The Treaty Of Waitangi & Foreign Control Of Aotearoa

- Brian Turner

This article is in large part a response to the ambivalence (if not outright rejection) I've observed when the relevance of the Treaty of Waitangi to foreign investment in, and control of, Aotearoa-NZ is discussed. It's a critical issue if you accept, as I do, that the Treaty of Waitangi is the founding document for Aotearoa-NZ and has contemporary, as well as historical, relevance to the issue of foreign control of the country. Historically, it can be argued that the Treaty of Waitangi of 1840 formalised British foreign control of Aotearoa, for the Treaty gave Britain the right to govern the country (Kawanatanga) and in the process protect the authority of Maori and their lands (Preamble & Article 1 of the Treaty).

This placed some control over the rampant colonisation which commenced pre-Treaty with Edward Gibbon Wakefield and others, but post-Treaty it failed to stem the increased flow of people, primarily after land.  This inevitably clashed with the sovereignty rights of Maori (Te Tino Rangatiratanga) particularly over “their lands, villages and everything else that is held precious” (Article 2 of the Treaty). The tension between governance rights and sovereignty rights continues today and is unlikely to be significantly resolved within Aotearoa-NZ until a Treaty-based constitutional transformation is achieved rather than mere tinkering with the present Westminster system. (1). Meanwhile, the entrenched neo-liberal globalisation agenda to which the country is presently wedded could alter significantly given the following five factors.

Firstly, there are claims from the likes of economist Shamubeel Eaqub (2) that globalisation is seriously under question, as in widespread opposition to the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) and the anti- Establishment mood  in the  current US Presidential campaign. Here in Aotearoa-NZ, Maori have participated in anti-TPPA opposition to an extent not seen since the anti-apartheid era of the 1980s.The present anti-globalisation mood could lead to more self reliant national economies, including here in Aotearoa-NZ

Secondly, the rights of indigenous minorities (including their economic rights) are increasingly being recognised, and where unresolved nationally, can be adjudicated internationally, as in the United Nations and the International Court of Justice. Maori are not oblivious to these opportunities and have utilised them to good effect already.

Thirdly, historic treaties, such as the Treaty of Waitangi, cannot be dispensed with just because one party finds them inconvenient or continues to believe in the power of conquest. Treaties entered into historically cannot be set aside until both/all parties agree. Maori are showing no inclination to abandon the Treaty of Waitangi; quite the reverse!

Fourthly, the plus for both Maori & those who came later, is that under Article 2 of the Treaty of Waitangi, critical resources of the country cannot be exploited without the agreement of Maori, whose stewardship (Kaitiakitanga) has historically, and in general, been far superior to that of the European and other settlers. There is also growing resistance among Maori to the divide and rule practices which have led some Iwi into the traps of foreign corporatisation (3).

Fifthly, the extent to which all who came after Maori accept the Treaty of Waitangi, determines the degree to which they, together with Maori, form Treaty-based relationships and therefore become entitled to an equal say as Tangata Tiriti (people of the Treaty) with Tangatawhenua (people of the land) in the future direction of Aotearoa-NZ, including the degree to which foreign intrusion (if at all) will be tolerated.

Conclusion

The Treaty of Waitangi, whilst ceding the power of governance to the Crown, retains the essence of sovereignty to Maori and therefore power to retain ownership and usage of the key natural resources of Aotearoa-NZ. If we adhere to the Treaty in both its governance and sovereignty requirements, we have a sound Treaty relationship basis on which to resist unacceptable foreign influence and control and to build a more sustainable future together.

Endnotes

  1. As proposed in “Matike Mai Aotearoa”, the report of the Independent Working Group on Constitutional Transformation,  http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/MatikeMaiAotearoaReport.pdf.
  2. Shamubeel Eaqub in the Christchurch Press (30/5/16, http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opinion-analysis/80484113/Shamubeel-Eaqub-Town-and-country-need-to-reconnect-for-the-good-of-all).
  3. As in the Te Waipounamu Maori District Council “vowing to fight against ‘corporate iwi interests’ dedicated to mining, oil drilling and farming” (Press.9/2/15, http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/business/65931539/council-vows-to-fight-for-maori).


Non-Members:

It takes a lot of work to compile and write the material presented on these pages - if you value the information, please send a donation to the address below to help us continue the work.

Foreign Control Watchdog, P O Box 2258, Christchurch, New Zealand/Aotearoa.

Email cafca@chch.planet.org.nz

greenball

Return to Watchdog 142 Index

CyberPlace