Joint Media Release: Global Peace and Justice Auckland, Investment Watch Aotearoa/New Zealand, Palestine Human Rights Campaign

3 December 2009

NZ NGOs call for Superfund divestment from Israeli war crimes

New Zealand peace and justice organisations are today restating a call made four weeks ago for the New Zealand Superannuation Fund to divest from Israeli investments as part of a global divestment campaign aimed to put pressure on the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories. Despite two weeks ago announcing a temporary freeze on new settlement construction, 3000 new homes for Israeli settlers in the West Bank will be constructed on Palestinian territory, including annexed East Jerusalem.

The NZ Superannuation Fund currently holds investments in corporations deeply complicit in the belligerent Israeli occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, Golan Heights and the blockade of the Gaza Strip. These include Israeli banks, petrol stations and telecommunications companies that operate in Israeli settlements in the Palestinian West Bank in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 (1967) which calls for the withdrawal of the Israeli military and settlement from the Palestinian West Bank.

The Superfund also holds investments in Boeing, Caterpillar and United Technologies, all of which manufacture military equipment such as fighter jets, attack helicopters and armoured bulldozers complicit in the occupation and used to carry out war crimes in the Gaza strip in January 2009. According to the United Nations Israeli forces launched ‘direct attacks against civilians with lethal outcome’ including the shelling of a house where soldiers had forced Palestinian civilians to assemble and the targeting of a mosque at prayer time, resulting in the death of 15 people.

“Four weeks ago New Zealand NGOs asked the Guardians of the Superfund to divest from all corporations involved in supporting the Israeli occupation of the West Bank or in providing the military equipment Israel uses to carry out war crimes and crimes against humanity,” said Investment Watch spokesperson Omar Hamed.

“This week the stalled peace process in the Middle East has a chance of being brought back to life but only if the international community puts pressure on the Israeli Government to completely halt and roll back the settlement process in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Just as New Zealand banks and insurance companies once divested from apartheid South Africa, the Superannuation Fund should support the Palestinian civil society call for divestment from the corporations that fuel ongoing conflict in the Middle East,” said Omar Hamed.

“The entire world sits on edge as international diplomats and politicians attempt to broker a ceasefire in Palestine, but until financial institutions around the world like the Superfund refuse to be complicit in the financing of war crimes and illegal settlement, the occupation and thus the conflict will continue,” Mr. Hamed

Omar Hamed is available for comment on 029 4555 789 or omar@unite.org.nz

——–

Investment Watch is a national network campaigning for ethical investment by New Zealand Government funds. It is supported by Aotearoa Lawyers for Peace, Auckland University Students for Justice in Palestine, Indonesia Human Rights Committee, Peace Foundation, Peace Movement Aotearoa and Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (Aotearoa)

Global Peace and Justice Auckland is an umbrella group for organisations and individuals involved in global justice, anti-war and human rights campaigning in the Auckland region.

Palestine Human Rights Campaign campaigns for the defence of Palestinian human rights in Aotearoa/New Zealand.

Dear David May, Chair, Guardians of the N.Z. Superannuation Fund,

New Zealand Superannuation Fund investments in Occupation of Palestinian and Syrian Lands

The New Zealand Superannuation Fund currently holds investments in corporations deeply complicit in the belligerent Israeli occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, Golan Heights and the blockade of the Gaza Strip.

Investments in these corporations materially support the continued Israeli occupation and Israel’s continual violation of United Nations resolutions and international human rights and humanitarian law.

According to international law and the United Nations’ UNSC resolution 242 (1967), the acquisition of territory by force is prohibited.  Israel has occupied the West Bank, East Jerusalem, Gaza Strip and Syrian Golan Heights since 1967.  This continuing occupation has been involved a myriad of serious human rights violations (see United Nations’ E/CN.4/2004/6).  Approximately five million Palestinian refugees are the result of successive Israeli expulsions since 1948. These refugees have their right to return and restitution under UNGA 194 (III) blocked by Israel. The unilateral annexation of Jerusalem by Israel is unlawful – cf. UNSC 252 (1968). The demographic and physical transformation of the Occupied Territories, through Israeli settler implants, is a war crime under the provisions of the Treaty of Rome of 1998 (A/Conf.183/9, Art8(2)(b) (viii).  The Israeli construction of a Separation Wall on occupied land violates the legal obligations of a belligerent occupier (A/ES-10/273).  Israel has thwarted the Palestinians’ right to self-determination, including the creation of a viable and sovereign state in their homeland – cf. UNGA 3236 (xxix) of 22 November 1974, UNSC 1397 (2002) and UNGA 58/292 of 6 May 2004.

