Hi. Jack Robertson, an ex-soldier and the brother of an SAS officer now on deployment to the Gulf, details the crucial unanswered questions on invading Iraq, particularly from the perspective of our soldiers, in White House anti-Americanism, Australian patriotic blackmail.

Today’s Herald details where Howard has agreed our troops will fit into the US war machine in the Gulf, and their role in an invasion. (Forces to follow US plan of attack). It proves that John Howard has handed his decision on whether Australia troops will join an invasion of Iraq to the Americans. It is inconceivable that Australia would not go to war if the Americans did so given that it has agreed to play specific roles in an invading force. That would be treachery.

Yesterday -a day after farewelling our troops – Howard acknowledged his failure to explain himself to Australians. “They’re wanting to hear from me, I understand that and I’ll do my very best to talk to them and to explain it,” he said on radio 3AW. Yet he persisted with his false claim that he would exercise an independent judgement on whether Australian troops will invade Iraq.

Howard’s promised parliamentary debate on whether to go to war is a sham. He has handed the power to the Americans to decide. It’s that simple. And he’s failed to tell us the rules of engagement, or the plan for regime change.

Australians need to watch the US President’s state of the union address on Wednesday for clues on what we might be in for. George Bush will decide whether Australian troops invade Iraq and the circumstances in which they do so. John Howard – and Australian public opinion – are irrelevant to their fate.

Today, responses to my piece in yesterday’s Webdiary from Americans Hal Wilson and Charles P. Solomon and a selection of your emails which show just how bitter this debate is going to get, on both sides.

***

Recommendations

Glenn Condell recommends nowarblog, a joint effort by American progressive and conservative bloggers who oppose the war.

David Candy recommends an Australian National University publication, anu, on waging war on Iraq, in which Australia’s leading academics, military men and policy advisors discuss how we’ve got to this and what it could mean for the world.

A reader says that if an attack begins, there’s a rally at 5pm that day at Sydney Town Hall. Contact Nick Everett 0409 762 081, Hannah Middleton 0418 668 098, Bruce Childs 9386 1240. You can keep in touch with what the anti-war movement is doing by emailing StopTheWar_Announce-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

***

Hal Wilson in Tallahassee, Florida

The United States of America has been attacked by an organized group of terrorists whose stated goal is the destruction of our country and our freedom loving way of life. We are at war and there is nothing that you can say or do that changes this. As President Bush so aptly stated – you are with us or you are against us. It is that simple.

Anti-Americans such as yourself who seek to deny that freedom loving peoples everywhere are threatened do your readers a grave injustice. You seek to lull your readers into complacency by suggesting that by doing nothing, our enemies will leave us alone. Nothing could be further from the truth. That has been proven time and time again with horrible and vivid consequences. How much innocent blood must be shed? Not any more of ours, thank you.

This is a war unlike any the world has ever seen. Our enemies are unseen and for the most part difficult to target. But the risks of inaction are the same. Destruction.

Why is Saddam a threat to America and why must he be removed, now? Because we believe that he has the potential for making weapons of mass destruction available to terrorists who will use them against us and in doing so, kill innocent Americans. That is simply unacceptable and it is not worth taking the risk that he won’t. History is full of examples of inaction that have resulted in tragedy.

There is a very large group of radical extremists, well funded, and relentless who seek to impose their way of life throughout the entire world. These people are not champions of individual freedoms, especially for women. They seek to impose their will by first destroying Israel and all Jewish people everywhere (all those who worship on Saturday). They next plan to destroy all of those who worship on Sunday. This is no secret. Why is it so difficult for you to understand this?

Australians have been attacked and hundreds were slaughtered. Do you believe that if you do nothing the radical elements that attacked you will suddenly leave you alone? Hardly. Bullies seldom leave weaklings alone. Were you never in grade school?

It is sad that it seems that so many Australians have deserted America. So be it. However, I can assure you of one thing. Our President has sworn an oath to protect his country and his people and he will do so. So help him God. When it comes right down to it, this is a fight for survival and only the fit and the strong shall survive.

If you are with us, then you shall survive. If you are not with us, may God have mercy on you.

***

Charles P. Solomon, MD, Birmingham, Alabama

As an American planning a visit to Australia soon, I have been reading the SMH regularly to find out how Australians feel about current events. I read your essay In Australia’s best interests with great interest.

I do understand the reluctance other nations have to our nation’s stance concerning terror and especially Iraq and its dictator. It is encouraging to know that America does have friends who want to lend their support in this effort, but I also understand why other nations do not share our determination in this matter. I admit that if the terrorists had flown their aircraft into the Sydney Opera House, then the Sydney Harbor Bridge and finally the AMT Tower, that most Americans would not likely want to commit troops to finding and punishing the culprits so that such terrible deeds did not happen again. So your point of view is well-taken from your nation’s vantage point, I must admit.

However, if indeed this had happened to Australia and not to America, how would you respond if our President did pledge troops/support to the course of action your government chose to take? The world is a small place and is shrinking daily. To imagine that non-action will preclude future attention by terrorists is a flawed policy in my view.

9-11 changed America forever; it was the Pearl Harbor Day of my generation. I have served in the US Military previously and recognize that freedom is never free. Please also consider that we Americans have been affected and changed forever by what was done to us. May this never happen to your wonderful country. But, if it does, I believe you will find comfort in knowing that America will stand by your side as we have in the past.

***

Sue Arnold, an Australian in the US

I was lucky enough to be in San Francisco and take part in what surely must have been one of the biggest marches ever seen in this city. Those in the know reckon the crowd was around 200,000. It was the most awe inspiring incredible experience from the time my friends and I jammed ourselves into the crowded Muni trains around l0.00am. Everyone was smiling, carrying placards, badges – all drenched in good will. People of every age group and race walked, roaring their protests. It was almost impossible to move in the streets because of the ever swelling crowd. Here and there was street theatre, women lying down with “dead babies “, other groups making music, banging drums, singing. Everywhere placards which made so many of us laugh.

The anti Bush sentiment is tangible in this country in spite of what the polls say. It was the most peaceful, inspiring, wonderful experience to be in the midst of jam packed humanity – without identification other than being part of a sea of concerned people who refuse to accept that war with Iraq is any solution. In Washington DC more than 500,000 people were on the streets. The mood in America is almost beyond description, a sleeping giant has awoken . Bush will ignore these outpourings at his peril.

***

John Burnett in Sydney

Mr Crean,

Your statements before the deployment of troops overseas has merely cemented in my mind what I have long suspected. You and your party are playing the “race card” just as hard as the Liberals except you are bigots when it comes to America. In your mind and in the minds of the the party you lead all Americans are deserving of contempt and hatred. According to the ALP and the ACTU, both organisations with which you have strong ties, America is the source of all the world’s ills.

Funny how you didn’t take this anti-American line until after opinion polls started to confirm just how bigoted and racist the Australian public is against Americans. Playing on people’s prejudices is always morally wrong, Mr Crean… even when it’s against those damn Yanks.

***

Carlo Randazzo

You are right when you say that the prime minister is prevaricating in his responses to the Iraq war and our participation therein. Is he taking the Australian people for fools? I doubt that a seasoned political campaigner like him will. If the polls are right and this war goes badly (though, if it is anything like the last one don’t expect there to be much debate about the pros and cons after the event) he will be crucified at the next election.

The question is why is he risking so much: Australian lives, Australian international credibility and his political career. It appears to me that he is doing it for the same reason that we have backed the USA since WWII.

We exist because of their security blanket. To pretend otherwise would be to ignore the reality of the world we live in. That security blanket comes at a cost, and on this occasion it is at the cost of participating in a war that we may not support and is not at first glance in our national interest.

I note that we participated in Afghanistan and Iraq Mark 1 for similar reasons (our contribution was symbolic at best on both occasions) and I do not recall particularly sharp debate on those decisions.

Our national interest has long been about maintaining the US as our friend and ally. The greater change in our national strategy would not be that we are participating in a war at its behest – there is already a long list of precedents for that – but that we will not answer their call when it arrives (and we should not behave like babes in the woods when it does arrive). The US is a superpower (the only one left) and we are its ally. That best summarises our foreign policy.

As for the UN, do you really believe that participation in any conflict requires its imprimatur? How then do we explain US led attacks in Kosovo and Bosnia, not to mention older examples such as Panama and Grenada. Russia is also killing thousands of people in the Chechen conflict in what is a war in all but name. I could list many others but that is not the point here.

The UN has failed so often in recognising that conflicts may occur (eg Rwanda) or in resolving the ongoing ones (such as the myriad African civil wars) that you need to question whether that is even its role. For years the UN stood by while the USSR and the US played world domination and held its breath hoping that it wouldn’t explode into something more substantial, and now we expect that body to be the overarching institution that will deliver world stability. There is somehow a disconnect here that is beyond me.

If the UN is to become that, and it is not impossible, it will need the assistance of the world’s superpower – without such support it will face the same abyss as any dependant institution without a substantial benefactor (here you can read Australia without American alliance).

What then is our prime minister to do? In my view, he should spell out that we are answering the call of the US for better or for worse because it is in our national interest to do so as it has been for some 60 years now. When we are a significant international power then we can ignore them, until then we will continue to do what we have always done whether we like it or not.

However, is it an option to call the US an evil warmonger and tell them that we will not participate in a war on the peaceloving Saddam Hussein?

I’m glad I am not the prime minister and I do not have to make this call.

***

Chris Murphy

How can the “Coalition of the Willing” maintain its willingness, its steadfastness, and the morale of its troops when the truth of the matter is in real doubt? The Washington Post today reports that the White House lied about some of their “evidence”. This is beginning to look like Vietnam all over again, folks.

Conservative fools note: Little lies can undermine the entire credibility of superpowers, no matter how worthy the cause. And there is no greater traitor than the leader who abuses the trust of his people.

“When President Bush travelled to the United Nations in September to make his case against Iraq, he brought along a rare piece of evidence for what he called Iraq’s “continued appetite” for nuclear bombs. The finding: Iraq had tried to buy thousands of high-strength aluminum tubes, which Bush said were “used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon.”

Bush cited the aluminum tubes in his speech before the UN General Assembly and in documents presented to U.N. leaders. Vice President Cheney and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice both repeated the claim, with Rice describing the tubes as “only really suited for nuclear weapons programs.”

It was by far the most prominent, detailed assertion by the White House of recent Iraqi efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. But according to government officials and weapons experts, the claim now appears to be seriously in doubt.

After weeks of investigation, UN weapons inspectors in Iraq are increasingly confident that the aluminum tubes were never meant for enriching uranium, according to officials familiar with the inspection process. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN-chartered nuclear watchdog, reported in a Jan. 8 preliminary assessment that the tubes were “not directly suitable” for uranium enrichment but were “consistent” with making ordinary artillery rockets – a finding that meshed with Iraq’s official explanation for the tubes. New evidence supporting that conclusion has been gathered in recent weeks and will be presented to the U.N. Security Council in a report due to be released on Monday, the officials said.

Moreover, there were clues from the beginning that should have raised doubts about claims that the tubes were part of a secret Iraqi nuclear weapons program, according to U.S. and international experts on uranium enrichment. The quantity and specifications of the tubes – narrow, silver cylinders measuring 81 millimeters in diameter and about a meter in length – made them ill-suited to enrich uranium without extensive modification, the experts said.

But they are a perfect fit for a well-documented 81mm conventional rocket program in place for two decades. Iraq imported the same aluminum tubes for rockets in the 1980s. The new tubes it tried to purchase actually bear an inscription that includes the word “rocket,” according to one official who examined them.

“It may be technically possible that the tubes could be used to enrich uranium,” said one expert familiar with the investigation of Iraq’s attempted acquisition. “But you’d have to believe that Iraq deliberately ordered the wrong stock and intended to spend a great deal of time and money reworking each piece.”

As the UN inspections continue, some weapons experts said the aluminum tubes saga could undermine the credibility of claims about Iraq’s arsenal. To date, the Bush administration has declined to release photos or other specific evidence to bolster its contention that Iraq is actively seeking to acquire new biological, chemical and nuclear arms, and the means to deliver them.

***

Glenn Condell

I saw a bloke on FoxNews the other night who is leading an international group of volunteers through Europe and into Iraq to act as human shields in the event of a ‘coalition’ invasion. His name is Ken O’Keefe, a Gulf War vet who got wise to his government’s policies – he’s since been hounded out of the US on some trumped up car insurance charge and is being threatened with arrest as an ‘enemy combatant’ if he survives the initial confrontations in Iraq. He has renounced his US citizenship, and says he’s had thousands of inquiries and expects as many as 10,000 to join him.

I see the value of this in two ways. Foremost is that he would force the US to kill many of its own and other nation’s citizens in order to take Iraq. This would be an event even the docile US media would find hard to ignore or obfuscate. The other thing it does is neatly contrast the passion and genuine commitment of antiwar activists with the faux conviction of their opponents. He and his colleagues are prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice in defence of their beliefs; one their opponents wouldn’t dream of making. Oh, they’re happy to send soldiers to deal with Saddam’s WMD and general badness, but would they go, or send their children?

The other thing to say about this guy is that he is great media talent – he looks like Quentin Tarantino in a foul mood but is articulate and engaging. He belted the war toadies who ‘interviewed’ him on Fox into orbit the other night and it was inspiring. Here was someone who was prepared to move beyond the formal niceties and meet propaganda with an implacable combination of eloquence and contempt. His website is uksociety.

This is getting hairy. Last night, the Prime Minister declared that HE would decide what country we invaded, and the circumstances in which we invaded it.

“In the end, I have to take decisions that I believe in my heart are in the best interests of Australia.” 7.30 Report

This is the standard answer from prime ministers when they want to do something that’s against public opinion. And it’s perfectly acceptable, in most cases, to take that line – we elect Prime Ministers to take hard, tough decisions in our long term interest.

But not here. No way. If John Howard believes it is in the national interest to invade another country, it is his job, indeed his duty, to persuade the majority of Australians to that view. This is because it is manifestly NOT in the national interest to send our troops to a war we don’t want them to go to. It is a recipe for bitter division, chronic insecurity and instability at home, and could lead to a debilitating collapse in trust in our leaders. It is also a totally unacceptable dampener on the morale of our troops.

War is blood sacrifice, after all.

Many Australians have questions they want the Prime Minister to answer. When reporters ask him some of those questions, he plays a dead bat, as does his increasingly irritating defence minister Robert Hill, whose delphic smile as he evades every question asked is insulting to Australians, to say the least.

Last night Howard appeared to admit he had no guarantee from the US that it would not use nuclear weapons in the war! Asked if he could rule out their use, he said: “Well, if I thought there were going to be nuclear weapons used, I would not allow Australian forces to be involved, full stop.” But have you asked Bush for a guarantee? Unfortunately, the interview was over.

Howard’s obfuscation and failure to be open and honest with the Australian people is reprehensible. Last year he committed Australia to joining a US invasion, even offering to send an armoured brigade. After months of backtracking from that, he now claims with a straight face that the question of whether Australia would join a US unilateral strike is “hypothetical”. The duplicity of this answer is obvious to everyone.

We need to know why Iraq is so threatening to Australia that we need to invade it. We need to know what the terms of engagement are for our participation, including whether the US plans to use biological, chemical or nuclear weapons. We need to know how the US intends to effect regime change, and its timetable to establish democracy. We need to know the possible implications of our participation for our security in our region. Most of all, we need to know whether Australia accepts such a drastic change in international law norms, why, and the terms under which we agree.

The United States is rapidly implementing its new national security strategy – under which it rules the world according to its own interests – using international law and the UN to justify its actions when it can bulldoze agreement but refusing to itself be subject to international law. Clearly the Australian government has accepted that strategy, without saying so, of course. (The strategy is in Manifesto for world dictatorship.)

We need to know the details of this massive change in our foreign policy stance, this turning our backs on the UN as the international body charged with protecting world peace. We need to know the implications of this for us, and what guarantees the US has given that it will deal with the consequences for us of the dangerous stance we have taken at their request.

It is obvious that part of the reason for Australians’ ambivalence to this war is deep distrust of the United States government, due to its past actions, particularly in Iraq and the middle east, and the disagreement with US tactics within its senior political, intelligence and military circles. Surely the Prime Minister should address these concerns, not just pretend they don’t exist.

My guess about why most westerners outside the US are deeply concerned about an invasion of Iraq is that the US has no intention of sorting out the cancer in the Middle-East, the Israeli-Palestinian war. This war constantly threatens to ignite the region, so you’d think its resolution would be top priority before invading an Arab country. The world knows too that the US has the power to stop this war. Imagine the likely result if the time, energy and threats put into the Iraq saga had instead gone into forcing a peace accord, or at the very least a UN-sponsored peacekeeping force charged with separating the warring parties and imposing a forced peace while the parties sorted out a longer-term solution. It is impossible for the United States to prove its good faith on Iraq while this war goes on. It is a greater danger to world peace than Iraq, and many argue that the failure of the US to intervene in what has become a grotesque David and Goliath struggle is a central reason for the rise of extremist Muslim terrorists. Yet while Britain and other European countries try to get the parties talking, the US stands aside and Australia says nothing.

George Bush yesterday repeated his frightening declaration that if you weren’t with his country, you were its enemy. A nation’s past loyalty is irrelevant. September 11, as we know, was the beginning of history for the US president. George Bush’s brutal comments raises the question of whether the sudden US enthusiasm for a free trade deal is conditional on Australia backing a unilateral strike if the UN doesn’t play ball. Are we under duress?

Donald Rumsfeld said yesterday, in dismissing the opposition of France and Germany to a war, they they were “old Europe”, and that power was shifting to the east. He also claimed that many countries had privately offered support to a US invasion. What bribes and blackmail are they being subjected to? And what fate would befall France and Germany if they maintained their defiance of the world’s rogue state superpower?

Trading citizen’s lives for cash and favour is a big step.

Australians have the right to know what is going on. Tony Blair has faced his Parliament and answered MPs questions in detail. He’s argued his case hard and long. John Howard, in contrast, didn’t front the last debate parliament had on Iraq, leaving it to Alexander Downer.

He seems to think he can spin his way through this world crisis by emotional appeals to nationalism via paid mouthpieces like morning TV show host Steve Liebmann. Mr Liebmann is a front man. When he asks questions of guests, they’re given to him by a producer speaking into a microphone connected to his earpiece. He is paid by the government to read the script it gives him. Where is the credibility, where is the authority, in that?

Those TV ads on terrorism should have been fronted by a person of substance who the people of Australia trust. Someone who is prepared to be held accountable if a terrorist attack hits Australia. Someone who can answer our questions.

