Tony Kevin is a former Australian diplomat who has led the campaign for answers on the sinking of SIEV-X during the 2001 election, drowning 353 people. He is a visiting fellow at the Australian National University’s Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies. This piece was first published in the Canberra Times today, and is republished with the author’s permission.

 

The latest conventional wisdom says we are “at the tipping point” in Iraq. The US experiment in “democracy-building” in Iraq is now finely poised between success or failure. The UN has brokered a diplomatic solution, winning unanimous UN Security Council support. It is now said to be “up to the world to support it”. But actually, from now on, the views and policies of foreign governments have little relevance. This is a rare moment when the course of history will be determined by ordinary people: by how Iraqi resistance fighters and their American military adversaries handle themselves in the cities and towns of Iraq.

It is down to the Shia militiamen of Muqtada al-Sadr and their Sunni counterparts, and to the notoriously trigger-happy US soldiery in Iraq.

Under the compromise UN Security Council resolution passed on Tuesday, the US-led occupation formally ends on June 30, replaced by a claimed-to-be-sovereign interim Iraqi government under appointed Prime Minister Iyad Allawi. US troops (renamed the MNF, or multinational force) will remain as security support. Following elections by end of 2005, the MNF must leave.

Letters exchanged between Allawi and US Secretary of State Powell establish a new “security partnership” between the Iraqi Government and the MNF, promising coordination between the two sides.

This is not full sovereignty, but the proof of this pudding will be in the eating.

Even the most senior Shia religious leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who commands public respect, while not joining this new government, is giving it his provisional cautious endorsement.

How will the MNF respond to insurgent provocations under the new order? What will happen if large numbers of US troops go on being killed by insurgents?

The MNF will have to be out there in the streets, because the Iraqi interim government has no credible security forces – previous efforts to train and motivate Iraqi forces failed. If militarily challenged, Allawi will have to call in the MNF for support. The MNF does not have the option of sheltering in a cantonment.

Yet if US forces go in again boots-and-all Fallujah-style, the present fragile credibility of the interim administration will be lost for good. If the interim Iraqi administration is unable to restrain more Fallujahs, it will be seen correctly as a hollow occupiers facade, a Vichy or Quisling administration.

Will the interim Iraqi leadership use the security consultation powers the UN Security Council has negotiated for it, to restrain US military over-reaction in Iraq? If the interim administration can convince the Iraqi people that it is using its limited powers to hold back abusive use of overwhelming US military power, it may slowly earn some respect and confidence. A general peace – punctuated by insurgent incidents of violence – might gradually consolidate.

But it is hard to believe that after so many gross blunders, US political and military commanders can suddenly discover the necessary tact and military restraint so obviously lacking in their conduct as occupiers in Iraq to date. Can the people responsible for Abu Ghraib and the recent missile attack on a wedding party suddenly change their behaviour so radically?

I would not mortgage the house on it, but then the stakes now for President Bush are very high, and this fact must concentrate administration minds. The collapse of the Iraqi interim administration’s credibility in Iraq in new rounds of major violence involving massive engagement of US armed force would certainly mean the end of the Bush presidency.

The Bush administration may be learning. There is a new (and welcome) US leadership reticence. The aggressive rhetoric barometer is down. We have seen little lately of Paul Bremer. There is acceptance of the need to confront the horrors of Abu Ghraib at the judicial level.

But this may be too late. In the end now, it will be decided on the streets. The battle-hardened and embittered men fighting for the Iraqi resistance, impatient of diplomatic hair-splitting and deal-making in New York, will use their guns and bombs to test the will and patience of the occupiers and their vulnerable local supporters. There will be major violent incidents and more US casualties.

And the men and women soldiers and junior officers of the US Army, with their sophisticated weaponry, will probably want to respond in kind against suspected insurgent concentrations.

These two groups will decide Iraqs fate now. The people of Iraq will observe, and will make up their minds. The test will not be good intentions. It will be military behaviour on the ground.

Just about the stupidest thing about our electoral system is that the date of any given federal election is not fixed. Instead, it’s run like some big bloody surprise party where only the prime minister knows the date and rest of us get to walk around in ignorance until he decides to jump out from behind the lounge and spring it on us. Real democratic.

 

The worst of it is that it encourages the media to play these endless cat-and-mouse games, second-guessing the PM, staking out Government House, filling up column-inches with various theories about why it would be better to go at the end of August rather than the beginning of September. Meanwhile the opposition, of whatever political persuasion, has to be all coy about its policies, refusing to offer any details for fear that either the government will steal them or that they will announce them too early and thus allow us to, you know, investigate them.

Anyway, it was kinda with this in mind, the sense of debate in abeyance, that I thought I’d ask readers at my blog for their opinion on whom they would vote for (and why), and in particular, whether Mark Latham had convinced them that he is a viable prime minister. The response has been fantastic, and is a real credit to all those who left comments. Thoughtful, intelligent responses which, on the whole I think, show Mark Latham still has some work to do. Go read, and feel free to leave your own remarks.

A bunch of other bloggers also picked up on the theme and ran with it. Check outTubagooba, Living in Australia, Troppo Armadillo, John Abercrombie, John Quiggin, Bilby’s Blog and last but not least, Blogger on the Cast Iron Balcony, who says, “It’s not Mark Latham’s virtues that might cause me to vote Labor in the coming election. It’s definitely ABH (anyone but Howard).”

Since I’m plugging the wise readers of my blog, I should also mention the great responses to this post about the Australia-US alliance and what it means for both countries. Again, read what others have said and leave your own comments too.

There was the sudden outburst of bad Midnight Oil puns inspired by the news that Mark Latham had let it be known that he’d like to parachute Peter Garrett into the safe Labor seat vacated by the retiring (and demure) Laurie Brereton. Chief amongst the cheer squadders, and first amongst equals in the punning department, was Christoper Sheil, who does a lot of updating here and here. Be sure to read the long comments thread too.

On the same topic, Guido sent Peter Garrett an open letter, and Dan used the story as way to talk about proportional representation. Graham Young calls it “Mark Latham�s biggest mistake to date.”

And then there was the righterwing reaction. Tim Blair went into convulsions of confected “battler” outrage, objecting strenuously to the concept of a self-made millionaire with something like a conscience and no hair having any role whatsoever in our democracy. Yes, heaven help us. We only want cynical millionaires running for parliament. Alan Anderson suggests the “ALP’s attempt to recruit Peter Garrett is as misguided as it is opportunistic,” and really doesn’t like Garrett’s dancing. Good point!

Meanwhile, Steve Edwards is “terrified” that Garrett might get the gig, saying it “would amount to the Margo Kingstonisation of the Labor Party”. James Russell, meanwhile, takes it more personally than most.

Two mummies are as good as one at Play School and Jason Soon buys into “the lesbian Play School brouhaha”. Apparently there’s more than a bear in there. His fellow blogger, Andrew Norton, finds some interesting results in the first gay marriage poll. And if you’re not reading William Burroughs’ Baboon, there’s a very good chance you haven’t read this.

“Every critic and blamer, every detractor and accuser, who continues to make the case (in whatever form, be it as a critic of foreign policy, or Australia’s participation in the war on terror, or be it arselicking the Yanks) that our status as a target of terrorists is the fault of the Australian government must read this judgement.” So says Gareth Parker. Meanwhile, Alexander Downer is “tactily permitting what most people would consider to be torture,” according to Gary Sauer-Thompson.

Speaking of torture, a hot topic since George W. Bush became president, Southerly Busterconsiders the involvement of Australia.

Meg Lees also asks some very good questions. Devika Hovell tries to provide some answers. And Billmon says, “Praise the Lord and Pass the Thumbscrews,” and proceeds with the gentle art of exposition by juxtaposition.

Ronald Reagan died and I would’ve liked former Czech citizen, Jozef Imrich, to say a bit more about his opinion of the former US president. You kind of get a sense of his feelings from this brief post. But give us some more, Jozef. Another former Mitteleuropean also comments.

At the excellent gateway site, Australian Policy Online, they excerpt a section from a new book about the rise of independents in Australian politics, and link to a whole bunch of other good stuff.

Helen Irving believes that Peter Costello’s comments about Australia and Christianity “are not only offensive to the many decent and honourable Australians who are either non-religious or follow another faith,” but that they also “distort our history and disturb our carefully-wrought constitutional settlement.” Hear bloody hear.

Over at Argus online, Bill O’Loughlin has an encounter with fundamentalism.

Finally, The Living Room has a piece up on the spirituality of food, while elsewhere, Yobbo has some advice for parents of children who are getting unhealthy eating too much McDonald’s. (Yobbo obviously doesn’t have any kids, judging by his advice.) But Gianna does and always writeswonderful pieces about being a new mum.

Webdiarist David Palmer is a senior lecturer in American studies at Flinders University in Adelaide

 

So now we have Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage wading into local Australian politics with the latest Bush administration attack on the ALP’s Iraq withdrawal plan (see Howard’s 2004 Tampa: director George Bush). Armitage doesn’t waste time like President Bush. He goes right for ALP leader Mark Latham by name:

“Mr Latham criticised the Howard Government for, in his words, having failed policies that hurt Australia in five unacceptable ways and went on to blame high petrol prices on President Bush, in effect. That is not the fact of the case. Anybody who analyses the oil markets would be able to tell the ALP that. I also take great exception to the claim that the policies in Iraq have made Australia a bigger target. I was under the very strong impression that Bali happened prior to any military activities in Iraq. So I am somewhat confused by these statements.” (from The Australian, June 9, 2004)

So who is Richard Armitage? None other than a former board member of CACI – the private contractor that employed four interrogators at Abu Ghraib prison – interrogators who worked with the 205th Military Intelligence Brigade there.

