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.
14 comments:
The British concluded hundreds of 'treaties' with various African tribes in the 19th century as a way of getting those tribes on side against other colonial powers, particularly Germany and France. The International Court of Justice in 2002 held these 'treaties' to have been null and void in terms of international law as they had not involved sovereign states.
Not sure South Africa will end well for the white population so maybe not a great example of where we should aim for.
My biggest concern with the Waitangi Tribunal is that it is totally one-sided. It will not take cases from non-Maori; nor will it accept or investigate any argument to counter the claim. In particular it accentuates the proposition that all evil was done by settlers to natives. Yet it is well documented that Maori committed many egregious activities against peaceful settlers trying to establish a new life. Further it accentuates the loud but incorrect claim that all Maori were peace loving and were suppressed by the colonists. There is increasing silence about the tribes who took up arms against the government and who incurred penalty as a result.
So much of the modern debate is little more than an attempt to take advantage of those of us whose forebears built and developed the nation over 200 years - for the betterment of both natives and settlers. May be there's a need to consider - if the tribalist get their way - claims for reparations for the cost and effort expended by settlers and their successors in making the country what it is. Who funded and built all the infrastructure that benefits everybody? Where's the acknowledgement from the tribalists?
In the end it doesn't matter what the Treaty said because it was superseded by the New Zealand Constitution Act in 1852.
The maintenance of rangitiritanga or chieftainship was intended in 1840 as was stated in Te Tiriti. For example, the Native Exemption Ordinance 1844 made it clear that the Crown would have ultimate governance but British law would not be imposed upon Maori in their own areas unless chiefs asked for that specifically (aside from exceptional circumstances), and that any warrant against a Maori person for offending against someone outside his/her tribe, if that accused was outside of a town, was to be given to the accused's chief who would decide whether to act on that warrant.
The Native Exemption Ordinance also made it clear that such provisions were intended to be temporary. As time went on, the application of New Zealand laws would be applied to everyone as the natives were expected to recognise the benefits of that.
This is the best way of understanding the apparent contradiction between 'governance' by the Crown and ongoing 'chieftainship' over iwi. The Waitangi Tribunal's poorly-reasoned idea that the contradiction implied something "akin to" a partnership in government really has little evidence to support it, starting at Article 3 of Te Tiriti.
The peace, stability and success of New Zealand as a nation state has relied greatly on the high if not perfectly equal status of its population. The provisions of the Native Exception Ordinance and the model that was based on could never be maintained for long especially as integration between the races proceeded quickly, largely due to the provision of Te Tiriti's Article 3 according the natives full rights as subjects of the Crown.
Andrew Osborn, I couldn't agree more. I can't understand why this isn't being made more clear. It just nips the whole thing in the bud and let's us just get on with life.
When I grew up in nz, the treaty was a benign thing, not relevant to modern nz. Also if you asked most people what their ethnicity was they would say " new zealander." Skin colour was absolutely irrelevant. In fact those of us pasty whites would spend hours trying to get a tan to get as dark as possible. If someone was part maori or asian or whatever it was not relevant. You were an individual and you were your name and judged on your character. This is the way it should be of course. Now they want to do away with the individual and make you part of a group, marxist style. The activists have taken this treaty and used it as a tool to manipulate and gaslight the public,
Before the ink had dried on the treaty of Waitangi dog skin parchment, Britain had produced the Queen Victoria Royal Charter/Letters Patent dated 16th November 1840. (The tangata Maori had agreed to be governed by the Queens government and had agreed to become British subjects.)
This Royal Charter/Letters Patent issued by Victoria by the grace of god under the great seal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland separated New Zealand from New South Wales. (New Zealand was placed under the laws and dependency of New South Wales by the 1839 Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent. In other words, Britain had obtained sovereignty)
The 1840 Royal Charter/Letters Patent made New Zealand into an independent British Colony on the 3rd May 1841 with its own Governor and Constitution to form a government to make laws with courts and judges to enforce those laws under one flag and one law, irrespective of race colour or creed.
The Treaty of Waitangi was superseded and no longer relevant after the 3rd May 1841, as the Maori people were now British subjects with the same rights and privileges as ALL the other people living in New Zealand.
About 45 years ago, more than 80 books pertaining to our history were removed from school and university libraries, plus reading rooms. Why? Does each book hold some semblance of truth? It is time to eradicate the "lies, damned lies and statistics" and let the truth be told, even if this means "hikois from hell"!
Kevan
When will the media stop spouting this crap. New Zealand isn't interested. We don't want the Treaty or the trappings thereof. We are done.
Perhaps some thought should be given to the ( hypothetical for now ) situation where the ethnocracy (=indigenous minority with final controlling veto as foreseen by He Puapua) is actually installed.....
Ms Ardern has clearly planned her path to a top UN post based on being the first leader who managed to put the indigenous minority in charge of a country..... this was her deal with radical Maori.
This could happen if a majority of gullible NZers accept the " partnership" myth of the Treaty.
You had me with your global history until you came to NZ; Your positioning stating the TOW came about as a result of inter tribal wars between iwi. Can you allow me sir to correct you and to put in context. 1. The inter tribal battles is correct but battles were fought not between iwi as the word iwi came about after the colonisers group them in areas. Just like naming them with the word Maori as the previous name then for people of the land were aborigines who had the same class as animals in the colonisers eyes.
Pls note: There was no iwi at that time nor previous; evidence supports this view as shown on the treaty itself; how? Well, its all signed by chiefs or rangatira of Hapu (small family tribes) of their areas…
As a result of this view; 2) the true intent the treaty was a result of the lawlessness of the then colonisers who were believing to be the higher class (as they did in all the mentioned countries that occupied) were running a muck causing murders; raping and stealing of land
Nothing swayed to the truth or assisting of the locals due to the crown appointing their own on the judgement seats and sending Maori to jail for life to moved them away… pls read the real history rather get a story and filk in the gaps based on other accounts of other countries… hence all the confusion….. cheers
Eli Tulafono, I suggest you read Crosby's The Musket Wars in order to get educated about what came before the Treaty was signed.
Dear Gerry Eckhoff I would like to point out that the Maori (1) were not the first peoples nor are they indigenous as they are all crowing about.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.