John Howard is in America, Donald Rumsfeld was in Europe, and it’s the final countdown to war. Meanwhile in the American homeland, the President and the Department of Homeland Security have adjusted the terror alert status to HIGH, indicating a terror attack within US territory is imminent. The increased risk is “specific and credible” based on intelligence from “multiple sources”. Meanwhile over at the Pentagon, the current level of Threatcon is constantly assessed. It’s February 2003. We are anxious and afraid. The 21st century is well underway.

Back in that golden era of the 1990s Francis Fukuyma wrote The End of History and the Last Man. He argued:

A remarkable consensus concerning the legitimacy of liberal democracy as a system of government had emerged throughout the world over the past few years, as it conquered rival ideologies like hereditary monarchy, fascism, and most recently communism. More than that, however, I argued that liberal democracy may constitute the “end point of mankind’s ideological evolution” and the “final form of human government,” and as such constituted the “end of history.”

That is, while earlier forms of government were characterised by grave defects and irrationalities that led to their eventual collapse, liberal democracy was arguably free from such fundamental internal contradictions. This was not to say that today’s stable democracies, like the United States, France, or Switzerland, were not without injustice or serious social problems. But these problems were ones of incomplete implementation of the twin principles of liberty and equality on which modern democracy is founded, rather than of flaws in the principles themselves. While some present-day countries might fail to achieve stable liberal democracy, and others might lapse back into other, more primitive forms of rule like theocracy or military dictatorship, the ideal of liberal democracy could not be improved on. (marxists)

Optimists like me were drawn to such books. I loved the idea that the end of history had arrived. I knew what he meant. I didn’t take it literally. The acceptance that liberal democracy had triumphed seemed so promising. It was now just an evolutionary matter and in the end the whole world would gravitate toward this kind of progress.

At the close of the decade, I snapped up author signed copies of The Lexus and the Olive Tree. I gave a mate a copy of this book and he loved it, as did I. We chatted about it at golf! In this book, New York Times columnist, Thomas Friedman sought to explain globalisation as a system and argued that it had replaced the Cold War system. Friedman is no lightweight, having spent years travelling the globe and spending many years in the Middle East. His view of the direction in which we were heading was compelling. The unusual title of the book was based on the following: “One day in 1992, Thomas Friedman toured a Lexus factory in Japan and marvelled at the robots that put the luxury cars together. That evening, as he ate sushi on a Japanese bullet train, he read a story about yet another Middle East squabble between Palestinians and Israelis. And it hit him: Half the world was lusting after those Lexuses, or at least the brilliant technology that made them possible, and the other half was fighting over who owned which olive tree.”

On September 11, 2001, the olive tree arrived in the land of the Lexus lusters and rather than history ending, it was starting all over again. Of course the declaration of the end of history and the triumph of the Lexus principle proved to be wildly optimistic and premature. That said, I don’t think they were speaking nonsense. When you look at the context of the era in which these books were written, it’s not so hard to understand the optimism.

A lot of what they say may still end up being right. Right now though, it’s hard to see. These days we are more likely to be figuring out the difference between homeland terror alert status and threatcon as we put our terror magnet on the fridge. I can’t remember which threatcon it is when you have to take your shoes off for shoebomb inspection at the airport. It just gets harder all the time. Now they even insist you take your laptop out of its bag. The cockpit doors are now steel reinforced and armed air marshalls may now be on board. There is something deeply ironic about announcements associated with flying “friendly skies”.

I have no doubt America will be attacked, and soon. I travel to America a lot and love the place. The American people are resilient. No matter what happens, they will carry on their lives. Life goes on in this strange jittery new world of increased “terror chatter” and “imminent threat of terror spectacular”.

I think it is correct to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If we do not do this now we will truly regret it in years to come. On the other hand I do not kid myself that this will be any great victory. All the other threats remain and I am sadly convinced the worst is yet to come.

It’s the final countdown. We’re going on a trip. All of us together.

I have a great Swedish friend who I love to mock over Swedish pop music. It has been enormously popular over the years and there is far more to it than Abba. I was in a cafe today with a friend here and the song by the Swedish group “Europe” of “The Final Countdown” came on. I instantly grinned and then couldn’t stop smiling. Understandably, my friend asked me what was so funny. I said that song was so ridiculous and always made me laugh because it reminded me of some very happy times.

Later in the day I heard a news report where Iraq was mentioned and it was said there is a “final countdown to war”. The phrase had instant resonance. Perhaps I will never smile so broadly at hearing this song again.

The lighthearted, invariably upbeat and fun nature of Swedish pop music seems so at odds with the times.

We live in very strange times. It’s hard not to be strange these days. Threatcon, terror fridge magnets, worrying levels of “terror chatter”, terror spectacular. This is not how I imagined the 21st century would be.

We are definitely going on some kind of trip and have no clue how all this will end.

Europe

The Final Countdown

We’re leaving together,

But still it’s farewell

And maybe we’ll come back,

To earth, who can tell?

I guess there is no one to blame

We’re leaving ground

Will things ever be the same again?

*

It’s the final countdown…

*

We’re heading for Venus and still we stand tall

Cause maybe they’ve seen us and welcome us all

With so many light years to go and things to be found

I’m sure that we’ll all miss her so.

*

The most popular song in Switzerland last year was Crying at the Discoteque by Swedish group Alcazar. Especially now, people still want to have fun and escape……

Alcazar – Crying At The Discoteque

Downtown’s been caught by the hysteria

People scream and shout

A generation’s on the move

When disco spreads like a bacteria

These lonely days are right

Welcome the passion of the groove

*

The golden years

The silver tears

You wore a tie like Richard Gere

I wanna get down

You spin me around

I stand on the borderline

*

Crying at the discoteque

Crying at the discoteque

*

I saw you crying

I saw you crying at the discoteque

I saw you crying

I saw you crying at the discoteque

*

Tonight’s the night at the danceteria

The joining of the tribe

The speakers blasting clear and loud

The way you dance is our criteria

The DJ takes you high

Let tears of joy baptize the crowd

*

The golden years

The silver tears

You wore a tie like Richard Gere

I wanna get down

You spin me around

I stand on the borderline

*

Crying at the discoteque

Crying at the discoteque

*

I saw you crying

I saw you crying at the discoteque

I saw you crying

I saw you crying at the discoteque

*

The passion of the groove

Generation on the move

Joining of the disco tribe

Let the music take you high

*

The golden years

The silver tears

You wore a tie like Richard Gere

I wanna get down

You spin me around

I stand on the borderline

*

Crying at the discoteque

Crying at the discoteque

*

I saw you crying

I saw you crying at the discoteque

I saw you crying

I saw you crying at the discoteque

Hi. I’ve got too many emails on Iraq to read, let alone publish. Here’s a selection, pro and anti-war – including debate on Karen Jackson’s controversial “10 reasons to be anti-American” piece and Helen Darville’s Webdiary debut – and a grab-bag of protest actions on the go.

