Gerry Eckhoff: Waitangi - Treaty or Taniwha

I suspect most of us don’t understand why, after almost 200 years, the Treaty of Waitangi still engenders emotive reaction from all sides of the debate. The treaty solved some problems in 1840 yet created the lingering question as to what it all means, and to whom. Since time immemorial treaties have been enacted to bring peace to warring factions within countries rather than to colonize another country. There has been a number of well recorded treaties that have, for the most part, been very successful. They were all effectively - peace treaties.

The Treaty of Westphalian in 1648 saw peace between Spain, Germany and the Dutch (Catholic and protestant states) finally happen after what was known as the 80 and 30 year wars. Some say it was (significantly) the first time a treaty led to modern international relations . It also ended the power of the Holy Roman Empire and overturned feudal hierarchies.

The Treaty of Paris, signed in 1783, ended the war of the American revolution when the British finally decided that a strong and economically successful America was also in their interests and, crucially, not in French interests.

The Treaty of Vienna in 1814 saw prolonged “horse trading” between diplomatic representatives bring about peace in Europe which lasted for 100 years - until WW1.

The Treaty of Rome was a different kind of treaty being an economic one. It was the start of the European Economic Community (EEC ) in 1957 and set up an enduring peace in Europe. All of the above treaties were signed, to ensure as much as was possible - a humane,social and sustainable Europe, at peace with itself and its neighbours. Russia and Ukraine currently are the exception to the rule. What these treaties all have in common is the intent to stop internal and external aggression -in other words they are all peace treaties rather than agreements over trade or immigration. Countries which rely on their trade together rarely go to war with each other.

The Treaty of Versailles 1918 brought about peace in Europe as WW1 was finally ended. All of the above treaties ended warfare between states, unlike pre 1840 New Zealand where the warfare was tribal.

One of the most significant events which led to the need for a treaty here in NZ was inter-tribal warfare. Historical estimates of 20,000 Maori deaths due to fighting between Iwi was reason enough for a Treaty. The signing of the Treaty of Waitangi turned Maori attention from fighting each other to fighting the Crown - the NZ wars. Some might suggest the battles haven’t stopped since.

So where does that leave the Treaty of Waitangi? The colonization of NZ has delivered so much more than just a peaceful multi-cultural country where practises and people can rely on the greatest of all gifts – one law for all. We live in a country which effectively outlawed the common practise of inter-tribal slavery with the signing of the Treaty. Prior to 1840, fighting was commonplace in the North Island, as was slavery, which was not even mentioned in the Treaty of Waitangi yet one of the greatest achievements of the British was the ban of slavery in 1833. Little is ever made of that reality by academia who prefer to focus on who said what to whom in 1840. It is this feigned, yet persuasive academic speak that prolongs continuing debates on what went wrong rather than what went right. It brought about civilization and a 1st world status to this island country in the South Pacific

Colonization by Britain was perhaps not heaven sent but the alternative naval powers of Spain and France by way of example would have seen the possible annihilation of the Maori race. A cursory glance at South America by the Spanish conquistadors tells us all of that reality. Even settlement by the French appears not to have offered the locals a peaceful co-existence as pretty much happened with the Treaty of Waitangi - until the academic world in NZ relatively recently decided to examine the remnants of the treaty and pass their opinion. The all important question of whether or not sovereignty was passed to the Queen of England in 1840 or deliberately left to the local Iwi to determine the country’s future must be finally put to rest yet some Maori representatives clearly want independence. Every elected government since 1840 has had sovereignty and the power of eminent domain over all its citizens which of course includes Maori.

The history of the entire world is one of conquest by the superpowers of the day. NZ is no exception to that reality. Not one of us is in any way responsible for the harm done to the indigenous peoples when the early settlers, from whalers to missionaries arrived. Few would pretend that life then and now is perfect, yet NZ is one of the more harmonious countries with the races coming together well before 1840. It therefore needs to be explained how the handing of lists of grievances to newborn Maori children today is going to change that reality.

The value of the Waitangi Tribunal is under scrutiny to determine whether past grievances are real and if so what can be done to (in part) remedy that situation. The tribunal has recently heard of poor treatment of Maori servicemen on returning to NZ after WWII. A letter written in 1944 to a wounded soldier back home from El Alamein shows a different reality. A soldier of Maori descent (name withheld) was returned home immediately when it became clear he was the last of his line. Saving Private Nikau? The tribunal will not hear of this evidence

Instead of having a Waitangi Tribunal hearing every unjust past happening, perhaps a truth and reconciliation tribunal, as per South Africa will achieve so much more but then we have yet to find a Nelson Mandala, here in NZ. One thing is clear, the future may well be lost to never ending acrimony by the few.

Gerry Eckhoff is a former councillor on the Otago Regional Council and MP.