Australians, perhaps alone of all western Countries, are debating this war in the absence of input from its government. It’s a gross failure of leadership, and carries the risk that Australians will refuse to believe the truth of or the spin around what the government does say when it finally says something. The people of Australia and the troops sworn to defend them deserve better than that.

So many people wanted to read the Howard transcript today that it was inaccessible for a while due to volume of traffic. So many people who wanted their questions answered, and to get some idea of what all this means, were bitterly disappointed. KylieAnn Scott of Haberfield in Sydney watched the farce last night.

Watching Kerry O’Brien interview John Howard last night was absolutely pointless. Howard has become so seasoned in his dodgy avoidance of answering questions, whilst appearing to make the questions in themselves appear too hypothetical, absurd, and not worthy of contemplation or response.

Yet he has committed our troops on exactly that, on Unknowns. He will not answer hypothetical questions to Kerry O’Brien but he will commit our troops on yet-to-happen scenarios. He hopes that we will believe this quandary. I am not so sure.

Howard said he was pre-deploying troops as “an element in the diplomatic push”, but since there is already one hundred and twenty six thousand troops over there, what significant difference would our Australian contingent make to Saddam’s resolve to comply or not?

Why is our Prime Minister able to dodge around the truth and not be drawn on is real intentions? Surely the timing of this deployment is of the essence, yet he is able to skirt around all this on his favourite avoidance device: “I will not speculate”, “I will not answer questions on hypotheticals”.

Please, can someone find a way to catch Our Seasoned Avoider off guard and for once draw him on the truth? And if he won’t be drawn on them in words then all we have left are his actions, and if the old adage about “words and actions” is true, then I like my fellow Australians should hold grave concerns.

Martin Williams is unimpressed, and angry.

And what is the most reliable indicator of when the invasion will begin?

When the weapons inspectors are suddenly and without explanation pulled from Iraq. Because Hans Blix knows that if his team is still in Iraq when the US cross their Rubicon they will be captured, tortured and killed – possibly in the same way that Mark Wahlberg was tortured in the film “Three Kings”: electric shocks to the skull and gallons of oil straight down the throat.

And what is the signal that Australian defence forces are being misused and endangered?

When John Howard and his parade of sycophants refuse to explain what “national interest” actually is, and sprout neologisms such as “pre-deployment” to mislead Australians into thinking that this is all a carefully prepared diplomatic manoeuvre.

The most recent targets of such sophistry were refugees/illegal immigrants/asylum seekers. This time it will be Australia’s own servicemen and servicewomen.

Let’s see how the Australian people react when their children and parents and siblings start coming home in body bags at the pleasure of an unqualified and secretive “national interest”.

In twenty-five words or less, what will they have died for? Answer the question NOW, John Howard, before it is too late, or risk the stain of their blood on your hands.

Scott Burchill, a lecturer in international relations at Deakin University and regular Webdiary commentator on the war, summarises the implications of Howard’s latest attitude to the authority of the UN as expounded in last night’s interview:

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

(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. The international community doesn’t only speak when it passes UN Security Council Resolutions. It is speaking just as loudly when it rejects them.

(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 reform of 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 I cannot recall Mr Howard condemning Washington’s “capricious” use of its veto in these cases. According to the principle Mr Howard has just articulated, 14-1 resolutions in favour of actions can be regarded as constituting Security Council endorsement for, not against, the resolution.

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 vetos all enforcement resolutions against Tel Aviv. Presumably these vetos 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” in bringing Israel to account for its breaches of international law.

(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.

***

I’ve been inundated with emails on Iraq. Here’s a selection. And check out Polly Bush’s 2003 debut column, on a very strange Australia Day, at We are Australian, and we don’t quite understand what’s going on here.

David Spratt recommends this pic of an anti-war protest in Antarctica, vicpeace.

A reader recommends ‘Scenarios for Australian Military Contributions to the Probable War in Iraq’, by Alex Tewes and Kelly Kavanaugh in the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Group of the federal parliament house library. We’re now at CODE BLUE. aph

Australian filmaker John Weiley has organised an Australia Day ceremony in Byron Bay to protest the war, and the idea has spread. He writes: ” This proposal grew out of discussions within our family and with friends. If, like us, you feel appalled and shamed by the proposed attack on Iraq you will have been wondering if there is anything you can do to stop it. We are calling on everyone who is opposed to Australia’s involvement in Bush’s attack on Iraq to gather at their local war memorial at 5pm on Sunday 26 January – Australia Day. It will be a chance to recall the thousands of Australian lives ruined by pointless wars – the millions of people who have been slaughtered for the greed and ambition of a few. The crying need to put a stop to it. It will be a time to revive our determination to make Australia the decent country that our forebears dreamed it would be. There may be a couple of short speeches and a song or performance piece – perhaps the reading of a poem or two. A draft message should be agreed by each meeting and a delegation appointed to take the message to their local federal member of parliament. There should be a show of hands to move support for the message and the delegation. We don’t plan to do any shouting or marching. We hope that other Australians will support this movement by getting together at war memorials in every town and city in Australia – on Australia Day at 5pm. As individuals we are powerless but together we decide what is best for our country.” For more information call 02-66875544 or email weiley@helio.com.au

Catherine Marciniak says concerned Australians in the entertainment industry have put together an electronic petition at onevoiceforpeace, which includes links to other sites.

James Tedder (jtedder@midcoast.com.au) says there’s a Coff’s Harbour walk for peace, rain, hail or shine, at 11am Sunday, February 2, to show that Australians, who are a ‘friendly, decent, democratic people’ see no just reason to send troops to kill civilians in a war of dubious intent. It will start at 11am at Fitzroy Oval, next to the Coffs Harbour Swimming Pool, left into Gordon Street, left into High Street, then left into Hardacre Street, finishing at the Botanic Garden with a byo picnic lunch.

Gareth Smith: “Why don’t we get our Christmas lights out (ours are still out!) and bedeck our house fronts with NO WAR messages. It would be great if we could coordinate the switch on for Australia Day (Jan 26) and put out press releases. Let there be light not blight!”

Meaghan Phillipson reports on yesterday’s send-off of our troops.

At short notice I decided to go down to Cowpers Wharf to cover the departure of the HMAS Kanimbla for 2SER Community Radio. There were about a hundred or so protestors congregated along the fence line of the Navy dockyards, with about twenty or so journalists joining them while the police and navy keeping a vigilant eye over the entire scene.

My initial reaction was that the protestors shouldn’t be there intruding on the pain of friends and families as their loved ones sailed off to uncertain futures. It didn’t seem right, almost insulting to those ordered to go off and fight in our name.

Watching the ship readied for departure, small groups of families boarded then disembarked after final goodbyes. Women huddled together crying, young children played on the docks happily oblivious to the gravity of the situation, and parents supported each others weight as they waved their children off.

The scene struck home to me the seriousness of war in a way I had not expected it to. I had never seen a navy ship up close, let alone the heartbreaking scene of a ship full of people my age pulling out of dock and into the eye of a quickly advancing political storm.

Out of these scenes of grief, it struck me why the protestors presence was not only valid but also necessary. They were not there to criticise the troops onboard, they were there to protest their deployment. I’m not sure many of the protestors there were prepared for the palpable rawness of emotion witnessed as families were torn apart by a looming war.

But I think such an experience only strengthens the resolve of the anti-war movement, as I doubt nobody there (myself included) would wish to see this scene repeat itself ever again.

As the ship was readied to leave, the strains of The Seekers ‘I am Australian’ floated through across the dock and into the crowd of protestors. As someone who grapples to understand her Australian identity, this moment was perhaps the lowest point of connection Ive felt to the Australian nature entailed within popular culture. I imagined Prime Minister John Howard on the other side of the fence, singing along as he welled with national pride over what these troops are prepared to do for this country upon his orders.

Yet having people willing to risk their lives on behalf of a nation and its agenda is not something that should be wrapped up in a sense of nationalistic pride. It should be acknowledged as a serious pledge that should be respected in diplomatic actions aimed at avoiding the use of this promise by exploring and re-exploring non-combative alternatives.

Considering the circumstances of the deployment, a more appropriate feeling for the Prime Minister would have been one of sadness over his own governments inability to continue to patiently seek diplomatic solutions. In the case of Iraq, I don’t believe every avenue has been exhausted in order to prevent the path to war and so, in the truest sense of the word, war has become the ultimate failure of diplomacy.

As I watched the HMAS Kinimbla pull out of Cowpers Wharf, I couldn’t help but think that what I was witnessing was the first concrete proof of that failure. Perhaps more depressingly though for troops and their loved ones, today felt by no means like the last proof we will see but rather just the beginning.

***

Roger Diercks

As an American, I found your opening paragraphs of Always willing, we’re off to war again to be quite descriptive of public sentiment here in the US. Public resistance to a unilateral strike on Iraq is growing here. With thousands of military reservists being called up to active duty, the reality of war is starting to set in in everyday life in many places around the country. This has resulted in what was previously a fairly quiet reluctance growing louder and more widespread across the entire political spectrum.

Even many well-known conservative pundits have been quite outspoken against a war, and public opinion polls are currently showing that approximately 80% of Americans oppose any action against Iraq without a UN sanction.

Mr Bush has not made a clear case to the American people. His treatment of the crisis with North Korea through diplomatic channels only adds to the questioning of his motives in Iraq. I think that he will be committing political suicide if he leads the US into a war that will inevitably be followed by a long U.S. military presence in Iraq.

***

Tina Burge

I’m living in London and I haven’t read, seen or heard anything in the media regarding Australian troops being sent to the Middle East for this ridiculous folly. Before I left Oz, Correspondents’ Report on Radio National had a piece on the American coverage of the Bali bombing (I think in November) and cited the dearth of coverage in the US media. The media in the UK view an attack on Iraq very much in Bush/Blair terms – never any mention of Howard or Australia.. If Australian troops die in Iraq it will certainly be in vain, and our ‘allies’ won’t care and their media probably won’t even report their deaths – unless the dead once played cricket or tennis.

***

Mary Gardiner: At the risk of ditties getting out of hand, the local version of the “If you’re happy and you know it” lyrics Merrill Pye sent (Always willing, we’re off to war again) would be something like:

When the refugees stop arriving, bomb Iraq

While Canberra is surviving, bomb Iraq

When Uncle Sam comes calling,

And the UN are all bawling,

Then Australia goes a-brawling,

Bomb Iraq

*

When the housing industry’s dying, bomb Iraq

When the sheep farms are all drying, bomb Iraq

When ANZUS needs preserving,

Then Australia is deserving,

Our commitment is unswerving,

Bomb Iraq.

***

Phil Drayson in Perth: What can I say but quote Bob Dylan again:

There’s been rumors of war and wars that have been

The meaning of the life has been lost in the wind

And some people thinkin’ that the end is close by

‘Stead of learnin’ to live they are learning to die

(Let Me Die In My Footsteps, The Bootleg Series Volumes 1-3, 1991)

***

 

Peter Woodforde in Canberra

 

As HMAS Kanimbla steams for Iraq, essentially under the command of a corrupt White House clique which armed and sustained Saddam Hussein for many years, it will bypass Australian servicemen in East Timor now reportedly under sustained threat from militias assembled by brutal US-trained and armed Kopassus forces. This is treachery, pure and bloody simple.

***

Peter Kelly

I like Darren Urquhart’s idea of boycotting American goods and services provided by 5 brands – Mobil-Exxon, Ford, Coca-Cola, McDonalds and Nike (Take a risk for human rights: Back Bush). I just think we should think further than these five corporations and adopt a broader context than simply the war. To spend dollars in the direction of multinational corporations is to bankroll imperialism. By boycotting corporate imperialism you can directly affect the power to wage imperial war.

Maybe other readers have ideas on how to substitute corporate products for non corporate ones. Other things that can be done is fronting schools about corporate “partnerships” and other subtle forms of colonising childrens’ minds with corporate propaganda. Parents can pressure schools and parliamentary representatives to find non corporate solutions to needs in schools. We need not need soft drink “partnerships” as happens in the USA nor for oil companies to be writing global warming curriculums pieces.

There are three ways to respond to the corporate noise crowding out of public space. One is to shout back and try to be louder. Second is to dim the noise through any way possible like “culture jamming”. The third is simply not to listen. If a corporate tree falls in a corporate jungle where there is no one to hear it does the sound exist? Boycotting multinational corporations is a way to simply not listen.

***

Paul Grant

I have no problems with this government’s user pay ideology. Indeed, hands up all those that wish our troops to go off to the Gulf before a UN War is even sanctioned?? Now divide the cost of such a troop exercise, by the number of hands up, and send each raised hand owner their full proportion of the bill!! Any hands still raised?

Ahh!!! democracy!!!!!

***

Chris Murphy

The question is: Given Saddam Hussein’s atrocious human rights record, why do Leftists (and liberals) oppose “regime change”? (See Jim Nolan’s piece in Take a risk for human rights: Back Bush.)

What a shame it is only the Left that is debating the issue. The Right – largely lead, supported and funded by the United States arms and oil industries – is happy to use the excuses that (1) Iraq presents a threat to the world because of its weaponry, and (2) Saddam Hussein is a human rights violator.

What the Right will not concede is that (1) they fully supported the arming of Hussein in the 1980s, and (2) they have continually supported many other dictators with similar human rights records.

What the Right really wants is for the West to (1) re-stamp its “authority” on the world, and (2) regain control of Middle East oil.

In fifty years time, when the textbooks are written about the “First War on Terror”, students will learn that, a century after the Great War, many young men and women were again sent to their deaths on a false pretence, ostensibly in the name of “freedom and democracy”, but in reality for land and money.

***

IMMEDIATE ATTENTION NEEDED :

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL

FROM: GEORGE WALKER BUSH

202.456.1414 / 202.456.1111

FAX: 202.456.2461

DEAR SIR / MADAM,

I AM GEORGE WALKER BUSH, SON OF THE FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA GEORGE HERBERT WALKER BUSH, AND CURRENTLY SERVING AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS LETTER MIGHT SURPRISE YOU BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT MET NEITHER IN PERSON NOR BY CORRESPONDENCE. I CAME TO KNOW OF YOU IN MY SEARCH FOR A RELIABLE AND REPUTABLE PERSON TO HANDLE A VERY CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS TRANSACTION, WHICH INVOLVES THE TRANSFER OF A HUGE SUM OF MONEY TO AN ACCOUNT REQUIRING MAXIMUM CONFIDENCE.

I AM WRITING YOU IN ABSOLUTE CONFIDENCE PRIMARILY TO SEEK YOUR ASSISTANCE IN ACQUIRING OIL FUNDS THAT ARE PRESENTLY TRAPPED IN THE REPUBLIC OF IRAQ. MY PARTNERS AND I SOLICIT YOUR ASSISTANCE IN COMPLETING A TRANSACTION BEGUN BY MY FATHER, WHO HAS LONG BEEN ACTIVELY ENGAGED IN THE EXTRACTION OF PETROLEUM IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND BRAVELY SERVED HIS COUNTRY AS DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY.

IN THE DECADE OF THE NINETEEN-EIGHTIES, MY FATHER, THEN VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, SOUGHT TO WORK WITH THE GOOD OFFICES OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF IRAQ TO REGAIN LOST OIL REVENUE SOURCES IN THE NEIGHBORING ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN. THIS UNSUCCESSFUL VENTURE WAS SOON FOLLOWED BY A FALLING OUT WITH HIS IRAQI PARTNER, WHO SOUGHT TO ACQUIRE ADDITIONAL OIL REVENUE SOURCES IN THE NEIGHBORING EMIRATE OF KUWAIT, A WHOLLY-OWNED U.S.-BRITISH SUBSIDIARY.

MY FATHER RE-SECURED THE PETROLEUM ASSETS OF KUWAIT IN 1991 AT A COST OF SIXTY-ONE BILLION U.S. DOLLARS ($61,000,000,000). OUT OF THAT COST, THIRTY-SIX BILLION DOLLARS ($36,000,000,000) WERE SUPPLIED BY HIS PARTNERS IN THE KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA AND OTHER PERSIAN GULF MONARCHIES, AND SIXTEEN BILLION DOLLARS ($16,000,000,000) BY GERMAN AND JAPANESE PARTNERS. BUT MY FATHER’S FORMER IRAQI BUSINESS PARTNER REMAINED IN CONTROL OF THE REPUBLIC OF IRAQ AND ITS PETROLEUM RESERVES.

MY FAMILY IS CALLING FOR YOUR URGENT ASSISTANCE IN FUNDING THE REMOVAL OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF IRAQ AND ACQUIRING THE PETROLEUM ASSETS OF HIS COUNTRY, AS COMPENSATION FOR THE COSTS OF REMOVING HIM FROM POWER. UNFORTUNATELY, OUR PARTNERS FROM 1991 ARE NOT WILLING TO SHOULDER THE BURDEN OF THIS NEW VENTURE, WHICH IN ITS UPCOMING PHASE MAY COST THE SUM OF 100 BILLION TO 200 BILLION DOLLARS ($100,000,000,000 – $200,000,000,000), BOTH IN THE INITIAL ACQUISITION AND IN LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT.

WITHOUT THE FUNDS FROM OUR 1991 PARTNERS, WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO ACQUIRE THE OIL REVENUE TRAPPED WITHIN IRAQ. THAT IS WHY MY FAMILY AND OUR COLLEAGUES ARE URGENTLY SEEKING YOUR GRACIOUS ASSISTANCE. OUR DISTINGUISHED COLLEAGUES IN THIS BUSINESS TRANSACTION INCLUDE THE SITTING VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RICHARD CHENEY, WHO IS AN ORIGINAL PARTNER IN THE IRAQ VENTURE AND FORMER HEAD OF THE HALLIBURTON OIL COMPANY, AND CONDOLEEZA RICE, WHOSE PROFESSIONAL DEDICATION TO THE VENTURE WAS DEMONSTRATED IN THE NAMING OF A CHEVRON OIL TANKER AFTER HER.

I WOULD BESEECH YOU TO TRANSFER A SUM EQUALING TEN TO TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT (10-25 %) OF YOUR YEARLY INCOME TO OUR ACCOUNT TO AID IN THIS IMPORTANT VENTURE. THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WILL FUNCTION AS OUR TRUSTED INTERMEDIARY. I PROPOSE THAT YOU MAKE THIS TRANSFER BEFORE THE FIFTEENTH (15TH) OF THE MONTH OF APRIL.