I interviewed Paul McGeough on the war, and his book From Manhattan to Baghdad, yesterday (the links are in the right-hand column of Webdiary). To those warbloggers fearful I might get my gear off at Saturday’s Byron Bay “Disrobe to Disarm’ protest, I’m off to Perth tomorrow to speak at the arts festival and intend to remain fully clothed in public. Webdiary will resume on Monday.

Recommendations

I recommend “In the politicians we trust?” by Gary Sauer-Thompson.

J. Russell recommends ‘Can we justify killing the children of Iraq?’ by Jonathan Glover in The Guardian.

Melody Kemp recommends George Monbiot’s ‘Act now against war’ at The Guardian for non-violent civil disobedience ideas. See also Oxford Research Group.

David Makinson recommends umich for a transcript of a Wall Street Journal advertisement by Republicans against the war.

Scott Burchill likes this quote from Hunter S. Thompson in Kingdom of Fear (Simon & Schuster, New York 2003, p.xix):

It would be easy to say that we owe it all to the Bush family from Texas, but that would be too simplistic. They are only errand boys for the vengeful, bloodthirsty cartel of raving Jesus-freaks and super-rich money mongers who have ruled this country for the last 20 years, and arguably for the past 200. They take orders well, and they don’t ask too many questions.

The real power in America is held by a fast-emerging new Oligarchy of pimps and preachers who see no need for Democracy or fairness or even trees, except maybe the ones in their own yards, and they don’t mind admitting it.They worship money and power and death. Their ideal solution to all the nation’s problems would be another 100 Year War.

Helen Darville likes this HL Mencken quote: To every complex problem, there’s always a simple solution. And it’s always wrong.

***

Activism

A Just Australia wants people to post their fridge (‘fear’) magnets to Philip Ruddock “to tell him that we want the detention camps closed down and a system for dealing with asylum seekers based on justice not fear”.

Vanessa Wilson and many others like the idea of marking their terrorism kit “return to sender” and dropping it in the nearest mailbox. Ruediger Landmann suggests adding an anti-war message, eg Peace Takes Brains, Anything War Can Do, Peace Can Do Better, War is Expensive, Peace is Priceless, Read Between the Pipelines, Power to the Peaceful, How Many Lives Per Gallon?

Elliott Orr passes on this protest idea. “Place 1/2 cup uncooked rice in a small plastic bag (a snack-size bag or sandwich bag work fine). Squeeze out excess air and seal the bag. Wrap it in a piece of paper on which you have written, “If your enemies are hungry, feed them. Romans 12:20. Please send this rice to the people of Iraq; do not attack them.” Place the paper and bag of rice in an envelope (either a letter-sized or padded mailing envelope) and address them to: Prime Minister John Howard, House of Representatives, Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600. He writes:

“In the mid-1950s, the pacifist Fellowship of Reconciliation, learning of famine in the Chinese mainland, launched a ‘Feed Thine Enemy’ campaign. Members and friends mailed thousands of little bags of rice to the White House with a tag quoting the Bible, “If thine enemy hunger, feed him.” As far as anyone knew for more than ten years, the campaign was an abject failure. The President did not acknowledge receipt of the bags publicly; certainly, no rice was ever sent to China. What nonviolent activists only learned a decade later was that the campaign played a significant, perhaps even determining role in preventing nuclear war. Twice while the campaign was on, President Eisenhower met with the Joint Chiefs of Staff to consider U.S. options in the conflict with China over two islands, Quemoy and Matsu. The generals twice recommended the use of nuclear weapons. President Eisenhower each time turned to his aide and asked how many little bags of rice had come in. When told they numbered in the tens of thousands, Eisenhower told the generals that as long as so many Americans were expressing active interest in having the U.S. feed the Chinese, he certainly wasn’t going to consider using nuclear weapons against them.”

***

Rachel Thompson in London

Greetings from London. I’ve often felt disconnected from Australia even while living there, and do so now. I don’t think I have ever seen such a simplistic debate on something so major. It’s only about oil say Europeans and others who use far more Iraqi oil than the US does (but don’t actually know this). It’s about Daddy. It’s a proxy for getting Osama. It’s about dominating the world by threat of force. It’s about whatever you hate about George W. Bush and his cohort – tax policy, Kyoto, prayers in the office at 7am every morning, loose use of the words good and evil.

There’s a lot to dislike distrust about GWB but has it occurred to anyone in Herald Land that you’re making Iraq (because it involves threat of force) a global referendum on the entire Bush Presidency and everything else you don’t like about America (and Howard’s Australia)? Personally I’m reminded of Churchill – got 95% of everything wrong, often due to narrow minded prejudice. Got Nazi Germany right.

Further, has anyone who’s freaked out by all the Bush-Rummy-Rice hard talk stopped to wonder if it ain’t actually you they’re trying to freak out, but Mr Hussein? That the leaks about 800 cruise missiles a day are meant to spook Iraq’s leaders? The gullibility of people everywhere to bog-standard megaphone diplomacy in the era of the internet is truly frightening – the inability to sort out who the message is for – and makes me wonder what would have happened to your heads in any standard fascist country when bombarded with same. Camp guards, quite a lot of you.

Here’s my take on what this is “ABOUT”. For twenty years, one region of the world has been exporting terrorism and oil while everyone else has been getting on with exporting the products of your basic Sydney consumer yuppie lifestyle.

Yes, the US had a hand in creating some of the enabling conditions. So did most every other member of the full Security Council circa 2003. Bush had Iraq on his list of “Clinton unfinished business” when he “got” into office but Sept 11 reordered it up his priority list. Not because of daddy, or oil, or Osama proxy hunting, but because of all the unaccounted for stuff that Hans Blix is so worried about and that is on the wish list of al-Qaeda’s “nouvelle vague”.

The other agenda is to start reordering the Middle East for a mix of reasons. Since 1973 the status quo you all love so much has served the world, and above all the people of the Middle East, really badly. Check out another wing of the UN on this, last year’s Middle East Human Development Report, including what it has to say on that other “ogre”, Israel.

The truly interesting stuff all the polling/commentariat can’t tell me is whether Australians are motivated by recognition they live in a mildly to seriously anti-US region, economic self-interest (who cared about the Asian economic crisis so long as Ozzie didn’t suffer) or genuine care for those Iraqi bastards we don’t want coming in boats.

