United States (US) Aotearoa NZ Values - Do These Correlate?

Some observations from a google search.1

In the spirit of Anzac Lest we Forget.

NZ National Interest What is it?

I wrote the GCSB and NZSIS asking 37 questions relating to our warmaking since the events
of the 11th September 2001 known as 9/11. One question that I asked the two security
services, to which they provided a substantial answer, was in respect to the definition of
the National Interest2;

Most people who reside in Aotearoa New Zealand are ethical or moral characters. Ive
spoken to many of your political peers and they all desire security and peace. They also
want prosperity and the ability to do the best they can for their constituents. Sure there is
a bit of empire building and pork-barrelling in any game that involves people with power or
seeking favour hopefully this is usually reasonably discernible (no institution is free of
corruption the trick is to ensure that the corruption is not in the fundamentals of the
system) in the relatively transparent NZ political economy.

The point being that most of the politicians I meet are reasonable people. Ive met
hundreds of local government politicians and their administrations in the work Ive
undertaken in the past several years as a public advocate in relation to the TPP treaty.

A reasonable person is the entity that the Westminster system is designed to foster and
relies upon for its general consent. A reasonable and genuinely liberal character is the
epitome of the classically trained enlightenment age gentleman and lady. We were

1 I wrote on the GCSB and NZSIS on the 25th December 2015 seeking answers to 37 questions.
The answer after a 40 day extension could be summed up as we dont look at stuff that causes
us discomfort. You can have the answers see attached letter from the GCSB and NZSIS dated 12
April 2016.
2 Image capture from above letter.

1
approaching civilisation with liberal values in the middle of the nineteenth century with the
classical philosophical observations of John Stuart Mill. 3 Is the relative size of the middle
class a measure of civilisation? The middle class most benefit from diverse cultural
offerings and the trappings of humanistic civilisation. It is the upper middle class that lead
society and set the pace of change, they are the managers and professionals and
academics who provide the intellectual foundations. US middle class has been losing
numbers at both the top and bottom.4

This graph highlights the effect of US government policy settings over the long term:

Inflation adjusted percentage increase in after-tax household income for

the top 1% and four of the five quintiles, between 1979 and 2005 (gains by
top 1% are reflected by bottom bar; bottom quintile by top bar). 5

3 http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mill/
4 http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/12/14/americas-middle-class-is-shrinking-so-
whos-leaving-it/ and the Wikipedia on US Middle-class is informative about trends:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_middle_class which says in conclusion:
After the financial crisis of 200708, inequality has further increase. As William Lazonick puts it:
"Five years after the official end of the Great Recession, corporate profits are high, and the
stock markets are booming. Yet most Americans are not sharing in the recovery. While the top
0.1% of income recipients which include most of the highest-ranking corporate executives
reap almost all the income gains, good jobs keep disappearing, and new employment
opportunities tend to be insecure and underpaid."
5 http://www.cbpp.org/research/new-cbo-data-show-income-inequality-continues-to-widen

2
The USA figures reflect a global trend, which is hardly surprising given the economic system
the world largely follows is dictated from imperatives that suit USA interests. The following
tract is from a 1994 assessment The arcana of empire and the dilemma of American
national security on US Foreign Policy:

The demand for new strategies for a new world springs from the assumption
that the Soviet "threat" fundamentally determined US diplomacy from 1945
until the end of the Cold War. Now that the USSR has disappeared, it would
seem reasonable that American security policy would change profoundly. But
this view presupposes that Washington's Cold War grand strategy was--and that
foreign policy in general is--a response to the pressures of other states. If,
however, US security policy has been primarily determined not by external
threats but by the apparent demands of America' s economy, then it would be
no wonder that, despite the collapse of the Berlin Wall, those who call for new
strategies are unable to devise them. Persuasively, albeit unwittingly, this is the
argument that the foreign policy community advances today in its post-Cold War
strategic reassessments. It is a view that traps the United States in a quandary,
for as long as that community believes that America's prosperity depends upon
its current national security strategy, the country cannot free itself from the
exhausting and perilous task of ordering the world, a task that was supposed to
end with the Cold War. To appreciate the dilemma that arises when the United
States seeks its domestic well-being in sources beyond its borders, we must
examine those internal imperatives that dictate our foreign policy; in other
words, we must explore that policy from the inside out. 6

Only 5 years later the prophetic Rebuilding Americas Defences by the Project for the New
American Century (PNAC) think tank states;

"It is not a choice between preeminence today and preeminence tomorrow.

