on the same day; July 10,
.
Acknowledgment: TVNZ – NZ signs trade agreement with Taiwan – TV Broadcast Report
.
The relevant story starts at 5:20.
The newsreader, Melissa Stokes opened with this introduction,
“New Zealand has signed a free trade agreement with Taiwan. It’s likely to save our exporters at least $75 million a year, but it’s China’s influence on the agreement that’s raising questions. ”
It was pointed out that no government Minister attended the signing of the Taiwan-New Zealand Agreement – a marked contrast to the much-hyped signing of the China-New Zealand FTA in 2008. Or National’s signing of an FTA with Malaysia in 2009,
.
Acknowledgment: Fairfax Media: PM hails signing of Malaysian deal
.
The journalist covering the signing, Brian Boswell, asked the Taiwan representative an obvious question,
Brian Boswell: “Would you like a Government minister [to be] here?”
Elliott Charng (Taipei Economic and Cultural Office) replied: “Yes. Of course.”
Indeed he would.
But this blogger believes that China made it abundantly clear to the Beehive that any agreement signed with it’s “renegade province” had to be a ‘low-level’ event, without the presence of any government Ministers or MPs present.
As Boswell remarked, “ But there were none. This agreement was kept under wraps until the last minute despite Taiwan being our eight largest export market.”
Stephen Payton – from the NZ Commerce and Industry Office – appeared to be the most senior representative of the New Zealand government present at the signing. His comments were illuminating,
“ This agreement is signed in terms of New Zealand’s One China policy. And so we have to observe certain contraints around how we deal with Chinese Taipei.”
Indeed!
To drive the point home to viewers, Boswell added,
“ China doesn’t recognise Taiwan as being independent and pressures other countries to do the same.”
“Pressures”?
Such as blockading millions of dollars of our meat exports at Chinese ports?
Green MP, Kennedy Graham, a former diplomat, said,
“ Credit as it sees it and some economic progress out of this deal. But at the same time it’s genuflecting politically to one of the world’s superpowers, and probably being orchestrated behind the scenes by the same super power.”
Boswell finished his report with this remarkable comment,
“ It’s taken more than a year of negotiations. Sources have told One News that China was extensively briefed about the deal and told about the signing.”
This story puts the May blockade of our exports into context and sheds new light on what really transpired.
It now appears that negotiations with Taiwan originally excluded China – which put a few noses out of joint in Beijing – and which provoked a hidden diplomatic incident. This incident was carefully masked by both Beijing and Wellington as a “bureacratic mix up”, as it served neither government’s interests that this become public.
After all, it had been over year that the new MPI documentation had been in use, so it is inconceivable that all of a sudden such a trivial issue could interfere with millions of dollars of trade.
This blogger posits the following;
It was a stern lesson in super-power muscle-flexing delivered to the Beehive in a way that no New Zealand politician would ever be likely to forget in a hurry.
Meanwhile, as I predicted in May,
On Radio NZ, Primary Industries minister, Nathan Guy stated,
“I’m very disappointed in my officials – issuing export certification is really their core business. And I’m disappointed in how this issue has come to bear. Normally, we have a very strong system and this is very unusual.”
However speaking on Radio New Zealand’s Checkpoint programme, Nathan Guy refused to be drawn on whether any disciplinary action will be taken against staff for the blunder.
Mr Guy said that was a matter for MPI director-general Wayne McNee.
“By and large, MPI do fantastic work and we’ve had an issue here, and I’ve asked the director-general to get to the bottom of it.”
What’s the bet that this entire issue sinks quietly out of sight and nothing is ever heard about it again?
Has anyone heard “whether any disciplinary action was be taken against staff for the blunder “?
Nope.
It kind of sank quietly out of sight.
.
.
= fs =
.
.
.
The recent spectacle of our meat exports to China stuck at their ports raised eyebrows, hackles… and a few questions.
The news broke on TV3 on 17 May,
New Zealand’s beef and lamb is still being blocked from entering China.
The meat industry says it’s a huge concern and is already costing a lot of money.
