Does peace have a chance?

 

Anti-Vietnam demonstrations in Sydney. Photos: The Fairfax Photo Library

How big will the peace marches be? Big enough to make a difference? A straw in the wind. A young bloke I sit near at work, a sports writer, says four friends have sent him emails about where to go and when on Sunday. None have ever protested before.

It seems so long ago, but 200,000 people walked across Sydney Harbour bridge in May 2000 in support of reconciliation. John Howard didn’t, of course, and he told Peter Costello not to either. And it was different, that one – a march of affirmation rather than protest.

Still, peace marches can be seen in the same light. At the first Vietnam war moratorium protest in May 1970, when 70,000 people marched in Melbourne and 20,000 marched in Sydney, organiser Jim Cairns said: “When you leave here you have a sacred trust. You have the trust to stand for peace and for the qualities of the human spirit to which we must dedicate ourselves…We can overcome, ladies and gentlemen, and I have never seen a more convincing sight than I can see now to give me confidence that we shallovercome.” Anyone with memories of Vietnam protests they’d like to share?

In 1985, more than 300,000 people marched across Australia in Palm Sunday anti-nuclear rallies. The biggest rally was in Sydney, where 170,000 people brought the city to a standstill. (SMH, 1-4-1985, p.1) NSW Premier Neville Wran told protesters the rally reflected the concern people had for the future, and that “the tens of thousands of children in this march should give a message to every politician.” Some multinational corporations didn’t get it – they helped Saddam and Pakistan with nuclear components. The world’s politicians didn’t hear – they, and their companies, supplied nations with chemical and biological weapons. Now George Bush won’t rule out using nuclear weapons against Saddam. I’d to hear from readers who attended the Palm Sunday rally.

In November 2000, a crowd variously estimated at 40,000 to 80,000 rallied in Sydney city to “Save the Rabbitohs”, the South Sydney Rugby League Club, from expulsion from the competition. Some other recent big protests: Thousands of workers rallied at Melbourne airport to protest the collapse of Ansett in September 2001, 10,000 people protested outside parliament house in Canberra in support of the ABC in February 2001, 10,000 people protested at the World Economic Forum in Melbourne in September 2000, 80,0000 workers in Melbourne protested against the federal government’s workplace relations laws in August 1999.

Here’s the Herald story on the anti-Gulf War rallies in January 1991. For another blast-from-the-past experience, check out the movie Bob Roberts, a devastating satire of American politics set during the first Gulf War.

***

Thousands join the fight for peace

by Tony Hewett

Publication date: 21-1-1991

In the biggest anti-war rallies since the Vietnam moratorium marches of the 1960s, thousands of Australians from all walks of life and in every capital city have condemned the Gulf war and Australia’s involvement.

In Sydney, a 25,000-strong crowd marched on the US and Israeli consulates on Saturday before gathering at the Town Hall to hear speakers vent their anti-war messages. More than 20,000 people demonstrated in Melbourne on Friday night, 10,000 in Adelaide, 5,000 in Brisbane on Saturday, 3,000 in Hobart, 2,500 in Perth, 1,000 in Canberra and 400 in Darwin.

And a big crowd of Sydney people will join residents in Canberra today to demonstrate outside Parliament House when the Parliament resumes to debate Australia’s involvement in the Gulf war.

Whether the anti-Gulf war message was carried in the speeches of peace activists like the former Labor Cabinet minister Mr Tom Uren, who called the US President, Mr Bush, “that six-gun specialist”, or in the music of Mr John Schuman, who wrote the song I was only 19 about Vietnam, the crowds applauded in agreement.

At the Darwin rally, Anglican Archbishop the Most Rev Clyde Wood told the crowd: “When war is considered to be a marvellous idea … it is almost enough to destroy one’s faith.”

In the Brisbane rally, Ms Maya Stuart-Fox, from the Environmental Youth Alliance, said the war could mean an environmental disaster, as Saddam had promised to burn the oil fields.

In Hobart, Federated Engine Drivers and Firemen’s Association (FEDFA) State organiser and Vietnam veteran Mr Mike Grey said Mr Hawke had failed to understand the growing mood against Australia’s involvement.

In Sydney, about 50 peaceniks have set up a camp outside the US Consulate in Park Street. Peace groups have loosely aligned themselves under Network for Peace, which hopes to combine the resources and organisational skills of each group to co-ordinate major anti-Gulf war activities.

In Sydney, the Network for Peace includes Bring the Frigates Home, People for Nuclear Disarmament, Australian Peace Committee, Rainbow Alliance, Conflict Resolution Network, Quakers Peace Committee, Greenpeace and the Wilderness Society. The Australian Democrats and some ALP members are also helping to co-ordinate rallies.

Besides marches, the peace groups – which will stage their next major event in Sydney at the Domain on February 3 – have gathered thousands of signatures on petitions opposing the war and Australia’s involvement. These will be sent to Mr Hawke.

What the third millennium doesn’t need: Yet more dinosaurs in power

It is exactly this – this wilful refusal on our part to learn from Humanity’s recent collective mistakes – that makes following this looming war exactly like watching George Bush’s bad movie rerun: a road accident in slow motion, running on a permanent loop.

Oil, of course, is just very, very old dead dinosaurs and dead-dinosaur fodder.

Fossil fuels are just that: fossils. Not unlike grumpy old neo-cons and angry lefties who go round quoting Marx, they are the rotting remnants of an age long past, when human beings were mere unthinking animals too, and the Law of the Jungle was not a cliche but an unavoidable lifestyle choice.

Transcending that meaningless way of existence – timeless, truthless, based on sheer brute power and rat cunning – is what has defined Mankind’s journey. It’s what has lifted us half-way out of the gutter, and half-way to the stars, or at least Mars. It doesn’t really matter whether you choose to believe that the spark of Human self-consciousness which first kicked off our miraculous journey was Divine, or Darwinian, or applied by visiting aliens, or just another weird kink in the very kinky Human genome. We think, therefore we have Free Will, therefore every single individual and collective thought we as a species choose to translate into action is our responsibility, and ours alone.

So I’m afraid we can’t blame God or Allah or Satan or even Milton Friedman for whatever it turns out we are about to unleash in the Middle East.

Nor will it be a function of ‘just the way the world is’. Nor is it ‘inevitable’. Nor is it ‘realpolitik’. Nor will it be any expression of ‘moral clarity’, or ‘patriotic duty’, or ‘scientific imperative’, or ‘philosophical logic’, or ‘the Market’, or ‘the moral high ground’, or ‘Manifest Destiny’.

It will simply be what our most powerful dinosaurs decided to do on our behalf, once upon yet another time when our ugliest abstract thoughts ceased to be abstract, and became ineradicable facts of history. Truths, the only earthly ones we Human Beings can ever really be sure of: That which we did yesterday.

Tomorrow, all the fine abstract arguments about the approaching war in Iraq, including mine here, will blow away on the hot desert winds, and the bloodiness in the Middle East will simply become what we chose to do – yesterday, and yesterday, and yesterday. Never to be undone, never to be wished away. The reasons simply won’t matter.

But it’s not tomorrow yet, and so the reasons for war, which are all bad on this occasion, still need to be pulled apart, urgently. Which is why I’ll gladly repeat myself, and at length: This invasion and occupation is all about oil. All about dead dinosaurs, and dead-dinosaur fodder.

I’m well aware that many readers will have thrown their hands up in contempt or despair at my simplistic reductions last time – ‘a violent crime of theft’ (No Blood For Oil!) – but the scarier truth is that sometimes, just sometimes, the simplistic reductions are the right ones.

This is an invasion for oil. Push it, prod it, poke that truth any way you like, write a million clever words explaining carefully why it’s not, but it is. What we are about to do is invade and occupy Iraq to ‘secure’ the energy future of the West. If some people find that too intimidating, too much like ‘Western self-blame’, then that’s just too bad. Since September 11, I’ve already been called every ‘anti’ under the sun anyway; the one ‘anti’ I refuse to expose myself to is ‘anti-truth’.

Yep, this invasion and occupation is about securing (what some energy industry dinosaurs anachronistically insist must be) the energy future of ‘Western Civilisation’. If that places me too didactically close to the likes of Osama bin Laden and his various nutty mouthpieces of late, then that’s not my fault, either. Like John Avery (see Murdoch: Cheap oil the prize), I’m among the many who’ve been trying to argue, since ten days after S11 (More on War Fever), that we should concentrate on hunting that very creep down and trying him like the minor criminal he is, as our very highest priority in this ‘war on terror’. Rather than doing our best to turn him into some hateful modern-day ‘Messiah’, which is exactly what our glorious global leaders have now almost managed to do.

I’m among the many arguing for the isolation, the de-legitimisation, the ruthless, focussed targeting of Al-Qaeda, not its exact opposite, which is what this invasion will represent. I’m not the warbloggy pill pushing hysterically from the geeky safety of my little closet Trekky bedroom, for an entirely unnecessary, counter-productive and wasteful invasion and occupation of Iraq to get rid of Saddam, either.

No, in this ‘war against terror’, I’m more than happy to fight hard where necessary, but I’m buggered if I’m interested in fighting stupid, in fighting like a twentieth century dinosaur. Like many, I’ve presented what I think is a workable alternative for dealing with Saddam (Looking for John Curtin). I find it grimly amusing that the pro-invasion crew sneers at such allegedly ‘unrealistic’ plans as that proposed by the French and the Germans, too, when the cunning ‘disarmament’ plan they are helping push into actuality is the wackiest, most disproportionate, most strategically-suicidal, most apparently short-sighted and most potentially-disastrous military folly in the history of the United States.

Mark Latham was dead right: America is currently being run by clowns. And still the only response, as from the refreshed Miranda Devine in the SMH yesterday morning, is: We cannot stick our heads in the sand and do nothing about Saddam. Nothing, Miranda? Nothing? As if anyone is remotely proposing doing ‘nothing’ about Saddam Hussein.

The international community has been doing ‘something’ about him ever since he stopped being America’s second best Middle Eastern mate. These invasionists are like brattish children; if they can’t get things exactly all their own way, they stamp their little feet and call Mum a terrorist-lover until she gives in.

In any case, as I have said before, and will keep saying until I am proven wrong by the explosive resurgence in the next few years of a wildly wealthy, free and politically-autonomous Iraqi populace, this invasion is not about Saddam Hussein, it’s about dead dinosaurs.

A first step is a Socratic one, to ask ourselves this question: Would this invasion be occurring if Iraq had no oil reserves at all? The answer is obviously no. All the key invasion arguments are themselves only important because of the global leverage Iraq’s asset lends them. The trumped-up WMD/rogue state line is as much about the threat of economic blackmail as activated, enabled terrorism. The fear of a regionally-emboldened Saddam is based upon what it would mean for the oil market. Even the Human Rights-democracy line is grounded in oil in a way, for it’s the external ramifications of Saddam’s dictatorial powers that matter geo-politically – the absolutist method of ‘governance’ that gives one power-crazed man the kind of omnipotent, focussed control over Iraq’s national ambitions that democratic rulers can only envy, and how those national ambitions might just include hijacking the global economy.

This is what the Western hawks really fear about The Butcher of Baghdad; how his vicious political rule might one day translate itself onto the world stage, not all the nasty things he does internally to dissenting Iraqis to maintain it. To agree that this would indeed be a bad thing for Humanity is one thing; to support the West’s application of Saddam’s very own methods to prevent it from happening – pre-emptively applying our global brute force to neutralise his potential global brute force – is quite another. The end doesn’t justify the means; the means are the end.

To note all this is not to say that these secondary arguments for invading and occupying Iraq aren’t genuinely embraced by many of those who present them; it is simply to recognise that without the oil, these arguments become largely moot. Remove the dead dinosaurs from the Iraq equation, and Saddam Hussein becomes, even at the very worst, just another minor, regional, terrorism-supporting, WMD-craving, HR-abusing anti-freedom thug; a Khaddafi, a Ceascescu, an Idi Amin, a Pol Pot – there’s never been a shortage of such beasts, and successive US governments have never been particularly averse to tolerating them before.

Nor will they be in future. Successive US governments have most certainly never invaded and permanently occupied another country just to remove one; the preferred methods more usually include equipping and training guerrilla groups, sponsoring coups, a little light heavy bombing.

Iraq aside, the current Administration is no different, and arguably far more fast and loose with concepts like HR than most. (To claim that the Bushies are something ‘new and visionary’, that Rumsfeld and Cheney and Wolfowitz are democratic ‘idealists’, is a jaw-dropping perversion of language.) They can still – thankfully – quite happily ‘chat calmly’ with a bristling North Korea, for example, unquestionably the most terrifying and unstable regime on the planet. They feel no great need to go to war with China. They are ‘relaxed and comfortable’ with dozens of other dictatorships elsewhere which also give rise to equally urgent WMD, terrorist, HR-abuse and ‘anti-West’ threats. Many such dictatorships, in fact, are right next door to Iraq. No; Saddam only matters because of Iraq’s mighty stockpile of dead dinosaurs and dead dinosaur fodder. How anyone can pretend otherwise beggars belief.

In many ways this invasion and occupation would be far easier to swallow if the US Administration was honest about the reason for its inevitability. The same applies to the posturing of the French, German, Russian and Chinese governments, too, whose machinations in all this, while far more ‘idealistic’ than the US grasps, are also heavily influenced by the oil spoils they either stand to retain or lose themselves or simply don’t wish others to get.

And I’m not pretending to be an ‘energy saint’ in this either, just by the way. I use as much oil energy as the next wasteful Western citizen. But this is exactly why what we really need right now is some brutal leadership, right from the very top. We need George W. Bush to come right out and ask us all, straight up, if we support going to war for the sake of our own oil energy future.

And then we would all have to ask ourselves where we truly stand on this invasion. None of us could be in any doubts about what is at stake, and why the post-S11 killing is about to escalate. At the very least, a little brisk openness of this kind from the war leaders would result in far less damage to NATO, to the UN, to the broad Western secular liberal accord. The diplomats could go home, the bleeding hearts and poets could fall silent, and those who were still willing to be part of the ‘coalition of the willing’ could go and slug it out on the sands in honest combat, winner take oil.

Not that this will happen in a million years. All the dead-dinosaur industry dinosaur-leaders are ‘horrified’ at the prospect of war in their name, naturally, and no sane democratic leader is ever likely to be so ruthlessly frank. One mustn’t ever ruffle the self-deluding savoir faire of the dainty East Coast patriarchs and the down-home Texas boys, the clubby Brits and the smooth Europeans, the hard-eyed new breed of Russian corporate mover.

And why yes, I just bet some of these chaps are Masons, and some might even be Jewish. Fancy that. Butan evil global conspiracy? What bloody rubbish. It’s no conspiracy, it’s simply the complicated and interlocking headless beast of international business doing business, doing its ‘accidental conspiracy’ business-machine thing.

Like the men who drove Enron and Worldcom and the IT revolution into the ground, these oil men are not evil, they’re not vicious, they’re not hateful, and they doubtless would indeed be ‘horrified’ if they ever had to see up close and in bloody detail what it will actually require us in the West to do, if we are to make Rupert Murdoch’s charming vision of our economic future come to pass: “I have a pretty optimistic medium and long-term view but things are going to be pretty sticky until we get Iraq behind us,” says Rupert. “But once it’s behind us, the whole world will benefit from cheaper oil which will be a bigger stimulus than anything else.”(See Murdoch: Cheap oil the prize.)

Now Rupert Murdoch is in fact a pretty decent sort of bloke as bastard media tycoons go, and he is about to become a father again soon, too. I wish he and his wife nothing but joy and a safe and easy confinement, but when he can do no more than say prissily, of the coming savagery in Iraq, that it might indeed get ‘pretty sticky’ before the price of oil drops and the global economy soars anew, I cannot comprehend that we are members of the same Human tribe, with the same fears and hopes and fleshy vulnerabilities.

No, it is no ‘conspiracy’ and the casual callousness is not intended. The collective oil industry’s refusal to contemplate the ugly truth is just another human moral self-defence mechanism, not so very different from the head-in-the-sand response of the world’s civilised people to the rise and rise of all the other, the more explicitly totalitarian, dinosaur Big Lies of the last century.

“We only want to do our job,” is what the oil men of the world are saying to each other right now, and we are wrong to blame them for this war for oil because their job is to make our economy function, and if they don’t, then we are the very first ones to complain. It’s no conspiracy, and it’s nobody’s fault; we are all in this together, and none of us are being honest about what ‘this’ really is.

And yet we should know better by now. This is dinosaur stuff, yesterday’s news. We should have learned by now what happens when good and decent people refuse to confront Big Lies, and early, and most of all in ourselves, the small roles we each play in allowing them to grow to dangerous sizes.

It is exactly this – this wilful refusal on our part to learn from Humanity’s recent collective mistakes – that makes following this looming war exactly like watching George Bush’s bad movie rerun: a road accident in slow motion, running on a permanent loop. It makes you want to scream in desperation at what Mankind is in danger of becoming, again; to observe from afar so many intelligent, powerful, privileged, educated men behaving like brain-dead dinosaurs, for dead dinosaurs.

How pathetically twentieth century this all is. How soooo Second Millennium. This charade is from another era, surely, a testosterone-driven age of swung fists, angry bleating, chest-thumping, dirt-pissing. Some woman, I forget who, once wrote that waging war is the only thing men can do to stop women laughing at them.

How true that is; and how deeply embarrassing it is to be a man right now. How pitiful, this masculine squabbling in the desert over someone else’s booty, these little puffed-up egos trying to make grand ‘moral clarity’ excuses for what they will soon choose to do – kill and maim a lot of powerless people to get their hands on the loot.

All while a brutal dictator – another pathetic man – laughs at the fuss everyone is making over him; all while a religious maniac – another pathetic man – whips up an opportunistic storm of perhaps unprecedented fury; all while the powerless people who will suffer the most wait patiently to be bombed by all sides again. The old joke about why the Irish got spuds and the Arabs got oil – the Irish chose first – doesn’t seem funny at all, now.

So you really don’t think this is about dead dinosaurs, huh?

Well, it should not be necessary to explain by now just how thoroughly the West’s continuing economic hegemony and ‘way of life’, as we have arranged things, depends on the smooth flow of masses of it. It should not be necessary to point to the steady increase in US imports from the Middle East, nor the rising oil-energy requirement projections in most Western societies, but especially in America. It shouldn’t be necessary to remind the world of what happened in 1973, and the far-reaching implications that many now-powerful figures recognised clearly, even back then. It shouldn’t be necessary to point out the various reports, writings, and investigations into the looming US energy crisis, many of them written well before September 11. All this is no great big secret, no ‘conspiracy’, either.

It’s hardly any sort of grand revelation to point out that America’s oil energy requirements have increased by a third since 1973, and that the rate of the increase of Middle-East imports (since 1995) is itself increasing. It’s not controversial to point to the serious problems in the US refinery industry, and the fact that no-one wants to invest in it there because the profit margins in crude refinement are, in fact, hardly worth it, especially in a Western labour/environmental standards domestic marketplace (the new big capacity refineries will certainly all be in the new West-friendly Iraq; billion-dollar infrastructure contracts + cheap local labor + no pesky Greenies = Western economy heaven!).

It’s not controversial to point to the shortage of heating oil in this harsh US winter; it’s no crime to point out the sudden, marked reversal, around 1995, in the to-then growing popularity of fuel-efficient vehicles in the States; it’s not being anti-American to point out that the excessive US energy consumption per person in comparison with other countries has since S11 increasingly become not a matter of individual citizenly concern, but a swaggering point of patriotic pride.

It is, I’ll concede, a cheapish shot to point out the overwhelming interfusion of the US energy industry and the Bush Administration, and the recent dropping, in despair, of the lawsuit requiring identity disclosure of the government’s energy task force ‘advisors’. A cheapish ‘conspiracy’ shot, sure, but one simply has to ask: if the Bush Administration insists it’s not about oil, why such reticence? Not about oil? Then prove it, George and Co: Dump all your personal energy industry investments. Come clean about the Halliburton fiddles at last, Dick Cheney. You could knock all these silly oil conspiracy theories for six in one go, guys, with a full and frank disclosure of every oily backroom detail. No-one’s holding their breath.

None of this stuff is rocket science. Neither is it brain surgery to note that the non-ME sources of oil energy have dwindled or are not yet competitive with ME oil, and in fact simply never can be, no matter how much of Alaska is turned into a sump. It’s not quantum physics to point out that Venezuela, America’s fourth-largest oil provider, is hardly a paragon of political stability and ‘economically-rational’ globalisation, these days. Nor is it genetic engineering to see that the once manageable political-diplomatic nexus between the West and OPEC took a dramatic, and fatal, turn for the worse just after nine o’clock on September 11, 2001.

On current economic trends the West will need more and more and more oil in the next decade, and it will have to come from the Middle East. At the same time, on current political-theological trends, the Middle Eastern countries will grow less and less and less inclined or able to provide it via a peaceful market transaction, of their own accord.

You only have to note that Saudi Arabia has indicated that they will ask American troops to leave their country once Iraq is secured to grasp what sort of dramatic geo-political changes are underway right now. Have a look in an Atlas, and you will see that by this time next year, a small American beachhead will have been secured in the midst of what only a moron could pretend will be an increasingly friendly region.

There it will stand, a lone Judeo-Christian, charging capitalist dinosaur ‘state’ bang in the middle of a close scrum of mad Muslim, dying socialist dinosaur states, cheekily sucking out the natural wealth prize for the far-away benefit of the West. At best, the new Iraq will be a vaguely democratic beachhead, at worst a bristling GI-guarded oil tit perpetually under siege, an unstable arrangement far, far worse than the awful isolation the oil industry pointmen have endured to now in the friendly Saudi Arabian expatriate compounds.

And next door Saudi Arabia, with their highly-developed Western technologies, will have no reason not to become fully anti-Western ‘hot’, for the West will have destroyed their oil market dominance forever. There’s an awful lot of pent-up resentment between the US and Saudi Arabia, an awful lot of blood waiting to be let.

I do not think that the American population has remotely grasped what it is their leaders are about to embark upon here. It is pure colonisation; outright economic Empire-building from less than scratch in the most virulently anti-American region on the planet. Without the massive oil lure, no sane US Administration would remotely contemplate this kind of permanent geographical presence. What possible American interest is served by removing Saddam in this, the hardest and costliest of all ways, if not the energy pay-off? The answer is none, which is why this invasion and occupation is about oil, and why I continue to oppose it ferociously.

And I oppose it for America and the civilised West’s long-term sake, most of all. For God’s sake, I oppose it for the purest of self-interested, pro-American reasons.

This invasion and occupation will ultimately hurt America grievously, and America is the global superpower basket in which all of Australia’s security eggs, for better or worse, now rest. If America becomes entangled in a protracted northern hemisphere fiasco, or worse, withdraws into a new isolationism, stung by an Iraqi disaster and with her global credibility and force-projection greatly reduced, then Australian is in some trouble.

In my view, both outcomes are not merely likely, in neat turn, they are practically guaranteed. A simple perusal of the colonial history of the region – and it goes back a long, long way – should be enough.

Do the American people truly have the endurance for this? Do they have any idea of where it might, where it must, lead? Despite what a Daniel Pipes might argue about the grim necessity for an all-or-nothing ‘blood-letting’ in the Middle East as an ugly but requisite precursor to any serious, lasting Arab-Jewish accord, Israelis in particular should feel deeply anxious about what might transpire over the next few years. It will come down to a matter of American staying power, and democratic governments and mainstream public opinion can change with alarming swiftness.

But clearly now, Western Energy Inc. considers that the time is right and the risks are worth it. In a way, on the oil-energy question, the US is now damned if she does and damned if she doesn’t; inextricably locked as she is in a terrible energy impasse.

But it’s a tragic one too, because the vicious assaults of September 11 could have and should have marked a major turning pointing in the Western world’s energy vision for the future. Had we been intellectually tough and smart enough not to shout down completely, as ‘self-blaming’ and ‘anti-Western’ those who pointed out that the core source – yes, the ‘root cause’ – of the attacks was the unhappy historical confluence of brutal Middle Eastern dictatorships (and their ‘necessary’ tolerance of extremist religious clerics), and short-sighted, even if well-meaning, international oil companies, then the last eighteen months might have presented Humanity with an excellent opportunity to step firmly off the fossil fuel treadmill forever.

September 11, 2001: the day the world really did change, and the dinosaurs became finally extinct. Has a ring to it, even if only a bittersweet one, now.

Because all over the non-US Western world, and in many, many constituencies of the US population, too, the Global Green movement is gathering momentum. Energy habits are changing on a generational scale, treaties are being signed, sustainable business and industry is emerging as a major force, billionaires like Bill Gates are pumping enormous amounts of cash into private research, new technologies are emerging – startling, bold, breathtaking, far-reaching ones.

Ideas are being thrown up everywhere, even from cheeky speechwriters to a half-hearted oilman like George W. Bush. A nuclear powered spaceship to get us to Mars. A hydrogen powered car to get us to work. Roll-your-own cigarettes and flushless dunnies. Green politicians, too, are lining up in droves to pull power away from the old left-right divides, away from the fossil-burning fossils. (The German green revolution is no silly passing fad; it’s now deeply ingrained in that country’s political consciousness, a permanent feature of the legislative-power landscape.)

We’re hovering right on the brink of a major social transformation, and all that is really needed is a big healthy nudge from our global leaders, seriously big bucks, a degree of collective will, and just a little more time.

Except for the dead dinosaur men, and their dead dinosaur obsessions. Here we are, all itching to turn Green, and yet here our leaders are, on the point of committing us all unwillingly to decades of bitter fighting over more Black Gold. We grown-ups are about to start scrabbling violently (again) for a ‘prize’ that our kids just don’t want. To start with, anyway. To start with, this new Middle Eastern war will be over those few puddles of inefficient, go-nowhere-fast, dead dinosaur juice; before too long, it will have blossomed into an even more pathetic dinosaur fight: a clash of civilisations that will be wholly uncivilised, a Holy War in which none but a few scarifying zealots on either side believe in their ‘god’.

Yet another bestial jungle fight to the death, the reasons for which, at that death, no-one will remember anyway. Behaving like animals again, when ninety-nine percent of the world’s six billion are desperate to evolve forwards, and not backwards.

It’s hardly being anti-American or anti-capitalist or anti-energy to point all this out. ‘Nobody wants a war’. That’s what everyone (save a few idiots) says before every big war, and it’s what everyone (save a few idiots) is saying, now. So let’s do something different, this time: let’s not have one. It is up to us, after all. We have Free Will. Let’s all get naked, well-pissed, and drunk on love, too, instead. Being scared is a bloody bore, frankly.

This war is about oil, and oil is about our ‘Western way of life’, and since S11, our Western way of life is in danger of coming to mean little more than our capacity to protect ourselves and those we love by keeping the barbarian hordes at a distance, and by force.

To point out that this coming confrontation in Iraq is driven mostly by our frightened instinct to maintain the West’s protective inequalities, to shrink back behind our security fences rather than step boldly beyond them with our arms extended, is not being a Western self-loather. It’s being truly Western.

It’s in the traditions of intellectual rigour, secular reason, individual responsibility, Free Will, the sentient transcending of all external gods and gurus, of all ‘absolute abstract truths’ but the two that are inexplicable and irreducible: Love and Death. The only other truths Humanity can ever know are the things that we did yesterday, and yesterday, and yesterday.

Unless we are determined to doom ourselves to eternal dinosaur-hood, we cannot go on killing every one of those fellow Human Beings who happen to scare us. Most of our enemies are every bit as scared of us as we of them, and they do not have brute-force Tomahawk cruise missiles. But more and more of them every day are turning to their rat-cunning weapons, and they are rat-cunning weapons that our brute force ones cannot possibly guard against. The only way to defeat the dangerous among those fellow Human Being who scare us – those who our true enemies – is to use our brains, not just our muscle.

