New Zealand FM Winston Peters a Bit Unpopular
by Richardson ~ August 5th, 2007. Filed under: Geopolitics.I don’t normally follow New Zealand politics, but this cartoon portraying Winston Peters, NZ FM and head of the New Zealand First Party who was recently invited to visit North Korea by DPRK counterpart Pak Ui-Chun (date TBD), indicates he’s a bit unpopular, at least with some:
Not sure if he’s an egomaniac or not, as the cartoon indicates, but don’t think there is anything “fancy” about his hair. He is outspoken, particularly on immigration, which has led to charges of bigotry. Again, I’m not familiar with NZ politics and policies, but am generally for fair but restrictive immigration and for enforcement of immigration laws (i.e., no amnesty for illegal immigrants). He does have a way with words, however:
“Smart alec, arrogant, quiche eating, chardonnay drinking, pinky finger pointing snobbery, fart blossom.” - Peters on big city media commentators in 2002.
August 5th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
Just a note — I don’t believe Peters is PM, but rather a Foreign Minister. Thanks for the post!
August 5th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
You’re right – thanks for catching that.
August 5th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
The immigration debate is another thing altogether, but since it has been brought up, it is a huge sore spot for America at least. Some see it as an excuse for racism while others see it as illegals getting services they are not entitled to. I am still very torn on the subject for many reasons (for which I will not list here), but it is interesting to see it an issue in NZ.
I do not follow NZ politics either, but it seems North Korea as been trotting the globe lately. North Korea’s #2 man has been to Mongolia and some other places I do not remember (I think I read either it was the dear leader or the #2 man went to Egypt), and is trying to court leaders. I do not know why exactly, but it suggests to get trade going.
I have no idea how they are going to trade when there is no money. I guess something will be worked out eventually, but it seems more and more private companies are stepping in and investing in North Korea. There is a lot of debate about it, and my question is, does any of the money made go to the regime?
August 5th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
Jack,
I’m not anti-immigration, but anti illegal immigration. More on the topic here; http://www.areastudies.org/2007/05/30/off-topic-us-politics/
Yes, NK is once again making a fairly strong diplomatic press, similar to 2002 (though more so then). My opinion is that they are trying to look cooperative and open now so they can attempt to blame the U.S. when they (DPRK) don’t follow through on the 13 Feb. agreement. We’ll see.
On investment in North Korea; from what I know, the vast majority if not all profits go directly to the regime.
August 5th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
Alright, so that brings this to a potentially off topic question. If the money is going to the regime, why invest in it? I mean as long as the dear leader gets money, the longer he is in power. I think that is pretty crappy to court Kim like that…
August 5th, 2007 at 7:03 pm
The theory is that investing in North Korea will help improve the infrastructure, which ignores the reality of the “military first” policy, as well as all the other nasty realities of North Korea. For South Korean (of from wherever) businessmen, the motive is cheap labor and profit. For governments (except China, which wants to retain a buffer zone), I also cannot understand why any would allow any sort of investment in North Korea as it does indeed prop up the regime; w/o South Korea, the DPRK would have failed already. That’s why I am for a policy of complete strangulation, including threatening both China and South Korea with access to U.S. markets if they don’t cooperate. However that is as unrealistic as South Korea throwing money at North Korea and hoping they’ll change.
August 5th, 2007 at 11:41 pm
Wow, I had all but forgotten that name; I guess some people never go away.
11 years ago I had the chance to hear Winston Peters speak on campus while I was studying for a semester in NZ. He had a flame-thrower reputation then, too.
I quickly came to the conclusion he was the Pat Buchanan of NZ, though less sensible than our Pat (and I’m no Buchanan fan). You really couldn’t tell if Peters wanted to keep immigration rates down or if he actually hated immigrants. (For the record, I also would classify my views as “I’m not anti-immigration, but anti illegal immigration.”)