Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
The government has a majority with ACT alone (63/122 seats). If the Nats won Mt Albert, that wouldn't change (they'd have 64/122 seats).
The size of the majority would increase by one, but it wouldn't give them the ability to rule alone or anything.
A National victory would mean that they could govern/pass laws etc. with just an ACT abstention. At present, National needs support from Peter Dunne in addition to an ACT abstention to get things done.
-
At best, he was saying "look this already happens and if we want to put a peacekeeping force in at all in the future this may be the only option, so we might want to put controls around it". That's not "I want to privatise the army"
This may be the only option and it's better than doing nothing might not be an ideological argument for privatisation, but it's not an uncommon argument for it ... see for example statements of the type that argue 'ACC is effectively bankrupt, if we don't open it up to competition it will be gone'.
From the news article:
He said he was still supportive of using private security forces for peacekeeping as a last resort.
“If you have got a situation where thousands of people are being mutilated and it’s your only option, then your first priority is the protection of women and children.”
And the Journal:
When people in the world’s conflict zones need protecting, it is the United Nations which is most frequently charged with ‘doing something’. Often short of soldiers, it should be given another option, to call on professional military companies to provide human security - for a fee.
This goes way beyond "this may be the only option, so we might want to put controls around it". It's not as simplistic as "I want to privatise the army," but it seems very close to "if it's the only option, I'm prepared to privatise the provision of military services historically provided by government military forces."
Is it that some people recognise that he's right, but have an objection to "privatisation" so want to avoid calling it that?
-
if we send in private troops instead of public one's I don't see how we can sensibly claim not to have privatised something.
Totally agree - but that's not been called for by Shearer or anyone.
I might suggest you read his articles. That is very much the undercurrent of some of Shearer's thinking, moreover, he notes that it is already happening in some respects around the world:
At times, therefore, the UN will need to act forcefully. This in turn implies ‘a willingness to accept the risk of casualties on behalf of the mandate.’ But that is the key reason why western states in particular, refuse to send their forces into messy, brutal civil wars – why more are willing to monitor a more straightforward peace agreement between Ethiopia and Eritrea, for example.
Instead, the emerging picture is of a third world army of peacekeepers, paid by the west – a scenario ‘where some people contribute the blood and some contribute the money,’ as Colum Lynch put it in The Guardian last year. But that too is unlikely to be sustainable. One of the reasons why the highly professional Indian and Jordian contingents pulled out of Sierra Leone was their reluctance to carry the burden for the west.
…
Despite the moral arguments, we are some way off privatised peacekeeping forces … But like it or no, we may be heading inexorably down that path anyway. Future troops being offered to peacekeeping forces might well come from private companies than states. The US firm Dyncorp, for example, provided the US share of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe monitors in Kosove. Dyncorp is now training Colombian solider in its drug was. Another company, MPRI, also recently in Colombia, continues to train the Bosnia army in sophisticated US weaponry.
…
Private security companies – those protecting private interest – are a booming business in countries where there is instability. Fine for those who can afford it. But these more benign security tasks are a different order form their military cousins. Rather than offering protection only for those who can pay, military companies are hired to influence the overall strategic situation – to protect the public or end the war regardless of ability to pay.
-
So why did you bring it up? Because you did quote Russell's comment that Key's "privatising the army" quip was outright bullshit.
Russell's quote was "no one but John Key has talked about privatising our national army or anyone else's. "
I happen to think that were we or anyone else to choose not to meet our/their obligations to assist with international security and peacekeeping throught the UN, not by putting troops in harm's way, but instead by paying someone in the private sector to do it for us, that that would be privatisation.
Just as I would consider it to be privatisation if we decided that the Department of Corrections should no longer keep prisoners, but that we were paying someone in the private sector to do it instead.
I'm not attempting to make a judgment call over whether this would be a good idea - in the provision of military or correctional services - just calling it what it is. He may well be right that it would be better to send in private troops, instead of sending in no-one (or no-one good), but if we send in private troops instead of public one's I don't see how we can sensibly claim not to have privatised something.
-
If instead of sending our army in the future we were to send cash which was used to purchase private military services, I'd have no problem with calling this privatisation.
You'd be wrong. The correct term is "scutage".
It can't be both?
Graeme, if I wasn't a bit busy, I'd try and come up with a more contemporary military analogy for "drawing a long bow" ...
A long bow? I wasn't suggesting it was any party's policy, or that anyone was suggesting it as a serious idea for New Zealand, but if it came to it that the United Nations called for peacekeepers to be sent somewhere, and we sent money to pay for private security firms instead of sending our soldiers, I'd call that privatisation.
-
Conrad is wrong.
I concur. Lee would resign as a member of Parliament between the initial results and the return of the writ, this would create a National list vacancy, which would be filled by Cam Calder (presuming he's still a party member, still a citizen, and wants the job); Lee would then be sworn in as an MP following the by-election.
-
And David, it suits you to try and make the connection, but no one but John Key has talked about privatising our national army or anyone else's. You know quite that that's not what the articles were about.
Labour, and many others assert that National wants to privatise ACC. National says that ACC will be government-owned, but that it will be opened up to competition. I think the argument is quite strong that, even though there is absolutely no intention to sell the ACC, that opening up workplace accident insurance to the private sector - which will mean that a service previously provided by the Government will now be provided by the private sector - is privatisation.
In the past, the UN has tried to arrange peacekeeping forces by raising troops from national armies. New Zealand occassionally provides soldiers to these efforts. If instead of sending our army in the future we were to send cash which was used to purchase private military services, I'd have no problem with calling this privatisation. A service which used to provided by the Government is now provided by the private sector - just as if the Government paid someone in the private sector to manage a new prison.
Just because we still have an army, or just because we still have the same number of public prisons as we ever did, would not mean that there isn't privatisation.
-
... that might also be said of National's list, given that a victory in Mt Albert for Melissa Lee would bring back Cam Calder on its list. No one's heart would race at that prospect.
"Back"?
Because he's a long-serving now former MP who lost re-election, and whose political zenith is behind him?
-
Islander, I don't think I'll ever accept the fact a 12yr old was convicted of murder as any form of 'justice'.
Is it because he wasn't convicted of murder?
-
What is amazing that the LGC is actually consisdering this, given it was only requested by 10% of islanders who bothered to sign the petition. I'd have thought that 90% opposition would have been enough to laugh this out of court.
10% is a lot to have sign a petition. And I'm not amazed, because the law requires that once 10% of people sign that petition that the LGC looks at it.
That only 10% signed it does not imply that 90% are opposed. You have a reasonably hard time getting 10% of a population to sign a petition for something supported by 90% of the population.
10% of registered electors signed a petition to force a vote on the question "Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?" I might suggest that you wait until August to see whether 90% of New Zealand voters disagree with them.