The people of Iraq, and even in many ways Saddam Hussein himself, are not our truly dangerous enemies. Yet they very soon will be, unless we use our brains.

So it may be harsh. It may be simplistic. It’s certainly a slogan, and it’s definitely a most unsophisticated reduction. It is also highly intimidating to us all, in the West. But it’s true. We are going to invade and occupy Iraq not to defend the essence of our ‘Western Way of Life’, but merely to secure more of the dead dinosaurs that give us the pretty clothes to dress it up in. It’s an invasion and occupation to secure Iraq’s oil for the West. Remove it, or better still remove our need for it, and there would simply be no invasion, and no ‘War Against Terror’. There would still only be what, in reality, we have to now been engaged in: a co-ordinated global campaign to reduce, and perhaps even eradicate, the nihilist crime of Islamic Fundamentalist terrorism, a fight that is far, far easier for the Civilised West to win.

Personally, I think it’s mystifying that our leaders are so intent on locking our future economy into an energy source that is so old, so messy, so inefficient and so passe. (And so not ours to take.) Petroleum oil is ugly, sticky, smelly and slow. Plutonium. Hydrogen. Wind. The Sea. The Sun. Now these are sexy fuels. These are the fuels of tomorrow, the fuels America’s industrial and technical and economic might – the greatest innovative powerhouse in world history – should really be seeking to secure for the West. For us all.

I’d like very much to get a little bit closer to the stars before I die. Oil will never, ever, ever, ever pull it off. It’s a dead monster of a fuel. It’s yesterday’s fossil.

I say let’s leave Iraq’s buried in the ground, along with all the other redundant dinosaurs of ancient Human history.

A lonely voice in a US Senate silent on war

 

Image by Martin Davies. To see his work go to www.daviesart.com

I’ve just published an empassioned piece against the war by Jack Robertson (What the third millennium doesn’t need: Yet more dinosaurs in power) which I highly recommend. “It is this wilful refusal on our part to learn from Humanity’s recent collective mistakes that makes following this looming war exactly like watching George Bush’s bad movie rerun: a road accident in slow motion, running on a permanent loop,” he writes. Another extract:

This war is about oil, and oil is about our ‘Western way of life’, and since S11, our Western way of life is in danger of coming to mean little more than our capacity to protect ourselves and those we love by keeping the barbarian hordes at a distance, and by force.

To point out that this coming confrontation in Iraq is driven mostly by our frightened instinct to maintain the West’s protective inequalities, to shrink back behind our security fences rather than step boldly beyond them with our arms extended, is not being a Western self-loather. It’s being truly Western.

Mark Pendrith in Kenmore Hills, Brisbane forwarded this speech by US Senator Robert Byrd (Dem. WV). “I find the speech remarkable both for its content and elegance of expression – it strikes me as an oasis of cool reason and eloquence in a desert of relatively incoherent and ugly grunts that have been emanating from American political leaders and commentators recently. I find it also remarkable that, to date, this speech seems to have been almost completely unreported in the mainstream press. For example, it appears the New York Times has seen fit not to report the speech at all. Not even a squib.”

“At the very least, Byrd’s speech demonstrates that it should be possible to question the motives and wisdom of the Bush administration’s plans for war in Iraq without having to fend off accusations of crude anti-Americanism. It deserves to be much more widely published and read – I believe it has the potential to materially lift the level of the debate in Australia.”

Reckless Administration May Reap Disastrous Consequences

by US Senator Robert Byrd

Senate Floor Speech – Wednesday, February 12, 2003, published on-line at commondreams

To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human experiences. On this February day, as this nation stands at the brink of battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of war.

Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent – ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing.

We stand passively mute in the United States Senate, paralyzed by our own uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events. Only on the editorial pages of our newspapers is there much substantive discussion of the prudence or imprudence of engaging in this particular war.

And this is no small conflagration we contemplate. This is no simple attempt to defang a villain. No. This coming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world.

This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine of preemption – the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future – is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self defense. It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter. And it is being tested at a time of world-wide terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they will soon be on our – or some other nation’s – hit list.

High level Administration figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off the table when discussing a possible attack against Iraq. What could be more destabilizing and unwise than this type of uncertainty, particularly in a world where globalism has tied the vital economic and security interests of many nations so closely together?

There are huge cracks emerging in our time-honored alliances, and U.S. intentions are suddenly subject to damaging worldwide speculation. Anti-Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation, suspicion, and alarming rhetoric from U.S. leaders is fracturing the once solid alliance against global terrorism which existed after September 11.

Here at home, people are warned of imminent terrorist attacks with little guidance as to when or where such attacks might occur. Family members are being called to active military duty, with no idea of the duration of their stay or what horrors they may face. Communities are being left with

less than adequate police and fire protection. Other essential services are also short-staffed. The mood of the nation is grim. The economy is stumbling. Fuel prices are rising and may soon spike higher.

This Administration, now in power for a little over two years, must be judged on its record. I believe that that record is dismal.

In that scant two years, this Administration has squandered a large projected surplus of some $5.6 trillion over the next decade and taken us to projected deficits as far as the eye can see. This Administration’s domestic policy has put many of our states in dire financial condition, under funding scores of essential programs for our people. This Administration has fostered policies which have slowed economic growth. This Administration has ignored urgent matters such as the crisis in health care for our elderly. This Administration has been slow to provide adequate funding for homeland security. This Administration has been reluctant to better protect our long and porous borders.

In foreign policy, this Administration has failed to find Osama bin Laden. In fact, just yesterday we heard from him again marshaling his forces and urging them to kill.

This Administration has split traditional alliances, possibly crippling, for all time, International order-keeping entities like the United Nations and NATO.

This Administration has called into question the traditional worldwide perception of the United States as well-intentioned peacekeeper.

This Administration has turned the patient art of diplomacy into threats, labeling, and name calling of the sort that reflects quite poorly on the intelligence and sensitivity of our leaders, and which will have consequences for years to come.

Calling heads of state pygmies, labeling whole countries as evil, denigrating powerful European allies as irrelevant – these types of crude insensitivities can do our great nation no good. We may have massive military might, but we cannot fight a global war on terrorism alone. We need the cooperation and friendship of our time-honored allies as well as the newer found friends whom we can attract with our wealth.

Our awesome military machine will do us little good if we suffer another devastating attack on our homeland which severely damages our economy. Our military manpower is already stretched thin and we will need the augmenting support of those nations who can supply troop strength, not just sign letter cheering us on.

The war in Afghanistan has cost us $37 billion so far, yet there is evidence that terrorism may already be starting to regain its hold in that region. We have not found bin Laden, and unless we secure the peace in Afghanistan, the dark dens of terrorism may yet again flourish in that remote and devastated land.

Pakistan as well is at risk of destabilizing forces. This Administration has not finished the first war against terrorism and yet it is eager to embark on another conflict with perils much greater than those in Afghanistan. Is our attention span that short? Have we not learned that after winning the war one must always secure the peace?

And yet we hear little about the aftermath of war in Iraq. In the absence of plans, speculation abroad is rife. Will we seize Iraq’s oil fields, becoming an occupying power which controls the price and supply of that nation’s oil for the foreseeable future? To whom do we propose to hand the reigns of power after Saddam Hussein?

Will our war inflame the Muslim world resulting in devastating attacks on Israel? Will Israel retaliate with its own nuclear arsenal? Will the Jordanian and Saudi Arabian governments be toppled by radicals, bolstered by Iran, which has much closer ties to terrorism than Iraq?

Could a disruption of the world’s oil supply lead to a world-wide recession?

Has our senselessly bellicose language and our callous disregard of the interests and opinions of other nations increased the global race to join the nuclear club and made proliferation an even more lucrative practice for nations which need the income?

In only the space of two short years this reckless and arrogant Administration has initiated policies which may reap disastrous consequences for years.

One can understand the anger and shock of any President after the savage attacks of September 11. One can appreciate the frustration of having only a shadow to chase and an amorphous, fleeting enemy on which it is nearly impossible to exact retribution.

But to turn one’s frustration and anger into the kind of extremely destabilizing and dangerous foreign policy debacle that the world is currently witnessing is inexcusable from any Administration charged with the awesome power and responsibility of guiding the destiny of the greatest superpower on the planet. Frankly many of the pronouncements made by this Administration are outrageous. There is no other word.

Yet this chamber is hauntingly silent. On what is possibly the eve of horrific infliction of death and destruction on the population of the nation of Iraq – a population, I might add, of which over 50% is under age 15 – this chamber is silent.

On what is possibly only days before we send thousands of our own citizens to face unimagined horrors of chemical and biological warfare – this chamber is silent. On the eve of what could possibly be a vicious terrorist attack in retaliation for our attack on Iraq, it is business as usual in the United States Senate.

We are truly “sleepwalking through history.” In my heart of hearts I pray that this great nation and its good and trusting citizens are not in for a rudest of awakenings.

To engage in war is always to pick a wild card. And war must always be a last resort, not a first choice. I truly must question the judgment of any President who can say that a massive unprovoked military attack on a nation which is over 50% children is “in the highest moral traditions of our country”.

This war is not necessary at this time. Pressure appears to be having a good result in Iraq. Our mistake was to put ourselves in a corner so quickly. Our challenge is to now find a graceful way out of a box of our own making.

Perhaps there is still a way if we allow more time.

Go peaceniks!

Hi. The Fairfax library has found some more big protests to add to the list in Does peace have a chance?

On Australia Day, 1988, more than 15,000 Aboriginal protesters marched through Sydney to coincide with nationwide bicentennial celebrations. “While a crowd estimated by police at two million packed the harbour foreshore and Australians in other cities celebrated 200 years of white settlement, the marchers held a peaceful protest at the treatment of Aborigines past and present.” (AFR, 27.1.88)

And in September 1999 amid the massacre in East Timor after its people voted for independence, more than 25,000 protesters packed the centre of Melbourne to hear Xanana Gusmao appeal to his Australian “brothers and sisters” to pressure the Howard Government to send in peace enforcers.

Library staff also pulled out clippings of protests during US President Lyndon Johnson’s parade through Sydney streets in October 1966. More than a million people came along to cheer, but 10 protesters threw themselves in front of the presidential car at the corner of Oxford and College streets. Outside the art gallery, “about 3,000 anti-Vietnam demonstrators booed, cheered and waved placards (but) the booing was more than matched by cheers and shouts of welcome by an equal number of pro-Johnson supporters among the crowd.” (The Mirror, 22.10.66)

Sylvia Harmon says that on Sunday Feb 16th all trains on the Sydney north shore line (from Hornsby to Wynyard) will be cancelled due to track work. They will be replaced by buses. In case the number of buses is less than required, people might like to make other arrangements for getting into the City. Also people might like to let everyone on their email lists know, so that they can pass the info on even if they’re not affected themselves.

On the eve of the weekend peace protests, here’s your thoughts.

***

Michael Chong in Manly, NSW

In diplomacy nothing’s so diverse as

The mechanics of truth

You can even engineer in reverse

Evidence from proof

So shall we lose or confuse the plot

Of morality’s slender charter,

As we choose to undo the despot

With the tyranny of another?

***

John Englart in Melbourne

I remember the Vietnam Moratorim marches in Sydney. I was a fifteen year old concerned about the inhumanity of the Vietnam War. Premier Askin came out and said “Run over the bastards”, referring to protestors like myself. Premier Askin was part of the problem and it was good to be rid of him from State Politics. I have never lost my sense of injustice I learnt during this period.

In 1985 I was one of the people who marched in the Palm Sunday rallies, along with my family, my parents and my brothers family. I was a veteran protestor and had hand painted a banner for this march. (a photo of the banner is at takver)

The world seemed to draw back from the brink in the late 80s and early 90s. But one thing I learned is that if you don’t get out on the street and be vocal and resist injustice then you are as good as accepting the necessity of injustice. Public protest does affect public policy of governments and other organisations, although the bureacrats and politicians will never admit this.

I’ll be out there this weekend – Melbourne on Friday in about half an hour – handing out an anti-war songsheet this time – along with my partner and children, friends and even a few work colleagues.

As I say on my Takver’s Soapbox site at soapbox: “The horrors of war are many, but at the level of the common folk there are no victors: it is the survivors who feel the human suffering and deprivation caused by the generals and politicians. It will be the families of the dead and injured in Iraq, as well as the US or Australia that will be forced to endure the ongoing consequences of war.”

***

David Burnett in Melbourne

I’m just about to head off to the Melbourne peace march. I have also been utterly amazed at how many ‘non-protesters’ are going. There are scores going from here, including the CFO – the only fella ever seen sporting a suit round these parts – who is jumping on his bike and joining the Critical Mass. Bean-counters and Anarchists – where will it end? 🙂

This is exciting. Numbers in the streets is all we have left in this debate, I believe. Nothing gives pollies the willies more than the sight of thousands and thousands of voters who are clearly disinclined to vote for them!

Of course, there are exceptions. One large rally you missed in your list was the one opposing Jeff Kennett’s various policies (well – opposing Jeff Kennett, truth be told) in Melbourne in, ummmm, 1994? Not long after he came to power, anyway. In fact, this was the largest rally in Melbourne perhaps ever – I have no doubt that there were close to 150,000 people there. By the time the head of the densely-packed march had left Spring St, traversed Collins St all the way to Elizabeth St, moved a block to the north, and returned to Spring St, the tail of the march was only just setting off. Effectively, the rally filled more than eight major city blocks, and that’s a lot of people.

And Jeffery’s response? Effectively – “Bugger em.” And that he did…

Still, I reckon these peace rallies are enormously important.

Go peaceniks!

***

Dell Horey emailed the pre-protest editorial of the British Medical Journal.

In praise of dissent

One hundred years ago Germany launched a war against quackery (bmj). “Public meetings will be held and addresses delivered,” reported the BMJ. Today Germany leads a campaign to halt the war against Iraq, and anti-war demonstrators will march in Berlin on 15 February. The war against quackery included a strategy to infiltrate the meetings of quacks, “in order to confute their arguments and expose their misstatements”. The organisers of the global anti-war campaign would wish for something similar.

But this demonstration is not confined to Germany. Over 300 cities will unite in protest against the leadership of George Bush and Tony Blair. Arabs and Jews will march together in Tel Aviv. New Yorkers will hold a stationary rally on First Avenue after a federal judge refused the permit for a march, citing “heightened security concerns”. More than half a million protesters are expected to converge on Hyde Park, London – which also happens to be the number of Iraqis predicted to die in a war. An 80 year old woman from Hampshire, too infirm to make the trip to London, has offered instead to lie down in the middle of one of England’s busiest motorways. Rarely have so many of the world’s inhabitants united with such clarity of voice: no to war, they say, but will two of our six billion fellow earthlings listen?

Advocates for war are quick to liken dissent to appeasement. A more apt analogy may be America’s war in Vietnam – a war in which the USA used Agent Orange and napalm. Many are convinced that Iraq has produced, and may even be hiding chemical, biological, and nuclear weaponry. Many, though, are not convinced that an immediate war on Iraq will guarantee our future safety. The World Medical Association and the International Council of Nurses have joined other professional associations in condemning armed conflict, highlighting the catastrophic effects of war on civilians, especially women and children. A Canadian team this week reports that Iraqi children as young as four are fearful and anxious about the prospect of war (bmj). The World Health Organization and medical aid agencies have already produced gloomy estimates of the likely toll on the Iraqi people. Bush and Blair argue that many hundreds of thousands are at risk from a chemical or biological attack. The marchers are not persuaded.

Those in London will be tramping through a central area of the city that this week begins congestion charges for cars and trucks, following the example of successful schemes in Singapore and Norway. Ian Roberts suggests that Ken Livingstone, the politician behind this initiative, is introducing public health reform to rival that of Edwin Chadwick, who revolutionised sanitation in 19th century London (bmj). Chadwick’s opponents claimed there was “insanity in sanity” he had to fight to dissent. This week, hundreds of thousands – perhaps millions – of protesters will be participating in the most far reaching display of dissent that the world has seen. It should be recognised.

***

John Nicolay (nom de plume)

Today’s anti-Americanism watch: Your reference to nuclear weapons is another example of your stance of extreme credulousness towards anything that reflects badly on the American government, coupled with utter cynicism towards any argument advanced in their favor. Think for a second: If you ran a country with nuclear weapons which you had no intention to use, would you tell your enemies that?

Much as it pains people who grew up as anti-nuclear campaigners to admit, the jury is now in, and deterrence works. How can you deter if you rule out using what you have, even in self-defence?

The other example of extreme credulousness you’ve shown over the last couple of days is your cargo cult-like acceptance of the Franco-German “peace plan”. Where’s the critical analysis of motives there? (I saw a French government spokesman on the BBC program “hardtalk” freely acknowledge last night that the French position was driven by its “interests”, which included its oil dealings with Iraq – remember, these are REAL interests in Iraqi oil, not merely hypothetical – together with the desire to prevent American dominance of international ecision-making). Where, too, is the serious contemplation of what it would achieve – at the least, surely someone should be able to point out what is different between this plan and the staus quo of the last ten years, during which time Saddam has grown steadily more dangerous and the Iraqi people have continued to suffer.

But on to the peace march…

If war is averted, isn’t it most likely to be because the members of the Iraqi regime become convinced that it is inevitable, and therefore try to save their skins by absconding (or knocking off Saddam Hussein)?

If that is the case, aren’t these marches actually going to make war MORE likely, by providing the Iraqi regime with food for their belief that the west lacks the fortitude to go through with its threats?

And is not the correct slogan for the rally not “peace”, but “war later”?

***

John Passant in Kambah, ACT

John Howard is driven by the need to serve his class and their economic interests. The judgment he has made is that this is best done by supporting the US in its re-division of the world as the sole military and economic power. This re-division shuts out Europe and China – hence the German, French and Chinese reluctance to support the US.

This commitment to his class means Howard will plough ahead with war even if 300,000 turn out against the war. However, if the anti-war movement targets the flow of profits to Howard’s class, Howard may be forced to change his mind.

This idea is not new. During the Vietnam era, some sections of the anti-war movement adopted the slogan “Stop work to stop the war.” Such a slogan today would give hope to the people demonstrating that they can take action to stop the slaughter. If the union movement adopted the slogan and workers began to strike against the war, Howard could be forced to back down.

***

Rod Lever in Glass House Mountains, Queensland

Rupert Murdoch, unable to restrain his excitement about an opportunity to make money from the war, has let the cat out of the bag. The war to him is about flooding the world with cheap Iraqi oil and launching another US economic boom. Buy Amoco. Buy GM. Buy News Corp.

Murdoch has never been noted for humanitarianism but there is something sick about a multi-millionaire who can’t see beyond making more money while others remove the remains of roasted and dismembered bodies of small children caught in the crossfire.

For those prepared to gamble on a quick, smooth victory for the American war machine, there may be money to be made in a stockmarket rally based on $20 a barrel oil. But the thought just makes me want to throw up.

The rule of law: You’ll miss it when it’s gone

Webdiarist Tamsin Clarke agreed a while ago to write a piece for Webdiary on the State Government engineered collapse of the rule of law in NSW development. This has resulted in vandalism by lawless developers, because they know the law – and the conditions of development they’ve agreed to – will not be enforced by the State. They also know that most citizens don’t have the money or the time to force developer compliance and can be intimidated by threats to sue for defamation and the like.

However the pending war on Iraq saw Tamsin write a piece on the widespread attacks by governments on the rule of law – the foundation of democracy – in general, with the threat by the United States, Britain and Australia to invade Iraq in defiance of international law the latest, and most dangerous, example. Tamsin argues that we’ve taken step two in the march towards fascism, and urges citizens to fight back before it’s too late.

After Tamsin’s piece, the text of a petition to be presented to the United Nations in New York tomorrow by Judge Weeramantry, a former Judge of the International Court of Justice and Professor of Law at Monash University, arguing that a unilateral attack would breach international law. Activism is taking many forms as the world braces for the war on Iraq, and lawyers are in the vanguard. I’ve also published the names and positions of the 130 signatories and the contact details for the group which organised the petition, the International Association of Lawyers against Nuclear Arms.

I’ve just published a brilliant but very depressing analysis on the wreckage of our universities – with even worse to come – by John Wojdylo. In The intellectual holocaust in our universities has just begun, he writes:

Western culture is rationalizing itself out of existence, destroying its own memory of itself. It is transforming itself into a universalized, globalized husk of economic exchange value. Amongst the academic fields threatened with extinction in Australia – virtually without exception – are those that since the Renaissance have played a major role in the development of our – Western – culture. Institutes of philosophy, history, classics and music have been decimated. Australia has lost world leaders in these fields, and is in serious risk of losing most of the rest.

***

Democracy, quality of life and the rule of law

by Tamsin Clarke, Sydney

Tamsin has been a corporate and trusts lawyer for more than 20 years, and is a PhD student at NSW writing about developing an Australian jurisprudence of free speech consistent with racial vilification legislation – ie which looks to European concepts of human dignity and the right to be free from racist speech rather than United States First Amendment concepts of absolute free speech and the ‘market of ideas’. She has written a few academic articles on these issues.

In the light of present world events these concerns, indeed the NSW State election itself, are on one level are quite insignificant. But at the same time, a war context demonstrates to us how essential the rule of law is to the maintenance of any democracy, and why we should be demanding respect for law and compliance with (national and international) law from our own governments. Perhaps if we had done so already we would not be in the situation that faces us now.

What happens in a ‘real’ war, when a country is under military law? Many basic elements of democracy are thrown out the window. The rule of law is one of the first to go. We lose the Westminster system with its balance of powers. We lose our independent judiciary. We lose what we know as the rule of law – which may be when we first appreciate our need for it. Military law is basically, sophistications aside, what its name says – whatever law the military chooses to impose.

In Australia, we have already been brought a considerable way along the path to acceptance of a single body as executive, legislator and judiciary, not because we have been on a war footing (although contemplating that possibility highlights the present failings) but because of the confluence of a number of trends:

(1) the increasing refusal of all levels of Government to enforce their own legislation, or that of their political predecessors, where it suits them – unless forced to do so by court action,

(2) the drafting of legislation which restricts or removes the right of judicial review of executive decisions (known as ‘privative clauses’) and

(3) at Federal level, a general disrespect for international law, conventions and treaties (except relating to trade), for international institutions such as the United Nations and the International War Crimes Tribunal, and even for our own High Court.

The combined effect of these various trends is to nullify and undermine the basic notion of law as a defence of the rights of the individual against an arbitrary executive – with serious implications for Australian democracy. Our collective failure to demand compliance with national and international law has, it would appear, given the present Federal Government the message that Australians will accept the rule of an arbitrary executive.

The concept of a single body as executive, legislator and judiciary is ‘acceptable’ under military law in a war context, despite the fact that there is no redress if the decisions of that body prove to be unreasonable or arbitrary. In other contexts the concept is known as fascism or totalitarianism.

Perhaps the analogy appears too extreme. Let’s examine exactly what is involved.

What is democracy?

The main elements of democracy are generally agreed upon as being:

* individual and group access to the political process,

* regular free elections, with votes of roughly equal weight,

* sequential and/or concurrent sharing of political power, so that no political group is able to maintain power over other groups indefinitely,

* maximisation of information available to voters on political issues, including free public discussion of political issues and free assembly,

* an independent judiciary,

* government self-regulation and accountability,

* just procedures, including in enforcement and interpretation of legislation, and

* maximisation of personal freedom/individual autonomy and privacy of citizens.

At the same time, we regularly put up with defects in these elements and still regard what we have as a democracy. Defects in the 2000 US Presidential election were expressed by the Florida bumper stickers One man one vote (not available in all States) and Don’t blame me, I voted for Gore – I think. Indeed, Justice Scalia of the United States Supreme Court has expressed the view that the US Federal Constitution does not guarantee the right to vote.

While such defects are of concern, what is particularly disquieting is a situation where any of the agreed elements of democracy is regularly or systemically undermined. This is something that has been happening at all levels of Australian government as the rule of law is whittled away by governments who do not want to be answerable to anyone except the TV cameras.

Disrespect for laws and the judiciary

The Liberal Federal Government has encouraged public denigration of the High Court, as it did when in opposition, as being ‘too political’. Now that the majority of the High Court members are Howard appointees, hopefully such criticism will cease.

Neither the Prime Minister nor Attorney General spoke up for Justice Michael Kirby during the infamous allegations against him. The Federal Government has steadfastly refused to honour international treaties or protocols, and came close to voting against an International War Crimes Tribunal. Howard has regularly presented the issue of Australia’s compliance with international covenants on human rights, the elimination of racism, work conditions and the like in terms of an international conspiracy to impose on Australia laws that we don’t want. He doesn’t have the same reservations in relation to international trade agreements, although they too would affect Australia, arguably in much more serious ways.

Former federal president of the Liberal Party John Valder petitioned John Howard to have the cases of the two Australians held at Guantanamo Bay brought before a judicial body. They had been held for more than a year without access to family or lawyers. His efforts were ‘futile’.

Legislation that excludes judicial review

In the last months of 2002, the NSW government passed the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act which purports to protect the decisions of the NSW Police Minister from any judicial review whatsoever:

s 13(1): An authorisation (and any decision of the Police Minister under this Part with respect to the authorisation) may not be challenged, reviewed, quashed or called into question on any grounds whatsoever before any court, tribunal, body or person in any legal proceedings, or restrained, removed or otherwise affected by proceedings in the nature of prohibition or mandamus.

As previously pointed out in Webdiary (eg Democracy’s watchdogs blind to the danger), the contempt that this piece of legislation shows for the Westminster notion of the separation of powers, let alone for the notion of a modern democracy underpinned by the rule of law, is breathtaking. Similar Commonwealth legislation has been brought before the Federal Parliament (ASIO Legislation Amendment (Terrorism) Bill 2002). The Federal Government has already heavily restricted judicial review of its immigration and refugee processing’ procedures.

While it may be argued that the NSW legislation is aimed specifically at terrorism and hence involves the suspension of normal laws, as in a war situation, it is drafted so widely as to protect the police and the government from judicial scrutiny in relation to non-terrorist activities as well. And unfortunately the legislation is consistent with Australian governments’ increasing disregard for the law across a wide range of areas.

Newly-appointed NSW Supreme Court Justice Jeff Shaw recently cautioned that judicial independence is central to democracy and that legislators should not circumscribe the functions of the courts – although there is a long history of governments doing so. The history of that kind of restrictive legislation was reviewed in the same week by the High Court in its decision in relation to the ‘Tampa legislation’ (Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth of Australia [2003] HCA 2). Chief Justice Gleeson quoted Lord Justice Denning’s dictum that ‘if tribunals were to be at liberty to exceed their jurisdiction without any check by the courts, the rule of law would be at an end’. However the court did not hold the legislation unconstitutional as such. Following previous English and Australian decisions the court found that the legislation would be unconstitutional only where it seeks to protect manifest jurisdictional errors or acts which are outside the powers of the government.

What History shows us – the First phase

It is not just the passing of new legislation that is the stratagem we should look for when we seek to protect ourselves against the totalitarianisation of our society. That is what we have been taught to look for, but a closer examination of history will show that the first sign of the approach of fascism is not the introduction of new measures, but the failure to enforce the existing ones that protect the structure of society and the interests of the individuals within that society. It is that first stage of fascism that we are now seeing.

Historically, the core of fascism is the placement of the interest of one sector of society above the interests of all others. One example is the placement of the interests of developers over and above the interests of those who must live in the cities that the developers build. There are no doubt other equally valid examples.