On 9^th July 2004, the highest judicial body of the United Nations, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), issued an Advisory Opinion on the Legal Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (A/ES-10/273 and Cor.1.).  It ruled that the territory, including East Jerusalem, is unambiguously under ‘belligerent occupation’, (para 78, 101, 120) and such occupation is a denial of the Palestinian rights of self-determination.  The ICJ ruled that both the Israeli settlements and the Separation Wall are built in breach of international law and that humanitarian law, the laws of war and human rights law apply cumulatively in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (paras 105-114).

The ICJ also stated that all States are under an obligation not to recognise the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the Separation Wall, must not render aid or assistance in maintaining that situation, and must see to it that any impediment to the Palestinian people’s right to self determination is brought to an end (para 159).  All States Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention are under an obligation to ensure compliance by Israel with international humanitarian law as embodied in that Convention (para 159).  The Court found that the Israeli obligations to comply were erga omnes, that is to all members of the international community.  This in turn derived from the application of the jus cogens rule which means that breaches of obligation should not be recognised and this non-recognition is permanent.

Such a finding indicates a very high level of legal obligation to States Parties.  New Zealand is such a State Party, having signed the Fourth Geneva Convention on 11 February 1950 and ratified it 2 May 1959.

New Zealand has incorporated provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention into New Zealand legislation, specifically the Geneva Conventions Act 1958 No19 (as of 1 July 2009), which is ‘An Act to enable effect to be given to certain International Conventions done at Geneva on the 12th day of August 1949 and to certain Protocols additional to those Conventions, and for purposes connected therewith’.

New Zealand’s International Crimes and International Criminal Court Act 2000, codifies the provisions of the Treaty of Rome, which relate to individual responsibilities for breaches of humanitarian law. This was the legislation under which a New Zealand judge issued an arrest warrant in 2006 for suspicion of war crimes against the former Chief of Israeli Defense Staff, now Minister of Strategic Affairs of Israel, Moshe Ya’alon, for his role in the assassination of Salah Shehade and others in Gaza in 2002.

On 20 July 2004, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted by an overwhelming majority resolution ES-10/15 demanding that Israel heed the ICJ opinion.  New Zealand voted in favour.  Israel had adamantly refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of the ICJ, and for that matter the application of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

In 2005 a coalition of Palestinian NGOs and civil society organisations issued a call for the rest of the world to actively pursue non-violent punitive measures until Israel meets its obligation to recognize the Palestinian people’s inalienable right to self-determination and complies with the precepts of international law by:

1. Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the [Separation] Wall;

2. Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and

3. Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194 (III).

·           Since September 2000, the Israeli army has killed more than 6,500 men, women and children in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (including Gaza) (OPT), by means of bombing, house demolitions and targeted assassinations. (Source: Palestine Solidarity Campaign, http://www.palestinecampaign.org/images/apartheid%20factsheet%20-%20web.pdf)

·         Currently, about 10,000 Palestinian prisoners are being illegally held in Israeli jails, including more than 300 children, many under the system of ‘administrative detention’ — i.e. without charge or trial. (Source: Palestine Solidarity Campaign, http://www.palestinecampaign.org/images/apartheid%20factsheet%20-%20web.pdf)

·         Israel uses more than 80 per cent of the water from the Mountain Aquifer, the main source of underground water in Israel and the OPT, while restricting Palestinian access to a mere 20 per cent. Some 180,000-200,000 Palestinians living in rural communities have no access to running water and the Israeli army often prevents them from even collecting rainwater. (Source: Amnesty International, http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/report/israel-rations-palestinians-trickle-water-20091027)

·         Fully 95% of the Separation Wall is being built on Palestinian territory rather than on Israel’s border, known as the Green Line. This means that the western sector of the Wall will effectively annex at least 10% of the West Bank to Israel. (Source: War on Want, http://www.waronwant.org/attachments/Profiting%20from%20the%20Occupation.pdf)