I’ll put my money on base self-interest every time. Or just possibly maybe, Australia is becoming like Europe – a genuinely ‘post-war’ entity, notwithstanding the evidence of ANZAC Day martial nostalgia, the revival of blood and innocence metaphors over Bali and cricket’s ongoing place in national self-esteem.

On the oil thing: What has been well leaked over and over but doesn’t seem to make it to Australia is that the US intends to give the country to the opposition groups a la Afghanistan, so the benefits accrue from the opposition coalition-soon-to-be-running-the-joint to those who stood with them and the US. The Australian energy services industry is very well placed indeed. It should add at least a point to Australian GDP next year. But by then this year’s history will have been pocketed by those who hate George Bush so much they hate the few smart things he does. And so it goes.

One of the tests of individual motivation on all this will be how people react to the scenes of jubilation in Baghdad, Basra etc when Mr Hussein walks at the last minute or the 101st airborne and 4th armoured infantry prevail at surprisingly low civilian cost and infrastructure damage. With shared jubilation mixed with sorrow it took so long or with cynicism I-was-still-right cliches? Not to mention the dawning realisation that effective deterrence and coercive disarmament has been updated from the depths of 1963 for the post-Sept 11, post-Bali, 21st century borderless world.

There is a much bigger story here. The “Yanks” leadership don’t have it all right but they do have a clearer set of eyes than most of us, like them or not. (And I don’t.)

The real issue basically isn’t “WHY”, but “Why right now” this year? To which my answer is that four fifths of the Iraqi people are nearly starving, dependant on nice guy Clinton’s oil-for-food system that lets chemicals and dual use equipment in while depriving the people of basic economic rights. Next year is too far off for them.

Bring it on and get it over with quickly.

***

LEFT/RIGHT

Helen Darville

The left may be right, but they’ll never win the argument while they belittle the opposition.

The best comment any Webdiarist has made about the left’s tendency to ‘seize the moral high ground’ is from M. Mercurius in Alternatives to war. S/he notes:

“The doves can get down off their high horse and stop lumping the hawks in the same camp as SH and that debating chestnut, Adolf Hitler. Please. If the doves want to raise the rhetorical stakes like that, I could draw parallels between the present pacifists and the attitude of the pre-WWII British and Europeans who simply ignored the evidence and disbelieved that anything like the holocaust could possibly be happening in the ‘civilised’ West – or the post-WWII world that ignored the ethnic cleansing in Serbia until it was too late.”

Daniel Maurice’s criticisms of Webdiary and the left (Placing confidence in a Loving God) may seem a tad intemperate (Jack Stack’s are probably just plain intemperate), but in the light of the above, I can see where both are coming from, even though I think there’s a little more light and shade out there – at least as far as Webdiary goes. I’ve personally been on the receiving end of attacks from lefties mounted on high horses, and it’s very, very unpleasant – not to mention self-defeating.

I think the lefties are probably right on Iraq, almost certainly right on Israel-Palestine and definitely right on SIEV-X. However – apart from Iraq – they’re losing or have already lost the argument on the other issues, and are in danger of snatching defeat from the gaping jaws of victory on Iraq, especially if the UN Security Council passes a resolution authorising military action. There are a whole slew of further issues I haven’t even touched on that could go the same way.

It seems to work like this: lefties make fun of GWB’s low IQ, Howard’s toadying, the fact that Ariel Sharon has the misfortune to have a face like a Nazi caricature, US foreign policy, whatever.

This ‘fun’ (it is almost never legitimate, factual criticism) is couched in terms that compares the individual in question to Hitler, makes snide assumptions about his lack of intelligence, and assumes that he has lousy taste in music, clothing and literature. ‘GWB reads far too many Tom Clancy novels’ was one comment that turned up on a usenet group from someone who was clearly horse-riding with the ‘moral classes’. The tendency to be short on facts and long on moral worthiness is something that several Webdiarists have pointed out in relation to Carmen Lawrence’s less than authoritative contributions to the Iraq debate.

M. Mercurius is right, by the way – Hitler is brought up in every high school debate, often by both affirmative and negative, and often in support of diametrically opposed points. There’s nothing like a portmanteau historical figure, I suppose.

In the past it was Pauline Hanson – she copped the unforgettable tag-line ‘lumpenproletariat hag’ from one member of the chattering classes [Malcolm McGregor in the Financial Review, July 8, 1996]. Ruddock, meanwhile, has been labelled racist so often now that the term risks being drained of all meaning. What happens – once we have turned good, strong words like ‘racist’ and ‘anti-semite’ to mush – when we encounter examples of the real thing? I believe the phenomenon in question is known as ‘crying wolf’.

Stephen King once memorably described the sort of lefties who assume the ‘moral high ground’ as a matter of course as ‘the Whale people’. “It’s about being right [….] They’re the new Puritans, as far as I’m concerned, people who believe that if you don’t think the way they do, you’re going to Hell – only their version of Hell is a place where all you can get on the radio is hillbilly music and all you can find to eat is chicken-fried steak.” [Insomnia, p 262].

Substitute ‘country and western’ for ‘hillbilly music’ and ‘meat pies’ for ‘chicken-fried steak’ and this comment becomes true of Australia.

My point is simple: no-one likes a sanctimonious prig. In my experience most Australians run a mile when confronted by churchmen who ‘come on all moral’. Is it any wonder that we do likewise when told by journalists and intellectuals that support for a war on Iraq is ‘stupid’, that George W Bush is ‘stupid’, that we are ‘stupid’ (not to mention racist) for supporting Howard and Ruddock on the detention of asylum seekers, or for criticising the sillier manifestations of multiculturalism?

I’ll never forget when Robert Manne put support for Hanson’s views on Aborigines on a par with a belief in UFOs or channelling, commenting that “many mainstream Australians endorse the truth of the latter”. And this proves what? That he had the good fortune to receive a university education? That being a public intellectual automatically insulates him from believing in ridiculous claptrap? Yeah, right.

If the left are going to win any of these arguments, they need to get off their high horses and share a few meat pies with the people whose views they are so fond of deriding. It’s that simple.

***

Robert Lawton of Adelaide, in London

Dipped in to Webdiary today after many weeks away … oh for the days when as a leisurely servant of the people I could write 300 words on my chosen topic! Now I’m a harassed postgrad trying to get by in an English winter.

I wanted to write however and praise M. Mercurius – her or his views on the painful realities for both the pro and antiwar camps compelled me to write something too.

I have to say that in the end, the peacemakers can only point to the devastation of carpet bombing from which Iraq will be saved; the civilian deaths that will not take place; the horrors of chemical and biological – to say nothing of nuclear – weapons that the region will be saved. They can ONLY point to these things because they cannot argue with any force that Saddam’s rule in Iraq is ending; that there is any prospect of his being overthrown without outside intervention; or that he is good for his country or the region, or holds his country by valid means.