Global leadership is not something exercised at our leisure, when the mood
strikes us or when our core national security interests are directly threatened;
then it is already too late. Rather, it is a choice whether or not to maintain
American military preeminence, to secure American geopolitical leadership, and
to preserve the American peace" (p. 76).

Ive extracted from Bette Stockbauers summary of Rebuilding Americas Defences (RAD) 7:

6 Schwarz, Benjamin C.: The arcana of empire and the dilemma of American national security
Salmagundi: a quarterly of the humanities & social sciences 101-102 [Winter/Spring 1994] ,
p.182-211: http://0-literature.proquest.com.fama.us.es/searchFulltext.do?
id=R01512115&divLevel=0&area=abell&forward=critref_ft
7 Rebuilding Americas Defences full report available here:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf and
wikipedia page on PNAC RAD:

3
 The building of Pax Americana has become possible, claims "RAD," because the
fall of the Soviet Union has given the U.S. status as the world's singular
superpower. It must now work hard not only to maintain that position, but to
spread its influence into geographic areas that are ideologically opposed to our
influence. Decrying reductions in defense spending during the Clinton years
"RAD" propounds the theory that the only way to preserve peace in the coming
era will be to increase military forces for the purpose of waging multiple wars to
subdue countries which may stand in the way of U.S. global preeminence.

Their flaws in logic are obvious to people of conscience, namely, 1) a combative

posture on our part will not secure peace, but will rather engender fear
throughout the world and begin anew the arms race, only this time with far
more contenders, and 2) democracy, by its very definition, cannot be imposed
by force.

Following is the preamble to the document:

"As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the worlds
most preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America
faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to
build upon the achievement of past decades? Does the United States have the
resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

"[What we require is] a military that is strong and ready to meet both present
and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes
American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United
States global responsibilities.

"Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But
we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that
are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace
and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities,
we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th
century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before
crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of the
past century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American
leadership" (from the Projects Statement of Principles).

Four Vital Missions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#Rebuilding_America.2
7s_Defenses

4
PNAC members believe that there are four vital missions "demanded by U. S.
global leadership," but claim that "current American armed forces are ill-
prepared to execute" these missions.

Homeland Defense. America must defend its homeland. During the Cold War,
nuclear deterrence was the key element in homeland defense; it remains
essential. But the new century has brought with it new challenges. While
reconfiguring its nuclear force, the United States also must counteract the
effects of the proliferation of ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction
that may soon allow lesser states to deter U.S. military action by threatening
U.S. allies and the American homeland itself. Of all the new and current missions
for U.S. armed forces, this must have priority.

Large Wars. Second, the United States must retain sufficient forces able to
rapidly deploy and win multiple simultaneous large-scale wars and also to be
able to respond to unanticipated contingencies in regions where it does not
maintain forward-based forces. This resembles the 'two-war' standard that has
been the basis of U.S. force planning over the past decade. Yet this standard
needs to be updated to account for new realities and potential new conflicts.

Constabulary Duties. Third, the Pentagon must retain forces to preserve the
current peace in ways that fall short of conduction major theater campaigns. A
decades experience and the policies of two administrations have shown that
such forces must be expanded to meet the needs of the new, long-term NATO
mission in the Balkans, the continuing no-fly-zone and other missions in
Southwest Asia, and other presence missions in vital regions of East Asia. These
duties are todays most frequent missions, requiring forces configured for
combat but capable of long-term, independent constabulary operations.

Transform U.S. Armed Forces. Finally, the Pentagon must begin now to exploit
the so-called 'revolution in military affairs,' sparked by the introduction of
advanced technologies into military systems; this must be regarded as a
separate and critical mission worthy of a share of force structure and defense
budgets" (p. 6).

