Pundit

David, you should do a bit of checking up before rushing in to print with the right wing spin about Shearer's position on mercenaries.  Gordon Campbell did his homework:

<blockquote>Shearer’s views on private armies have been wildly distorted. In one paper, written 12 years ago, he had been saying that in Sierra Leone the private army involved had helped to end a hideously brutal civil war. Subsequently, Shearer’s position has been that such private armies are a fait accompli that has to be regulated – which would mean that the likes of Blackwater could no longer enjoy legal immunity for their actions inside Iraq. That, I would have thought, was a progressive position that Norman himself would endorse.</blockquote>

Likewise your comment re "a fly-in expatriate UN aid manager".   See Gordon Campbell again:

<blockquote>The clambering to the candidacy in Mt Albert of National list MP Melissa Lee over the carcass of local perennial Ravi Musuku, should just about bury any charges that Shearer is parachuting into the election, as the head office pick. Who isn’t? At least Shearer has lived there, and has owned and maintained a house in the electorate for many years.</blockquote>

So how about a bit of fact checking in future...

Shearer’s position has been that such private armies are a fait accompli that has to be regulated – which would mean that the likes of Blackwater could no longer enjoy legal immunity for their actions inside Iraq. That, I would have thought, was a progressive position that Norman himself would endorse.

And if that was as far as his position went this might be a reasonable objection to the coverage of Shearer's views. Unfortunately, his views go somewhat beyond pleading for regulation of private armies, for example, these extracts:

At times, therefore, the UN will need to act forcefully. This in turn implies ‘a willingness to accept the risk of casualties on behalf of the mandate.’ But that is the key reason why western states in particular, refuse to send their forces into messy, brutal civil wars – why more are willing to monitor a more straightforward peace agreement between Ethiopia and Eritrea, for example.

Instead, the emerging picture is of a third world army of peacekeepers, paid by the west – a scenario ‘where some people contribute the blood and some contribute the money,’ as Colum Lynch put it in The Guardian last year. But that too is unlikely to be sustainable. One of the reasons why the highly professional Indian and Jordian contingents pulled out of Sierra Leone was their reluctance to carry the burden for the west.

…

Despite the moral arguments, we are some way off privatised peacekeeping forces … But like it or no, we may be heading inexorably down that path anyway. Future troops being offered to peacekeeping forces might well come from private companies than states. The US firm Dyncorp, for example, provided the US share of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe monitors in Kosove. Dyncorp is now training Colombian solider in its drug was. Another company, MPRI, also recently in Colombia, continues to train the Bosnia army in sophisticated US weaponry.

…

Private security companies – those protecting private interest – are a booming business in countries where there is instability. Fine for those who can afford it. But these more benign security tasks are a different order form their military cousins. Rather than offering protection only for those who can pay, military companies are hired to influence the overall strategic situation – to protect the public or end the war regardless of ability to pay.

From the news article following this blowing up we have the following:

He said he was still supportive of using private security forces for peacekeeping as a last resort.

“If you have got a situation where thousands of people are being mutilated and it’s your only option, then your first priority is the protection of women and children.”

And from the Journal in which Shearer was writing:

When people in the world’s conflict zones need protecting, it is the United Nations which is most frequently charged with ‘doing something’. Often short of soldiers, it should be given another option, to call on professional military companies to provide human security - for a fee.

[emphasis added]

This goes way beyond "this may be the only option, so we might want to put controls around it". It's not as simplistic as "I want to privatise the army," but it seems very close to "if it's the only option, I'm prepared to privatise the provision of military services historically provided by government military forces."

Rob, I have read David Shearer’s articles – “Privatising Protection” and “Outsourcing War” –and formed my opinion on the basis of Shearer’s own words, not “right wing spin”. Here are the relevant quotations from Shearer’s articles

1]         “As the political and economic costs of peacekeeping continue to escalate, it may increasingly make sense for multilateral organizations and Western governments to consider outsourcing some aspects of these interventions to the private sector.

2]         “Many factions are increasingly motivated by economic gain through the control of diamonds, gold or minerals. Why not award the concession to a company which will mine and protect the resource, thereby keeping diamonds out of the hands of rebels who will sell them to finance their war?

3]         “Regulation of military companies will be problematic, given the diversity of their services and the breadth of their market niche.”

This is the basis on which I concluded that Labour "is adopting a candidate who has said military interventions can be privatized with profit-sharing."

