New Zealand and the international rule of law: Human Rights with reservations.

Blog No.146.

New Zealand’s intelligence services and the Wilfreds as meat in the grinder.

This blog is an unplanned for insertion into the series.  It has been inspired at short notice by the, from this government, unexpected contents and tone of a  letter (see footnote below) from the Associate Minister of Immigration. New Zealand poses as a champion of international human rights legislation – but in reality….!  The blog has been written at short notice and of necessity, many of the statements it contains are based on informed observation and conjecture, rather than on evidence that is kept under lock and sealed lips in the secret corridors of power. Google around the points that you might question and you will be surprised with what you come up with. 

The Honourable Kris Faafoi, Associate Minister of Immigration.

A speed-update on facts related to this blog can be found at (1) below.

Kris Faafoi’s letter (see final footnote) reveals that the new government, despite its pretensions to openness and protection of human rights etc. is, under certain circumstances, prepared to spend political capital in openly dispensing with such ideals. Faafoi’s letter is both secretive and hostile to considerations of the Wilfreds’ human rights.

How has this situation come about?

a.) Firstly, NZ has no written constitution. Consequently all decisions are made against a grey background in which the roles and rights of politicians, watchdogs (such as the Ombudsman and the Human Rights Commission) and individual members of society are not clearly defined and can be the subject of ministerial whim.

b.) Secondly, NZ Cabinet ministers do not have a clear understanding of  the issues and the value of the stakes being placed on the table. New Zealand’s ministers, have been brought up bound into a matrix of a public world-view largely created by the mass media. This world view is open to the manipulation of the USA’s shadow government via the conduits established by the CIA from Operation Mocking Bird onwards (2). Consequently, ministers are ill-informed about world affairs and cannot help but take up their leadership positions with pre-embedded and grossly misplaced beliefs in the beneficent nature of the ‘free world’ and its system of alliances.

c.) When they get into positions of authority they have access to additional ‘privileged’ sources of intelligence. In the old days these would have come through a network of experienced NZ diplomats, scattered through missions around the world and tasked with the gathering of political intelligence, as well as more mundane matters, such as trade and consular.

d.) Given NZ’s budgetary constraints, it is unlikely that NZ’s Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) ever had the capacity to conduct significant HUMINT operations overseas. However, the intelligence services of NZ allies would have been feeding whatever information they wished to impart, into the NZ diplomatic missions. The experienced diplomats in those missions would have been well-placed to form initial judgements on the value and reliability of such information.

e.) When David Lange made his contribution to the ending of the first Cold War (3) by declaring NZ nuclear free and withdrawing from ANZUS, he admitted to, at one stage, actually fearing for his life. That crisis was considerably eased by NZ’s almost simultaneous acceptance of membership of the US intelligence operated Echelon and the opening of the Waihopai Spy Station (4). Lange was later to admit that he was ill- or misinformed and had little idea of what the intentions behind and the MO of this fifth eye to the Echelon network were to be.

f.) New Zealand doesn’t have the capacity to analyse the information it captures at Waihopai. The entire scoop of information netted, is passed over to the USA for sorting, distribution and analysis. In return for its cooperation in obtaining the information, New Zealand receives those results from their analysis that the US intelligence agencies feel it is in their own interest to pass on ( no doubt, suitably modified where desired.) The NZ intelligence personnel receiving this information have little opportunity to develop the knowledge required to enable them to evaluate its reliability before handing it over to those members of government ‘privileged’ to receive it (and who are equally ill-positioned to assess its reliability.)

g.) As if determined to make this US Trojan horse, inserted into the midst of NZ government decision-making, even more effective, the recent exceptionally and excessively US-friendly Key government chose to downgrade the NZ diplomatic service. The National government rid the diplomatic service of its most overseas-experienced officers and retained the rump as a glorified shop-front for NZ’s mainly primary industry-based economy.

h.) This has left NZ’s decision-makers with little alternative. In foreign affairs, their decisions have to be based on the understanding and prejudices they have gathered from the CIA controlled media, or from the ‘privileged’ (and therefore, that much more believable and even more open to foreign manipulation) Echelon-derived intelligence – again filtered by the CIA. GCSB, the NZ government’s intelligence agency responsible for distributing the information fed back to it from the USA, is utterly dependent for its livelihood on maintaining the goodwill of its opposite numbers in the USA. The NZ government, dependent on GCSB proffered intelligence for its understanding of global affairs and its ability to make decisions, has to place the highest priority (matter of’ national security’) on the maintenance of that good, working relationship.