General Taguba singled out one of these CACI interrogators in his report on prison abuses at Abu Ghraib. He was Steven Stefanowicz, former naval intelligence and Adelaide resident for 18 months until October 2002. Stefanowicz emailed a friend in early May of this year that he had seen enough of Iraq and wanted to come back to Adelaide. Immigration Minister Vanstone replied that his application would be reviewed just like any other application. Since then Stefanowicz has apparently decided to stay in the U.S., where he apparently returned in late May.

Meanwhile, CACI is being investigated by no less than 5 US agencies for possible contract violations. According to The Washington Post, CACI has some 92% of its contracts in defense, and many wonder how they got the contracts. Having friends in high places never hurts.

Apparently hiring interrogators for prison use was not specified in CACI�s contracts (obtained through the Interior Department � but, strangely, administered by the Defense Department). Abu Ghraib prison MPs are being court martialled for their actions against prisoners, including torture and sexual abuse � as they should. But one of the key “team leaders” � Steven Stefanowicz � is home free because he is not employed by the U.S. government. He cannot be court martialled � because he is a civilian!

Armitage, meanwhile, has been a key contact for the Howard government in terms of the two Australian citizens (Hicks and Habib) imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay by the U.S. military. The Age has reported that the head of Australia�s foreign affairs department Dr. Ashton Calvert met with Armitage and Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs James Kelly near the end of May.

Calvert urged the U.S. government to speed up the resolution of the case involving Hicks and Habib. He also raised allegations of Hicks�s mistreatment while in Afghanistan. Armitage and Kelly told Calvert that they were working with the Pentagon to provide “a full and appropriate response” to the allegations made about Hicks.

Did Foreign Affairs Minister Alexander Downer direct Calvert to pursue this issue with Armitage? Was Downer aware that Armitage had former connections with CACI, so was hardly a reliable source for information on Guantanamo. After all, the man in charge of Guantanamo interrogations, U.S. Army General Miller, took Guantanamo techniques to Iraq and into Abu Ghraib? Were either Downer or Calvert aware that CACI was using Guantanamo techniques of interrogation inside Abu Ghraib by October 2003?

All of this is now public knowledge that anyone can easily find on the internet. So what type of investigation was this by our Foreign Affairs Department under Minister Downer�s direction?

Armitage�s past helps explain why he now is interfering directly in Australian politics. He was indirectly connected with the Iran-Contra scandal when he served in the Reagan administration as Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs. He had direct knowledge of the diversion of funds, from arms sold to Iran (illegally � but approved by Reagan), that were syphoned through the CIA to the Contras (illegally � but again, approved by Reagan) for CIA-directed use against the Sandinista government in Nicaragua.

Armitage, like some other officials in the Reagan administration, did not like the illegality of the whole operation � but they did not come forward with their knowledge � and Armitage, in his Defense position, would most likely have known most of the details.

Armitage served in Vietnam during that war, but according to his biography on the State Department website he “left active duty in 1973 and joined the U.S. Defense Attache Office, Saigon”. “Immediately prior to the fall of Saigon, he organised and led the removal of Vietnamese naval assets and personnel from the country.”

Like Stefanowicz, Armitage served in Naval intelligence, though unlike Stefanowicz he graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy.

Among his later postings for the U.S. government were Teheran in Iran on behalf of the Pentagon in 1975-76, when the CIA-installed Shah was still in power in 1975-76. In the first Bush administration he was the key negotiator on U.S. bases in the Philippines.

Armitage�s main task at the moment is to bring Australia into line with U.S. military objectives � even if these include how the U.S. operates its overseas prisons like Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. Armitage wants bases in Australia and wants political leaders in our country to accept these. And he wants our political leaders to shut up if they have any criticisms of Bush policies.

For Mark Latham and the ALP to be attacked by someone like Armitage is an honour � not just in political terms. To stand up to the bullying by Armitage and the Bush administration is to stand up for Australian independence and against dominance by U.S. government military interests.

***

Steven Anthony Stefanowicz [1], the Abu Ghraib Prison scandal, CACI, and the links to Australia – a chronology

1970: Steven Anthony Stefanowicz born. [2] Grows up in Telford, PA., some 25 miles northwest of Philadelphia.

1984-1988: Attends Souderton Area High School � plays centre on school basketball team (he is 6 foot, 5 inches as an adult) and is considered a class leader who is generally very popular. [3]

1988: Graduates from Souderton Area School District High School (Pennsylvania) [4]

1995: Graduates from University of Maryland.

Feb. 20, 1998: Steven Stefanowicz enlists in the U.S. Navy Reserve, following family tradition. Serves in Pennsylvania, Washington, and Florida (length of time?) in intelligence, most likely because he asked for it according to a Navy spokesman. Meets Joanna Buttfield, an Australian who is working in the U.S. as an occupational therapist. [5]

May 1999: CACI adds a new member to its board, Richard Armitage, who will later be Deputy Sec. of State in the administration of President George W. Bush. [6]

Late 1999: Stefanowicz leaves Philadelphia for Adelaide, Australia, where he will stay for 18 months. He comes with girlfriend Buttfield, but they are not engaged. [7]

2000 � Sept. 2001: While in Adelaide, Stefanowicz works for Morgan and Banks as an IT recruitment consultant. Buttfield is a health worker in Adelaide. Former Morgan and Banks boss Peter Emmerton describes Stefanovicz as “the most reliable, straight-up-and-down, good human you could imagine, gentle as a lamb”. [8]

Sept. 11, 2001: Terrorist attacks on the United States.

Sept. 16, 2001: The Sunday Mail reports the responses of four Americans in Adelaide to the S11 attacks, including Stefanowicz: “It was one of the most incredible and most devastating things I have ever seen. I have been in constant contact with my family and frineds in the U.S. and the mood was very solemn and quiet. But this is progressing into anger.” Those quoted in the article are Jerry Kleeman, Chairman of American Chamber of Commerce in South Australia; Stefanowicz; Al Green, former Adelaide National Basketball championship player and New York native; and Bruce Jacobssen, 46, who grew up in New York and has been in Australia for 15 years. [9]

October, first week, 2001: Stefanowicz returns to the United States to re-enlist in the armed forces.[10] Girlfriend Buttfield remains in Adelaide. [11] Within a few weeks he requests a full-time, active-duty position in the Navy. [12]

Feb. 8, 2002: Stefanowicz becomes an Intelligence Specialist 3rd Class, U.S. Naval Reserve � receives “numerous awards, ribbons and medals during his service”. [13] Serves most of the year in Muscat, Oman. [14] A navy spokesman says his military record “shows not a blemish”. [15]

March 2003: The U.S. led coalition invades and occupies Iraq.

Aug. 2003: CACI gets one-year contract to provide interrogators at Abu Ghraib prison. CACI has 27 interrogators stationed throughout Iraq, according to spokesman for U.S. Central Command, as of the first week of May, 2004. [16]

Sept. 2003: Stefanowicz leaves his last Naval posting at Willow Grove, Pennsylvania and receives a number of military honours, including a medal for meritorious service. His rank is Intelligence Specialist 3rd Class [17], which he�s held for 20 months. To work for CACI as an interrogator he would be required to work for 2 years in U.S. military intelligence. This is not only a CACI stipulation, but is a requirement under the Department of Defence contract given to CACI. [18]Therefore, it can be assumed that Stefanowicz most likely entered Naval intelligence work in Oct. 2001 when he returned to the U.S. from Australia. His previous naval intelligence work in the Reserves would have qualified him for this new position. Given Stefanowicz�s continuous activity in intelligence � including highly classified work while at Abu Ghraib, in a leadership position there � the question might be raised about whether this also encompassed his 18 month stay in Adelaide. Jerry Kleeman, chairman of American Chamber of Commerce in SA, receives email from Stefanowicz saying he is looking for another job in Adelaide � probably during this period. [19]Kleeman knew Stefanowicz when he lived in Adelaide, and no doubt was the source for the interview published on September 16, 2001.

Oct. 2003: Stefanowicz gets position with CACI in Iraq, and earns more than $US100,000 a year. He quickly becomes a team leader in interrogation at Abu Ghraib. A number of prisoners recall him during interrogations, but there are no photos of him as of May 2004 publicly released. [20] It is not known how Stefanowicz got the CACI position � whether he responded to a public advertisement or got an inside lead. No public information is available regarding when the CACI contract at Abu Ghraib began, but it may have been when General Miller (head of Guantanamo operations) came to Iraq to bring in tougher interrogation techniques.

Oct – Dec 2003: Worst point of prison abuses in Abu Ghraib, with many photos that document it.

Jan. 2004: Investigation and report by General Taguba. Stefanowicz is singled out as the key civilian interrogator involved in the abuse, CACI identified as his employer and MPs in abuse photos claim interrogators directed them. Taguba recommends that Stefanowicz be fired. However, Stefanowicz will continue working in the prison through to early May, and for CACI to late May, when he returns to the U.S. Regarding CACI, Taguba�s report notes (in Part 2 of investigation, specific findings of fact):

30. (U) In general, US civilian contract personnel (Titan Corporation, CACI, etc.), third country nationals, and local contractors do not appear to be properly supervised within the detention facility at Abu Ghraib. During our on-site inspection, they wandered about with too much unsupervised free access in the detainee area. Having civilians in various outfits (civilian and DCUs) in and about the detainee area causes confusion and may have contributed to the difficulties in the accountability process and with detecting escapes.

Regarding Stefanowicz, Taguba�s report notes (recommendation under Part 3 of the investigation):

11. (U) That Mr. Steven Stephanowicz, Contract US Civilian Interrogator, CACI, 205th Military Intelligence Brigade, be given an Official Reprimand to be placed in his employment file, termination of employment, and generation of a derogatory report to revoke his security clearance for the following acts which have been previously referred to in the aforementioned findings:

� Made a false statement to the investigation team regarding the locations of his interrogations, the activities during his interrogations, and his knowledge of abuses.