I KNOW THAT A TRANSACTION OF THIS MAGNITUDE WOULD MAKE ANYONE APPREHENSIVE AND WORRIED. BUT I AM ASSURING YOU THAT ALL WILL BE WELL AT THE END OF THE DAY. A BOLD STEP TAKEN SHALL NOT BE REGRETTED, I ASSURE YOU. PLEASE DO BE INFORMED THAT THIS BUSINESS TRANSACTION IS 100% LEGAL. IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO CO-OPERATE IN THIS TRANSACTION, PLEASE CONTACT OUR INTERMEDIARY REPRESENTATIVES TO FURTHER DISCUSS THE MATTER.

I PRAY THAT YOU UNDERSTAND OUR PLIGHT. MY FAMILY AND OUR COLLEAGUES WILL BE FOREVER GRATEFUL. PLEASE REPLY IN STRICT CONFIDENCE TO THE CONTACT NUMBERS BELOW.

SINCERELY WITH WARM REGARDS,

GEORGE WALKER BUSH

Switchboard: 202.456.1414

Comments: 202.456.1111

Fax: 202.456.2461

Email:

January 26 … the waft of burning onions on barbeques, the slaps of thongs and cricket bats in backyards, the hoisting of beer cans, flags and sails and the murmurs of citizenship ceremonies across the country, celebrating Australia Day, the blessed anniversary of the settlement of a British penal colony.

As Rick Farley pointed out in his 2003 Australia Day Address, the date creates a bitter sweet divide: “For Aboriginal Australians and many others, the 26th of January is not a day for celebration. To them the date signifies invasion and dispossession.”

Unless there’s tantalising footage for the cameras, the annual protests and those who dare to call this “invasion day” will be forgotten on the night’s television news, but they’ll get their turn. The talkback brigade will no doubt brand them “unAustralian” in the coming days. For many, the date debate will also seem irrelevant in the face of the latest decision to pack the troops off in preparation for an attack on Iraq.

But debates and dialogue, particularly those concerning national identity, are always important, and Farley also addressed this in his speech:

“I believe there is responsibility for community leaders and the media to ensure an informed and inclusive debate occurs about the big issues that shape our nation. I don’t think that responsibility is being fully discharged now. I also place enormous value on the freedoms and tolerance of our civil and democratic society. However, I fear they will be tested as Australia prepares for a new war and as national security fears grow. To be true to ourselves as a civil society, we must guard against racial stereotypes, racism and xenophobia. Our Muslim citizens must be afforded the same respect as all other Australians, irrespective of what events are occurring elsewhere in the world.”

Perhaps Gary Hardgrave will stumble across Farley’s wise words. On January 9 Hardgrave, the Federal Minister for Multicultural Affairs, cautioned some in the media about the importance of influence, warning:“Freedom of speech is a powerful right and an integral part of Australian democracy. However, there is a corresponding responsibility, especially for the media, not to abuse this power by inciting hatred or violence.”

Were Howard Sattler, Jeremy Cordeaux, Alan Jones, Stan Zemanek or the amazingly syndicated John Laws warned of the danger of such unfettered power? Nope … Hardgrave, whose website biog says he was the first MP to walk out on Pauline Hanson’s maiden speech, only sent such cautionary letters to ethnic community broadcasters, because “this responsibility is perhaps even greater for ethnic and community media organisations”.

When Melbourne 3AK’s John Jost asked Hardgrave whether he believed in multiculturalism, the Member for Moreton said, “Well, I do because essentially your culture is what’s in your heart … your culture evolves over time and in Australia we don’t have one culture that’s operating, although we have a dominant culture. But we have a range of cultures and each are worthy of respect.” (www.radioinfo.com.au)

What is this dominant culture? Perhaps national treasure Steve Liebmann knows. The breakfast host, who has spookily transcended television networks’ inspiring remote control checks, tells us in the Federal Government’s incredibly informative anti-terrorism commercials, “Australians are friendly, decent, democratic people”.

Perhaps the matching shots help provide more insight into this dominant culture, with viewers provided with images of a supposed family cricket game, a kickarse surfer on the goldie, some people with backpacks loitering outside a building marked ‘Education’, your average supposed multi-age multicultural family barbeque complete with non-descript meat, a deli owner slapping a slab of cheese with yet more meat adorning the screen, some wigs and the High Court building (no clear sign of Justice Michael Kirby), some older men carrying around large works of art, and your average multicultural class of school kiddies laughing so hard you’d be mistaken for thinking Liebmann accidentally let one rip.

Liebmann’s timing of the next line, “And we’re going to stay that way”, coincides with images of smiling women wearing veils (no, not the Tash), Aboriginal kiddies laughing (no, not with Philip Noyce), people cycling, some sort of outdoor concert (no sign of Rhonda Burchmore), and stockyards containing a coupla blokes in akubras that any city politician should try to emulate when touring the bush.

After talk about our security being beefed up, Liebmann advises “All of us can play our part, by keeping an eye out for anything suspicious”, with corresponding shots of a cute dog sniffing bags and a crowded street scene.

Here’s hoping for more information in the accompanying booklet. I’m guessing the hotline operators probably don’t need to be alerted to those cute “suspicious” dogs seen in airports and those crowds forever milling around shopping malls across the country.

John Howard has defended the decision to not specify what constitutes suspicious activity, and in many ways he’s got a point. It’s a hard task. But surely we can do better than Customs dogs and crowds. At a press conference launching the ads at the end of last month, Howard was asked to explain whether they depicted what people should be looking out for. Providing an insightful example of what is deemed suspicious, but not quite terrorism related, Howard said:

“It is very much a question of the application of one’s commonsense. I mean, self-evidently, if you see somebody climbing into a window at the house next door and you don’t recognise him, well, I mean, we all know that is suspicious. Now, I’m not saying that that’s in anyway a stereotype for a terrorist act but I use it as a metaphor, as an illustration of the point I’m making, it depends upon the circumstances.”

Mental note, man climbing in a neighbour’s house window, call hotline.

Still, nothing like a $15 million ad campaign to beat the drum of nationalistic bullshit. But fear not the cost, we’ve been told by Joe Hockey. Defending the ads, the Minister for Big Macs assured us the campaign’s expenditure is well short of the $60 million a year in advertising McDonald’s spends on hamburgers. McPhew.

Come to think of it, there’s been a nationalistic bent emerging through a couple of ads of late, playing up the Australian identity. When Pauline Hanson wanted the “I am Australian” song tagged to the Party, the Seeker and 1967 Australian of the Year recipient who penned the tune quickly issued a “please explain” and it was dropped.

The song, which was sung to the troops heading off to the middle east yesterday, has also recently been seen on our telly sets advertising our partially owned telecommunications company. The ditty, being used in this way for more nationalistic bullshit, should actually be sung, “We are one. We all pay high bills. I am, you are, we are Telstraaaaaaaa”. In conjunction with the ads, Telstra has released a CD of the song, with all sale proceeds of course going to Farmhand. With this help, who knows how long it will be able to hold the “I am Australian” tune.

Still, the nationalistic bent to the ads doesn’t seem nearly as finger down the throat material as an initiative Victoria’s Australia Day Committee recently launched. This Australia Day, us Suthna’s are being asked to recite an oath because “people wished to express their national pride and needed a way of expressing it”, according to Committee chairman Tony Beddison. For those finding it difficult to articulate their chest beating feelings, it reads:

We are Australian

We stand here proudly

Brave, strong, open and tolerant

We stand here equal, fair, true and free

Together we will build the future

But we will not forget the past

We will stand together

We are Australian

Again, the oath inspires flashbacks to something wacky the ONP would adopt, and is equally deserving of a Pauline Pantsdown “I don’t like it” response.

Leunig to the rescue (The Age, Jan 17):

The FULL unedited AUSTRALIA day OATH

WE ARE AUSTRALIAN

WE don’t quite underSTAND what’s going on HERE

consequently some blokes have resorted to doing browneyes in public, quite

PROUDLY. now that’s pretty BRAVE. STRONG

language is used. A situation of OPEN slather prevails AND

being alcohol TOLERANT helps enormously. So WE

STAND HERE, and all things being EQUAL, where

else can we stand? That’s FAIR enough, surely. Standing here is a tried and

TRUE activity; AND its FREE. Stringing words TOGETHER is

more difficult so WE WILL probably have to BUILD some more schools

at some stage in THE FUTURE, but chances are WE WILL NOT.

So forget the future, FORGET THE PAST, WE WILL just STAND

TOGETHER. WE ARE AUSTRALIAN.”

The good news is soon we all might be able to find words to express our national pride, with Vic’s Oz Day Committee hoping to extend their f’oath nationally. If anyone’s keen to adopt the motto (the khaki pompom version, or the Leunig version) when charcoaling the meat on Sundy, could it also be requested they be alarmed, not alert, and stand shoulder to shoulder?

Australia Day address 2003, Sydney Conservatorium of Music, 22 January 2003

 

I wish to acknowledge the Aboriginal Traditional Owners of the place where we come together today and thank them for their welcome. I pay respect to their elders and to their culture – the oldest living culture in the world.

All Australians extend their sympathy and support to families who have faced tragedy in recent months – particularly those touched by the Bali bombings and those who have suffered from bushfires and abnormal drought. While there may be different views about these events, I am sure their human cost appals us all.

I also acknowledge those who have previously given this address. I am humbled to be added to their ranks and tremulous in the shadows of their legacy. I thank the Australia Day Council of New South Wales for the opportunity.

Australia Day is accepted widely as our national birthday. Birthdays, in my now wide experience, are complicated things that pull at our emotions in different ways. They are certainly a time for celebration of what we have achieved. But they are also, invariably, a time for reflection about what remains undone and contemplation about the legacy we will leave. I would like to talk about all three aspects today.

Our young nation has many substantial achievements and much to celebrate. In the time of white history, we have gone from convict colony to a modern and vibrant society in three life spans. We are a democratic and civil society that has produced world leaders in science, engineering, medicine, business, agriculture and the arts. We have the priceless gift of the oldest living culture. Our cities are amongst the most desirable cities to live in the world and we have had disproportionate success in many sports. We clearly punch above our weight as a nation.

However, for Aboriginal Australians and many others, the 26th of January is not a day for celebration. To them the date signifies invasion and dispossession. As Thomas Keneally noted in his 1997 Australia Day address – “A majority of Australians can see why today cannot be a day of rejoicing for all, and that therefore there may be grounds for ultimately finding an Australia Day, a celebration of our community, with which we can all identify.”

In her 2000 Australia Day address, Dr Lowitja O’Donoghue made a strong plea for a change of date – “Let us find a day on which we can all feel included, in which we can all participate equally, and can celebrate with pride our common Australian identity.”

I endorse that view. It would be better to have a more inclusive date for our national day.

In so doing, I am sensitive to the fact that I can not speak for anyone else. I can only speak today for myself and share some of the things that have shaped my views and some of the conclusions I have reached.

My perspective has been shaped over a long time by a very diverse group of Australians – cattlemen, farmers, conservationists and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. I thank them all for the education they have provided me. It also has been shaped by over 25 years in the political and public policy arena, which represents both the best and worst of our national endeavour.

This is my Australia – warts and all.

I have come to understand that our nation is shaped initially by landscape – the lowest, flattest and driest inhabited continent on Earth. Two thirds of our country is arid or semi-arid, so water is one of our most precious commodities. Our soils are old and fragile with enormous amounts of accumulated salts.

Our continent is the only one inhabited by a single nation, so we have a better chance of managing natural resources sustainably than anywhere else in the world.

We are a highly urbanised society. Over 80% of our population now live on 1% of our land mass, and within 50 kilometres of the coast. Half our continent is inhabited by only 0.3% of our people. 70% of population growth is in the capital cities, mostly on their outskirts. As Donald Horne has pointed out, Australia’s national identity now is more about the beach than the bush.

Our industry base has changed enormously. It once was dominated by agriculture, mining and manufacturing, but the services sector now accounts for two thirds of the economy. The transition has been painful and there are many casualties who feel abandoned and bitter.

We are an intensely multi-cultural society. Over 44% of our population are either first or second generation Australians. Over 15% of us speak a language other than English at home.

With the exception of Indigenous people, we also have an ageing population. Those aged 65 and over are expected to double by 2050.

The big economic decisions of the eighties changed Australia radically and forever – to float the dollar, open up financial markets and reduce protection. We had no alternative but to enter an ever-expanding global market place, driven along by the revolution in communications technology and the collapse of Communism.

But successive national governments did not manage the transition from a closed to open economy very well. The weight of adjustment was not shared equally and some communities, particularly in rural areas and the outer suburbs of the capital cities, fell behind. Their issues are recognised better now, but the gap between the rich and the poor keeps on increasing.

My sense is that Australia still is casting around for values to replace the relative certainties that existed pre-eighties. We are a small nation in a big new game and we’re not quite sure yet of our place in the evolving order of things. The elements which cemented Federation after 1901 all are gone – industry protection, centralised wage fixing and the White Australia policy. Where they used to be, there is only the promise of more change and greater competition. The pace of change, the pace of our lives, keeps on accelerating, and brings its own anxiety.

Then, as the current advertisements say – terrorism has changed the world and Australia is not immune. We appear to be heading for war with Iraq, which many Australians find difficult to understand. That already has generated unease within our communities and new pressures on the economy, and they will continue to grow.

The combination of external pressures – the likelihood of war and continuing international political and economic uncertainty – and internal forces – drought, ongoing economic and social adjustment – has created considerable insecurity and nervousness. As Geoffrey Blainey noted in a recent article, 2002 ended “with a severe bout of the jitters – more severe than any experienced in Australia in the last 50 years”.

So I perceive my country now to be a bit lost; still not managing change equitably; searching for its place in the world; looking sometimes for simple truths and solutions which no longer exist – in the middle of a cultural vortex and not quite sure of the exit point.

In that situation, it seems sensible to me to look to the bedrock of our nation, the points that can ground us and give us stability. In my view, these distil down to our country – our land and waters – and the nature of our relationships with each other.

Unless we use natural resources in a sustainable way, we are mining the future. Unless the relationships between our citizens are respectful and inclusive, we are a divided and diminished society.

To me, these are the defining features of Australian culture and identity. Together, they can unite our communities, build resilience, and create a firm foundation from which to meet the ever-increasing challenges we face.

By any measure, we are not caring properly for our natural resources.

We automatically imported European systems of agriculture, based on wet, fertile landscapes, and unsuited to our fragile soils and rainfall patterns. Australia’s wealth depended on agriculture and mining for a long time, and without sufficient knowledge about the long-term results, we went hell for leather.

The results are evident today.

By 2050, 17 million hectares of land will be at risk from salinity. Acid soils are likely to affect an even greater area.

About 50,000km of streams are degraded.

Nearly 90% of temperate woodlands and mallee have been cleared, resulting in huge loss of biodiversity. One in five native bird species is threatened with extinction.

Landclearing has actually increased since 1997, despite its clear contribution to dryland salinity, declining water quality and greenhouse gases. The equivalent of 50 football fields is being cleared each hour. Australia’s rate of landclearing is exceeded only by Brazil, Indonesia, the Congo and Bolivia. Most is taking place in Queensland, New South Wales and Tasmania.

Weeds cost over $3.3 billion per year in lost production.

There is not enough water in some of our river systems now to meet the combined demands of agriculture, human consumption and environmental flows. Adelaide’s water supply will fail World Health Organisation standards two days out of five within 50 years and the mouth of the River Murray is being dredged even now.

Last October, 7 million tonnes of topsoil blew away in one gigantic dust storm.

To add to the equation, no-one is certain of the impact of global warming, but the best scientific modelling predicts drier weather patterns will become the norm for most of Australia.

The tasks before us obviously are enormous. Farming systems will have to change; further adjustment in the farm sector is likely; rehabilitation will take decades and will be impossible in some areas; public and private costs will be huge; new regulatory systems will have to be introduced; and a vast amount of political and social capital will need to be invested.

But unless we do it, in my view we will limit our future as a nation and as a society. Our economic, social and even our spiritual security will inexorably be diminished.

The first step is to give proper prominence to these issues. They have been simmering along in the background for a while, and now are before the Council of Australian Governments. However, they are not top of the list of government priorities.

A much wider public debate is needed to generate community understanding about how to care properly for country and the things that are at risk. Government already has a pretty fair idea, but is gridlocked by the scale of the problems. It needs to know that the electorate wants it to break through, stepping on a few toes and banging a few heads if necessary.

The issues already have some impetus. The impact of drought last year certainly registered on the national radar screen. So did Richard Pratt’s initiative to reduce water losses by piping it on farms instead of using open channels. The rise in political support for Green candidates also has not gone unnoticed. The United Nations has proclaimed this year as the International Year of Fresh Water.

Perhaps most importantly, leading environmental scientists have formed the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists and developed a blueprint for fundamental change to our land and water management systems. The blueprint provides a clear focus for the debate needed to break through the current gridlock.

There are many issues to be resolved and many different opinions. However, I believe a broad consensus is developing between policy makers, practitioners and scientists and reflected in the Wentworth Group’s blueprint. The consensus is around building blocks for sustainable natural resource use.

In the first place, there needs to be a commitment to long-term action by all political parties. This was the strength of the first Decade of Landcare. Significant changes in the landscape will take a long time. Governments will change and there must be confidence that partnerships, once begun, will be continued.

Resource management plans should be developed on a regional basis and owned and driven by the regional community. One size just doesn’t fit all and there will be different priorities in different regions.

Regional plans should be consistent with broad national policies and priorities, including the extent of native vegetation cover, landclearing, and environmental flows. The Commonwealth should make it clear to the States that the targets must be met and that no other outcome will be accepted.

Two key national priorities should be increasing environmental flows in the Murray-Darling system and capping the Great Artesian Basin.

There should be a market by which landholders can bid to provide environmental services for public benefit. The services would help to implement regional plans, using public investment. Systems already are being trialed in New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria.

There should be a national water market with consistent mechanisms. Action taken in one State may benefit another. The issue of what water allocation goes with property rights needs to be resolved.

It would help if the cost of water could be better reflected in product pricing and description. It takes 7,500 litres of water to produce $1 worth of rice in the husk and 1,600 litres to produce $1 worth of seed cotton.

Everyone agrees that very significant long-term public investment is required and that there needs to be a secure mechanism to raise it – but then it gets a bit murky.

My own view is that a lot of the public investment in practice will need to come from the Federal Government, although it is likely to be supplemented by Local Government. The prospect of preserving necessary allocations in the annual federal budget for decades is not tremendously appealing. I can see no other option as effective as an environment levy as part of the Commonwealth tax system.

