OGNA and SFT embarrassed by Dunedin Mayor's anti-Dalai Lama comments.

Joint Press Release by the Organisation for Global Nonviolent Action (OGNA) and Students for a Free Tibet (SFT)
__________________________

The Mayor’s decision to cancel an official reception with His Holiness the XIV Dalai Lama in June is embarrassing, according to the campus group Students for a Free Tibet (SFT).

The Dalai Lama is one of the worlds most well known proponents of human rights. He is the recipient of over 80 international awards and honours acknowledging this within the last 10 years alone, not to mention that he is Nobel Peace Laureate. He will be speaking in Dunedin on the topic ‘Beyond religion: ethics for a whole world’.

SFT spokesperson Daniel Benson-Guiu said the Mayor’s comments “threaten the reputation of Dunedin as an international tourist hub and create bad relations for ethnic and cultural minorities in the city”.

Mr Benson-Guiu said “The City Council has happily given receptions to the Dalai Lama in the past- as His Holiness has been connected to the city for more than 20 years”.

The comments of the Mayor come after a recent trip to China. “As a city we should not be scared to say what is wrong and what is right”. Joe Llewellyn from the Organisation for Global Nonviolent Action said. “The situation in Tibet is the worst it has ever been- since 2011 more than 100 people have self-immolated in protest to Chinese occupation”.

Joe Llewellyn, co-founder of OGNA , said “David Cull’s comments that China is united are extremely misguided”. Struggles have been underway since the Chinese invasion of Tibet, East Turkistan, and Inner Mongolia in the 1950’s under Mao Zedong.

“The city’s sister-city relationship with China highlights the city’s multicultural heritage, but politics should not get in the way of human rights” stated Mr Llewellyn. “We should not put economic ties before human rights, culture and matters that people hold closely to their hearts”.

“Mocking the representative of the world’s fourth largest religious faith is harmful to Dunedin’s diverse population”, Mr Benson-Guiu said. He emphasised: “Especially given that he will visit Dunedin to talk about an issue interesting to adherents of many faiths: ethics in our globalised world”.

Mr Llewellyn said: “Cull, after stating that the reason he could not greet H.H the Dalai Lama was because of a possible meeting in Wellington - a meeting so important that he could not remember what it was for”. “Cull stated 'I'm quite conscious of the Chinese sensitivity around anyone meeting the Dalai Lama, or engaging with him.” SFT and OGNA both believe that this is insulting to the Tibetan people who have suffered through genocide (as defined by the the International Commission of Jurists, 1959); death; forced abortions; torture; and life under a system of apartheid.”

“The visit by His Holiness puts Dunedin on the map. David Cull can afford to miss a meeting or two” Mr Benson-Guiu stated. “The Dalai Lama made it a priority to visit Christchurch after the earthquakes in 2011”. Joe Llewellyn agreed “He visited victims and took a tour of the city, Cull’s refusal to hold a civic reception for Him is insulting”.

“Chinese interests have also caused heated debate with the 28-storey waterfront hotel”, the groups stated.

________________
ENDS.

For further information contact (at any time)
Media liaison Daniel Benson-Guiu tel. 0223121439. E-mail: dfbensonguiu@gmail.com

And

Joe Llewellyn tel.0277102071. E-mail: joewllewellyn@gmail.com

Ka Whawhai: The Struggle in context

On Friday the Organisation for Global Nonviolent Action hosted a great talk that lead to a good deal of discussion. The group agreed on why the Maori struggle is relevant, but in fact understanding it is also pertinent to understanding the issues that affect Maori, Pakeha and the rest of New Zealand.

Here is the talk:

Kia Ora Koutou. I would first like to mention that I am not Maori and that this talk is only intended as an interpretation of history. But OGNA would like to take the chance to share thoughts about race relations in Aotearoa which are still improving. This talk focuses on the Maori renaissance of the 70s and 80s, which had a high element of political, social and cultural activism and which used a diverse range of protest methods to achieve significant victories. But these victories should be seen as stepping stones because there is still much to be done to achieve equality in Aotearoa. Many issues that affected Maori in the 70s and 80s are still on-going, and in order to understand for example water rights, Mana Motuhake o Tuhoe or even urban poverty; we must look at the history books.

Maori became a part of the British Empire quite suddenly and without a real awareness of what this implied. First Maori signed He Whakaputanga, a declaration of independence with the British. Then the Treaty. The Treaty of Waitangi made Maori British subjects, it was intended to protect Maori local authority and would safeguard their taonga from unruly settlers and merchants who were buying Maori land at bargain prices. At least this is how the Maori who signed saw it. Of course there were two translations and they differed in the wording which resulted in Maori misunderstanding what the Crown wanted to get out of it. Moreover, it was a very small number of Maori who signed the initial Treaty, and many did so in exchange for blankets and tobacco. It is also important to put into context that accounts say “Maori wanted a civil government and they desired to have laws that would govern the behaviour amongst Maori and between Maori and Pakeha. If the British helped Maori to do this, in return Maori would allow British people live here in peace” (Ward 2010, p. 23).