The issue was revealed on 3 News last night and it’s understood the problem arose because Chinese authorities weren’t informed of the name change of a New Zealand government ministry.
The meat is not allowed into the country and hasn’t been now for nearly a week.
Acknowledgment: TV3 – Meat held up in China costing NZ industry
The reason given, at the same time the story broke was that there was confusion over “paperwork”,
The problem is believed to have arisen after the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries recently became the Ministry of Primary Industries and Chinese border controls aren’t recognising the new names and logos on the export certificates.
The Government says they are working hard to resolve the issue.
“We’ve got MFAT officials and MPI officials working around the clock to resolve this,” says Minister for Food Safety Nikki Kaye. “We’ve been providing technical documentation through to Chinese authorities and we remain confident that this will be resolved in the near future.”
Acknowledgment: IBID
It’s interesting that the TV3 report stated, “The problem is believed to have arisen after the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries recently became the Ministry of Primary Industries and Chinese border controls aren’t recognising the new names and logos on the export certificates“.
Why?
Because MAF (Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries) became MPI (Ministry of Primary Industries, well over a year ago,
.
Acknowledgment: Beehive – MAF to become Ministry for Primary Industries
.
Note the dates in the Beehive media release: 30 April 2012. One would assume that all forms, letterhead, and other paperwork would have been re-printed in time for the 30 April launch of the new Ministry of Primary Industries? Government departments and ministries are noted for spending considerable sums on new stationary.
It seems curious then, that the Chinese authorities have only now realised that the MAF had been replaced by a completely different name, acronym, and logo? Why now?
If I was of a suspicious mind (and why should anyone be suspicious of this National government?), I would be wondering if this recent event had anything to do with the blocking of our meat exports to China,
.
Acknowledgment: Fairfax Media – NZ close to Taiwan free trade agreement
.
The above story goes on to state,
Officially, both Taiwan and China claim sovereignty over the other, a situation which has maintained since the Communist Party took control of mainland China and established the People’s Republic of China in 1949.
China makes adhering to a One-China policy a pre-condition of diplomatic relations.
New Zealand’s relations with Taiwan are now maintained through an office of the Wellington Employers Chamber of Commerce of Taipei.
Sources say the issue of free trade with Taiwan was raised when Prime Minister John Key led a major trade delegation to China in April, as part of an established ”no surprises” policy of keeping Beijing informed of our relations with China.
Trade Minister Tim Groser declined to comment.
Acknowledgment: IBID
Mainland China claims full sovereignty over Taiwan, which it regards as a “renegade province”. Had it not been for US support, China would have re-occupied the island as it did with Tibet in the 1950s – over which it also claims suzerainty.
A suspicious mind would wonder if something has gone awry between China and New Zealand, and the former was flexing it’s super-muscle to remind the Beehive just who’s boss around here.
It just seems to much of a coincidence that the blocking of our exports happened at a time when NZ officials are negotiating a free trade agreement with Taiwan.
It’s interesting that, as the above report states, “New Zealand does not officially recognise Taiwan as a country“.
If so – then did Beijing demand a voice in any FTA deal with Taipei?
And were NZ officials (or politicians) foolish enough to dismiss those demands?
On Radio NZ, Primary Industries minister, Nathan Guy stated,
“I’m very disappointed in my officials – issuing export certification is really their core business. And I’m disappointed in how this issue has come to bear. Normally, we have a very strong system and this is very unusual.”
However speaking on Radio New Zealand’s Checkpoint programme, Nathan Guy refused to be drawn on whether any disciplinary action will be taken against staff for the blunder.
Mr Guy said that was a matter for MPI director-general Wayne McNee.
“By and large, MPI do fantastic work and we’ve had an issue here, and I’ve asked the director-general to get to the bottom of it.”
What’s the bet that this entire issue sinks quietly out of sight and nothing is ever heard about it again?
.
.
References
Beehive: MAF to become Ministry for Primary Industries (6 March 2012)
Fairfax Media: NZ close to Taiwan free trade agreement (19 May 2013)
TV3: Meat held up in China costing NZ industry (18 May 2013)
Radio NZ: Minister blames officials for meat blockade in China (23 May 2013)
.