In 2002 the Joint Select Committee on Quality of Building in NSW received evidence about how various Councils across the State failed to implement their own Local Environmental Plans. In some cases, private certifying bodies owned by the Councils themselves certified developments as meeting the required standards without inspections or failed to redress clear inadequacies (such as the building of a house with only half of the correct number of supporting piers). Of course, such arbitrary enforcement of any law is itself an invitation to corruption. (See Developer heaven, Labor hell.)

Regular unjust or arbitrary practices at Local Council level are not investigated or corrected by State Government, nor in NSW by bodies such as the ICAC or State Ombudsman except for the most extreme examples.

Redress in relation to the most minor development matter is thus often only possible in NSW through the Land and Environment Court, where generally costs are not awarded even in favour of a successful applicant. Given that the costs of even a simple case are likely to be in the region of $40,000, redress is therefore effectively ruled out for most people.

Lack of government enforcement of its own laws is not just a practical problem – in this case, to the quality of our built environment and thus to our standard of living – but a real democratic issue. Laws impose restrictions, laws impose moderation. Ideally, laws impose civilised values and protect the rights of the individual against an arbitrary executive.

The effect of arbitrary government decisions, including as to when the government will choose to enforce its laws and regulations, gives the message that law does not reflect real social values. It is not as important as money, or power, or who you know. Or violence. Citizens are set against each other as Local and State and Federal governments fail to fulfil their enforcement roles.

What history shows us – the second phase

Once again, one need only look to history to see what the second stage in the introduction of fascism has been: It is the passing of anti-terrorist legislation. We have that now.

What history shows us – the third phase

What then is the third phase that we should be looking for? In Nazi Germany, it was the demonisation of a recognisable group of ordinary citizens selected by Hitler to be the scapegoats.

We learn through our culture precisely those groups against which we are supposed or allowed to vent our anger – the groups that our culture has stereotyped. By defining the enemy in unmistakable terms, our culture gives us implicit permission to attack. Social permission to act against people who are supposedly different is the first step along the road to genocide. Genocide and war are not due only to labelling, but labelling makes it easier to deny any common bonds.

What remains in the historical pattern is the destruction of the very machinery that brought the ruling party to power. In Nazi Germany it was the Rohm purge. Modern Australia is perhaps more gentle.

The process of introducing fascism or totalitarianism into a society that is traditionally democratic in nature must still in its early stages pass through the electoral process. But this can be interfered with in a variety of ways.

At an internal level, alienated party members are disengaged or overruled in preselections so that the parliamentary executive may have free reign in the choice of candidates and thereby in the construction and political nature of the organs of democracy. At a national level, history shows that what is required to bypass the normal electoral constraints is an external enemy that is seen to create an internal emergency.

Ironically, it is only by enforcing law and imposing laws upon itself that a democratic government can protect its own existence. Otherwise it will be destroyed, not according to the rules (which it has itself devalued), but by any available means. But before that happens, many people will be hurt in the process. And that process is happening now.

If we want to retain a true democracy in Australia we must all act to publicise lack of enforcement of legislation, and to oppose laws that prevent judicial scrutiny. We must put our names to submissions to enforcement agencies at all levels of government. Irrespective of whether or not we oppose the coming war we must protect and support the rule of law by every means available to us, in order to protect our own democracy.

***

Judge Weeramantry, former Judge of the International Court of Justice and Professor of Law at Monash University, has departed Australia to go to New York to release an international appeal drafted by the International Association of Lawyers AGainst Nuclear Arms and endorsed by more than 160 lawyers, law professors and jurists from 30 countries. It will be released at a press conference in the UN on Feb 14 (Australian time).

Here is the text of the appeal, followed by a list of signatories.

International Appeal by Lawyers and Jurists against the “Preventive” Use of Force

We the undersigned lawyers and jurists from legal traditions around the world are extremely concerned about conflicts in the Middle East regarding the suspected proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and the possibility that force may be used in response to this situation.

The development of weapons of mass destruction anywhere in the world is contrary to universal norms against the acquisition, possession and threat or use of such weapons and must be addressed. However, the “preventive” use of force currently being considered against Iraq is both illegal and unnecessary and should not be authorized by the United Nations or undertaken by any State.

General principles of international law hold that:

* peaceful resolution of conflicts between States is required,

* the use of force is only permissible in the case of an armed attack or imminent attack or under UN authorization when a threat to the peace has been declared by the Security Council and non-military measures have been determined to be inadequate,

* enforcement of international law must be consistently applied to all States.

In further enunciating and applying these principles, we believe that the use of force against Iraq would be illegal for the following reasons:

Peaceful resolution of conflicts required

i) The United Nations Charter and customary international law require States to seek peaceful resolutions to their disputes. Article 33 of the Charter states that “The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall first of all seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their own choice.”

ii) Under Article 51 of the Charter, States are only permitted to threaten or use force “if an armed attack occurs” and only “until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.”

iii) In the case of an act of aggression or a threat to the peace, the United Nations Security Council is also required under the Charter (Article 41) to firstly employ “measures not involving the use of armed force.” Only when such measures “would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate” (Article 42) can the Security Council authorize the use of force.

No act of aggression or evidence of imminent threat of such act

iv) In 1991 the Security Council responded to an actual invasion of Kuwait by Iraq by authorizing all means necessary to restore the peace. In the current case, however, there has been no indication by Iraq that it intends to attack another country and no evidence of military preparations for any such attack. In addition, it is generally recognized that Iraq does not have the military capability to attack the key countries in dispute, i.e. the United States and the United Kingdom.

No precedent for preventive use of force

v) There is no precedent in international law for use of force as a preventive measure when there has been no actual or imminent attack by the offending State. There is law indicating that preventive use of force is illegal. The International Military Tribunal sitting at Nuremberg rejected Germany’s argument that they were compelled to attack Norway in order to prevent an Allied invasion (6 F.R.D. 69, 100-101, 1946).

vi) The Security Council has never authorized force based on a potential, non-imminent threat of violence. All past authorizations have been in response to actual invasion, large scale violence or humanitarian emergency.

vii) If the Security Council, for the first time, were to authorize preventive war, it would undermine the UN Charter’s restraints on the use of force and provide a dangerous precedent for States to consider the “preventive” use of force in numerous situations making war once again a tool of international politics rather than an anachronistic and prohibited action. If the use of force takes place outside the framework of international law and the UN Charter, the structure and authority of international law and the UN Charter which have taken generations and immense human sacrifice to establish, would be severely undermined into the foreseeable future.

Consistency under international law must be maintained

viii) International law must be consistently applied in order to maintain the respect of the international community as law and not the rejection of it as a tool of the powerful to subjugate the weak.

ix) Security Council Resolution 687, setting forth the terms of the ceasefire that ended the Gulf War, acknowledges that the elimination of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction is not an end in itself but “represents steps towards the goal of establishing in the Middle East a zone free from weapons of mass destruction.”

x) The International Court of Justice has unanimously determined that there is an obligation on all States to “pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.” (Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, ICJ 1996). Meaningful steps need to be taken by all States to this end, and States wishing to enforce compliance with international law must themselves comply with this requirement.

xi) Action to ensure the elimination of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction should be done in conjunction with similar actions to ensure elimination of other weapons of mass destruction in the region – including Israel’s nuclear arsenal – and in the world – including the nuclear weapons of China, France, India, Pakistan, Russia, United Kingdom and the United States.

Alternative mechanisms are available to address concerns

xii) The UN Security Council has established a number of mechanisms to address the concerns regarding Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. These include diplomatic pressure, negotiations, sanctions on certain goods with military application, destruction of stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction and inspections of facilities with capabilities to assist in production of weapons of mass destruction. Evidence to date is that these mechanisms are not perfect, but are working effectively enough to have led to the destruction and curtailment of most of the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction capability.

xiii) Mechanisms are available to address charges against Iraq and the Iraqi leadership of serious human rights violations, war crimes, crimes against peace and crimes against humanity. These include domestic courts utilizing universal jurisdiction, the establishment by the Security Council of an ad hoc international criminal tribunal, use of the International Criminal Court for any crimes committed after July 2002, and the International Court of Justice.

The use of force by powerful nations in disregard of the principles of international law would threaten the fabric of international law giving rise to the potential for further violations and an increasing cycle of violence and anarchy.

We call on the United Nations and all States to continue to pursue a path of adherence to international law and in pursuit of a peaceful resolution to the threats arising from weapons of mass destruction and other threats to the peace.

Appeal circulated by the INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LAWYERS AGAINST NUCLEAR ARMS, ialana.

Southern office: Director, Alan Webb, Flat 10, 6 Seymour St, St Mary’s Bay, Aotearoa-New Zealand Auckland. Phone: (64) 9 360-1258 Fax: (64) 9 360-1258, alan@pacificlaw.co.nz

Northern office: Director, Philipp Boos, Postfach 1168, D-35037, Marburg, Germany. Phone: (49) 64 212-3027 Fax: (49) 64 211-5828, info@ialana.de

United Nations office: Director, John Burroughs, 211 East 43rd St, #1204, New York. NY 10017, USA, Phone: (1) 212 818-1861 Fax: (1) 212 818-1857, johnburroughs@lcnp.org

***

Appeal Supporters

Australia

Roy Baker, Project Director, Communications Law Centre, University of New South Wales

Jacoba Brasch, Barrister-at-Law, Brisbane

Patrick T. Byrt, Counsellor-at-law. Convenor- Reconciliation and Human Rights, Norwood.

Peter Cashmane, Maurice Blackburn Cashman, Lawyers, Sydney

Hilary Charlesworth, Professor and Director, Centre for International and Public Law, Faculty of Law, Australian National University

Paulette Dupuy, Legal Officer, Brisbane

Michael Flynn, Barrister& Solicitor Legal Officer, University of Canberra

Kate Gibson, Solicitor, Minter Ellison Lawyers, Sydney NSW

Paul Howorth, Barrister, Brisbane

Michael Hovane, Managing Solicitor, Child Support Legal Unit,Legal Aid WA

Stephen Keim, Barrister, Brisbane

Cressida Limon, Lecturer in Law, Victoria University, Melbourne

Lee McIntosh, Solicitor, Environmental Defender’s Office

David McKenzie, Solicitor of the Supreme Court of New South Wales and of the High Court of Australia.

Elisa Nichols, Lawyer, Environmental Defender’s Office, Sydney

Polly Porteous, Lawyer, Sydney

Guy Powles, Professor of Law, Monash University, Melbourne. Pacific Law Consultant, University of the South Pacific, Vanuatu

Dr Murray Raff, School of Law, Victoria University, Melbourne

Gordon Renouf, Director, National Pro Bono Resource Centre

Peter Semmler QC, Barrister, Sydney.

Ben Slade, Maurice Blackburn Cashman, Lawyers

Jeff Smith, Director, Environmental Defender’s Office, NSW

Gillian Walker BA LLB (Hons) Graduate Lawyer & Lecturer in International Law, Sydney

Adrian Williams, Solicitor, President of Sydney Young Christian Workers, Sydney

Aotearoa – New Zealand

Linley Black, Earth Charter Aotearoa – New Zealand

Prof Dr Klaus Bosselmann, Director, New Zealand Centre for Environmental Law

Duncan Currie, Barrister, Christchurch

Jane Doherty, Lawyer, Auckland

Claudia Geiringer, Lecturer in Law, Victoria University of Wellington

Kevin Glover, Solicitor, Auckland

Kitt Littlejohn, Lawyer, Auckland.

Nicollette Phong, Lawyer, Auckland

Simon Reeves, LL.M. (Virginia), Barrister of the High Court of New Zealand, Vice-president, IALANA

Hon Matt Robson MP New Zealand Parliament. Former Minister of Disarmament and Arms Control. Former Minister of Courts.

Scott Sheeran, LLB hons, Otago. LLM international law, Cambridge, UK.

Alan Webb, Solicitor, Auckland. Director International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms Southern Office

Dr David V Williams, Associate Professor in Law, University of Auckland

Argentina

Anna Petra Roge de Marzolini, Lawyer Asociacion Ambientalista EcoLaPaz, Friends of Earth

Bangladesh

Sara Hossain, Lawyer. Inter-rights.

Dr. Faustina Pereira, Advocate and Public Interest Litigator, Supreme Court of Bangladesh

Belgium

Prof. Eva Brems, Human Rights Centre, Ghent University

Dr Prof.Tony van Loon, Free University of Brussels. Jurist of the public service, Flanders

Canada

Gina Fiorillo, Lawyer,Vancouver, BC

Holly Holtman, Counsel, Canadian Department of Justice

Pierre Sadik, LL.B. Lawyer, Ottawa

Clare Smith, lawyer (Ll.B.), Toronto,

Jane Stoyles, LLB. Lawyer, Ottawa

Michelle Swenarchuk, Counsel and Director of International Programmes, Canadian Environmental Law Association

Costa Rica

Dr Carlos Vargas, Interlaw Consultores Juridicos, San Jose.

Emily J Yozell, Attorney. Director Central America Program, Loyola Law school

Fiji

Sotia Vuli Coutts, Legal Officer, Fiji Law Reform Commission

Ropate Green Lomavata, Solicitor, Fiji Law Reform Commission

Villiame Bokini Naliva, Solicitor

Kemueli Qoro, Solicitor, Airports Fiji Limited

Lavenia Rokoika, Principal Legal Officer, Civil Aviation Authority of the Fiji Islands

Bhupendra Solanki, State Prosecutor

Marama Tubuna, Solicitor, Human Rights Commission

Raijeli Vasakula, Solicitor

Josaia Waqaivolavola, State Prosecutor

France

Monique Picard-Weyl,Lawyer

Roland Weyl, Lawyer, Vice-President of International Association of Democratic Lawyers

Germany

Lars Albath, LLM, Berlin

Peter Becker. Secretary, International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms

Torsten Block, Judge. Vice Director of the Magistrates Court of Neumunster

Philipp Boos, LL.M, Marburg. Director International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms Northern Office

Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Daubler, Law Prof. University Bremen

Prof. Dr. Herta Daubler-Gmelin, Berlin, Tubingen, attorney, former fed. minister of justice

Volker Lindemann, Vizeprasident des Schleswig-Holsteinische=n Oberlandesgerichts, Member of IALANA (German Section)

Renate Reupke. Lawyer. Member of IALANA Germany

Roda Verheyen, L.LM, Research Unit Environmental Law – University of Hamburg; Global Climate Justice Programme

Grenada

Nicholas Barnes, Solicitor General

Hungary

Barbara Bedont, LL.B, Legal Officer Public Interest Law Initiative, Budapest

India

Ms. Niloufer Bhagwat, Advocate, Vice President, Indian Association of Lawyers

Neha Naqvi, BABL(hons) Hyderabad

P.N. Bhagwati, Former Chief Justice of India. Chancellor Hyderabad University

D.J Ravindran, lawyer.

Jitendra Sharma, President, International Association of Democratic Lawyers

Ireland

Professor Fionnuala Ni Aolain, School of Law, University of Ulster. Member Irish Human Rights Commission.

Marie Baker, BL. Lawyer, Cork

Aileen Donnelly BL, Barrister-at-Law, Dublin

Michael Farrell, Solicitor, Dublin. Former Chairperson of the Irish Council for Civil Liberties.

Italy

Joachim Lau, Advocate, Florence

Fabio Marcelli, First Researcher at the Institute of International Legal Studies of the National Research Council of Italy

Japan

Akihiko Kimijima, Professor of Law, Hokkai Gakuen University, Japan

Osamu Niikura, Secretary General of JALISA and Professor of Law at Aoyama Gakuin University, Tokyo

Kenji Urata, Professor of Law, Waseda University School of Law, Tokyo

Netherlands

Phon van den Biesen, Advocate, Amsterdam. Vice-President International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms

Norway

Stale Eskeland, Professor, University of Oslo Institute of Public and International Law

Bent Endresen, Advocate, Stavanger

Fredrik Heffermehl, Norsk Medlemsgruppe IALANA

Hyesterettsadvokat Hkon Helle, Lawyer, Stavanger

Pakistan

Akhtar Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court of Pakistan, Secretary General Democratic Lawyers Association Pakistan. Bureau Member of International Association of Democratic Lawyers

Papua-New Guinea

Brian Brunton, former Judge of the National and Supreme Court of Papua New Guinea, former Chairman of the Law Reform Commission, former Dean of the Faculty of Law, University of Papua New Guinea

Effrey B. Dademo-Kaili, Lawyer, Environmental Law Center, Malagan Haus – Boroko

Philippines

Gregorio T. Fabros, Legal Counsel, National Federation of Teachers & Employees Unions

Alexander Lacson, Legal Counsel, Victims of Toxic and Hazardous wastes in former U.S. facilities

Corazon Valdez-Fabros, Lawyer, Manila Philippines

Puerto Rico

Roxana Badillo-Rodriguez, Esq. San Juan

Roberto A. Fernandez, Esq., San Juan

Marcos Rodriguez-Frese, Puerto Rico Bar

Jose R. Ortiz Velez, Esq., San Juan

Luis Amauri Suarez Zayas, Esq. San Juan

Samoa

Shirley Atatagi-Coutts, Environmental Advocate, Greenpeace – South Pacific

Ioane Okesene, Assistant Legal Counsel, Samoa Tel Limited, Apia

Spain

Victor de la Barrera Naumann, Lawyer and former judge

Juan Ramon Capella Hernandez, Professor of Law, University of Barcelona

South Africa

Adrian Pole, Attorney, LRC-EJP Durban, South Africa

Sri Lanka

C.G. Weeramantry. Former Vice-President of the International Court of Justice. Former justice of the Sri Lanka Supreme Court. President of the International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms

Sweden

Maria Bideke, International lawyer and Director of Law Association Justice International

Switzerland

Urs Cipolat, J.S.D., University of California, Berkeley

Dr. Marcelo G. Kohen, Professor of International Law, The Graduate Institute of International Studies, Geneva

Ukraine

Dr. Svitlana Kravchenko, Carlton Savage Visiting Professor of International Relations & Peace School of Law, University of Oregon Co-Director, Oregon-Lviv University Partnership President, Ecopravo-Lviv

United Kingdom

Geoffrey Bindman, Solicitor. Visiting professor of law, University College London and South Bank University

Emma Chown, Solicitor, London

Lord Anthony Gifford, Queens Counsel, Barrister-at-law

Professor Nicholas Grief, Bournemouth University.

Richard J. Harvey, Barrister, Lincoln’s Inn, London. Attorney at Law, NY, Tooks Court Chambers

Dr Glen Rangwala, MA, LLB, PhD. Lecturer, Newnham College, Cambridge

Peter Roderick, lawyer

James Woolley, Solicitor, Sheffield

United States of America

James Abourezk, Sioux Falls, South Dakota

Ian Anderson, Scottish Advocate. South African Advocate. Attorney & Councilor, State of NY.

Irene Baghoomians, Center for Constitutional Rights

Nancy E. Biberman Esq. New York

Robert Boehm, Attorney, New York. Co-Chair of the Board, Center for Constitutional Rights.

Audrey Bomse, Attorney, member of the National Lawyers Guild.

Lisa S. Brodyaga, Attorney, San Benito TX

John Burroughs, Executive Director, Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy

Juliet Chin, Attorney of Counsel Stevens, Hinds & White, P.C. New York,

Roger S. Clark, Board of Governors, Professor of Law, Rutgers University.

Angela J. Davis, Professor of Law, American University, Washington, DC

Julie E. Dinnerstein, Director of the Immigration Intervention Project, Center for Battered Women’s Legal Services, New York

Mary Dryovage, Lawyer

Anabel Dwyer, Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy

Honorable Laura Safer Espinoza, Acting Supreme Court Justice, New York State

Richard Falk, Professor emeritus of international law, Princeton University

Howard Friel, World Editorial & International Law

Jeffrey H. Haas, Attorney, Taos, New Mexico and Chicago, IL

Christine Haight Farley, Assistant Professor of Law, American University Washington College of Law

Professor Lennox S Hinds, Vice-President, International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL)

Wythe Holt, Professor of Law, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL

Mary Howell, Attorney at Law, New Orleans, Louisiana

K. Dean Hubbard, Jr. National Co-Chair, National Lawyers Guild Labor and Employment Committee. Joanne Woodward Chair in Public Policy and Advocacy, Sarah Lawrence College

Jean K. Hyams, Attorney

Abdeen Jabara, Attorney at Law, New York

Alicia Kaplow, Attorney at Law, New York

Natalie Kabasakalian, Attorney at Law, New York

Ken Kimerling, Legal Director Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund

David Krieger J.D., President, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Michael Krinsky, Rabinowitz, Boudin, Standard, Krinsky & Lieberman, P.C. General Counsel, Bill of Rights Foundation

Nancy K. D. Lemon, J.D., Lecturer Boalt Hall School of Law, UC Berkeley, Berkeley, California

Judith Levin, Lawyer, Washingtonville, New York

Andrew Lichterman, Program Director, Western States Legal Foundation

Jules Lobel, Professor of Law, University of Pittsburgh Law School. Vice Pres. Center for Constitutional Rights

Saul Mendlovitz, Dag Hammarskjold Professor of International Law, Rutgers University.

Carlin Meyer, Professor of Law, New York Law School

Daniel Meyers; Attorney-at-Law, New York. Executive Committee, NYC Chapter National Lawyers Guild

Howard N Meyer, member American Society of International Law

Binny Miller, Professor of Law, Washington College of Law, American University

Tina Minkowitz, J.D., Staten Island, NY

Phyllis Olin, Esq. Berkeley, CA

Mary Boresz Pike, Lawyer, New York

Pamela Pitt, Lawyer, San Francisco

Severina Rivera, Esq. Director Campaign for Labor Rights, Washington

Celina Romany, Professor of Law, American University

Stephen A. Rosenbaum, Lecturer, Univ. of California, Berkeley School of Law. Adjunct Prof., Golden Gate Univ. Scl. of Law

Harold Rosenthal, Attorney, Pennsylvania

Ronald C. Slye, Associate Professor, Seattle University School of Law

Michael S. Sorgen, Attorney, San Francisco

Andrew Strauss, Professor of Law, Widener University School of Law.

Jan Susler. People’s Law Office, Chicago, IL

Katherine Thomsom, Attorney, San Francisco

Jon Van Dyke, Professor of Law, University of Hawaii Law School

Peter Weiss, President, Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy

Lois Whitman, Attorney, New York

Glenn Wiser, staff attorney, Center for International Environmental Law, Washington DC

Murdoch: Cheap oil the prize

It’s a wild poker game, this one. The go-to-war-now trio says Osama’s statement proves what they never could – that Saddam and Osama were in cahoots. The anti-war brigade say it reinforces its warning that invading Iraq plays into Osama’s hands, since he wants a war of civilisations, and can use the invasion against the “infidel” Saddam to attract more followers. If that’s true, George Bush has created an alliance link between Saddam and Osama which could give Osama WMD – the exact result he says he’s trying to avoid.

I’m in the latter camp on this one. I’m reminded of the first email I published after September 11, by John Avery in Adelaide (Tragedy). It chilled me then, and it chills me even more now.

It is a reasonable guess that the perpetrators of today’s terrorism in the US are an extreme faction identified with Islam and probably connected to the Taliban. Having said that, it is vital that the actual culprits are identified and punished with narrow particularity, not just for sake of justice but to defeat the purposes of these outrages.

President Bush has said no distinction will be drawn between terrorists and the regimes who support them. But that is the exactly the response these shocking deeds seem calculated to elicit. A key object of extremist factions, such as those competing with more moderate groups among the Taliban, is to prevent moderate groups defecting, to shut the escape hatches.

We have seen this tactic in Afghanistan with the desecration of the Buddhist monuments, the arrest of aid workers for (allegedly) preaching Christianity and the outrageous repression of women in that country. The terrorists believe that more extreme and outrageous the actions, the more reliably will their targets extend revenge to anyone tainted by association with them.

Under common attack, more moderate factions are forced to commit to the extreme hard line, whether they like it or not.

If this is correct, the US response should be to drive a wedge between the perpetrators and to their close supporters, rebarbative as they definitely will turn out to be. This course is unlikely to be followed because the extremity of the terrorists’ outrage is designed to amplify their victims’ hostility and harden their feelings of revenge.

Thus the huge scale of losses inflicted on the US are calculated to induce feelings of revenge that will not be satisfied with the punishment of a mere handful of scruffy tribesmen, even if bin Laden were among them (should his group turn out to be culpable).

The vividness and power of these events, underscored by presumed religiously inspired suicides, make it emotionally difficult for the Americans to resist the terrorists’ overt message that they are primarily engaged in war with the USA or the west.

The war with the diabolical west may turn out to be their platform, but the real purpose of their attacks and their extreme high stake tactics seem to be fame, self-preservation and advancement within a specific regional politics marked by labile factional and ideological commitments to forms of Islam ostensibly opposed to modernity with a western face.

The world will pay a high price if America succumbs to these forceful temptations. President Bush, contrary to what he has declared so far in the heat of the moment, should lend support to the more moderate factions to isolate the extremists, contrary to the extremists’ desire to draw a savage response from the USA, but this is unlikely to happen.

Chilling too, the enthusiastic endorsement of Rupert Murdoch for the war. It would help the world economy – better than a tax cut! Perhaps his compliant editors will now be a little more loathe to pooh-pooh the oil war theory.

Murdoch praises Blair’s ‘courage’

by Julia Day

Wednesday February 12, 2003, The Guardian

Rupert Murdoch has given his full backing to war, praising George Bush as acting “morally” and “correctly” and describing Tony Blair as “full of guts” for going out on a limb in his support for an attack on Iraq.

The media tycoon said he was completely behind Mr Bush and Mr Blair as they faced opposition from Germany and France. Much of the world, he said, cannot accept that America is the only superpower.

“I think Tony is being extraordinarily courageous and strong on what his stance is in the Middle East. It’s not easy to do that living in a party which is largely composed of people that have a knee-jerk anti-Americanism and are sort of pacifist,” Mr Murdoch told the Australian news magazine The Bulletin. “But he’s shown great guts, as he did, I think, in Kosovo and over various problems in the old Yugoslavia.”

Mr Murdoch was unequivocal about war with Iraq. “We can’t back down now. I think Bush is acting very morally, very correctly, and I think he is going to go on with it.”

He said the price of oil would be one of the war’s main benefits. “The greatest thing to come out of this for the world economy, if you could put it that way, would be $20 a barrel for oil. That’s bigger than any tax cut in any country.”

Mr Murdoch’s comments come just a week after he told Fortune magazine in the US that war could fuel an economic boom.

“Who knows what the future holds? I have a pretty optimistic medium and long-term view but things are going to be pretty sticky until we get Iraq behind us. But once it’s behind us, the whole world will benefit from cheaper oil which will be a bigger stimulus than anything else,” he told Fortune.

Mr Murdoch believes there is no doubt that President Bush will be re-elected if he wins the war with Iraq and the US economy remains healthy.

“He will either go down in history as a very great president or he’ll crash and burn. I’m optimistic it will be the former by a ratio of two to one.”

***

Activism

Several readers have suggested sending a Valentine’s Day email to your federal representative.

Lynette Dumble: The Women in Black group holds a silent vigil against war and violence every Thursday at 5.30-6.30pm, Sydney Town Hall. www.womeninblackoz=.com

***

Recommendations:

See US Orders 100,000 body bags and coffins.

Mark Sokacic recommends black humor for the pre war weary at idleworm.

James Woodcock recommends The Guardian’s international guide to peace websites at guardian.