But the intentions of the British were different. The Crown bought large tracts of land at cheap prices and soon an influx of farmers, politicians and entrepreneurs began to ‘develop’ New Zealand. Britain was interested in expanding the Empire and new factories and farming techniques made New Zealand an export country. Maori did not reap the benefits of the rapid industrialisation of Aotearoa because they were largely rural, and there were no incentives to assimilate the populations- in this sense they were not equal subjects despite what the Treaty claimed.

By the middle of the 20th century Maori had become increasingly urbanised. In only 40 years there was a massive transition of the Maori population from only 16% living in urban centres in 1926 to 62% in 1966. Twenty years later only 20% of Maori would live in rural towns (Taonui 2012, 232). This drastic change in such a short amount of time brought with it many consequences, the most noticeable of which was the loss of traditional and cultural values, the sharp decline of Te Reo speakers and of course a new lifestyle which Maori had not been accustomed to historically. Urbanisation and full-time jobs meant Maori lost ties with their Iwi and hapu and this can still be seen today: Statistics New Zealand information from 2006 says 1 in 5 Maori do not know which Iwi they belong to.

The new urban environment was racist and unwelcoming to Maori. Taonui (Ibid., 235) says “Housing was often advertised as ‘Europeans only’; jokes described evil-smelling insects as ‘Maori bugs’; ‘Maori time’ meant being unpunctual” and a 1959 survey showed a quarter of hotels rejected bookings with Maori names. Moreover national policy was against Maori interests as well, a policy that banned Maori from being taught in schools had been in place since 1867. This had not affected Maori until the population migrated to cities, as rural towns and Marae had hitherto run their things under their own rules. Organisations such as the Maori Council or the Maori Women’s Welfare League highlighted these issues but often received no attention from the government. It was through underground newspapers such as Te Hokio[i] and the organisation Nga Tamatoa that Maori began to organise and question what was taking place.

In The Pedagogy of the Oppressed Paolo Freire describes (1972, 149) how a subjugated culture can use its knowledge of the dominant culture to its advantage. The Maori protest movement comes in the international context of the recent victories of the Black Civil Rights Movement, at the same time as many countries were ridding the shackles of colonialism in Africa, and just as many other movements of liberation were taking place, such as second wave feminism or the gay liberation movement. Young Maori used their connections and this revolutionary knowledge to lead a movement in favour of equality, and because the government was reluctant to respond- its methods at times had to be revolutionary as well.

In 1967 the government passed the Maori Affair Amendment Act, which intended to make Maori land more economic by selling it on the market. Urban Maori were forced to sell land they weren’t using. They of course saw it as another land grab and there was opposition from all Iwi. The next year Maori elders boycotted Waitangi Day but the government didn’t care. Ranginui Walker says (2005, 57) “While the government acknowledged the Treaty as the foundation of nationhood, it did so in a prevailing social climate of historical amnesia”. Protests hampered the false symbolism of Waitangi day in 1971 led this time by Nga Tamatoa, described as “urbanised young dissentient university students and graduates, unionists and other experienced political activists (Taonui 2012, 238). The group wore black armbands, called the day a day of mourning and wept by the waters of the marae. That same year the government tried to change the name of the day to ‘New Zealand day’. Embarrassed the government asked for advice from the Maori Council, which published a paper citing 14 statutes that went against article 2 of the treaty (which was meant to protect Maori rights and taonga). The Government decided to establish the Waitangi Tribunal, but it didn’t have the power it has now. It was a facade and confiscations continued to take place. As a consequence a diverse range of Maori groups popped up and continued to protest. There was the famous Maori land March in 1975 lead to Whina Cooper and which was followed by an occupation of the square in front of parliament modelled on the aboriginal ‘embassy’ in Canberra (this one lead by Tame Iti), occupations in Raglan in 1975, the Bastion point occupation of 1977 which lasted 507 days and more. But groups and movements also disseminated information, used protest theatre, gave in petitions to parliament and used other acts of civil disobedience such as boycotts. The diversity of groups in the movement were relatively united in many fronts and they all aimed to improve social services for Maori as well as save Te Reo from extinction. For example it was Nga Tamatoa who organised the first Te Reo day, which would later become te wiki o Te Reo Maori- Maori Language Week.