Those who wish to read these quotes in the context of Shearer’s original articles can do so via the links kindly provided in David Farrar’s Kiwiblog.

Shearer said "“If you have got a situation where thousands of people are being mutilated and it’s your only option, then your first priority is the protection of women and children.”  Graeme - do you disagree?

Your selective quotes, like your summary in your post, paint only one side of the picture.  Here are some selective quotes for the other:

"Since the demand for military force is unlikely to end anytime soon, military companies, in their various guises, appear here to stay. Should there be some attempt to regulate them ..."

"Regulation of military companies will be problematic, given the diversity of their services and the breadth of their market niche. Yet, in many respects, the private military industry is no different from any other sector in the global economy that is required to conform to codes of practice..."

"There is a serious question here: if a private force operating with international authority and within international law, can protect civilians, how moral is it [to] deny people protection just because states can't or won't find the forces to do it?"

As Campbell said, Shearer is recognising the reality of mercenary armies and arguing for their regulation. Where is this balance evident in your post?  In presenting just one side of what Shearer said, you are indeed presenting right wing spin.

Shearer said "“If you have got a situation where thousands of people are being mutilated and it’s your only option, then your first priority is the protection of women and children.”  Graeme - do you disagree?

No.

I'm not saying that Shearer is wrong. My quotes are not there to demonise Shearer or his views. The quotes are there in contradiction to your (and Gordon's) view of the extent of Shearer's views.

I'm saying that you are wrong to assert that Shearer only goes so far as to recognise the reality of mercenary armies and argue for their regulation. He certainly does do that, but he also goes further than that.

I'm not saying that Shearer is wrong. My quotes are not there to demonise Shearer or his views. 

OK, good.

I'm saying that you are wrong to assert that Shearer only goes so far

Can you point please to the part where I (or indeed Campbell whom I quote) say "only"?  All I'm objecting to is the presentation of one side of the story without the other.

Rob, Shearer effectively says there are circumstances where intervention in a failing state by a private military company should be considered, with the proviso that the company operates in a regulated way. But if the regulator was in no position to bring order to the failing state, would it really be in any position to bring order to the private forces hired to undertake the task? 

Shearer thinks regulation is problematic. Suggesting there is little difference between regulating the military and other sectors of the global economy does not make it any less problematic.

There is a vast difference between privatising activities within a State powerful enough to address malpractice by private providers and the privatisation of military activities within a failing State that lacks that power.

Whether I agree or disagree with Shearer's views on this issue is immaterial. The party he will represent on the hustings does not share his view. Labour frequently and fundamentally disagrees with privatisation within a State where the State holds the power and authority to address malpractice by private providers. That is Labour's problem - and Shearer's problem. I'm not going to pretend it doesn't exist.

"Shearer effectively says there are circumstances where intervention in a failing state by a private military company should be considered, with the proviso that the company operates in a regulated way"

There - now why didn't you say that in your article?

"The party he will represent on the hustings does not share his view. ... That is Labour's problem - and Shearer's problem. I'm not going to pretend it doesn't exist."

That is lame on several counts.  Do you think that all members of a party are required to hold the same view?  Do you think that Labour would actually disagree with Shearer's carefully qualified views (when there is no alternative to thousands of people suffering, as above)?  Do you think that that was the point you were really conveying with your one sided summary of Shearer's views in your post?  

The one sided presentation of Shearer's opinions, combined with the ridiculous attack on ""a fly-in expatriate" when he actually owns a house in Mt Albert and has lived there (the only major candidate to do so), makes it look like you simply have it in for Shearer.

Rob, my column is about the Mount Albert by-election - not David Shearer's views on using private military. I think I've given him a fair go. He has a problem that will plague him and his party in the campaign.

In 2003, the Labour-led coalition government passed the Mercentary Activities [Prohibition] Act, making it an offence to recruit, use, finance, or train mercenaries, or to participate in a way or act of violence as a mercenary. The bill was sponsored by his champion Phil Goff. I think that says enough about Labour's position about privatising military interventions, and it's binding on caucus members until there's a policy change. Good luck to Shearer, but he is bucking the policy.

For the residential qualifications of Meg Bates, Glenda Fryer and Helen White, check out their entries on  www,puttingmtalbertfirst.org.nz. They don't just own houses in Mount Albert. They work there. He may have lived in his house at some stage, but he did fly in to contest the selection.

