Inseperable twins, by Webdiary artist Martin Davies. www.daviesart.com

G’Day. Something’s stirring in grassroots liberal Australia, no doubt about it. Today, the full text of NSW Liberal elder John Valder’s remarks to the North Shore forum on the Iraq war last night, then reader reaction from Robert Sheehan, Gary Richards, Veronica Husted and Anne Picot.

John Valder’s question to the panel was: Have Australia’s long term interests been served by our involvement in the war against Iraq? What is our future as a nation if we continue our current allegiance to the US agenda at the expense of broader international relationships?

Each speaker – Tony Abbott, local human shield Donna Mulhearn, federal Labor MP Tanya Plibersek and Peter Macdonald – the independent who won 46 percent of the vote after preferences when he ran against Abbott in 2001 – responded to one of six pre-disclosed questions, then the questioner got a right of reply. For details of how Mosman Peace Group organised the forum – the first occasion since the first phase of the war that a senior Howard minister has faced the people on the matter – see Tony Abbott to eyeball North Shore against the War: Truth possible. For the forum’s goals, see organiser Sue Roffey’s piece Don’t let pollies get away with murder, which also appeared in my Sun Herald column last Sunday. The full transcript of the forum will be available soon at sydneypeace.

***

John Valder

First of all, I would like to thank each of the speakers for their responses. Donna, if I may say, particularly yours, because you’re the only person in this room, or along with Mike Hartnell (a member of the peace group) who has actually been in Baghdad, in Iraq. The rest of us have formed our views from what we’ve read or heard, and they’ve been shaped probably around our preconceived political prejudices.

Now, Tony, I really feel I should be up there as a former Liberal Party President supporting you, but you probably know that I’m not able to on this subject because I do disagree with you strongly, and I do propose to make one or two tough comments. But first I do wholeheartedly support Donna’s comment about you having the courage to be here tonight. (Applause) I think that very few of your colleagues would have accepted the same challenge in the way that you have, and that is to your great credit.

But having said that, as I said, [Tony Abbott: You’ll get stuck into the issue properly!] I do want to make one or two comments, because I sense that our government has underestimated the strength of feeling on the issue, not just in this room tonight, or just in this country, but right around the world on this issue.

OK, for the time being the Rugby World Cup is more important than what is happening in Iraq, and the Caulfield Cup, and the couple of fellows from the United States and China later in the week. But let’s not underestimate the enormity of what’s happened in Iraq.

Tony referred to September the 11th and what an atrocity it was, and it was – I hope I never live to see a single atrocity as dreadful as that one was, but I’m afraid the coalition of the willing has inflicted on Iraq a much greater atrocity – as Donna said, bombs raining down and missiles night and day all around the clock. I remember at one point during the war, and not at the end of the war, the United States proudly claiming that it had fired more than a million missiles into Iraq. Does that compare with September 11 – I’m afraid it doesn’t.

What I think we should all bear in mind is where this might end, and it might not end very pleasantly for the Coalition of the Willing. As we all know, there’s a Presidential election in the United States in almost exactly twelve months time. Now, politicians in the United States are rather fond of trying to indict Presidents of the opposite political party for whatever reason. People have been indicted; Presidents have been indicted for much lesser crimes than what we have just seen this last year in Iraq.

I don’t say this is going to happen, but in the twelve months running up to an election there must be quite a conceivable possibility of George Bush facing indictment for what he’s done in Iraq, for the reason that he led the Coalition of the Willing, with our country, with the British government, on what, I think everybody agrees tonight, except perhaps Tony, was false premises.

It was all about weapons of mass destruction. Your prime minister, your foreign minister and countless others bellowed and trumpeted it from the rooftops, about these wicked weapons of mass destruction, and how Saddam Hussein was going to have the power to rain missiles onto the United States itself, and feed them to terrorists. Now, of course, these things were never checked out, despite Hans Blix and others, and of course in the end it’s found that that premise is entirely false. I’m not going to subscribe to conspiracy theories as to what the other reasons for invading Iraq were, but without any shadow of a doubt, weapons of mass destruction was first and foremost.