.
= fs =
NZ Herald “chief political commentator” seems to have taken issue with bloggers. Well, two bloggers, mostly,
.
.
Armstrong’s bizarre comments were… well, bizarre.
Personally, I put it down to an unholy mixture of jet-lag*; long nights; too much/too little caffeine; mid-life crisis; with a fair whack of frustration. Something has obviously crawled up his bits.
In fact, his comments in his column (above) were not just downright unprofessional, but suggestive of poor health. Comments like,
“Here is a blunt message for a couple of old-school Aro Valley-style socialists…”
“Get off our backs.’
“Stop behaving like a pair of tut-tutting old dowagers gossiping in the salons.’
“In short, stop making blinkered, cheap-shot accusations of the kind you made this week…”
And those were in just the first paragraph. After that, it was all downhill.
The tirade was directed at two gentlemen, Gordon Campbell and Bryce Edwards. Both responded in their own ways, and style,
.
.
.
All three are worth reading.
All three speak volumes about the state of journalism in this country.
Firstly; John Armstrong represents the Old Guard of the Fourth Estate; conservative; part of The Establishment; close to government. In fact, how close to government was exemplified by this extraordinary statement from opinion piece above,
“The rapidly growing influence of Edwards’ blog was initially down to its being an exhaustive wrap-up of all of the day’s political news. It is now starting to develop a much more political dynamic that is unlikely to please National.”
With an admission like that, you begin to realise why someone like Armstrong would be so belligerent to the likes of Campbell and Bryce, who are hardly Establishment-types.
Since when was it ever the concern of a journalist whether what s/he wrote was ” unlikely to please National “?!
A journalist is not put on this Earth to “please National” (or Labour). They are here to tell us what’s going on – regardless of whether or not National (or Labour) are “displeased”.
That one remark validates every criticism every made of the NZ Herald that it is a clandestine mouthpiece for the National Party. There is no other way it can be interpreted.
Secondly; whilst Armstrong represents the Old Guard of journalism, Campbell and Bryce are part of the New Wave of Media. In large part, this involves the latest advent of mass-media, the internet. But the internet is simply the tool – it is an attitudinal sea-change that best encapsulates what Bryce and Campbell represent.
When Rogernomics engulfed this country, it introduced the concept of the “free market” and “choice” to our economy. Some of it benefitted our nation – much of it did not. Thousands who lost their jobs will attest to that.
But the liberalisation and de-regulation of New Zealand was not simply something applied to our economy. It reached into, and affected every part, of our society.
MMP, for example, did to the electoral/political system was the removal of tariffs did to the importation of consumer products; it gave the Voter/consumer a greater choice in who to vote for.
That same liberalisation encouraged the de-regulation of the Media. It was no longer the province of card-carrying journos, feature writers, and freelancers. Suddenly, anyone could get “in on the game”. The internet did for citizen journalists, bloggers, and non-establishment commentators what the typewriter and paid salaries did for mainstream journos.
The richest irony here is that John Armstrong is a cheerleader for the de-regulated free market – the same de-regulated free market that has pissed him off by letting everyone in on his turf.
Right about now, Armstrong should understand what it felt like when our shops were flooded with cheap clothing and shoes from Fiji, China, and India – whilst New Zealand seamstresses and shoemakers were forced out of business.
Or how Labour and National politicans felt when MMP changed our political landscape and Parliament was flooded with Greens, NZ Firsters, Alliance, ACT, etc.
The de-regulated free market is such a wonderful thing – until it’s your arse that is bitten.
Painful eh, John?
.
.
Addendum
Armstrong complains about the tough nature of his job – especially accompanying John Key and his entourage to the APEC conconference in *Vladivostok last week.