Phillip Toyne and I advocated this a few years ago and I remain to be dissuaded. Taxes will have to increase anyway, so it is best to be open about the amount necessary for new land and water management systems and identify it separately.

However, taxpayers would need to have confidence that their new contributions are being used properly. There have been allegations that successive federal governments have allocated Landcare and Natural Heritage Trust funds with political intent. Public support for an environment levy would be diminished if it is tainted in this way.

I therefore believe an independent body – call it a Sustainability Commission – should receive the proceeds of an environment tax levy and administer the public investment necessary to implement regional resource management plans. It should conduct regular resource audits and report each year to the national Parliament. It also should provide expert advice to government on natural resource management policy.

Whatever the final detail, I am encouraged by the developing consensus around a series of building blocks to care for our country.

There is a golden opportunity here – to come together in an act of national will to create a priceless legacy for future generations; to cement part of the foundation for a modern Australian culture and identity. One that builds on the past, but can deal with the new realities we face. Certainly a fitting thing to contemplate on Australia Day.

The second part of the foundation for a contemporary Australian identity must be the relationships that shape our civil society. Some of them are stretched pretty thin now and need a lot of work.

In particular, I believe the relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians deserves special attention. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are the First Peoples of Australia and have special rights arising from that status. Their cultural heritage is protected by Commonwealth and State legislation. The Australian common law recognises a functioning system of Indigenous law, with property rights it calls native title.

From a purely pragmatic point of view, Aboriginal people are increasing as a proportion of rural and remote populations. Their birthrate is higher than the national average and more people are identifying as Indigenous. They also are a critical part of some regional economies and they are starting to win seats in Local Government and State Parliaments.

Then there is the moral dimension. Australia’s Indigenous people have not been treated equitably. They have been dispossessed of their land and remain the most disadvantaged group in our society. They have a life expectancy about 20 years less than the rest of us and twice as many of their kids die at birth. That is shameful for Australia. All of the pedantic academic debate in the world can’t change those basic realities.

For all these reasons, the Indigenous agenda is not going to go away. The real issues are how best to accommodate Indigenous aspirations, how long it takes, and what damage we inflict on ourselves along the way.

In my experience, the overwhelming priorities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are to achieve greater economic independence and protect their culture and identity. The two go together. It’s hard to maintain your own culture when you are dependent on a dominant culture’s welfare.

There were great expectations that these priorities could be advanced after the High Court’s Mabo decision in 1992 and the passage of the Commonwealth Native Title Act in 1993. Importantly, the legislation reflected a political compromise in a process begun by the High Court. There were high hopes that the basis of a national settlement with Australia’s First Peoples had been achieved.

However, a lot of Aboriginal people now believe that the 1993 compromise has turned out to be unjust – that they have been dudded. The Native Title Act has been amended significantly since then and the High Court, with new membership, has identified additional constraints on native title. The goal posts have shifted.

After the Court’s decisions in Miriuwung Gajerrong and Yorta Yorta, native title claimants now must prove a continual observance and acknowledgment of traditional laws and customs. That’s a bit hard if you can’t get to your ceremony grounds because you’ve been put on a mission or reserve, or because the pastoralist won’t let you onto his lease, or because there is no record of your grandfather on his traditional country.

Native title now is confined basically to land where no-one else has a permanent interest; where the traditional owners have never been forced to leave their country; and where they can prove to the satisfaction of a whitefella court that they have practiced their laws and customs on a continuous basis since settlement.

Nine years after the historic political compromise on native title, Aboriginal people are the most disadvantaged party. Private landholders and the mining industry had their titles validated and the type of leases where co-existence can occur has been greatly restricted. Torres Strait Islanders have won native title claims because they have been able to remain on their traditional land and waters. However, there have been few determinations of native title on the mainland. The capacity for native title to assist Aboriginal economic development has been restricted largely to isolated areas and negotiations with the mining, oil, gas and electricity industries.

The Native Title Act has not served its purpose. The first of its four main objects is “to provide for the recognition and protection of native title”. Instead, it has become a mechanism to constrain and extinguish native title. It has not delivered a just compromise for Aboriginal people, whose position in our society has not improved.

As well, the transaction costs are enormous. Individual court cases have cost tens of millions of dollars – in some cases, exceeding State expenditure on Aboriginal programs. The annual cost of the National Native Title Tribunal and Native Title Representative Bodies is over $50 million.

There has to be a better way. That has been acknowledged by the High Court. In his judgement in The State of Western Australia v Ben Ward (Miriuwung Gajerrong), Justice McHugh noted – “The deck is stacked against the native title holders whose fragile rights must give way to the superior rights of the landholder wherever the two classes of rights conflict. And it is a system that is costly and time-consuming. At present the chief beneficiaries of the system are the legal representatives of the parties. It may be that the time has come to think of abandoning the present system, a system that simply seeks to declare and enforce the rights of the parties, irrespective of their merits.”

Many Aboriginal people are totally frustrated and discontented with the extent to which native title has been able to advance their goals. I believe they would be prepared to consider alternatives and the timing is right for such a discussion. Some new form of national settlement might be possible – the 1993 exercise clearly has failed.

It might include, for instance, an Indigenous Economic Development Fund that could be accessed by those who choose to opt out of native title claims, or who choose not to exercise their right to negotiate. That investment then could be leveraged by agreements with industry about particular projects.

In practical terms, such an arrangement could create a “win-win” situation where the costs of court cases, in both financial and social terms, are avoided and greater economic opportunities are delivered for Aboriginal people.

The possibility of settling some major unfinished business with Aboriginal Australians, and assisting their escape from the destructive spiral of welfare and substance abuse, is another golden opportunity – another fitting thing to contemplate on Australia Day. It too would be a marvellous foundation for contemporary Australian values and a modern Australian identity and a magnificent legacy.

As a proud Australian, I rejoice that these opportunities exist and that they can be raised for national debate. However, I am frequently frustrated and disappointed at the nature of the debate that occurs. Too often, issues are “dumbed down” and reduced to gladiatorial point scoring. Too often, views are dismissed because of where they are thought to come from on the political spectrum. Too often, positions are shaped by opinion polls and spin jockeys at the expense of candour and honesty.

I believe there is a responsibility for community leaders and the media to ensure an informed and inclusive debate occurs about the big issues that shape our nation. I don’t think that responsibility is being fully discharged now.

I also place enormous value on the freedoms and tolerance of our civil and democratic society. However, I fear they will be tested as Australia prepares for a new war and as national security fears grow.

To be true to ourselves as a civil society, we must guard against racial stereotypes, racism and xenophobia. Our Muslim citizens must be afforded the same respect as all other Australians, irrespective of what events are occurring elsewhere in the world.

On our national day it is right to celebrate. But it is also right to reflect on what remains undone and right to contemplate the legacy this generation of Australians will leave.

Our nation has come a long way in a very short time and we have much to be proud of.

We’ve made mistakes along the track, but we can to try to correct them.

We live in a unique place and we know enough to look after it better.

We have the priceless gift of the oldest living culture in the world.

Caring properly for our country and resolving unfinished business with our First Peoples can become national goals that unify our communities and create greater national certainty and confidence.

They can become important foundations for a contemporary Australian culture and identity that equip us to find our place in a world that is changing ever faster.

They can become an historic legacy for future generations of Australians.

So let’s all talk properly. Let’s all have a civil conversation about the things that are important to us, and that will be our endowment. Let’s have an informed and inclusive national debate. We truly do have an amazing opportunity to pass on fantastic gifts if we are prepared to seize the moment.

That’s enough reflection and contemplation. Time now for celebration.

Happy Birthday Australia.

I met Rick Farley seventeen years ago in Rockhampton, when I taught business law at the Capricornia College of Advanced Education and he headed the Queensland Cattleman’s Union. He lived in a beach house at Emu Park, a laid-back battler’s paradise.

He left paradise for the Canberra hothouse to lead the National Farmers Federation, helping to broker a compromise between farmers and Aborigines on native title in highly charged negotiations with the Keating government after the High Court’s Mabo decision. He also helped pioneer the Land Care policy, a grass roots program under which Australian communities came together to restore and protect ravaged lands.

He’s been in the rough and tumble of high-stakes policy and politics for a long, long time, and his approach has been to reach out for common ground and to think in the long-term interests of his constituents and the nation. He’s one of the people who’s done the hard work needed to bring together farmers and greenies on issues like salinity, to help people see that on some matters, their goals are the same.

I’ve just published his Australia Day speech, delivered yesterday (Our land, our duty of care), and highly recommend a read. To me, Rick is already a great Australian, a man who genuinely strives to serve the public interest. He is someone who – if put in a position of power – could be trusted to act with integrity.

“My perspective has been shaped over a long time by a very diverse group of Australians – cattlemen, farmers, conservationists and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people,” he writes. “I thank them all for the education they have provided me. It also has been shaped by over 25 years in the political and public policy arena, which represents both the best and worst of our national endeavour. This is my Australia – warts and all.”

Rick’s speech eschews the blame game – “We’ve made mistakes along the track, but we can try to correct them” – sets out the crisis we face with our land and water, proposes a vision, and sets out the structures and processes by which it might be achieved. He wants an environmental levy, and he wants all proceeds delivered to a new ‘Sustainability Commission’. No-one trusts governments or their bureaucracies any more. We know from experience that environment funds are abused to look after special interests governments want to curry favour with. We know they cook the books to pretend they’re spending new money when really they’re cutting money in other programs. We know the goals get lost in turf wars and cost-shifting between the federal and state governments.

A Sustainability Commission should be established by the Parliament, but be completely independent of political control by ministers. Like the auditor-general, the head of the commission should report directly to Parliament, and also at six monthly intervals to the Australian people via a letter box drop. The people fund it, so it reports to the people, honestly, about what’s been achieved, what hasn’t, what the roadblocks are and how they can be breached. The Commission could become as powerful and respected as the ACCC is under Alan Fels, if the right person is chosen to lead it – a person who inspires trust, communicates well with Australians, is tough enough to break through the spin of interest groups and is reasonable enough to find common ground. We need leaders, alright, but few if any of them are in the major political parties.

Rick’s vision is for regional resource management plans. I think they should be produced and run by local communities after expert advice from and endorsement by the Commission. The problem with centralised bodies divorced from communities is that they never know the local conditions, the local power structures, the local talents, the local dynamics. To get real breakthroughs in our land and water management, there’ll have to be intense, passionate, detailed debates and trade-offs in local communities all over Australia. There’ll be local complexities which can never be solved by one blueprint alone. Local communities can do it, and local leaders will emerge if communities are unlucky enough not to have one or more of them already. The process itself will help build or rebuild communities, and community spirit. If local communities own the problems, they’ll solve them. The Commission could provide incentives – for example special grants for communities which reduce their water usage.

I’d also like to see the Commission help individuals to change their habits. There’s stuff all of us could do to lower our use of water, to recycle our waste, to live in harmony with, rather than at war with, our land. But who’ll help us? After hanging around with greenies lately, I’ve done one little thing – stopped buying tailor mades and started smoking rollies instead. That’s 11,000 cigarette butts a year I won’t be inflicting on the environment. A little thing, sure, but something. I’ve also learned that there’s no need to flush the toilet after peeing – it’s just wasting water. A little thing, but something. And I feel good changing my habits a little, for a good cause. It reduces the alienation of city life – you fell a little bit connected with the world around you. These greenies have a lot to teach us about living well.

We need elders – men and women who know the game and how tough it’s played because they’ve played it, tried to fix problems and find solutions, done the tough negotiations, know how to bring people together, thought deeply about the problems we face and know how to harness scientific, academic, and people with practical skills to make things happen. There aren’t many people who can do all this, let alone want to keep doing it. It’s hard, largely thankless, mostly badly or unpaid work, and because such people often lock horns with powerful, rich, unprincipled people, they can get hurt. Badly hurt.

Rick is one of them, and I reckon retired NSW Liberal MP Kevin Rozzoli, our planning commentator for the NSW election, is another. His second column, The courage to reform, is on the NSW state election site now. (We’ve just put up the bare-bones site at NSWelection. Bells and whistles to come.)

Kevin’s column asks why we haven’t seriously tackled an epidemic of land-use and abuse problems in NSW, and details the mess we’ve created by failing to plan for the benefit of the community and instead treated every proposed development or land sell-off as a one-off deal isolated from its surroundings or community impact. His case study of the long fight by Western Sydney residents to preserve part of a big former Australian Defence Industry site for parkland in a choked city is a good micro example both of the mess we’re in and the growing power and commitment of local communities to take on government and developers. Imagine if all the unpaid time and energy newly activist community groups are putting into fighting the government and its sleazy arrangements could be spent working WITH it for the good of everyone!

I asked Webdiarist Jozef Imrich, who as a librarian in NSW Parliament House has known Kevin – a former Liberal deputy leader of the Liberals and Speaker of the lower house – for a long time, for his thoughts on the man. He wrote:

“Please permit me to do more than cite the qualifications and experiences of the former Parliamentary Speaker. There are many young readers who will benefit from an outline of a good family man and a good leader.

Unlike Vaclav Havel and Kevin Rozzoli, most people have forgotten that democracy is a dangerous business. Independent politicians like John Hatton know that for Kevin the parliamentary speakership was less a job than a life calling. Kevin was willing to accept the dangers of democracy by voicing dissent in the party room and by being fair on the floor of the Legislative Assembly.

They say that a master can never be a hero to his butler. However those who have worked for Kevin Rozzoli know he combined the soulful characters and plots of the real world with the smooth pulsing flow of a well written political saga.

Besides being one of the best natural parliamentary speakers around, Kevin has operated in a world hot spot, the Australian Bear Pit, at the historic period of hung Parliament. He gave warnings and put his sights on politicians in hostile environments, not just dreamed about it. When he describes what it’s like to be in a democratic confrontation, you’re reading the most factual representation possible because hes been there, done that. Like Havel, Kevin is the real thing. Kevin is one of those people who has a resume so chocked full of impressive achievements that it leaves one wondering how he managed to fit it all into one life.

Kevin took an active role in trying to raise the standards of behaviour and debate in the Parliament. He has been more active than almost all his predecessors in NSW in writing and speaking in public forums about the value of the parliamentary institution and how this value can be lost if parliamentarians themselves show a low regard for it. As Speaker he exercised a firm but even-handed control over those perennial problems of members’ use of travel entitlements and other entitlements the State gives them.

He’s also shown by personal example the way in which personal responsibility can be maintained in carrying out the full range of a member’s electoral and public duties. Although not a lone voice in speaking out against misuse of parliamentary entitlements, and privileges, there would be no stronger advocate than Kevin Rozzoli for a strong, self-regulating, transparent and publicly responsible parliament exercising an appropriate supervision of its members.

Kevin’s presentations at Parliament were captivating, not just because of the breadth and depth of his knowledge but also due to his style of delivery, which makes every person in the room feel as if he was talking to them personally. Kevin is leaving Parliament after three decades, but parliamentary loss will be university students’ gain. He’s been appointed as an Honorary Associate with the Faculty of Economic and International Relations at Sydney University.

It is ironic that in the closing days of the parliamentary term he received a citation from a Voter Help Line as the NSW MP most likely to help NSW constituents. Kevin was found twice as effective as the next member. So much for the judgement of the Liberal Party. (The Liberals recently disendorsed Kevin, triggering his retirement.

I hope that Kevin’s talents can be utilised somehow in reforming planning in NSW. Like Rick he’s got a lot to give, and like Rick, he’s got the integrity the community craves.

I’ve received many emails about Paddy McGuinness’s recent Herald column on the Canberra fires, all distressed or angry, most from Canberra residents. As someone who calls Canberra home and has many frightened friends there, I felt the same way when I read it, and fervently wished I hadn’t.

It’s a classic of the neo-liberal style – divide, blame, ridicule, accuse. Hate speech, really. But why waste your time complaining, why waste your energy getting angry? People like Paddy feed off the emotion of people’s responses. Yet Paddy’s diatribes give nothing. They tear down. In short, they aren’t useful.

I’ve said before that the extreme players in the culture war industry – right and left – are best left to themselves. In their world there’s no room for engagement, finding areas of disagreement, searching for consensus, or moving forward. Instead they yell abuse at each other and get off on it.

So don’t bother reading them. There’s something much more important happening in Canberra. People have had to work out what possessions they need to take with them, and found there’s not many. They’ve met people in their street they’ve never met before and cried with them. They’ve discovered the joys of community that our country towns already had and are now fighting a losing battle to preserve. They’ve realised that in John Stanhope, a man devoid of charisma and blessed only with intelligence, decency, and integrity, they’ve chosen the perfect person to lead the rebuilding of their city.

So don’t bother with Paddy. Read something that makes you think, that gives you hope, instead.

 

First garage door against the war, by Andrew Mamo and Helen Ferry

Here we go, sending our troops off to the Gulf as the government pretends it’s not committed to war when the United States give the word. Great way to avoid making the case, eh? The government knows it hasn’t convinced the vast majority of Australians we should back a unilateral strike – it hasn’t even tried to – yet that’s what we’ll do if that’s what George Bush wants.

If you’re against John Howard’s decision, don’t get mad, get active, and most of all, feel sorry for our troops. What a terrible feeling they must have, knowing they could lose their lives for a country whose people don’t want them to go and whose government won’t explain why they should.

Paul Gilchrist in Mosman writes: “I see that Tony Blair has given evidence to a Commons Liaison Committee over his actions on Iraq (independent). In this committee, Tony Blair has to answer questions from MPs about the justification for war in Iraq and how Britain will be involved. Here in Australia, John Howard brushes off these questions as “hypothetical” and does not have to justify his actions to parliament or the people. Do you know why our system is apparently less accountable than the mother of parliaments?”

Howard is scheduled to wave off the troops on board HMAS Kanimbula at 10 am tomorrow morning. If you want to protest or cheer, be at Cowper Wharf, Woollomolloo in Sydney. Greens campaigners have this advice for those who want to protest: “It’s VERY IMPORTANT that the protest targets Howard and the Government, rather than the troops themselves who are going off to a dangerous situation. Emotions will be running high with families being left behind, so we need to send a message that it is not the men and women in uniform who we are angry with, but the politicians who are putting them at risk. All slogans and activities must be non-violent and respectful towards the troops as individuals. Please come on down and bring your home-made banners and creative ideas!”