·         The United Nations Human Rights Council Goldstone Report recently found that Israeli actions in the Gaza Strip between December 2008 and January 2009 may have amounted to war crimes. It cites a number of specific incidents in which Israeli forces launched ‘direct attacks against civilians with lethal outcome’. These are, the Report says, cases in which the facts indicate no justifiable military objective pursued by the attacks. The incidents described include: Attacks in the Samouni neighbourhood, in Zeitoun, south of Gaza City, including the shelling of a house where soldiers had forced Palestinian civilians to assemble; Seven incidents concerning ‘the shooting of civilians while they were trying to leave their homes to walk to a safer place, waving white flags and, in some of the cases, following an injunction from the Israeli forces to do so’;  The targeting of a mosque at prayer time, resulting in the death of 15 people. (Source: United Nations, http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/view01/9B63490FFCBE44E5C1257632004EA67B?opendocument)

The New Zealand Superannuation Fund, by investing in the listed corporations, is complicit in the occupation and the Israeli mechanisms of preserving that occupation, which include long-standing and severe breaches of international humanitarian and human rights law:

We note that the New Zealand Superannuation Fund has obligations in legislation.  Specifically, Section 58 of the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001, requires the Guardians of the Fund to invest so as to avoid prejudice to New Zealand’s reputation as a responsible member of the world community.

Section 61(d) of the Act demands a Statement of Investment Standards and Procedures that provides for ethical investment to avoid prejudice to New Zealand’s reputation as a responsible member of the world community.

Moreover, we understand from your statement of Responsible Investment Policy, that the Trust is a founding signatory to the United Nations’ Principles for Responsible Investment.  In particular we are further told that the Guardians have adopted the United Nations Global Compact, which sets ‘core values’ for investment using considerations of such matters as human rights.

The relevant principles of the UN Global Compact are;

Principle 1. Businesses should support and respect the protection of internationally proclaimed human rights; and

Principle 2. Make sure they are not complicit in human rights abuses.

Divestment from the corporations listed above would end the New Zealand Superannuation Fund’s complicity with the Israeli occupation of Arab lands and Israel’s ongoing breaches of international law and violations of human rights therein.

We look forward to hearing from you in the near future that you have divested from the above investments.  We, of course, are only too happy to meet with you to discuss these investments should you have any questions about them.

Yours Sincerely,

Omar Hamed

Omarhamed123@gmail.com

6a Western Springs Road, Kingsland, Auckland.

On behalf of,

Investment Watch Aotearoa/New Zealand and,

Mike Treen,

Global Peace and Justice Auckland

Janfrie Wakim,

Palestine Human Rights Campaign

Don Carson,

Wellington Palestine Group

Cc Bill English, Minister of Finance

Dear David May, Adrian Orr and the Board of Guardians,

We have been very concerned about the decision of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund to limit its divestment of nuclear weapon related companies to those which are involved in producing or testing nuclear weapons.  This means that New Zealand taxpayers are continuing to invest through the Super Fund in companies which are involved in a range of direct nuclear related activities from making the rockets for US Intercontinental Ballistic missiles to maintaining British nuclear weapons bases.

We believe that this clearly against the spirit of the nuclear free legislation.  We would argue that this is also contrary to the letter of New Zealand’s Nuclear Free Zone Disarmament and Arms Control legislation.  We also contend that the continued investment in companies that maintain and manufacture nuclear weapons delivery systems and manage nuclear bases will compromise New Zealand’s role as a leader in promoting nuclear disarmament.

We have studied documents (released under the terms of the Official Information Act) including the reports prepared for the Super Fund Board and the legal opinion of  D.L.A Phillips Fox,   6 October 2008.

In the discussion and in the legal evaluation distinctions are made among companies which

• produce or test nuclear warheads (including simulated testing)
• produce nuclear weapon delivery systems,
• provide nuclear bases where nuclear weapons are deployed, stored or developed
• produce dual use products such as submarines or aircraft which can transport nuclear weapons

We note that the legal opinion and the discussion papers conclude that activities in question are ‘unlikely’ to breach New Zealand’s international treaty obligations or involve a risk of prejudicing New Zealand’s reputation.  In other words there remains a possibility that New Zealand would risk these highly deleterious consequences.  We also understand from the financial analyses about ‘portfolio diversity’ that the Super Fund would not risk serious financial harm by divesting from these nuclear involved companies.  So we would ask – why run this risk?

While we are appreciative of the comprehensive consideration of New Zealand’s domestic and international obligations and the Treaties we are signatory to, we consider that the final decision of the Guardians is based on a narrow technical approach to the critical questions.

