TROTTER TROTS OUT ROT
The Strange Resurrection Of The
SIS Break-In Case
-
Murray Horton
The court cases brought by Aziz Choudry and David Small, arising out of the botched 1996 break-in at Aziz’s Christchurch home by Security Intelligence Service (SIS) agents, were settled in 1999 and 2000 respectively. How very odd then that the whole business should have been resurrected in 2001, a propos of nothing. Or was it? In fact, the purported revelations were published at the same time as the major controversy over the Swain Bill, which gives the SIS, Police and Government Communications Security Bureau, increased powers of electronic spying against New Zealanders (see elsewhere in this issue for ABC’s submission on the Bill. Ed.). They seemed aimed at lending legitimacy to the tawdry operations of the SIS.
Chris Trotter is the Establishment’s
tame Lefty. He is a regular columnist for the Dominion and the Independent.
In the past, such as during the build up to the 1999 APEC Summit in Auckland,
he has shown a tendency to shoot off at the mouth. But his latest effort is a
beauty. Early in 2001 his regular Independent
column was entitled “Perhaps The SIS Was Right To Burgle Choudry’s House”
(14/2/01). He later protested that the headline was not of his choosing, but proceeded
to republish the article, under a different headline, in the Political Review, which he edits.
His thesis was simple. His research
(consisting of a few Internet searches) had uncovered the fact that Aziz’s
house guest at the time of the break-in was Dr Alejandro Villamar, of Mexico;
that GATT* Watchdog et al had never made this public; that Alejandro was the
likely target of the SIS operation, not Aziz; and that he was the target
because of his activities and connections in Mexico, which included those
actively opposed to major NZ companies becoming involved in forestry projects
in southern Mexico, including the state of Chiapas, the base for the
Zapatistas’ armed uprising. He stated that “opponents of globalisation are
extremely naive if they think they can take on transnational capital without
consequences” (letter to Listener,
24/3/01). * GATT = General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, now the World Trade
Organisation (WTO), headed by our very own Mike Moore.
This whole thing really is a beat up.
GATT Watchdog responded that Alejandro Villamar was a featured speaker at the
Trading With Our Lives conference, which was being held in opposition to the
APEC (Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation) Trade Ministers’ conference in 1996,
both in Christchurch. Aziz was a principal organiser of Trading With Our Lives;
he and Alejandro went on a speaking tour around the country immediately after
that. Accordingly, Alejandro’s presence in NZ was widely publicised to the
media and public. Trotter stuck to his guns, saying that GATT Watchdog had
never admitted that Alejandro was Aziz’s house guest at the time of the
break-in. Unfortunately for him we had, from Day One. GATT Watchdog has nothing
to hide. Various publications, such as Foreign
Control Watchdog, Peace Researcher and The
Big Picture have all run articles stating that Alejandro was Aziz’s house
guest at the time and speculating on whether Alejandro was the target of the
break-in.
Trotter went on to point out that the
break-in took place a fortnight after the new SIS Amendment Act came into
force, expanding the spy agency’s powers to include targeting people who pose a
threat to New Zealand’s “international or economic wellbeing”, and that
Alejandro’s activities and connections in Mexico, specifically those in
opposition to major NZ companies trying to get into forestry projects in
southern Mexico, provided exactly that justification for the SIS operation.
Unfortunately for him, there are more
holes in his argument. Yes, the break-in did take place a mere fortnight after
the law change, precisely proving our point that political activists would be
targeted. But the evidence gathered in Aziz’s case does not help Trotter’s
thesis – the SIS interception warrant, which authorised the break-in, was issued
in 1995, way before the law was changed and before GATT Watchdog had heard of
Alejandro Villamar, let alone invited him to NZ. So authorisation for the
break-in was given under the old law, which did not include the expanded
powers.
Trotter’s claims did not go unnoticed
in the wider world. Bruce Ansley, in his Listener
cover story on the Swain Bill (“I Spy”; 10/3/01) wrote that (unlike Trotter) he
had covered the 1996 Trading With Our Lives conference, and the APEC Trade
Ministers’ conference, and that Alejandro’s presence was certainly no secret as
far as the national and international media were concerned. That led to Trotter
writing an aggrieved letter to the Listener
(which has a much bigger circulation than the Independent). Likewise, Jane Kelsey wrote to the Listener punching holes in his beat up
story (he replied to her, sticking to his guns).
The question of why Chris Trotter would
publish this rubbish is more problematic. It’s a very strange line for a
so-called “Lefty”, tame or otherwise, to take. It’s not a new line – back
before Aziz’s case got to court, Helen Clark infuriated the then National
government by telling North and South
that Aziz was not the target of the SIS; it was his foreign house guest. Why
Trotter is pushing his bigger thesis is even more peculiar - for a start, the
“New Zealand” forestry companies concerned (the likes of Carter Holt Harvey and
Fletcher Challenge) are actually foreign-owned, and thus transnational
corporations (TNCs) that happen to be based in NZ. And is he saying that if you
oppose the activities of TNCs, be it in NZ or Mexico, you can expect to be
targeted by Intelligence agencies in covert operations? That, if you oppose the
activities of “NZ” TNCs in Mexico, you can expect to be targeted in NZ? That’s
pretty heavy stuff, expecially as he goes to some length to justify it, and has
republished it in several other fora, namely his own Political Review and in letters to the Listener.
Trotter’s story is shot full of factual
holes, and presents a very, very dodgy political line in seemingly defending
the “right” of Intelligence agencies to break the law (it’s worth reminding
readers that the Court of Appeal ruled that the SIS had never had any right to
break into Aziz’s house, or anybody else’s; that formed the basis of the out of
court settlement by the National government) whilst acting in the interests of
TNCs and in targeting the opponents of globalisation. You’d need to ask Trotter
what is his justification for this – we can’t find any in the article. Even better,
ask him about his timing – just as the Labour government’s Swain Bill is
handing even greater electronic spying powers to the spooks and cops.
As the argument wound down, leaving him
stubbornly tying himself in knots, it became clear that this particular Trotter
has got a bad case of foot in mouth disease. The whole mysterious business has
left a bad taste in our mouths.
----------------------------