Some Pakeha considered Maori dysfunctional members of society, but in the late 70s many left-wing or communist groups, and Christian organisations began to support Maori as well. Despite this the media underplayed the problem. Walker (2005, 60) says the media made one protest at Waitangi in 1981 look like a riot. Of course 1981 goes down in New Zealand history as the year New Zealand stepped up against racism internationally, the Springbok Tour united Maori and Pakeha and divided half the country. But many Maori felt Pakeha weren’t aware of, or ignored, the racial issues at home. Taonui says “in many ways Pakeha marched against racism in South Africa; Maori marched against racism in South Africa and Aotearoa” (2012, 245). At the same time the protests and boycotts would have opened the eyes of many Pakeha. Meanwhile continued protests at Waitangi culminated with a cross-cultural Hikoi Ki Waitangi in 1985. The 4000 protesters were blocked by police when they were going over the Waitangi river, but later that year Labour was pressured to give the Waitangi Tribunal the retrospective powers it has now. The Tribunal is a permanent body charged with investigating breaches in the relations between Maori and the Government since the Treaty of Waitangi was signed in 1840. It was set up to clear the slate. In the 19th century and until late in the 1960s, Maori had been ripped off their land. A lot was won in the form of conquest during the Land Wars in the late 19th century. And then a lot of land was confiscated for a variety of reasons: because it was good land; because it had gold or coal; because the Government wanted to place roads, train tracks and telegraph poles through it; because Maori defended it; because Maori were using it, as in the case of Parihaka; or because they weren’t, as is the case of the wastelands policy. When Iwi are given money now it is because of all this, but the actions of the Tribunal and the money it gives is largely symbolic. The true cost of the land is much more than the price regional Iwi affiliations and the 170 million dollars Kai tahu and Tainui received. The real cost, in other words the spiritual, potential and stolen cost of the land is in fact priceless. The reason why Labour had to give in was because on the one hand tensions had been steadily increasing over the last 15 years in the form of protests and acts of civil disobedience and on the other because Maori unity over this time period trumped previous widely held conceptions of Maori as ‘disorganised’ and ‘warmongers’.

Many Maori and Pakeha may not agree with the Treaty but at its heart is a set of promises which have not been completed. As I’ve said the two texts give different interpretations, regardless the one that was signed was the Maori one. It is the differences between the two which have caused deception.

The story does not finish here. “If the 1980s protests were about honouring the Treaty, the 1990s were about seeking justice under the Treaty” (Taonui, 2012, 246). The Treaty process was well underway, with major Iwi negotiating with the Crown. As the bill began to rack up, the National government in 1994 adopted a policy to settle all negotiations with Iwi for under a billion dollars. This forced Maori out onto the streets again, this time coinciding with student protests across the country. All Iwi except Tainui, who had already agreed on signing their first settlement, protested that the government was limiting the job of the Tribunal. The policy was abandoned in 96 but not before the name of One Tree Hill became useless and significant occupations in the country, including one in Wanganui which lasted 79 days and was cut short by police in riot gear.

Even after the 90s more issues have come to shore. Foreshore and Seabed is one. The Urewera Raids another. In the case of the latter events now can still be pitted in international context. Society is becoming increasingly paranoid, there are more controls over us- Big Brother is watching. And of course whenever Maori seek to balance the scales of the executive power, working with increased autonomy, the government reacts negatively. The 17 arrested as part of the Terrorist raids in 2008 were all supportive of Mana Motuhake o Tuhoe. They were initially arrested on bogus charges, but the court found that they weren’t a terrorist unit and that 4 guns taken from a remote township was not evidence. Likewise the water rights claims last year were treated with contempt by the National Government because it would derail their asset sales programme.

The key point of this talk is to note how protest has gained the rights Maori have now. Despite this, Maori and Pasifika are still the bulk of the poor in society, this is largely due to insecure jobs and insufficient social and community support. In OGNA we are keen supporters of Tino Rangatiratanga and protesting as a means of reclaiming rights. However what has been achieved is still not enough. While we support Iwi negotiating with the Crown, the majority of money that the Iwi get back do not help the majority of hapu. The real issue is not just fixing racism, it is also fixing inequality. One of the largest Iwi, Te Arawa on the Bay of Plenty stretching to Rotorua, plans to set up its own Parliament this year. OGNA supports anything that will increase democracy at the community level, because at the end of the day every political, environmental, social and economic decision affects everybody in the community. The best way to improve decision-making is to increase democracy by deferring it to communities. This will not happen overnight, it will take planning, protesting and envisioning a more equal future.

Over time the major issue for Maori has been land. Poverty and social segregation used to be an issue 40 years ago but have lost traction recently. This is despite alarmingly high rates of suicide among young Maori males and disproportionately high numbers of Maori and Pasifika among New Zealand’s poor. In fact a report by UNICEF which came out this week has highlighted the high rates of child poverty. As soon as we start seeing that the recession isn’t as simple as a banking crisis and we wake up from our apathy, these will be the issues to focus on as a united society.