Posted on 03/08/2004 11:22:36 AM PST by shaggy eel
UPDATED REPORT
The veil of silence over planned SAS deployments has been partly lifted after the Government said 50 elite troops would be sent to Afghanistan.
The announcement yesterday breaks with the Government's policy of strict secrecy which surrounded the Special Air Service deployment to Afghanistan in 2002 and which was sharply criticised by Opposition parties.
The main SAS contingent will go for up to six months from April 1 and will be under the command of a New Zealand officer. It will specialise in planning and executing long-range reconnaissance and "direct action missions".
Prime Minister Helen Clark said the new openness came after previous SAS missions had been disclosed on the Internet by other countries, such as the United States, keen to praise New Zealand's efforts. "It became less and less tenable to say less than I have said to you today."
The Government had given thought to the way the previous media policy operated, she said. "We are giving more information at this time but don't expect daily or weekly reports."
The policy was discussed with the armed forces, which were happy with the new level of disclosure.
She had previously said that to confirm SAS movements would place the troops in jeopardy.
The troops would work with other countries' special forces but would not operate outside Afghanistan, Miss Clark said.
The senior New Zealand officer would give the "red card" if an activity did not comply with clear rules of engagement.
The commitment was part of stepped-up international efforts to fight terrorism before Afghanistan elections scheduled for June.
Green MP Keith Locke welcomed the end of "the farcical blackout" of information about the SAS but he criticised the deployment as "buying back" into US President George W Bush's war.
National Party deputy leader Gerry Brownlee said the announcement was a desperate measure at a time when New Zealand was trying to open the door to free-trade talks with the US.
Miss Clark said the frigate Te Mana would return to the Gulf region for four months from next month as part of the maritime interdiction operating against al Qaeda and the Taleban. If required, a P3 Orion aircraft would join the operation from July next year.
Two non-commissioned officers helping with training the Afghan national army would stay on till June next year.
The SAS deployment would help extend the reach of the Afghan transitional authority into all regions of Afghanistan and help deliver humanitarian aid and development assistance, Miss Clark said.
New Zealand's previous SAS deployment in Afghanistan was of a similar size and ran from December 2001 till December 2002.
"None of these deployments are without risk, of course. All deployments into Afghanistan are classified as high-risk," she said.
The frigate in the Gulf region was seen as a medium-risk deployment.
The cost of the moves, excluding the Orion, would be $17 million.
The Government has already announced an extension for 12 months, till September next year, of a reconstruction team in Barmian province at a cost of about $25 million.
Green MP Keith Locke said on National Radio that the Government was sending the SAS "back to the frontline".
A Human Rights Watch report, released yesterday, was a good example of why New Zealand should not be going back there, he said.
"It talks about the process of the American war being indiscriminate fire, detaining all men of military age in the vicinity of an operation and it says the US' military approach has angered many Afghans and 'lessened their willingness to co-operate with US forces'."
"New Zealand as an upholder of multilateralism and reconstruction and peace building shouldn't be involved at the frontline with the sorts of operations that are going to make us complicit in what has just been talked about by Human Rights Watch.
"If we capture prisoners there in Afghanistan, they're handed over to the Americans... and as the Human Rights Watch has said these people end up photographed naked, deprived of sleep for several weeks, beaten unconscious, held in solitary confinement and shackled, you know, against any UN or Geneva conventions.
"That's not the sort of thing we should be involved with."
New Zealand's air combat squadrons have been disbanded. This can be blamed solely on Helen Klark. She cancelled the order that the previous National government had with the US for a lease to own fleet of F16s. Our old A4K Skyhawks were arguably the best maintained and upgraded of their kind on the planet. They were, in all honesty at the end of their run though in the context of combat use.
Our airforce's most recent order book purchase was two 757s to ferry Klark to her appointments.
,,, Klark isn't a great one for sentiment, just unrealistic ideals. I'm surprised she doesn't get round in an Antonov.
A significant block of voters, let's say 42 - 45%, think it's out of control, with me counted in that group.
Brash resigned his job as governor of New Zealand's Reserve Bank to enter Parliament. He's a no nonsense economist who's hit a chord and he's on his way to claiming the commonsense vote next election.
Also, tell me if you know this... a friend of mine said Japan's war debt (WWII) was never called in. I know a lot of US finance went in there after the War. Do you know if this is correct?
The Treaty issues that I raised earlier in the year had for too long been a subject we were not allowed to express a view about. I have challenged that, and as a community we have started a long overdue review of where we have got to, and where we are headed.
Last week I responded to my critics, and this speech can be read at the National Party website, www.national.org.nz or on my own website www.donbrash.com. I will come back to this issue in future newsletters and provide further examples of how the Treaty of Waitangi “industry” is being used to divide New Zealanders.
Last Thursday evening, Helen Clark gave an aggressively political speech attacking the National Government of the 1990s and me personally. Nothing too surprising about that – I think she is feeling some real pressure as the public becomes increasingly aware of the implications of some of her Government’s policies.
But what I and many others found extraordinary is that she chose Christchurch Cathedral to deliver such a highly political speech.
I am not one who objects to bishops commenting on matters of important social interest (somebody with my own background could hardly object!), even though I disagree totally with their recent statement about how the Treaty of Waitangi should be understood.
But the bishops at least couched their statement in politically neutral language, even though it was widely understood as an attack on the National Party and on my Orewa speech.
Helen Clark, by contrast, delivered an overtly political speech and urged her audience (I’m not sure it could be called a ‘congregation’) to vote for her party at the next election. I believe that that was grossly inappropriate in a church.
Don Brash
March 10 2004
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.