[asia-apec 972] NZ Herald Article on APEC

[Gatt Watchdog]

Published in NZ Herald 9/12/98

ARMY EXERCISES AT AUCKLAND UNIVERSITY				
Virginia Pitts 
(explains why the army presence on campus compromises the principle of
academic freedom)									

Why do army exercises at the Auckland University campus provoke strong
opposition from many staff and students?  Surely it is acceptable for
the university administration to permit these exercises as a "goodwill
gesture"  towards the army. After all, both are legally-constituted,
taxpayer-funded public institutions.  And unlike armies in less benign
countries, the New Zealand Army does not have a reputation for
oppression.

If these ideas seem commonsensical, their apparent logic evaporates
under closer inspection.  Although the army and the university are
both taxpayer-supported institutions, they perform very different
roles in a democracy.  The university is bound by the Education Act of
1989 to be a `critic and conscience' of society.  This requires that
academic freedom not be compromised in any way.   

Given that  a primary function of the army is to enforce government
policy, and a responsibility of the university is to uphold the
freedom to analyse, and openly criticise  government policy,  there
are times when the roles of the respective institutions can be seen to
conflict.  It follows that autonomy from the state is fundamental to
the principle of academic freedom.  By agreeing to host the army, the
university administration creates a symbolic partnership between the
two institutions which undermines the independent status required of a
university.  

To  view this "partnership" as little more than co-operation between
two institutions working towards a common goal of public good is
untenable.  Moreover, the very notion that such a partnership is
possible remains highly suspect.  Partnership involves reciprocity and
we can be sure that the army will not permit academics to conduct
exercises of intellectual benefit on military bases.  It is obvious,
then, where the power resides in any such relationship between
universities and the army.

Having  applied considerable pressure for an explanation of the army
presence on campus, some university staff were informed by
administration that the exercises were "a one-off" associated with
security preparations for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation
conference in September next year .  They were told that the bomb
squad were looking for mock bombs on a number of premises.  

Because universities are not a typical target for terrorists, and  no
APEC meetings will be held at Auckland University,  the notion of the
university being implicated in a bomb threat during APEC does not seem
entirely credible.  

There will however be protests, some of which are likely to involve
University students and staff.  APEC-related security preparations on
campus raise fears about a possible clamp-down on basic freedoms of
speech and assembly during that conference.  

Such fears are not groundless. During the 1997 APEC summit at the
University of British Columbia in Vancouver,  Canadian police
arbitrarily arrested student protesters,  attacked them with disabling
pepper spray, and confiscated their banners. Like the New Zealand
Army, the Canadian police force does not have the reputation for being
overtly oppressive.  We should, therefore, be wary of placing
excessive faith in the benignity of the state.

Closer to home, there is growing evidence of government antagonism
towards those who speak out against APEC policies.  The Security
Intelligence Service admits to having broken into the home of Mr. Aziz
Choudry in Christchurch in 1996,when he and Dr. David Small were
organizing a conference highlighting the negative aspects of APEC. 
More recently, Chileans resident in New Zealand have  been contacted
by the S.I.S to determine whether they intend to protest at next
year's APEC meeting.  Upon his recent return from the Asia Pacific
People's Assembly conference in Kuala Lumpur, one student activist was
questioned for an hour and a half by customs officials wanting to know
his views on A.P.E.C. and related issues. .  During the last two
weeks, student activists opposed to free trade have been questioned by
police at their homes.

Student activists in Vancouver were also subjected to surveillance 
prior to the APEC meeting there.  Documentation has since revealed
that the Canadian government had given assurances that no sign of
dissent would be visible to world leaders. Repercussions following
this scandalous revelation include the resignation of a Canadian
cabinet minister.  It would be most unfortunate if the New Zealand
government were to suffer a similar shame.

Students and academics who have spoken out against APEC need to know
they can rely on the independence of Auckland University.   Because
certain regulations exist to restrict the presence and activities of
the SIS on campus, the university should remain alert to the possible
implications of granting alternative government agencies access to its
buildings. As evidenced by the Choudry case,  government agencies are
not above violating the privacy of law-abiding citizens. 

The university has a responsibility to safeguard potentially sensitive
research material gathered by its staff.   On Friday 4th December, the
registrar's  office was asked where and at what time the army were
conducting exercises that day.   The response was that  they were not
keeping track of the  army's schedule, so had no knowledge of their
whereabouts. On the previous evening, a member of staff encountered a
soldier unlocking a room which was out of bounds to the army.  Having
pointed out the soldier's mistake, the staff-member noted  there were
no university security personnel in sight at that time.   

Both incidents suggest that closer monitoring of the visitors was in
order.   This is not to make unfounded accusations, but simply to
point out that we can not be altogether certain of what is going on
late at night in the university buildings while soldiers seek out mock
bombs.  How many rooms or offices are examined before they find what
they are looking for? 

Such fears can not be dismissed as paranoid or alarmist.  In the
United States, the FBI has admitted to breaking into the offices of
academics and removing files.  We would not want to pave the way for
such clandestine and unethical activities in this country. 

Legitimate fears are only fuelled by the conflicting reasons given for
the army presence on campus.  First it was a "goodwill gesture", the
necessity of which could not be explained.  Then, as APEC-related
anti-terrorist  activity,  the exercises became about our own
self-protection.  Bordering on the ridiculous, an army spokeswoman,
Sian Routledge, then explained to a Herald reporter that the
university had been selected not for what it was but because it had
different types of buildings.

Despite there being no credible reason for conducting counter-terror
operations in university settings, it is impossible to believe that
the function of an institution would be completely ignored when
selecting a site for military or police training.  If, for example,  a
group of riot police were to conduct training exercises in a rest home
on the basis of its architectural qualities, the reasoning would be
dismissed as absurd. Their presence would, undoubtedly, be viewed as
highly inconsiderate, contra the raison d'etre of the home and,
consequently, rather mysterious.   

The same applies to the army presence on campus.  The university and
the army are not opponents, but neither institution can adequately
perform its function with an open-door policy towards the other.

In defence of the principle of academic freedom, the university must
actively safeguard its autonomy from the state. This precludes
granting building access to the armed forces of the state.  The number
of military personnel conducting exercises is irrelevant.  Their
officially condoned presence on campus sets an unacceptable precedent
for similar liaisons in the future. 

In order to abide by the Education Act and maintain its credibility as
a world-class  tertiary institution, the University of Auckland should
ensure that any future military presence on campus be restricted to
clear emergencies only.

Virginia Pitts is a Phd student at Auckland University