HAREWOOD
– US BASE A GLARING CONTRADICTION TO CHRISTCHURCH
THE PEACE CITY by Murray
Horton
Peace Researcher 33 – November
2006
The Christchurch City Council is very proud of
the city’s self proclaimed status as a Peace
City. Peace activists, who led the
push for the designation, are too. But the Anti-Bases Campaign (ABC) says that
the title is a sham. For the glaringly obvious reason that as the only city in Australasia
to host a US
military base (one which has been here for 50 years), Christchurch
can’t possibly be a Peace City.
We made this point when the concept was first
being debated, in 2002 (see Peace
Researcher 26, October 2002, “Christchurch
A “Peace City”?”,
which can be read online at http://www.converge.org.nz/abc/pr26-69.htm).
In 2006, the City Council called for public submissions for its 2006-16 Long
Term Council Community Plan (LTCCP). ABC took the opportunity to make the same
point again. Here is our submission, written by committee member, Yani
Johanson.
- We
commend Christchurch for
declaring itself a Peace City.
According to the Christchurch
City Council (CCC) Website:
In July 2002 Christchurch
City Councillors voted in favour of
declaring Christchurch a Peace
City. This was seen as a way for Christchurch
to celebrate its peace history, as many people involved in the peace movement
and some of the movement's peace initiatives started in Christchurch.
This decision was a way to show our city’s commitment to actively
contribute to a more peaceful future, through a range of initiatives, starting
with new strategies for a more peaceful community, the development of education
programmes, and the promotion of peace, non-violence and respect for all citizens.
(http://www.ccc.govt.nz/Christchurch/PeaceCity)
- The strategic vision in the
LTCCP should strongly reflect this position rather than remain silent.
- The Council in order to
fulfilment its commitment to the Peace
City resolution should:
- set out what services,
funding, and projects it will support
- set measures and targets to
show and monitor progress
- One target we would like to be
included in the LTCCP is the removal of the Harewood US military base from
Christchurch.
- While
the ABC acknowledges the positive impact and supports the peaceful,
non-military operations associated to the Antarctic programme, it
expresses deep concern at the provision of a US
military base in our city.
- The
US
military is extensively involved in violent, non-peaceful activities. By
allowing a US
base in our city, we are complicit in supporting those activities.
- The
Iraq Body Count Website documents that a minimum of 34,711 and a maximum
of 38,861 citizens have been reported killed due to military intervention
in Iraq since the start of the war and occupation (as of May 2006, it has only increased since then. Ed.). According to John Sloboda (Iraq Body
Count Cofounder) “the illegal US-led invasion of March and April 2003
resulted in 7,312 civilian deaths and 17,298 injured in a mere 42
days.” (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/press/pr13.php)
- The
deliberate use of violent, non-peaceful measures to attack other countries
such as Iraq
is completely contrary to the CCC’s objective to be a Peace
City.
But
We Never Got Heard
We also attached relevant information about
what the US Air Force base at Christchurch
actually does, which can be read online at http://www.converge.org.nz/abc/otherbases.html.
And we asked to be heard in person, as part of the huge number of personal
submitters that kept the Mayor and Councillors fully occupied for a week. But
that never happened. It was nearly two months later when Yani, in his capacity
as a Community Board member, asked the relevant Council bureaucrats what had
happened to our submission, that we received an acknowledgement that it had
even been received. There was no apology for not arranging for us to be heard
in person, simply a bald statement that “it is possible that our system got
overwhelmed”. So much for participatory local democracy and consulting the
people. Fortunately ABC doesn’t put much time and effort into the political
process, because we’ve learnt the hard way not to rely on it when it comes to
the bases issue.
Aussies
Want Harewood Transferred To Hobart
As for Harewood itself, once again our
Australian brethren have made a move to take it off us. Or rather, for Hobart
to replace Christchurch as the
airport and logistic supply base for Antarctica. This is
not new, it was mooted by both President Reagan’s Secretary of the Navy and the
Tasmanian Premier as “punishment” for nuclear free New Zealand during the
height of the 1980s’ ANZUS Row (ANZUS=The
Australia, New Zealand, US military treaty that was the foundation of all New
Zealand’s defence and foreign policy from its inception in 1951 until the US,
under Reagan, kicked us out in 1986. It remains in force today, but only
between the US and Australia).