Today, your thoughts and ideas about what the hell is going on and what on earth to do about it. Pro-war Webdiary columnist Harry Heidelberg intervenes in the debate between Jim Nolan and Jack Robertson on whether we should go to war on human rights grounds. His column, Yes, it really is about getting the weapons, is at Harry22Jan. (At the end of this entry, Webdiarist Hamish Tweedy – a supporter of war provided it’s UN sanctioned – responds in detail to Scott Burchill’s popular piece on war myths last week.)

Paula Abood writes: ‘Remember when you read vague stuff about the US government ‘editing’ bits from Iraq’s declaration? If you read the quality press you’ll have wondered just who these corporations were who’d supplied Saddam but whose names were removed. Here they are, courtesy of Berlin daily newspaper Die Tageszeitung, No. 6934, 19 Dec 2002, page 3, “Exclusive: The Secret List of Arms Suppliers – Saddam’s Business partners” (taz, in German):

Key

A = nuclear weapon program

B = biological weapon program

C = chemical weapon program

R = rocket program

K = conventional weapons, military logistics, supplies at the Iraqi Ministry of Defence, and building of military plants.

USA

1. Honeywell (R, K), Spectra Physics (K), Semetex (R), TI Coating (A, K), Unisys (A, K), Sperry Corp (R, K), Tektronix (R, A), Rockwell (K), Leybold Vacuum Systems (A), Finnigan-MAT-US (A), Hewlett-Packard (A, R, K), Dupont (A), Eastman Kodak (R), American Type Culture Collection (B), Alcolac International (C), Consarc (A), Carl Zeiss – U.S (K), Cerberus (LTD) (A), Electronic Associates (R),International Computer Systems (A, R, K), Bechtel (K), EZ Logic Data Systems, Inc. (R), Canberra Industries Inc. (A), Axel Electronics Inc. (A).

In addition to these 24 home-based companies are 50 subsidiaries of foreign enterprises which conducted their arms business with Iraq from within the US.

Also designated as suppliers for Iraq’s arms programs (A, B, C & R) are the US Ministries of Defense, Energy, Trade and Agriculture as well as the Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos and Sandia National Laboratories.

FRANCE

Commissariat a l’Energie Atomique (A), Sciaky (A), Thomson CSF (A, K), Aerospatiale and Matra Espace (R), Cerbag (A), Protec SA (C), Thales Group (A), Societe General pour les Techniques Nouvelles (A)

GREAT BRITAIN

Euromac Ltd-Uk (A), C. Plath-Nuclear (A), Endshire Export Marketing (A), International Computer Systems (A, R, K), MEED International (A, C), Walter Somers Ltd. (R), International Computer Limited(A, K), Matrix Churchill Corp. (A), Ali Ashour Daghir (A), International Military Services (R) (part of the UK Ministry of Defence), Sheffield Forgemasters (R), Technology Development Group (R),International Signal and Control (R), Terex Corporation (R), Inwako (A), TMG Engineering (K), XYY Options, Inc (A)

JAPAN

Fanuc (A), Hammamatsu Photonics KK (A), NEC (A), Osaka (A), Waida (A)

NETHERLANDS

Melchemie B.V. (C), KBS Holland B.V. (C), Delft Instruments N.V. (K)

BELGIUM

Boehler Edelstahl (A), NU Kraft Mercantile Corporation (C), OIP Instrubel (K), Phillips Petroleum (C), Poudries Reunies Belge SA (R), Sebatra (A), Space Research Corp. (R)

SPAIN

Donabat (R), Treblam (C), Zayer (A)

SWEDEN

ABB (A), Saab-Scania (R)

***

A Melbourne reader (name withheld) has found the White House propaganda sheet on Iraq, called ‘Apparatus of Lies: Saddam’s Disinformation and Propaganda 1990-2003’, at whitehouse. “With all the debate regarding when the war will start or if it should start at all, the document is an interesting salvo in the public opinion war in full swing. Some of the techniques described, with much gnashing of teeth, would seem quite at home in any western governments spin doctor’s arsenal. Maybe it will become required reading in Public Relations courses. I have no doubts that Saddam and Co have engaged in many if not all of the ‘black arts’ exposed in the paper – it just seemed ironic that the White House would be keen to toss such a stone in light of their own admitted policy of controlling was ‘information’ post the Vietnam period when those dramatic raw images caused such problems for morale back home. Surgical strikes, collateral damage etc etc etc.”

Andrew Mamo and Helen Ferry’s ‘garage door against the war’ campaign is now in business. Send your images and ideas to doorsagainstwar. Greens member and Webdiarist Max Phillips writes: “For those garage-owning suburbanites who are serious about displaying their opposition to the war, the Greens are producing large “No War” triangles. If you would like to place one in your front window or in your front yard, contact us office@nsw.greens.org.au or phone 02-9519 0877.”

The Labor Council of NSW has details of lots of upcoming protests against the war in NSW. Call Amanda Tattersall on 0409 321133 or email her at a.tattersall@labor.org.au for posters and leaflets.

Several readers recommend the website of US anti-war group Move on, at http://www.moveon.org/, which recently produced a TV ad as part of the campaign. Julienne McKay writes: “You are probably aware of the US anti war group Moveon, but just in case I’m doing as they ask, and forwarding details of their campaign in the US to an influential member of the media in my country. A friend in the US – a student radical in the 60’s, now approaching her 60’s – originally sent me the information.”

Webdiarist Jozef Imrich recommends opendemocracy Hot off the press from Susan Richards of Open Democracy, featuring John Le Carre, Salman Rushdie, John Berger, Christopher Hitchens, Roger Scruton, David Hair and Gunter Grass with Marina Warner, Anita Roddick and others promising to join what this global conversation on Iraq and the War.

Merrill Pye in Sydney writes: “I recently received this from a friend in Canada who received it from a friend in the USA. Perhaps not a very scientific contribution, but one that definitely relates to systems of belief? Just sing along folks, to the tune of ‘If You’re Happy And You Know It, Clap Your Hands’.”

If we cannot find Osama, bomb Iraq.

If the markets hurt your Mama, bomb Iraq.

If the terrorists are Saudi

And the bank takes back your Audi

And the TV shows are bawdy,

Bomb Iraq.

*

If the corporate scandals growin’, bomb Iraq.

And your ties to them are showin’, bomb Iraq.

If the smoking gun ain’t smokin’

We don’t care, and we’re not jokin’.

That Saddam will soon be croakin’,

Bomb Iraq.

*

Even if we have no allies, bomb Iraq.

From the sand dunes to the valleys, bomb Iraq.

So to hell with the inspections;

Let’s look tough for the elections,

Close your mind and take directions,

Bomb Iraq.

*

While the globe is slowly warming, bomb Iraq.

Yay! the clouds of war are storming, bomb Iraq.

If the ozone hole is growing,

Some things we prefer not knowing.

(Though our ignorance is showing),

Bomb Iraq.

*

So here’s one for dear old daddy, bomb Iraq,

From his favorite little laddy, bomb Iraq.

Saying ‘no’ would look like treason.

It’s the Hussein hunting season.

Even if we have no reason,

Bomb Iraq.

***

Mark Paloff in Wollongong imagined the worst case scenario and penned this:

NEWS OF THE WORLD, 2005

Today, the Middle East continues to be a grizzly testament to the greed and misguided folly of disgraced ex-leaders Bush, Blair and Australia’s John Howard.

American, British and Australian forces remain bogged down in an occupation of Iraq that began two years ago, with no consolidation of their position in sight on the oil-smoked horizon. The oil fields of Iraq and Kuwait that were to underwrite the continuation of the “non-negotiable American way of life” have all been torched, filling the sky with acrid fumes since March 2003. World oil production has halved and western economies stagger along maimed by record negative growth, shrivelled GDPs and massive unemployment.

The direct human toll of the Bush/Blair/Howard folly will never be accurately counted. In Iraq alone, military casualties on both sides are approaching 100,000. Guerrilla fighting in the streets of Iraqi cities and towns adds hundreds more military and civilian deaths each day. Iran’s mischievous insurgencies from the north amplify the chaos and death. In the absence of electricity and clean water supplies, it has been estimated that another half a million Iraqi babies and children have perished since March 2003 to add to the half million that died during the American/Australian naval blockade that began 11 years ago.

President Gore, PM Saxby and PM Lawrence, although united in their efforts, appear powerless to unravel the monumental tragedy their predecessor’s policies have created. This human tragedy is now known as ‘The Bogus War’. The propaganda of three years ago spruiked unconvincingly that it was about disarming a minor dictator. Common but muted wisdom knew it was a brutal grab for oil at a time when the USA was consuming oil four times faster than new supplies were being found.

The introduction of conscription two years ago to provide reinforcements for the savaged armies of the USA, Britain and Australia has sent these three countries into bitter domestic turmoil, adding further debilitating divisions within already turbulent societies. The shameless flight of capital, with its owners, to havens in northern Europe and South America has exacerbated class divisions, bringing general strikes and the collapse of essential services.

None, it would seem, foresaw the opportunism of the Arab world to use the west’s preoccupation with Iraq to seek their final vengeance upon Israel. That always-contentious nation now lay as rubble and a new Jewish diaspora has begun.

The unleashing of Al-Qaeda’s international network upon the west last year, a network neglected by the West as the Iraqi adventure consumed its attentions, has viciously changed the world forever. Unchained, and assisted by the strategy of total unpredictability, this brand of terrorism has been successful in mortifying the populations and economies of dozens of countries. The poisoned water supplies of Liverpool, Washington, Seattle and Sydney have sent their citizens into exodus. The plethora of bombed structures, including Buckingham Palace, the United Nations and the Sydney Harbour Bridge, has us all feeling vulnerable, and strangely punished.

Perhaps George W Bush gave us a good warning of what to expect in August 2002 when he asked “Who knows how many wars it will take to secure our homeland?” What we are all asking ourselves today is, “How did Bush and Blair and Howard ever get away with committing us to this Bogus War?”. Why didn’t someone stop them in 2003?

***

Hamish Tweedy

Here is my take on Scott’s answers to eleven war questions and claims in Counterspin: Pro-war mythology (smh).

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

Scott says:

* The development of WMDs by vulnerable states like North Korea and Iraq is as a direct consequence of the threat posed by US and that any responsible government should really develop them as it is the only way to curb US imperialism.

I think the characterisation of North Korea and Iraq as vulnerable states is perhaps just a little rich. More likely the argument could probably be framed along the lines of: If you are a despotic tyrant with regional ambitions and actively suppress your own population then the creation of WMDs is a good way to force the civilised world to deal with you other than by the use of force. Which kind of makes the US/UN’s position all the more understandable.

* Because Saddam Hussein didn’t use them during the 1991 Gulf War he won’t use them again.

Horses for courses: At the time the UN/US were only forcing him out of Kuwait. Therefore Saddam pulls/is forced out of Kuwait, develops appropriate delivery systems and tries again.

2. Saddam Hussein has form: He has used them before.

Scott says:

* Yes they have but only against those who didn’t have WMDs.

I’m not sure what the point is here. Is Scott suggesting that only Iraq’s neighbours without WMDs are at risk, an interesting and extremely threatening little arms race sounds like it has just been created.

* The US and UK continued to supply him with the means to manufacture WMDs after he had used them in 1988, so why does his continued ownership of WMDs concern them now.

Not a good idea, I agree, but I don’t see how a mistake (along with countless others I am sure Scott can name) somehow prevents the US and the UK from acting to rectify the situation now.

* If the US is genuinely concerned about Iraq why did Donald Rumsfeld normalise relations with Iraq in 1983 when they were using chemical weapons against Iraq on a daily basis.

That was twenty years ago during the Cold War. We were allies with the USSR during WWII were enemies during the Cold War and are on the brink of being allies again it doesn’t mean anything.

3. Hussein has invaded his neighbours twice.

Scott says:

* The US supported him when he invaded Iran during the 1980s.

I’m really not up to date on my history of the Iran-Iraq war but I understood that the US supported Iraq and the USSR supported Iran (the US was hardly likely to support Iran given the hostage situation was barely three years old).

* The US was ambivalent about the result of a border dispute between Iraq and Kuwait.

It is fairly easy for me to imagine that a country could express its ambivalence about the outcome of border dispute and reasonably expect that this wouldn’t be interpreted as tacit approval for the invasion of one country by another.

4. Saddam Hussein is a monster who runs a violent oppressive regime

Scott says:

* As Blair, Straw, Prescott, Blunkett, Cook or Hoon, did not speak out previously against Saddam Hussein during the 1980’s and 1990’s how can they have a problem with him now?

This is a point that proves absolutely nothing about anything. They have a problem with him now.

* As the West didn’t oppose the rise of Suharto’s brutal regime how can they oppose Saddam’s now?

The Cold War isn’t being fought.

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

Scott says:

* The use of force in 1998 had the opposite effect.

To point out the bleeding obvious, bombing over 4 days, no matter how effective does not carry the same weight as stationing 150,000 troops plus aircraft carrier groups around your border.

* Richard Butler pulled the inspectors out, Saddam did not kick them out.

This is semantics – if the weapons inspectors were pulled out because they could do their job the effect is the same.

* Why didn’t we inflict the same punishment on other countries?

The same reason we didn’t inflict it on Iraq at the time. The Cold War.

6. Has the threat posed by Saddam Hussein increased recently?

Scott says:

As his armed forces no longer have support from either the US or the USSR and due to sanctions imposed after the Gulf War not as dangerous as he was previously.

This is the million dollar question. An argument can be made that for the very reasons outlined he is considerably more likely to attempt to develop WMDs and more likely to rely on them. I am of the view that this is what the Weapons Inspectors are in Iraq to determine, and that what they report will, I hope, be the basis for any future action, if any. To this point Kevin Rudd and the Opposition have most clearly stated their case and it is one that I wholeheartedly support.

7. Saddam Hussein will pass WMDs on to terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda.

Scott says:

* There is no proof he has and they are natural enemies.

I am happy to accept this as fact based on Scott’s word. I think that Saddam having WMDs in his own right is sufficient enough threat. His secret service is probably just as capable of delivering them as Al Qaeda or any other terrorist group for that matter.

* This is a smoke screen to prevent identification of the real proliferators of WMDs.

Like Scott, I would like to know who is responsible and would agree it should be stopped (although I think this is a vain hope).

8. The US wants to democratise Iraq

Scott: The US isn’t interested in democracy in Iraq and will install a compliant dictator.

I agree. I hope, however, that the task of installing a democracy in Iraq after a war (if there is one) falls to the UN and not the US – a vain hope perhaps but it still not a reason for not acting.

9. What is the Status of Pre-emptive Strikes in International Law

Criminal, I hope.

10. The question of oil. Access or control?

I don’t really know or care. Whether Saddam has oil or not is irrelevant if he has WMDs, and whether he has oil or not is certainly not a reason for not enforcing UN resolutions.

11. The credibility of the UN and Canberra

Really it’s all just politicking. I’m not sure I care too much (although I probably should).

The point I’m trying to make is that the issue here is how to deal with Iraq and its development of WMDs (if they have them). Are people who are currently opposing it opposing it on the basis that any conflict will be led by the US, or are they opposing pre-emptive strikes? My main problem with Scott’s piece is that he seems to frame his argument against action on the basis that any action led by the US should not be supported.

Kevin Rudd has further clarified his position on support for a conflict with Iraq and again I find myself in agreement with his position. I don’t believe the debate over involvement should degenerate into conspiracy theories about the US and its intentions. The issue is Saddam Hussein and whether or not he is developing WMDs. The way I see the debate people should roughly fall into one of the following three categories should the Weapons Inspectors report that Saddam Hussein is in fact developing WMDs:

1. You don’t like Saddam Hussein developing WMDs but believe it is a legitimate course for a sovereign nation to take to provide itself with an adequate means of self defence and therefore would not support any action against Iraq whatever the Weapons Inspectors find.

2. You believe that Saddam Hussein’s development of WMDs represents a real threat to global/regional security but would only take action if it came under the auspices of the UN. Kevin Rudd did give himself some room to move here, which is prudent. We are dealing with hypothetical situations and boxing yourself in would not be smart. The main thrust of his position is that action must be UN endorsed.

3. You don’t give a tinkers cuss what the Weapons Inspectors find or don’t find because you want to destroy Saddam Hussein and Iraq anyway.

For what its worth, I started out at 3 thanks to John Wojdylo’s Saddam’s heart of darkness piece (John26Sep2002Part1 and JohnPart2) but have since tempered my position and moved to UN endorsement, due to the ongoing difficulties that a policy of pre-emption would cause.

The so-called “glib aim” of regime change is not about human rights. Improved human rights will be an outcome, but it is not the motivation for the intervention. The aim is not glib. It is a simple statement of fact. The regime will be changed.

Jim Nolan in Take a risk for human rights: Back Bush (webdiary17Jan) argues in favour of a regime change based on Human Rights (HR). Jim is right to remind people of the HR aspects but that is not the core aim of the change. Jack Robertson then set out the pitfalls of this approach in Time for a question change on Iraq (Jack20Jan), and described why he and his ilk own HR more than others who have recently discovered it.

Jack also talks of “dated monster tales about Saddam”. Now I have heard everything. A sort of one-upmanship, “I knew about the monster tales before you did”. The tales are not tales, they are documented facts. Nor are they dated. Such crimes do not date easily. There is a certain timelessness about them in fact. We have seen it before. It’s insulting to call past crimes dated monster tales.

Sometimes it is probably hard to see the wood for the trees. On the days following September 11, there would have been discussions in the US administration about the monumental foul up and how they didn’t see it coming. What do you think would have been said frankly behind closed doors? It would have been a lot of four letter words, anger and an “OK so what do we do now” approach.

This would have led to the conclusion that they need to do everything in their power to prevent even more horrific attacks. It would have taken 5 minutes to come up with the conclusion, “You know we really have to get rid of Saddam Hussein”. The driving force behind this conclusion was the well known fact that he was or is seeking to develop weapons of mass destruction. It also follows that he would make such weapons available to terrorists.

It’s kind of like Clinton knew Osama bin Laden was a threat. He even ordered air strikes to try and kill him. In the end it was all put to the side for another day. That other day arrived on September 11. I am certainly not holding Clinton responsible, but the point is sometimes a threat is much larger than you may anticipate. The question then becomes “On which side should we err?”

After September 11, the answer became clear. Let’s not leave much room for error.

This is not about human rights (although that will be a good outcome), it is not about oil (although that too will be a good outcome) and it’s not about a previous war. It is about the situation we face this year. The situation of 2003. It is about the bleeding obvious – the weapons and how to stop them or control them. The doctrine of pre-emption started on September 11, 2001 when the world changed. No one likes the change but it is reality.