� Allowed and/or instructed MPs, who were not trained in interrogation techniques, to facilitate interrogations by “setting conditions” which were neither authorised and in accordance with applicable regulations/policy. He clearly knew his instructions equated to physical abuse. [21]

April 2004: Revelation of photos from Abu Ghraib prison. Revelation of General Taguba�s report by Seymour Hersh in The New Yorker. Political leaders (Bush, Blair) deny knowledge of the scandal until it was publicised in the media. Sec. of Defense Rumsfeld, it is revealed, knew of the report earlier but claims he didn�t realise the gravity of the abuse.

May 2004: Seven MPs are identified and prosecuted for Abu Ghraib prison abuses. Private contractor employees in interrogation and translation, including Stefanowicz, are not prosecuted. U.S. Defense Sec. Rumsfeld says that because they are privately employed, �disciplining contractor personnel is the contractor�s responsibility�. [22]

May, first week, 2004: Stefanowicz emails a friend (most like Kleeman in Adelaide) that he wants to return to Adelaide: “It�s safe to say I�ve seen enough for a lifetime here in Iraq, and it�s definitely time to come home.” [23]

May 8, 2004: Spokesman for Federal Immigration Minister Amanda Vanstone says the case (of Stefanowicz) would be assessed on its merits. “We can�t discuss details of individual cases, however, if Mr. Stefanowicz applies to come to Australia his application would be processed in the normal manner … That process includes checks as to an applicant�s character.” [24]

May 10, 2004: CACI chairman and CEO J.P. �Jack� London tells The Washington Post that none of the company�s employees have been removed from their duties and that CACI has not been informed by the government of any charges against its employees. London declines to confirm Stefanowicz�s identity or discuss his employment. Stefanowicz�s lawyer, Henry E. Hockeimer Jr., a partner at Hangley Aronchick Segal & Pudlin in Philadelphia denies his client did anything wrong: “Any meaningful review of the facts will inevitably lead to the conclusion that Mr. Stefanowicz�s conduct was both appropriate and authorized.” Hockheimer declined to elaborate on the status of investigation into Stefanowicz�s behaviour. [25]

May 11, 2004: Major General Geoffrey Miller, deputy commanding general for detention operations in Iraq tells United Press International that Stefanowicz is still working at Abu Ghraib prison in an administrative capacity. [26] Australian Defence Minister Robert Hill tells the Senate that no Australians had seen the prison abuse photos until they were made public in April, when he was asked when he first learned of the situation there. [27]

May, mid-month, 2004: Stefanowicz returns to the U.S. according to former girlfriend Buttfield. [28]It now appears unlikely that he will be coming back to Adelaide. No information is available on whether he still is employed by CACI. Red Cross reports, Amnesty International, military legal counsel and lawyer Stephen Kenny express concern for the welfare of Australian citizens Hicks and Habib in Cuba’s Guantanamo Bay as Taliban suspects. Kenny claims there is a video of Hicks being beaten, his source a released prisoner who later tells of Hicks�s treatment.

May 22, 2004: Head of Foreign Affairs Dr. Ashton Calvert meets Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs James Kelly. Calvert urges the U.S. government to speed up the resolution of the case involving Hicks and Habib. He also raises allegations of Hicks�s mistreatment in Afghanistan. Armitage and Kelly tell Calvert that they are working with the Pentagon to provide �a full and appropriate response� to allegations Hicks was mistreated while in detention in Afghanistan. Earlier in the week Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz dismissed claims that Hick had been mistreated when the Australian embassy raised the issue with him. Howard tells the press that he has ordered Australian officials to pursue the issue and have it investigated. [Earlier Howard had not pursued the issue � this appears to be the first public admission by him that he would take up the mistreatment charge.] [29]

The media reports do not disclose that Armitage was a board member of CACI, which has employed private contractors as interrogators throughout the U.S. – run Iraqi prison system � or that CACI interrogators appear to have used techniques brought in from Guantanamo by General Miller around October 2003.

May 23, 2004: Pentagon spokesman says that Australian officials could have learned of Abu Ghraib prison abuses as early as January 16, three days after Sec. of Defense Rumsfeld received the Taguba report, because the information was posted on the official website. The Sydney Morning Herald reports further revelations about the possibility of top Australian officials� awareness:

A spokesman for the Pentagon, Lieutenant Colonel Jim Cassella, also confirmed that Australia could have learnt about the reports of abuse through �your senior in-country official in Iraq� or Australia’s military representative at Centcom.

Last week, Defence Minister Robert Hill said Australia knew nothing about the abuse allegations until the International Committee of the Red Cross presented a report in February: “We relied on the US and we had every reason to believe the US would also treat them humanely and professionally.” [30]

May 27, 2004: CACI publicly announces it is being investigated by the U.S. General Services Administration over contracting rules violations and whether a possible ban from future government contracts. One major issue is that CACI was contracted for purchases of information technology services and equipment. The contract was made through the Defense Department, but administered by the Interior Department. Interior approved an Army request to use the contract to buy interrogation services. At issue is whether this fell outside the contract scope. CACI CEO London also said his company was aware of four other investigations into CACI involved at Abu Ghraib, including the Army�s Office of the Inspector General, the Defense Contract Audit Agency, the military intelligence investigation led by Major General George R. Fay, and the Interior Department�s inspector general. CACI got 92 percent of its revenue from federal clients in 2003.[31]

The Sydney Morning Herald reports that an Australian military lawyer was aware of abuse claims last October. John Howard confirms that Major George O’Kane had seen a report outlining ‘general concerns about detainee conditions and treatment’. He confirms that O�Kane ‘prepared a draft response’ to the Red Cross report on prisoner abuses. Major O’Kane was stationed at US military headquarters in Baghdad from September 2003 until February, working for its senior legal officer, Colonel Marc Warren. [32]

The SMH asks the Defence Department how far up the Australian chain command Major O�Kane had reported the International Red Cross complaints. The Department refuses to answer. [33]Labor�s Chris Evans states that a Senate Estimates Committee wants Major O�Kane to testify on the situation.

May 28, 2004: Defence Minister Robert Hill accused of misleading Parliament (see May 11 entry) during question time. He and his office deny the charge. Howard claims he only saw the February 2004 Red Cross report, distancing himself from Hill. The Red Cross undercuts PM Howard by responding: “It is for us important to understand that what appears in the report of February 2004 are observations that are consistent with those made earlier on several occasions, orally and in writing, throughout 2003.” The Red Cross had repeatedly made their concerns known to coalition forces, which would include Australia � and its Prime Minister, John Howard. [34]

June, first week � Howard meets with Bush in Washington � discussion includes situation in Iraq, Howard government�s support for U.S. policy there, and issue of two detainees in Guantanamo. Bush promises to look into the situation. Controversy over how much Howard knew about Abu Ghraib prison abuses � and when � continues.

***

FOOTNOTES

[1] Stefanowicz�s last name has frequently been mispelled by news reporters, in some cases (including Gen. Taguba�s report) as �Stephanowicz� and in one case as �Stefanowicz� (Robert Fisk, The Independent).

[2] William Bunch, �Montoc man tied to prisoner abuse,� Philadelphia Daily News, May 6, 2004. �Stefanowicz (sic) was 31 years old� when the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks occurred. p>

McCarthy below lists his age as 34 (in May 2004).

[3] �9/11 set Army contractor on path to Abu Ghraib,� New York Times, May 19, 2004.

[4] “Telford man implicated in Iraqi prison scandal,” Souderton Independent, May 12, 2004 at accessed 13/05/2004. Source was Deb Faulkner, reference librarian at Indian Valley Public Library, Telford, who provided details from 1988 high school yearbook.

[5] �9/11 set Army contractor on path to Abu Ghraib,� New York Times, May 19, 2004; �Telford man,� Souderton Independent, May 12, 2004 (source was U.S. Navy�s Chief of Naval Information Office at the Pentagon).

[6] Wall Street Journal, May 10, 1999.

[7] �9/11 set Army contractor on path to Abu Ghraib,� New York Times, May 19, 2004; �The SA sorrow: We feel violated,� StateSun / Sunday Mail � owned by Murdoch), published in Adelaide, Sept. 16, 2001.

[8] �9/11 set Army contractor on path to Abu Ghraib,� New York Times, May 19, 2004; �The SA sorrow: We feel violated,� StateSun / Sunday Mail, Sept. 16, 2001; �My man was no torturer, accused was a patriot, says ex,� Herald-Sun (Sydney), May 10, 2004 (source for information on Stefanowicz is Buttfield, who was interviewed for this article).

[9] �The SA sorrow: We feel violated,� StateSun / Sunday Mail, Sept. 16, 2001.

[10] Sarah Larson, �Former soldier in abuse case defended,� PhillyBurbs.com, May 11, 2004.

[11] �My man was no torturer, accused was a patriot, says ex,� Herald-Sun (Sydney), May 10, 2004.

[12] �9/11 set Army contractor on path to Abu Ghraib,� New York Times, May 19, 2004.

[13] �Telford man,� Souderton Independent, May 12, 2004. Source was Lt. Mike Kafda, Navy spokesman.

[14] Ellen McCarthy, “�CACI worker did nothing wrong, lawyer says,” at Washington Post, May 11, 2004. [15]

“9/11 set Army contractor on path to Abu Ghraib,” New York Times, May 19, 2004.

[16] McCarthy, �CACI worker did nothing wrong, lawyer says,� Washington Post, May 11, 2004.

[17] McCarthy, �CACI worker did nothing wrong, lawyer says,� Washington Post, May 11, 2004.

[18] “CACI emphasizes facts presented during Congressional testimony on Iraq prison investigation and requirements related to company�s U.S. military contracts.” CACI International Inc. News Release, May 5, 2004.