Nor are these things true of people like Kim Il Sung, Robert Mugabe, the Burmese SLORC, or the hideous and little-known president of tiny Gabon in West Africa, Omar Bongo, who has held power without democratic interruption since 1967.

But the twin realities of Saddam’s lengthy continuing terror campaign against the Kurds and the southern Shi’ites and the failure of Allied nerve in January 1991 when the opportunity to remove his regime existed, signify to me that any measured US effort to enforce the UN resolutions which followed Gulf War I is justified and indeed overdue.

Of course oil men and women are driving this war. Of course the tyranny of the Security Council and the nature of the global economy block the potential for “just wars” to liberate the Tibetans from China, or the Chechens from the murderous Russian army. Of course the post war wash-up might be appalling, and a new US client in Iraq might turn on his master again in 20 years or less.

But “good wars” can be fought from bad motives. Consider Russia’s war on Germany from 1942, or the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia which bought the Khmer Rouge down.

In the end one must decide whether loss of life, even massive loss, vast destruction of property, and the potential of a trail of misery in Iraq stretching years into the future, can let one call a war “just”.

I say that although America’s war rhetoric over 50 years has cheapened justice as a motive, we cannot assume peace to be the only solution to all international conflict only because war has grown so very dreadful.

We cannot fight all the just wars. Are we then to fight none of them?

I still wonder why Britain and Australia (among others) are required on the ground, however. Lend the bases, the satellites and the computers, OK. But for my money, US politics cut the last war short and it is Bush’s job – not Blair’s, Howard’s or anyone else’s – to remove Saddam and assure US interests in Iraq. The cars that need Iraqi oil are overwhelmingly in Dallas, San Diego and Chicago, not Brisbane or Bristol.

The great lie that Tony Blair mouths about Iraq’s threat to the UK makes the rest of his position far weaker. The US doesn’t need allies. They are only a figleaf, and naked war is what we will be getting soon. Honesty is better than hypocrisy, even in these circumstances.

***

David Makinson

History will teach us…. what? It is a common tactic of those supporting the forthcoming suppression of Iraq to cite historical events as supporting “evidence” for their case. They have to. Their interpretations of history – and how they think it might influence coming events – are pretty much all they have.

History also helps to understand the “context”, they tell us. On this aspect, perhaps they are right – to a degree – though I think it’s fair to be very sceptical of this approach. History may indeed provide background context, but it is just too much of a stretch to say that it will determine what’s likely to happen next. Those of us who are opposed to the coming war are sometimes sucked into these historical arguments, tricked into playing the pro-war game. I know I’ve fallen into this trap myself sometimes.

The key question we face today is: Is this war necessary? I believe the question can only be answered honestly and objectively if we view it in the context of today, and the probabilities and risks that today’s circumstances generate. I am not arguing that we should dismiss history as an indicator, but if we are to make a genuine effort to assess the risks, we need to relegate history to its appropriate place. It is a factor amongst many. It can and probably should influence your consideration, but it cannot be key.

History can only become truly relevant to today’s crisis if you think the motives and intentions of the people in power remain static. Our responses must live and breathe in the here and now.

Is it relevant to argue that the US once viewed Saddam Hussein with favour? That the US has in the past turned a blind eye to his evils? I doubt it. These facts raises questions about motives and events at that time, but they provide no real pointers as to what’s likely to happen now.

Is it relevant for the pro-war lobby to use WW2 to support their case? Is Saddam the new Hitler? This seems deeply silly. Is it relevant for the anti-war lobby to use Vietnam, Chile, Nicaragua, etc to support their case? Ditto, I’m afraid.

Is it relevant to point to John Howard’s long list of past deceptions and and omissions? No – it’s today’s untruths that matter. And so on.

For those who feel history deserves a place much higher up the ladder of our assessment, Can Saddam Be Contained? History Says Yes is an outstanding essay by two American professors that uses this approach (owing to a recent case of mistaken identity, I am quite interested in professors these days). In a similar vein, see Keeping Saddam Hussein in a Box . [The second piece was published in the New York Times earlier this week. Some of this material has also been used by Paul Kelly in The Australian].

These pieces make heavy use of historical “evidence” but this time from an anti-war perspective. More importantly they go on to make a compelling case that containment/deterrence has worked, will continue to work, and is a far lower risk option than war. In short, the war is unnecessary. The risks of war far outweigh the risks of containment/deterrence. I note that these are American voices – yet more reasons to be pro-American.

I wrote recently on the facile manner in which right-wing politicians and commentators use this catch-cry to summarily dismiss opposition (In defence of America). I set out a case for being pro-American, even if anti-Administration. Most people have accepted my point, but it’s also been pointed out to me by quite a few people that anti-Americanism is not only real, but is becoming more and more common.

This does not mean anti-American opinion should be dismissed only on that basis, but it certainly renders those commentators vulnerable to accusations of entrenched bias. Headlines like “Confronting Empire” are not going to help the people of Iraq, so I’m not sure this is a particularly useful or productive tactic. In this sense those commentators could be seen to be similar to the pro-war lobby that they oppose.

That said, the pro-war side seems to see deliberate bias as a virtue, so their everlasting whining about anti-Americanism is expedient at best.

***

Neil Watson

Do you or any of your correspondents have any sympathy at all for Iron Jack Howard? I recall that in late 1999 he was being excoriated and branded as ‘gutless for refusing to invade East Timor until there was a UN backed force.

The war with Indonesia crowd wanted Aussie bayonets blooded immediately, damn the collateral damage and the consequences for children, just stick it up the Javanese and their collaborators. Ample justification under international law for unilateral action, they cried. No thought for consequent relations with the Muslim world or with Indonesia.

I do hope the clerics now arguing against any kind of action against Iraq are not the Church militants who wanted death and destruction – in a good cause, of course – in East Timor. The thought that war doesn’t solve anything was lost in 1999 amid hysterical jingoism. Waiting for the UN didn’t help us anyway, as we are now top of Ossie’s hit list, as enunciated in one of his video clips.

***

THE ‘ANTI-AMERICANISM’ DEBATE

John Steele in Miami, FL

As an American, I was fascinated by the comments of Karen Jackson in Alternatives to war. After ripping the US up one side and down the other in Oh Superman, she apparently felt the need to apologize ever so slightly – after all she was rather cross at the time – then proceeded to explain her vision for a Utopian world with a truly effective United Nations.

