- Trump appears little concerned with treaty expiration
- Treaty expires on February 5
- Putin has offered to keep limits if US does
- China says it would not be ‘reasonable nor realistic’ to ask Beijing to join the treaty
World
Why are New Zealand’s Maori protesting over colonial-era treaty bill?
A fight for Maori rights drew 42,000 protesters to the New Zealand Parliament in the capital Wellington on Tuesday.
A nine-day-long hikoi, or peaceful march – a tradition of the Maori – was undertaken in protest against a bill that seeks to reinterpret the country’s 184-year-old founding Treaty of Waitangi, which was signed between British colonisers and the Indigenous Maori people.
Some had also been peacefully demonstrating outside the Parliament building for nine days before the protest concluded on Tuesday.
On November 14, the controversial Treaty Principles Bill was introduced in Parliament for a preliminary vote. Maori parliamentarians staged a haka (a Maori ceremonial dance) to disrupt the vote, temporarily halting parliamentary proceedings.
So, what was the Treaty of Waitangi, what are the proposals for altering it, and why has it become a flashpoint for protests in New Zealand?
Who are the Maori?
The Maori people are the original residents of the two large islands now known as New Zealand, having lived there for several centuries.
The Maori came to the uninhabited islands of New Zealand from East Polynesia on canoe voyages in the 1300s. Over hundreds of years of isolation, they developed their own distinct culture and language. Maori people speak te reo Maori and have different tribes, or iwi, spread throughout the country.
The two islands were originally called Aotearoa by the Maori. The name New Zealand was given to Aotearoa by British colonisers who took control under the treaty in 1840.
New Zealand became independent from the United Kingdom in 1947. However, this was after Maori people had suffered mass killings, land grabs and cultural erasure over more than 100 years at the hands of colonial settlers.
There are currently 978,246 Maori in New Zealand, constituting around 19 percent of the country’s population of 5.3 million. They are represented by Te Pati Maori, or the Maori Party, which currently holds six of the 123 seats in Parliament.
What was the Treaty of Waitangi?
On February 6, 1840, the Treaty of Waitangi, also called Te Tiriti o Waitangi or just Te Tiriti, was signed between the British Crown and around 500 Maori chiefs, or rangatira. The treaty was the founding document of New Zealand and officially made New Zealand a British colony.
While the treaty was presented as a measure to resolve differences between the Maori and the British, the English and te reo versions of the treaty actually feature some stark differences.
The te reo Maori version guarantees “rangatiratanga” to the Maori chiefs. This translates to “self-determination” and guarantees the Maori people the right to govern themselves.
However, the English translation says that the Maori chiefs “cede to Her Majesty the Queen of England absolutely and without reservation all the rights and powers of Sovereignty”, making no mention of self-rule for the Maori.
The English translation does guarantee the Maori “full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates Forests Fisheries”.
“The English draft talks about the British settlers having full authority and control over Maori in the whole country,” Kassie Hartendorp, a Maori community organiser and director at community campaigning organisation ActionStation Aotearoa, told Al Jazeera.
Hartendorp explained that the te reo version includes the term “kawanatanga”, which in historical and linguistic context “gives British settlers the opportunity to set up their own government structure to govern their own people but they would not limit the sovereignty of Indigenous people”.
“We never ceded sovereignty, we never handed it over. We gave a generous invitation to new settlers to create their own government because they were unruly and lawless at the time,” said Hartendorp.
In the decades after 1840, however, 90 percent of Maori land was taken by the British Crown. Both versions of the treaty have been repeatedly breached and Maori people have continued to suffer injustice in New Zealand even after independence.
In 1975, the Waitangi Tribunal was established as a permanent body to adjudicate treaty matters. The tribunal attempts to remedy treaty breaches and navigate differences between the treaty’s two texts.
Over time, billions of dollars have been negotiated in settlements over breaches of the treaty, particularly relating to the widespread seizure of Maori land.
However, other injustices have also occurred. Between 1950 and 2019, about 200,000 children, young people and vulnerable adults were subjected to physical and sexual abuse in state and church care, and a commission found Maori children were more vulnerable to the abuse than others.