People cried that the US was taking a different approach to North Korea over Iraq. Gee, I wonder why? Could it be the fact that North Korea already has the ability to destroy cities in an instant? That relationship is a little more like the Cold War one. It’s not Iraq and it has to be managed differently. It is ridiculously naive to say all threats should be treated alike.

There are a lot of side issues, a lot of theories and some interesting discussion to be had. We can talk about conspiracies, alternative motivation and all sorts of things. I am reminded of Lisa Simpson. In Episode 2F07 “Gampa vs Sexual Inadequacy” Lisa uttered the immortal words referred to as Occam’s Razor. There was a fight in the treehouse as Bart and Milhouse tried to figure out what was going on around them. As usual, Lisa was the only character who spoke any sense:

Bart: OK, it’s not painfully clear the adults are definitely paving the way for an invasion by the saucer people.

Milhouse: You fool! Can’t you see it’s a massive government conspiracy? Or have they gotten to you too? [he and Bart start wrestling]

Lisa: Hey! Hey, hey, stop it! Stop it! Why are you guys jumping to such ridiculous conclusions? Haven’t you ever heard of Occam’s Razor? “The simplest explanation is probably the correct one.”

Yes, it really is about getting the weapons. It may sound glib, it may sound simple but it really is the primary motivation. The side motivations may be interesting fireside talk but they don’t drive the orders.

Jack asks a heap of questions that no one can easily answer. That’s the nature of it. I don’t know anything more than anyone else knows. I’m just a schmuck with a column in Web Diary. My responses to his points are as follows:

1. Roughly how many total casualties – enemy and friendly, military (regular, conscript, militia) and civilian – could an invasion to remove Saddam in the name of Human Rights be reasonably allowed to ‘cost’ before the HR ‘net balance sheet’ moves into negative territory? If this is an unreasonable mode of assessment, define a ‘successful’ invasion outcome.

I do not know how many casualties there will be. The number could be substantial and this is the scariest part. There is no such thing as an HR balance sheet as that is not the reason for the intervention. Success will be measured in terms of regime change (as much as you hate the statement of the “glib” obvious). Regime change will bring about transparency on weapons of mass destruction. If people do not like the language they should suggest alternatives. If they prefer, it is quite easy to replace “regime change” with “violent overthrow of enemy”. The result is the same. Regime change is not a euphemism, it is a stark statement of reality.

2. In describing the invasion’s primary aim as ‘regime change’, what exactly is meant by Saddam’s ‘regime’, and how will the invading forces delineate it? No totalitarian tyrant rules alone; the Iraqi political, social and military system is a network of mini-Saddams, each with commensurate degrees of HR blood on their hands. How will frontline invading forces simultaneously optimise the opportunities for a majority of Iraqi forces to surrender quickly, while applying maximum combat power to those Iraqis, at all command levels, who decide that their historical complicity in the ‘regime that must be changed’ affords them no option but to fight to the death? What worst case percentage of the Iraq population might regard themselves as irredeemably complicit in this way?

Regime is meant in its traditional sense. There was a Nazi regime. All its key elements collapsed and after the war no one was a Nazi. Similarly in East Germany, no one was a former Stasi Agent after 1990. In South Africa, no white admitted to supporting Apartheid after its collapse. When the regime changes, it is amazing how many people sort of forget what they used to be. Most will get off scott free and morph into some other identity afterwards. There will be no total justice. No one says that will happen. Nazi Germany was ruled by “chaos and consent” (as one TV doco coined it). If we were to re-visit that era, no one would suggest those other than at the very top be dealt with. It is impossible to do otherwise. It is not intellectually correct, just practical.

3. Much of the Iraqi civilian population, including women and children, has now been armed and primed for defensive jihad. Will the ROE of the invading forces make any formal distinction between an Iraqi soldier filling a military defensive role and an armed Iraqi civilian who considers herself to be defending her home and her children from a rapacious foreign invader, or will any such distinction be a matter of individual tactical judgement?

I assume we will only find out the ROE afterwards. I am not sure what is meant either by a “formal distinction”. An armed individual who appears threatening to allied forces will be approached as such. I don’t know how else it could work, no matter how painful this reality may seem. Even civilian police forces act this way. Unpalatable but true.

4. What will the ROE be? On what legal basis will this ROE rest? In the case of a non-UN authorised invasion, can the invasion authority indemnify all invading combatants from any subsequent HR-based legal action arising from errors of operational judgement?

Most of the invading combatants will be American. On what grounds can there be HR based legal action against Americans? I mean other than American processes? At this stage anyway I am not so sure a non-UN authorised invasion can take place. American public opinion is against this and a President acts against public opinion in such grave matters at his peril. I think this lesson has been learned. My feeling is that in one way or another the invasion will become authorised.

5. Will the invading force categorically rule out any use of its own weapons of mass destruction, regardless of how the invasion unfolds?

No. This is well known.

6. Which members – at what level – of ‘Saddam’s regime’ suspected of HR abuses will be investigated (and charged, tried and sentenced, etc), and by whom, and how, and when, and within what legal framework? Which members of it will be granted indemnity, and by whom, and within what legal framework?

Top level only. There will be no formal indemnity. Look at what has happened in other HR abuse scenarios. They get the top people (sometimes) and that is about the extent of it. Many or most will go free. There may be a show trial if you are lucky. Another unpalatable reality of the entire process.

7. Is there any time or outcome-based limitation on the presence of the invading/occupying force in a post-Saddam Iraq? Against what HR criteria will eventual military withdrawal be assessed?

HR will not be the criteria for withdrawal as HR is not the intent of intervention. The main criteria is the security of the US and its interests. HR will be taken into account but it is not the decision driver. As soon as security is to an acceptable level, there will be a withdrawal. You have to remember that the global media will monitor every minute of the post conflict aftermath. It is also worth remembering that US interest has a wide definition.

8. Are we now absolutely sure we can only change Saddam’s regime/HR behaviour with a full-scale military invasion?

No, but suggestions would be welcome. It seems the anti-war opinion is just that. Anti. There is no statement of what the anti lobby favours as an alternative. Is the alternative to war, peace? Perhaps. It would be very reassuring if that were true. The fear is that alternative to war and regime change in Iraq is a catastrophic attack on an American or European city brought about by weapons produced in Iraq. The odds of that outcome should be seriously weighed before conclusively stating that nothing should be done other than inspections of dubious value. Before 9-11, much was considered unthinkable. After 9-11, unthinkable outcomes become sadly more believable. It may seem simple and it may seem glib but I don’t think those responsible for planning this really feel that way.

It is easy and healthy to express doubts and ask questions. In the end though, some are called upon to take decisions amidst uncertainty. That’s the nature of it.

Only a soldier could answer Jack’s military questions and a lawyer the legal ones.

I’ve been writing about professional ethics, the collapse thereof, and ways to resurrect them in the public interest for a while now, with the HIH fiasco the latest proof that we need a major overhaul of ethical standards and their enforcement.

I was brought back to the question of journalists’ ethics – and whether we had any right to throw stones- when archiving the early Webdiary pieces of Jack Robertson for his columnist archive. Jack debuted on Webdiary in late 2000, in response to a series of outraged columns I wrote on the Reith Telecard affair. In Questions to you journos (Jack2000) said it was a bit off for journos to take the high moral ground on political rorting and conflicts of interest when we were unaccountable for such matters ourselves.

It’s a great point. The media is an extremely powerful institution in our democracy, and journalists, while mere cogs in some ways, are not officially accountable to citizens in any way save for the law of defamation. Is it any wonder that we journalists are held in such low general esteem?

After Jack’s piece and a flood of supportive emails, a Webdiary poll found politicians were more respected than journalists! Reader’s reactions and my reactions to all the criticism are at Ink v Inc: Of hacks, bean-counters and the bottom line ( webdiary6Nov2000), Take two: Journos v pollies – too close to call, webdiary7Nov2000, Journos v pollies: the final edition, webdiary8Nov2000, Catharsis complete. What next?,webdiary9Nov2000, Journos v pollies: the tirade goes on …, webdiary9Nov2000, and So what are YOU prepared to do about journalism?, webdiary14Nov2000,

I’ve been thinking about how we could be more accountable through self-regulation for years now, but can’t see a way it can be done effectively on an industry-wide basis.

My interest is double-edged. Many members of the public see journalists as mere cyphers for their owners and the editors they appoint, and others see them as self-appointed moralisers and blame-pointers free of any real constraint. In reality, we’re between these extremes. I see a strong ethical culture in journalism both as as means for journalists to resist pressures to write stories in the interests of their owner’s businesses and interests and to unreasonably intrude upon the privacy of citizens, as well as a way to keep us honest and respectful of our readers and of the truth.

In a speech I gave last year (see Ethics overboard: How to promote integrity in the moment of choice, webdiary14Jan) I argued that journalists should be drawn into a broad-brush reform of ethics to apply to all the professions with public duties in addition to earning their living. Weblogger Scott Wickstein (who says he “used to be a network engineer … I got downsized in 2001, and after not being able to get a ‘real job’ I went back to the factory life whence I came”) disagreed. He wrote in eyeofthebeholder:

Margo Kingston has called for the government to regulate journalists ethics:

“I’ve been trying for ages to think of a way to enforce journalists’ ethics without government legislation. I can’t. Only journalists belonging to the union have a duty to comply with its code of ethics,and many aren’t in the union. The bosses have no such duty unless they voluntarily sign up to a company code of ethics, and can and do employ people not in the union. In any event, ethics should be seen as ideals to strive for, ideals that can be highly nuanced, and easily forgotten.

Ethics are also a group standard, meaning they requires constant discussion and thought between colleagues, and that requires openness.

So what I’m thinking of is framework legislation, to cover all jobs with ethical duties. It could require all professions to have an ethical oversight body comprised of a chairperson and directors agreed to by consensus between the profession’s leaders and consumer groups, and if consensus cannot be reached, by election. Membership of the professional body would be compulsory to work, and members of the oversight body would have legal protection against defamation and the like.

This is a very poor idea on several levels. For one thing, everyone has his or her own idea of what is ethical. Most of us have common areas where we would agree is ethical or not ethical but in most cases there would be cases where people would disagree. Legislation would legally enforce one set of ideas about ethics at the expense of others. This has cultural implications as well Ethics are drawn from many sources, but cultural values are part of that; so are religious ones. A legislative solution would have to be clever indeed to avoid legally enforcing one value set of ethics over all others.

Another quibble I would have is that legislation tends to draw a line in the sand. This is legal, that is not. This legalistic approach would re-inforce the trend to forget the ethical issues involved in a case. In a non-legal ethical guideline system that doesnt draw boundaries, a journalist is more likely to look at the grey areas and consider the principles behind the guideline then they are if they can merely consult the organisations lawyer and say Is this legal?. This sort of system doesnt work very well but it does occasionally focus minds on ethics. The legalistic solution is hardly likely to do that.

Margo wants this system to apply to all professions.

There’s a strong case to be made for compulsory standards organisations for doctors, lawyers and accountants- for journalism, there is no such case to be made. This smacks of professional trade unionism, and also possibly restraint of trade. What if I want to start up my own version of Crikey.com.au?

There is a case to be made for providing criminal sanctions to members of professions that do the wrong thing. Auditors, accountants, lawyers all need to be reminded of their responsibilities. Journalists probably have less need due to the defamation laws. But that is corrective legislation and will no doubt be complex enough of its own. Legislating ethics on to people is a bad idea.

First of all, I’m not arguing for the ethical standards themselves to be put into legislation. This would go against what ethics are – an ideal to strive for, the precise details of which evolve over time. My idea was for legislation setting up the structure for professional oversight bodies run by the profession (and consumers) to which it would be compulsory to belong.

Legislation would make it compulsory to belong to and abide by the decisions of these bodies, that’s all. It would be up to each profession to lay down its ethical duties in the light of the public interest each profession must serve. For example, a lawyer has a duty not only to his client, but to the legal system and the court. Accountants have duties to the investing public. Engineers have duties to deliver safe engineering solutions. And journalists – what is our higher duty? That’s a tough one, especially since the internet has so greatly expanded the variety and source of available information and opinion.

As I made clear in my speech, I wouldn’t like to see black-letter ethical standards, but more general principles which are made clear through the application of particular examples to them. Ethical behaviour relies to a great extent on peer group expectations, and adherence to them requires a system whereby professionals with ethical concerns or questions can seek guidance from their peers through their professional associations. This mechanism – if it’s in good working order – reduces the temptation for professionals to convince themselves in the privacy of their offices and under the pressure of client’s desires to find a way around ethical constraints.

Scott’s point about a journalists’ professional standards association being a means to impose compulsory trade unionism is not on point. Lawyers, accountants and doctors, for example, can’t practice without a certificate certifying that they have the necessary qualifications and have agreed to abide by their profession’s ethical codes.

However no formal qualifications or training are required to be a journalist. As I said in my speech, I became one not knowing there was a journalists’ code of ethics! The right to free speech is fundamental to our democracy, and it’s inconceivable that people would not be permitted to publish what they like – as bloggers, letter writers, whatever – if they’re not in a professional association.

On the other hand, should the public have a right to make certain assumptions on the basis that someone calls himself a journalist? Should they have the right to believe that ‘a journalist’ is bound by certain ethical standards he must comply with, just as someone who practices law or medicine must?

In a world where information transfer is instant and competing versions of the facts are routinely aired, I reckon there’s an argument for self-regulation backed by legislative imprimatur. It could be compulsory for all journalists in “mainstream media” to belong to the ethics association, and for others who wish to call themselves journalists to do so as well.

Last year saw a sensational example of a mainstream columnist, Janet Albrechtsen, accused of plagiarism with a twist – stealing the words of others AND changing them to suit her case. Media Watch exposed the matter, but her employer, The Australian, not only refused to issue a correction to readers and an acknowledgement of plagiarism, but gave her free rein to defend herself by attacking the motives of her accusers without responding to the substantive allegations.

It’s hard to escape the conclusion that these days anything goes. That means that readers can be lied to, and misled, without redress. That’s got to be bad for the public debate, hasn’t it? We get privileges as journalists – responsibilities must attach, mustn’t they?

In 52 Ideas for a healthier Australian news media (Jack2000), Jack proposed another model for reform:

42. Ethics. Your Trade Association should establish an internet site on which ten senior Australian Reporters lodge unambiguous personal opinions on specific ethical cases as they arise. (Call it the ‘Council of Grand Ethical Poobahs’, or something.) Reporters could then check the site during high-profile debates (such as the Current Affair hostage one), and draw guidance (or not) from the judgements presented. These should only be as brief as ‘I think that such-and-such Trade behaviour from such-and-such Reporter was ethically unacceptable/acceptable’. Not a jot more no deconstruction, no lengthy dissection, no dissembling. Leave the empathy stuff for pub discussions. The judgements would carry ABSOLUTELY NO weight beyond simple peer group pressure. Passwords would be issued with Association membership, and the site would NOT be for public consumption. Finally, ‘Ethical Poobah-hood’ wouldn’t be optional, but obligatory. Every Reporter with over twenty years’ experience (say) would be required to eventually serve a one year ‘Ethical Tour of Duty’ on the ‘Poobah Council’ site. It would be an obligation of Association membership. Look, we all know that Reporters are individualistic and competitive, but ultimately it comes down to which is more important to you all: your individuality or your Trade’s long-term, collective credibility. And we don’t make distinctions between Reporters – we blame ALL of you for any INDIVIDUAL ethical cock-up. (Grossly unfair, but true.) Reporters are the only people who can influence other Reporters’ ethics. Not only is external regulation undesirable, it can simply never work. It’s up to you, and you know it. An internet site will remind a young Reporter, working out in the sticks for a prick of a proprietor and faced with an awful ethical dilemma, who the good guys are. They’ll be able to draw strength from the fact that the O’Briens, the Oakes, the Grattans and McKews to whom they are aspiring are on their side.

You don’t have to be a member of the union to practice journalism, so Jack’s idea is an opt-in one. In many ways, crikey.com.au is doing the job his website would have, except that it is open. I favour this, as readers have the right to have a say on what they want in the way of ethics from journalists.

It’s too glib to say that, in the end, ethics are a personal thing. Some people have young families to support – if insisting on ethical behaviour could lose you your job, they are under much greater pressure to compromise ethics than those without family responsibilities. This is a good reason why ethical standards should have a weight outside the individual – to protect professionals against improper pressure.

Another way to do ethical enforcement is through an individual employer. For a start, some employers wouldn’t do it because they shamelessly promote their owner’s commercial interests (or censor news against it), or because their quality control is so lax they’d be hoist on their own petard too often. If an employer does stick its neck out, as the Herald did a few years ago with its ban on journalists accepting junkets, its competitors hone in on every little thing and make a meal of it. Trying to take a stand for higher standards leaves you wide open to self-serving attacks from competitors who couldn’t care less about standards but see the chance to bring down a competitor who does.

But the core relationship here is between the media group and its readers/listeners/viewers (with the spin-off that the product’s credibility demands respect from other media). The goal of company-imposed standards is to foster trust in your readers. If you make a mistake, you correct it as quickly as possible. If a reporter plagiarises, he is disciplined and the error noted in print. The Herald has its own ethical code now but it has not yet been published in the paper, partly due to the fact that the question of how readers should be involved hasn’t been decided. Who would they complain to about an alleged breach? What process would be involved for a decision? How would frivolous complaints be dealt with?

A published code with a procedure for readers complaints and decisions requires as a bottom line a culture of trust between management and staff which strips away the naturally defensive positions of both journalists and editors. Staff need to have the confidence that an error can be quickly brought to management’s attention and fixed without undue recrimination or the targeting of staff who are unpopular with management. I love Jack’s idea of a closed website for detailed discussion this would help foster the openness and constructive attitude required for the system to work.

Anyway, all this is pie in the sky. All I can control is Webdiary. What should you expect of me?

I’m a member of the journalist union, the Media Alliance, and bound by its code of ethics, updated a few years ago after exhaustive consultation of members. It states:

CODE OF ETHICS

Respect for truth and the public’s right to information are fundamental principles of journalism. Journalists describe society to itself. They convey information, ideas and opinions, a privileged role. They search, disclose, record, question, entertain, suggest and remember. They inform citizens and animate democracy. They give a practical form to freedom of expression. Many journalists work in private enterprise, but all have these public responsibilities. They scrutinise power, but also exercise it, and should be accountable. Accountability engenders trust. Without trust, journalists do not fulfil their public responsibilities. MEAA members engaged in journalism commit themselves to Honesty, Fairness, Independence, Respect for the rights of others:

1. Report and interpret honestly, striving for accuracy, fairness and disclosure of all essential facts. Do not suppress relevant available facts, or give distorting emphasis. Do your utmost to give a fair opportunity for reply.