Ms. Jackson wants a world where human rights are respected, people engage in true participatory democracy and poverty and violence are eliminated. Well guess what, we all want that Ms. Jackson, even Americans. But surprise, playing John Lennon or singing Kumbaya is not going to get us there. Unfortunately, there are people in the world like bin Laden, Robert Mugabe, Saddam Hussein, Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin, Adolph Hitler … the litany goes on and on. It isn’t the story of America, it’s the story of mankind and it’s been going on since we climbed down from the trees.

Ms Jackson wants liberation for Iraq – if she had been paying attention that’s what President Bush is talking about: liberation.

She wishes for ongoing aid to help rebuild and recover and using Iraq’s oil wealth to feed and educate the population. Who said that won’t happen? Why does she assume that America is planning to steal the oil from Iraq to run our SUVs? She’s willing to accept that we mean exactly what we say about disarming Saddam, but not willing to accept that we mean what we said about the oil revenues being used to rebuild Iraq.

She criticizes a mere $5 million to build a new hospital in Afghanistan, neglecting that $5 million is a king’s ransom in their present economy. $5 million may not go far in Australia or America, but it will build and equip quite a hospital in Kabul. She doesn’t want to hear about the 300 plus schools that have been repaired or rebuilt by American soldiers since the fall of the Taliban, quite aside from the significant humanitarian work by other coalition partners.

As Americans we’ve often fallen short of perfection, but at least we’ve tried. Sometimes it seems that we get blamed for everything wrong in the world, whether we had anything to do with it or not. We seem to get lambasted if we do something wrong, and we get blamed if something is wrong and we don’t fix it.

In some circles we’ve been blamed for having created Hussein, an assertion I would question – he was already a tyrant when we found him. However, if one accepts that we may have been involved in helping him along the way, now we get criticized for trying to correct the error.

Until Ms Jackson’s utopia arrives, the responsibility of the President of the United States is first and foremost to protect our country. If, along the way, Ms Jackson’s safety is improved that’s fine, but at the end of the day our President must act in our interest – with or without the approval of Ms Jackson, France or the United Nations. I’d hope that Ms Jackson would expect Mr. Howard to do the same for her.

In closing however, I thought it was particularly generous of her to propose that America expend our sons and daughters to police the world when directed to do so by her newly invigorated United Nations. In her UN utopia, Ms. Kingston can sleep tight, apparently secure in the knowledge that American soldiers are ready to die for her if the Security Council tells us to. Thanks, I think we’ll take a pass.

***

Damian Lataan in Verdun, South Australia

Why don’t we just cut straight to the chase. Anyone who believes that George Bush wants to invade and/or occupy Iraq because Saddam Hussein has WMD and is a threat to world peace is simply living in mainstream media argumentively politically correct ga-ga-land.

It’s straightforward. George W. Bush wants to occupy Iraq – by any means as long as he ends up occupying it – so that the US has hegemony over the region both militarily and economically. This is not something he and his neoconservative cronies have just dreamt up and it has absolutely nothing to do with the ‘War on Terrorism’.

Bush, with his side-kicks Tony Blair and John Howard, have – almost – conned the rest of the so-called Western World into thinking that, while Iraq may or may not have had anything to do with terrorism in the past, it may well do so in the future if it is allowed to continue to exist with Saddam at the helm. If this was their only concern then containment via a strong permanent UN presence is all that would be needed. So why the need to have several tens of thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands, of people dead in order to achieve this? Simple. Containment denies Bush and his cronies control over the region.

As for the idea of Bush and his mates having dreams of global dominance, of which all of what is happening now is a result, look no further than The Project for the New American Century website. Here you will find a list of all of Bush’s mates who have signed up to the grand plan of Being In Charge of Everything in the World. The ideas expressed are frightening. The problem is, of course, that the world has fallen for it.

Bush and Blair have cajoled, bribed and threatened the governments of many of the involved nations, in most cases against the will of their people, to allow Bush and his cohorts to have their way in Iraq. And this is just the first step in their grand plan for the New American Century. The most frightening aspect is the fact that the United Nations, the only vehicle this planet has to ensure a stable war-free world, has been used, no, abused, by Bush and his mates to push forward with their hideous ideas.

The upshot is that no matter what happens now, the United Nations is buggered. If the UN Security Council gives the green light for Bush and his allies to go into Iraq then the UN has simply become subservient to Bush’s hegemonic dreams of global economic and military domination. If the UNSC does not give the go-ahead and Bush and his allies take it upon themselves to go in anyway, then the UN will have demonstrated its willingness to be dominated by Bush. To be subservient to, or dominated by, amounts to the same thing.

If the UN, that peak body which the world looks to for the maintenance of peace and negotiated settlements to disputes, becomes dominated by the US, a nation that seems quite willing to use economic and/or military force whenever it thinks it can get away with it on any nation that is not willing to bend to their interests, then the whole world is in big trouble.

The answer? All the people of this entire planet have to collectively stand up as one and, from wherever they are in the world, face in the general direction of Washington, DC, and, with the back of the hand pointing in the same direction and raised high, show Bush the middle finger! Go to a demonstration near you. Do not be afraid of showing your fear of a world dominated by the likes of Bush.

***

SIEV-X and IRAQ

Tony Kevin

There are important connections between establishing accountability for the SIEV-X tragedy, and the growing debate over whether Australia should take part in a US-led invasion of Iraq.

Of the 353 people including 146 children and 142 women who drowned when the asylum-seeker vessel known SIEV-X sank on its way to Christmas Island on 19 October 2001, the majority were Iraqi refugees from Saddam’s regime. There is growing evidence that SIEV X was deliberately overloaded and sabotaged to sink, as a final deterrent solution to halt people smuggling from Indonesia to Australia. And it worked the flow of boats stopped almost immediately.

Evidence steadily accumulates that the Egyptian people smuggler who admits he co-organised the SIEV X voyage, Abu Quassey ( aka Mootaz Hasan) could have been an undercover sting agent working with Indonesian Police special people smuggling disruption teams that had been set up, trained, funded and equipped by the Australian Federal Polices people smuggling disruption program, run out of the Australian Embassy in Jakarta.

There has been intense Senate concern over this case. Two opposition majority motions were passed on 10 and 11 December, calling for a full powers independent judicial inquiry into the sinking of SIEV-X , and calling for serious efforts by the Australian and Indonesian governments to bring Abu Quassey and his associates to justice for the sinking of SIEV X.

Labor Senate Leader John Faulkner has strongly questioned since September the legality of the disruption program, and the Australian Governments possible involvement in the sinking of asylum-seeker boats.

Since early December, Australian Justice Minister (Senator Chris Ellison) and the Australian Federal Police Commissioner (Mick Keelty) have claimed repeatedly that AFP is seriously trying to bring Abu Quassey to Australia to face people smuggling charges.

