I couldn’t believe my ears last night when I heard Howard using the same tactic on Korea that he used to send us to war on Iraq without UN sanction and without an informed public debate about the risks and benefits of such radical action.

Sorry, yes I could. He shocks me so often these days I’m not shocked any more.

At a Koizumi/Howard press conference in Tokyo yesterday, the Seven Network’s Glenn Milne asked Howard:

Your counterpart there in reference to the interdiction of North Korean vessels said he would be interested to know what the US and Australia’s plans were in that regard. Can you enlighten us on that, and would we be prepared to go ahead with the United States unilaterally if other countries were not involved? And a second one if I may in Australia this morning our Foreign Minister suggested that we believe North Korea has up to three nuclear devices but they cannot yet be delivered to Australia. Do we have any assessment about how soon they will be able to develop that capability?

Howard replied:

Well Glenn in relation to the second question I can’t provide any more information than the Foreign Minister provided. In relation to the first question, you will be aware that there has been no decision taken by the Australian Government to be involved in interdiction. What we have agreed is that we will take part in some exercises, and we have in mind that those exercises will be some extension of already arranged Coral Sea exercises between the American and the Australian naval forces. Beyond that, we haven’t planned any. And it is literally not the case that we have committed ourselves. I know some people are saying that and writing that and reporting that, but that is not true. Obviously though, if you engage in exercises and you later decide to be involved in something, you are better prepared for that involvement. So far as enlightening people, there will need to be further discussions, and at this stage I think everybody is running ahead of themselves and I can understand why you want to know, but at this stage all we have agreed to do is to further discuss the matter. Arising out of the Brisbane meeting, all of the participants in effect took the matter on an ad referendum basis of going back and talking about it and thinking about it, and we have agreed to have these exercises with the Americans, but it oughtn’t to automatically be construed from that weve definitely decided on interdiction or indeed that we’ve decided precisely on what form it will take.

It’s an eerie echo of ‘We haven’t decided to go to war on Iraq but we’ve predeployed with the Americans to prepare us just in case. No decision has been made, no decision has been made.’

Of course when the UN said no, a quick call from Bush and an instant Cabinet meeting got the ‘yes’ within hours. Howard had cleverly avoided all debate about the risks for us without UN involvement by saying that until the formal US request came the question was hypothetical. Can he really get away with a big lie yet again, particularly when the case given for the Iraq war has proved to be highly misleading, even deceptive?

For an analysis of where US aggression and Australian subservience may be hurling us – a nuclear attack on America no less, according to the former US secretary of defence William Perry – see Lateline’s interviewlast night with Labor spokesman and former diplomat Kevin Rudd.

It seems that when Howard hoodwinks the people one way he tries the same way again, word vfor word. The Korea tactic comes after he played the same amoral game on what he was told on the uranium forgery scandal as he did on children overboard. I wasn’t told, the public service knew, ministerial advisers knew utthey didn’t tell their minister, the public service is good, the advisors are good and the key people will get a promotion.

Maybe Australians will fall for it again, and maybe the media is either so compromised or so cautious it won’t go in hard to flush him out. Certainly the government is doing everything it can to achieve that result.

Communications Minister Richard Alston upped the anti on the ABC yet again yesterday, this time asking the Australian Broadcasting Authority, led by Howard sycophant David Flint, to “formally review the ABC’s treatment of his complaint about bias in its coverage of the Iraq war (Alston sets watchdog on ABC to settle gripe).

This stunt is designed to make ABC journalists so defensive they lose their courage and spontaneity in reporting the news. He’s targetted particular reporters, particular programs. Alston is deliberately trying to destroy the independence of the ABC through fear.

The sinister irony is that while the ABC has a charter and statutory obligations to examine complaints and to be balanced, commercial TV has virtually no accountability contraints.

The Senate tried to do something about this on behalf of the people of Australia during the recent cross media debate. It inserted an amendment which would put the commercial networks on a level playing field with the ABC and SBS when it came to just complaints by viewers. The ABA can, after investigation, recommend that the public boradscasters publish an apology or give a right of reply, but they have no such power when it comes to commercial networks. Surprise, surprise, the Government rejected that amendment. The people are disempowered again. Commercial news imperatives without enforceable ethical duties can still run riot. The Government’s strategic objectives I outlined in Howard’s roads to absolute power continue to play out.

The most interesting thing about Peter Costello’s speech last night was what he didn’t say. On the question of trust, he said:

If you want to run a successful modern liberal economy then trust and tolerance between citizens gives you a long head start.

Trust facilitates compliance. Trust enhances efficiency. It reduces transaction costs – you do not have to ascertain and negotiate the bribe on each transaction. Trust in the legal system and the enforceability of contract underpins the willingness to invest.

Trust and tolerance, are sometimes described as social capital. In an IMF paper on Second Generation Reform, Francis Fukuyama argued: “Social capital is important to the efficient functioning of modern economies and is the sine qua non of stable liberal democracy.”

Notice he makes no mention of the need for trust between government and the people. Well he couldn’t, could he. He knows that making such a statement would be a direct challenge to his Prime Minister and a warning that Howard’s amorality when it comes to telling people the truth is dangerous to our democracy.