New Zealand: The Maori struggle for land and life

The Maori People of Aotearoa (New Zealand) are now standing at a crossroads, forced to choose between sovereignty and colonialism. Within the recent Maori settlement program, the government offers large sums of money and small fragments of land. In exchange, the Maori are expected to give up their independence and become New Zealand citizens. Recent history shows that the New Zealand government is more than willing to use intimidation and violence to control and assimilate the Maori.

The 1840 Treaty of Waitangi between the Maori leadership and the colonial state resulted in massive land seizures and violence against the Maori. The current land claims process is a renewal of this tragic legacy of repression. One major difference between then and now is that in the past the Maori refused to let go of their sovereignty -- always maintaining they did not intend to cede it. We can see that's true, given that the original treaty "does not use the Maori word for 'sovereignty,' kingitanga, or even the Maori word for 'independence,' rangatiritanga." Kevin Jon Heller, a law professor at the University of Auckland in New Zealand, points out:

[T]he British had to have known that the Maori did not intend to cede sovereignty to the Queen. In 1835, the British and the Maori had signed the Declaration of Independence, in which the British guaranteed that the Maori chiefs would maintain sovereignty over their land. The Declaration made use of all three of the words that are at the heart of the dispute over the Treaty, with the British translating rangatiritanga as "independence," kingitanga as "sovereign power and authority," and kawanatanga as "functions of government." How then could the British have honestly believed a mere five years later — with many of the same British officials present at the signing of both documents — that Article 1's use of the term kawanatanga, as opposed to kingitanga, meant that the Maori were giving up their sovereignty?

In retrospect, we can assume that belief had nothing to do with it. After all, New Zealand has never acknowledged the original treaty as anything but a 'courtesy.' The real treaty, they say, is the English translation they drew after the original. This version, of course, plainly states the Maori ceded their rights:

The Chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes of New Zealand and the separate and independent Chiefs who have not become members of the Confederation cede to Her Majesty the Queen of England absolutely and without reservation all the rights and powers of Sovereignty which the said Confederation or Individual Chiefs respectively exercise or possess, or may be supposed to exercise or to possess over their respective Territories as the sole Sovereigns thereof.

In any case, "the question is now moot," says Heller. "New Zealand courts have long since given up trying to determine the "true" meaning of the Treaty. Now they — and the Waitangi Tribunal, which makes recommendations to the government concerning Maori grievances — simply apply the so-called "Treaty Principles" [which are based on the English treaty]."

Heller's right to say it's moot, but the New Zealand government's insistence is little more than a desperate plea. They simply can't afford to respect the Maori version, which would be an admission that they committed fraud, would could in turn de-legitimize the state, or at least force them to acknowledge the Maori's rights. The only thing would be expected to do to avoid this was to make it into a non-issue, and then pray the Maori buy into it. As we can gather from the recent wave of settlements, a vast number of the Maori leadership is doing just that.

~ more... ~