Now the hollowness of those claims has been exposed by Indonesia’s Justice Minister Mahendra, who was reported last Saturday as saying that Australian authorities were not making any real effort to negotiate with his government for the deportation of Quassey to Australia. Mahendra said his government would consider seriously any such request if it were made. If not, Mahendra said, Quassey will be deported to Egypt.

What are the connections with an Iraq war? If Australian agencies are trying to cover up accountability in the deaths of 353 asylum-seekers most of whom were Iraqi refugees, what does this tell the world about Australian Government concern for Iraqi lives?

Can a government that fears judicial scrutiny be trusted to make sound policy judgements over involving Australia in a war that may kill or render homeless huge numbers of Iraqi civilians?

After SIEV-X, one would have thought that any responsible Australian government would consider very carefully the ethics of a decision to take part in an unjust war against Iraq.

And one would also think that with such a war in the offing, any responsible Australian government would be urgently concerned to establish the full truth of what happened to sink SIEV-X and drown 353 people.

Yet if the Australian Senate and Mr Mahendra are to be believed, the present Australian Government just does not care.

Margo: For the latest news go to sievx

This is Laurie Brereton’s speech to federal Parliament yesterday on war with Iraq.

 

(For Brereton’s foreign policy approach – and to see how drastically the Coalition has transformed our foreign policy – see Brereton’s pre-election speech as Labor’s foreign affairs spokesman at Brereton Vision.)

When this House debated the prospect of war with Iraq on 17 September last year, I was in New York, representing the Parliament as part of Australia’s delegation to the United Nations. There I had an opportunity to observe the working of the Security Council, the principle UN body charged with keeping the peace.

Outside the entrance of the Council, the place where Security Council representatives make statements to the press, there hangs a reproduction of Pablo Picasso’s most celebrated work Guernica. The story of Guernica is well known but deserves to be told again.

On 26 April 1937, German bombers attacked the town of Guernica in northern Spain. The village was left in ruins with sixteen hundred civilians killed or wounded. This act of terror – the first large scale aerial attack against a civilian population centre – outraged the world. It compelled Picasso, then living in Paris, to begin the work that would become his testament against the horrors of war and one of the greatest artworks of the twentieth century.

I’m told that the UN’s Guernica was donated by the philanthropist Nelson A Rockefeller in 1985. Unfortunately, it is now no longer on display. According to press reports, on 27 January this year a large blue curtain was hung to cover it up. Questioned why the painting had been covered, UN press spokesman Fred Eckhard said the blue curtain was a technically better background for the cameras covering statements being made outside the Security Council.

This may be the official explanation, but the same media reports quote unnamed diplomats observing that it would not be appropriate for the US Ambassador at the UN John Negroponte or Secretary of State Colin Powell to talk about war with Iraq against a backdrop depicting images of women and children and animals crying with horror and showing the suffering of war.

Whatever the reasons, there is a profound symbolism in pulling a shroud over this great work of art. For throughout the debate on Iraq, whether at the UN, in the US, or here in Australia, there has been a remarkable degree of obfuscation, evasion and denial, and never more so than when it comes to the grim realities of military action.

Our Prime Minister denies, of course, that he has committed Australian troops to war.

He denies that he shares the Bush Administration’s goal of “regime change” in Baghdad.

He doesn’t rule out supporting a unilateral attack, an attack not authorised by the UN, even though this would constitute a gross violation of international law.

The Prime Minister has nothing to say about the long-term implications of invading and occupying Iraq – either for the stability of the Middle East or for terrorist threat to Australia.

And the Prime Minister has only platitudes to offer about the humanitarian cost of war. He has nothing to say about the thousands of lives that may be lost, the homes, hospitals and schools that will be destroyed or the hundreds of thousands of refugees who will be forced to flee their homes.

All along the Prime Minister dissembles, denies and evades. From the very beginning of this debate he has sought to pull his own curtain of deceit over his war diplomacy.

We are certainly on the brink of war. Matters will probably come to a head in the second half of this month. The US and the UK will seek a measure of endorsement for military action from the Security Council. Given the immense US leverage, this may be forthcoming. It appears more likely than it did some weeks ago. Failing that the US and the UK will attack Iraq anyway.

But the case for war has not been made.

Of course, Saddam Hussein is an evil dictator, responsible for appalling war crimes and abuse of human rights. But overthrowing the government of a sovereign state is an extraordinary undertaking. I haven’t seen much evidence to suggest that human rights is a driving element of US or UK policy.

Nor is this part of the war against terrorism. Despicable as he is, Saddam Hussein has not been linked to the events of September 11, 2001. Nor has evidence been presented indicating Iraq has given or plans to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist organisations.

Secretary of State Powell will apparently present new information to the Security Council, but I think we would have already heard of any definitive evidence linking Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. The Americans are already telling the world they haven’t got a smoking gun.

Nor has the international community exhausted all the diplomatic options to secure the elimination of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction capability. Iraq has accepted the resumption of UN weapon inspections and has so far not restricted their activities. It is argued, that Iraq should cooperate more positively. This may well be so, but a lack of pro-active cooperation is no case for war.

It must also be recognised that Saddam Hussein’s overwhelming interest is in survival. Why would he unleash a weapon of mass destruction that would invite overwhelming US retaliation? Paradoxically, a military effort to eliminate Hussein is precisely the circumstance most likely to prompt Iraq to use any capability it possess. It may indeed be the circumstance in which Hussein hands chemical and biological agents to terrorist networks.

But this is a risk the United States is apparently prepared to take in order to impose its will.

The truth is US policy toward Iraq is less about the threat of weapons of mass destruction than it is about redrawing the strategic map of the Middle East. As I have said on previous occasions, “regime change” is precisely what is says. It is about installing a pro-American regime in Baghdad. It is about changing the regime that controls Iraq’s oil wealth. It’s about putting in place a regime supportive of the US military presence in the Middle East.

And in the process, the US may unleash events with unpredictable consequences – especially in the longer term. The US is already engaged in an open-ended commitment in Afghanistan. The occupation and reconstruction of Iraq will be a vastly greater undertaking with unpredictable consequences for the whole Middle East.

Rebuilding Iraq under a new pro-American government will be a task fraught with difficulty. It will require the support of the broad international community – support the US has failed so far to mobilise.

Coupled with the ongoing horror of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a US-led assault on Iraq will fuel Islamic extremism and provide many new recruits for terrorist groups.

The US may rapidly achieve its military objectives, but these may prove to be steps into a strategic and political morass.

Here in this debate, the Howard Government hasn’t anything to say about the long-term implications of military action and the prospective occupation of Iraq. Our Government will support whatever action the US takes – it’s as simple as that.