"In conclusion, it should be clear that these four essential missions for
maintaining American military preeminence are quite separate and distinct from
one another none should be considered a 'lesser included case' of another,
even though they are closely related and may, in some cases, require similar
sorts of forces. Conversely, the failure to provide sufficient forces to execute
these four missions must result in problems for American strategy. The failure to
build missile defenses will put America and her allies at grave risk and
compromise the exercise of American power abroad. Conventional forces that

5
 are insufficient to fight multiple theater wars simultaneously cannot protect
American global interests and allies. Neglect or withdrawal from constabulary
missions will increase the likelihood of larger wars breaking out and encourage
petty tyrants to defy American interests and ideals. And the failure to prepare
for tomorrows challenges will ensure that the current Pax Americana comes to
an early end" (p. 13).8

One of the crucial calls by the RAD report was the following under the heading; Creating
Tomorrows Dominant Force

... The Internet is also playing an increasingly important role in warfare and
human political conflict. From the early use of the Internet by Zapatista
insurgents in Mexico to the war in Kosovo, communication by computer has
added a new dimension to warfare. Moreover, the use of the Internet to spread
computer viruses reveals how easy it can be to disrupt the normal functioning of
commercial and even military computer networks. Any nation which cannot
assure the free and secure access of its citizens to these systems will sacrifice an
element of its sovereignty and its power...9

We also require dominance in space for the US and our allies (which must include NZ);

Space and Cyberspace

No system of missile defenses can be fully effective without placing sensors and
weapons in space. Although this would appear to be creating a potential new
theater of warfare, in fact space has been militarized for the better part of four
decades. Weather, communications, navigation and reconnaissance satellites
are increasingly essential elements in American military power. Indeed, U.S.
armed forces are uniquely dependent upon space. As the 1996 Joint Strategy
Review, a precursor to the 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review, concluded, Space
is already inextricably linked to military operations on land, on the sea, and in
the air. The report of the National Defense Panel agreed: Unrestricted use of
space has become a major strategic interest of the United States.

The RAD report places space warfare in crystal clarity in the following passage;

8 "Rebuilding America's Defenses" Blueprint of the PNAC Plan for U.S. Global Hegemony,
Summary by Bette Stockbauer; Some people have compared it to Hitler's publication of Mein
Kampf, which was ignored until after the war was over
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3249.htm
9 Page 57 of the report and 69 of the pdf:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

6
 Although it may take several decades for the process of transformation to
unfold, in time, the art of warfare on air, land, and sea will be vastly different
than it is today, and combat likely will take place in new dimensions: in space,
cyber-space, and perhaps the world of microbes. Air warfare may no longer be
fought by pilots manning tactical fighter aircraft sweeping the skies of opposing
fighters, but a regime dominated by long-range, stealthy unmanned craft. On
land, the clash of massive, combined-arms armored forces may be replaced by
the dashes of much lighter, stealthier and information-intensive forces,
augmented by fleets of robots, some small enough to fit in soldiers pockets.
Control of the sea could be largely determined not by fleets of surface
combatants and aircraft carriers, but from land- and space-based systems,
forcing navies to maneuver and fight underwater. Space itself will become a
theater of war, as nations gain access to space capabilities and come to rely on
them; further, the distinction between military and commercial space systems
combatants and noncombatants will become blurred. Information systems will
become an important focus of attack, particularly for U.S. enemies seeking to
short-circuit sophisticated American forces. And advanced forms of biological
warfare that can target specific genotypes may transform biological warfare
from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.