i.) It is reasonable to suppose that a very similar sort of relationship exists between the US intelligence community and Canada, Australia and the UK. It is also reasonable to anticipate that the most highly prized category of electronic intelligence the Echelon subsidiaries can unknowingly collect, is dirt on their own politicians. In time, such intelligence to be used by the US shadow government to exert even greater control over its allied vassals.

j.) The case of the Wilfreds, in which both the Canadian and New Zealand governments have taken similar and equal political risks in trampling their human rights in order to place the CIA’s interests above their own national interests, are an indication of how the machine can be mobilised across national frontiers and to the detriment of private citizens.

k.) Until NZ is prepared to stop spying on its neighbours on behalf of the USA, dispense with its reliance on the US intelligence connection and convert Waihopai to its own requirements, the dispensable Wilfreds will continue to be caught in the ‘national security’ grinder. This situation is likely to continue until NZ gets itself a written constitution that enshrines its independence in law, or until the Wilfreds can make their peace with the USA, or until sufficient funds can be raised to maximise publicity while fighting the NZ government through the law courts.

The American end.

a.) Harmon’s peace has to be made, not with the White House, but with the CIA, whom Harmon has so offended. As is its routine practice, the CIA is determined to make a painful example of him as a deterrent to any other CIA operatives, who might consider spilling any of its beans on the carpet.

b.) This poses the obvious question as to why a peace made with the White House would be insufficient?

c.) Ever since JFK was assassinated so shortly after announcing his intention to clip the wings of a too boisterous CIA, any POTUS must have had good reason for caution when considering restricting the freedom of action of the intelligence agencies. Though there is no definitive proof that it was the CIA that carried out the murder, there is no doubt that it was the CIA that ran the Warren Commission and covered up the crime. With Bobby’s and Martin Luther King’s subsequent assassinations, and successfully cover-ups, both bearing similar trademarks, it would be a very brave President, who would chose to bet his life that the CIA would never dare arrange a replay.

d.) That is not to say that many a subsequent POTUS has not found the situation frustrating. It was once just the CIA: there are now about seventeen separate intelligence agencies. At least some of these clones must owe their existence to a President’s attempt to gather information from an independent source. These efforts would have been in vain. All such breakaways, sooner or later, get pulled into orbit around the gravitational field of the far more deeply embedded and ruthless Central Intelligence Agency.

e.) It is very hard to be certain about allegations against the CIA. Its internal security systems are highly sophisticated, with multiple Russian dolls inside each other, each requiring a higher clearance and being accessible to declining numbers of ever more senior (and probably more deeply corrupt) guardians of the nation’s secrets. Kevin Shipp’s evidence is most telling in this respect. (5) Kevin might still be alive because, before resigning, he penetrated far enough into one of the inner chambers to acquire an insurance policy

f.) One thing is clear: ever since its foundation, the CIA and its OSS predecessor, has had a clear objective of obtaining and laundering vast quantities of money, to be used for the reward of worthy members of the organisation and for the conduct of illegal activities and operations behind the backs and outside the budgetary oversight of elected representatives. In the initial stages, from WWII’s Golden Triangle onwards, until Harmon Wilfred’s breakthrough in Lichtenstein, drug trafficking was CIA’s fund-raising operation of choice. (6) An investigative journalist might discover that the wholly dysfunctional drug enforcement activities of the US government were instigated by the CIA with the main intent of putting up the street price they could obtain for their wares!

g.) One of the more ambitious CIA drug operations was centred on Mena Airfield in Arkansas. At the height of this operation, Bill Clinton was the State Governor. It would appear that the Clintons indulged in multiple illegal activities during Bill’s term in office in Arkansas and at the same time rendered huge assistance to the CIA in its drug-dealing fund-raising efforts. The Clintons being no slouches, it is a reasonable assumption that both sides of the deal emerged with massive incriminatory evidence on the other and that the Clintons kept their share of the dirt, as an insurance policy, in a very safe place.

h.) With the CIA’s active assistance, Bill went on to become POTUS. While he was in office, Harmon Wilfred solved the CIA’s funding problem for many years ahead by finding a way to negotiate several tens of billions of dollars in negotiable notes that had found their way into CIA ownership. These funds had probably originated as the holdings of the central banks of several Asian countries occupied by the Japanese army in WWII. These had been repatriated back to Japan and, at the end of the war, had, by some small oversight, failed to be returned to their rightful owners by the occupying American forces. To the victors; the spoils!

i.) This is not the place to go into the Harmon Wilfred story (7) but there is a strange coincidence between the timing of the CIA’s successful negotiation of its first tranche of $15 billion, the final year of Bill Clinton’s presidency and the formation of the Clinton Foundation. Whether or not the Foundation was set up to help the CIA launder the money, or whether it was a private Clinton initiative designed to assert the Clinton’s financial independence from the CIA, is still open to question. It would appear that Bill, as POTUS, was fully in the know about the CIA’s transactions and would have insisted on a (small?) share of the spoils. Such a share-out could well have been deployed to help the Foundation lift-off.