Now Saddam Hussein might have fallen. Everybody says that’s a good thing. I would like to go to Iraq myself with Donna, and in fact I said to my wife just at the weekend, “We really ought to think of going to Iraq, to see for ourselves, because I just wonder if the people of Iraq today find life more or less bearable than it was under Saddam Hussein.” I don’t know …

So what happens if George Bush does face an indictment, where does that leave the British Government and Tony Blair, and our government and our prime minister? Not in a very comfortable position – they may not be indicted, but I can see political parties in Britain and Australia perhaps raising the spectre of war crimes charges being levelled against them. (Applause)

I’d appreciate your response to that. I’m not saying that is going to happen, but for the first time, we have a Prime Minister who has put this country at risk of being branded a war criminal. And that is why, Tony, I think your government is underestimating the enormity of what’s happened in Iraq, and on false premises.

And it really does worry me, you or somebody mentioned (Donna was it?) about human rights – couple that with what’s happened in human rights in this country since the people overboard and all sorts of events right through to the present time, the two Australians held in Guantanamo Bay. There is a total disregard it seems by this government, really, for human rights. I understand there is citizens of forty-two nations in Guantanamo Bay, and forty of those forty-two nations have all protested bitterly to the United States about that. Two haven’t: Australia is one of them, I don’t know who the other one is. (Audience members; China) Is it China? So here we have this situation, and Tony, I have to say to you, as a friend, it is an appalling situation, and it’s not too late for your government to make amends.

***

Robert Sheehan

Thanks for today’s article concerning John Valder’s comments at the forum. I attended as an interested observer, but one who has felt ‘profoundly disempowered and disillusioned’.

When he said: “…we have a Prime Minister who has put this country at risk of being branded as a war criminal”, a communal murmur of disgusted assent rose from the audience. A clear interjection of “resign!” from a member of the audience during Tony Abbott’s reply that “nothing would satisfy Mr Valder” said it all.

One of the Questioners, Andrew McNaughtan, who I guess is a member of ‘North Shore Peace & Democracy’, asked an extremely relevant question about past policies of developed western countries. He then spoke very truthfully and eloquently, and, along with Peter Macdonald and Donna Mulhearn especially, put forward loud and clear what many of us feel.

Keep up the excellent work Margo. In mainstream media you seem like a lonely voice in the wilderness, but the ideas and values you set forward are supported by a growing band of people like me. I’m more confident today that our numbers will grow sufficiently to restore truth, fairness and compassion to the affairs or this nation.

***

Gary Richards

Oh God Margo, the article on the Mosman peace movement was a godsend. I had all but given up after attending the small anti-Bush rally on Sunday, the lack of critical press, and the left/right debate on issues of morality. I was convinced that the bulk of Australians don’t care. But I’m wrong! It’s a melancholy joy I feel. Some of my fellow Australians, the ones I thought blindly supported Howard, do care. I will do every thing I can do to support them. The Iraq war debate was and is bigger than politics, and it’s time the “parties” really understood what power the people have. We need the Government to work for us, the Australian public, to uphold Democracy, human values and morality – not just for us but for humanity. As an Australian, I believe these values separate us from despicable countries and regimes and set us free – and maybe others by example.

Veronica Husted in Sanctuary Point NSW

Yesterday I attended a forum organised by the Gilmore Peace Group and held in Nowra in the Shoalhaven, NSW. The federal seat is held by the Liberal’s Joanna Gash. The forum was addressed by Andrew Wilkie, Professor John Mins from ANU, Bruce Haigh and James Dunn. Their speeches were inspiring and listened to attentively by over 200 hundred people.

The message they gave was that the governments of America, Australia and Britain lied to the people and continue to lie. They also felt quite strongly that Howard’s desire to tie us so strongly to America was creating a hatred of the West which includes Australia. This was borne out by a message purporting to come from Osama bin Laden that Australia was a target.

Like Sue Roffey of the Mosman Peace Group, I resent being lied to and having this country used as a pawn in some horrible game.

I find Sue’s comments about Howard talking constantly about the 88 people who were killed in Bali, therefore totally ignoring the deaths of so many other innocent people, as indicative of his attitude to non Anglo-Celtic people.

I was also impressed by Robert Bosler’s reader quote of the week in your Sun Herald column:

In a sense it’s terrific Bush is coming here to see his ‘friend’ John Howard. This is the dance of the idiots. Have faith. The real leaders are on the way. This is the time of change, and change takes a while. The real leaders are preparing, but while the idiots are dancing on stage they have no mind to make an entrance.

