« Is Samoa next?
Tasers: Cautionary Tales »

Photos: Counterterror operation in Wellington

I was walking through the Wellington CBD with Jordan and Leanne this afternoon, and noticed that a couple of blocks between Lambton Quay and the waterfront, around the NZ Post building, were cordoned off. Later I discovered that the army bomb squad was in the process of blowing up a “suspicious package.”

wellington_iroquois_small.JPG

Later on, Jordan and I discovered an Air Force Iroquois on the waterfront, which I supposed had transported the bomb squad. I was surprised to see a second chopper fly in, low over the harbour.

iroquois2_cttag_wellington_small.JPG

Once the second Iroquois landed, some black-clad figures exited to rendezvous with some more black-clad figures surrounding a white Holden. (NB: If asked, I will remove this photo. I haven’t linked a high-res, shown the number plate or shown any faces, to avoid breaching secrecy restrictions)
cttag_wellington.JPG

A closer look revealed that these men were masked, armoured and helmeted, with MP-5s strapped to their backs. Could these be operators from the SAS or the CTTAG (Counter-Terrorism Tactical Assault Group), the controversial second-tier special force? This was looking less like a “normal” bomb scare. I noticed the Navy hydrographic survey ship, the HMNZS Resolution, moored around the corner. Finally,the police launch the Lady Elizabeth III accompanied by two rigid inflatables left in the direction of the container port, manned by similar black-clad individuals. I wondered if they included the Navy dive team, considering the presence of the Resolution.

There has been no media coverage yet apart from the bomb scare, which was over by the time I saw the second helicopter turn up. So this is just speculation. I suspect that this was a combined forces counter-terrorism exercise, including the Army, Navy, Air Force and Police, and that the cordoning off of part of the CBD was part of the exercise, rather than a bomb scare. The lack of any warning or media coverage is consistent with the massive secrecy which surrounds NZ special forces (example: denying for months that the SAS was in Afghanistan, even when the White House publicly thanked them for their service there!). Despite that secrecy, though, they had no problem with people wandering around and taking photos.

It’s reassuring to know that these forces exist and have counter-terror capabilities, but I wish they would have slightly more openness about it, enough to dispel rumours at least.

  • ScoopIt
  • Reddit
  • NewsVine
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Technorati
  • StumbleUpon
  • SphereIt
  • TailRank

Posted by Phil on Monday, November 20th, 2006 at 7:25 pm.

11 Responses to “Photos: Counterterror operation in Wellington”

Is it really that reassuring to know? I personally think that the terrorist threat posed to the world has been blown completely out of proprtion – consider the numbers of deaths – mainly to consolidate power in the hands of demogogues.

A further question, and this is not to which I have not come completely to grasp: if the state is so awful at getting involved in any other area of our life (trade, health, education, etc.) – if that is immoral, and if they ignore the negative consequences of their inaction – then why is it that they’re perfectly capable of running the police, courts, and military?

Gravatar

Left by Steve on November 21st, 2006

Err, and I have not come to completely grasp this one*

Gravatar

Left by Steve on November 21st, 2006

1) Well in some parts of the world that may be the case. In other parts of the world, though, terrorism is a part of daily life. For NZ to maintain a small counterterrorism force, keeping it trained and equipped, is a useful precaution even if the risk of them being needed is minor. Also, the economic and social effects of terrorist attacks can be far worse than the immediate deaths, so that isn’t a useful measure of the threat.

2) That’s a big question. I wouldn’t rule out a stable, stateless, libertarian system long term. But I think the state is necessary to keep order, and I will think that until I see evidence to the contrary. I also think that the consequences of disorder can be worse than the consequences of excessive government intervention, except in extreme cases.

You must realise that capitalism requires the rule of law and stable property rights. The observation that private businesses do better than the state at running education, health etc assumes that the market is free. But without a state to provide law, order and justice, how could a free market exist?

Gravatar

Left by Phil on November 21st, 2006

1) The only parts of the world where terrorism is a daily part of life would, in my opinion, be the Middle East, and some parts of Asia. The effects that they have there can be huge (particularly in Israel/Palestine), and yet the people who spend big money on terrorism are the Americans. Now, more people die falling off ladders in the U.S. than do from terrorists in the U.S. – yet every time an individual goes through one of their airports, they’re suffering the effects of an overblown response to terrorism (delays, invasive searching, etc.).

2) I don’t really see how a ‘libertarian’ state can function long-term. Don’t get me wrong – I’m absolutely a libertarian. In fact, the reason why I don’t think it can is because I think our analysis (and that of public choice economists) is so correct. The state, and all those who form part of it, want it to grow. Constitutional restraints in the U.S. were largely successful for 100 years… and then the decided that growing your own food was ‘interstate commerce’ and could be regulated.

Probably the closest that has ever been reached in getting the state out of providing ‘order’ was medieval Iceland. All prosecutions werre private. There was essentially no Executive Government. In fact, saying that people need order and the state provides that is a bit silly. Most people say people need money to live and the Government provides that… but the libertarian analysis is that most people, if not almost everyone, would be better off with the Government providing the courts/police/army. Is it not possible that they’d also have better order under anarcho-capitalism?

I think property rights are important to capitalism – but to say ‘property rights’ is to suggest some sort of absolute. It’s a nice slogan, but they’re not absolute. Can a plane fly 50 m over my house? How about 50000? Can I light a match on my property? Can I have spotlights all over my property? Property rights could and would be defined under libertarianism, and as Coase showed, it doesn’t actually matter, in respect to some things, which ways you decide them.