We would contrast this approach to that taken by the Norwegian Government Pension Fund.  This Fund has taken the decision to divest from companies in the above categories, including United Technologies, Boeing BAE, Finmeccanica, and Safran SA.  These companies are involved with the development or production of nuclear weapons delivery and control systems.  For example, Safran SA produces nuclear missiles for the French Navy, and United Technologies produces the engines for the ICBMs in the US Airforce.   In total, as at 31 August 2009 the Super Fund has some $11.7 million invested in these companies.

The Norwegian Fund made its ethical decision on a somewhat broader perspective.  Martin Skancke Director General of the Norwegian Ministry of Finance expressed it thus: “We are asking the Norwegian public for their trust in setting aside every year between 15 percent and 20 percent of GDP in this fund. We would not be able to do that if the investment policy diverged too much from the basic, core, ethical belief of the average Norwegian.”  (The International Herald Tribune November 14, 2008)

In our view it is impossible to make distinction between the nuclear weapons per se and the delivery systems designed to carry the weapons to their target and we believe this would be the view of the ‘average New Zealander’.

We have considered the points raised with respect to the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament and Arms Control Act, the legal opinion suggests that investment in any of the companies categorized above would be unlikely to constitute a breach of the Act’s provisions.  The analysis is complex but relies to a considerable extent on the interpretation of the term ‘aiding and abetting’ and it is suggested that investment in the securities of a company could not be considered as equivalent to ‘aiding and abetting’.  It is also suggested that the Guardians of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund are not a New Zealand citizen so that the terms of both the Nuclear Free Zone Act and the Nuclear Test Ban Act would not apply to the activities of the Guardians outside New Zealand’s jurisdiction.

We believe that this analysis does not take adequate account of the purpose of the 1987 Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament and Arms Control Act.  The title of the Act includes the words “to promote and encourage an active and effective contribution by New Zealand to the essential process of disarmament and international arms control…”  To our mind this suggests that the legislation was drawn up in the spirit of ensuring New Zealand continued to take a strong lead on nuclear disarmament and not hide behind narrow definitions.

Importantly, the New Zealand legislation also implements the terms of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.  Both the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty refer to nuclear weapon delivery systems and set out the elimination of these systems as a key disarmament goal. The International Court of Justice issued an important advisory opinion on the legality of nuclear weapons in 1996, in which it also emphasised the responsibility of all parties to the Non Proliferation Treaty to eliminate arsenals of both nuclear weapons and their means of delivery.

The issue with respect to these Treaties is considered in discussion documents such as that presented to the Responsible Investment Committee on 16 June 2008.  A case for a stronger position on exclusion was made, but not finally accepted by the Guardians.

We urge the Guardians of the Superannuation Fund to reconsider the decision on divestment from nuclear weapons related companies.  We strongly advocate that the Guardians take the next step and divest from all companies involved in producing or maintaining nuclear weapon delivery systems or providing nuclear basing facilities.

We would welcome an opportunity to discuss these matters with you in person.

Yours sincerely,

Maire Leadbeater

For Investment Watch

]]> http://investmentwatch.wordpress.com/2008/09/15/media-release-divestment-from-freeport-urged-on-cfis/feed/ 0 omar123 http://investmentwatch.wordpress.com/2008/08/18/report-from-demo-against-superfund-investments-in-freeport/ http://investmentwatch.wordpress.com/2008/08/18/report-from-demo-against-superfund-investments-in-freeport/#comments Mon, 18 Aug 2008 12:20:16 +0000 omar123 http://investmentwatch.wordpress.com/?p=30 ]]> 04 Aug 2008

From: http://indymedia.org.nz/newswire/display/75828/index.php

Everyday ordinary West Papuans stare ecocide and genocide in the face with nothing more than their commitment to freedom. Surely we can back them up with a little commitment of our own.

Join the picket of the Superfund office on August 1 and tell the Superfund that our future and the future of the Papuan people is not in Freeport.

Action against Superfund Investment in Freeport McMoran

After growing public and political pressure the NZ Superfund has confirmed that it will divest from corporations involved in the production of cluster munitions and is currently reviewing its investments in corporations with ties to the production and maintenance of nuclear weapons. So the campaign for ethical pension fund investment has now turned its attention to a corporation that for many is synonymous with the most ruthless, bloodthirsty form of colonialism and the most repugnant destruction of rainforest, river and ocean currently happening in the South Pacific.