You can thank the Presidents of France, Russia and China for opposing a war in Iraq by going to greenpeace

Paula Abood recommends ‘Vulnerable but ignored: how catastrophe threatens the 12 million children of Iraq’ in independent and ‘YellowTimes.org Shut Down! Stifling the Voice of Reason’ at antiwar

***

One liners

Chris Munson: My question for the day is whether the US has managed to “turn” Hans Blix. They seem to be exerting unseemly pressure (coercing – forcing – bribing?) people and nations to their “Coalition of the willing” or “fellowship of the ring” as Mark Latham calls John, George and Tony. We’ll find out whether Hans is the man we think he is this Friday.

Trevor Kerr: I’d like to see “BAN WARS” banners hanging out of every public building, especially hospitals. If faction-paralysed Labor can’t get up a decent, enduring, visible national campaign, we can predict the size of the next Green vote – bigger!

Rod Lever: All Osama has to do is stick up his head and say “Boo!” and we all fly into a panic and call out the tanks and the army reserves. Who says terrorists are not winning?

Margaret: Thank you for publishing the Ian Macdougall view (Saddam as Stalin: The case for war). As an American I didn’t know what to believe until Mr Macdougall’s presentation of the pro and con of war with Iraq cleared my confusion. I am now totally convinced that we need to get rid of Saddam as quickly as possible.

Peter Woodforde in Canberra: I’m sure Saddam’s Republican Guard must be quaking in their boots. Any minute now, sabres flashing and mounted three-to-a-camel, the crack team of full and frank Miranda Devine (SMH 13 Feb), Young Liberal Student Movement bimbo heart-throb Sophie Panopoulos (ABC Insiders 9 Feb) and gnarled old desert veteran Piers Ackerman (Tele 13 Feb) will be at the gates of Baghdad. Undoubtedly their fierce cries of “Death to the Great Satan Simon Crean and the chattering class elites” will chill the entrails of the Iraqis. There is something immensely comforting in knowing we are protected by the likes of this trio, each of whom has pledged their blood to John Howard in the sands of Mesopotamia.

***

Scott Burchill

This is important. A real mess is brewing.

Exile Group Leaders Fault U.S. Plan for Postwar Iraq

By Karl Vick

Washington Post Foreign Service

Wednesday, February 12, 2003; Page A01

SULAYMANIYAH, Iraq, Feb. 11 — Iraqi exile leaders complained today that a U.S. plan to install a military governor for up to a year in postwar Iraq, as outlined by U.S. envoy Zalmay Khalilzad, risks leaving in place an Iraqi administration dominated by the country’s Sunni Muslim minority and veterans of President Saddam Hussein’s Baath Party.

Leaders of the principal exile group, the Iraqi National Congress, said the administration plan, described by Khalilzad last week in Ankara, Turkey, seemed to reflect fears in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Egypt that immediate democracy in Iraq could be destabilizing. The complaints also highlighted concern that the exiles’ role in postwar Iraq could turn out to be less than they anticipated in months of lobbying against Hussein.

“I think it’s a bad policy,” said an Iraqi National Congress official, Kanan Makiya. “I think it’s going to have the opposite effect that they want it to have.” The group, which recently moved here in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq from its base in London, aspires to form a government in exile and exert influence in postwar Baghdad with the support of the United States.

Ahmed Chalabi, the expatriate Iraqi who heads the group, warned that the U.S. plan would leave Hussein’s followers in charge even if Hussein were removed by a U.S. attack. Chalabi, who did not attend the meetings in Ankara but was briefed on them, said the U.S. plan envisions that only the top two officials at each Iraqi ministry would be removed and replaced by U.S. military officers.

“Power is being handed essentially on a platter to the second echelon of the Baath Party and the Iraqi officer corps,” said Makiya, an adjunct professor at Brandeis University in Massachusetts. By leaving in place Hussein’s “structure of power,” Makiya said, the U.S. plan offers a leg up in eventual elections to the Sunni minority that has run Iraq for decades, even though a majority of Iraq’s 23 million inhabitants follow the Shiite branch of Islam.

“I can see Saudi Arabia preferring this option over any other position,” Makiya said, naming the country that regards itself as the protector of Islam’s Sunni branch.

“What concerns us a lot is the perception of the Arab governments and their friends in Washington about the effect the example of Iraq will have on the future of the Arab world,” Chalabi said.

Another opposition leader, speaking on condition of anonymity, agreed. “The Shiites are not going to like this,” he said.

But a Kurdish leader, also part of the anti-Hussein movement, put a softer face on what he acknowledged was a disappointing report from Khalilzad. “I want to keep an open mind about this news,” said Barham Salih of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, which controls a section of northern Iraq beyond the authority of Hussein. “The important thing is to get rid of this dictator.”

Khalilzad, in his Ankara discussions, provided new details to the exile leaders of what the Bush administration has in mind for Iraq after the removal of Hussein. A U.S. military governor would rule the country for up to a year with the advice of an appointed “consultative council,” they said they were told, while a judiciary committee would prepare a draft constitution and elections for a constituent assembly, which would debate, amend and adopt it.

The prospect of a U.S. military government presiding over Iraq’s predominantly Muslim population has fueled concern among exiles and other critics. They point to the appeal of such voices as Osama bin Laden’s in portraying the war as a campaign against Islam as opposed to President Bush’s characterization of it as a war on terrorism. In addition, they complain, the emerging details of the U.S. plan raise questions about the extent of Washington’s commitment to bringing Western-style democracy to Iraq as soon as Hussein is removed.

Administration regard for Iraqi opposition groups has declined markedly since U.S. officials publicly courted the fractious organizations as an alternative to Hussein’s rule. Opposition officials acknowledged the sting of their dip in status. But the groups that claim to represent distinct constituencies — Kurds on one side of the country and Shiites on the other — have taken solace in the prospect of eventually asserting their power at the ballot box.

The groups include two Kurdish political bodies that have governed the rugged northern reaches of the country since the 1991 Persian Gulf War, when U.S. and British warplanes began enforcing a “no-fly” zone that kept Hussein’s forces at bay. Their militias, once considered a possible auxiliary to a U.S. invasion force, have more recently been regarded as a possible problem.

Turkey, a key U.S. ally with a sizable Kurdish population, fears that a war in neighboring Iraq would kindle Kurdish nationalism within its own borders. To help win permission to base U.S. ground forces and warplanes in Turkey, the Bush administration has told the Kurds to stand down when Turkey sends thousands of troops into Iraq, officially to seal the border against a refugee flow and provide humanitarian assistance.

Details of the planned Turkish incursion were spelled out in the Ankara meeting, the exile leaders here said. At the same time, they said, U.S. officials warned about Kurdish ambitions for establishing a federal-style postwar government, which Turkey openly opposes.

“They told the Kurds to be very, very careful and very realistic about federalism,” Chalabi said.

In Iraq’s southern third, a Shiite militia also poses a challenge to Pentagon planners. The force numbers perhaps 10,000 Iranian-backed irregulars loyal to Ayatollah Mohammed Bakir Hakim, head of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq.

In an interview last week in Tehran, the Iranian capital, where the group is headquartered, the ayatollah complained that U.S. reluctance to share war plans has fed anxiety among Iraq’s Shiite majority. Many Shiites answered a U.S. call to rise up against Hussein after the Gulf War only to be slaughtered by his forces.

“The people are suspecting the Americans’ role because in 1991 they supported the Iraqi regime when it was killing nearly half a million in front of the Americans’ eyes,” Hakim said.

While the U.S. officials were explaining their postwar plan in Ankara, Chalabi was drumming up support among other exile groups for a provisional government that would draw on exiles and democrats who emerge within Iraq. He pitched the plan to Hakim in Tehran before traveling to Sulaymaniyah last week to confer with Kurdish leaders in preparation for an opposition conference scheduled for this month.

The conference, postponed three times, is to take place inside the Kurdish-controlled zone, but only miles from Hussein’s forces. Officials expect Khalilzad to head the U.S. delegation, but Chalabi’s group said the Bush administration has been reluctant to encourage the provisional government idea for fear it would complicate war planning.

post

***

OSAMA’S VOICE

Mike Lyvers in Queensland

I fear Bush and Blair are playing right into bin Laden’s hands. His plan is to eliminate all infidels from the Middle East, including Saddam. A war of the West against Saddam would help him fulfil at least part of his dream by pitting the hated infidels against each other.

And I wouldn’t count on democratisation working very well in Iraq, even if this could be achieved by force. The conservative forms of Islam widely practiced in that region (unlike the more benign Sufism practiced in Indonesia) are incompatible with western concepts such as democracy, religious tolerance or universal human rights.

Successive US governments have long quietly debated the issue of whether they should push for democratisation of their erstwhile ally Saudi Arabia, but the sad conclusion of many foreign policy experts is that if the Saudis were given the vote, they would probably elect an even more repressive theocratic regime than the current one. Likewise, if Iraq became another Islamic theocracy, even a (one-off) democratically elected one, this would hardly be an improvement over Saddam.

What to do? Spray the region with MDMA (Ecstasy) perhaps?

***

Nadim Joukhadar

How pathetic is the US Administration going to get? Even in translated form the alleged tape from bin Laden shows what he thinks of Saddam and his cronies. Bin Laden clearly calls them “apostates”, meaning they are also enemies of Islam. does that sound to you like a terrorist link? Somehow the US hawks think so.

Quite frankly this tape sums up the Arab view of Saddam. He is despised globally. What it therefore proves is there is NO link between the War on Terror and the Invasion of Iraq. It would be nice to see one media editor make that statement or provide the story the way it is.

***

Nick Emeljanow in Bicton, Western Australia

It seems that as the US are unable to find or capture the real, obvious, elf confessed global terrorist, it has decided to go hellbent in another direction, and likely to cause a massive humanitarian catastrophe in Iraq.

Unable as the US are to prove a link between the secular Iraqi regime and Al Qaeda, the quintessential irony is that based on the latest rhetoric from Osama Bin Laden, this would be a boon to Al Qaeda in their quest for radicalised Muslims.

Why would the US as the only superpower choose to threaten a former ally, and now a conventional enemy like Saddam Hussein, who has been adequately contained since the end of the Gulf War by the United Nations sanctions process? It seems to me that it’s because it is easier than fighting the phantoms of Al Qaeda.

This is all about seeming to do something and being re-elected. If you don’t believe me, think about the fridge magnets being delivered on behalf of John Howard.

VIEW FROM THE REGION

P Shasi

Like many others, I have been keeping myself updated on the news. I am an Asian (of Indian origin) with a residency in Australia (a choice I made) currently working overseas.

Much of my feelings for Australia has now been called into question, as Howard as done much to decimate my once proud opinion of Australia, its government and its role in Asia. Since I am overseas, much of my knowledge of Australian opinion is that of the government’s standpoint (based on the media’s take on Australia’s stand on the issue).

Had I not been keeping in touch (of late) with Australian current affairs via smh-online, I would have treated the government’s stand as that of the nation’s popular public opinion. It is my belief that Howard has clearly segregated Australia from the rest of Asia.

I am certain, much of Asia (Singapore being the exception) views Australia in much the same way, and will unlikely change their opinion for a long time. It certainly will not end for as long as Howard remains Prime Minister (capable as his government may be).

I believe, Howard has no choice now but to stand by Bush regardless of public opinion. He has already alienated his neighbours. He cannot afford to alienate his friends too.

CONVERSATIONS

M Mullaney in the USA

I find your simplistic assessment of world events and your hostilities towards the US extremely disconcerting. The world was fighting long before George Bush and will continue to do so long after. We here in the US have resolved ourselves to the facts that there will be another attack on civilian targets and most of our long term allies do not care – in fact, many, like the writers in your column, believe we deserve it. How hypocritical is it to oppose an American war against Iraq while subtly condoning terrorist attacks against the US as an understandable response to American arrogance.

***

Tony Powers

Why is it you keep claiming to be a small “L” liberal when all evidence points to the contrary? One only has to refer to Rolling Your Own to see that you are obviously a Big “L” Leftie.

George Bush HAS NOT confirmed that Australia has committed to joining a unilateral strike by the US on Iraq without UN sanction. It does you no credit at all to perpetuate this myth being peddled by the Labour Party, A myth supported only by selective quoting of the US President.

George Bush, in responding to a question as to wether he counted Australia as a member of the Coalition of the Willing answered “Yes I Do, but what that means is up to John to decide”. It is rather informative to note that when quoting the President, Simon Crean neglects to mention the last part of the answer, presumably because it qualifies the first part of the answer and weakens Mr Crean’s argument. Quiet clearly if the PM had already committed to a multilateral strike without UN approval there would have been no need for the President to qualify his response to the question.

As I read the President’s remarks, what he’s saying is that he sees Australia as being committed to the Coalition of the Willing in trying to rid Saddam Hussein of WMD and in trying to get the UN to stick to it’s stated “serious consequences” for non-compliance with resolution 1441. However the second part of the answer “…what this means is up to John” shows that the President respects our sovereign right to make our own decisions about how far that commitment goes. As the PM has frequently stated there is no Australian commitment yet to supporting a multilateral strike without UN approval, and it is this non-decision that the President is referring to in the last part of his answer.

In other words Australia is a member of the “Coalition of the Willing” but we and only we decide how far our commitment to that Coalition goes. This has been the PM’s position for some time now and, in spite of the Labour conspiracy theories, supported more by innuendo and misinformation than any solid evidence or facts, it clearly remains his position.

Margo: Australia has agreed to slot into the US invasion plan (see the Herald story Forces to follow US plan of attack, cited in George Bush: Australia’s war leader, which it saw months ago, defence force chief General Cosgrove said yesterday. It is inconceivable that having agreed to do certain things during the attack, we then pulled out. That would not be the action of an ally, but an enemy, as it would upset the invasion strategy. It would be far worse than Canada’s decision not to deploy troops unless and until the UN sanctions an attack. As to George Bush’s comments, the Coalition of the Willing is by definition the allies who have agreed to join an invasion ordered by the United States. That’s what it means. If Australia hadn’t agreed, it wouldn’t be in the Coalition of the Willing, we’d be in the coalition of the maybes or the no ways. Bush’s remarks after confirming our membership of this select group could have referred to the fact that the terms of engagement – who gives the orders to our soldiers etc – have not yet been signed off, according to defence minister Hill on Lateline last night.

***

Enrico Perrotta, letter to his friend Harry Heidelberg

Dear Harry,

I’ve just read your article attacking Carmen Lawrence (Anti-war nostalgia: Baby boomers strike again). I cannot believe what I’m reading there. Are you serious? Harry, you are a victim.

The US government claims that a terrorist attack is imminent. I don’t know whether it’s imminent or not – I do not trust to an intelligence that hasn’t foreseen September 11 – but I agree with the conclusion that other attacks are likely. Of course they will, do you think that Al Qaeda has disappeared with a bit of bombing over Afghanistan?

But what has Saddam to do with all that? Harry, explain that to me! British intelligence – shall I trust them more? – has confirmed last week that there is no link between the Baath party in Iraq and Al Qaeda. Iraq’s regime is not religious, is not driven by fundamentalism. There is no connection. Full stop. Period. End.

I know what you are saying now: Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and will sell them to terrorists. Therefore, it’s a threat to the world community. I respond to you as follows: Most military experts affirm that Iraq might have some mass destruction weapons (biological), but only in residual amounts. They are not a threat to world security. Full stop. Period. End.

The US is concerned about homeland security. What kinds of weapons were used on the occasion of the biggest attack in US? Knives. Aircrafts. Brains. No Anthrax. No biological weapons at all. Brains, ideology, fanaticism – these were the weapons. We have to fight against them, not against Saddam Hussein.

Harry, you are a victim. A victim of a conspiracy initiated by Bush administration. If you make a survey today in the US and ask who is responsible for September 11 at least one third will say Saddam Hussein. You are all victims. You fear Saddam Hussein instead of being afraid of the real threats.

THE AUSTRALIAN WAY

Paul Walter in Adelaide

What is wrong with you press people? I sat down last night to watch on SBS the most bizarre, disturbing story I have yet seen on a news paper page or TV screen and the issue appears to have been embargoed, censored or just plain ignored out of the media completely.

I speak of the bizarre and horrific decision by the federal government to repatriate 1400 Timorese back to the third world slum we help create for them; after having them in this country for so long that they are now thoroughly “acculturated” to a western lifestyle and possibly unable to settle into a society like East Timor. Talk about a ship of fools; circa 1938!!

You will probably cavil, saying, “Well, he didn’t support the arrival of the boat-people”; why should I care?”.

But consider the differences that make this significant:

1. These people are a known quantity and have shown top citizenship requisites over nearly a decade, now.

2. This country has had a hand in the downfall of East Timor over a period of thirty years.We are not faced with being forced to assume another country’s responsibility; we are responsible in a tangible sense here.

3.We have “acculturated” them to our way of life.To dump these people back in Timor after this length of time must represent a direct threat to their well-being BY US that relates to our embrace of them within our society over a long length of time. Kittens and puppies abandoned after Christmas are treated better than this.

What, or where, are the “liberal values”guiding the thinking processes behind this travesty???? I have never been so affected as I was when 3 young students; young lasses who any Australian would be proud to call “daughter” talked in Aussie accents of their apprehension as to the future, given the government’s unrelenting attitude.

I can’t understand, or forgive Phil Ruddock. No wonder his daughter doesn’t want to know him! The time of emergency, given a possible flood of unknown-quantity “illegals” is long over, if it ever really existed in the first place.Time to “let up”!

I can’t forgive sections of the press and media either. I think of the rubbish that people like Miranda Devine, let alone a swag of unprincipled creatures from the Australian instead employ their print-space for, and I feel such anger, at times.

The intellectual holocaust in our universities has just begun

With the Australian public distracted by Iraq, the time may be ripe for the Howard government to start putting into effect the revolutionary changes in the tertiary sector it has been contemplating.

University reforms will certainly be on the agenda at the meeting of ministers on February 24-25. The meeting is “part of a system inaugurated last year for twice-yearly planning sessions to talk about ‘whole of government’ issues” (Michelle Grattan, The AgetheageFeb13).

Perhaps this was also on the minds of Peter Dawkins and Paul Kelly when they wrote their joint article, “Support Knowledge” (The AustraliantheaustralianFeb4):

Higher education has been an area of policy disappointment and political aggravation for the Howard Government. Its first term was marked by cuts in higher education funding and its second term by a failure to tackle funding and structural reform.

The appointment of a new minister, Brendan Nelson, after the 2001 election signalled a belated effort to improve Australia’s university system. He knows that the status quo is unsustainable.

Their article is steeped in an ominous mood for change and attempts to persuade readers as much as inform them. Under the banner of “supporting knowledge” – an ideal that every thinking Australian feels drawn to – and quoting a number of sources, Dawkins and Kelly lay the groundwork for how the status quo ought to be changed.

Some of the sources correctly identify insufficient private sector investment in universities (eg through joint R&D projects) as a major area of concern. We know this happened following drastic decreases in federal funding since 1996: The private sector has failed to fill the gap, and one result is that “resources are inadequate for undergraduate teaching”, as Peter Karmel so dispassionately put it.

What strikes me about much of the tertiary sector debate in Australia is the careful avoidance of calling a spade a spade. It seems that pseudo-objectivity is meant to facilitate rational debate, but instead guarantees that whatever solution is decided, it will always lie in between the reality, so the root of the problem is never addressed, just passed on further down the line.

Politics and objectivity are irredeemably mixed here, with the solution already contained in the language used for the debate.

Ian Macfarlane, of the Reserve Bank of Australia, tells it more bluntly. He is also quoted in the article. You just wonder how his observation of a national catastrophe could be mollified in the bureaucratic hyper-reality of the rest of the article, as if an automatic assumption by all parties displaying this relativism is that any one man’s observation of general catastrophe contains enough figments of his imagination to justify relativising it out of existence. There are always mitigating circumstances for those who feel the need to avert their gaze.

In reality, the opinion that stamps its mark on everything is that of the federal government, which holds ultimate power in the tertiary sector. The proponents in the debate are merely jostling for position before their audience with the government. Under no circumstances may one step on another’s toes by speaking of the catastrophe at universities: the argument would be too strong if it were accepted as true, and would stymie other parties’ ambitions for a piece of the tertiary sector pie. Therefore it must be diluted in advance. Talk of catastrophe is downright rude and un-Australian.

Macfarlane had said:

The Vice-Chancellor of Melbourne University made the assessment that Australia no longer has a university ranking in the world’s top 100. I have no reason to dispute his opinion as I have heard similar views from other academics. It is imperative for all involved in higher education – governments, bureaucrats, academics and their spokespersons, taxpayers and businesses – to tackle this assessment. It may elicit the old catchcry of ‘elitism’; but far better that than a complacency permitting higher education to slip further.

The same observation was repeated – though with mollified bureaucratic obfuscation again – this week in The Age (Academic standards at risk: study):

Australia’s Group of Eight elite universities believe a new study shows Australia is now at risk of lagging behind the rest of the world in tertiary education.

The Productivity Commission’s International Comparisons of University Resourcing report released today was a useful contribution to the current higher education debate, Go8 president John Hay said.

“It reveals a university sector at risk of lagging behind the rest of the world,” Professor Hay said.

“While the Productivity Commission warns readers not to draw conclusions from the comparisons it makes in its report, it is clear that, on many measures of performance, Australia’s universities are falling behind their international competitors…”

Professor Hay said the report provided a valuable snapshot of 11 Australian universities and 26 international universities drawn from nine countries. “However, an analysis of the university funding trends across the countries surveyed tells the true story.”

The headline says: “Academic standards at risk”. Absolute rubbish. Academic standards in Australia have fallen through the bottom. Here, politeness is propagating a lie.

Ian Macfarlane does not give a feel for the scale of the academic dissent, the near-universal awareness of disaster. It is not just one vice-chancellor here, a professor there. You could hear this view from hundreds, if not thousands, of academics.

Kelly and Dawkins trace out the happy, sanitised medium of their fossicking:

Overall, there appears to be a series of shared principles: that universities become more autonomous; that such autonomy must involve greater revenue-raising scope; that the goals of international excellence and equity be advanced simultaneously; that universities should evolve with more specialisation within institutions and diversity across the sector; that greater public funding is necessary but insufficient to address current inadequacies; that improved undergraduate teaching and a stronger research base are essential; that HECS is the mechanism to deliver student equity and greater private source revenue; and that the shift towards more market-based principles be limited by government price caps and an overall regulatory responsibility.

The article in The Age tells us how far management bureaucrats have taken us with their eyes set on the ever-more-distant mirage of “goals of international excellence”. In fact, over the last decade, they have presided over an intellectual catastrophe in Australian universities.

I do not believe it is an exaggeration to note that this is a classic example of the historical pattern of revolution: goal-oriented, theoretical frameworks are imposed from above with ignorance of the decimation perpetrated at ground level. The devastation is explained away as a necessary step in the path towards future salvation.

No, it is not Marxism. On the contrary, in Australia we have been seeing the management cultural revolution.

Given the failure of the private sector to fill the financial crisis that has arisen particularly since 1996, one might wonder if there isn’t something more basic at work here that Paul Kelly, Peter Dawkins and a few of the commentators they cite are not letting on (or are not aware of).

Some might judge, for instance, that minimalist fiscal policy is fatally unsuited to Australian conditions. Perhaps there is something dreadfully wrong with the economic paradigm that is being applied to education thinking in Australia, with such disastrous results.

The jargon of this paradigm informs and constrains the debate, including the article by Dawkins and Kelly – their entire worldview is limited by it. So too the world-views of the power brokers in the education debate in Australia.

The Howard government acted ideologically correctly in severing a significant portion of its lifeline to the tertiary sector, hoping that the invisible hand would rise to the occasion, but instead found that Australian values (eg managerial suspicion of clever, “merely theoretical” solutions) apropos knowledge precluded closer interaction between the private sector and universities.

Perhaps Australian society is sending a message that universities aren’t really necessary in our country, that we can get by without being clever?

The government tried a free market experiment, and here we have the result. Clear as day.

But no: even the staunchest neo-liberalist cannot accept the evident rejection of universities – after all, he or she was most probably educated at university – and, accepting as a fait accompli that government funding cannot be reinstated to previous levels (plus an allowance for inflation and increased staff-student ratios), the neo-liberalist will claim that the free market experiment was too limited, had flaws, should be extended, universalised, more closely supervised.

Sounds like Marxist apologists following the fall of the Soviet Union – Marxism was never really given a chance.

Both the private sector and universities will have to be educated to view things differently, with a view to changing their natures. Mainly, though – because this, too, is the nature of the matter – universities will have to move closer to industry for the required proliferation of ties to be established.

This is the main gist of the article by Dawkins and Kelly; for buried in their lofty rhetoric, such as “an emerging consensus in Australia” – ie “the [importance of the] nexus between investment in the knowledge economy and national economic performance” – are the same pure, short-term utilitarian values that have permeated university culture since Labor minister John Dawkins’s reforms a decade ago.

In their article, not a single mention is made of the devastation wreaked on the humanities, as well as on the pure sciences and mathematics, in the last decade by the cultural revolution led by management ideologues. Where do these human endeavours fit in in the flea market of the “knowledge economy”?

No space exists in the imaginations of the reformists for institutes of philosophy, history, classics and music – to name just a few – even though ever since the Renaissance, these fields have played a major role in the development of our – Western – culture.

Western culture is rationalizing itself out of existence, destroying its own memory of itself. It is transforming itself into a universalised, globalised husk of economic exchange value.

Given the self-centred utilitarian imperatives advocated – at least in the language used – by all the commentators quoted by Kelly and Dawkins, the question arises, who is going to pay for those pillars of human (and self) knowledge that cannot be immediately bartered as economic goods, if not the federal government, which is supposed to be entrusted with the well-being of our education system?

If Dawkins and Kelly truly supported knowledge, they would also support the type of knowledge that cannot be immediately cashed in for the benefit of “national economic performance”.

The funding for these must come from a pool established for the public good: ie the federal government.

I’m not talking about basket-weaving courses that have proliferated at universities under the inspiration of John Dawkins and ever since, but the pillars of western culture, which have been devastated in Australia.

There are undoubtedly other fields that are on the verge of extinction that we would desire keeping. Are the decision-makers aware of which ones these are? The problem is, in the sanitised bureaucratic relativism, the danger never seems real, so the issue never comes up.

The reality contradicts the vision of the revolutionaries.

Australia in the last decade has lost world authorities in fields too numerous to mention, and is in serious risk of losing most of the rest. Why should the world’s leading authority on Alexander the Great, for example, remain in Australia any longer, when the rest of his department has been decimated?

Does the Australian public care? The Australian public is not even aware of the intellectual holocaust perpetrated in Australian universities over the last decade. Somehow the news has not penetrated the fog of government propaganda, bureaucratic obfuscation and media disinterest. Australians would be outraged if they knew what was happening.

Considering the big picture – which the utilitarians have cut themselves off from – contrary to the hopes of the reformists, the focus on utilitarian values rather than free inquiry guarantees that the economic benefits will be relatively small-scale.

With the extinguishing of much fundamental research at maths and physics departments around Australia, and the push for fragmentation into applied, technological areas, Australia is losing the ability to discover new concepts and new paradigms.

This means we will forever be locked into figuring out better ways of designing, say, circuits for electronic gadgets, but we will never discover new paradigms of technology, something like the successor to the mobile phone.

Even if somebody did, the resources would not be present to support the development. Australia is digging her own grave – for this reason, apart from a tiny number of exceptions, the country has become a technological backwater.

Utilitarian values are fundamentally backward looking because they encourage fragmentation. As the philosopher Thomas Kuhn and many others have noted, free inquiry is the foundation of scientific progress.

Healthy humanities departments are a sign that a nation values free inquiry – and that society does not just grab at short-term material gain, but values knowledge, which actually means mastering the process of acquiring solid, well-founded knowledge. The benefits of this flow across all fields of endeavour.

Nations that value free inquiry will reap the economic benefits of owning the intellectual rights to new technological paradigms. That’s where the real money is. The federal government has its eyes set on peanuts.