I don't have it in for Shearer - he's done good things. But he's carrying some difficult baggage onto the hustings, and the hard questions are going to keep coming.

"I think I've given him a fair go."

I guess readers can make up their own minds about that.

"Good luck to Shearer, but he is bucking the policy."

Oh please, this is utter nonsense.  How is Shearer "bucking the policy" Because he has (or several years ago had) a different opinion?  Until he makes some announcement or challenges Labour's policy in some way how is he "bucking the policy"?  Thoughtcrime perhaps?  Is it 1984 already?

And if we're to make past opinions a crime then John Key is in trouble, with his previous opinions (climate change, war in Iraq and so on) so recently "reversed".

"For the residential qualifications of Meg Bates, Glenda Fryer and Helen White"

You did little pieces on each of the candidates, Shearer, Lee, Boscawen, Norman.  You saw fit to call only Shearer a "fly-in" candidate, despite the fact that he has the strongest connection to the electorate of any of them.

So no, Sorry David, but your bias is showing.

If Shearer wants to put all this to bed, he should come out and say something about what his position is, on this and other privatisation issues.

If he has already done so, in a clear and open manner, I stand corrected. Otherwise, the legitimate questioning will continue.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that his personal opinion was different from Labour Party policy.  Now - so what?  

Clearly members of other political parties (notably ACT and Maori) disagree with each other substantially.  How is this unusual?  How is Shearer any different?  I'm not arguing that no one should question Shearer - go ahead, question any politician on anything - it just seems to me that there's a large helping of "beat up" in this focus on Shearer.

Excellent analysis, Mr Beatson.  Pity about some of the comments, though.

I'm not so sure you are on the mark with the Maori Party and Mt Albert.  I suspect Messrs Sharples and Turia might take a longer view and calculate that they will be better off not upsetting NACTional too much and that in this case there is more to be gained for them and their constituency by staying away on the day.

However, time will tell.  They have become extremely astute and capable politicians as has, to my surprise, Hone Harawira.

Very interesting topic Mr Beatson but I sense the comments have overdone the Shearer is a local issue.

It's not really very relevant to me whether Shearer has a house in Kingsland or not.  It is becoming pretty clear that the fact he has lived in the electorate (which Russell Brown and r0b conveniently overlook vis-a-vis Melissa Lee, who has also lived in the electorate) is not really that material.  The issue as I see it is which of the main party candidates are most in touch with the electorate, right now.

Shearer's statement that crime is not an issue in Mount Albert strikes of arrogance in my view, and just shows he's out of touch with the local issues. 

It's very hard to come up to speed with what's on the ground when you've been away for as long as he is.  Statements that the waterview overland option will "cut Mt Albert in half" also show either a blind ignorance of the geography of the electorate or alternatively that he's trying too hard to turn waterview into a big issue for the campaign.

Tim, thank you. That was my real point when I called David Shearer "a fly-in candidate for selection who sidelined talented competitors with strong Labour and local residential credentials". Current local knowledge seems a pretty fundamental requirement for a party candidate running under the banner: "Putting Mt Albert First".

 John Key (and Minister Joyce) decided Mt Albert is not worth the price of a tunnel.

It was made a lot easier when Melissa Lee started to look like a serious liability of the Taito Field variety. 

Electorate mps are so much more likely to turn maverick.

Responding to the cooler temperatures, Ms Lee has switched to a top rankin switch of styles.

Serious people look too seriously at this bye-election. The bulk of voters will choose according to their perception of the candidate's style, appearance and body language. This all started with television and Kennedy versus Nixon. Kennedy - the young, handsome, boy-next-door with a cheeky grin alternating with an occasional thoughtful frown and embellished by a wife to grace any Vogue cover; poor Nixon, blue-chinned, black satanic eyes-too-close-together. There was no contest despite Kennedy being a Catholic.

Later Obama walked like a suntanned James Stewart all over the ageing McCain. There was no contest despite Obama being black and McCain a real war hero.

Similarly Shearer will flatten his opponents because his good looks and mien speak authority, common sense and reliability; he'll beat the Greens because they only really rate with a fixed fringe and he'll particularly destroy Melissa Lee because she's already done herself in by her pushy aggressiveness.

Hark at me; I'm a dyed-in-the-wool tory! I never could stand H. Clark and would love National to win. But I wouldn't invite Lee to my garden party!