Perhaps instead of writing travelogue pieces (see: Curse of Russky Island strikes ) he might have considered writing about Key’s pursuit of a Free Trade Agreement with Russia. This might have been a worthy topic, considering that Russia appears to have an unhealthy, close relationship with the Russian Mafia. (See related blogpost: A FTA deal with Russia?! That’s a big “NYET” Comrade Key! )
Even the Guardian and Washington Post felt the situation warranted some decent investigative journalism. (See: The farce of Russian elections , Russia’s presidential election: rigging is a delicate art, Putin’s government moves to quash public dissent )
But we got none of that (unless I’ve missed it).
A story of a sovereign state that appears to have close connections to gangsters would seem to be much more of a story than interesting scenery in Vladivostok. That might’ve made an interesting story for Armstrong to pursue – especially if we’re going to be cosying up to our Russian cuzzies with a FTA.
Newsworthy, I would have thought.
.
.
Sources
Bloggers don’t let the facts get in the way
Gordon Campbell on journalism, and John Armstrong
Political round-up: Blogging backlash
Curse of Russky Island strikes
Who owns what: for an answer, start here
Previous related blogpost
A FTA deal with Russia?! That’s a big “NYET” Comrade Key!
Tracey Watkins on John Key – Surprised?!
.
.
= fs =
.
.
Politicians sometimes just don’t learn…
Prologue: 2008AD
On 7 April 2008, the then Labour Government signed a Free Trade Agreement with China. Part of that FTA included the following clauses,
“ Article 143 Fair and Equitable Treatment
1. Investments of investors of each Party shall at all times be accorded fair and equitable treatment and shall enjoy the full protection and security in the territory of the other Party in accordance with commonly accepted rules of international law.
2. Fair and equitable treatment includes the obligation to ensure that, having regard to general principles of law, investors are not denied justice or treated unfairly or inequitably in any legal or administrative proceeding affecting the investments of the investor.
3. Full protection and security requires each Party to take such measures as may be reasonably necessary in the exercise of its authority to ensure the protection and security of the investment.
4. Neither Party shall take any unreasonable or discriminatory measures against the management, maintenance, use, enjoyment and disposal of the investments by the investors of the other Party.
5. A violation of any other article of this Chapter does not establish that there has been a violation of this Article.
Article 144 Compensation for Losses
Investors of a Party whose investments in the territory of the other Party suffer losses owing to war or other armed conflict, a state of national emergency, insurrection, riot or other similar events in the territory of the latter Party shall be accorded by the latter Party treatment, as regards restitution, indemnification, compensation or other settlements no less favourable than that accorded to the investors of its own or any third country, whichever is more favourable to the investors concerned.“
” Article 138 National Treatment
Each Party shall accord to investments and activities associated with such investments, with respect to management, conduct, operation, maintenance, use, enjoyment or disposal, by the investors of the other Party treatment no less favourable than that accorded, in like circumstances, to the investments and associated activities by its own investors.”
See: – Ibid
These are the sections which Auckland University law professor, Jane Kelsey, stated could result in a lawsuit for breaching our Free Trade Agreement with China, in the Crafar Farms affair. Quite simply, Chinese investors cannot be treated differently to local (or any other investors from other nations) in commercial and legal matters.
As Jane Kelsey stated,
“If the New Zealand Government had declined the Shanghai Pengxin purchase of the Crafar farms it could have faced an international lawsuit for breaching its free-trade agreement with China. The Government cannot treat applications from Chinese investors differently from similar applications from other countries’ investors under what is known as the ‘most-favoured-nation’ or MFN rule.”
See: Our hands were tied over the Crafar farms sale
Key was more circumspect in admitting this reality of the FTA, when on 27 January 2012, he said on TV3’s ‘Campbell Live’ (@ ),
” … in our view, turning it down on the basis that they were Chinese is not only in my view unacceptable and a bit repugnant , actually it wouldn’t be legally sound either.”
See: Selling Crafar farms the right decision – Key
Which is about as close as Key has come to publicly admitting that we are bound by our FTA with China to treat their investors on the same footing as New Zealand investors. Whilst this may be met with approval by ACT ideologues, it sound nothing for our country’s economy, nor future investment by our own children who may be priced out of the market by wealthier offshore investors.