[19] �Iraq prison suspect seeks �home� in SA � Interrogator wants out,� Sunday Mail (final edition), May 9, 2004.

[20] �9/11 set Army contractor on path to Abu Ghraib,� New York Times, May 19, 2004.

[21] The Taguba Report on treatment of Abu Ghraib prisoners in Iraq, ARTICLE 15-6 INVESTIGATION OF THE 800th MILITARY POLICE BRIGADE.

[22] �9/11 set Army contractor on path to Abu Ghraib,� New York Times, May 19, 2004.

[23] �Iraq prison suspect seeks �home� in SA � Interrogator wants out,� Sunday Mail (final edition), May 9, 2004.

[24] �Iraq prison suspect seeks �home� in SA � Interrogator wants out,� Sunday Mail (final edition), May 9, 2004.

[25] McCarthy, �CACI worker did nothing wrong, lawyer says,� Washington Post, May 11, 2004. [26] Bunch, �Montoc man tied to prisoner abuse,� Philadelphia Daily News, May 6, 2004.

[27] �PM and minister clash over timing of Iraq abuse alert,� The Sydney Morning Herald, May 28, 2004.

[28] �9/11 set Army contractor on path to Abu Ghraib,� New York Times, May 19, 2004.

[29] Marian Wilkinson, �Pentagon to report on Hicks, Habib treatment,� The Age, May 22, 2004. [30] “Iraq Abuse Unveiled in January” The Sydney Morning Herald, May 23, 2004.

[31] Ellen McCarthy, “CACI faces new probe of contract,” The Washington Post, May 28, 2004.

[32] “PM and minister clash over timing of Iraq abuse alert,” The Sydney Morning Herald, May 28, 2004.

[33] �PM and minister clash over timing of Iraq abuse alert,� The Sydney Morning Herald, May 28, 2004.

[34] “PM and minister clash over timing of Iraq abuse alert,” The Sydney Morning Herald, May 28, 2004.

Antony Loewenstein writes the Engineering Consent column on the workings of the media.

 

“I hope al-Jazeera is going to be around to… report to the Arab public, and I think at that point the Arab public will realize that we came in peace, we came as liberators [to Iraq], not conquerors.” Colin Powell, US National Public Radio, March 2003

The rise of Osama bin Laden as the world�s most wanted man can be directly linked to the ever-increasing reach of Qatar based TV station, al-Jazeera. The al-Qaeda leader has frequently used the Arabic channel to release audio and video messages to supporters and �infidels� alike. During a period when virtually every Middle Eastern country is ruled by unelected and dictatorial figureheads, al-Jazeera has brought a dose of truth to the steady diet of government approved propaganda frequently fed to the Arab world. There is mounting evidence that the vast majority of the Arab world simply doesn�t believe President Bush when he talks about bringing democracy and freedom to their region.

For the first time in many Arab�s lives, their satellite dishes are bringing a diverse range of opinions and images unimaginable only a decade ago. Launched in 1996 by a group of disillusioned BBC journalists after Saudi investors pulled out of an Arabic arm of the BBC, it receives funding from the Qatari crown prince, Emir al-Thani and reaches over 35 million homes daily. It�s the most successful news service in the region.

US Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt reflected the view of many in the Bush administration when he said in March that, “my solution is to change the channel to a legitimate, authoritative, honest news station. The stations that are showing Americans intentionally killing women and children are not legitimate news sources.”

One can only imagine what kind of “honest news station” he had in mind. Extreme pressure has been placed on the channel to show more positive images of the US occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, but the station refuses, saying they receive footage of startling brutality and it�s their duty to show it, blood, guts and all.

This infuriates Washington and London but it�s not something worrying Mahir Abdullah, senior correspondent for al-Jazeera. Speaking exclusively to Webdiary, Abdullah dismisses claims of anti-American bias:

“American politicians were full of praise for al-Jazeera when it was highlighting the shortcomings of some Arab regimes�, he says. They used to say we are furthering the cause of democracy when we were critical of Arab policies and politics. We still do the same today. Nothing changed as far as we can see. The only difference is that now the American media was overwhelmed by patriotism after the 11th of September.”

It�s a view echoed by Arthur Neslen, former London correspondent for al-Jazeera.net. “Many al-Jazeera journalists have American passports, I�m sure,” he tells me, “People unable or unwilling to distinguish between concepts of a �country� and a �country�s foreign policy� should not be setting the terms of the debate.”

Neslen sees the channel reporting multiple viewpoints, journalism virtually unimaginable in the Western media, “a willingness to take risks in showing controversial images of the horrors of war, reporting from �behind enemy lines�, critical coverage of Saddam Hussein and George Bush alike and an avoidance of the ‘news pool’.”

A sign of the increasing interest being generated by al-Jazeera is the release of the film Control Room. Telling the story of how the channel decided and made the news during the Iraq war, the film has already broken box-office records in the US. With senior Bush officials accusing the station of anti-Americanism, an increasing amount of Americans clearly want to make up their own minds. The Christian Science Monitor highlighted the main thrust of the film: nobody has a monopoly on truth.

***

Abdullah presents a weekly live show that discusses modern Islamic thought. He joined al-Jazeera in 1998 after working at the London-based Middle East Broadcasting Corporation (MBC). He has also been a news editor. He arrived in Iraq one week after the Iraq war had started to present a political analysis program. “We already had one from Washington looking at the war from there, one in London seeing things from the UK and many from Doha [al-Jazeera�s headquarters] – all trying to reflect Arab public opinion. It was only natural to try and see a Baghdad perspective on things.”

He soon realised that their resources in the Iraq capital were insufficient and the program didn�t begin until after the war. Abdullah�s role, therefore, became even more dangerous: reporting the conflict and coordinating the team of al-Jazeera reporters on the ground.

A common complaint leveled against al-Jazeera has been its alleged blindly pro-Arab perspectives during the Iraq war. It�s a charge roundly rejected by Abdullah:

“War is about pressure. Before the fall of Baghdad, the Iraqis exerted a lot of pressure. I think our bureau was the most visited office in Iraq by the former Iraqi Information Minister, Al-Sahhaf. I assure you that none of his visits were pleasant despite the fact that he personally was a somewhat pleasant man. Many of our reporters were ordered to stop working at one point or another. Three were given ultimatums to leave the country. Threats were made against some others. As for the Americans, we were not worried about them in Baghdad at first.”

The targeting of journalists and media organisations now appears to be standard practice by elements of the American military. Too many reporters have been injured or killed during the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts for these incidents to be dismissed as mere accidents. Serious questions remain, and US military reports into the bombing or shooting of unarmed journalists leave the disturbing impression that the “war on terror” means more than we’ve been told so far.

“Management had already given them the co-ordinates of our offices [in Baghdad],” Abdullah said. “Despite all the negative references to al-Jazeera in the American official�s press conference, we thought we were safe in dealing with a democracy that respects freedom of the press. Then came the 8th of April [2003] when early in the morning our offices were hit by a couple of air-born bombs. Our colleague, Tariq Ayyoub, died instantly and our assistant cameraman was injured by shrapnel going into his neck.

“This was the third �accident� that happened to al-Jazeera. The first was in Kabul during the war in Afghanistan when four rockets accidentally hit our offices there. A few days before the hit on the Baghdad offices, another rocket accidentally hit the hotel at which our Basra team was staying. What was interesting about the accident in Basra is that it came when Tony Blair and his officials were telling the British public that the people of Basra were dancing in the streets celebrating their liberation. To this day, we havn�t receive any apology for any of these accidents.”

Faisal Bodi is a senior editor for al-Jazeera.net. Writing in The Guardian in March 2003, he highlighted the agenda from which the channel operated when covering the Iraq war:

“Of all the major global networks, al-Jazeera has been alone in proceeding from the premise that this war should be viewed as an illegal enterprise. It has broadcast the horror of the bombing campaign, the screaming infants and the corpses. Its team of on-the-ground, unembedded correspondents has provided a corrective to the official line that the campaign is, barring occasional resistance, going to plan.”

Bodi painted a powerful picture of Western media double standards and less than rigorous reporting of both sides of the war:

“The British media has condemned al-Jazeera�s decision to screen a 30-second video clip of two dead British soldiers. This is pure hypocrisy. From the outset of the war, the British media has not balked at showing images of Iraqi soldiers either dead or captured and humiliated.” His argument has only become more prescient in the last year, especially since the release of the Abu Ghraib torture photos.”

Bodi contributed a chapter to Tell me Lies: Propaganda and Media Distortion in the Attack on Iraq(Pluto Press, 2004). Revealing the ways in which al-Jazeera operated in Iraq and the violently hostile US response, he offers a chilling explanation of the possible reasons behind the bombing of the channel�s offices in Baghdad:

“al-Jazeera, according to Paul Wolfowitz, was practising �very biased reporting that has the effect of inciting violence against our troops.� It is not a big leap from here to the suggestion that American soldiers are only acting in pre-emptive self-defense, when in the words of al-Jazeera�s indignant reply they routinely subject al-Jazeera�s offices and staff in Iraq �to strafing by gunfire, death threats, confiscation of news material, and multiple detentions and arrests, all carried out by US soldiers who have never actually watched al-Jazeera but only heard about it’.”

John William Racine III, a hacker based in California, shut down al-Jazeera.net during the Iraq war. As reported by Arthur Neslen in The Guardian in April 2004, �with a maximum of 25 years available, the US attorney�s office agreed a sentence of 1,000 hours community service�. Racine was clearly doing the bidding of the Bush administration. After the recent slaughter in Fallujah by American troops, US Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, articulated the feelings of many in the American government:

“I can definitely say that what al-Jazeera is doing is vicious, inaccurate and inexcusable. We know what our forces do. They don�t go around killing hundreds of civilians. That�s just outrageous nonsense! It�s disgraceful what that station is doing.”

