Keith Locke

I really like my POLS 244 class. Really, a lot. (Well, for now, anyways.) We have speakers come in sometimes, and today was our first speaker. It was Keith Locke, who, according to the website, is the Spokesperson for: Civil Defence; Defence; Disarmament; Foreign Affairs; Human Rights; Industrial Relations (Assoc); Overseas Development Assistance; Police; Security and Intelligence; Transport (Assoc - Auckland); Veteran Affairsfor the Green Party of New Zealand.

As an overview of Green party policy, they are very environmentally focused as well as being very outspoken on human rights and non-violence. You can check out the rest of their policies at http://www.greens.org.nz/.

Anyways, so Keith Locke came and spoke to us today. He spoke on a variety of topics for about half an hour and then left it open for questions. I am only going to mention a couple of things that he said because they made the biggest impressions on me.

He started with talking about terrorism in today's world. He said calling this the age of terrorism is a huge myth because hijackings and terrorism were much more prevalent in the 1970s. He also said that non-state terrorism (i.e. terrorist organizations) were not as much of a problem and were not as dangerous as state terrorism.

He also spoke about how New Zealand should be more focused on human rights in its foreign policy. Kiwis should be wary of free trade agreements because they are not necessarily beneficial for the parties involved. Governments also should not form free trade agreements with states with human rights violations (his example was the proposal for a free trade agreement between New Zealand and China).

The final point that really hit home with me was that New Zealand had to carefully analyze alliances and that just because it has been friendly with countries in the past doesn't mean that it has to continue in the future. He cited America as the number on example. According to Locke, America and the Bush administration is the number one problem in the world, causing the most violence and poverty and security issues. He said that because of this fact, New Zealanders should not be fighting along side American troops because it implicitly shows approval of American idealism (his example: fighting along side American troops in Afghanistan implicitly gave approval for the torturing of prisoners in Guatanamo Bay). He believes that the NZ defense budget should be moved from defense expenditure to patrolling expenditure, as in not having a standing navy (i.e. getting rid of their two frigates) but having more fishery patrols in the Asian region.

OK, I think we can be assured that I would never vote for this guy. He did have some very good points that I agreed with, not the least of which was the fact that you have to take every situation individually and not generalise across situations. One response to human rights violations may not be appropriate for another. (His example was boycotting the cricket tour in Zimbabwe but appearing under protest for the 2008 Olympics in Beijing, although I believe that politics should be removed from sport.) Also, just because a state has acted one way historically does not mean it should continue to act that way in the future. Times change, and governments should be flexible while holding to their values.

I don't think it is any surprise that I very much disagree with the assertion that the Bush administration is the number one problem in the world today. I don't believe that there can be any number one problem. The world is incredibly diverse, and the issues that are problematic for one state will not necessarily be a problem for another; not every state is in the same place metaphysically. (Although, if I had to pick one issue, I would say that extreme poverty is the number one issue, causing more death and destruction because the differences between the "haves" and "have nots" traditionally lead to the most conflict; Locke also agrees with this idea, aside from poverty being the number one issue.) There are parts of the US government that I do not agree with, but overall I think that the Bush administration has done some good things for both the United States and the world as a whole.

I also do not agree with the reduction of NZ's defense budget, although, as an international student, I know a lot less about this topic than America. I do know that New Zealand does not have a strong military capacity and that Locke is arguing the reduce this even further. New Zealand is in alliances with many other greater powers and will look to them in times of trouble for protection. This includes states like Australia, not just the United States. The point of an alliance is mutual support, and while New Zealand will never have the military capacity of the larger nations, it should offer support proportional to its economy and population size.

So, that is the Keith Locke situation. I have posted a lot recently, so don't expect one for a little while. I just felt like I wanted to talk about this before I forgot.