* * *

1. The Next Step in Howard’s Revolution?

After Labor’s John Dawkins departed, Howard accelerated university reforms drastically. We are now at a point where a new level of severity may be set in motion. What might Howard’s revolution look like? How bold will he be?

The noises coming from reformists are entirely utilitarian, and are stuck in an economic (rather than a broader civil) paradigm. The reforms will be impregnated with the values of those who conceived them: an economic order will be imposed on universities even more drastic than at present.

Paul Kelly and Peter Dawkins cite University of Melbourne vice-chancellor Alan Gilbert: The aim is to revitalise universities as more autonomous and accountable institutions.

Peter Karmel is cited as saying: Centralised government planning that dominates the sector must be dismantled to allow each institution to determine its destiny.

All this sounds fairly innocuous. But to an observer of university reforms in Europe, particularly in Austria in 2002, it is all too familiar.

We can anticipate other aspects of the coming Australian university reforms. Universities will be brought closer to the private sector to make them more “useful” for industry. Universities will have to be less “cerebral” and more applied. Management ideologues would find very attractive a restructuring in the tertiary sector that forces, for instance, extensive top-down allocation of scientific or technological tasks to universities by a higher body such as the education ministry.

After all, in the last decade (at least), company heads have purged democratic elements and imposed despotic in-house regimes that abrogate basic rights in a way that would be outrageous if imposed on an entire nation. Company structures are anti-democratic.

If Howard is really bold, he will go the whole way with the reform and impose a power structure that facilitates quick and effective imposition of government will.

He would put a vertical power structure in place whereby the federal government will have direct influence, in principle, on all functions of the university, which will enable it to force the assimilation process between the private sector and universities. This will be done under the banner of boosting national productivity while solving the university funding crisis. And, of course, “supporting knowledge” and “goals of international excellence”.

The reforms could therefore have the character of a bloody purge, with government henchmen appointed to strategic positions, while entrenching a compliant majority in the most important university governing bodies.

Does this sound impossibly far fetched? Hardly. This is exactly what has been happening in Austria since 2002. It is happening now.

A look at current university reforms in Austria – conceived and set in motion by Austria’s right-populist, economically neo-liberal, coalition in 2002 – may well be a guide to the next step in the neo-liberalist revolution in Australia.

***

2. In the Image of their Creators – the Management Ideologues

The following article arose in the context of the Austrian university reforms, which were passed into Austrian law shortly before the collapse of the People’s Party/Freedom Party coalition in the northern autumn. Academics there are helpless to stop the devastation, while private sector commentators are very enthusiastic.

The article was published in German in an Austrian academic magazine in July 2002. I have adapted it extensively for Webdiary. The article expounds on the reforms in Austria, as well as the effects of the reforms we have had in Australia since the Dawkins era. The story is told from the angle of freedom of expression and separation of powers.

I explain the mechanisms with which the Australian federal government controls universities – essentially two purse strings do the trick – as well as why freedom of expression still exists on Australian campuses. The latter does not exist anymore – in principle – on Austrian campuses. A successful purge by the Australian government would likewise have to eliminate the possibility of public dissent from academics.

Along the way, I outline the way HECS works, and how HECS money gets funneled to universities from the federal government. This was intended for the magazine’s Austrian and German readership – in Austria, there were no student fees until recently, and these low fees were introduced with the same propaganda to the effect that they would not rise very much. Anybody interested in a quick overview of the Australian system may want to read this.

I use actual financial statements – available online – from the University of Western Australia, an Australian Group-of-Eight university to argue that the main cause of the crisis in Australian universities are the values imposed by the policies of the two federal governments since the early 1990s, particularly the Howard Government since 1996.

The statements clearly show that the drastic measures for cutting back public spending in the tertiary sector it implemented have failed to invigorate private sector investment in the tertiary sector, while the value-laden vision imposed in that period of what a university is meant to be is now thoroughly entrenched.

Regarding this last point, the figures clearly show universities have been transformed into the image of their management ideologue reformers – while many academic departments such as classics, philosophy and the pure sciences have been decimated and staff have been at breaking point providing courses of inadequate standard because of lack of money, expenditure on “administration” and “student services” together doubled between 1996 and 2000.

[In 1996, when the management cultural revolution began to be implemented immensely more severely, “Administration and Other General Institutional Services” amounted to $22,918,000, “Student Services” amounted to $3,957,000, a total of $26,938,000. See uwa and uwa. In 2000, “Administration and Other General Institutional Services” amounted to $38,266,000, “Student Services” amounted to $15,654,000, a total of $53,920,000. See uwa. The increase in the university’s spending on administration and student services in these four years is more than one-third the total academic staff salaries in 2000 (Ibid.).]

Unfortunately, as I noted above, the situation can get worse. In this Webdiary article, I want to draw attention to this possibility. I also want to show why the charge of “economic fundamentalist revolution” sticks. Here is the reworked article.

***

Those who want to familiarize themselves with the future effects of the current university reforms in Austria would be well advised to read Rudolf Muhr’s article on the situation in Australian tertiary institutions. His subheadings give a good overview: for example, “Falling standard of courses.” “High workload due to chronic staff shortages.” “Study without prospect of a job in your field in industry or at university.” This is the interim balance of the reforms introduced into Australian universities in the early 1990s by Peter Dawkins, but made significantly more severe since 1996.

On one point, however, Mr. Muhr is wrong. Unlike the Australian situation before 2003, the Austrian reforms – and I will argue this below – serve only the end of permanently entrenching neoliberal ways of thinking and values – which have all the characteristics of a kind of fundamentalism – into everyday university life. The current Austrian reforms’ strategic goal is the establishment of a vertical power apparatus permeating all levels, with which the government – the present one or any in the future – can in principle directly influence every aspect of university life.

In each Austrian university, extraordinary power is to be given to a small clique – the “University Council”. This clique will be controlled by the Austrian chancellor or other ministers. Austrian universities will become the playgrounds of government ministers playing politics.

In principle, the Council’s five members (or seven, depending on the final wording of the legislation to be enacted) will have the last word on all university decisions at all levels, irrespective of the considered opinion of the University Senate, even though the University Senate is the body that knows its own university best. In an attempt to counter what it sees as self-serving bias in university senates, Austria’s right-populist government swung to an extreme position, and made the university senate irrelevant.

As with any executive body, the small clique of the University Council will certainly have human flaws. The problem is, because of the concentration of power, any imperfections in government or university policies will be magnified throughout the university. Even small misjudgements will have far-reaching effects. In particular, the values of the clique will be imprinted easily on the rest of the university.

Incredibly, then, according to the reforms, all five members of the University Council must be found outside the university. In fact, because of the way the process has been designed, three of them (i.e. a majority) can ultimately be appointed by the government. They can be business leaders or former ambassadors, people without knowledge of how universities work, or of the nature of ground-breaking scientific research – nor with a sense of the importance of the humanities.

This grab for power in the universities via the University Council is the main feature of the Austrian university reforms. University employees will be forced to submit to – at best – benevolent absolutism. Democracy is being pushed aside, as if the clock has been suddenly turned back to the early 1930s.

The imminent danger in the vertical power structure is that short-term university contracts will be used as a tool of selecting out undesirable personnel quasi-automatically. If you want to keep your job, you will have to conform to the official line and remain silent. This affects all qualification levels, from research assistant to full professor (for new staff appointed after the law is enacted).

In Australia at the beginning of 2003, in contrast – ultimately as a consequence of separation of powers – mechanisms still exist that are supposed to protect freedom of expression at universities. It is still possible, for instance, to voice hefty criticism of government policy in the media. Even in Australia, however, the danger is everpresent that these mechanisms can be corrupted – and in some instances, they already have been.

As far as I am aware, no direct government interference exists in the everyday working of Australian universities. Rather, the government exerts hands-off control by setting framework conditions that the universities have to follow. These framework conditions are permeated by the government’s values and worldview. The government defines the framework, and the senate and various committees at each university must work within this.

In contrast to the reforms being enacted in Austria, each Australian university is – in early 2003 – autonomous in the sense that its actual peak body is the senate – not the “executive group” or some other council – and the senate is not dominated by external appointees. By far the majority of its members are university employees – both academic and non-academic – and students, with some outside appointees from business or elsewhere. The university senate in Australia is not (yet) a committee of party cadres appointed by the government.

Although the universities manage themselves autonomously, their autonomy – as well as commitment to freedom of expression and freedom of academic inquiry – can be corrupted in the face of incessant political pressure to conform. Eventually the payoff for conforming might seem to outweigh the cost, and enough members of the university power structure might fall into line to form a majority. Moreover, individuals – such as a chancellor or single-minded committee – can cause great damage before the democratically elected senate has the chance – or finds the will – to intervene with a corrective influence. (The documentary “Facing the Music”, directed by Bob Connolly and Robin Anderson, focuses on the early stages of such a process at the University of Sydney in 2000.)

The university must dance to the government’s tune even if the government’s worldview and values are contrary to the values that are basic to scholarship and education. The reason is two-fold: the universities are financially dependent on the public sector; and they are unable to impress on public opinion the need to alter the government’s values.

I am not convinced that the government in Australia reflects community values on the question of university policy. If Australians new the true state of our university system, they would be outraged.

The Australian Ministry of Education provides universities with two types of financial assistance: “Operational Grants and Infrastructure” and “Research”.

3. “Operational Grants and Infrastructure” Funding

This is used to pay salaries, purchase new equipment and so on. This money is distributed by the government in accordance with a framework formula contained in the HEFA (Higher Education Funding Act). Then at each university, the finance committee decides how the money is to be further allotted to the various academic departments and institutes.

Although the distribution of funding by the financial committee is strictly regulated by numerous norms defined by the university itself, the university’s performance and economic indicators must conform to the policy framework handed down by the federal government. If it fails to conform, it will lose funding, in accordance with the HEFA formula.

Otherwise the university is free to do what it wishes with the funding. When the distribution of funds within a university appears to be unjust, it is still possible in Australia to alter a few details of the distribution through the university senate – or even to go so far as to dump the chancellor (as occurred not very long ago at the University of Sydney).

4. Research Funding Through the ARC

The other somewhat brittle buffer between the Australian government and the universities consists of the second category of funding, namely “Research”. The federal government assigns a certain amount of money to an expert committee – the “Australian Research Council” (ARC) – and this is responsible for distributing the sum among academic research groups at universities.

Although the framework conditions are strictly defined by the government (for example, in 2002, a large proportion of the money had to be allotted to a small number of applied technical fields), I believe that the expert committee can carry out its work of evaluating the scientific merit of ARC applications without further government interference.

Moreover, as far as I am aware, there have been no cases where the ARC has withheld grants – or rejected applications – from applicants who expressed criticism of the government or its policies. Members of the ARC themselves have criticised government policy with integrity, at hearings such as the Australian Senate Estimates Committee.

Nevertheless, in 2001, only about 20 percent of ARC applications were successful. Most of these resulted in only a part of the requested sum being granted (a minority received more than requested). The main reason? This depends on whom you ask. However, everybody agrees there isn’t enough money in the system.

5. Funding Black Hole Since 1996 has not Been Filled – Failure of Laissez-Faire Policy

A telling statistic appeared in The Australian on May 8, 2002. In 2001, the entire landscape of funding sources for research at Australian universities looked like this: Federal Government (ARC) 47%; Federal Government (other grants) 9%; Companies 16%; Donations 7%; State Governments 9%; from overseas 9%.

This ought to be seen as a damning statistic. Indeed, this is probably an important reason for the increasingly loud calls in Australia for university reform. However, most supporters of reform are calling for more free market measures, not less, while ignoring the devastation of academic fields in Australia whose knowledge cannot be immediately cashed in as tokens of national productivity.

Free market reforms in themselves are not evil if applied rationally, introduced gradually to wean away academic fields from government funding if they are able to stand on their own two feet; so that fields that are vulnerable in the brave new world – and that we want to keep alive – can be identified and supported by non-free-market measures.

However, they are evil if applied with ideological fervour, imposed from above equally blindly to all areas of human endeavour, perpetrators indifferent to the destruction they cause. This is clearly what has happened in Australia.

After nearly a decade of free market reforms in the tertiary sector, of encouraging private enterprise to participate, and despite massive cuts to tertiary spending in the area of “operational grants and infrastructure” resulting in great pain within academic departments, the federal government still holds a massive stake in research funding.

It can rid itself of less than half of its research grants burden. It still provides 56% of research funding.

By withdrawing from the tertiary sector and provoking difficult times there, the federal government has been trying to draw other sources of funding out from Australian society.

But the private sector has shown itself much more reluctant to put money into the tertiary sector than the federal government had hoped.

This is despite the very attractive prospect of cheap scientific or other scholarly labour in the form of doctoral or senior undergraduate students: companies have not rallied to sponsor PhDs at university as much as the ideologues had hoped.

I should add that in the one country where the free market model works (at least for the wealthy universities), namely the U.S., a significant factor in departmental survival is the hundreds of millions of dollars received in the form of donations from wealthy graduates. A comparable culture does not exist – and is unlikely ever to exist – in Australia. This is a major difference in the underlying conditions where the free market model is being applied.

The last decade can be viewed as the government’s experiment to guide a macroeconomic system – decrease government spending, and see if private investment increases. But the experiment has failed.

Now, there are two divergent ways to proceed. It seems that a choice is about to be made between them by the federal government, if it hasn’t already been made.

The first is to put the reluctance of the private sector to invest in the Australian tertiary sector down to something about the nature of Australian society; to accept this as being too big a phenomenon to change on a large enough scale to solve the problem; and to support the academic fields that need it with more public funding. Other free market reforms (e.g. deregulation) can be gradually introduced so as to minimize the destruction of fields we think are valuable.

The second is to continue, and increase the severity of, the ideological experiment by attempting to draw vastly more investment from the private sector through bringing the universities to the companies.

As the article by Paul Kelly and Peter Dawkins shows, it seems that a number of commentators – unsurprisingly, most commentators from industry and a few from academia, exactly as is the case in Austria – are keen on the latter solution.

6. HECS for Some Courses Will at Least Double Under Deregulation

Student fees in Australia create a cash inflow under the category of “Operational Grants and Infrastructure”. They are not used to fund research directly. Under HECS (Higher Education Contribution Scheme), students must pay a portion (between about 25 and 45 percent) of the deemed cost of their studies. The federal government is at present still responsible for establishing the HECS fees structure. This centralization is one of the main irritants for reformists.

A small proportion of students (about 2 percent) who are Australian citizens – and all foreign students – pay the entire cost of their studies up front, which are deemed to be between about $15,000 to $28,000 annually.

(In some cases, these figures are absurd overestimates: for instance, a mathematics PhD student, who works largely independently, only ever uses some space in a crowded room, pens and paper – ie lighting and stationery costs – and a computer. The amount of time spent with his or her supervisor is minimal. None of this justifies such a massive HECS fee. The deemed amount is completely irrational.)

Foreign students must pay in advance, while Australians have the option of repaying the HECS loan upon commencement of employment with a graduate salary. If a student becomes a missionary in India, or a struggling artist, he or she may never have to repay the loan. At present, the loan attracts a small interest rate.

Australians can buy university places by paying HECS up front, though the ratio of full-fee paying places and HECS loan places is strictly controlled by law. In a deregulated tertiary “market” (i.e. a changed law), as is currently being mooted by the Australian federal government, the proportion of full-fee paying places will certainly rise.

Based on the number of HECS-scheme students at a census date each semester, each university gets an immediate grant from the federal government. Fees paid in advance also go towards a university’s operational costs and infrastructure.

In accordance with the HEFA legislation, the universities also receive a performance-based grant from the Education Ministry calculated using a complicated formula that considers the number of HECS-paying (or loan) students and foreign students at the university. This grant also goes into “Operational Grants and Infrastructure”, as is by far the largest single contribution to a university’s cash receipts. At UWA in 2000, the commonwealth government HEFA grant received was $108,136,000 – out of the total operating revenues of $334,566,000 (about a third of revenue). The source of the HEFA grant is the Australian taxpayer, not the student paying HECS.

It is the size of this grant that has caused havoc at universities. At UWA between 1996 and 2000, it decreased by 12 percent, despite a vast increase in the number of students enrolled at the university and concomitant increase in workload for academics. [In 1996, UWA received commonwealth grants for “operating purposes excluding HECS” of $108,136,000. In 2000, the same entry was $95,539,000 – a decrease of 12 percent in four years: uwa and uwa]

When vice-chancellors complain about inadequate federal government funding, they are referring to the size of the HEFA grant towards operational costs and infrastructure.

The shortfall in commonwealth funding of operational costs and infrastructure in 2000 – disregarding increased workloads – was $12,597,000. In that year, total HECS receipts by UWA were $39,651,000 (see uwa).

Therefore HECS would have to go up by about one-third across all courses just to make up the shortfall in commonwealth government HEFA funding. If you add inflation over four years, and take into account the extra pressures on operation costs and infrastructure caused by the increase in student numbers since 1996 – and assume that university managers will actually want to fix the problem – we’re looking at a jump in HECS across the board of at least two-thirds.

This is what the deregulation reformists are advocating – but nobody ever mentions the figures.

But HECS won’t rise equally across the board – the increase will be greater for some courses than others. I would not be surprised if HECS for some courses would double under deregulation.

According to the Productivity Commission report in The Age (Feb 4, 2003), if staff-student ratios were to be returned to 1993 levels, “Australian universities would need to have employed almost 10,000 equivalent full-time academic staff”.

If this extremely unlikely event were to occur, I estimate that HECS would have to at least triple.

7. Failure of Reforms

The federal government reduced its contribution in the hope that student fees (and private industry) could make up the shortfall – but they haven’t. The absence of a significant increase in private sector contributions means there’s a problem.

From the financial statements at the UWA website, if the university wanted to regain the 15 percent decrease in federal funding since 1996 by increasing student fees in a deregulated “market”, some student fees would have to be nearly double their 2001 levels.

Fees would have to increase substantially in a deregulated sector to make an impact.

The rest of the university’s income comes from returns on investments, donations and the sale of real estate and other assets – hardly a solid long-term strategy. This cannot be relied upon for any extended length of time.

Unless Australian industry’s reluctance to engage with university changes drastically – which would represent a seismic shift in culture, in either one direction or the other – Australia’s university reforms will continue to be a failure. Student fees alone cannot be a substitute for government funding.

The Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee (AVCC) repeatedly emphasises that the main cause of the crisis at Australian universities is the sharp decrease in federal government funding under HEFA since 1996. As I have shown, the claim is supported by analysing universities’ financial statements.

8. The Human Cost of the Laissez Faire Policy – the Extent of Australia’s Intellectual Holocaust

Because of these cuts to funding of operational costs and infrastructure, numerous – but certainly not all – academic departments and institutes are experiencing enormous difficulties in functioning from day to day. A significant number have been closed down.

Amongst the academic fields threatened with extinction in Australia – virtually without exception – are those that since the Renaissance have played a major role in the development of our – Western – culture. Institutes of philosophy, history, classics and music have been decimated. Australia has lost world leaders in these fields, and is in serious risk of losing most of the rest.

Moreover, the expertise required for Australia to acquire fundamental knowledge of other cultures – particularly Asian, and aboriginal Australian, cultures – has largely fled the country or left academia. Most foreign language departments are in dire straits, some unable to offer more than the most threadbare degree programs.

Apparently, not even national productivity is the main factor in the educational policy of the Australian federal government. Japanese studies at university, and Chinese in high schools, have been dealt a death blow, despite the fact that less than ten percent of Australians (excluding immigrants) speak a foreign language, and despite the fact that Japan is Australia’s most important trading partner.

Australians are being asked to believe that ignorance of Asian cultures will have no negative effect on current or future contracts worth billions of dollars – as if money and self-interest are the only factors that decide a deal; as if self-centred cultural ignorance cannot sink deals worth millions.

In the last decade, Australia has lost knowledge and expertise in every field that underpins both technological advances and the “knowledge economy”, without which the nation’s ability to compete in international markets is endangered. The situation is getting worse: for instance, the number of physicists in academia nationwide has fallen from 360 (1994) to 240 (2000) in 6 years. A similar rate of attrition exists in mathematics.

The worst aspect of this annihilation of fundamental research in Australia is that a significant proportion of the best, most experienced and most gifted researchers – who would have formed the kernel of future physics or mathematics departments in Australia – have left the country.

The reason for the exodus is the poor working conditions in Australia – if a department still exists to work in. Since the threat of exorbitant cutbacks is everpresent, researchers have to fossick practically continuously for money, while simultaneously carrying out their research and teaching duties – in lecture rooms where the staff-student ratio was only ever higher in the 1960s. In this respect, the free market reforms at our universities have set us back 40 years.

According to an article this week in The Age (“Academic standards at risk: study”, Feb 12, 2003)’:

Australia’s Group of Eight elite universities believe a new study shows Australia is now at risk of lagging behind the rest of the world in tertiary education.

The Productivity Commission’s International Comparisons of University Resourcing report released today was a useful contribution to the current higher education debate, Go8 president John Hay said.

“It reveals a university sector at risk of lagging behind the rest of the world,” Professor Hay said.

“While the Productivity Commission warns readers not to draw conclusions from the comparisons it makes in its report, it is clear that, on many measures of performance, Australia’s universities are falling behind their international competitors.”

Student teacher ratios were a good example, he said. “The commission’s summary of findings states that student-teacher ratios have increased somewhat, yet the detail of the report reveals that the ratio of students to teaching staff has actually increased from 14.3 in 1993 to 19.9 in 2001,” he said.

“Australian universities would need to have employed almost 10,000 equivalent full-time academic staff to have restored our student-staff ratio to its 1993 level.”

Professor Hay said the report provided a valuable snapshot of 11 Australian universities and 26 international universities drawn from nine countries. “However, an analysis of the university funding trends across the countries surveyed tells the true story.”

In universities at present, on average over all courses, the staff-student ratio is higher than in high schools.

But working conditions are not bad in all areas at university. On the contrary: no employee in a university’s administration has to put up with such job insecurity or such a workload – and in many cases (especially compared to casual academic staff) is better paid.

Indeed, since 1996, while most academic departments have been relentlessly trimmed, management and administration at each university have been fattened generously.

As I demonstrated above, the figures clearly show universities have been transformed into the image of their management ideologue reformers – while many academic departments such as classics, philosophy and the pure sciences have been decimated and staff have been at breaking point providing courses of inadequate standard because of lack of money, expenditure on “administration” and “student services” together doubled between 1996 and 2000, and have increased further in the two years since then.

In 2002, the situation for academic departments worsened. The number of enrolled students nationwide rose by 103,000 (The Australian, May 8, 2002: “Student Bonanza”). Measured in “effective full-time student units” (EFTSU), the increase amounted to 8.3 percent. Nevertheless, the cull in departments across many universities was accelerated (The Australian, May 8, 2002: “Academics Resigned to Jobs Cull”).

The education minister emphatically ruled out an increase in the HEFA grant, so academic workloads increased significantly. The effect? For example, courses in poorer departments had to be given without tutorials.

Moreover, these days in academic departments, one can come across a strange spectacle. It sometimes happens that within a department, two or three research groups hit the jackpot with millions in research funding, while the department itself cannot afford to pay its professors and assistants to run courses properly. Not only must tutorials be abandoned due to lack of funding, laboratories for students remain fitted out with museum pieces.

Nevertheless, government slogans try to convince Australians that our standard of education is one of the highest in the world, and that the tertiary education sector can never ever fall into ruin.

The reality in Australian universities is unacceptable in a system whose political minders employ boastful, self-congratulatory slogans like “world’s best practice”. Courses standards at Australian universities are unacceptably low. Government propaganda on this issue defies common sense.

Yet the Australian public allows itself to be conned by the illusion that education policy is no more than management. Instead of reporting the facts, the media actively propagates the value that “good management equals good education policy”.

Hence the explosion of meaningless “objective” performance measures – disconnected from the ground-level reality – that mean anything to anyone, and can be manipulated at whim.

In practice, the pre-2003 university reforms in Australia have been oriented towards pure, short-term utilitarian values. They have also increased Australia’s national isolation. Despite record numbers of foreign students, Australian students are learning less about other cultures and languages.

The winners – the departments that attract enormous student numbers because that’s the road to economic prosperity – are big winners; but there are many losers that should not be – e.g. classics and foreign languages.

***

9. Why Utilitarian Values are Incompatible with the Nature of Research – An Economic Paradigm of Pure Exchange Value Cannot Solve the Problem at Universities

Unfortunately, no significant other source of funding of “University Operating Costs and Infrastructure” and “Research” has surfaced, contrary to the minimalist neo-liberalist economic theory. Or, on the contrary, this is quite in accordance with principles of survival of the fittest – when the rules for the gladiatorial contest for survival are rigged so that certain measures of degrees of death are ignored.

The reason for the failure of the private sector to work more closely with universities is also clear. It is ultimately this. Absolutely essential for significant research to take place, and for proper lecturing to be carried out, is the ability to free oneself of imposed ideological authority.

The history of scientific revolutions repeatedly confirms this: every single significant discovery has been a heresy against the orthodoxy of the day. One could almost take this as the definition of “significant discovery”. The prevention of expression of heresies hinders scientific progress, and sets a society back to the Middle Ages. This is also demonstrated by the entrenched scientific backwardness of Islamic countries today, particularly those leaning towards fundamentalism.

Political force cannot guide creativity.

Economic competition and the predominance of economic exchange value stand in bold, destructive contradiction to scholarship, because the fundamental basis of scholarship is the free (also in the sense of without material reward) exchange of ideas.

Scholarship cannot exist without free exchange of ideas: scholarship must be open, containing motives that are the opposite of self-interest, even when much self-interest (e.g. ambition) is present. Even in Europe, where professors have their own fiefdoms at university, and everybody is essentially working for the professor’s (and their own) aggrandisement, results of research are distributed freely upon request.

Quite understandably, companies cannot afford to be patrons of universities: they have to take care of their own, short-term profit interests – which these days, unfortunately, all too often mean those of the shareholders and, particularly, the directors.

In contrast, the evolution of a civilisation, or of a scholarly community, is a long-term process.

A paradigm shift has occurred in our culture. A break has occurred with the university tradition, which has resulted in the collapse of trust in the competence and working methods of scientists and scholars of our time. The values these entail have also been rejected. What is behind this change?

If you look at the effects of university reforms in Australia over the last decade, you could be excused for thinking that the management ideologues hate the humanities and the pure sciences. Why would they?

Universities are places where heresies must be pursued. Despite the fact that it is ever more rarely seen – and conformity is becoming ever more the norm – universities in Australia are still the last bastions in our society where freedom of thought and unfettered discourse can occur.

Exactly because of this, universities are a thorn in the side of the neo-liberal missionaries.

Neo-liberalism – itself a theory with strengths and weaknesses like any other – has become a theistic belief with missionary ambitions. The deviation from rationality is clear in the arrogant blind eye given to the catastrophe in the humanities and pure sciences in Australia, while magnificent visions of “goals of international excellence” are proclaimed as the reality.

Plausible arguments or rafts of material proof of the catastrophe make no impression on the zealots. As long as public opinion is not mobilised towards exercising political, democratic power, a course correction is not to be expected.

Saddam as Stalin: The case for war

This long, thoughtful piece by Ian MacDougall argues the case for war by means of a deep engagement with and considered response to Scott Burchill’s piece ‘Counterspin: Pro-war mythology’. I highly recommend it.

The annotated Scott Burchill

by Ian MacDougall

Scott Burchill’s Counterspin: Pro-war mythology, is quite thoughtful, and apparently is having some influence on the web, but a number of critical comments need to be made on it. Rather than submit these as a separate article necessitating continual reference by the reader to Burchill’s original, I have decided to make use of the possibilities offered by the Web and my own computer to produce this annotated version.