And while Australia’s military commitment to an attack will be but a small part of the US-led force, our Government’s rhetoric has put Australia in the very front rank of George Bush’s cheer squad. With all this flag waving for Bush, comes an increased risk of future terrorist attacks against Australians both overseas and at home.

Since the US President asserted his right to take unilateral military action against any threat he perceived to his country’s interests, only the UK and Australia have declared enthusiastic support. And now the Prime Minister is preparing to scurry off to Washington, hoping to make the Bush-Blair duo a triumvirate.

Australia’s outspoken identification with the US and the UK as global enforcers places us at substantially greater risk of terrorist attack. By his rhetoric and his actions, the Prime Minister has incited and invited extremist attention towards Australia.

The danger will be greatest for Australians overseas – for Australian embassies and consulates, for Australian businesses and our tourists as we have already seen so tragically with the Bali bombings.

If the Government were honest in its anti-terrorism advertising campaign, it would warn Australians very clearly and directly of the increased risk of further terrorist horror if we are involved in a US-led attack on Iraq.

And where should Australia be standing on this whole issue? I put it to this House that we should be standing for the rule of international law. We should be standing with the collective authority of the United Nations. We should be arguing against unilateralism. We should be making it clear that the case for military action has not been made out. We should make it clear that there can be no case for military action while weapons inspections are continuing.

In the event of Iraqi obstruction, military action should only follow with explicit authorisation by the Security Council. A further Security Council resolution is essential for military action to have any legitimacy.

For our part, Australia should not support military action without this explicit authority. Nor should we support military action that extends beyond the terms of an explicit mandate.

In the event that the UN does authorise military force, it is my firm view that Australia’s involvement should be limited to the present naval enforcement of UN sanctions and our bilateral logistical and intelligence cooperation with the United States.

UN authorisation should not be the determining factor in whether Australian ground troops are committed. Nor does our strong alliance with the US oblige Australia to automatically lend our ground troops in direct support of each and every American military action.

Australia did not commit ground troops in the 1991 Gulf War – and that was in response to the invasion of Kuwait. No compelling case has been made out for Australian troops to fight in Iraq now.

And we should all be mindful of what will follow any invasion. Pentagon planning provides for an extended occupation and administration of Iraq. The degree to which an occupation force and interim administration would operate under UN auspices is unclear.

The US will be anxious to maintain a broad coalition in the post-attack period. Washington may well press its allies to rotate our military contingents and replace strike forces with units more suited to occupation duties. Australia could well be asked to contribute transport and logistic units, medical support units and possibly regular infantry. This is an issue that has to date received virtually no attention.

Australian involvement in a longer-term US-occupation of Iraq has the potential to cause significant international and regional problems for us. Adverse reactions will likely follow in both the Middle East and South East Asia.

It is an absolute tragedy that our Prime Minister has taken Australia such a long way down this road to war. And its all been done through dissembling and deceit.

Hopefully today’s debate will not be the last before the Prime Minister announces that our troops are going into action and that a state of war exists between Australia and Iraq. Hopefully this won’t be the last opportunity for debate before we see demonstrated the enormous devastation that can be wrought by the world’s most advanced bombers and missiles.

We may well live in the age of the so-called “smart bomb”, but the horror on the ground will be just the same as that visited upon the villagers of Guernica sixty-five years ago. Innocent Iraqis – men, women and children will pay a terrible price. And it won’t be possible to pull a curtain over that.

 

The photo that inspired Grace Knight

Non-political people all over Australia have fired up over Iraq, coming up with all sorts of ways to express their opposition to Australia invading Iraq. Grace Knight, singer and songwriter, saw a photo late last week, put the rest of her life on hold, and got the ball rolling on an anti-war ‘action’ called DISROBE TO DISARM.

The former lead singer of Eurogliders lives in the Byron Bay hinterland settlement of Federal, where she’s working on the lyrics for an album she’ll record with her ex-partner Bernie Lynch. But after seeing the photo and reading the story of a few ordinary American women getting it off to protest the war (commondreams and ptreyeslight) she emailed an “invitation to the women of the shire of Byron” to join her this Saturday to “disrobe and show them we are willing to go to any lengths to have our feelings respected”.

“In recent weeks a a group of American women – mothers, school teachers, shop assistants, lawyers, couriers, actresses, hippies and housewives – joined forces, took off their clothes and lay down in a paddock to spell out their protest. Their naked female bodies, arranged in letters that spelt out “NO WAR” made a powerful picture to present to their president and the world,” she wrote. Why naked?

1. Because it attracts attention. We need the male-dominated parties of Australia to hear us. They are unlikely to listen unless we get their attention.

2. Because of its powerful symbolism. Stripped bare of any clothing or adornment that label and separate us, we become united as a single entity. We are simply female human beings who, in this moment in time, want one thing – PEACE.

3. Because although it’s difficult, it makes a powerful statement. For some free-spirited Nimbin babies this might not mean a lot, but for most of us it is at best an uncomfortable idea and at worst, absolutely excruciating. Many of us have already signed petitions which have their value, but how useful does that really make us feel? Do you ask yourself – “What more can I do?” “How much of a sacrifice am I willing to make?” If nakedness is uncomfortable and embarrassing for us, think how uncomfortable and embarrassing the pictures of Iraqi citizens or Australian soldiers blown to bits will be.”

Grace’s idea has taken off, with women now planning similar protests in Sydney and elsewhere. “I feel helpless, and I feel angry,” she told me yesterday. “I’m angry that children are dying and are about to be murdered. As much as I love my son, what makes him more special than an Iraqi son is to his mother?”

“I don’t believe Australia has ever invaded a country before, and to do it on the back of George Bush terrifies me. Although my political views might be wrong, this should not be happening! And how can anyone by politically aware these days – there’s so many layers, so much history, so much propaganda, we all get lost.”

Grace believes many women feel as she does – desperate, helpless, and afraid to speak up because “they’re not able to back it up with political analysis”.

She says she’s never done anything like this before, and the momentum her email has generated “thrills me but scares me as well”. She’s nervous about stripping off, as are most women who’ve agreed to come, and she asked me not to reveal the location of the protest for fear of unwanted onlookers. If you’re interested in her action, or in doing one yourself, her email is graceknight5@bigpond.com.

Since Grace saw the photo and got her action off the ground, she’s begun writing anti-war lyrics. Here’s the first draft of a song she might sing on Saturday.

how the hell did we end up here

life is worthless, to live in fear.

Are our children’s lives merely dust

to be wiped from the coat of the president?