They have been killed, raped and tortured. Life is hard for them. All we are asking for is the freedoms that you enjoy every day – the freedom to speak your mind, to live without fear and to choose your own government.” Benny Wenda, West Papuan independence leader

For the past forty-five years, the people of West Papua have been subjected to cultural genocide and gross human rights violations including rape, torture, murder and massacre inflicted by the Indonesian armed forces. Since 1963 more than 100,000 West Papuans have been killed; around 15,000 West Papuans are currently living in camps in Papua New Guinea; and others are forced to live in exile around the world because it is not safe for them to go home. The Indonesian government’s transmigration programme has resulted in around one million non-Papuan transmigrants being moved into West Papua.

Multi-national corporations in cahoots with the Indonesian authorities have exploited West Papua’s natural resources to an extraordinary degree. This has caused massive social dislocation, devastation of rainforests, and pollution of streams and rivers on which the local people depend for their survival. These rainforests contain up to 7% of all the world’s biodiversity.

Papuan people’s resistance is a last bastion of defence against the Indonesian military and the American corporation that runs the Freeport McMoran mine, the world’s largest copper and gold mine. Freeport “has an unparalleled record of human rights and environmental abuse” in relation to that mine – it has created a 230 square kilometre barren wasteland of dumped mine tailings, and the destruction of the local environment is visible from space. The impact of the mine is particularly devastating for the indigenous Amungme and Kamoro people who have lost the traditional lands and aquatic resources that they rely on for survival, as well as being forcibly displaced from their homes and villages.

West Papuans living near the mine have suffered massive human rights abuses at the hands of the Indonesian Military. In the late 1970s, after a group of Papuans cut Freeport’s copper pipeline the Indonesian Military launched ‘Operation Annihilation’. Troops went from village to village shooting men, women and children and villages were bombarded by the airforce with cluster bombs. 3000 civilians were killed. Killings and arrests of civilians continue today. In 2006 many Papuan students were imprisoned and tortured for protesting against Freeport.

In 2005, the New York Times revealed that from 1998 through to 2004, Freeport gave Indonesian “military and police generals, colonels, majors and captains, and military units, nearly $20 million (US). Individual commanders received tens of thousands of dollars, in one case up to $150,000, according to the documents.” That included payments to the Mobile Brigade which has been associated with “numerous serious human rights violations, including extrajudicial killings, torture, rape, and arbitrary detention”.

Even after significant pressure from peace and solidarity groups in Aotearoa/New Zealand, the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, a Government-run pension set up to pay for our retirement, has investments totaling $1,600,548 in Freeport McMoran. Plus an investment of $23,846,105 in the Rio Tinto Group ($9,780,671 in Rio Tinto Plc, Britain, and $14,065,434 in Rio Tinto Ltd, Australia) – Rio Tinto has a 40 per cent joint venture interest in the Freeport McMoRan mine.

Everyday ordinary West Papuans stare ecocide and genocide in the face with nothing more than their commitment to freedom. Surely we can back them up with a little commitment of our own.

Join the picket of the Superfund office on August 1 and tell the Superfund that our future and the future of the Papuan people is not in Freeport.

Where: NZ Superannuation Fund office, outside the AMP building, on the corner of Custom Street West and Albert Street, Auckland CBD.
When: Friday 1 August at 4.30pm -5.30pm
Organised by: Investment Watch Aotearoa New Zealand | investmentwatch.wordpress.com | nowarp(nospam)xtra.co.nz

More Information

- Superfund investments

Act now! NZ Superannuation Fund investments in death and destruction,

Investing in whose future? NZ Super Fund invests in cluster munitions, nuclear weapons and human rights violations

- West Papua and Freeport

West Papua: the forgotten Pacific country – Peace Movement Aotearoa primer leaflet on West Papua (PDF)

Below a Mountain of Wealth, a River of Waste - December 2005, New York Times article on the Freeport McMoran mine

IHRC letter to the Superfund about Freeport – Auckland based West Papua solidarity group asks for divestment
Summary of Freeport and Papuas history – Solidarity South Pacific resource on the long and terrible legacy of the mine

Summary of 2006 Papuan student protests – Thousands demand closure of Freeport and the Indonesian military violently represses the movement