I am by training a biology teacher, but have retired from that now. These days I make my living, at least in part, by fattening cattle for the market. The current drought gives me the enforced leisure to pursue other interests, one of which is my lifelong interest in politics.

Orbiting around the issue of the looming war in Iraq we find a shoal, like unto a whole asteroid belt, of red herrings. Writers against the present positions of both opposition and government in Australia, and against those of the US and Britain, commonly point to inconsistencies of behaviour over the years of the US, Britain and Australia. Examples of hypocrisy and double standards are not hard to find in historical literature.

One can also find the issue of Saddam and his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) linked to the asylum seekers and such issues as Aboriginal land rights. The question is often asked: If it is all right for the US and Britain to have WMD, why can’t Saddam have them too?

Others may speculate on such questions if they wish, but the answers to them are useless unless two fundamental questions are addressed, namely: (a) What are the likely consequences if the US goes in to Iraq to remove Saddam, with or without UN approval, and (b) What are they if it does not? My suggested answers are set out in my discussion of Scott Burchill’s article below.

The United States has a marvellous set of documents in its Declaration of Independence, its Constitution, and its Bill of Rights. But if democracy means rule by the people, then we can only allow that like Australia and Britain, it is ruled by an oligarchy appointed by the electorate and subject also to dismissal by it. To that extent, and to that extent only, it is a “democracy”. But that is clearly enough to satisfy most of its citizens, and until a better working model is built somewhere, and not just proposed, this situation is likely to continue. Until that situation arises, representative government will remain as assessed by Winston Churchill; the least worst system yet devised.

However, wherever found it has one major drawback: those elected by the people as representatives tend themselves not to be democrats. Machine politics as played in modern states is a game as much of ignoring the popular will and of manipulating it to one’s own advantage through expensive media campaigns as it is about finding out what that will is and putting it into effect. The concept of the non-core promise introduced by John Howard into Australian politics is significant here. As Lord Acton astutely observed: Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. It is arguable that parliamentary democracy would be improved by observation of a simple rule: Power should never be given to anybody who seeks it.

In this contest between Saddam and the US alliance as formed to date we have fully corrupt absolute power on the one hand versus non-absolute power with a legacy of corruption on the other.

It is in the realm of their work where they are not subject to an electorate within their own country and the effects of their decisions impinge on the lives of (mainly poor) foreigners, chiefly in the Third World, that the undemocratic nature of democratically elected politicians comes to the fore.

As critics such as Noam Chomsky, Robert Fisk, John Pilger, and now Scott Burchill never tire of pointing out, the history of the Twentieth Century is studded with examples of dictators put into power and supported by Western “democratic” governments; of outrages such as the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Chile by a junta operating with the support of the CIA, but more commonly of Third World democracy being stifled through Western assistance in the installation of local uniformed mafia as governments. Examples are easy to find, and Burchill provides a number.

In the 1930s, US President Franklin Delano Roosevelt reportedly replied when told that the Nicaraguan dictator Somoza was a bastard, “Yes, but he’s our bastard.” The problem with such an approach is not just the embedded cynicism, but the fact that bastards have a way of being bastards and turning on their owners.

The moral principle to my knowledge first put forward by the great Jewish philosopher Hillel (c 100 BC) is relevant here: Do not do to others what you don’t want others to do to you. A simple rule for all politicians to observe: If you want the affection of the people of your own or any other country, don’t support their oppressors. It has unfortunately been a long time in the learning, and is easily forgotten. Actions taken in this regard by past US administrations are clearly having a deleterious effect on the level of domestic and international political support available to the present one.

Efforts to dress the looming war in anything that does not reek of petroleum are running into considerable difficulty as well. At the same time, few people in the West would challenge the contention that the removal of Saddam would be a good thing for the bulk of the Iraqi population, or defend his right to power or to the exercise of it in the appalling way he does. Many also would agree with the critics who say that his removal is an internal political problem for Iraq, ie a problem for the Iraqi people to solve, and outsiders should have no part in it.

However, the careers of two Twentieth Century politicians brought humanity face to face with itself in a particularly gruesome way. Adolf Hitler and his adversary Joseph Stalin (Saddam Hussein’s role model and hero) showed clearly what was possible through the exercise of power in the context of modern technology, communications and transport. The deeds of these two displayed to a degree unparalleled in history what humans organised into bureaucracies and authoritarian hierarchies are capable of in terms of the creation of death, misery, enslavement and debasement of the human spirit. But also they showed possibilities of power previously unheard of.

Stalin exceeded even Hitler. Hitler exercised power on the model of the Roman emperors, from which he borrowed much of the paraphernalia of the Nazi religion, including the salutes, the chants of “Heil!,” the banners and the methods. Surrounding the Roman emperor was the elite of the armed forces, the Praetorian Guard. Hitler’s version of this was the SS, which swore personal allegiance to him, and after a purge of rival power in mid 1934 (in which it is generally estimated that several hundred leaders of Ernst Rohm’s brownshirt organisation were arrested and executed without trial by the Gestapo) was subject to no routine of intimidation. That was not true for the rest of the German Army or the population of course.

But Stalin achieved something else again. His elite, which terrorized the whole USSR under his direction, was the People’s Commissariat of Internal Affairs (NKVD), forerunner of the KGB. But the cadres of the NKVD were no privileged elite in the sense of being free of fear of arrest and ‘liquidation’. Stalin in his time as General Secretary of the Soviet Communist Party (the only office he held after his rise to supreme power) appointed three chiefs of this organisation – Yagoda, Yezhov and Beria. Only the last outlived him. The first two he had shot.

Nobody in the USSR was safe from Stalin. One man held no less than 190 million people in total fear of him, such that by 1937, in the observation of the poet Evgenia Ginzburg, people stopped communicating. In an atmosphere where a single slip of the tongue could land you in the Gulag or before a firing squad, small talk was the safest course. No assassination or coup attempts were ever mounted against Stalin, and his repetitive resort to purges and terror prevented any formation of a political opposition.

After 1944, during the period in which Eastern Europe was either controlled directly by the Red Army and KGB or indirectly through satellite governments, fear of Stalin extended from the western border of East Germany to the Pacific coast of Siberia, half a planet away. For the sake of that planet’s population, I sincerely hope that Stalin goes down in history as the most powerful man who ever lived. If someone else ever beats his record, we are all in for trouble, and many of us for a life of sheer terror. Needless to add, Saddam is the current contender on the block.

It could have been argued at the time that the removal of Stalin was a problem for the Soviet people to solve. Except that even 190 million strong, they could not do it. Likewise the Iraqis today with Saddam; 22 million of them cannot do it.

Saddam recently demonstrated his power in a presidential plebiscite in which he got 100 per cent of the vote. This more than anything illustrated the terror which dominates life in modern Iraq. Only from a population which is truly petrified of the consequences of voting against the ruler is such a vote possible. There is no need to hypothesise about stuffed ballot boxes or anything like that. Stalin is Saddam’s avowed hero, and I am sure the mentor would in turn admire the protege.

Of course the looming war is about oil, but by no means only about it.

In the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-88, which started as a border dispute, Saddam fought not to settle the dispute, but to totally defeat Iran’s theocratic government and establish Iraq as the dominant power in the Gulf. An early strategic objective was the oil rich Iranian province of Khuzestan, and had Iran been defeated by the militarily superior Iraq, Saddam’s terms of settlement would likely have included increased control of Iranian oil, which forms about 9 percent of total world reserves.

The next country his forces invaded was Kuwait in 1990, which started the Gulf War. Kuwait holds close to 10 percent of the world’s oil reserves. His troops pillaged Kuwait and killed many Kuwaitis in the course of their occupation, and contemporary Kuwaitis have little time or love for the Iraqis. This move was widely read at the time as the precursor to a move on Saudi Arabia, whose feudal monarchy is widely unpopular amongst ordinary Saudis.

No doubt to his surprise, Saddam was driven out of Kuwait by the Gulf War coalition, and this was followed by the imposition of UN weapons inspections. An advance on Baghdad and the replacement of Saddam was ruled out in the interests of promoting ‘stability’, the key alliance partner Turkey being particularly concerned about possible autonomy or independence for Iraqi Kurds leading to similar demands from its own Kurdish population.

The United States is no longer self sufficient in oil, and buys much of its supply from sources in the western hemisphere. However, American oil companies are deeply involved in the world oil trade, and most authorities agree that around 2016 the Hubbert Limit will be reached. This represents the peak rate of oil production, after which, even with the pumps working flat out and everything possible done to maximize the rate at which crude comes out of the ground, production will go into steady and irreversible decline. Elementary economics dictates that either the price will rise in response until a new equilibrium between price and supply is reached, or rationing will have to be introduced as it was in World War 2.

So it is reasonable to conclude that this business is partly about oil – Saddam’s manifest desire to get into a position from which he can dominate both the oil market and the Middle East, America’s desire to stop him, and a desire on the part of France, Russia and China to come to some arrangement with him. It is reasonable to assume that he sees weapons of mass destruction as providing necessary protection while he engages in this, for if Iraq today had WMD and delivery systems intact and ready to go, the defeat of Saddam as presently contemplated by George Bush and his allies would be considerably more risky and potentially far more expensive.

But oil, despite what some commentators are saying, can only be part of it. The rest is the horrific possibilities the world faces if Saddam achieves his aims in the area of weapons capability. Critics of Bush, Blair and Howard should remember that the UN has declared such a low level of confidence in Saddam that it has demanded he disarm in the area of WMD. They should also remember that if war occurs, the primary responsibility has to lie with Saddam.

Saddam has been placed in a no win situation by the UN, and fully deserves it. He has been called upon to prove that he has no WMD, and so far has not been able to do so. If I was called on by the law to prove that I did not own a sawn off shotgun, I would invite inspection of my property. But when that turned up nothing and they said “OK so where have you hidden it?” no amount of denial on my part could prove that I did not own one, and had not hidden it somewhere.

Some forbidden items have been found in the homes of Iraqi scientists, which indicates that Saddam may have opted for a Dunkirk style solution. When the British Army was trapped on the beaches of Dunkirk early in WW2, evacuation was effected by a large number of small boats rather than a few large ones. There are around 20 million people in Iraq, and even at ten per house, that means 2 million houses. If the WMD and related equipment were broken up and distributed between those houses with the occupants sworn to secrecy on pain of dire consequences, the task of the inspectors would be way beyond the scope of possibility. Something like that is probably the present reality.

That said, here is my comment on Burchill’s original text. Scott’s remarks are in italics, my responses in bold.

***

Amongst the agitprop, disinformation and outright fabrications by commissars and politicians, the following questions and themes are prominent in the public discourse. Each of them deserves careful analysis.

Is Saddam Hussein likely to use weapons of mass destruction (WMD) against the US and its allies?

First, many states, including the US, the UK and Israel, acquire these weapons for deterrence against external attack. You’ve got to wonder how Prime Minister Howard and the pro-war lobby have failed to understand the lesson that the Iraq-North Korea comparison is teaching the world: If you want to deter the war addicts in Washington, you’d better have weapons of mass destruction and resources of terror. Nothing else will work.

Why wouldn’t Iraq develop WMD for deterrence purposes given threats by Washington and London?

One moment, please. Iraq’s WMD program pre-dates the threats from Washington and London. As we read further on in his piece, it was begun before the Iran-Iraq war, and during that conflict had Washington’s support. Iraq only came into conflict with the US after its invasion of Kuwait in 1990.

We are discouraged from seeing things from Iraq’s point of view, but in many ways WMD make sense for vulnerable states. As the realist theorist Kenneth Waltz argues, “North Korea, Iraq, Iran and others know that the United States can be held at bay only by deterrence. Weapons of mass destruction are the only means by which they can hope to deter the United States. They cannot hope to do so by relying on conventional weapons” (Waltz 2002, p.351-2).

Wrong. The Vietnamese using conventional weapons inflicted on the US the greatest military defeat in its history, and were never at significant risk of nuclear attack throughout that entire conflict. North Korea is safe from US attack thanks to its land army, which is the sixth largest in the world, and to its proximity to China, which became involved in its 1950-53 war with the US (the latter fighting under the flag of the UN). North Korea’s present danger lies precisely in its attempts to become a nuclear power. Unlike Iraq, Iran has no significant population likely to side with the US against its own government, and Iranian popular hostility to the US is based on the latter’s abysmal history of intervention in Iranian politics, specifically via the joint CIA and British SIS organised coup which overthrew premier Muhammad Ali Mussadeq in 1953 and then supported the oppressive regime of the Pahlavis. Iran would be in no danger of a conventional attack from the US (the last effort by Jimmy Carter was a complete fiasco) and only in danger of a nuclear attack if it had nuclear weapons of its own and the means to deliver them onto a strategic US target. Iraq is the only country in the world at risk of US attack, now or at any time in the foreseeable future. Even Cuba, 90 miles from Florida, is safe, and only became vulnerable when the USSR moved to set up a nuclear rocket base there, thus provoking the missile crisis of 1962.

To make Iraq safe all Saddam would have to do would be to arm the whole population, as Castro did before the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba. No dictator wants to do that. Stalin made possession of a firearm by an ordinary citizen a capital offence, and one would assume Saddam has followed suit.

As with every country, Iraq’s weapons inventory and systems tell us precisely nothing about its strategic intentions.

Is that so? Iraqi aggression started both the Iran-Iraq War and the Gulf War. Its biological warfare capability is worse than useless within its own borders, and its powerful chemical agents would have to be used at locations remote from its own troops. While they could conceivably be used to counterattack against hostilities begun as external attack, such weapons inventory and systems considered in the light of Iraq’s recent history tell us a great deal about its (likely) strategic intentions. With WMD he will be in a better position to resume his drive to dominate the Middle East. The safest assumption to make about someone like Saddam is that his intentions are those of a ruthless megalomaniac, ie the worst possible.

Secondly, Iraq had chemical and biological weapons during the Gulf War in 1991 and chose not to use them. Why would Saddam Hussein be more inclined to use them now knowing the horrendous consequences (as they were explained to him by Brent Scowcroft in 1991), unless his personal survival was at stake and he had nothing left to lose? AS CIA head George Tenet reminded President George W. Bush, Saddam was unlikely to launch WMD against the US unless the survival of his regime was threatened.

Which is why a tyrant like Saddam seeks to develop such weapons. The range of responses available to the rest of the world through the UN include both (a) therefore leave him alone, (b) therefore take them away from him, and (c) therefore replace him and his cronies with others more agreeable. The UN has chosen (b) rather than (a), and given the failure to date of (b), is more likely in the near future to opt for (c) because they know that (a) is not an option offering peace to the region or the world even in the short term.

As Mearsheimer and Walt argue: “The threat of Iraqi nuclear blackmail is not credible. Not surprisingly, hawks do not explain how Saddam could blackmail the United States and its allies when a rival superpower like the Soviet Union [with 40,000 nuclear weapons] never seriously attempted to blackmail Washington, much less did it.” (Mearsheimer & Walt 2002, pp.10-11).

One would actually hope this to be true. However, throughout the Cold War both the leaders of the US and the USSR manifested at all times a desire for personal survival. Since 9/11 one cannot say this in confidence about any Muslim armed with a nuclear weapon, since unlike the majority of the world’s Muslims, such a person is likely to be motivated by the same goals as Muhammad Atta and his 9/11 colleagues. After Saddam’s Iraq, Pakistan is the wildest card in the nuclear pack.

***

Saddam Hussein has form: he has used WMD before

It is true that Saddam Hussein has used these weapons before, against those who couldn’t respond in kind – Iranian soldiers and perhaps most infamously on 17 March 1988 against “his own people” in the Kurdish city of Halabja. Within half an hour of this attack over 5000 men, women and children were dead from chemical weapons containing a range of pathogens which were dropped on them.

If Washington and London are genuinely concerned about Iraq’s WMD, why did they continue to supply him with the means to acquire them for 18 months after the attack on Halabja?

Simple: He was their bastard then, and they are now reaping the consequences.

Initially, the US blamed Iran for the Halabja attack, a particularly cynical ploy given Saddam had also used chemical weapons against Teheran’s forces during their nine-year conflict in the 1980s. In fact Washington continued to treat Saddam as a favoured ally and trading partner long after the attack on Halabja was exposed as his handiwork. At the time, the Reagan Administration tried to prevent criticism of Saddam’s chemical attack on the Kurds in the Congress and in December 1989, George Bush’s father authorised new loans to Saddam in order to achieve the “goal of increasing US exports and put us in a better position to deal with Iraq regarding its human rights record”. Surprisingly, the goal was never reached. In February 1989, eleven months after Halabja, John Kelly, US Assistant Secretary of State, flew to Baghdad to tell Saddam Hussein that “you are a source for moderation in the region, and the United States wants to broaden her relationship with Iraq”.

I suppose a contemporary White House staffer would say that at the time, beating Iran had priority. One has little difficulty discovering cynicism and dishonesty on the US side. All governments lie, and thus prepare for themselves future difficulties of both credibility and alliance such as the US now faces.

According to the reports of a Senate Banking Committee, the “United States provided the government of Iraq with ‘dual-use’ licensed materials which assisted in the development of Iraqi chemical, biological and missile-system programs. According to the report, this assistance included “chemical warfare-agent precursors; chemical warfare-agent production facility plans and technical drawings; chemical warfare-filling equipment; biological warfare-related materials; missile fabrication equipment and missile system guidance equipment.” These technologies were sent to Iraq until December 1989, 20 months after Halabja.

According to William Blum a “veritable witch’s brew of biological materials were exported to Iraq by private American suppliers,” including Bacillus Anthracis (cause of anthrax), Clostridium Botulinum (a source of botulinum toxin), Histoplasma Capsulatam (causes disease which attacks lungs, brain, spinal chord and heart), Brucella Melitensis (bacteria which attacks vital organs) and other toxic agents. The US Senate Committee said “these biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction,” and it was later discovered that “these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the United Nations inspectors found and removed from the Iraqi biological warfare program” (Blum 2002, pp.121-2).

After the recent leaking in Germany of Iraq’s 12,000 page declaration of its weapons program, it is now known that at least 150 companies, mostly in Europe, the United States and Japan, provided components and know-how needed by Saddam Hussein to build atomic bombs, chemical and biological weapons (for the list, see Always willing, we’re off to war again). Unsurprisingly, the US was keen to excise these details from Iraq’s report before its wider dissemination to non-permanent members of the Security Council (Newsday (US), 13 December, 2002; The Independent (UK), 18 and 19 December, 2002; Scotland on Sunday (UK), 22 December, 2002).

Historian Gabriel Kolko claims that “the United Stares supplied Iraq with intelligence throughout the war [with Iran] and provided it with more than $US5 billion in food credits, technology, and industrial products, most coming after it began to use mustard, cyanide, and nerve gases against both Iranians and dissident Iraqi Kurds” (Kolko 2002, p.34).

If the US is genuinely concerned by Saddam’s WMD, why did Donald Rumsfeld (then a presidential envoy for President Reagan, currently President George W. Bush’s Defence Secretary) fly to Baghdad in December 1983 to meet Saddam and normalise the US-Iraq relationship, at a time when Washington new Iraq was using chemical weapons on an “almost daily” basis against Iran (Washington Post, 30 December, 2002)? Why were no concerns about the use of these weapons raised with Baghdad?

Saddam has been successfully deterred from using WMD against other states with WMD. There is no reason to believe this situation has changed or will.

Except that the UNSC, concerned about nuclear proliferation and chemical and biological WMD, has seen fit to try to force Saddam to get rid of his whole arsenal.

***

Saddam Hussein has invaded his neighbours twice

True, but this can hardly be a source of outrage for Western governments or a pretext for his removal from power given they actively supported his invasion of Iran in the 1980s with intelligence (eg satellite imagery of Iranian troop positions) and weaponry and, in the case of Washington, told Saddam it was agnostic about his border dispute with Kuwait just prior to Iraq’s invasion in August 1990 (US Ambassador April Glaspie told Saddam in 1990 that “We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait”. The U.S. State Department reinforced this message by declaring that Washington had “no special defense or security commitments to Kuwait” (Mearsheimer & Walt 2002, p.5). This is mock outrage at best.

As noted above, Iranian hostility to the US is a reaction against the latter’s indefensible history of intervention in Iranian politics against the wishes and interests of the majority of the Iranian people. However, the second last sentence could not be construed as a State Department invitation to Saddam to invade Kuwait.

Saddam’s behaviour is no worse than several of his neighbours. As Mearsheimer and Walt remind us, “Saddam’s past behavior is no worse than that of several other states in the Middle East, and it may even be marginally better. Egypt fought six wars between 1948 and 1973 (five against Israel, plus the civil war in Yemen), and played a key role in starting four of them. Israel initiated wars on three occasions (the Suez War in 1956, the Six Day War in 1967, and the 1982 invasion of Lebanon), and has conducted innumerable air strikes and commando raids against its various Arab adversaries” (Mearsheimer & Walt 2002, p.3).

True enough, but long term strategic control of oil, as against territory, was not involved in the above examples. Saddam’s unique combination of oil strategy and WMD deployment is what has attracted UN concern. As for Saddam being no worse than his neighbours, tell that to the Kurds.

***

Saddam Hussein is a monster who runs a violent, oppressive regime

True again, though this didn’t prevent him from being a favoured ally and trading partner of the West at the peak of his crimes in the 1980s. As Mark Thomas notes, the conspicuous aspect of British Labour’s attitude to Iraq has been the failure of Blair, Straw, Prescott, Blunkett, Cook or Hoon to register any concerns about Iraq’s human rights record whenever the opportunities arose in the British Parliament during the 1980s and 1990s (New Statesman, 9 December, 2002).

Washington, London and Canberra never had reservations about General Suharto’s brutal rule in Indonesia, to take only one example of relations between the West and autocratic regimes around the world, and were in fact overjoyed when he came to power over the bodies of hundreds of thousands of his fellow citizens in 1965.

Here we are into ‘true, but …’ Had the US engaged upon the unlikely course of sending troops to block the Indonesian invasion of East Timor in 1975, some Scott Burchill of the time might have opposed it on a comparable basis – that the US supported the brutal regimes in South Vietnam, South Korea, the Philippines (under Marcos) etc. If we are to base an assessment of the policy the US should follow now on selections from its past chequered record then any position we like is possible, but the most likely one is total paralysis, as Hitler found in the case of Britain and France after he moved into the Rhineland in 1936.

***

Only the threat of force by the US has forced Iraq to accept weapons inspectors

Possibly true, although this ignores the fact that the last time force was used against Iraq on a significant scale because of its non-compliance with UN Security Resolutions, the opposite effect was produced. After the Clinton Administration and Blair Government attacked Iraq from 16-19 December, 1998 (Operation Desert Fox), the result was the collapse of Richard Butler’s UNSCOM and the absence of weapons inspectors from Iraq for the next four years. Hardly a testament to the use of force, to say nothing of the precedent this kind of behaviour sets. The Prime Minister’s claim that “Hussein effectively expelled weapons inspectors during 1998” is untrue and he knows it (The Australian, 1 January, 2003). Richard Butler withdrew his weapons inspectors on Washington’s advice only hours before the Anglo-American attacks in December 1998.

There are many issues on which I personally disagree with John Howard, but this is not one of them. The key word here is “effectively”, which Burchill glosses over. Nobody who has read Richard Butler’s account of the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) could accept this. Butler sums up his experience as follows:

“Three permanent members of the Security Council of the United Nations – the lawmaker and enforcer in this field – have decided to end any serious effort to disarm Saddam, to oblige him to conform with the law. Russia, France and China have done this because they prefer to pursue their own interests rather than to carry out their international responsibility.

“Also, in 1998, at a key moment of extreme defiance by Saddam, the Secretary General of the United Nations, in many respects the guardian of the law, sought to solve the crisis through diplomatic means substantially disconnected from the matters of substance – weapons of mass destruction and the authority of international law.

“In addition, during my time at UNSCOM, members of the Security Council increasingly sought to shift political responsibility to me for their failure to enforce their own law. They asked me to make judgements about the threat posed by Iraq, an issue well beyond my mandate and one that they alone could settle. When I pointed out that they were asking me the wrong question, they resented it. When I gave them the facts as I knew them and for which I was competent and responsible, if they didn’t like these facts, they joined Iraq in charging that UNSCOM, not Iraq, was the problem.

“Nowhere in my mandate was it stated that I should decide on or recommend military action. But in November 1998, the Security Council instructed me to produce a factual report on Iraqi compliance against a background where, if my report showed Iraq was not in compliance, there was likely to be military action by the United States and Britain. My job was to report on the disarmament facts. I did so, and military action followed, in December 1998.

“It could be argued that I should have deciphered the political code: report negatively on Iraq’s conduct and there will be war; if you don’t want that, don’t report negatively; this is not about facts, its about politics.” (Richard Butler, Saddam Defiant, Phoenix, 2000. p.2)

Butler’s account is one of continuous Iraqi frustration of the work of UNSCOM, aided by divisions on effective policy and purpose in the Security Council. Burchill’s summary above leads one to the conclusion that the collapse of UNSCOM was the fault of the Americans and the British. Richard Butler’s UNSOM had effectively collapsed before Operation Desert Fox, which was a response to that collapse, not the cause of it.

To say that Butler left rather than was forced out (expelled) by Saddam and his cronies is to split hairs and accord to the latter a degree of innocence and victimization they do not deserve. We can of course play word games and legalistic petit point with this until the cows come home. I am sure Saddam would not mind at all.

Why wasn’t the threat of force an appropriate strategy for the West in response to Indonesia’s brutal 24-year occupation of East Timor? Or South Africa’s occupation of Namibia? Or Turkey’s occupation of northern Cyprus? Or Israel’s occupation of Palestine? Etc, etc,.

Yes, etc, etc, etc. Because in the case of East Timor, threats of force, however appropriate in terms of a human sense of justice, were not made. The people who could have made them were operating in a Cold War framework. But to give credit where it is due, that changed with the end of the Cold War. During the Indonesian rampage in East Timor in September 1999 the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff read the riot act over the phone to his Indonesian counterpart General Wiranto, and the US gave the Australian army vital logistical support for the East Timor operation. Henry Kissinger subsequently bleated about not knowing what atrocities the Indonesian army was capable of when he gave them the green light to invade East Timor in 1975. A very convincing performance, particularly in the light of the slaughter that brought Suharto to power following the “Untung Coup” of 1965, which could not have escaped Kissinger’s notice. But outside the Cold War environment, the US used the threat of unpleasant consequences against the Indonesians with quite telling effect.

What lessons should we draw from this claim? Presumably one is that if a state wants to get its way in international politics, it should threaten to annihilate its adversaries. Apart from the morality of such behaviour, the consequences of the broad adoption of such behaviour are worth pondering.

Saddam threatens to annihilate his adversaries as a matter of routine. His most recent target in this regard has been the government of Qatar. But it all hinges on what one calls an “adversary”. Australia has its differences with certain other countries, but these do not lead to threats of force. Saddam on the other hand has by his behaviour gained himself a long list of adversaries, and as usual is diplomatically isolated. He now faces annihilation. But he stands as an exceptional case in the modern world. Burchill says that apart from the morality of such behaviour, the consequences of the BROAD adoption of such behaviour are worth pondering. I agree. Like wormholes in space-time – of arguable significance in the everyday world we all know, but a nice academic exercise.

***

Has the threat posed by Saddam Hussein increased recently?

The West, particularly London and Washington, was solidly supporting Saddam when he committed the worst of his crimes at the zenith of his power and influence in the 1980s.