One can have a little hope after reading about Sue’s feelings and those of Robert Bosler and after listening to the speakers we were fortunate to listen to on Sunday. The courage and tenacity of those men is incredible.

***

Anne Picot

Great piece about the North Shore Peace and Justice forum last night. John Valder’s comments were the most politically telling of the evening.

I spoke to you as you were coming into the forum last night about the Sydney Social Forum and David Barsamian. In light of the pillorying the mainstream media got for its war coverage at the forum last night, and considering the charter you have attached to the Webdiary, you really should talk to David. He is one of the US’s most distinguished progressive broadcasters and journalists, and the recipient of the 2003 Upton Sinclair Award for Freedom of Speech. Here is an extract about public broadcasting in the US to give you an idea of where he is coming from.

Public Radio Reconfigure to Grab the Dollar (PBS or the Petroleum Broadcasting Service)

Unlike Community Radio and TV in Australia, the U.S. system of public stations was funded directly from money appropriated by Congress. The Public Broadcasting Service (PBS TV) and National Public Radio (NPR) were not able to raise independent funding (unlike community radio and TV in Australia who are able to accept sponsorship and are not government subsidised to the same extent). In effect, as Barsamian says, they would have to go to Congress and plead their case for funding.

However, the charter that established these networks was amended to allow sponsorship. This did not bode well for independence and radical programming. Barsamian says that when the public networks were established in the 1960s the enabling legislation saw public radio and TV as giving a voice to the voiceless, to the under-represented and minority communities and points of view in various communities. Thirty or so years later we find much of the programming is rather narrowly defined ideologically. In fact we have right-wing tilted programs on PBS.

A study by the New York based Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) found that the NPR program ‘All things Considered’ featured, as expert guests, mainly ex government or corporate officials and right wing think-tank specialists. Barsamian says that this narrowing of views mirrors the developments in commercial media where we have, today, a range of views from A to B and from GE to GM. There isn’t a lot of diversity.

People are turning off the Petroleum Broadcasting Service PBS. They have lost 15% of their audience and it’s no wonder. Look at their programming: The McLaughlin Group, Wall Street Week in Review, Washington Week in Review, The Nightly Business Report. There’s nothing there for young people. The programming is totally predictable says Barsamian.

When asked what this has to do with Alternative Radio, Barsamian pulls no punches.

If it’s free, why isn’t it on?

Alternative Radio is heard on over 120 public radio stations across the U.S. but that is only a small fraction of the stations that could take it. In fact, in some of the most likely markets, the program has never gone to air or has been pulled from schedules. This has left Barsamian scratching his head to understand why. But not for long. When asked why some of the larger stations, in cities that have been traditionally linked to radical thought, dont take Alternative Radio, Barsamian responds that there must be something in the content of the programming they find objectionable. It’s free of charge! Yet they take programs that cost them to broadcast. I mean, why is KOPN in Columbia, Missouri, broadcasting Marketplace, which is underwritten by General Electric?

Barsamian is highly critical of the way public radio station management has evolved to the point where public radio is seen by many within it as being a career path towards commercial media and where a bottom line accounting culture has taken over from the philosophy of community development and empowerment.

Barsamian likens the changes in public radio in the U.S. to the trends in corporate media, where there is no threat to the power structures of society. He says that while there are some very popular programs on small independent stations, programs that he thinks would rival the popularity of the corporate stars, the reason these programs do not get on the national public networks is because they challenge the status quo. Would you give a program to someone who would undermine your position of power and authority, who is saying that corporate capitalism leaves a lot to be desired, that corporate control of media is undemocratic and is narrowing public debate? Unlikely.

David’s book ‘The Decline and Fall of Public Broadcasting’ tackles this issue head on. Most of the censorship that occurs on NPR and PBS is one of omission not commission, he says. Stories are left out. Voices are completely occluded from participating in the debate. You never hear Michael Parenti, Angela Davis or Howard Zinn for example. They feature regularly on Alternative Radio.

Margo: The sydneysocialforum will be held this year from October 24 to 26 at the University of Technology in Sydney. Contacts to interview David or attend his workshops are here.