2. Do not place unnecessary emphasis on personal characteristics, including race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, age, sexual orientation, family relationships, religious belief, or physical or intellectual disability.

3. Aim to attribute information to its source. Where a source seeks anonymity, do not agree without first considering the sources motives and any alternative attributable source. Where confidences are accepted, respect them in all circumstances.

4. Do not allow personal interest, or any belief, commitment, payment, gift or benefit, to undermine your accuracy, fairness or independence.

5. Disclose conflicts of interest that affect, or could be seen to affect, the accuracy, fairness or independence of your journalism. Do not improperly use a journalistic position for personal gain.

6. Do not allow advertising or other commercial considerations to undermine accuracy, fairness or independence.

7. Do your utmost to ensure disclosure of any direct or indirect payment made for interviews, pictures, information or stories.

8. Use fair, responsible and honest means to obtain material. Identify yourself and your employer before obtaining any interview for publication or broadcast. Never exploit a persons vulnerability or ignorance of media practice.

9. Present pictures and sound which are true and accurate. Any manipulation likely to mislead should be disclosed.

10. Do not plagiarise.

11. Respect private grief and personal privacy. Journalists have the right to resist compulsion to intrude.

12. Do your utmost to achieve fair correction of errors.

Guidance Clause

Basic values often need interpretation and sometimes come into conflict. Ethical journalism requires conscientious decision-making in context. Only substantial advancement of the public interest or risk of substantial harm to people allows any standard to be overridden.

***

Journalists in mainstream media without an ethical code have only one real option to keep the culture honest – they leak. Luckily, we now have two outlets for leaks on unethical behaviour – Media Watch and crikey.com.au. From there, peer group pressure, and public reaction determine whether anything is done.

Webdiary has tested out my ethical parameters for a practical reason. Write for the paper, and your work goes through sub-editing. Word length can be cut. The words can be changed. The story might not even run. The sub editor writes the headline. News conference decides where to place it in the paper. Sub editors decide when to have your piece legalled.

In other words, there’s lots of checks and balances on your work, and lots of things can be changed or go wrong.

With Webdiary, the responsibility is mine. I write it, edit it, put the headline on it, decide whether it needs the lawyer to look over it, and publish it. Grammatical and spelling errors are mine. Errors of fact are mine. What I write is what you get. I decide which reader’s emails do and don’t get published. If you’re unhappy with Webdiary, you know who to blame. I’ve got nowhere to hide.

The relationship between writer/moderator and reader/contributor is direct and transparent. Still, not having anything written down leaves it to you to work out what my ethical values are and what I’d like from you in that regard, which isn’t ideal. I’m going to write a draft of what I strive for ethically on Webdiary, and what I’d like from readers who want to contribute, and put it up for comment. If you’ve got any suggestions, let me know.

Harry Heidelberg had a few thoughts on all that the other day:

You told me my piece on the Australian diaspora was the second most viewed article on Monday last week, and the next day the article by Scott Burchill was the most viewed piece. With all the hype that used to surround the internet and the painful process we went through with the bubble bursting, sometimes it is easy to forget that we have been through a revolution. I am sure we are just at the start of something even more momentous. This has all been a prelude.

There are a few realities that are easy to forget. It’s routine now for people to bank online. Bills are paid, airline reservations are made and goods are bought and sold. Twenty four hours a day, seven days a week. It’s part of life now and it wasnt for most just five years ago. Profits are even being made.

Outside of the purely commercial arena is where Webdiary fulfills its charter. The idea of the Herald accessible anywhere in the world would have sounded like fantasy not that long ago. It all seems like such ancient history but its not really that ancient. If someone were to say in 1995 that the two of the most viewed articles in the Herald were actually produced by readers, I think most would be bemused by such an idea.

It reminds me of those grainy black and white pictures most Australians have seen where Bruce Gyngell says, “This is television”. Well this is the internet and some of the original dreams are coming true. People are being empowered.

Ethics and online journalism: That’s tough. Is it really any different? The readers’ contributions are kind of like letters to the editor, but when they are given such prominence as in the last week does it change anything? I’m not sure but I have a feeling it does. It seems to me that the line between the journalist and the reader-contributor becomes blurred. This of course is a wonderful thing in most ways because it is empowering people who would otherwise not be heard. It goes back to the Webdiary Charter.

You said once that the National Library is archiving this stuff so it’s not exactly chat. It’s more than that. We may not realise it but this is pioneering. Trail blazing! Then again from the contributor point of view maybe not that much has changed. Letters have always been at the key point in the paper where you see the editorial and columnists.

I’m not a journalist so I don’t know the ethics. This proves how nuanced they are. As an example, is objectivity an ethic or not? What about balance? In your own work I can certainly relate to your own views about this. I think much of what people expect is artificial. Nothing is really that objective.

What about the space? Is it ethical of you to sift out views that don’t suit your agenda? Do you have some ethical responsibility regarding balance within the space or is it just entertainment? I know you do allow varied views so I am not accusing you of anything, I am just curious.

Why be curious, why not find out? This just shows how different the era we live in really is. If you have an information need, something pretty curious to check out, it takes no time to find out. I just typed “journalists code of conduct” into “Google” and found 84,800 entries in 0.24 seconds. I don’t have to wonder what it is – I can check in an instant. There’s an old ethic there. Acknowledging the work of others. Apparently it is a huge problem in schools an universities now. Late in completing an assignment? No problem, find it on Google. I think plagiarism has to be monitored more than ever. I am sure with tight deadlines and unlimited information available in seconds, the temptation must become greater in the online world of journalism to break this old rule. Who would know if you adapted an article from the Kansas City Star?

On the other hand, this is where average people become empowered. I am able to check your facts and you are able to check mine. Either there is a million Australians living overseas or there isn’t. Before the net, I would hardly have been calling Canberra to find out such things. I just typed Australians living overseas in Google and it came up in a quarter of a second.

Would you check the facts though? If I make such an assertion, is it just considered opinion or does there have to be some checking?

Also, which source of information do you cite when you find something online? Just the original source? Like what if I found out about the DFAT figures from another site – is it OK just to cite DFAT? This may sound pedantic but I actually feel guilty for not mentioning that Southern Cross expat site. I think it was they who lead me to Professor Hugo. Sure it seems pedantic but someone key was left out of my sources. Was that unethical?

On the other hand it would become ridiculous if you had to cite every source you trawled through to get to what you wanted.

Also what about identity? This is not required to be checked on talk back radio so I don’t see why it should be online. My understanding is that letters pages used to do some checking.

What about the separation between advertising and content? Is this any different online? I assume if I am critical of a major online advertiser you treat it the same way as the hard copy version. On the internet advertisers know where you are, so when I read ads on top of Web Diary, they always appeal to me to come and find out about Australian property at a London showroom. The net knows I am in Europe, knows I am probably an expat and might be interested in buying an apartment in Melbourne. It probably doesn’t change anything……but not everyone sees the same thing. When you rally against development it is funny that your page seems sponsored by developers when I look at it in Europe! Often in Melbourne though. Right now they are telling me that I can get a free food and wine pack in London and Melbourne apartments are going for only 139,000.

Are contributors bound by ANYTHING? I feel I am. On the other hand I would hate the idea that people check guidelines before contributing.

Does time come into anything here? On the net everything happens at warp speed. Does this change your behaviour and does that change have an ethical aspect?

On the net it is possible to put things up and take them down quickly. You once removed a Polly Bush contribution – that’s something you couldn’t do offline. I’ve never noticed it but perhaps you’ve also altered history in other ways. Are the archives as originally published and does that matter? Is it OK to go back and change them?

Margo: I took Polly’s piece down at the editor’s request as it contained drug references to which he did not approve. The only other time this happened was about 18 months ago, when I took down details of a stop work meeting on proposals to merge the Canberra bureaus of the Herald and the Age at the request of the online editor, who convinced me that publication was an unreasonably provocative act in the circumstances. I correct back entries when people (and there are a few of them in the blogging world) point out grammatical or spelling errors. I don’t change archives on matters of substance.

G’day. Our columnists are getting into gear – today Jack Robertson makes his 2003 debut with Time for a question change on Iraq (jack20), a piece debunking Jim Nolan’s defence of war on Iraq on human rights grounds in Take a risk for human rights: Back Bush, webdiary17Jan.

Harry Heidelberg was inspired by HIH: Will Costello be nailed? (webdiaryJan17)to write two columns. His corporate eye view of the perils of outsourcing is at Outsource, then backsource at Harry20Jan). He goes to town on bad corporate behaviour in HIH: Time to stop the rot for good (Harry20Jan).

Michael (last name withheld) in Sydney, another financial type, blames the incentive-based pay which has mushroomed since deregulation for much of the sleaze:

“Having worked in stockbroking, investment banking and now for a large multinational (whew, there’s a list !), it seems to me that since the deregulation of financial industries around the world, starting in the late 1970s in the US and making its way here in the 1980s, the world of commerce has been engaged in a project to both increase the percent of employees remuneration driven by incentives and to push this methodology throughout as many levels in the organisation as possible.

What started as bonuses for bankers is increasingly becoming, in some shape or form, a feature of many people’s pay structure.

At the risk of a gross generalisation, the theory as taught in most business schools is about getting the employees to think like owners by “giving” them a stake in the economic outcomes of the firm. This then engenders greater commitment, productivity and performance and all’s right with the world.

In practice, I have very serious doubts about some of the unintended consequences of this approach. Let’s just put to the side the most egregious examples from recent corporate collapses. They’re far too obvious. What are some of the other problems of this path we seem to be heading down somewhat unquestioningly ?

Firstly, the design of incentive based remuneration systems is very difficult to get right. Problem is, if you give someone an explicit incentive, they may very well follow it to the letter. For example – bonuses based on current year performance can create dysfunctional short term behaviour, like the profit banking Harry Heidelberg discussed.

Secondly, what should be the measures? Accounting profits? “Economic” profits? Cash? There’s a whole world of literature out there on what metrics to use. Use the wrong one, or the wrong combination and it can backfire.

Thirdly, if people are rewarded on the basis of getting the deal done, the audit signed or the case won, we have seen all too clearly that sometimes the result can come a too high a price. Which might not be a problem for you if you’ve banked your bonus and moved on, right?

Finally there’s the issue of how to incorporate subjective judgments about performance in incentive pay. Another example from my experience was a bonus system largely decided upon the fees generated by the employee and the recommendation of the head of the business unit. There were no guidelines about how these recommendations were to be made. Consequently, the bonus system, which could account for anything from half to a multiple of salary (depending on seniority) became a black box. This did not make for a particularly healthy culture – intensely competitive politics, patronage, no co-operation etc.

But my biggest problem with the whole concept is that the underlying Pavlovian premise is people respond best to money and that all you have to do is provide a steady stream of cash based on the right targets and all will be well. As you noted in your speech, this goes to the monetisation of all values. If it can’t be quantified in cash terms, then we question its worth and importance.

So what has all this to do with ethics? In many professional services firms and large corporations, the structures in place to reward people often take no account of any concepts of ethical or fair dealing. That’s not to say that ethics isn’t a core value of the firm. “We value honesty and ethical dealing above all else” etc….

If anyone gets caught, of course they’ll be sacked, but is it any wonder that the actions (ie pay systems) speak louder than the corporate vision statement rhetoric? I firmly believe that unless there is some moderation (let alone reversal) in the magnitude and extent of incentive based pay, or at the very least a rethink of methodologies, governmental or societal responses will have great difficulty getting past incentive systems that can at best make it easy to ignore, and at worst actively work against, ethical behaviours.

And we’re spreading this approach throughout the economy. Hmmm. Not too sure about that.

Australian Financial Review legal reporter Chris Merritt wrote a disturbing piece about HIH on Saturday, opining that the perpetrators of the bankruptcy of one of our largest insurers would get away with it. “Those who had been expecting the nation’s governments to launch a crackdown of the insurance industry and its professional advisers are too late. Instead of a crackdown, state and federal governments are already implementing the exact reverse,” he wrote.

Chris notes that even if prosecutions of a few of the 1000 possible breaches of law identified by counsel assisting were launched, it would break the bank of the regulatory authorities. The big boys twist the legal system every which way, at enormous expense, to save themselves, and Peter Costello has given corporate regulator ASIC a mere $5 million extra to do the job. Even if Costello gave more money, the regulator would still only do targetted prosecutions, Chris said.

What’s more, ripped off consumers will find it harder to launch civil proceedings for damages because since the HIH collapse state and federal governments have begun changing the law to make it harder to sue company directors and professional advisers, including watering down the tests for professional negligence!! Looks like accountants and lawyers here are nearly as powerful as the US lobby groups who’ve been so successful in feathering their nests and limiting their accountability. NSW – home to the workers friend Bob Carr – has been first off the mark in legislating to protect professionals against consequences for their negligence. The others have yet to act, so there’s still time to knock off the rort elsewhere.

In announcing these drastic curtailments of liability for negligence, says Merritt, Governments “failed to recognise the dual nature of the law of negligence, which simultaneously operates as a system of compensation and as a system for enforcing community standards by punishing wrongdoers.”

“By watering down its effectiveness as a compensation system, the nation’s governments have also watered down its effectiveness as a system for enforcing community standards.”

Harry wants all the alleged perpetrators dealt with as a lesson to companies and the professions. I agree. Peter Costello, as architect of APRA, the disastrously failed regulator for the insurance industry, has a duty to fix up his own mess. He should do at least five things:

* Give ASIC enough funds to prosecute ALL cases where there is ANY chances of success, and instruct ASIC to do so. Let’s have an end to prosecution of all poor miscreants and selective prosecution of the winners of our society who do the wrong thing. That’s the best stick, by far, to ensure more businesspeople and their professional advisers think twice before breaking the rules. It would be money very well spent.

* Tell ASIC to publish a list of ALL adverse findings against all affected players – including professional lawyers, accountants and actuaries accused on unprofessional conduct – and publish regular updates of where they’re at on each.

* Tell ASIC to detail every legal ploy that every prosecuted player uses to delay proceedings and to recommend legal changes to cut off all possible technical means for corporate players to evade responsibility for their actions.

* Write to all professional bodies of the accountants, lawyers and actuaries involved and demand details of what action, if any, is being taken to discipline and if necessary expel errant practitioners. Two of Australia’s top legal firms, Blake Dawson Waldron and Minter Ellison, are implicated in this scandal, and it’s time to end the closed doors, only-if-we-feel-like-it responses from professional associations with the job of encouraging and enforcing ethical behaviour in their ranks.

* Convene a meeting of state governments to draft comprehensive laws to clean up and reform the associations of all professionals with ethical responsibilities. In the meantime, tell professional bodies to come up with their own reforms pronto.

I outlined one model in my piece Ethics overboard: How to promote integrity in the moment of choice (webdiary14Jan):

What I’m thinking of is framework legislation, to cover all jobs with ethical duties. It could require all professions to have an ethical oversight body comprised of a chairperson and directors agreed to by consensus between the profession’s leaders and consumer groups, and if consensus cannot be reached, by election. Membership of the professional body would be compulsory to work, and members of the oversight body would have legal protection against defamation and the like.

The group or individuals on it would give advisory opinions to members in a bind. These would be regularly published in a pro-forma way. If a professional accidentally breached an ethical duty, apologies could be lodged, and published. The body would look at complaints it judged worthy of consideration or those it found out about independently, in open session. It would seek the views of members. It would publish reasons.

Except for extremely serious matters, like a psychiatrist sleeping with a patient, there would be no penalty or a reprimand on proof of a first breach. What I’d be looking for is an ongoing conversation, a genuine engagement, for the profession, not a penal system. Because the system is not penal, the person under investigation would be required to speak for him or herself.

In his first piece for Webdiary, Harry Heidelberg detailed an horrific example of the laxness of many professional bodies these days:

Don’t believe existing bodies when they say they have it covered. I belong to one which has a members ethical counselling service. A mate of mine went to them in dire need of advice earlier this year and they were hopeless. They offered no help at all. The whole thing is window dressing crap. When you really need them, they won’t be there for you.

This mate of mine had to resign from his job to get out of his ethical dilemma and endure three months of frightening unemployment. Some people may treat this lightly but I think it is outrageous that a well known professional body has a so-called ethical counselling service that failed so abysmally. Sure, it may be an isolated case but it should never happen. In the case of my mate it was serious stuff. His employer was on the verge of bankruptcy and hadn’t paid “group tax” (ie the pay as you earn tax deducted from employees) in nearly a year. No one cared for him. He’s a good guy and no one cared or listened. He could only trash himself to survive and sleep at night. From My ethics, Harry10Sep2002.

Harry’s example was replicated during HIH. The Herald’s Elizabeth Sexton laid bare the inaction of the accountants’ professional body and the collapse of peer group pressure as a means of ensuring ethical pressure in a great piece in Saturday’s paper called Unheard voices of warning at HIH. I’ve republished her piece at the end of this entry. (Conflict of interest, the most basic professional no-no, is now broken at will by directors and professionals, as the HIH inquiry shows. crikey.com.au’s editor Stephen Mayne lists the worst of them, together with other corporate examples, in his list of ‘conflicted service providers’ at crikey.)

After Liz Sexton’s piece, a brilliant expose of the culpability of Peter Costello for the APRA mess and a compelling case why either he or the APRA board he appointed should resign or be sacked. Christopher Sheil’s piece, which appeared in the Australian Financial Review last Friday, also makes the old point governments never remember – if you want to deregulate markets you’ve got to have very tough, very well resourced regulators to keep the players honest. “Light touch” regulation in a deregulated environment always ends in tears. Always.

As Webdiarist Jozef Imrich writes:

What we’re dealing with here is not a shortage of regulation, but rather a deficit of morality and ethics in the rooms of the corporate executives. We have laws in place that require full and honest disclosure of assets and liabilities. These executives chose to either bend or break those laws, and they should be paying a heavy price for it.

The scandal has helped to show us once again that not only is government regulation necessary, but stronger government oversight is a must.

I suspect that those with high ethical standards who get appointed to the positions of government oversight bodies will ultimately prove most fruitful to the public interest. Each nation needs characters who are above the board, literally and metaphorically. Experienced and fearless operators, like former NSW auditor Tony Harris, ought to be placed in a position of power where they can enforce stronger government oversight.

I bet my life on the fact that people dedicated to public service would make CEOs responsible and liable for the accuracy of the financial statements of their company.