This is merely a glimpse of the possibilities inherent in the process of

transformation, not a precise prediction. Whatever the shape and direction of
this revolution in military affairs, the implications for continued American
military preeminence will be profound. As argued above, there are many
reasons to believe that U.S. forces already possess nascent revolutionary
capabilities, particularly in the realms of intelligence, command and control, and
long range precision strikes. Indeed, these capabilities are sufficient to allow the
armed services to begin an interim, short- to medium-term process of
transformation right away, creating new force designs and operational concepts
designs and concepts different than those contemplated by the current
defense program to maximize the capabilities that already exist. But these
must be viewed as merely a way-station toward a more thoroughgoing
transformation.10

This on the revolution coming in the art of war;

Absent a rigorous program of experimentation to investigate the nature of the

revolution in military affairs as it applies to war at sea, the Navy might face a
future Pearl Harbor as unprepared for war in the post-carrier era as it was
unprepared for war at the dawn of the carrier age.11

10 Page 60 of RAD pg 72 of pdf:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

7
Which brings us back to the commencement of this part of the report to the following
statement which is the nub of the thinking.

Any serious effort at transformation must occur within the larger framework of
U.S. national security strategy, military missions and defense budgets. The
United States cannot simply declare a strategic pause while experimenting
with new technologies and operational concepts. Nor can it choose to pursue a
transformation strategy that would decouple American and allied interests. A
transformation strategy that solely pursued capabilities for projecting force from
the United States, for example, and sacrificed forward basing and presence,
would be at odds with larger American policy goals and would trouble American
allies.

Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is

likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event like a
new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and industrial policy will shape the pace and
content of transformation as much as the requirements of current missions... 12

This is the point where one then introduces the catastrophic and catalyzing event known as
9/11.

I offered evidence to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Select Committee in
respect to the then Countering Foreign Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill, where I
identify clearly that the US authoritys 9/11 Commission report misrepresents
the facts of that event. This evidence was not questioned by the FADT
committee members bar some observations by the Hon Phil Goff in respect to
the role of NZ service personnel in Iraq to gain a feed at the oil for food trough.
The questions I directed to our GCSB and NZSIS on the 25th December 2015 were
aimed at unravelling the 9/11 misrepresentation. Our Intelligence organisations
appear to have a view of the world that doesnt match a physical reality easily
uncovered by discerning research in publicly available material.13

Made to order terrorist strike advances the project almost as if the PNAC report was a
blueprint. It is of note the numerous signatories of the Rebuilding Americas Defences
report that were awarded plum positions in the US administration. John Pilger awarded

11 Page 67 RAD or 79 of the pdf:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
12 Pages 50 and 51 of RAD and 62-63 of the pdf.
13 Greg Rzesniowiecki evidence: http://www.parliament.nz/en-
nz/pb/sc/documents/evidence/51SCFDT_EVI_00DBHOH_BILL60721_1_A414326/greg-
rzesniowiecki and oral presentation supplementary 1: http://www.parliament.nz/en-
nz/pb/sc/documents/evidence/51SCFDT_EVI_00DBHOH_BILL60721_1_A414277/greg-
rzesniowiecki-supp-1

8
journalist in his film Breaking the Silence14 provides insight into the PNAC personnel and
their roles;

John Pilger dissects the truth and lies in the 'war on terror'. Award-winning
journalist John Pilger investigates the discrepancies between American and
British claims for the 'war on terror' and the facts on the ground as he finds
them in Afghanistan and Washington, DC. In 2001, as the bombs began to drop,
George W. Bush promised Afghanistan "the generosity of America and its allies".
Now, the familiar old warlords are regaining power, religious fundamentalism is
renewing its grip and military skirmishes continue routinely. In "liberated"
Afghanistan, America has its military base and pipeline access, while the people
have the warlords who are, says one woman, "in many ways worse than the
Taliban".

In Washington, Pilger conducts a series of remarkable interviews with William

Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, and leading Administration officials such
as Douglas Feith, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, and John Bolton, Under
Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security. These people, and
the other architects of the Project for the New American Century, were
dismissed as 'the crazies' by the first Bush Administration in the early 90s when
they first presented their ideas for pre-emptive strikes and world domination. 15

The case for the US and the coalition of the willing being guilty of waging aggressive war is
well made. It is also well made the case for the US being the main architect for most of the
wars since 1945 which provided the closure of World War Two. 16

The USA and the coalition of the willing are guilty of waging aggressive war. The aggressive
war standard was determined as the test for criminality at the Nuremburg Trials organised
to determine World War 2 culpability. Aggressive war encompasses all other war crimes.
The US prosecutor at Nuremberg

The issue of war crimes was considered at the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission in
2011.