j.) From the CIA’s point of view, having a tame POTUS must have been a welcome (if not unusual) experience. So when Hillary stood for President, it was with full CIA support. (So too was the subsequent attempt to turn around the adverse election result through a campaign to discredit the Electoral College.)

k.) Despite Trump’s campaign promises to drain the Washington swamp and indict ‘Crooked Hillary,’ when in office, and despite the continued hostility of Hillary to his presidency and the CIA-instigated Russiagate campaign, Trump has taken no action against her and has been nothing if not compliant to CIA urgings over Syria and Russia.

l.) Could it be that the ghost of JFK has whispered in Trump’s ear? The problem is that if Trump is not prepared to risk offending the CIA, Harmon will have first to make his peace with the CIA. Furthermore, if the CIA is warning  Trump off from making any move against Hillary because of the insurance policy that she might be holding to the CIA’s head, she would also be able to use the same policy to ensure that the CIA did not make any deal favourable to the Wilfred’s without her prior agreement.

m.) If the above analysis is correct, the Wilfred’s problem will not be resolved by making a deal in the USA with Trump, but only by making a deal with the CIA and the vindictive Hillary. The alternative would be a separate deal with either Canada, or New Zealand. However, barring successful court action, or (despite the CIA’s fingers in the media pie) a media-fired public outcry (that could well be the consequence in New Zealand of revelations regarding corruption in dealing with donations to the Clinton Foundation,) such a resolution could only come about if either of those two countries decided to cut the fibre connecting their intelligence agencies to Langley.

n.) Depending on the degree of incompetence and/or recklessness with which the USA conducts its foreign policy over the next several years, that might just be possible in the case of NZ. In time, the realisation will dawn on those NZ politicians who are in politics for reasons other than the furthering of their personal and corporate fortunes, that the USA represents an existential threat to NZ society and all should be done to curtail its power.

o.) As I have written before, New Zealand faces three existential threats. The first, which could occur at any time, is a nuclear winter following a massive exchange in the northern hemisphere. (8) The second is rapidly accelerating climate change. The third is the atrophy (as opposed to the urgently needed further development) of the rule of international law. Without this rule of and respect for international law, the mitigation of  climate change and the prevention of nuclear anarchy and paranoia will prove impossible. The USA, with its democracy usurped by secret and criminal intelligence organisations working in league with big money and life-destroying industries, is the leading force behind the development of these three threats. New Zealand, had it the will (which it might yet develop) could find alternative allies, or could even attempt to go it alone by joining and helping develop an alliance of  non-aligned nations. Sadly, I suspect Canada, in such close geographical proximity to the heart of darkness, is a lost cause.


(1) For recent Wilfred case developments see ‘Press Releases’ at Khakispecs.


(3) For a back history of David Lange & US relations

(4) Echelon

(5) Kevin Shipp, CIA retiree

(6) The CIA and trafficking

And also – Mena specific:

(7) Harmon Wilfred’s website – full story!




As a footnote to the whole blog, you can read below a short chain of correspondence between the writer and the NZ Cabinet Office. I have been given access and consideration only because I am the director of a company in which the Wilfreds’ have a 50% shareholding. As becomes immediately apparent, the position of the new Labour-led coalition government is no different to that of its ostensibly, far more pro-USA, National predecessor.  Both are equally in thrall, both hide behind legislation that excuses them from answering to the electorate for their decisions and there is never any attempt to deny their obeisance to the agencies of another government.

This a letter from:

“Office of Hon Kris Faafoi, MP for Mana, Minister of Civil Defence, Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, Associate Minister of Immigration.

2 2 FEB 2018

Hugh Steadman, By email: .nz AN: 16498684 MIN: 17/2833

Dear Hugh

Thank you for your email of 26 October 2017 and the following submissions up to and including

17 February 2018. I also acknowledge the letter, dated 3 July 2017, and information provided by David Ballantyne, Solicitor at Canterbury Legal. (Khakispecs’ note: Despite repeated requests, no reply has ever been received to this letter, below, specifying the NZ government’s breaches of international human rights agreements – but it is good to know that it has at least been read by the Honourable Associate Minister!)

I have carefully considered your representations. I advise I am not prepared to intervene in this case.

(1) Mr Wilfred should continue to explore options to obtain entry permission to another country and remain in contact with Compliance Operations regarding any departure arrangements.

Yours sincerely

Hon Kris Faafoi

Associate Minister of Immigration

As section 11 of the Immigration Act 2009 applies, I am not obliged to give reasons for my decision.