On November 12 this year, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon issued an apology to these victims, but it was criticised by Maori survivors for being inadequate. One criticism was that the apology did not take the treaty into account. While the treaty’s principles are not set in stone and are flexible, it is a significant historical document that upholds Maori rights.
What does the Treaty Principles Bill propose?
The Treaty Principles Bill was introduced by Member of Parliament David Seymour of the libertarian ACT Party, a minor partner in New Zealand’s coalition government. Seymour himself is Maori. The party launched a public information campaign about the bill on February 7 this year.
The ACT Party asserts that the treaty has been misinterpreted over the decades and that this has led to the formation of a dual system for New Zealanders, where Maori and white New Zealanders have different political and legal rights. Seymour says that misinterpretations of the treaty’s meaning have effectively given Maori people special treatment. The bill calls for an end to “division by race”.
Seymour said that the principle of “ethnic quotas in public institutions”, for example, is contrary to the principle of equality.
The bill seeks to set specific definitions of the treaty’s principles, which are currently flexible and open to interpretation. These principles would then apply to all New Zealanders equally, whether they are Maori or not.
According to Together for Te Tiriti, an initiative led by ActionStation Aotearoa, the bill will allow the New Zealand government to govern all New Zealanders and consider all New Zealanders equal under the law. Activists say this will effectively disadvantage the Maori people because they have been historically oppressed.
Many, including the Waitangi Tribunal, say this will lead to the erosion of Maori rights. A statement by ActionStation Aotearoa says that the bill’s principles “do not at all reflect the meaning” of the Treaty of Waitangi.
Why is the bill so controversial?
The bill is strongly opposed by political parties in New Zealand on both the left and the right, and Maori people have criticised it on the basis that it undermines the treaty and its interpretation.
Gideon Porter, a Maori journalist from New Zealand, told Al Jazeera that most Maori, as well as historians and legal experts, agree that the bill is an “attempt to redefine decades of exhaustive research and negotiated understandings of what constitute ‘principles’ of the treaty”.
Porter added that those critical of the bill believe “the ACT Party within this coalition government is taking upon itself to try and engineer things so that Parliament gets to act as judge, jury and executioner”.
In the eyes of most Maori, he said, the ACT Party is “simply hiding its racism behind a facade of ‘we are all New Zealanders with equal rights’ mantra”.
The Waitangi Tribunal released a report on August 16 saying that it found the bill “breached the Treaty principles of partnership and reciprocity, active protection, good government, equity, redress, and the … guarantee of rangatiratanga”.
Another report by the tribunal seen by The Guardian newspaper said: “If this bill were to be enacted, it would be the worst, most comprehensive breach of the Treaty … in modern times.”
What process must the bill go through now?
For a bill to become law in New Zealand, it must go through three rounds in Parliament: first when it is introduced, then when MPs suggest amendments and finally, when they vote on the amended bill. Since the total number of MPs is 123, at least 62 votes are needed for a bill to pass, David MacDonald, a political science professor at the University of Guelph in Canada, told Al Jazeera.
Besides the six Maori Party seats, the New Zealand Parliament includes 34 seats held by the New Zealand Labour Party; 14 seats held by the Green Party of Aotearoa; 49 seats held by the National Party; 11 seats held by the ACT Party; and eight seats held by the New Zealand First Party.
“The National Party leaders including the PM and other cabinet ministers and the leaders of the other coalition party [New Zealand] First have all said they won’t support the bill beyond the committee stage. It is highly unlikely that the bill will receive support from any party other than ACT,” MacDonald said.
When the bill was heard for its first round in Parliament this week, Maori party lawmaker Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke tore up her copy of the legislation and led the haka ceremonial dance.
Is the bill likely to pass?
The chances of the bill becoming law are “zero”, Porter said.
He said the ACT’s coalition partners have “adamantly promised” to vote down the bill in the next stage. Additionally, all the opposition parties will also vote against it.
