Image is of the Te Pati Maori (Maori Party) cofounders, Rawiri Waititi and Debbie Ngarewa-Packer. They have 6 of the 123 seats in the New Zealand parliament.
Officially confirming that the Republican primaries were a gigantic waste of time for everybody involved, Trump has massively beat everybody else in Iowa, and will very obviously be the Republican candidate for 2024. Given the abysmal state of the US economy (for everybody who isn’t in the top 1-10%, which is mainly what national statistics reflect when they aren’t telling blatant falsehoods), it’s more plausible than ever that Trump may indeed once again become President - though I personally refuse to predict one way or another due to how volatile politics and geopolitics currently are. Project 2025 is coming, folks - either as the official Republican governance program, or as what the Democrats will do in 2026 after the midterms, stating that they have no other choice and have to reach across the aisle as they are the Adults In The Room™.
In other news…
Late last year, New Zealand voted in a new and very right-wing government, composed of the center-right National Party, the libertarian ACT Party (ACT stands for the “Association of Consumers and Taxpayers”, good lord), and the fascist New Zealand First party. By what I can tell, this was the well-trodden path of “Vaguely center-left party does neoliberal austerity and causes a recession and workers fucking hated it and voted in a different party out of desperation,” though the flooding and cyclones did add challenges to Chris Hipkins’ short reign after Jacinda Ardern resigned.
It’s worth noting that Hipkins was at least fairly China-friendly, meeting up with Xi Jinping on a five-day visit in the summer. They still do the whole “We have concerns about human rights” thing, but of all the countries of the imperial core, New Zealand is - or, perhaps, was - one of the most amicable. In 2021, China was New Zealand’s single largest trading partner, with a third of exports going to China (more than Australia, the US, Japan, and South Korea combined), and they receive 22% of their imports from China too, more than any other single country.
Christopher Luxon, the new Prime Minister and sentient thumb, has said that he is exploring a closer relationship with AUKUS:
Luxon said New Zealand was interested in becoming involved in AUKUS Pillar 2: a commitment between the three partners to develop and share advanced military capabilities, including artificial intelligence, electronic warfare and hypersonics.
“We’ll work our way through that over the course of next year as we understand it more and think about what the opportunities may be for us,” Luxon said. “AUKUS is a very important element in ensuring we’ve got stability and peace in the region.”
This is not to say that Hipkins wanted nothing to do with AUKUS or Western organizations aimed generally against China - in fact, pre election, “he was open to conversations about joining Pillar II of AUKUS”. But the current government is pushing down on the accelerator pedal.
The left-wing Maori party, Te Pati Maori, has stated that they want New Zealand to remain non-aligned, as joining AUKUS would erode the sovereignty of the country:
As Maori we cannot allow our sovereignty to be determined by others, whether they are in Canberra or Washington. Aotearoa should not act as Pacific spy base in the wars of imperial powers. Joining AUKUS will severely undermine our country’s sovereignty, constitution, and ability to remain nuclear free. There is too much at stake for our government to make a commitment of this magnitude without a democratic process.
In general, the party leaders of Te Pati Maori want New Zealand to be the “Switzerland of the Pacific”, which is perhaps not the greatest analogy given all the problems Switzerland had and has, but we understand the intended meaning of desiring neutrality.
The Country of the Week is New Zealand! Feel free to chime in with books, essays, longform articles, even stories and anecdotes or rants. More detail here.
The bulletins site is here!
The RSS feed is here.
Last week’s thread is here.
Israel-Palestine Conflict
Sources on the fighting in Palestine against Israel. In general, CW for footage of battles, explosions, dead people, and so on:
UNRWA daily-ish reports on Israel’s destruction and siege of Gaza and the West Bank.
English-language Palestinian Marxist-Leninist twitter account. Alt here.
English-language twitter account that collates news (and has automated posting when the person running it goes to sleep).
Arab-language twitter account with videos and images of fighting.
English-language (with some Arab retweets) Twitter account based in Lebanon. - Telegram is @IbnRiad.
English-language Palestinian Twitter account which reports on news from the Resistance Axis. - Telegram is @EyesOnSouth.
English-language Twitter account in the same group as the previous two. - Telegram here.
English-language PalestineResist telegram channel.
More telegram channels here for those interested.
Various sources that are covering the Ukraine conflict are also covering the one in Palestine, like Rybar.
Russia-Ukraine Conflict
Examples of Ukrainian Nazis and fascists
Examples of racism/euro-centrism during the Russia-Ukraine conflict
Sources:
Defense Politics Asia’s youtube channel and their map. Their youtube channel has substantially diminished in quality but the map is still useful.
Moon of Alabama, which tends to have interesting analysis. Avoid the comment section.
Understanding War and the Saker: reactionary sources that have occasional insights on the war.
Alexander Mercouris, who does daily videos on the conflict. While he is a reactionary and surrounds himself with likeminded people, his daily update videos are relatively brainworm-free and good if you don’t want to follow Russian telegram channels to get news. He also co-hosts The Duran, which is more explicitly conservative, racist, sexist, transphobic, anti-communist, etc when guests are invited on, but is just about tolerable when it’s just the two of them if you want a little more analysis.
On the ground: Patrick Lancaster, an independent and very good journalist reporting in the warzone on the separatists’ side.
Unedited videos of Russian/Ukrainian press conferences and speeches.