Secretary of State, Colin Powell, the war-like �dove� of the administration even met in early May with the Qatari�s Foreign Minister, Sheikh Bin Jassin Bin Jabr al-Thani, requesting his government control the Qatar-based channel. It�s unimaginable that any other country�s government would complain about an American TV station�s coverage of their situation, though many would have legitimate claims.

Abdullah argues that al-Jazeera is playing an essential role in bringing openness and democracy to the Middle East, taking the role that America claims it brings with the Iraq enterprise:

�I think it [al-Jazeera] has already helped in furthering the cause of democracy in the region. Just think of numerous Arab governments that express displeasure at the channel. Think of the ambassadors who have been withdrawn from Doha in protest at our reporting of opposition groups. Think of the other Arab stations that are trying to imitate the level of freedom we have.

“I think al-Jazeera has raised the level of political discourse in the Arab world. It�s a great injustice to al-Jazeera as to the cause of freedom to see it only in terms of what an interested party (the US) perceives as a biased coverage of the war.”

Neslen documents the constant intimidation he has received while a journalist with al-Jazeera:

“I myself have been detained for an hour by British special branch officers at Waterloo station. The questioning focused on my employer. The officers also wanted information about other al-Jazeera journalists in Paris and London, and asked if I would speak to someone in their office on a regular basis about my work contacts. I declined both requests.”

Western governments are clearly scared of eyewitness accounts emerging from the increasingly exposed tactics of the US military. al-Jazeera is documenting these atrocities and exposing unpleasant realities to the Arab world and beyond.

Perhaps Norman Solomon, executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy, puts it best:

“Officials in Washington keep saying they want to encourage democratization in the Middle East, but the Bush administration�s moves to throttle al-Jazeera certainly indicate otherwise.”

The US’s standing in the Arab world is at an all-time low, and many see the attacks against al-Jazeera merely symptomatic of a deeper unease with multiple viewpoints of America�s misguided adventures in the Middle East. Reese Erlich, a foreign correspondent who has covered the region for two decades, says that the US has lost both the moral and ethical battle in the most volatile area in the world:

“The US is losing the war in Iraq and is increasingly isolated politically in the Arab world, so what�s the response? Blame the media. The US media wouldn�t accept such an argument from Bush the candidate, so why accept it from Bush the commander in chief?”

Abdullah is confident in stating that the Arabic channel is more responsible that its Western counterparts because it is willing to show the dirty and violent images of war:

“Any showing of the bad side of war was seen as harming the war efforts. Luckily the American media is now waking up to reality. They are uncovering the lies themselves [remember WMDs?]. They are showing the photos of abuse of the Iraqi prisoners at the hands of American soldiers. They are talking about ‘civil war’ between the Defense and State Departments over the handling of the Iraqi situation. Is the American media becoming anti-American too? Donald Rumsfeld wanted a ‘clean war’ and we were showing some of the dirty aspects of it – does that make us anti-American? We are not in the business of being anti or pro anybody. We are in the business of reporting the news. That�s not always a good thing for politicians.”

While acknowledging some weaknesses of al-Jazeera (“funding and relatively inexperienced journalists in some instances”), Neslen insists that Western governments and propagandists fundamentally misunderstand the multifaceted perspectives of the channel:

“The targeting of al-Jazeera is all the more remarkable given that it is the only Arab TV network to routinely offer Israeli, US and British officials a platform to argue their case. The Israeli cabinet minister, Gideon Ezra, famously told the Jerusalem Post, �I wish all Arab media were like al-Jazeera.�”

During the US military�s bombardment of Fallujah during April, al-Jazeera was reportedly the only media organization recording the devastation. Reporter Ahmed Mansour documented the offensive that claimed the lives of up to 700 Iraqi lives and injured more than 1000. The channel aired footage of civilian casualties in the town and provided the world with rare access into �shock and awe� American military tactics. Too much of this story remains untold.

al-Jazeera still faces many challenges, especially the need to confront some of the major issues facing the region itself. The last decade has seen an alarming rise in anti-Semitism in the Middle East with incitement against Jews and Israel. A number of prominent Arabic newspapers have published these views with regularity. Edward Said wrote in Le Monde in 1998 that it was the responsibility of the Arab world to speak out against injustices against the Jews, otherwise the world would never understand the pain suffered by Arabs:

“Why do we expect the world to believe our suffering as Arabs if (a) we cannot recognise the sufferings of others, even of our oppressors and (b) we cannot deal with the facts that trouble simplistic ideas or the sort propagated by�intellectuals who refuse to see the relationship between the Holocaust and Israel?”

Mahir Abdullah believes that al-Jazeera may well be the connection between the West and the East (al-Jazeera is launching an English language channel later this year). He argues that this ever-widening gulf in understanding must diminish before we can ever hope for a more balanced and harmonious world order: “I think the West, and I�ve lived in the West for most of my adult life, suffers from an intrinsic, if not instinctive, lack of understanding of the East. Is there any chance of changing that? I guess there is no harm in trying.”

***

FURTHER READING

Colin Powell�s complaints against al-Jazeera in April 2004

Faisal Bodi�s Guardian article on the strengths of al-Jazeera

Inter Press Service analysis of the Bush administration�s attempts to silence al-Jazeera

Arthur Neslen�s Guardian article on al-Jazeera�s �record of accurate reporting�

Le Monde Diplomatique on Middle Eastern anti-Semitism

***

aloewenstein@f2network.com.au

NOTE: Webdiary republished a ZNet article of mine on November 5, 2003 in The Battle for Minds The ADC has requested me to source the quote attributed to ADC but I have been unable to do so. I stand by my original statements regarding the contents of the article.

Howard has his Tampa 2004. Like Tampa, it involves the participation of a foreign power and exemplifies the politics of winning votes through fear. Unlike Tampa, that participation is voluntary and very, very deliberate.

 

In August 2001, The Norwegian vessel the Tampa answered an SOS call from Australia�s coastguard to rescue boat people from a sinking boat. Howard grabbed the chance for the politics of full-on fear and loathing, including baseless claims that terrorists could be aboard the boats and an SAS boarding of Tampa to turn it away from Australia. International maritime law and refugee laws were trashed as the 2001 version of Jewish people fleeing the Nazis and floating the seas without anywhere to land. Our �ship of fools� was populated with Afghanis and Iraqis fleeing the evil Taliban and Iraq, both regimes we since toppled.

But this time, Labor leader Mark Latham handed Howard the opportunity, if he dared subordinate Australia�s national interest to the altar of his lust for power.

Of course he dared. In last week�s talks between Howard and Bush, they discussed domestic politics. The deal: Howard would continue to be Bush�s echo chamber on the war in public, and to privately close ranks with the Americans, as Australia did when we became aware that the Americans were committing war crimes at Abu Ghraib. And Bush would publicly put the American alliance on the line to arm Howard with Tampa Mark 2.

This morning�s page one lead story by Paul Kelly in The Australian left us in no doubt about the deal or that Rupert Murdoch, an enthusiastic Bush backer, would promote the campaign through his media assets.

The US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage is America�s second most senior diplomat, but diplomacy, let alone respect for Australian democracy, went out the window in his chat with Kelly.

He mounted an unprecedented and blatant propaganda strike to re-elect Howard through fear that if we elected Latham America would abandon the alliance. His arguments could, and probably were, written by Howard. The echo chamber payback.

Armitage also laid on the line something Howard has only dared hint at � that the Free Trade Agreement with the US was conditional on us staying in Iraq. Yes, it is blood for money. And it is money for political slavery.

Armitage dismissed Latham�s statement affirming his decision to bring our soldiers home by Christmas � the one he wrote after Bush whacked him in Howard�s company last week – line by line:

“Mr Latham said he looked to the day that a Labor government could work with the US to further strengthen intelligence, strategic and cultural relations. Apparently economic and political relations were not so important. Now you either have a full-up relationship or you don�t.

“I would argue that the US has spent a lot of time and energy trying to develop a free trade agreement with Australia, but these are things the people of Australia have to decide for themselves.” (see US steps up Latham attack).

(And have a look at today�s Australian editorial on Abu Ghraib, almost literally a composite of Alexander Downer�s increasingly ludicrous attempts to deny what the facts have shown � that Australia was an accessory after the fact to the war crimes at Abu Ghraib and helped the Yanks argue that the Geneva Conventions did not apply. It even praises Downer�s Lateline interview this week, where he answered not one question asked and admitted he hadn�t even bothered to read the crucial documents in Australia�s possession. This ain�t journalism, it’s crude political propaganda which shames Australian journalism and stinks to high heaven.)

Publicly putting the American alliance on the table to protect the careers of Bush and Howard is, of course, appalling and dangerous. But it does exemplify the attitude of Bush and Howard to politics � to win at any cost, regardless of the national interest. The Bush/Howard play is a radical, momentous change in Australian and American policy on the Alliance. Australians now stare at the threat that Australia is either effectively the 51st state or is on its own. With the Yanks on everything, or against them on everything.

The so-called greatest democracy in the world is also interfering in British politics to protect the current President�s job. Fearing that Tony Blair could be removed from office before the US presidential election in November, thus dealing yet another blow to Bush�s credibility on Iraq, Bush�s thugs are pressuring their supposed ideological soul mates in Britain, the Conservative Party, to stop criticising the conduct of the war. In the traditionally conservative magazine The Spectator at Bush to Howard: hands off Tony Peter Oborne reported:

“… the most important leader of the international Coalition, by far, was and remains Tony Blair, the only foreign leader of whom American voters are even dimly aware. In recent weeks the Republican Party has woken up, with a gulp of horror, to the prospect of a Blair defenestration. Specifically, it fears that the British Prime Minister could damage George Bush�s international standing by quitting before the November Presidential election.