“They only agreed to allow it to go this far as part of their ‘coalition agreement’ so they could govern,” Porter said.
New Zealand’s current coalition government was formed in November 2023 after an election that took place a month before. It comprises the National Party, ACT and New Zealand First.
While right-wing parties have not given a specific reason why they will oppose the bill, Hartendorp said New Zealand First and the New Zealand National Party would likely vote in line with public opinion, which largely opposes it.
Why are people protesting if the bill is doomed to fail?
The protests are not against the bill alone.
“This latest march is a protest against many coalition government anti-Maori initiatives,” Porter said.
Many believe that the conservative coalition government, which took office in November 2023, has taken measures to remove “race-based politics”. The Maori people are not happy with this and believe that it will undermine their rights.
These measures include removing a law that gave the Maori a say in environmental matters. The government also abolished the Maori Health Authority in February this year.
Despite the bill being highly likely to fail, many believe that just by allowing the bill to be tabled in Parliament, the coalition government has ignited dangerous social division.
For example, former conservative Prime Minister Jenny Shipley has said that just putting forth the bill is sowing division in New Zealand.
Continue Reading
World
‘If it expires, it expires,’ Trump tells NYT about US-Russia nuclear treaty
WASHINGTON, Jan 8 (Reuters) – U.S. President Donald Trump indicated he would allow the last U.S.-Russia strategic arms control treaty to expire without accepting an offer from Moscow to voluntarily extend its caps on deployments of the world’s most powerful nuclear weapons, according to remarks released on Thursday.
“If it expires, it expires,” Trump said of the 2010 New START accord in an interview he gave to the New York Times on Wednesday. “We’ll just do a better agreement.”
Sign up here.
Arms control advocates fear the world’s two biggest nuclear powers will begin deploying strategic warheads beyond the pact’s limits after it expires on February 5, hastening an erosion of the global arms control regime.
“There are plenty of advocates in the Trump administration … for doing exactly that,” said Thomas Countryman, a former top State Department arms control official who chairs the board of the Arms Control Association advocacy group.
A White House spokesperson referred Reuters to Trump’s comments when asked if he will accept an offer made in September by Russian President Vladimir Putin for the sides to voluntarily maintain the limits on strategic nuclear weapons deployments after New START expires.
Trump said in July he would like to maintain the limits set out in the treaty after it expires.
The agreement limits the U.S. and Russia to deploying no more than 1,550 warheads on 700 delivery vehicles – missiles, bombers and submarines.
New START cannot be extended. As written, it allowed one extension and Putin and former U.S. President Joe Biden agreed to roll it over for five years in 2021.
Trump told the New York Times that China, which has the world’s fastest-growing strategic nuclear force, should be included in a treaty that replaces New START.
Beijing, seen by the U.S. as its main global rival, has spurned that proposal since Trump promoted it in his first administration, asserting the Russian and U.S. nuclear forces dwarf its arsenal.
“You probably want to get a couple of other players involved also,” Trump said.
The Chinese Embassy in Washington said it would be “neither reasonable nor realistic to ask China to join the nuclear disarmament negotiations with the U.S. and Russia.”
“China always keeps its nuclear strength at the minimum level required by national security, and never engages in arms race with anyone,” spokesperson Liu Pengyu said when reached for comment.
A Pentagon report last month said China is likely to have loaded more than 100 intercontinental ballistic missiles across its latest three silo fields and has no desire for arms control talks.
New START has been under serious strain since Moscow announced in February 2023 it was halting participation in procedures used to verify compliance with its terms, citing U.S. support for Ukraine in its fight against Russia.
The U.S. followed suit that June, suspending its participation in inspections and data exchanges, although both sides have continued observing the pact’s limits.
Reporting by Jonathan Landay and Jasper Ward in Washington; Editing by David Ljunggren, Rosalba O’Brien and Chris Reese
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
World
Venezuela teeters as guerrilla groups, cartels exploit Maduro power vacuum
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Venezuela is teetering on the edge after the U.S. capture and arrest of former President Nicolás Maduro, as armed militias, guerrilla groups and criminal networks threaten a path toward stability, according to reports.