Without a stronger government oversight, the prosecution will continue to kick in only after we have caught corporate executives doing something wrong.

If there’s any justice in politics, Costello should be nailed on this one. A mea culpa is the least he can do. That, and a bloody good Costello blueprint for nailing the culprits and cleaning up the supervision of ethics in our professions.

Harry advises that the annual general meeting of the Davos forum will be on the topic “Building trust’. The preamble: “During the past year trust has broken down throughout society. The Annual Meeting will provide a platform for leaders to address the challenge of restoring confidence and building trust.” The meeting begins on January 23 in Davos, Switzerland. For details, and “trust survey results” go to weforum.

***

Unheard voices of warning at HIH

by Elizabeth Sexton, SMH, 20/01/2003

“When Jeff Simpson was wrestling with his conscience in mid-2000, three of his mates in the insurance industry were worried about him. “Their continual advice to me was ‘Be careful, Simmo, are you sure you know what you are doing?’,” he says.

Mr Simpson, who had resigned from his job as a middle-ranking accountant at HIH a year earlier, was considering alerting the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority to some of HIH’s dodgy financial habits.

His friends, also ex-HIH, were not anxious about the strength of his case, but they suggested he use rubber gloves to post the document to APRA. “I didn’t think they were joking,” Mr Simpson told the HIH Royal Commission 10 days ago.

Still, he found the nerve to contact APRA, although unfortunately the regulators could not see what was staring them in the face. At least he tried.

The commission has revealed other similar episodes in the sorry history of HIH and FAI that were capable of restoring our faith in human nature, but they can probably be counted on the fingers of one hand.

An overwhelming impression from last week’s closing submissions is the number of people who knew the place was rotten but did not tell. In a sense, their stories are more disturbing than the much shorter list of those accused of premeditated fraud.

How did a series of otherwise honest Sydneysiders working in two of the least glamorous fields imaginable – insurance and accounting – end up with their faces on the front pages and their names on lists of potential targets for court action?

The short answer is that they turned a blind eye.

It’s not hard to imagine why. With mortgages and school fees to pay, it is a big call to stick your neck out against your employer.

Despite his initial approach to APRA, Mr Simpson eventually got cold feet. He was worried that he was “perhaps in breach of confidentiality if I went further with this sort of thing or it would upset too many people or it might mean somebody trying to sue me”.

It is hard to criticise him for being discouraged, though, given APRA’s reaction and what he described as a “don’t go there” response from the Institute of Chartered Accountants the previous year. (In a black twist, the person the institute nominated to listen to Mr Simpson’s story in 1999 was named in the closing submissions as a central player in an accounting fraud in 1998.)

The potential for financial pressure to stop people rocking the boat did not apply only to employees. The commission heard that an “unhealthy” 50 to 80 per cent of the fee income of external actuary David Slee came from HIH. For the accounting firm Arthur Andersen, HIH was the biggest single Sydney audit client.

A counsel assisting, Richard White, SC, said this week the willingness of the auditors to call things as they saw them was compromised by constant pressure on the audit division from other parts of the firm to lift “underperformance” when it came to profit contribution.

There was extensive evidence that both the actuary and the auditors were well aware of HIH’s parlous state.

Mr White criticised Mr Slee this week for “optimistic assumptions and inadequate methodologies” in assessing how much money HIH needed to set aside to meet future policyholder claims. But, though his analysis was allegedly weak, Mr Slee was still alarmed and his reports to the board carried increasingly strident warnings of the dire risks facing the company. What a pity none of the non-executive directors ever read them.

The commission also unearthed a 2000 e-mail from an employee of the Australian Government Actuary to an APRA staff member, reporting Mr Slee had told him that, if Canberra made the insurance regulations tougher, it would “blow his major client out of the water”.

The audit certificate included in the HIH annual report was signed for five years running by an Andersen partner, Alan Davies. In early 1999, he told directors he would qualify his “true and fair” declaration if HIH did not change its ways.

Concerned by an utterly blank response, he arranged a lunch meeting with two non-executive directors. One of them, Neville Head, told the commission about the “angry” reaction from HIH’s chief executive, Ray Williams, that the meeting took place without his knowledge, which included the comment that “there appear to be people working against me”.

Andersen quietly shifted Mr Davies off the HIH account a few months later. Overall, the auditors failed in their duty to scrutinise the integrity of the published accounts, a counsel assisting, Wayne Martin, QC, said on Monday. “In virtually every instance of controversy, (Andersen) ultimately yielded to management’s view of the accounting treatment to be adopted, which invariably had the effect of overstating profitability and understating liabilities,” Mr Martin said.

Mr Martin described the evidence given about the reasons for shifting Mr Davies as “tortuous”, but concluded that it appeared linked to Mr Williams’ reaction to the lunch. Mr Williams did not go so far as changing audit firms, however. That would have been very much out of character for a man who counted his business relationships in decades.

Mr Slee first dealt with Mr Williams in 1970 and started as HIH actuary in 1980. Andersen audited HIH’s books continuously from 1971. Three of its former audit partners accepted invitations to join the HIH board. One of them, Geoff Cohen, chaired HIH from its 1992 stockmarket float until its March 2001 collapse. Sydney QC Bob Stitt, who served the same board term, had appeared regularly as the company’s barrister since 1971.

Loyalty was the highest praise Mr Williams could bestow on staff. Those who understood “the Heath Way” (HIH originally stood for Heath International Holdings) and stuck around could expect some of the lavish treatment for which HIH is now infamous.

Putting off confronting an unpleasant truth might be an understandable human trait, but, in the case of HIH, it made the final outcome much worse than it needed to be.”

***

Competition push needs safeguards

by Christopher Sheil, AFR, 17/01/2003

Christopher Sheil is a visiting fellow in the School of History, UNSW

The HIH debacle has lessons for the structure of other regulators, as Christopher Sheil explains.

Only the federal Treasurer, Peter Costello, can save the board of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority.

The fallout from the HIH Royal Commission may also set back the Howard government’s plans for a national electricity lawmaker, and should trigger a basic rethink of prevailing approaches to regulation.

But before we jump ahead, let’s look at APRA. Under the authority’s legislation, the board has the responsibility for determining APRA’s policies (“including goals, priorities, strategies and administrative policies”) and for ensuring the body’s functions are performed “properly, efficiently and effectively”.

In light of this charter, the survival of the board beggars belief, given that the senior counsel assisting the royal commission has not only charged that APRA “missed every one of the available opportunities to identify and react to the looming financial problems of the HIH group”. He has also claimed that the body “lacked the resources and the requisite culture to undertake any effective form of regulation” and “wasn’t well served by its senior officers”.

With criticisms as sweeping as the board’s responsibilities are broad, even in the event that the royal commission’s final report proves half as damning, APRA’s bosses should still be well on their way.

Of course, Costello can save the board, by taking the responsibility for APRA’s failure and resigning himself. Fat chance. Yet there is a case to be made. After all, APRA is wholly Costello’s creation.

The Treasurer established the now beleaguered regulator in 1998, following the recommendations of the financial system inquiry (the Wallis inquiry) he instigated in June 1996.

The Wallis inquiry’s main thrust was to separate the Reserve Bank of Australia’s responsibility for economic policy from the task of supervising bank prudential standards, which was devolved and amalgamated with other supervisory responsibilities including responsibility for insurance funds within the new APRA.

Back then, Costello boasted that his new competition-based supervisory system would cut costs by reducing regulation in favour of a level national playing field, thereby inducing investment and benefiting consumers.

The whole system, he frequently puffed, was “leading edge in world terms”.

How far away those heady 1998 days seem. This week, counsel assisting the royal commission observed that in “hindsight, there was never any realistic prospect that [APRA] would adequately perform its regulatory responsibilities with respect to HIH”. This week, Costello hasn’t uttered a word.

More broadly, the APRA debacle also spells trouble for the long-mooted national electricity regulatory authority, which is one of the Howard government’s headline objectives for 2003.

As with the Treasurer before him, Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane has been trumpeting the case for the national regulator, promising benefits from separating policy from regulatory responsibilities and by “reducing government intervention and control” in favour of enhanced competition on a level national playing field.

Macfarlane is already puffing about the way his proposed national regulatory scheme will pronounce Australia “open for business”.

And just like Costello and the financial sector, Macfarlane is in grave danger of overlooking the distinctive features of electricity markets, which mean that increased competition will always demand more, not less, supervision.

The need for more regulation under conditions of intensified competition follows from two ready observations. The first is that electricity like compulsory insurance products contains many public goods and essential service characteristics, in addition to embodying natural monopoly elements.

These market characteristics are quite remote from the abstract model of perfect competition that underpins the assumptions upon which Costello’s past and Macfarlane’s envisaged regulatory reforms are based.

Most pertinently, when public goods, or monopoly, or near-monopoly features are present, governments can never escape the consequences of major market failures, as the HIH collapse amply demonstrates.

In turn, this automatically means that, unless governments flagrantly wish to widen their exposure to market failure, measures to increase competition in these kinds of industries must always be accompanied by more regulation.

This insight is scarcely novel. Unlike Australia’s economic rationalists, Adam Smith knew that regulations designed to protect the public interest always have to be strengthened with increased competition, for this will always oblige businessmen to “be more liberal in their dealings with their customers, lest their rivals should carry them away”.

Disclosure: Jack Robertson is the co-convener of the Balmain branch of Amnesty International. These are his personal views.

In ‘Regime Change for Saddam’ (Take a risk for human rights: Back Bush, webdiary17Jan), almost none of Jim Nolan’s arguments supporting a pre-emptive invasion of Iraq in the name of Human Rights really do anything of the sort.

His piece simply summarises what invasion proponents (for the last few months) and Human Rights NGOs (for over twenty years) have been telling the world: Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator whose HR behaviour is unacceptable. It’s a compelling read if you still need to be convinced of that; as a justification for invasion, it doesn’t get far.

What we’re now supposed to be arguing about is not whether ‘intervention’ in Iraq is morally requisite, but whether a pre-emptive invasion is the form of ‘intervention’ that can best achieve a HR net gain there. Far from being soft left appeasers, as Jim implies, HR activists have in fact been ‘intervening’ in Iraq since at least 1983 – as has Donald Rumsfeld, incidentally, who back then was busy kissing Saddam’s HR-abusing butt.

This is now largely moot, to be sure, but such historical fellow-travelling should at least inure even the soppiest lefty against accusations of ‘appeasement’ today; if anyone has been Saddam’s Chamberlain stooge, it’s Rumsfeld, not Chomsky. As a wussy activist myself, obviously I welcome Rummers’ belated discovery of his ‘bleeding heart’ on Iraq, but let’s not be blinded to the core matters by the zealous light beaming from all these HR Born-Agains’ eyes.

In a sense, US ‘calls to HR arms’ in Iraq now are more akin to those diehard isolationists who popped up post-Pearl Harbour to inform ‘everyone’ grandiloquently that Hitler was a mad tyrant who must be stopped, when ‘everyone’ had long been trying to figure out the best to go about doing it.

In this latter, deeper sense, Jim doesn’t move beyond the unsupported assertion that a full-on ‘second front’ is now the way to go, simply because: “(Not invading) cannot be tolerated when the realistic alternative is a short sharp military intervention which can now confidently be predicted to topple the much hated Saddam in a matter of weeks if not days.” His earlier detailed cataloguing of Saddam’s HR bastardry being irrelevant (because on this all HR activists heartily agree), my bold highlighting effectively gives us the unique essence of his pro-invasion argument: It would be quick, relatively cost-free and successful.

Now if this claim was backed up by the same quality of evidence and reasoning Jim uses to (redundantly) damn Saddam’s HR record, I’d be all for a ‘HR invasion’, too, but as it is not, his article is basically pointless, since the key HR question here isn’t, ‘Is Saddam a HR abuser?’, but rather, ‘Will a pre-emptive invasion right now do net HR harm, or net HR good?’.

Jim’s only evidential basis for asserting the latter – pre-emptive invasion as largely ‘painless’ HR new broom – are references to the Iraqi military’s quick collapse in the first Gulf War, a dangerously misleading comparison. It fails to consider the profound motivational difference in a soldier fighting to defend foreign invasion gains (Kuwait), and one fighting at home against an invader, especially a hated enemy who has vowed to radically restructure the conquered country in its own Imperialistic image.

To my mind, an inexplicable assumption is currently running riot in the warhawk camp; that the Iraqis will jump at the chance to surrender their ancestral lands with barely a fight, solely to trade Saddam’s familiar brand of oppression for what is surely still, to them, the scarifying unknown of ‘Americanism’.

This seems to me like a monumentally-haphazard presumption to make about the contemporary Iraqi soldier’s feelings on America and ‘Human Rights’. Against his corporate memory of Basra Road slaughter and homeland aerial bombardment by America in 1990; against his propaganda-distorted fear of Bush’s ‘evil’ intentions in Iraq; in the context of his likely religious conviction that the US ‘War on Terror’ (nb: Islamic ‘terror’ only, apparently, cf. North Korean ‘appeasement’) is in reality a new Judeo-Christian Crusade; having suffered under what he doubtless regards as American bombings, sanctions and trade blockades for over a decade; and with the knowledge that he is all that stands between the invading force and his wives and kids behind him, most Iraqi soldiers will still, the way Jim Nolan (and the White House) tells it, be easily ‘won over’. Despite everything, Bush & Co are counting on GI Joe from Idaho being able to convince Mushtiq Ali from Al-Hillah – in the chaotic heat of combat to boot – that the American Way is his best hope, and he should thus throw down his rifle rather than fire it.

I’m not saying another Iraqi military collapse is not possible, I’m suggesting the chances are (literally) immeasurably slimmer. Also, unlike in Kuwait, early ‘bloodbath’ tactical engagements are as likely to strengthen as weaken Iraqi resolve (at least up to a certain point), for each dead Iraqi is one more extended group of other Iraqis whose hearts and minds the ‘liberators’ can no longer quickly ‘win’. (Shoot a man dead, and his wife, kids, friends and comrades won’t care that you only did so in the greater cause of their Human Rights.)

Thus, the opening military engagements will be critical. If they go badly and a lot of Iraqis are killed, don’t expect many women and children to be tossing daisies in HR gratitude at the M-1s rolling into Baghdad later. He who scoffs at Iraq’s fighting commitment before asking himself how he would react to Saddam’s Armies appearing on his country’s borders is being at best foolish, at worse recklessly cavalier with the lives of his own invading soldiers who, for all anyone really knows, just might be in for a very nasty shock. Think Somalia in ’93, when all the poor old Yankee ‘liberators’ were trying to do was toss around a few sacks of free food and then bugger off home.

This – the manifest assumption among warhawks that the toughest remaining fight regarding a ‘regime change invasion’ is the battle to mobilise public support for it – is the main reason for my enduring scepticism. My chief beef about the scarcity of personal combat experience in the Bush Administration has little to do with hypocrisy (much less supposed ‘cowardice’); the real worry is that apart from Colin Powell and Richard Armitage, few of the top Bushies have direct experience of what happens to a nice theoretical plan once battle is joined.

Consequently, few seem terribly interested in addressing the many practical complexities that might turn out to lie behind the glib aim of ‘regime change’. Like every malleable motherhood statement uttered, this linguistic cure-all is a means of avoiding, rather than pro-actively grappling with, the operational realities to which it will give rise.

Jim’s piece illustrates well the skewing effect on this debate of this unwillingness – the unwillingness to think in advance about every conceivable awkward turn of events. As have too many others thus far, he wastes much intellectual energy and space telling us wussy HR activist appeasers dated monster tales about Saddam, apparently expecting us to coo and sigh and then accept without question his macho claims about the inevitable quick success of an invasion.

Yet it’s on this ground, not the universally-agreed hatefulness of Saddam, that media debate now needs to focus. Obviously I don’t know any more than Jim how an invasion will actually pan out, but – in the spirit ofScott Burchill’s ‘Counterspin: Pro-War Mythology’ (New year resolutions, 13Jan) I suggest that tackling questions of the following kind will better serve the pro-invasion lobby’s HR credibility than yet more waxing unlyrical on the Butcher of Baghdad:

1. Roughly how many total casualties – enemy and friendly, military (regular, conscript, militia) and civilian – could an invasion to remove Saddam in the name of Human Rights be reasonably allowed to ‘cost’ before the HR ‘net balance sheet’ moves into negative territory? If this is an unreasonable mode of assessment, define a ‘successful’ invasion outcome.

2. In describing the invasion’s primary aim as ‘regime change’, what exactly is meant by Saddam’s ‘regime’, and how will the invading forces delineate it? No totalitarian tyrant rules alone; the Iraqi political, social and military system is a network of mini-Saddams, each with commensurate degrees of HR blood on their hands. How will frontline invading forces simultaneously optimise the opportunities for a majority of Iraqi forces to surrender quickly, while applying maximum combat power to those Iraqis, at all command levels, who decide that their historical complicity in the ‘regime that must be changed’ affords them no option but to fight to the death? What worst case percentage of the Iraq population might regard themselves as irredeemably complicit in this way?

3. Much of the Iraqi civilian population, including women and children, has now been armed and primed for defensive jihad. Will the ROE of the invading forces make any formal distinction between an Iraqi soldier filling a military defensive role and an armed Iraqi civilian who considers herself to be defending her home and her children from a rapacious foreign invader, or will any such distinction be a matter of individual tactical judgement?

4. What will the ROE be? On what legal basis will this ROE rest? In the case of a non-UN authorised invasion, can the invasion authority indemnify all invading combatants from any subsequent HR-based legal action arising from errors of operational judgement?

5. Will the invading force categorically rule out any use of its own weapons of mass destruction, regardless of how the invasion unfolds?

6. Which members – at what level – of ‘Saddam’s regime’ suspected of HR abuses will be investigated (and charged, tried and sentenced, etc), and by whom, and how, and when, and within what legal framework? Which members of it will be granted indemnity, and by whom, and within what legal framework?

7. Is there any time or outcome-based limitation on the presence of the invading/occupying force in a post-Saddam Iraq? Against what HR criteria will eventual military withdrawal be assessed?

8. Are we now absolutely sure we can only change Saddam’s regime/HR behaviour with a full-scale military invasion?

If, as it seems, our country is going to participate in a pre-emptive invasion of Iraq in at least the partial – if perhaps nominal – name of ‘Human Rights’, then the very least those soppy HR activists among us who remain sceptical can demand is that the pro-invasion lobby try to answer these and many other similar Human Rights queries with something a little more sophisticated than ‘But Saddam is evil!’