So an operation has been launched within the White House, the State Department and above all the Republican Party to keep Tony Blair in office. This takes a number of forms…

The Republicans are now stretching themselves to the limit to put pressure on the British Tory party to give Tony Blair the easiest possible ride.

This kind of direct intervention in British politics by the United States is far from unprecedented. In 1987 President Ronald Reagan helped out Margaret Thatcher by humiliating Neil Kinnock when he made an official visit to the White House.

Now the same kind of pressure is being applied, only in reverse. The White House regrets that the new leader of the Conservative Party, Michael Howard, is failing to give unstinting support for the Iraq war and Tony Blair. There have been as yet no menacing calls from the Vice President. But Michael Howard has been left in no doubt that he is in the doghouse. �The White House hates Michael,� says one senior Conservative official, perhaps with exaggeration. �It feels that he is not standing shoulder to shoulder with Tony Blair. It is furious with him.� The official says that Howard has received �quite a few indirect messages� from the administration to the effect that it would be better if he stayed his tongue.”

The fear politics of Tampa Mark 2 is escalating so quickly that it looks to me like Howard will go early, perhaps as early as August 7.

First we had George Bush � the man whose handpicked puppet to rule Iraq Ahmed Chalabi had just been disowned as a suspected spy for Iran, and who was about to announce the resignation of the CIA director George Tenet � stand beside Howard to say it would be �disastrous� for Latham to pull Australia out of Iraq.

Both he and Howard (Howard after Bush, naturally) last week explicitly compared the war on Iraq to World War II, after claiming that Iraq is now �the frontline�. And now Richard. With us or against us.

If you accept the World War II analogy, then you�re forced to accept that America, the UK and Australia started it. Howard said he took us to war to make us safer from terrorism. Yet he stepped into the terrorist’s trap by invading a Muslim nation without ties to al Qaeda and now admits that “international terrorism has invested an enormous amount in breaking the will of the coalition in Iraq”. In other words, we made a mistake, but now we can’t afford to lose. Therefore it would be rational, wouldn�t it, to ask whether the government which put us in this dreadful position – where oil supplies are at risk, recruitment to al Qaeda has surged, and instability is now chronic in many Muslim nations – is the right one to lead us in an attempt to minimise the damage. Why is noone asking that question? Our mainstream media is largely captured, that�s why.

If Australians are shit scared that we�re entering World War III, they might do anything to keep America onside. That�s what Howard promises and what his media backers will ram down our throats.

It�s going to be hard for Latham to make Howard�s Tampa 2 a winner for him, and I bet more than a few Labor people are thinking back to 1975, when, it has been alleged, the CIA stepped in to destroy the Whitlam government.

I hope Latham sticks with the politics of hope and continues to assert Australia’s independence and national pride. A new government in America, Britain and Australia could yet avoid World War III. Which is what the world�s peoples are desperately hoping for.

Jack Robertson is Webdiary’s ‘Meeja Watch’ columnist. He has reported previously on his long quest for the truth of the anti-Wilkie leak in Andrew Bolt: I did ‘go through’ leaked top secret report by Wilkie, Wilkie, Bolt and ONA at odds over top secret report and Wilkie: Blame ‘outrageous’ PM, not top spies.

 

 

A Meeja Watch salute to Tom Allard, who obviously still understands that only reporters can SET news agendas; and with a sympathetic shrug for News Wimited�s Malcolm Farr, who of course we fully understand must be under enormous pwessure fwom Uncle Wupert not to investigate Abu Ghwaib-gate too cwosewy. Poor widdle Pwess Gawewy Pwesident.

From the One Letter to the Past � Salute to a Lemming Pack

Dear Mainstream Australian Press, circa early 2003,

You got to write the mainstream newspaper columns. You got to ride the airwaves on talkback radio. You graced our television screens on shows like Meet the Press, The Insiders and Sunday. You composed our broadsheet leaders, you selected what opinions about Iraq were aired in the Op Eds, and you decided what pre-war questions our elected leaders were asked, and how persistently and pedantically and impolitely.

Which was �not very�, on all three counts.

As Mr Phillip Knightley, one of the great war and security issue reporters, recently reminded us all here at Webdiary in principle, and as Mr Allard is showing us in practice now: only news reporters can set the news agenda, only stubborn and persistent footsloggers can MAKE the wider public �interested� (or �uninterested�) in the stories that count.

The Lance Collins story, say – or the Andrew Wilkie one (or that of any of the other Iraq war whistleblowers, back then in early 2003 when it really mattered). Only you get to sit up the front in the high-powered press conferences, Laurie Oakes. Only you got a one-on-one interview with the most powerful man in the world, Paul Kelly. You�re among the very few Australians who get to know our politicians� spin doctors, Michelle Grattan, who hear the inside stories and the hot gossip, Kerry O�Brien, who catch a glimpse behind the scenes, Matt Price and Mike Seccombe and Karen Middleton and David Penberthy.

Unlike us angry, impolite, untrained amateurs, you journalists get to carry a press card. You get to go to the Press Club lunches. You get invited to the politicians� end-of-year knees-ups, and some of you, like your Press Gallery President Malcolm Farr, even get to hang out at the PM�s private barbeques. (Way to get a scoop, Mr Woodward – STOP THE PRESS: MAN OF STEEL PREFERS MUSTARD, NOT SAUCE, ON HIS T-BONE!!! Malcolm Farr reports exclusively from the frontline.)

You �professional� reporters get special passes and privileges and protection in war zones, seats on the politicians� aeroplanes that take you there for Anzac Day, and access of all sorts to faraway centres of global power, giving you a close-up look at the people whose decisions can end up killing and maiming us nobodies. You�re our eyes and ears and, during question times, especially our very blunt tongues, and we expect you to use those �free press� privileges to help ensure that when we and our nobody loved ones do waltz off to fight yet another �war to end all wars�, there really is no other option. It really is a �last resort�.

Most of all, when it goes a bit wrong (as wars always do), we expect you to be there to ensure that our soldiers ARE given moral, legal and political top-cover by the politicians who sent them, not left to flap about in the breeze of the Senate Estimates Committee-room as Prime Ministers and Defence Ministers cut and run for cover.

Once again, precisely as we here at Webdiary predicted would happen, eighteen months ago.

Don�t let it happen, Canberra Bubble. Do NOT let our soldiers down again. Do NOT allow a few sundry Lieutenant-Colonels or Grade Five public servants alone swing for this shameful abnegation of Ministerial responsibility. It�s up to you to force the Australian public to understand what is happening (again); to thrust the political buck-passing and bum-covering now going on over Abu Ghraib abuses repeatedly into the public consciousness, until we citizens start fulfilling our democratic responsibilities too, whether we like it or not. It�s our collective civic obligation; we don�t have the luxury of �choice� anymore, because the Iraq War is every last Australian�s war now.

Pro-war, anti-war, or dumbed-down by Reality TV & grasping materialism into stupified oblivion. Oh dear me, do excuse moi for not kissing the �ordinary Australian�s� lazy, ignorant butt. There goes my shot at elected Australian office! Boo-hoo-hoo.

Unlike modern politicians and �small target� pollsters and billioniare media barons and millionaire talkback toffs and condescending, Quadrant-editing, right-wing columnists, serious news reporters and news editors are NOT there to suck up to the filthy masses. If you privileged Canberra Bubblers won�t embrace the responsibility that comes with being a part of Australia�s intellectual leadership – for fear of being called an �elitist� by Piers or Bolt or Devine – then kindly step aside and let ME have your bloody column on the Op Ed page, Paul Kelly. Let ME compose your vacuous autocue wafflings, Barrie Cassidy. Let us amateurs who will gladly do it for free have a go at asking awkward questions in press conferences. Frankly, we can�t mess it up any more than you �professionals� have thus far.

The invasion and occupation of Iraq wasn�t remotely scrutinsed by the �free� press when you all had the chance, and that a smug, sniggering ABC regular like Farr is your Press Gallery President is supremely symptomatic. It�s time you Canberra Bubble lemmings started to examine � very publicly, in the scarce public forums you so lazily occupy – how badly you failed us, why exactly you failed us, and what you now intend to do about it.

Where are all the mainstream mea culpas? You lot were suckered over this war almost to a man and woman, and no amount of ironic sophistication there on the Insiders� couch next Sunday can disguise that fact, Malcolm, Barry and Co. D�oh!

***

One Letter to the Present � Anatomy of (Another) �Un-newsworthy� Story

Dear Mainstream Australian Press, circa mid 2004,

OK, so Loony-Left �told you so� rant over. What can you do about it? Need more encouragement from us, the public who desperately want to support you? Need any hints about what we might regard as the �public interest�?

Try this, say: the Wilkie-Bolt Leak remains of great interest to us. It�s a news story. If you want it to be, that is. It�s up to you to make it one, though; not me (I�m an amateur wannabe), and not Wilkie (he�s got a partisan Green agenda now) or any other whistle-blower, either. As Knightly says, only new reporters can set the news agenda; and then only if they want to. But you have to start asking the right awkward questions of the right powerful people, instead of tamely sitting back and waiting for the next press release or leak or blown whistle.

It�s not that hard, Malcolm. Like I said, even us amateurs can do it. Or have a clumsy go at it, at least. Laurie? Paul? Michelle? Hullo? Hullo, Canberra Bubble?

***

1. JACK AND THE PM

From: Jack Robertson. To: The Prime Minister’s Office. Date: 29 April 2004

Attention Prime Minister’s Press Officer Willie Herron

Dear Mr Herron (sic – Willie’s a woman),

I write a Meeja Watch column for Margo Kingston’s SMH online Web Diary. I’m currently preparing a story for the website regarding the alleged leak of a Top Secret ONA intelligence analysis in mid 2003 to journalist Andrew Bolt, who allegedly referred to information it contained in a Sun-Herald article of 23 June. The story is based upon new claims made by the report’s primary author, former ONA analyst Andrew Wilkie. Mr Wilkie has made the following claim on record, which I intend to publish on Margo Kingston’s website:

“I know for sure that it’s on the record in ONA that – [deleted for Webdiary to avoid compromising the AFP investigation] – asked for and received an additional copy of that report only days before the Bolt article.”