As interim President Delcy Rodríguez assumes control, backed by President Trump’s administration, analysts have warned that the country is completely saturated with heavily armed groups capable of derailing any progress toward stability.
“All of the armed groups have the power to sabotage any type of transition just by the conditions of instability that they can create,” Andrei Serbin Pont, a military analyst and head of the Buenos Aires-based think tank Cries, told The Financial Times.
“There are parastate armed groups across the entirety of Venezuela’s territory,” he said.
MADURO ARREST SENDS ‘CLEAR MESSAGE’ TO DRUG CARTELS, ALLIES AND US RIVALS, RETIRED ADMIRAL SAYS
Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, who, according to the State Department, leads the Cartel de los Soles, beside members of the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang in an apartment building in Aurora, Colorado. (Jesus Vargas/Getty Images; Edward Romero)
Experts say Rodríguez must keep the regime’s two most powerful hardliners onside: Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello and Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino.
“The focus is now on Diosdado Cabello,” Venezuelan military strategist José García told Reuters, “because he is the most ideological, violent and unpredictable element of the Venezuelan regime.”
“Delcy has to walk a tightrope,” said Phil Gunson, a Crisis Group analyst in Caracas.
“They are not in a position to deliver any kind of deal with Trump unless they can get the approval of the people with the guns, who are basically Padrino and Cabello.”
Since Maduro’s removal, government-aligned militias known as “colectivos” have been deployed across Caracas and other cities to enforce order and suppress dissent.
“The future is uncertain, the colectivos have weapons, the Colombian guerrilla is already here in Venezuela, so we don’t know what’s going to happen, time will tell,” Oswaldo, a 69-year-old shop owner, told The Telegraph.
WAS TRUMP’S MADURO OPERATION ILLEGAL? WHAT INTERNATIONAL LAW HAS TO SAY
Demonstrators critical of the government clash with the security forces of the state. After the last conflict-laden days, interim president Guaido, with the support of his supporters, wants to continue exerting pressure on head of state Maduro. (Rafael Hernandez/picture alliance/Getty Images)
As previously reported by Fox News Digital, armed motorcyclists and masked enforcers have erected checkpoints in the capital, searching civilians’ phones and vehicles for signs of opposition to the U.S. raid.
“That environment of instability plays into the hands of armed actors,” Serbin Pont added.
Outside the capital, guerrilla groups and organized crime syndicates are exploiting the power vacuum along Venezuela’s borders and in its resource-rich interior.
Guerrillas now operate along Venezuela’s 2,219-kilometer border with Colombia and control illegal mining near the Orinoco oil belt.
The National Liberation Army (ELN), a Colombian Marxist guerrilla group with thousands of fighters and designated a U.S.-designated terrorist organization, has operated in Venezuela as a paramilitary force.
FROM SANCTIONS TO SEIZURE: WHAT MADURO’S CAPTURE MEANS FOR VENEZUELA’S ECONOMY
Armed colectivos deploy across Venezuelan cities while guerrilla groups control borders following former President Nicolás Maduro’s capture. (Juancho Torres/Anadolu via Getty Image)
Elizabeth Dickson, Crisis Group’s deputy director for Latin America, said the ELN “in Venezuela … has essentially operated as a paramilitary force, aligned with the interests of the Maduro government up until now.”
Carlos Arturo Velandia, a former ELN commander, also told the Financial Times that if Venezuela’s power bloc fractures, the group would side with the most radical wing of Chavismo.
Colectivos also function as armed enforcers of political loyalty.
“We are the ones being called on to defend this revolutionary process radically, without hesitation — us colectivos are the fundamental tool to continue this fight,” said Luis Cortéz, commander of the Colectivo Catedral Combativa.
“We are always, and always will be, fighting and in the streets.”
Other armed actors include the Segunda Marquetalia, a splinter group of Colombia’s former FARC rebels. Both guerrilla groups work alongside local crime syndicates known as “sistemas,” which have ties to politicians.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
The Tren de Aragua cartel, designated a foreign terrorist organization by the U.S., has also expanded across Venezuela and into Colombia, Chile and the U.S.