In terms of international support – especially Western and Soviet backing, the strength of his armed forces and the state of his industry and equipment, Saddam was considerably more dangerous then than he is now under harsh UN sanctions, (illegal) no-fly zones in the north (since 1991) and south (since 1993) of the country, political isolation and a degraded civilian infrastructure. His armed forces have not been re-built since their decimation in 1991.

Is that so? Given the wild goose chase he has been leading for the latest round of weapons inspections, who knows what Saddam has up his sleeve? He says he is ready to defeat the Americans if they invade. Keeping one’s weapon capacity secret from the enemy has long been part of the art of warfare.

Why are Saddam’s attempts to develop WMD a concern now if they weren’t when he actually used them?

Because when he used them against the Kurds and the Iranians, the US governments involved operated in the forlorn belief that he was their bastard. Since, he has emerged in his own true colours as his own bastard. The administrations of G. Bush I, Bill Clinton and G. Bush II have recognized this fact.

***

The events of September 11, 2001 have made disarming Iraq more urgent

The problem with this argument is that those in Washington who are now urging war against Iraq are the very same people who publicly called for Saddam Hussein’s overthrow well before 9/11. The argument about Saddam’s WMD and the likelihood that he will pass them on to terrorists has only been ‘added on’ to earlier calls for his removal by Cheney, Wolfowitz, Armitage, et al, which were made during the Clinton Administration.

Yes. Saddam’s record, his present policy of not to yield on WMD and to frustrate inspections, and his apparently retained objective to seek a wider role and status for himself and his regime in the Middle East makes him about the most dangerous megalomaniac alive today. And no. G. Bush Snr miscalculated badly in 1991 when he called on the people of Iraq to overthrow Saddam. It is reasonable to assume that he did not cynically calculate to flush them out into the open so they could be mown down by Saddam’s troops. On the face of it, the Gulf War had destabilized Saddam’s regime sufficiently enough for it popular overthrow to be achievable, given the right encouragement. That had been the fate of the Greek colonels and General Galtieri of Argentina, who had all made the mistake of getting their armies involved in foreign wars when their true and proper role within the context of their regimes was domestic repression. Mutiny brought them down, but Saddam proved to be the exception, and not through the love of the Iraqi people for him.

For example, in 1998 the US Congress passed the Iraq Liberation Act which said that “It should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.” The question of Iraq’s WMD should therefore be seen as merely the latest pretext for a policy of regime change taken well before terrorists attacked the Pentagon and the World Trade Centre.

The US has had a policy favouring regime change in Iraq since 1991. But 9/11 showed the world what could be done by suicidal terrorists with significant resources behind them. Saddam has such resources, and the safest assumption to make is that he is totally ruthless – also supported by his domestic record. It is hard to conceive of any regime which replaced Saddam’s being anything but a change for the better as far as the Iraqi people are concerned. Behind the benign acronym WMD are nuclear bombs, rockets loaded with anthrax and other epidemic disease organisms, and chemical compounds of almost unbelievable toxicity, together with their means of delivery. Saddam has already established his credentials as a terrorist in his own right; Halabja showed that.

***

Saddam Hussein will pass WMD on to terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda

Despite forensic efforts by Washington to produce a pretext for war, no credible evidence for this claim has been found. All we are left with is unsubstantiated assertions by Bush Administration officials such as Richard Armitage that he has no doubts Iraq would pass WMD on to terrorists (though he doesn’t explain how an obvious return address resulting in reciprocal annihilation could be concealed). This may be enough for faithful conduits in the Australian media, but it cannot withstand even a cursory examination. Where is the evidence for such a claim? Osama bin Laden offered the Saudi Government the resources of his organisation to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait in 1990 instead of Riyadh relying on the US, such is the animosity between Islamic fundamentalists and secular nationalists in the Arab world. Saddam has responded by repressing fundamentalist groups within Iraq. Would Saddam be likely to hand over to Al Qaeda nuclear weapons so painstakingly built when he, himself might be the first victim of their use? Remarkably, the pro-war lobby reads this history as evidence of likely future co-operation between Baghdad and Al Qaeda.

Much of this is a smokescreen designed to conceal who the real proliferators of WMD are. Which states, for example assisted Israel to develop nuclear weapons – France and the US? What role did Pakistan and China play in helping North Korea build its nuclear stockpile? Why can’t we read the list of European, Asian and US companies which proliferated WMD technologies to Iraq? Instead of imaginary scenarios asking ‘what if Iraq acquires nuclear weapons in five years and what if it passes them on to terrorist organisations?’, why not more sensible questions about which rogue states (most of whom are members of the so called ‘war against terrorism’) are already responsible for the proliferation of WMD?

On the face of it, quite right. Chasing a link between al-Qaeda and Saddam has not exactly been a success for the G. Bush II Administration, and is the weakest part of the otherwise strong case put on February 6th 2003 by US Secretary of State Colin Powell. But must we assume that al-Qaeda is the only terrorist organisation likely now or in the foreseeable future to seek to acquire such weapons? The danger is not confined to al-Qaeda. The enemy is Islamic fascism, of which al-Qaeda is merely the most prominent part.

Burchill also states that most rogue states are already members of the ‘war against terrorism’, and are already responsible for the proliferation of WMD. I wish he had been more specific: Who is he referring to?

***

What happens if terrorists acquire nuclear weapons?

Conventional wisdom claims this is “the ultimate nightmare.” But is it?

Yes, it damned well is. One reads through the section that follows the above statement with great interest, hoping that Burchill will reveal a worse nightmare. But in vain.

The nature of the threat posed by terrorists with nuclear devices is presupposed, but rarely examined. The discussion below is by Kenneth Waltz, a US conservative and the leading theorist of neo-realism in international relations. It helps to place this “ultimate nightmare” in some perspective.

“With the devolution of nuclear weapons to three of the parts of the former Soviet Union, with shaky control of nuclear weapons materials in Russia, with the revelation in 1994 that the United States had lost track of some of its nuclear materials, with increased numbers of countries able and perhaps willing to sell components needed to develop nuclear capability to countries that lack them, and with a flourishing market in systems for the delivery of weapons, fear has grown that terrorists may obtain nuclear explosives and means of placing them on targets they choose. The worry is real, especially if terrorists are eager to have nuclear explosives and are backed by a state bent on disrupting international society.

“Terrorists have done a good bit of damage by using conventional weapons and have sometimes got their way by threatening to use them. By their lights, might terrorists not do better still by threatening to explode nuclear weapons on cities of countries they may wish to bend to their bidding?

“If we believe that terrorists could, if they wished to, wield nuclear weapons to threaten or damage their chosen enemies, then the important question becomes: Why would they want to? To answer this question, we have to ask further what terrorists are trying to do and what means best suit their ends.

“Terrorists do not play their deadly games to win in the near term. Their horizons are distant. Instead they try to offer a voice to the unheard, to give a glimmer of hope to the forlorn, to force established societies to recognise alienated others previously unseen, and ultimately to transcend given societies and found their own.

“Terrorists live precarious lives. Nobody trusts them, not even those who finance, train, and hide them. If apprehended, they cannot count on the help of others. They have learned how to use conventional weapons to some effect. Nuclear weapons would thrust them into a world fraught with new dangers.

“Terrorists work in small groups. Secrecy is safety, yet to obtain and maintain nuclear weapons would require enlarging the terrorist band through multiplication of suppliers, transporters, technicians, and guardians. Inspiring devotion, instilling discipline, and ensuring secrecy become harder tasks to accomplish as numbers grow. Moreover, as the demands of terrorists increase, compliance with their demands becomes harder to secure. If, for example, terrorists had told Israel to abandon the occupied territories or suffer the nuclear destruction of Tel Aviv, Israel’s compliance would have required that a lengthy and difficult political process be carried through. However they may be armed, terrorists are not capable of maintaining pressure while lengthy efforts toward compliance are made.

“One more point should be made before concluding this section. If terrorists should unexpectedly decide to abandon tactics of disruption and harassment in favour of dealing in threats of wholesale death and destruction, instruments other than nuclear weapons are more easily available. Poisons are easier to get and use than nuclear weapons, and poisoning a city’s water supply is more easily done than blowing the city up.

“Fear of nuclear terror arises from the assumption that if terrorists can get nuclear weapons they will get them, and that then all hell will break lose. This is comparable to assuming that if weak states get nuclear weapons, they will use them for aggression. Both assumptions are false. Would the courses of action we fear, if followed, promise more gains than losses or more pains than profit? The answers are obvious. Terrorists have some hope of reaching their long-term goals through patient pressure and constant harassment. They cannot hope to do so by issuing unsustainable threats to wreck great destruction, threats they would not want to execute anyway.” (Waltz 1995, pp.94-6) (Ian’s emphasis)

Please note the date Waltz wrote the above: 1995. But everything changed on September 11, 2001. Everything, including the currency of Waltz’s otherwise sound thought. We can play word games and define al-Qaeda as a small group or whatever we like, but the now redundant assumption underlying the above is that terrorists want to survive. I would not trust an Islamist terrorist who had got hold of a nuclear bomb of whatever kind to behave rationally. I don’t know why; it is just a feeling I have.

***

The US wants to democratise Iraq

There is no serious US interest in a democratic transition in Iraq, because this could ultimately encourage the Shi’ite majority in the country to pursue a closer relationship with Shi’ite Iran – a nightmare scenario for Washington. Washington was content for Saddam Hussein to stay in office for as long as he was useful to its geo-strategic interests in the region. There was no mention of a transition to democracy in Iraq during the 1980s.

As far as I know, the above is quite true, and the US cause is severely compromised. The past is weighing like a dead hand on the present. The Kurds are the natural allies of the US in Iraq, but were massacred in large numbers by Saddam following G Bush I’s call for them to rise against Saddam in 1991. The US support they expected and hoped for never came. Carving an independent Kurdistan out of Iraq would satisfy their cravings for independence, but would antagonize the Turks, who do not want to see Turkish Kurds involved in anything similar.

Similarly, the Shi’ite majority and the US have a common enemy in the Sunni “aristocracy” of Iraq who support Saddam. What this would translate into on the ground is still an open question, and I am in no position to offer suggestions, except that in the light of the counterproductive policies followed by the US over the 20th Century in the Middle East, perhaps the best thing for it to do now would be to help create the conditions wherein the Shi’ites on both sides of the Iran-Iraq border could work the issues out for themselves. A commitment against the breakup of Iraq in the interests of ‘stability’ is, to say the least, a joke in the light of the situation the US presently finds itself in.

It’s more likely that a dissident former General, possibly involved in war crimes against Iraq’s Kurdish or Shi’ite communities, will be returned from exile and presented as the “democratic opposition” to Saddam Hussein. The US is interested in compliance and obedience rather than democracy. It has rarely, if ever, expressed an interest in democracy in the Middle East where all but one of its friends and interlocutors are authoritarian states. Ideally, a pro-Western, anti-Iranian, secular “iron fist” would do. The recently rehabilitated Iraqi opposition in exile (with whom until recently the US refused to deal) has no democratic credibility and is largely unknown inside Iraq (or in the US for that matter).

What we in the West understand by ‘democracy’ is actually the periodic appointment or replacement of an oligarchy by popular ballot. In the Middle East the oligarchies are appointed and replaced by different means. Democracy is not native to the Middle East, unlike tribalism and feudal hierarchy, which definitely are. There is a tradition of stamping out democracy which goes right back to the wars fought by the Persians against the democratic Greeks in ancient times. Thus it is not surprising that traditionally the US has sought out rulers it can deal with rather than democratically oriented groups and parties which have potential but little in the way of actual assets on the ground.

Christianity in the Reformation period in Europe became a vehicle for the rise of what we in the West understand as democracy, but Islam has yet to undergo anything similar to the Reformation. In the huge Islamic arc that stretches from Indonesia to Nigeria, democracy is struggling to be born and liberalism is virtually an unknown concept. The safest thing for the politicians of the US to do is to refrain from supporting politicians and parties in the Third World that they would not like to see gain power if they were in the US.

***

What is the status of pre-emptive strikes in international law?

There is a regime of international law, binding on all states, based on the UN Charter, UN Security Council resolutions and World Court decisions. In summary, the threat or use of force is banned unless explicitly authorised by the Security Council after it has determined that all peaceful means for resolving a conflict have failed, or in self-defence against armed attack until the Security Council acts.

A number of points can be made about Canberra’s interest in retrospectively amending international law to legitimise a shift of strategic doctrine from deterrence to pre-emption. It would establish a precedent that others (Pakistan & India; North & South Korea) might be encouraged to follow; it would have a destabilising effect on international order; the difficulty (impossibility) of getting changes through the UN Security Council; the heightened sense of vulnerability for smaller states and for states in the region, etc, etc,. It would open up a can of worms.

That it would, and the Bush Administration knows it, which is why they are working so hard to get Security Council support.

Significantly, there is currently only one country which could seriously consider exercising a right to anticipatory self-defence under existing international law – Iraq. It has been directly threatened with attack by both the US and UK. There has been no reciprocal threat from Iraq.

Except that intimately bound up with the question is the fact that Iraq is in violation of a UNSC resolution.

The term ‘pre-emptive war’ isn’t strictly accurate. As Steven Miller explains:

“Though Bush’s approach has been almost universally described, in the media and elsewhere, as a doctrine of preemption, this is incorrect. Preemption refers to a military strike provoked by indications that an opponent is preparing to attack. The logic is: better to strike than be struck. But no one is suggesting that Saddam is preparing to strike the United States. There are no indications that this is the case. Bush is instead making the case for preventive war, for removing today a threat that may be more menacing and difficult in the future. The administration may prefer to label its policy preemption because that is an easier case to make. But it is not an accurate use of the term as traditionally defined.” (Miller 2002, p.8)

Given the inherent conflict between the strategic interests of the US (access to Middle East Oil, if not now then in the near future), her policy tradition (for US companies to gain as much control of that oil as possible) and Saddam’s recently manifested push in the same direction, conflict between the two will always be on the cards until the oil itself runs out. No other Middle Eastern ruler has the combination of strategic position, form and megalomania as Saddam.

Saddam’s drive into Kuwait constituted merely the opening phase of what was likely to be a campaign to secure control over the combined oil fields of Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia: 47 percent of the whole world’s reserves, and the best and most accessible ones at that. In such a situation of power it would be quite conceivable that Saddam would work to add the fields of the United Arab Emirates to those under his influence if not control: another 8 percent, to total 55 percent.

The safest assumption to make is that Saddam’s ambition remains. It is to become the Joseph Stalin of the Middle East, ruling directly where he can and through satraps where he cannot. If the US is going to get into a fight with him, it is understandable that it might choose to do so when he is weak rather than wait until he is strong.

According to international law specialist Michael Byers, “there is almost no support for a right of anticipatory self-defence as such in present-day customary international law” (Byers 2002, p.124). To the extent that pre-emptive action is permissible under Article 51 of the UN Charter, it requires very strong evidence and there is a heavy burden of justification. The United States, for example, would have to be facing a specific, grave and imminent threat from Iraq which could only be averted by the use of force. According to the test established in the mid-nineteenth century by US Secretary of State Daniel Webster – criteria applied in 1945 at Nuremberg – the need for pre-emptive action must be “instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation”.

Firstly, the justification offered by the Indonesians in 1975 for their invasion of East Timor was that if they did not there would soon be a Cuba in this region, with all that that implied: subversion of neighbouring states and foreign military bases in particular. It was presented to the world as a preemptive strike against a looming threat. They got away with it for 25 years in the face of what amounted to token objection from the UN, along with systematic genocide behind a total news blackout. Certainly there was no push for forces operating under the UN flag to intervene against Indonesia the way they had against North Korea in 1950. Both international and domestic politics, as practiced, is the art of what you can get away with. Law at times has precious little to do with it. Sad, but true. On the same basis, the UN is highly unlikely to make any move against the perpetrators of the militia violence in East Timor in 1999 following the independence ballot. The UN is only as good as the states that make it up, and a whole bunch of them are none too savoury. Which is why the permanent members of the Security Council have insisted on having their own club.

Secondly: With all due respect to Mr Webster, he was writing in the era before nuclear weapons. The world fortunately to date has not experienced a situation where a surprise nuclear explosion from whatever source occurs inside the territory of a nuclear power, and one must hope that it never does. But we can do more than hope: we can work to minimize the risk, which is what nuclear non-proliferation is all about.

Otherwise a unilateral strike not authorised by the UN Security Council would be an act of aggression and a breach of international law. As claimed earlier, Iraq has a stronger case at this point in time (given US troop and equipment movements in Qatar, to say nothing of Bush’s stated threats).

Christine Gray, author of a seminal modern text on the use of force under international law, argues that the reluctance of states “to invoke anticipatory self-defence is in itself a clear indication of the doubtful status of this jurisdiction for the use of force”. According to Gray, in cases where Israel (Beirut 1968, Tunis 1985) and the US (Libya 1986, Iraq 1993, Sudan & Afghanistan 1998) have invoked anticipatory self-defence under Article 51 to justify attacks on their enemies, “the actions look more like reprisals, because they were punitive rather than defensive”. The problem for the US and Israel, she argues, “is that all states agree that in principle forcible reprisals are unlawful” (Gray 2000, pp.112, 114, 115, 118).

By definition, pre-emptive strikes depend on conclusive intelligence. If the intelligence is wrong, as it was on 20 August 1998 when the Clinton Administration attacked the El Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan, mistakenly believing it was an Al Qaeda chemical weapons factory, the results can be catastrophic for the innocent – self-defence becomes aggression.

Interestingly, the US has not always supported the ‘doctrine’ of anticipatory self-defence, even when its closest allies invoked it. On 7 June 1981 unmarked American-built F-16 aircraft of the Israeli airforce attacked and destroyed a nuclear reactor at Osirak in Iraq. The raid was authorised by Prime Minister Menachem Begin, but had been internally opposed by Yitzhak Hofi, the director of Mossad, and Major-General Yehoshua Saguy, chief of military intelligence, because there was no evidence that Iraq was capable of building a nuclear bomb. This was also the view of the International Atomic Energy Authority. At the time of the attack, Israel itself had been developing and accumulating nuclear weapons for thirteen years, primarily at its nuclear facility at Dimona.

In response to Israel’s unprovoked pre-emptive strike, US Vice President George Bush Snr argued that sanctions had to be imposed on Israel. The US State Department condemned the bombing for its destabilising impact “which cannot but seriously add to the already tense situation in the area”. The basis of Washington’s concern, it must be said, was not its opposition to anticipatory self-defence per se but that Israel had violated the UN Charter by not exhausting all peaceful means for the resolution of the conflict – in truth no peaceful resolution had been sought. A few days after the raid, Ronald Reagan’s White House announced that the planned delivery of four additional F-16s to Israel would be suspended in protest against the attack. The suspension was discretely lifted soon after (Hersh 1993, pp.9-16).

Politicians tend to operate on the principle of a short public memory, an often somnambulant press, and what they can get away with. Thus pointing to inconsistencies in their behaviour is quite easy, as Burchill and others are presently showing. But one searches in vain in the writings of such people for alternative policy suggestion that might work in terms of bringing about the best outcome for the greatest number of people, Iraqi, American or whatever. The question as to what the outcome might be if the present alliance invades Iraq (with or without UNSC approval) is addressed in detail, with catalogues of past sins, hypocrisies and outrages of all kinds on the parts of the protagonists appended. (And let there be no doubt, it could be anything from a walkover to a total catastrophe.) But nothing beyond it in the direction of what the future might hold if Saddam is left working as he pleases within Iraq, except the oft repeated statement that so far no significant weapons have been found by the inspectors, with the unstated invitation to conclude that therefore it is likely none exist.

The work of the UNMOVIC inspectors is carried out in Iraq under the ever present threat to Saddam of UN sponsored military intervention if he does not fully comply with the UN terms and conditions. He has clearly chosen to play his usual games with the inspectors, and to retain his WMD capability.

If Burchill believes that under no circumstances should a military move be made against Saddam, then he should clearly say so. If not, he should say under what circumstances he would approve such action. Again one finds refutation of many common propositions about the present situation in Burchill’s document, but no attempt at refutation of the commonly encountered proposition that doing nothing is not an option to guarantee the long term peace of the region. Burchill has much to say on the consequences of acting against Saddam, but very little on those of not acting against him. This fits in with his reluctant concession at the start that the majority of the population of Australia have not so far bought what he and his co-thinkers have been throwing at them on a daily basis in the media, which is definitely not dominated by any gung-ho pro-war faction.

Significantly, Israel’s pre-emptive attack against the Osirak reactor had the opposite effect to the one that was intended. As Kenneth Waltz explained: “Israel’s act and its consequences…made it clear that the likelihood of useful accomplishment is low. Israel’s action increased the determination of Arabs to produce nuclear weapons. Israel’s strike, far from foreclosing Iraq’s nuclear career, gained Iraq support from some other Arab states to pursue it.” (Waltz 1995, pp.18-19).

In the current climate when pre-emptive attacks are being invoked as just responses to terrorism, it is worth recalling Princeton University historian Arno Mayer comments in Le Monde shortly after the 9/11 attacks:

“…since 1947 America has been the chief and pioneering perpetrator of “pre-emptive” state terror, exclusively in the Third World and therefore widely dissembled. Besides the unexceptional subversion and overthrow of governments in competition with the Soviet Union during the Cold War, Washington has resorted to political assassinations, surrogate death squads, and unseemly freedom fighters (e.g., bin Laden). It masterminded the killing of Lumumba and Allende; and it unsuccessfully tried to put to death Castro, Khadafi, and Saddam Hussein… and vetoed all efforts to rein in not only Israel’s violation of international agreements and UN resolutions but also its practice of pre-emptive state terror.”

This unfortunately, is quite correct; ‘but’ nothing.

***

The question of oil: access or control?

From the middle of last century Washington’s foreign policy priority in the Middle East was to establish US control over what the State Department described as “a stupendous source of strategic power and one of the great material prizes in world history”, namely the region’s vast reserves of crude oil. Middle Eastern oil was regarded in Washington as “probably the richest economic prize in the world in the field of foreign investment”, in what President Eisenhower described as the most “strategically important area in the world”.

Control could be most easily maintained via a number of despotic feudal oligarchies in the Gulf which ensured the extraordinary wealth of region would be shared between a small number of ruling families and US oil companies, rather than European commercial competitors or the population of these states. Until recently the US has not required the oil for itself though it needed to ensure that the oil price stayed within a desirable range or band – not too low for profit making or too high to discourage consumption and induce inflation. A side benefit of this control over such a vital industrial resource is the influence it gives the US over economic development in rival countries such as Japan.

The greatest threat to this control has always been independent economic nationalism, especially nationalist politicians within the oil-producing region who, unlike the feudal oligarchies of the Gulf states, would channel wealth into endogenous development priorities rather than to US transnationals.

True.

The US wants to secure reliable access to the world’s second largest oil reserves, 112 billion barrels already known with possibly double that figure still to be mapped and claimed, thus depriving France and Russia of commercial advantages they have developed in Iraq over the last decade when US companies have been excluded. Just as importantly, access to Iraqi oil would also make the US less reliant upon – and therefore less supportive of – the regime in Saudi Arabia. The geo-political dynamics of the Middle East would be transformed.

If Russia and France maintain their inside track on Iraqi oil, then US corporations will be partially shut out from an enormous resource prize. No US administration is likely to accept that scenario. Meanwhile, Iraqi dissidents close to Washington have promised to cancel all existing oil contracts awarded to firms which do not assist the US to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Regime change in Baghdad could therefore be a bonanza for US oil companies and a disaster for Russian and French companies which have painstakingly built up their relations with the Iraqi dictator since the Gulf war. When Iraq’s oil comes fully back on stream, as many as 5 million barrels of oil (or 6.5%) could be added to the world’s daily supply. The implications of this for existing suppliers, the global spot price, economic growth, OPEC and the world’s consumers are enormous.

This is not an issue of access, it is primarily about control. The US was just as concerned to control Middle East oil producing regions when it didn’t depend on them at all. Until about 30 years ago, North America was the largest producer and the US scarcely used Middle East oil at all. Since then Venezuela has normally been the largest oil exporter to the United States. US intelligence projections suggest that in coming years the US will rely primarily on Western Hemisphere resources: primarily the Atlantic basin – Venezuela, Mexico, Brazil, probably Colombia, but also possibly Canada, which has huge potential reserves if they become economically competitive. Imported supplies accounted for 50% of US oil consumption in 2000 and by 2020 the figure is expected to rise to 66%.

Control over the world’s greatest concentration of energy resources has two goals: (1) economic: huge profits for energy corporations, construction firms, arms producers, as well as petrodollars recycled to US treasury, etc; and (2) it’s a lever of global geo-political control. For those trying to understand the motives behind US behaviour towards Iraq, it is impossible to underestimate the importance which oil has in the minds of Washington’s strategic planners.

True. But here we do have a ‘but’. Only a fool would assert that oil is not involved in this conflict. But Saddam’s means of closing his grip on the world’s oil is not just conventional forces. It is, to use that phrase immortalized by Graham Richardson, whatever it takes, chemical, biological, and nuclear means included. As noted above, Saddam’s past efforts, if they had all been successful, would have likely given him control over around 60 percent of the world’s oil, and arguably close to 70 percent had he defeated Iran in the Iran-Iraq war and extracted concessions.

Attempts to discredit arguments about US access to Iraqi oil by claiming that it if it is interested in access to supplies it could more easily strike a deal with Saddam to satisfy its “thirst for oil” rather than overthrow him, entirely miss the crucial issue – control. (The Australian, 2 January, 2003)

***

The credibility of the UN and Canberra

In September 2002, the Iraq issue in Australia suddenly centred on the honour and integrity of the UN, a subject not previously thought to have concerned the Howard Government. The international community “can’t afford” to have its authority “brushed aside,” argued foreign minister Alexander Downer, otherwise it will “look meaningless and weak, completely ineffectual.” According to the Prime Minister, “if the United Nations Security Council doesn’t rise to its responsibilities on this occasion it will badly weaken its credibility”.

Former chief weapons inspector and Australian Ambassador to the UN, Richard Butler, argued that the Security Council faces the “challenge of its life” and its future would be “terminal” if it didn’t hold Iraq to account this time. His predecessor at the UN, Michael Costello, agrees. “If the UN Security Council won’t enforce its own resolutions against Iraq, the whole UN collective security system will be badly wounded, perhaps fatally.”

One might have thought that the credibility of the UN Security Council had been badly weakened before now, say in Bosnia in 1993, Rwanda in 1994 or in East Timor in 1999 to cite only three recent cases when it failed to protect defenceless civilians from slaughter. Palestinians might wonder why the organisation’s authority hasn’t been “brushed aside” by Israel’s consistent non-compliance with numerous Security Council resolutions calling for its withdrawal from occupied territories, from resolution 242 in 1967 to resolution 1402 in March 2002.

There is no doubt about that, and the proposition that governments should be allowed to do as they please within their own (‘nationally sovereign’) borders is getting well past its use by date in the eyes of an increasing number. There is a court in the Hague to deal with offenders, and Saddam knows he could well follow his colleague Milosovic into it in the near future.

Washington clearly has an idiosyncratic view about states complying with UN Security Council resolutions. If the US objects to non-compliance, the country is attacked. If the US favors non-compliance it either vetoes the resolution or disregards it, in which case it is as good as vetoed. Since the early 1970s, for example, the US has vetoed 22 draft Security Council resolutions on Palestine alone – this figure doesn’t include 7 vetoes relating to Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in the 1980s.

Agreed, double standards are not hard to find. But how much does that tell us about how the world should handle an outlaw like Saddam Hussein? Is the answer to therefore leave him alone? If it is, then it should be spelt out.