In 2006, the initiative to
transfer from Christchurch to Hobart
came from Australia’s
Environment Minister, who proclaimed it to be the logical conclusion after Australia
finishes building a new landing strip in its part of Antarctica.
This touched off the usual uninformed and unedifying chorus from Christchurch’s
Mayor, Garry Moore, and all local Labour MPs in favour of retaining the
American base. Once again, whenever Harewood’s existence in Christchurch
is apparently threatened, figures are plucked out of thin air to show how much
the base is supposedly worth to us. This time, the worth to the Canterbury
region from Christchurch hosting
Antarctic programmes was given as “about $40 million”, with no supporting
evidence whatsoever.
The story died a very fast
natural death. Apart from anything else, anyone flying to the new Australian
airstrip at Casey would then have to make another 2200 kms flight across Antarctica
to the American base at McMurdo and its New
Zealand neighbour at Scott Base. So, it was
never a goer. But ABC was glad of the opportunity to once again, make our
opposition known at Christchurch’s
American base. I wrote to the Press:
ABC
Says: Let The Aussies Have “Our” US Base
“There has been recent publicity about
Australian wishes for Hobart to
replace Christchurch Airport
as the gateway to Antarctica. The Anti-Bases Campaign
would be only too happy to see this happen, as it would remove a multi-function
US Air Force base from our airport that operates under the cover of providing
logistic support for peaceful Antarctic activities. Harewood is a vital cog in
the regional network of US bases, servicing and supplying the top secret Pine
Gap spybase, near Alice Springs, which plays a crucial
role in all American wars, such as in Iraq
and Afghanistan.
There is a simple solution. Let the Australians have the actual US
military functions of “our” base and we keep a demilitarised airport which
serves only as a gateway for peaceful scientific research in Antarctica.
Then Christchurch really can be a “Peace
City” in fact as well as in name”.
This was duly published on September 4 and given lead letter status with the
eyecatching headline “Get rid of Harewood’s US
spy base”. ABC has never claimed Harewood to be any sort of spybase; that is
not its function at all. My own heading was “Demilitarise
Christchurch Airport”.
The letter provoked a furious response from
Noel Gillespie, a Christchurch man
who has written a history of the original US Navy’s Antarctic Air Squadron. He
lambasted us as “Murray Horton and his Left-wing anti-American anti-bases
zealots who are still advancing their Stone Age push to have the Americans out
of the city” (his reference to us being ‘Stone Age” was decidedly ironic when
he then proceeded to cite events from 1958 to back his argument). He claimed
that Christchurch would be “financially disadvantaged” if the American base
left and concluded: “The US Navy and Air Force have added more to Christchurch
than the fluffy misconceived theory of Christchurch the Peace City ever will”
(7/9/06, “Base advantageous”). It made me feel quite nostalgic. Gillespie’s
letter gave me the opportunity to reply, asking central or local government to
publicly state just what the financial benefits are of hosting an American
military base. Strangely enough, no one took up the challenge and the
correspondence died. But the whole little episode allowed ABC to, once again,
publicly call for Christchurch Airport
to be demilitarised. And it’s a sure bet that a lot more people read what we
had to say in the Press
than ever read our illfated submission to the City Council. Never mind, there’s
more than one way to demilitarise a US
base.
Time
For NZ To Be Independent Of US Military
There’s only one fly in the ointment and it
comes from our side of the argument. When I circulated my first letter to the Press among anti-bases
activists worldwide, our colleagues in the Australian Anti-Bases Campaign
Coalition shot back “We don’t want it”. And we do sympathise with them, as the
Aussies are already saddled with a fair number of American bases, with more on
the way courtesy of their Prime Minister, John Howard, being President Bush’s
self-proclaimed “Deputy Sheriff” and key ally in all American wars. Be that as
it may, an American military base in Christchurch
(or anywhere in New Zealand)
is a glaring contradiction, not only to Christchurch
the Peace City
but also to New Zealand
the nuclear free, out of ANZUS, independent country. It’s about time the
reality matched the rhetoric.
-----------------------------