I do not see why the rule of law is a necessity. I do not see why if others choose to live by bad laws, that’s my concern. I’ll live by good ones.

Another point: do you think a libertarian foreign policy is possible? Do you think that it is possiblew to have a foreign policy that doesn’t contravene the rights of others?

Gravatar

Left by Steve on November 22nd, 2006

“if not almost everyone, would be better off with the Government providing the courts/police/army.”

That is, providing only those, and no welfare/tax receipts.

“Property rights could and would be defined under libertarianism,”

libertarianism = anarcho-capitalism. Been reading too many American websites where the terms are used interchangeably my some.

Must proof read my comments.

Gravatar

Left by Steve on November 22nd, 2006

When libertarians talk about absolute property rights, we essentially mean that they absolutely cannot be taken away from you.

We do not mean ultimate and godlike power over any given piece of land. IIRC, property rights are generally interpreted using common law. Thus, property rights do not include airspace above the land, and there are limitations based either on common sense (your neighbours cannot block your land in and disallow you access; you can´t disrupt rivers or streams which later enter other property), initiation of force (you can´t make too much noise or pollute the air or water) or pre-agreed covenants (many properties include covenants such that you aren´t allowed to block out views or sunlight from other properties, etc).

In arguing for protection of property rights from governmental interference, many libertarians forget to emphasise the (potential) positive role of property rights in conflict resolution, environmental protection, noise and light pollution, and so on.

Gravatar

Left by Luke on November 22nd, 2006

Thanks for the comments and the link, Steve.

I think Luke has answered your point about property rights. PC has a lot to say about that, too, especially the potential for common law to resolve disputes.

Iceland isn’t necessarily a good example, especially since it was invaded and couldn’t mount a proper defence. Maybe they would have been better off with a proper army?

You might be right about a libertarian state, but we won’t know until we try. Limited states, though not quite libertarian, have certainly existed in the past, and there are as many examples of states withering as there are of states inexorably growing.

We weren’t talking about pointless security measures at airports – I don’t agree with the government providing those. Observant and armed individuals can be a more effective safeguard against terrorism. But to really effectively fight terrorists, you need well-armed, highly-trained special forces, and there are many disadvantages to the private sector providing those (see category:Mercenaries for more of my thoughts on that topic).

Anyway, my main point is the necessity of law and order, and people living under the same laws – the rule of law. I think we should use real-world examples of how capitalism and the rule of law correspond. It has been shown, for example, that foreign investment is more likely to go to countries with more political stability, and simpler, less corrupt bureacracy, rather than states with low tax rates. Long-term investors need certainty and order. The only economic activity which is viable in stateless areas is high-profit resource extraction, usually involving the use of mercenary guards and political oppression, and high-profit black market traffic eg gun-running and drug growing. It is almost impossible to run normal services and expensive infrastructure in stateless, ungoverned areas.

Also, the whole purpose of law is to be universal (at least within a defined territory). How, under an anarchic system, would disputes be resolved between people following different laws – a libertarian and a fundamentalist, Shari’a-abiding Muslim, for example?

Finally, I do think that a libertarian foreign policy is possible. I also think that a libertarian foreign policy could be pragmatic enough to realise that protecting enemy civilians, for example, is not always possible.

Gravatar

Left by Phil on November 24th, 2006

Although I’m not a libertarian by any means, I find myself in agreement with CATO’s foreign policy. It has many strains of neo-realism.

I think liberalism as a foreign policy tradition has been too damaged by its merger with neoconservatism–represented by the enthusiasm of “war liberals” for the coercive spread of democracy.

I’ve read an interesting book called “Ethical Realism” that attempts a realist-liberal dialogue. Phil, what do you think of constructivism as a foreign policy discipline?

Gravatar

Left by A.E. on March 10th, 2007

I’ll have to look at that book, I imagine there’s a copy at the uni library. Most of my thinking comes between realism and liberalism, the two “modern” traditions of IR. I haven’t read much by constructivists but I think the ideas have some merit. Culture and language are, of course, of great importance in diplomacy and foreign policy and occupy a crucial part of the OODA loop model.

I don’t usually think in terms of IR theory, probably because it isn’t discussed often in my classes. In some ways I agree with liberalism, usually because of my belief in free trade and positive-sum interaction but in terms of defence I usually take a realist (not
isolationist, but cautious) stance. Both theories are too state-centric IMHO.

Ever read anything by Rosenau?

My thinking is probably not too different to yours. I often find myself disagreeing with other libertarians on foreign-policy issues, and I don’t think much of most libertarian thinking on the subject.

Gravatar

Left by Phil on March 11th, 2007

Never read Rosenau, but heard of his work.

When thinking about nations, I always think in terms of IR–but use 4GW, netwar, global guerrillas, and Barnettian theory to examine non-state groups. I think eventually a foreign policy tradition will come up that fuses the two. I have respect for Barnett as a theorist but have some substantial disagreements with him in practice. Those disagreements will be elaborated on in an essay I’ve been trying to get published (most unsuccessfully) in various foreign-policy journals.

New Medievalism is the closest thing to an authentic non-state IR theory, but it denies factors like black globalization and illicit trade. Maybe we’ll come up with something better?

Gravatar

Left by A.E. on March 11th, 2007

Yeah I’ve read a bit of neo-medievalism. Rosenau has very interesting and similar ideas to that as well. There are a few different theoretical approaches relating to the decline of the state, interesting to see how they will develop.

Gravatar

Left by Phil on March 11th, 2007

Something to say?