At the National Press Club and later on commercial talkback radio, Mr Howard seemed to think that because Israel was a democracy it shouldn’t be judged by the same standards as Iraq. The future of the UN Security Council is not apparently terminal when its resolutions regarding Palestine and Israel are flouted. He should be reminded that democracies are just as obliged to observe international law as authoritarian dictatorships – there is no exemption. In fact we should expect a higher commitment to the rule of law from countries which pronounce their democratic credentials. Later, the argument shifted slightly. Israel wasn’t obliged to observe UN Security Council Resolutions because they are only invoked under Chapter 6 of the UN Charter, rather than Chapter 7. This is a novel interpretation of international law, to put it kindly.

Agreed. If international law is a tar baby, then John Howard is Brer Rabbit.

Despite rhetoric which portrays the UN as a foreign body at its moment of truth, it is nothing more than the states which comprise it – including Australia and the US. If it has become dysfunctional, it is those member states which manipulate it for their own individual purposes which are to blame. Those who think the credibility of the UN is suddenly at risk over the question of Iraq might like to explain why non-compliance now is suddenly a pretext for an imminent attack on Iraq when Baghdad has been in violation of UN Security Council resolutions for four years.

The Prime Minister asks if Iraq has “nothing to hide and nothing to conceal from the world community, why has it repeatedly refused to comply with the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council”?

Perhaps it’s for the same reason that he restricts the UN from entering Australia’s refugee detention centres? Or for the same reason Israel would not allow the UN to inspect its research institute at Nes Ziona near Tel Aviv which produces chemical and biological weapons, a stockpile of chemical agents Mr Howard claims he is “not aware” of. If he had bothered to inquire, Mr Howard would have found that “there is hardly a single known or unknown form of chemical or biological weaponswhich is not manufactured at the institute”, according to a biologist who held a senior post in Israeli intelligence. Nes Ziona does not work on defensive and protective devices, but only biological weapons for attack, claims the British Foreign Report (Chomsky 1999, pp.xiii-xiv).

The Prime Minister believes that Iraq’s “aspiration to develop a nuclear capacity” might be a sufficient pretext for war. He has repeatedly claimed that “there is already a mountain of evidence in the public domain,” though he didn’t say what any of it actually proved beyond the existing public record, or how it established that the United States faces a specific, grave and imminent threat from Iraq which can only be averted by the use of force.

According to the Prime Minister, the mountain of evidence includes an IISS report which actually found Saddam was much less dangerous now than in the past when he was backed by the West. Scott Ritter, a former UN weapons inspector in Iraq, described the IISS report as little more than conjecture. “It’s absurd. It has zero factual basis. It’s all rhetoric…speculative and meaningless.” There was a similar response to President Bush’s speech to the United Nations General Assembly on 12 September, which outlined Iraq’s breaches of international law. According to conservative Middle East expert Anthony Cordesman, Bush’s speech was “clumsy and shallow” and little more than “a glorified press release.” It offered little, if anything, that wasn’t already on the public record. More a trough than a mountain.

At the UN on 13 September, Foreign Minister Downer claimed that “Iraq’s flagrant and persistent defiance is a direct challenge to the United Nations, to the authority of the Security Council, to international law, and to the will of the international community”. Four days later in the Australian Parliament Mr Downer repeated the charges, that Iraq “directly challenges the authority of the United Nations and international law,” that it poses “a grave threat” to the world, that it “has flouted and frustrated UN resolutionspersistently defied legally binding obligations” and is therefore “a serial transgressor.” Every one of these comments could also have been made about Israel. However, for reasons not explained there are to be no dossiers presented to the Parliament outlining its breaches of UN resolutions, it won’t be called “a serial transgressor” of international law, nor has it’s long history of defying Security Council resolutions ever meant that “the authority of the United Nations was at stake.”

If Washington bypasses the Security Council or cannot get UN authorisation for a strike against Iraq but unilaterally attacks the country regardless, it will have done much greater damage to the UN’s credibility than years of Iraqi non-compliance with Security Council resolutions.

***

Canberra’s new approach to the United Nations

“We have no intention, as Australians, of playing any part in anything which would be illegal in breach of the law Australia has no intention of doing anything which is in breach of international law (Foreign Minister Alexander Downer, Lateline, ABC TV 24 September, 2002).

“Until I know and the Government knows what has come out of the United Nations Security Council position – I mean you could have a situation where you have a resolution carried 13-2, and one of the two is a permanent member, and the permanent member says “I am going to veto the resolution.”

“Now in those circumstances we would have to make a decision, the Americans would have to make a decision, and potentially others. And I know there are other countries that would in those circumstances regard such a veto as capricious and regard a vote of 13-2 in favour of action as being Security Council endorsement and they wouldn’t allow that capricious veto to hold them back.” (Prime Minister John Howard, 7.30 Report, ABC TV, 23 January, 2003).

There is an obvious contraction in these two remarks. Five points are worth noting about the Prime Minister’s new attitude to United Nations Security Council resolutions.

(1) The process whereby international law is made – via the passing of UN Security Council Resolutions – can now be disregarded if the outcome isn’t welcome. The veto powers of the permanent five members apparently don’t count if the desired result doesn’t eventuate. This is an interesting approach to ‘due process’ and displays extraordinary contempt for the UN Charter which specifies the respective powers of UN Security Council members and the process for passing resolutions.

We have a crisis of UN credibility, and it has been building up for a while.

(2) If the UN Security Council decides not to authorise an attack against Iraq, the use of force against Baghdad would constitute a crime of aggression – a breach of international law. Few credible international lawyers argue that existing breaches of UN Security Council resolutions by Iraq provide a legal defence for the use of force against it.

The international community doesn’t only express its views when UN Security Council resolutions are passed. It is speaking just as loudly when it rejects draft resolutions passed by member-states. The rule of law may not be a high priority for Washington given that the United States is the only country to have vetoed a UN Security Council resolution calling on all states to obey international law, but this is not a precedent which Canberra should follow (Chomsky 1999a, p.74).

(3) If Canberra opposes the current process which allows the permanent five members of the Security Council to veto resolutions, what steps has it taken to alter this power through proposals to reform the UN?

(4) What are the implications of this new policy for relations with Israel? Since the early 1970s, the US has vetoed 22 draft Security Council resolutions on Palestine alone – this figure doesn’t include 7 vetoes relating to Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in the 1980s. The US has normally been outvoted 14-1 on these resolutions, though it is difficult to recall Mr Howard condemning Washington’s “capricious” use of its veto in these cases. According to the principle Mr Howard has recently articulated, 14-1 votes in the Security Council where the single vote against is a veto can nevertheless be regarded as constituting Security Council endorsement for, not against, the resolution.

Agreed again, double standards are not hard to find. But again how much does that tell us about how the world should handle Saddam Hussein? I fear here that the unspoken invitiation is to do as Baldwin and Eden did in response to Hitler’s remilitarization of the Rhineland, namely nothing.

The crucial opening step in Hitler’s drive towards WW2 occurred when he ordered his army to move into the areas of the Rhineland facing France which had been demilitarized under the Versailles treaty of 1918 and the Locarno pact of 1925.

The French Government wanted to move against him and asked the British to assist. The British led by Baldwin and Eden declined to do so. Hitler later said: “The 48 hours after the march into the Rhineland were the most nerve-wracking in my life. If the French had then marched into the Rhineland we would have had to withdraw with our tails between our legs, for the military forces at our disposal would have been wholly inadequate for even a moderate resistance.” (Alan Bullock, Hitler and Stalin, Fontana 1993, p.570)

This was not appeasement, which only came later. This was paralysis on the part of the only powers in a position to stop Hitler. From 1936 on Hitler held the initiative, and it was downhill all the way to WW2. But in 1936 he feared a crushing defeat, which unfortunately for the whole of Europe never came.

Had France and Britain moved against Hitler at that time it is likely that a movement to let Hitler advance no further would have been set in place, and WW2 might have been averted. (But bear in mind that ‘if’ and ‘if only’ are rather forlorn expressions as far as the historian is concerned.) None the less, had they done so, a contemporary Scott Burchill could have opposed such action, pointing to the relative weakness of Hitler, to the thousands of innocent civilians likely to be killed or maimed, and to the appalling historical record of the British in the world at large, including involvement in the trade in slaves and opium (which brought them to war with China in 1840) and the plunder of much of the world; and then could have gone on to catalogue the sins of the French.

I was in the Australian movement against the Vietnam War right from the start, but I try to keep my mind open and resist the temptation to a knee jerk response. (On a recent visit to the US I was amazed by the strength of both feeling and uncertainty against war in Iraq.) At the same time I make it my business to read all I can on the issues from journalists and commentators across the political spectrum. All my reading has convinced me of one thing: The issues in this are not simple, and the choice is not easy. Those who attempt to present the choice as a simple one, and the case against Bush, Blair and Howard as a lay down misere, are fooling themselves and, through their dismissive approach to those they oppose, clouding the issue.

Journalism and letters to the nation’s editors (11-1 against according to the SMH 5.2.03) are generally against intervention in Iraq. But a majority of the public according to the polls remains in favour, provided the UNSC gives its support. The UN certainly recognises the danger of a WMD armed Saddam, which is why the inspectors are there on their present wild goose chase. If Saddam were as weak as many portay him to be, I doubt the UN would bother.

Israel is a permanent thorn in the side of the world, and with hindsight a strong case can be made that it should never have been set up after WW2, and certainly not in the way it was, as a brutal act of colonization in Palestine under the umbrella of British occupation. It gives Saddam and his ilk a fine target on which to focus the frustration and anger of the Arabs in general, and should Saddam acquire nuclear weapons, an Iraqi-Israeli nuclear exchange in the not so distant future is a distinct possibility.

The Howard Government has stated that one reason Israel’s defiance of UN Security Council resolutions cannot be compared with Iraq’s is because the resolutions Israel ignores are not Chapter 7 enforcement resolutions (as Iraq’s are). The reason for this is because Washington routinely and capriciously vetoes all enforcement resolutions against Tel Aviv. Presumably these vetoes can be dismissed in the future? Or according to Mr Howard’s new principle, from now on member states of the UN shouldn’t allow Washington’s “capricious” use of its veto power to “hold them back” from bringing Israel to account for its breaches of international law.

Howard has left himself wide open here. Just because he developed the concept of the non-core promise, it does not mean that he can master everything.

(5) Canberra’s new policy echoes both the ALP’s and the British Government’s positions. According to the Leader of the Opposition, “the exception to this position [of only supporting UN authorised action against Iraq] might occur in the case of overwhelming UN Security Council support for military action, but where support for such action was subject to veto” (The Australian Financial Review, 15 January, 2003).

Prime Minister Blair has said that if one country on the Security Council imposed an “unreasonable or unilateral” block “we can’t be in a position where we are confined in that way” (The Age, 15 January, 2003).

Crean, Blair and now Howard are saying that the moral authority of the UN depends on whether it does the bidding of Washington and its allies. If it reflects a different view, it’s very legitimacy is in question and therefore the process by which it has been passing Security Council resolutions since the 1940s can be disregarded. You can see what they mean when they say that the future of the UN is at stake over the question of Iraq.

The UN Security Council was set up as a way to reconcile opening membership of the UN to all nations with the fact that the US and a small number of others either had nuclear weapons or were developing them with the resources than available to them, and demanded a privileged position on that basis. Again, there are consequences for the UN in not supporting regime change in Iraq, and others for doing so. The choice is not easy for any of us.

As the possibility of a new UN Security Council resolution authorising the use of force fades, it is increasingly clear that Washington, London and possibly Canberra will construct tortured and unconvincing legal arguments which claim that existing resolutions breached by Iraq since 1990 already legitimate the use of force (see Rai 2002, pp.145-50). This is disputed by most independent international lawyers. In Australia the argument has taken a novel turn.

Neil Mitchell: It does seem the United Nations is the key to it and the public support seems to be predicated on support for action with United Nations approval. Is there a possibility of the Australian Government supporting action without United Nations approval?

Prime Minister Howard: You can’t give a clear cut answer to that until you know the final outcome of the UN process and the reason for that is that the final outcome is very likely to be either black or white. People assume that at the end of the day the UN will either 15-0 explicitly, without argument, authorise the use of force or alternatively heavily say under no circumstances should force at any time be used. Now, I’m afraid that it’s not going to quite end up that way. You’re going to have something in between. You may remember the NATO intervention in Kosovo at the time when the NATO countries decided to attack Serbia because of the ethnic cleansing that was occurring in Kosovo. That was not authorised by the United Nations. (24 January 2003, Radio 3AW).

Washington’s wars in Indochina were never bought before the United Nations, for obvious legal and political reasons. However, the problem with the Kosovo precedent is that NATO’s attack on Serbia was almost certainly illegal. Security Council authorisation was not sought by Washington or London in 1999 because of Moscow’s likely use of its veto power, thus a very dubious claim to ‘the right of humanitarian intervention’ was invoked (Gray 2000, pp.31-42). No such right to humanitarian intervention can be, or is being claimed in the case of Iraq, so the Kosovo precedent is irrelevant to contemporary events.

***

Conclusion

Neither the Prime Minister nor the Foreign Minister have answered the key question: Where is the new evidence that makes military action against Iraq more urgent now than it has been since December 1998 when Richard Butler withdrew UNSCOM from Iraq?

Or more exactly, when Richard Butler withdrew UNSCOM from Iraq after Saddam’s men made its work impossible.

Prime Minister Howard claims the onus is on the critics of his Government’s approach to articulate an alternative (The Australian, 1 January, 2003). What about the policy of containment his Government comfortably lived with between 1996 and 2002? As two conservative realists have noted:

“… the belief that Saddam’s past behaviour shows that he cannot be contained rests on distorted history and dubious logic. In fact, the historical record shows that the United States can contain Iraq effectively – even if Saddam has nuclear weapons – just as it contained the Soviet Union during the Cold War. And that conclusion carries an obvious implication: there is no good reason to attack Iraq at this time” (Mearsheimer & Walt 2002).

I submit that the combination of Saddam’s past record, his present position and his clear and steadfastly held strategic objective of domination of the Middle East makes a statement like this unreliable at best, and at worst, an invitation to step into a fool’s paradise.

Had it not been for the demands made by members of the US led coalition in the Gulf War, Saddam could have been relatively easily ousted then. My weighing of the issues for and against has convinced me that the choice is certainly not easy. However, I am convinced that both Iraq and the world will be so much better off without Saddam and his WMD that I am prepared to join the 60 percent of Australians who support the Australian government on this issue, and the 6 percent who support the position of the US. I say this in full awareness that many of my friends and colleagues disagree. As the reader by now will be aware, the arguments of Burchill and others do not convince me.

Iraq must be relieved of both its WMD capacity, and preferably, of Saddam as well. Otherwise the world faces the disintegration of the non-proliferation treaties on WMD and a boxcar effect of nuclear and WMD armament continuing until such armament is the rule rather than the exception.

Dear fellow Australian …

Letterbox rummaging – junk mail, bill, junk mail, bill, junk mail – hang on, what’s this? A package from the Prime Minister. First thought – looks dodgy, should I call the terror hotline? Should I clear the area?

Letter addressed to “Dear fellow Australian”, blah, blah, blah – signed “John Howard” … signature stamp looks semi-real. Could John really have signed this? No, of course not. Rummage straight to booklet …

FRONT COVER: Let’s Look Out For Australia (that big island, south of the equator)

“Protecting our way of life (whatever that means) from a possible terrorist attack” (if alive, locate loved ones, internet, radio, television, substance of choice).

Accompanying front cover photos:

1. Crowded beach scene: Get your gear off, forget the coconut oil, it’s time to slip, slop, slap.

2. Barbequing: remember to use extra long tongs. Lick finger and hold it in the air to determine smoke flow direction. Stand in the opposite direction and prepare for wind change.

3. Approach a police officer at the local shops if any can be located. Ask them if their hat had a previous life in ‘The Nun’s Story’, and if they’re off duty on Tuesday nights, whether they think Chandler was a pig with his reaction to knocking up DC McAllister.

4. If posing for a class photo, beware the ol’ bunny ears trick. Gets ’em every time.

“Commonwealth Government”, written just above a thin line of colours inspiring rainbow flag thoughts which in turn causes eye rubbing to clarify vision. Turn page.

ABOUT THIS BOOKLET

“This booklet is part of a campaign to inform the public about what is being done to look out for Australia and protect our way of life from a possible terrorist attack.” If alive, locate loved ones, internet, radio, television, substance of choice.

“It is part of the Commonwealth Government’s commitment to keeping every Australian informed about:

” – new counter-terrorist measures that have been put in place” (read ‘self promotion’)

” – how we can all play our part by being alert, but not alarmed” (unless you read this booklet in full)

” – who to contact to report suspicious activity” (mental note, man climbing in neighbour’s window, call hotline)

” – what to do in the event of an emergency” (if alive, locate loved ones, internet, radio, television, substance of choice).

“Please take the time to read this booklet, and fill in and keep the emergency contacts fridge magnet.” In case there is a biological, chemical or radiological attack, there is a slight chance your fridge will be OK.

Accompanying photos:

1. If out of sunscreen, find extra large Australian flag to hold up on shoreline, and see if sunset can fade out Union Jack.

2. Cricket: Laugh as you hit Dad in the unspeakables for six.

3. Steve Liebmann: National treasure.

Don’t nod off, remember, Be Alert …

CONTENTS page. More rainbow colours. Cut out for potential Mardi Gras arm band.

PROTECTING AUSTRALIA

“Terrorism has changed the world, and Australia is not immune” OH NO, NOT AGAIN, ENTER STEVE LIEBMANN’S VOICE IN HEAD …

Accompanying text refers to September 11, Bali, and just in case you forgot, the Federal Government’s possible terrorist attack warning last November. To cover all bases, it still stands.

“New measures include strengthening intelligence, Defence Force and Federal Police capabilities, and tightening air security (an airline collapse or two) and border controls” (rationing sanitary provisions and sharpening razor wire for premises which hold people fleeing terror).

“Further restrictions on items allowed in cabin baggage.” Ah, yes, those reassuring signs at check-in points at airports which instruct potential terrorists to please remove knives and nail files of mass destruction from hand bags.

“Stockpiles of antibiotics, vaccines, anti-viral drugs and chemical antidotes are in place.” Or at least enough for some members of the Defence Force and politicians.

“The public will be kept informed with reliable, up-to-date information on the situation at all times.” Does this apply to Iraq? Is Steve Liebmann involved?

“A terrorist attack on Australia’s critical infrastructure could significantly threaten national security, our economy and lives.” Good to see the Government’s order of priorities.

Accompanying pics:

1. Emergency workers wearing gas masks and ‘Outbreak’ style cat suits, standing over stretcher and patient. Suck in happy gas, suck in happy gas, make it go away, make it go away. Where are the men in white coats?

2. Oil refinery with background purple storm clouds. Beware background purple storm clouds, you might turn into clear skies if Baghdad is bombed.

WE CAN ALL PLAY A PART

A part? or apart?

“Be alert, but not alarmed.” Err why do they keep repeating this?

“There are things we can all do to help protect our way of life.” Just like Americans, every Australian has their part to play and isn’t it terrific? As US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage told us in December last year, “It’s hard to imagine two allies like us wouldn’t be involved in the great issues of the day together”. It’s great Dick, just great.

“Keep yourself informed It is important that you try to keep up to date with the news.” Seven Sunrise is keeping up a happy face, with their self-declared “CAMPAIGN FOR OPTIMISM”, which on Monday morning seemed comical with the running bottom screen news update of “John Howard to stay on as Prime Minister past his 64th birthday”. For those who are after a more realist approach to their news, try The Oz’s inside banner headline of “Countdown to War”. And of course, there’s always Steve.

“You can cut out the card on the right and carry it in your purse or wallet.” Card reads: “IF IT DOESN’T ADD UP, RING UP”, followed by the national security hotline number. Reckon they’d be able to explain the Australian Government’s Iraqi policy? Or the Federal Opposition’s? Or the Americans?

Back of card reads yet again, “Be alert, but not alarmed”. Heck no, you’re just carrying a frigging terror hotline card in your wallet. Nothing to be alarmed about at all.

“Possible signs of terrorism” …

 “Unusual videotaping”. Beware blooper, not so funny home video or Jackass attempts.

– “Suspicious vehicles … explosives can be heavy, so cars and vans may sit abnormally low on their suspension. They may be out of registration, or have false or missing number plates.” Beware all Kombi drivers, particularly those carrying ‘MAGIC HAPPENS’ and ‘NO WAR’ stickers.

– “Unusual purchases of large quantities of fertilizer”. Beware better homes and gay boys crews stocking up for a backyard blitz.

– “A lifestyle that doesn’t add up”. Beware anyone reading this.

“Our Community”

“Terrorism affects us all and no community or religion should be made a scapegoat for the actions of extremists. If you see harassment or discrimination, do not turn your back.” Try to avoid talkback radio, particularly on the topics of detention centre fires, gang rapes, chadors, or banning Santa.

WHAT TO DO IN AN EMERGENCY

“If a bomb explodes Get away to an open space or protected area as quickly and calmly as possible.” Confused? Open space or protected area? Perhaps run between the two options, as calmly as possible of course. But whatever you do, “Do not form or join a crowd – there may be other bombs”. Find an open-spaced, protected area minus crowds and recite ‘Be alert but not alarmed’ slogan in head. Whilst chanting slogan, also try to “Stay away from tall buildings, glass windows and parked vehicles”. Remind self it’s great working in the heart of the city.

“General Advice”

“If it is dark, check for damage using a torch. Do not light a match – there could be gas in the air.” How reassuring. Keep a torch handy? How’s the sinuses? Alarmed yet?

“Use a landline to call essential contacts if mobile networks are down.” Hello? Hello? Ah yes, of course, the section is titled “general” advice … if the grog runs dry, find the nearest bottle shop.

“Other steps you can take to prepare for an emergency … Develop an emergency plan … who will check on elderly neighbours or pick up children from school?” Damn. I knew there was something I forgot the children!

“Choose an out-of-town friend or relative who is prepared to be a point of contact if the members of your household are separated.” Any takers? Margo?

“Agree on a meeting place Decide where your group will meet in the event of an incident that makes it impossible for you to go home.” Pub sounds good.

“Assemble an emergency kit … include a torch, a battery operated radio, a first aid kit including latex gloves” And a pair of fishnet stockings. Kinky. If alive, locate loved ones, internet, radio, television, fridge magnet, terror hotline card, latex gloves, torch and substance of choice.

ESSENTIAL FIRST AID

“Cool the burn with plenty of clean, cold water (except for burns that are charred, whitish or deep).” Where’s that ‘but not alarmed’ slogan when you need it?

“Exposure to chemical, biological or radiological agents … exposure to any of these agents could lead to an unexplained outbreak of illness.” Why do I suddenly feel itchy?

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

“How long will Australia be on heightened alert? It is likely that we will be living with increased security for the foreseeable future.” Again, covering all bases.

“Terrorism has changed the world and security may never return to the relaxed levels most of us grew up with.” Not like growing up in Sir Joh’s Queensland.

But remember, “It is essential that we do not allow the threat of terrorism to change the way of life we value so highly.” Yes, you can still go and play the pokies.

“What if my children become concerned or anxious about terrorism?”

“Talk with your children about what is happening and what is being done to protect them (Remember to pick them up from school). Encourage them to say how they feel.” But for chrissake, don’t let them ask any questions, particularly along the lines of ‘Whatever happened to Osama bin Laden?’ If they do, put fingers in ears and sing lalalalalala.

“Be honest about things being discussed in the media and in your community.” Really? Should this involve Steve Liebmann and the graffiti that reads “BE ALARMED”?

TRAVELLING OR LIVING OVERSEAS

“Australians have always been great travellers, and are welcome visitors in most countries around the world. Nobody wants to change that.” And as long as John Howard doesn’t start engaging in hypotheticals about first striking terrorist cells in neighbouring countries again, it should stay that way.

MULTILINGUAL INFORMATION

Makes a hellovalotta more sense written in a foreign language.

WHO TO CONTACT AND WHEN

Rewrap up info, and return to sender.

Rolling your own

Hi. Howard’s pretence might bite him back.

Most of us believed long ago that he’d already committed to war if the US pushed the button, and now George Bush has confirmed it. He could have done what Britain did and said long ago he’d go all the way with Bush in a unilateral strike. If he had, he’d be locked in, having already worn the flak for his decision.

But now Howard’s overseas on what he calls a peace mission rejecting the German/French peace proposal as “hypothetical”. He’s now in the excruciating position where, according to his word, he faces a decision whether or not to join a United States war as world opinion potentially rallies around a plan for peaceful disarmament. How would he justify his oft-stated preference for peace? That war is the very last resort….? Stay tuned for the next episode….

And don’t you just love the twist in the liar, liar tale? The US ambassador tells Labor that calling Howard a liar means they’re calling Bush a liar. Bush tells the truth, and Howard denies it – Howard calls Bush a liar?

I’ve just published Polly Bush’s very funny take on the terror kit Dear fellow Australian… and a detailed response to Scott Burchill’s ‘Counterspin’ piece by Ian MacDougall called Saddam as Stalin: The case for war. More from you in the next entry.

A word on last night’s Media Watch. I’ve been copping flak in the weblog world since I wrote in Let’s find our elders and give them a go about a couple of changes of habit I’ve adopted this year. They were buried in a piece about Rick Farley’s idea for an environment levy and a Sustainibility Commission, where I suggested that spreading some some basic info about how changing habits can help conservation would be a good idea. All I was doing was illustrating the big difference a lot of people changing small habits can make. Why pay $2 a bottle for water then piss the same stuff against the wall, so to speak? When I was little, a neighbour used the no-flush principle to save money – why not do it now to save what’s become a precious resource? My Mum and grandmother both took string bags to the shops – that habit died in a generation, producing dire results for the environment.

Ever since I’ve got the standard stuff – lots of ‘golden shower” jokes etc. Weird how the mention of certain bodily functions give permission to the anally retentive to get all excited. Anyway, the comments got a run onMedia Watch last night:

Margo Kingston should be made a Dame Commander for the stimulating ideas she pours into her famous Sydney Morning Herald web diary.

“After hanging round with greenies lately, I’ve done one little thing: stopped buying tailor mades and started smoking rollies instead. Thats 11,000 cigarette butts a year I won’t be inflicting on the environment.”

Margo, forget the environment. Save yourself. She had more.

“I’ve also learned that theres no need to flush the toilet after peeing its just wasting water. A little thing, but something.”

You’re right Margo.

Thanks, David. Since your kind remarks, a couple of experts let me know in no uncertain terms that rollies were WORSE for you than tailor mades. I know fags are bad for you full stop – but I had imagined that I might be doing a little better than I was health wise. It took a few days of withdrawal systems after I started on rollies to get used to the change, so I figured there must be other bad stuff in the tailor-mades. But no.

Bill King, VicHealth Centre for Tobacco Control, The Cancer Council Victoria: There is a need for more public health information about the dubiousness of widespread beliefs about ryo cigarettes and “chemical free” cigarettes. It’s amazing how widely held these beliefs are. I wish I had a dollar for every time I’ve heard “Rollies aren’t as bad for you because they haven’t got all the chemicals” and the variant “Why don’t you guys campaign to get the chemicals out of cigarettes and then there would be a lot less lung cancer.”

Simon Chapman, Professor School of Public Health, University of Sydney Thanks to Media Watch, the world now knows about your decision to switch to rollies. Often people say they are doing this for “health reasons” because rollies are more “natural” etc. You might be interested to a paper I’ve just done on additives in Australian cigs – roll your own tobacco is actually MUCH higher in additives and weird stuff than tailor mades …. sorry!!

Margo: Simon says he’ll put the paper on his website tomorrow. If you’re interested, go to tobaccohealth