for Pacific nations.

New Zealand

Golden Fleece no force for peace

New Zealand military forces put down an imaginary rebellion, but protesters slam the real-life implications

for Pacific nations.

By David Robie

THE TROOPS moved into the re mote town before dawn on a

Sunday and began searching

houses for armed civilian rebels. Villa gers were detained for questioning and some of the insurgents sheltering in the area were shot.

The community based the soldiers as they secured the town. Operation Golden Fleece was under way. After initial difficulties and the loss of seven New Zealand soldiers, the rebels were soon overcome.

This is not a report from a newly created war zone; it is the story of a month-long New Zealand military ex ercise that attracted a barrage of critic ism from peace activists and the trade union movement.

The exercise scenario was that an imaginary Pacific island state, Kolkis, was under the control of a ‘rebel gov

ernment’ supported by ‘Musonan’

forces. The 'official’ Kolkis ‘govern ment’ requested New Zealand assist ance to restore order, NZ troops were mobilised, and the battleground dra ma was played out in the remote cen tral North Island forestry town of Minginui (population 200). The town’s unofficial mayor, George McMillan,

praised the operation, saying “this will

help our troops if they are ever needed in the Pacific Islands.”

While Operation Golden Fleece was

in line with policy laid do,wn in the 1987 White Paper on defence, it be came a pubfic oattleground. The NZ military high command chalked up

the February operation as a victory

but while in military terms it was a success, it was a setback on the politic al front. The unscripted appearance on the scene of two groups attempting to intervene in the imaginary conflict threw a spanner in the works. Obser vers said the sudden obstacle had, however, created a more realistic situation in the context of military and constitutional crisis in the Pacific.

Proclaiming “mediation not militar isation”, one group tried to intervene as mediators between the rebels of Kolkis and the NZ forces during the exercise. The group announced to the media that “a political settlement is possible and necessary rather than a military victory or defeat . . . the de fence forces of many countries are

turning to political solutions for poli

tical problems”.

The other group, styling itself the “People’s Front of Kolkis”, attempted a more direct style of intervention and claimed to have ‘infiltrated’ the milit ary. Publicity of the groups’ activities embarrassed the military and sparked a debate about the nature of New Zea land involvement in the South Pacific at times of political upheaval.

“It is important that people in the Pacific know what is happening,” said Alan Marston, a spokesman for one of the mediation groups. “Our troops are being trained to invade Pacific coun tries we should be preparing for mediation and peacekeeping roles.”

The President of the Council of Trade Unions, Ken Douglas, ‘ambushed’ the military with a press

statement that gained widespread

front page coverage. The army, com

plained Douglas, was preparing to

fight on the “wrong side*’ in countries where armed conflict was likely. “The parallels between the mythical island of Kolkis and our Pacific neighbours are most disturbing,” he said, particu

larly suggesting comparisons with Fiji

ana New Caledonia.

Many unions had protested that the military was practising to suppress a popular movement rather than to Keep the peace or to defend New Zea land. “The army should be practising for a peacekeeping, disaster relief or emergency assistance role in other countries rather than stepping in on behalf of unpopular government trying to settle their problems by milit ary force,” Douglas said. “Foreign in vasions and military campaigns to kill rebels do not solve the problems of

poverty, unemployment and exploita

tion that lead to such unrest.”

Military and government officials fired bach their own salvos. “It’s only an exercise,” said Defence Ministry

spokesman Major Peter Fry. Defence

Minister Bob Tizard complained that the unions had misinterpreted the basis for the exercise. As Mr Tizard explained it, the New Zealand Govern ment had merely responded to a plea from the ‘government’ or a friendly Pacific island state. D