*

Who owns the voice that speaks for me

*

Caught in a trap, that only HE can’t see

Open the door, I’m not going in

*

……… this is wrong

*

How the hell did it come this far

when we send our children to die in war

No fuckin way will you lay your hands

on a child of mine to fulfill your plans

*

You bastards of war you took your turn

running our planet into the ground

now you sanction a dying child’s last breath

won’t stop till you own the rest.

What else is going to go wrong in 2003?!, a number of Webdiarists ask after the space shuttle disaster. We can debate the symbolism of the tragedy later – today, a report from Webdiary reader Lucia Dulin Hawkins on the ground in Texas, an eBay press statement in response to the gruesome news that debris of the shuttle is already been hawked around as ‘a collectable’, and a piece by engineer, aerospace technology enthusiast and Webdiarist Malcolm Street with background, links, and the bizarre resonance of the disaster with a 1997 novel by sci-fi writer Stephen Baxter. Malcolm firmly believes the space program should continue.

 

Before we start, Malcolm’s speculative piece on whether Australia and Britain were trying to stay in good with the Yanks in order to to participate in “anti-gravity” military technology raced around the world after a mention on prominent US website instapundit. Malcolm’s Anti-gravity and us was the second most viewed Webdiary article of last month. Malcolm writes: “I’ve had emails today about it from a fellow in Indiana USA and, wait for it, a friend’s ex-husband, who’d been sent a message about it from a US friend! Maybe I’ve created a monster :-). The Indiana correspondent has put me on an interesting tangent; appears it may not be anti-gravity as such but electric “propellantless” thrust which can, of course, be used to generate extra lift. A phenomenon called the Bifeld-Brown effect is at the bottom of it supposedly. Watch this space!” Sites which have pointed to Malcolm’s piece include “the journal of strange phenomena” forteantimes and anomalist.

The top five Webdiary entries in January by page impressions were Harry Heidelberg’s What to make of the Australian diaspora, ‘Anti-gravity and us’, Always willing, we’re off to war again, New Year resolutions andOh Superman. Scott Burchill’s ‘Counterspin’ piece would have made the top five if we hadn’t published it via the news section instead of Webdiary. The most read Webdiary entry written before January was Manifesto for World Dictatorship.

Webdiary received most referrals in January from instapundit, Fortean Times, whatreallyhappened, timblairblogspot and bowlingforcolumbine, which has linked to ‘Manifesto for world dictatorship’.

***

Lucia Dulin Hawkins (received at 6.47am yesterday)

I am an Australian living in East Texas, U.S.A. This morning at approximately 8 a.m. our house grumbled, rumbled and shook. My first thought was an earthquake! I ran out the back door and my husband headed out the front to see what happened. The rumbling seemed to last for minutes. We immediately thought the house next door had blown up. Other neighbours were standing in our street trying to fathom what was happening. We looked overhead and saw a wide vapor trail.

Then, from TV, we learned what had really happened: The Columbia Space Shuttle had exploded upon re-entry.

Now, five hours after the explosion, the day continues to have a surreal feel to it. The stillness of this clear, bright and beautiful January day is riveted by jets flying overhead tracking the Columbia’s final route. Strewn around East Texas and within 15 miles our peaceful lakefront home on Lake Palestine home, shreds of what is left from this momentous mission are gradually being discovered.

***

eBay press statement, Sunday:

eBay and its community of users are deeply saddened by the loss of the Space Shuttle Columbia and its brave crew. Our sympathies go out to the families of the crew and all those affected by this terrible tragedy. The handling of any debris from the Space Shuttle Columbia is potentially dangerous and against Federal law. Any listing of shuttle debris on eBay, now or in the future, will be immediately removed from the site. In addition, eBay will cooperate fully with law enforcement agencies requesting information about users attempting to list illegal items.

***

Malcolm Street in Canberra

I’m still numb from the loss of Columbia; it’s probably hitting space fans like myself even more than the general community.

Within the sci.space. internet newsgroups there’s long been an undercurrent of anxiety over the age of the shuttle and its compromised design, and what would happen to manned space flight in general if another one was lost before a replacement was ready around 2010. It’s the worst nightmare come true.

From the start of the shuttle program in the 70s two aspects of the design have been repeatedly criticised for cost-cutting in potentially lethal areas – the solid rocket boosters and the ceramic heat protection tiles, each covering one of the critical flight phases (launch and re-entry). Now it appears we have examples of failures in each of these causing the loss of a vehicle and all crew (Challenger and Columbia).

nasawatch has a memorial page up along with many articles (the webmaster is a disenchanted former NASA insider), and spacedaily (originally based in Sydney) is also covering it exhaustively.

For general background on the Shuttle and its history see nasa, in particular “The Space Shuttle Decision – NASA’s Search for a Reusable Space Vehicle”, which goes exhaustively into how the Shuttle concept and rationale changed during the early 70s as funds were cut back post-Apollo, and the political processes that led to its final approval. It’s as much economic and political history as technological, and highly recommended. Note that the cost justification for the shuttle was done on the basis of around fifty flights per year; even before the Challenger disaster the most NASA was able to achieve was eight, largely due to the extremely labour-intensive checks needed on the thousands of heat protection tiles.

John Huxley’s article in today’s smh is personal and moving and may go some way to explaining why some like myself see as so important for humanity something that many regard with justification as just a wildly expensive piece of nationalist self-indulgence.

AFP has an article, published on spacedaily at spacedaily, detailing the successive reentry and landing phases of a shuttle mission and where within that the Columbia disintegrated.

Finally, there’s a nasty parallel with fiction. In 1997 British science fiction writer Stephen Baxter (see sjbradshaw) published a devastating dystopian novel called Titan (see geocities for a perceptive review). Criticised at the time for its pessimism and supposed ignorance of the US political process (“It couldn’t happen here” etc), it forsaw a near future (starting in 2004) of the US narrowly electing a militaristic, nationalistic, Christian fundamentalist government which stops building a space station mid-way through construction, scraps the civilian space program, allocates whatever space functions remain to the US Air Force and hence militarising space, does nothing in the face of an international environmental crisis, and encourages an increased interest in creationism and decreased interest in science throughout US popular culture and institutions. Attempts at total military containment of a resurgent China backfire when the Chinese come up with a desperate gambit that goes horribly wrong.

It must have seemed far-fetched in the Clinton years, but looks uncomfortably prescient now with Bush Jr in control.

In the novel the remnants of the US manned space program are thrown together for one last fling, a manned mission to Saturn’s moon Titan. The deterioration of life on earth is paralleled with the deterioration of the life on board this jury-rigged spaceship built around the shuttle Discovery.

And what’s one of the catalysts setting all this in motion, the collapse of interest in the US in civilian manned spaceflight and in science and reason in general, with in the long run catastrophic consequences for humanity?

The loss of a second space shuttle. Columbia. While returning to earth…