Fast forward: 2012AD
Key is now chasing a similar FTA deal with Russia. In which case expect more purchases of our productive sector by wealthy Russian investors.
There is everything wrong with this prospect.
Russia is presently ruled by an oligarchy, with Vladimir Putin it’s undisputed head.
This is a corrupt government that stole last December’s election by voting fraud on a massive scale. Putin’s opponants are either arrested and imprisoned (as in the old Soviet era), or murdered by “unknown assasins”.
See: The farce of Russian elections
See: Russia’s presidential election: rigging is a delicate art
Public dissent is actively discouraged by state repression, and often met with the use of violent force.
See: Putin’s government moves to quash public dissent
The Russian mafia is amongst the most feared globally, and has strong connections with Putin’s government,
” Russia is a corrupt, autocratic kleptocracy centred on the leadership of Vladimir Putin, in which officials, oligarchs and organised crime are bound together to create a “virtual mafia state”, according to leaked secret diplomatic cables that provide a damning American assessment of its erstwhile rival superpower.
Arms trafficking, money laundering, personal enrichment, protection for gangsters, extortion and kickbacks, suitcases full of money and secret offshore bank accounts in Cyprus: the cables paint a bleak picture of a political system in which bribery alone totals an estimated $300bn a year, and in which it is often hard to distinguish between the activities of the government and organised crime. “
See: WikiLeaks cables condemn Russia as ‘mafia state’
And this is the “virtual mafia state” that John Key wants closer economic ties with?!
This aspect should be especially worrying to New Zealand, a small nation especially vulnerable to penetration by sophisticated, organised crime.
More worrying is that our esteemed Security Intelligence Service and Police force – which is adept at spying on Maori activists in the Ureweras or peace activists-turned Green MPs – have either not informed the Prime Minister of Russia’s corrupt criminal government, with mafia links – or has been ignored by National.
This is more than worrying – this is downright dangerous. Key is playing with fire when he associates with such dangerous people.
Why would National consider cosying up to the Russian government/mafia? Especially when, as Judith Collins stated in October 2009,
“Gangs have infiltrated businesses; turning legitimate enterprises into money laundering outlets. Their money has bought them a veneer of legitimacy that is far more dangerous to our society than anything we have seen before.”
See: Organised crime threatens NZ way of life
Collins was referring to local organised gangs. But the same could hold equally true – if not more so – for international crime gangs that are far more organised; well resourced; vicious; and with links to state power.
The Russian mafia is not one to be trifled with. If Collins is concerned about our local crims, she should be positively panicking over the possibility that a FTA with Russia could draw us into closer contact with organised crime syndicates and their political allies in Moscow.
Dealing with Russia is akin to dealing with Columbia or Mexico, should their organised crime gangs ever gain a foothold in those country’s respective governments (if not already).
The prospect of Russian investors with links to organised crime (or, indeed, a front for crime groups) is one that cannot be easily dismissed.
We need to be damned careful who we, as a nation, build closer relations with. If Key want to “Dance with the Devil”, he is pulling the rest of us in with him.
This blogger reminds the reader of Eastern European notions of the vampyr legends (no, not the glamourised Hollywood version of young, handsome vampires – the Undead variety of gruesome appearance and dodgy personal hygiene). In popular culture, the vampyr could not cross a threshold to enter you home.
You were safe inside – unless someone in your home invited the vampyr to enter.
Once that invitation was extended, the blood-sucking monster could come and go as he (or she) pleased. There was no stopping the creature, except with the usual methods; stake, sunlight, garlic, ACT Party manifesto, etc.
Damned perceptive, our Eastern European cuzzies.
Just be careful, Mr Key, who you invite into our country…
.
.
te
Additional
MFAT: New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement
New Zealand China Free Trade Agreement (text)
Government could have faced lawsuit
Billionaire’s playground: Russian rich-lister’s home to rival Chrisco mansion
Putin, Key hopeful for Free Trade Agreement
.
.
= fs =
Keeping an eye on dodgy government appointees, crony-by-crony!
Frankly Speaking... 