14 Breaking the Silence, watch it here must watch made in 2004 and shows clearly the illegality
of the War on Terror waged by the US and the coalition of the willing:
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/breaking-the-silence/
15 http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/breaking-the-silence/ I recommend that you watch the film
so you apprehend the thesis offered for it is valid and actionable.
16 It is well established the US is a war criminal. The issue is what to do about it? Can we carry on
being an ally and trading partner to the largest despot on the planet, one who is world
policeman in Pax Americana? Who can continue and maintain their professed status as a
humanitarian, following humanitarian law?

9
The Star (Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia) reports: Bush Found Guilty of War Crimes KUALA
LUMPUR: The War Crimes Tribunal has convicted former US President George W. Bush and
seven of his associates as war criminals for torture and inhumane treatment of war crime
victims at US military facilities.

However, being a tribunal of conscience, the five-member panel chaired by

tribunal president judge Lamin Mohd Yunus had no power to enforce or impose
custodial sentence on the convicted eight.

We find the witnesses, who were victims placed in detention illegally by the
convicted persons and their government, are entitled to payment of
reparations, said Lamin at a public hearing held in an open court at the Kuala
Lumpur Foundation to Criminalize War yesterday.

He added that the tribunals award of reparations would be submitted to the

War Crimes Commission and recommended the victims to find a judiciary entity
that could enforce the verdict.

The tribunal would also submit the finding and records of the proceedings to the
Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, the United Nations Security
Council.17

The trial conducted by the Allies at the conclusion of World War Two is known as the
Nuremberg Trial. It was established by the European victors to try the Germans that were
scape goated for the war.18

The Nuremberg Principles for jurisdiction and the nature of the crimes they considered
from the text;

II. JURISDICTION AND GENERAL PRINCIPLES

Article 6.

The Tribunal established by the Agreement referred to in Article 1 hereof for the
trial and punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis countries

17 http://www.commondreams.org/news/2012/05/13/war-tribunal-finds-bush-cheney-guilty-
war-crimes and this on the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission and history:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuala_Lumpur_War_Crimes_Commission
18 The Nuremberg Trials only considered a few of the possible candidates. Many German
professionals and military personnel were uplifted to the USA in Operation Paperclip:
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-
studies/studies/vol-58-no-3/operation-paperclip-the-secret-intelligence-program-to-bring-nazi-
scientists-to-america.html

10
 shall have the power to try and punish persons who, acting in the interests of the
European Axis countries, whether as individuals or as members of organizations,
committed any of the following crimes.

The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of
the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility:

(a) CRIMES AGAINST PEACE: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging

of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties,
agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for
the accomplishment of any of the foregoing;

(b) WAR CRIMES: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such
violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or
deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in
occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the
seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton
destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military
necessity;

(c)CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement,

deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian
population, before or during the war; or persecutions on political, racial or
religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the
jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the
country where perpetrated.

Leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices participating in the formulation

or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing
crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such
plan.

Article 7. The official position of defendants, whether as Heads of State or

responsible officials in Government Departments, shall not be considered as
freeing them from responsibility or mitigating punishment.

Article 8. The fact that the Defendant acted pursuant to order of his Government
or of a superior shall not free him from responsibility, but may be considered in
mitigation of punishment if the Tribunal determines that justice so requires. 19

These last are in effect part of the rationale for bringing the war crime charges before you.

19 http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/imtconst.asp

11
And funny enough NZ has a seat at the Security Council, and has had a turn as the Council
Chair in July of 2015. And most of the people of Aotearoa NZ are seekers of security and
peace. Do our leadership follow the lead and desires of the people of Aotearoa NZ.

Who do we align with?

Are theses players benign and seekers of peace and security?

If the answer is yes then there is no issue, carry on. However that is not the case.

Surely it is timely to review the arrangement and work out if it suits our ethical frame.

Greg Rzesniowiecki

April 2016

12