As reported by Fox News Digital, an unsealed indictment alleges Maduro “participates in, perpetuates, and protects a culture of corruption” involving drug trafficking with groups including Mexico’s Sinaloa Cartel, the ELN, FARC factions and Tren de Aragua, with most of the problematic groups named.
World
Trump says meeting Iran’s ‘Crown Prince’ Pahlavi would not be appropriate
US president signals he is not ready to back the Israel-aligned opposition figure to lead Iran in case of regime change.
United States President Donald Trump has ruled out meeting with Iran’s self-proclaimed Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, suggesting that Washington is not ready to back a successor to the Iranian government, should it collapse.
On Thursday, Trump called Pahlavi, the son of Iran’s last shah who was toppled by the Islamic revolution of 1979, a “nice person”. But Trump added that, as president, it would not be appropriate to meet with him.
list of 3 itemsend of listRecommended Stories
“I think that we should let everybody go out there and see who emerges,” Trump told The Hugh Hewitt Show podcast. “I’m not sure necessarily that it would be an appropriate thing to do.”
The US-based Pahlavi, who has close ties to Israel, leads the monarchist faction of the fragmented Iranian opposition.
Trump’s comments signal that the US has not backed Pahlavi’s offer to “lead [a] transition” in governance in Iran, should the current system collapse.
The Iranian government is grappling with protests across several parts of the country.
Iranian authorities cut off access to the internet on Thursday in an apparent move to suppress the protest movement as Pahlavi called for more demonstrations.
The US president had previously warned that he would intervene if the Iranian government targets protesters. He renewed that threat on Thursday.
“They’re doing very poorly. And I have let them know that if they start killing people – which they tend to do during their riots, they have lots of riots – if they do it, we’re going to hit them very hard,” Trump said.
Iranian protests started last month in response to a deepening economic crisis as the value of the local currency, the rial, plunged amid suffocating US sanctions.
The economy-focused demonstrations started sporadically across the country, but they quickly morphed into broader antigovernment protests and appear to be gaining momentum, leading to the internet blackout.
Pahlavi expressed gratitude to Trump and claimed that “millions of Iranians” protested on Thursday night.
“I want to thank the leader of the free world, President Trump, for reiterating his promise to hold the regime to account,” he wrote in a social media post.
“It is time for others, including European leaders, to follow his lead, break their silence, and act more decisively in support of the people of Iran.”
Last month, Trump also threatened to attack Iran again if it rebuilds its nuclear or missile programmes.
The US bombed Iran’s three main nuclear facilities in June as part of a war that Israel launched against the country without provocation.
On top of its economic and political crises, Iran has faced environmental hurdles, including severe water shortages, deepening its domestic unrest.
Iran has also been dealt major blows to its foreign policy as its network of allies has shrunk over the past two years.
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was toppled by armed opposition forces in December 2024; Hezbollah was weakened by Israeli attacks; and Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro has been abducted by the US.
But Iran’s leaders have continued to dismiss US threats. Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei doubled down on his defiant rhetoric after the US raid in Caracas on Saturday.
“We will not give in to the enemy,” Khamenei wrote in a social media post. “We will bring the enemy to its knees.”
-
Detroit, MI5 days ago2 hospitalized after shooting on Lodge Freeway in Detroit
-
Technology3 days agoPower bank feature creep is out of control
-
Dallas, TX4 days agoDefensive coordinator candidates who could improve Cowboys’ brutal secondary in 2026
-
Health5 days agoViral New Year reset routine is helping people adopt healthier habits
-
Nebraska2 days agoOregon State LB transfer Dexter Foster commits to Nebraska
-
Iowa2 days agoPat McAfee praises Audi Crooks, plays hype song for Iowa State star
-
Nebraska2 days agoNebraska-based pizza chain Godfather’s Pizza is set to open a new location in Queen Creek
-
Entertainment2 days agoSpotify digs in on podcasts with new Hollywood studios