E!I +64 4 817 8280 GI Private Bag 18041, Parliament Buildings, Wellington 6160, New Zealand a El”

The letter from Wilfred’s lawyer that the NZ government has not dared to answer since it was written in July 2017, can be found here 


To: Kris Faafoi, Associate Minister of Immigration.

From: Hugh Steadman


Dear Kris,

Thank you for your letter of the 22nd February. I appreciate the fact that you found time to consider the case several months earlier than might otherwise have been the case.  It was kind of you not to leave Harmon and Carolyn dangling in hopeful suspense. They had had hopes that a new government, professing a different approach to human rights and social justice to that embraced by the National government, might have reviewed the same case, but have arrived at a different decision.

My first reaction to your decision not to intervene was first of anger and then of sorrow. Sorrow, not just for my friends whose cruel abuse is to continue, but also for my country, which seems to have lost its independence.

I  realise that your citing of Section 11 of the Immigration Act implies not that you don’t want to be open and transparent in your decision making, but that you cannot be.  I guess that it is for the same reason that, though you have  read David Ballantyne’s letter of the 3rd of July, in which he sets out the illegalities of the abuses heaped on the Wilfreds, you, as well as all  others in authority, who have read it, have declined to respond.

You are not the first to hide behind the “I am not obliged to give reasons for my decisions.” For years now, the Wilfred’s have never received any open answers to their question as to what was inspiring this abuse. In consequence, it would seem inevitable that worst-case explanations are imagined. To my mind, as a New Zealander, what follows is just about the worst-case imaginable.

One cannot help but notice the close similarity between the “conflicting with projected  benign public image” human rights abuse that Harmon and Carolyn have received at the hands of the New Zealand government, and the almost identical treatment they were subjected to by the Canadian government.

The most obvious commonality between the two countries is their membership of Echelon, and in New Zealand’s case, its almost total reliance on the intelligence analyses fed back to GCSB. I can understand that any failure to oblige the US intelligence community in regard to its required retribution against Harmon Wilfred, could be viewed as likely to impinge on the good relations on which that intelligence flow depends.  As such it would, no doubt, be classified as a threat to national security.

This cannot be a healthy situation for New Zealand to have got itself in. It was clear that David Lange, at the time he made his decision that New Zealand should become the USA’s fifth eye, was unaware of the implications of the Trojan Horse being gifted to the nation.

You mention in your letter that Harmon “should continue to explore options to obtain entry permission to another country.” I think it is by now apparent that all his genuine attempts have failed. Unsurprisingly, the attitude of the various embassies approached, is that New Zealand is responsible for its own adherence to international human rights obligations and its attempted buck-passing is not appreciated.

Whereas I can understand the reasons behind abusing Harmon in this way, now that it is clear that the attempt to drag Harmon offshore by exiling his wife have failed, is there no way that you cannot exercise some mercy and let her re-join her husband? The CIA’s grudge is against Harmon and any charity you showed his wife would probably prove less than fatal to the NZ/CIA relationship.

Best regards,

Hugh Steadman.


In correspondence please quote:

Ref: 910

Client No: 26473570

28 February 2018

From: Lauren Christensen, Private Secretary,

To: Hugh Steadman

Dear Hugh Steadman

On behalf of Hon Kris Faafoi, Associate Minister of Immigration, I acknowledge receipt of your email dated 26 February 2018, concerning a request for ministerial intervention for Carolyn Dare Wilfred.

The previous Associate Minister of Immigration declined to intervene in this case on 8 August 2017 and the Minister does not wish to review the matter.

You should be aware that sections 378 and 11 of the Immigration Act 2009 place no requirement on the Minister to consider your request.


Yours sincerely

Lauren Christensen, Private Secretary (Associate Immigration) Office of Hon Kris Faafoi

Private Bag 18041 | Parliament Buildings | Wellington 6160 | New Zealand


From: Hugh Steadman

To: Lauren Christensen


 Hi Lauren,

Thank you for your note from the Honourable Pontius Pilate!

Please pass on that , despite the hold over the mainstream media exercised by its all-powerful supporters in the USA, his government is not going to be able to hide from its obligations for ever.

I recommend a viewing of Harmon Wilfred’s yesterday’s interview on the Jason Goodman show.   There are several more such revelations to come. The shameful injustice that New Zealand’s new government, despite its humane and touchy-feely whitewash,  seems committed to continuing, will not be able to be kept hidden from public view indefinitely.

Clearly, Harmon should have been given asylum in 2006 when he first applied for it. It is still not too late to reverse that decision.

Yours sincerely,

Hugh Steadman.

Leave a Comment