I now respectfully seek the Prime Minister’s written response to the following question:

1. Did the Prime Minister’s office ask for and receive an additional copy from ONA of a Top Secret report concerning humanitarian aspects of an invasion of Iraq (compiled by Andrew Wilkie and first issued in late 2002/early 2003) some time in June 2003?

*

From: Jack Robertson. To: The Prime Minister’s Office. Date: 4 May 2004

Attention Prime Minister’s Press Officer Willie Herron

Dear Mr Herron,

I refer you to my respectful emailed request for a written response from Prime Minister Howard submitted last Thursday 29 April as per below. I note that I have yet to receive a response from Mr Howard, and respectfully re-submit my request now.

Jack Robertson

*

From: Willie Herron. To: Jack Robertson. Date: 4 May 2004.

Dear Mr Robertson,

Apologies for the delay in responding to your email. My response to you is “The AFP are investigating this issue so it is inappropriate to make any comment”.

Regards, WH

***

2. JACK AND DOWNER

From: Jack Robertson. To: The Foreign Minister’s Office. Date: 29 April 2004

Attention Foreign Minister’s Press Officer Chris Kenny

Dear Mr Kenny,

I write a Meeja Watch column for Margo Kingston’s SMH online Web Diary. I’m currently preparing a story for the website regarding the alleged leak of a Top Secret ONA intelligence analysis in mid 2003 to journalist Andrew Bolt, who allegedly referred to information it contained in a Sun-Herald article of 23 June. The story is based upon new claims made by the report’s primary author, former ONA analyst Andrew Wilkie. Mr Wilkie has made the following claim on record, which I intend to publish on Margo Kingston’s website:

“I know for sure that it’s on the record in ONA that – [deleted for Webdiary to avoid compromising the AFP investigation] – asked for and received an additional copy of that report only days before the Bolt article.”

I now respectfully seek the Foreign Minister’s written response to the following question:

1. Did the Foreign Minister’s office ask for and receive an additional copy from ONA of a Top Secret report concerning humanitarian aspects of an invasion of Iraq (compiled by Andrew Wilkie and first issued in late 2002/early 2003) some time in June 2003?

 

*

From: Jack Robertson. To: The Foreign Minister’s Office. Date: 4 May 2004

Attention Foreign Minister’s Press Officer Chris Kenny.

Dear Mr Kenny,

I refer you to my respectful emailed request for a written response from Foreign Minister Downer submitted last Thursday 29 April as per below. I note that I have yet to receive a response from Mr Downer, and respectfully re-submit my request now.

Jack Robertson

*

From: Chris Kenny. To: Jack Robertson

Date: 7 May 2004

I have responded clearly and directly to you in a phone call. *

Chris Kenny, Media Adviser, Minister for Foreign Affairs

* In our telephone conversation (29 April) Mr Kenny told me that it was not appropriate to comment on the issue since it was the subject of an AFP investigation, and also that �these rumours� had been around for a while, and it was �old news�.

***

3. JACK AND ONA, WILKIE’S FORMER EMPLOYER

From: Jack Robertson. To: Mr Peter Varghese. Date: 30 April 2004.

Dear Mr Varghese,

I write a Meeja Watch column for Margo Kingston’s SMH online Web Diary. I’m currently preparing a story for the website regarding the alleged leak of a Top Secret ONA intelligence analysis in mid 2003 to journalist Andrew Bolt, who has recently confirmed to me that he referred directly to a copy of that report while writing an article for the Melbourne Herald-Sun which was published on 23 June. The story is based upon new claims made by that classified ONA report’s primary author, former ONA analyst Andrew Wilkie.

Mr Wilkie has made the following claim on record, which I intend to publish on Margo Kingston’s website:

“I know for sure that it’s on the record in ONA that – [deleted for Webdiary to avoid compromising the AFP investigation] – asked for and received an additional copy of that report only days before the Bolt article.”

I respectfully seek an ONA written response to the following questions:

1. Is it on the record in ONA that – [deleted to avoid compromising the AFP investigation – asked for and received from ONA a copy of Andrew Wilkie’s December 2002 analysis of humanitarian aspects of an Iraq invasion at some time in June 2003?”

2. Since 23 June 2003, have you or any other members of ONA been interviewed by the Australian Federal Police in relation to an alleged leak of this report to the journalist Andrew Bolt?

3. Has the AFP team currently investigating that alleged leak to date sought and been given by ONA full access to the ONA records regarding all movements of this report in June 2003?

*

To: Mr Peter Varghese, Director-General. Office of National Assessments. Date: 4 May 2004.

Dear Mr Varghese,

I refer you to my respectful emailed request for a written response from ONA sent last Friday 30 April as per below. I note that I have yet to receive a response from ONA, and respectfully re-submit my request now.

Jack Robertson

***

4. JACK AND THE AFP

From: Jack Robertson. To: Ms K—-, AFP. Date: 30 April 30, 2004.

Dear Ms K—-,

As per as phone conversation of this morning, below please find a copy of the email I sent to the AFP National Media Centre this morning. I would be grateful if AFP were to provide a written AFP response to the questions below. Naturally I understand that with regard to the security and privacy aspects of any on-going investigation, the AFP may be unable to respond as fully as I might like. Not-with-standing the specific queries below, however, I would be very appreciative – especially with a keen view to helping ensure AFP retains the high level of confidence the public has maintained in it as an investigative body since the excellent Bali bombing results – if AFP could provide me with as full an update on the status of the alleged Bolt leak investigation as is possible.

Ms K—-, thank you very much for your time and courtesy,

Jack Robertson

*

From: Jack Robertson. To: National Media Centre, Australian Federal Police, via public website national media contact email address. Date: 30 April 2004. Attention Ms Jane O’Brien, Co-ordinator Media Manager (Canberra Head Office). Attention (subject): Enquiries regarding the AFP investigation into an alleged leak of ONA material to journalist Andrew Bolt in 2003

Dear Ms O’Brien/to whom it may otherwise concern,

I write a Meeja Watch column for Margo Kingston’s SMH online Web Diary. I’m currently preparing a story for the website regarding the alleged leak of a Top Secret ONA intelligence analysis in mid 2003 to journalist Andrew Bolt, who has recently confirmed to me that he referred directly to a copy of that report while writing an article for the Melbourne Herald-Sun which was published on 23 June. I understand that an AFP investigation into this alleged leak is on-going.

In light of new allegations about the ONA record of the handling and distribution of copies of that report in June last year, recently made to me on-record by the report’s primary author the former ONA analyst Andrew Wilkie and which I intend publishing on Margo Kingston’s website, I respectfully seek an AFP written response to the following questions:

1. Has the AFP team investigating the alleged leak of the report to date interviewed the journalist Andrew Bolt about the leak?

2. Has the AFP team investigating the alleged leak to date sought and been granted full access to the ONA records covering the distribution and handling of the report in June 2003?

3. Has the AFP team investigating the alleged leak to date interviewed any staff in either the Prime Minister’s or Foreign Minister’s offices?

Jack Robertson

*

From: Jack Robertson. To: Ms K—-, Australian Federal Police. Date: 4 May 2004.

Dear Ms K—,

I refer you to my emailed request for a written response from the AFP sent to you for forwarding to Ms Jane O’Brien (or whom it may other concern) last Friday 30 April as per below. Ms K—, I note that I have yet to receive a response from AFP. I note also that you are not directly responsible for providing me with a response and apologise for troubling you again, but beg your kind indulgence in respectfully re-submitting my request to the appropriate AFP media officers.

Yours sincerely, and with warm thanks for your trouble,

Jack Robertson

*

From: Ms K—-. To: Jack Robertson. Date: 4 May 2004.

Hi Jack,

I haven’t forgotten you. I will attempt to assist you with your enquiry as soon as possible, and hopefully get back to you tomorrow. Kind Regards

Ms K—-, Australian Federal Police

 

*

 

From: Jack Robertson. To: Ms K—-, AFP. Date: 7 May 2004. Information copies: The Honourable Phillip Ruddock, MP, Attorney-General, Mr Kevin Rudd, MP, Opposition spokesperson for Foreign Affairs

(NB: Information copies via email; see exclusion note below; NB: I also note for the record and with my warm thanks the courteous and professional assistance AFP public servant/officer Ms K—- has to the best of her ability and sphere of responsibility provided me so far.)

Dear Ms K—,

I refer you to my emailed request for a written response from the AFP sent to you for forwarding to Ms Jane O’Brien (or whom it may other concern) last Friday 30 April, and resubmitted via you on Tuesday 4 May as per below.

Ms K—-, I note once again that I have yet to receive a response from AFP. Once again I note that you are not directly responsible for providing me with a response and apologise for troubling you again, but respectfully re-submit my request to the appropriate AFP officers. I also now further request advice ASAP from the AFP regarding the following:

It is my intention to publish on Margo Kingston’s Webdiary at some point in the future the following allegation that may relate to the alleged ONA leak, one that has been made to me on-record by former ONA analyst Andrew Wilkie. I am currently seeking a response to this allegation from the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister and ONA. Mr Wilkie has told me (the substance of this allegation has been OMITTED from Mr Ruddock’s and Mr Rudd’s information copies):

“I know for sure that it’s on the record in ONA that — [deleted for Webdiary to avoid compromising the AFP investigation] — asked for and received an additional copy of that report only days before the Bolt article.”