Pro-Russian Telegram Channels:
Again, CW for anti-LGBT and racist, sexist, etc speech, as well as combat footage.
https://t.me/aleksandr_skif ~ DPR’s former Defense Minister and Colonel in the DPR’s forces. Russian language.
https://t.me/Slavyangrad ~ A few different pro-Russian people gather frequent content for this channel (~100 posts per day), some socialist, but all socially reactionary. If you can only tolerate using one Russian telegram channel, I would recommend this one.
https://t.me/s/levigodman ~ Does daily update posts.
https://t.me/patricklancasternewstoday ~ Patrick Lancaster’s telegram channel.
https://t.me/gonzowarr ~ A big Russian commentator.
https://t.me/rybar ~ One of, if not the, biggest Russian telegram channels focussing on the war out there. Actually quite balanced, maybe even pessimistic about Russia. Produces interesting and useful maps.
https://t.me/epoddubny ~ Russian language.
https://t.me/boris_rozhin ~ Russian language.
https://t.me/mod_russia_en ~ Russian Ministry of Defense. Does daily, if rather bland updates on the number of Ukrainians killed, etc. The figures appear to be approximately accurate; if you want, reduce all numbers by 25% as a ‘propaganda tax’, if you don’t believe them. Does not cover everything, for obvious reasons, and virtually never details Russian losses.
https://t.me/UkraineHumanRightsAbuses ~ Pro-Russian, documents abuses that Ukraine commits.
Pro-Ukraine Telegram Channels:
Almost every Western media outlet.
https://discord.gg/projectowl ~ Pro-Ukrainian OSINT Discord.
https://t.me/ice_inii ~ Alleged Ukrainian account with a rather cynical take on the entire thing.
One thing that the ICJ ruling (and the subsequent response to it) is making me think about, is the logic of calling for a ceasefire is now beginning to impede on the logical conclusion of the iCJ’s ruling. We have heard a refrain for a ceasefire, but if Israel is guilty of committing genocide, then under no pretext should the Palestinian resistance stop fighting, if anything, the moral response would be for other countries to invade or provide material support for the Palestinian resistance and for Israel to unconditionally surrender. Is it still a ceasefire if only one side stops?
I think: These orders are in response to a case filed against israel. The could only be directed at israel. It isn’t binding arbitration where 2 parties are subject to it. It’s not a divorce where people are trying to work their way out of a broken relationship. It is a vicious crime being done by one group against another.
I think about it in terms of a smaller scale. Say if a person was habitually driving drunk, got caught a few times for swerving. One day they injured a pedestrian and were found to be drunk at the time. They might have their license suspended or face other penalties. The injured person does not also get their license’s suspended to make it “fair”. The consequences are borne entirely by the perpetrator of the crime. Action taken by the victims that contributed to the injury might be mitigating factors; might make success at trial less likely. Like in some places maybe so called j walking. But the victim is never brought in to share the actual same verdict. If the victim was also doing a crime at the time of the accident then that would have to be a separate matter.
These people saying a ceasefire should be bilateral don’t seem to get the basic concept of how crimes work. It’s not a community restorative justice or mediation or anything like that.
Yeah, I think this just also misunderstands the definition (or popular definition) of a ceasefire as a stoppage of hostilities by both sides in a conflict. So it wouldn’t make sense for that to be the outcome of Israel being found guilty of genocide, as Palestinian resistance is legal under international law. I know Palestine isn’t a recognized party to the conflict, but the popular slogan for a ceasefire is being used here by imperialist narratives to make it seem like the ICJ ruled in Israel’s favor by not demanding one… whereas it isn’t clear that that would be the outcome (according to popular understanding of what a ceasefire means) if Israel were found guilty of the crime. The court asked Israel that they should stop committing a genocide, but instead the press is reporting that the court “stopped short of calling for a ceasefire” and to “prevent a genocide” instead of stopping their actions (even though the court literally did say that afaik)
Yes great points.
In terms of what most people are imagining when they say “ceasefire” , I wonder how it would be articulated. I bet the legal language to describe different situations of conflict is well developed. It’s the kind of thing powerful people are concerned with since all the way back.
The court said they should stop committing a genocide, not destroy evidence of any genocide they or “somebody” are engaged in, act to prevent “somebody” from doing genocide, not encourage “somebody” to do genocide and so on.
I mean they really can’t say they believe it is a genocide because it’s a court and they haven’t had a trial. But for what other reason does she spend 30 minutes enumerating the various atrocities which are widely known in the media. The court seems to have introduced a bunch of new facts they obtained independently. I didn’t know judges were allowed to do that. But why would all that be brought up if they didn’t think it was relevant. Putting the long list of horrors on the record in the context of the genocide hearing and saying these are the reasons we have jurisdiction here.
Also the 15 mins spent at the start refuting Israel’s prelims was awfully stern. She said they were lying about being aware that South Africa thought they were doing genocide and brought her own evidence to substantiate it. And otherwise misrepresenting their position. It is clear the credibility is very low. I assume these people take themselves somewhat seriously and are annoyed at the attempt to play them for fools. I wonder if it will color further proceedings.
Bit of an effort sink, isn’t it? A ceasefire was never going to be a solution here, and we may never see this level of engagement again. It could help Palestine in the short term but we should really be asking for more (with asymmetric demands) imo.