Ms K—, I would be grateful if you could advise the relevant AFP officers that I am determined to publish this allegation in the public interest if I am unable to assure myself as a citizen that the investigation into this leak is being pursued by AFP with full vigour. however, I am also anxious not to compromise the AFP’s on-going investigations in any way. To that end, not-with-standing my other outstanding queries below, can AFP please advise me as a matter of priority of their response to the following two questions:

Question One: Will it compromise the on-going AFP investigation into the alleged leak of the Top Secret ONA report to journalist Andrew Bolt if I publish on Margo Kingston’s Webdiary Mr Wilkie’s allegation as above?

Question Two: If so, does the AFP formally request me NOT to publish the allegation as above at this stage?

Ms K—-, please advise the relevant AFP officers that in the interests of not compromising any on-going investigation I will readily comply with any explicit AFP written request regarding this allegation at this stage, but that I also reserve the right to make public note – without divulging allegation details – on Margo Kingston’s Webdiary of any such request from AFP.

Ms K—, please take care to advise the relevant AFP officers that I have also forwarded information copies of this email (LESS allegation details) – to Attorney-General Phillip Ruddock and Opposition Foreign Affairs spokesperson Kevin Rudd, the latter of whom I understand from recent media reports has also recently written to AG and AFP expressing his concern at the lack of progress of the Bolt leak investigation.

Finally, Ms K—-, please accept my apologies again for communicating with AFP via your email address and for taking what you may regard as the liberty of placing on the record (via information copies) with both Government and Opposition my on-going pursuit of some – any – information from AFP regarding this matter. I am well aware that you are not directly responsible for this matter, but I am anxious to ensure that my various requests are dealt with appropriately and promptly.

Yours sincerely, and with warm thanks for your trouble again,

Jack Robertson

***

From: Ms K—–. To: Jack Robertson. Date: 7 May 2004

Hi Jack,

Many thanks for your enquiry. Unfortunately the only comment I’m able to provide is: “As this is an ongoing investigation, it would be inappropriate to make any comment about the enquiries being conducted or provide any other information relating to this investigation”.

Kind Regards

Ms K—–, AFP

***

5. JACK AND THE YANKS

From: Jack Robertson. To: His Excellency Mr J.T. (Tom) Scheiffer, Ambassador of the USA to Australia. Date: 4 May 2004. Attention: Press Officer(s), US Embassy Canberra

Your Excellency,

I write a Meeja Watch column for Margo Kingston’s SMH online Web Diary. I’m currently preparing a story for the website regarding the alleged leak of a Top Secret Office of National Assessments (ONA) intelligence analysis in mid 2003 to Melbourne journalist Andrew Bolt, who allegedly referred to classified information it contained in a Sun-Herald article of 23 June 2003. My story relates to new allegations that have been made to me on record, which may have some bearing on the circumstances and nature of the alleged leak, and which I intend to publish on Ms Kingston’s website this week.

Your Excellency, I understand that as this matter is the subject of an on-going Australian Federal Police domestic investigation the American government may prefer not to comment specifically on it. Never-the-less, since the alleged leak may be of some importance with regard to the on-going security and intelligence relationship between the United States and Australia, I respectfully submit the following questions and would be warmly grateful for any response Your Excellency is able to provide.

1. I understand that under the terms of the ANZUS alliance, American and Australian intelligence agencies routinely ‘share’ sensitive information, and that as such, it is possible that the alleged leak of the ONA report represents a potential security breach not only for Australian intelligence agencies but for those of the United States as well.

Question: a) does the American government view with concern the alleged leaking of the ONA report into the Australian public domain last year, and b) if so did the American government formally convey that concern to the Australian government last year when the leak first came to light?

2. Last week the Australian Opposition spokesperson for Foreign Affairs Mr Kevin Rudd reportedly (Sun-Herald, 2 May) wrote formally to the Australian Attorney-General Phillip Ruddock expressing his concern over the apparent lack of progress the AFP is making in the investigation of this alleged leak.

Question: Again given the on-going nature of the ANZUS alliance intelligence-sharing arrangement, does the American government share Mr Rudd’s concern at this apparent lack of progress?

3. Can the American government assure the Australian people that a failure of the AFP investigation to trace and prosecute to the full extent of Australian domestic law the person or persons responsible for this alleged leak will in no way have any future detrimental impact on the breadth, scope, timeliness and security classification of that sensitive information currently made available by American agencies to Australian agencies under the terms of the ANZUS alliance, and particularly any such future information relating to potential terrorist threats on Australian soil or against Australians citizens overseas?

Your Excellency, with warm thanks for your time and expressions of ANZUS goodwill to your nation’s soldiers currently serving alongside ours in Iraq.

Jack Robertson

***

Webdiarists NB: I�ve decided not to publish Wilkie�s information just yet, even though the AFP were not even prepared to advise me of whether or not this would actually compromise their investigation. (This is supposedly why the Senate Estimates Committee didn�t press ONA boss Peter Varghese on the ID of the report recipient in February this year; it�s now nearly four months later, and you�ve got to start to wonder at what point we�re going to be allowed to know.)

Wilkie will publish his claim fully himself in his forthcoming book Axis of Deceit (PanMacmillan, June/July) – so keep in mind when he does that the Prime Minister�s office, the Foreign Minister�s office, ONA, the Attorney-General and Mr Kevin Rudd, and the Australian Federal Police will have ALL known of that information since at least May. (In the case of ONA, they�ll have known all along of course, and as for the PM and Mr Downer, I find it impossible to believe that the ONA internal record wasn�t one of the first places they checked way back in late June 2003, when Bolt�s article appeared.)

So when the �mainstream press� Canberra pundits express their �shock and horror!� at Wilkie�s next revelation (and when Mr Howard and Mr Downer say: �Oh, but I wasn�t told!� yet again), direct everyone in the Canberra Bubble to this website, and ask senior media leaders like Kelly, Shanahan, Grattan and O�Brien WHY none of them kept at this AFP investigation story long enough to elicit the information all by themselves, way back in September 2003 when the �SCANDAL!!!� first broke.

This is what Knightley means when he says: “It was big news and now it�s tapered off and disappearing. Newspapers lose interest…”

But perhaps that�s not quite the whole story here, either. Oh dear, here I go getting all Loony-Lefty conspiratorial again. Then again., as Margo wrote earlier, pretty much anything is possible in these crazy days.

***

One Letter to the Future � Mr Glenn Milne�s Curious Reminiscences

Dear Australian Mainstream Press, circa tomorrow, next week, some time soon (I hope),

On 29 September 2003, one of your senior leaders – Glenn Milne, political writer for The Australian(and until recently Channel Seven) – wrote a very curious Op Ed piece on Tasmanian Governor Richard Butler. I�ll reprint the relevant Wilkie bits here (unfortunately it�s not archived online anywhere free):

*

Canberra ready to open the door on Richard Butler�s Past

JIM Bacon has a problem coming down the line he probably doesn’t even know about yet.

The Tasmanian Labor Premier’s decision to appoint one of the ALP’s favoured sons, former chief UN weapons inspector Richard Butler, as governor of the island state was always fraught. How fraught, Bacon may be about to find out. According to senior federal Government sources, Butler is now the subject of a series of freedom of information inquiries from media organisations (including The Australian) regarding his behaviour during his often controversial career in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. The department will, of course, comply strictly with the terms of the relevant act in deciding which documents to release. But such decisions are always informed by the attitude of the government of the day to such FOI requests. And this government is of a mind to have as much information on Butler as it can in the public domain …

The third factor counting against him in Canberra is that many officials in DFAT believe Butler was afforded special protection and preferment during his time in the department, largely under the Hawke-Keating Labor governments. As well as being Gough Whitlam’s former principal private secretary, he was also married, at one stage, to Hawke’s education minister Susan Ryan. His son’s second name is Gough. The Government’s stance has also hardened in the wake of Opposition demands for police action against the leaker of the so-called �Wilkie memo�.

This concerns Andrew Wilkie, the Office of National Assessments’ analyst who resigned in a blaze of publicity claiming Howard was joining the invasion of Iraq under false pretences. A memo Wilkie wrote on Iraq was subsequently leaked to conservative Melbourne columnist Andrew Bolt who openly referred to the top-secret document in his Herald Sun column. A police investigation, egged on enthusiastically by the Opposition, is under way. Clearly, Labor believes the source of the leak will be found in the offices of either Howard or Foreign Minister Alexander Downer. The Opposition, however, was calling for no such investigation when, in 1999, then foreign affairs spokesman Laurie Brereton was leaked a Defence Intelligence Organisation briefing that revealed the Indonesian military was collaborating with pro-Jakarta militia in East Timor …

In short, neither Downer nor some elements of DFAT are well disposed to Labor on questions of principle. And this is at a time when they are considering the FOI requests regarding Butler’s behaviour.

The FOI requests are understood to relate to two particular episodes in Butler’s career, which prospered after a period in the doldrums with his appointment by then foreign minister Bill Hayden as ambassador for disarmament. While in that position, Opposition MPs demanded the government table the cost of the post. It turned out the then Labor government was spending almost $800,000 a year maintaining Butler in Geneva, including domestic servants costing $1800 a week. The embarrassing revelations helped ensure the post was scrapped only five years after it was established. In total, Butler and his support staff cost the taxpayer millions of dollars. There are many within DFAT who have always darkly hinted there was much more information available regarding Butler’s expenses, if only you knew where to look.

The second area subject to FOI requests is believed to be Butler’s term as ambassador to Thailand. This is, potentially, a much more damaging period. While there Butler faced allegations of sexual harassment…

Time to ask some more awkward amateur questions. This time of the �mainstream� press:

1. How are those News Limited Freedom of Information requests going, Glenn Milne (or Dennis Shanahan or Paul Kelly or Michael Stutchbury or any other senior News Limited journalist)? Do you Murdochians plan to tell us about Butler�s �dark� past any time soon?

2. Or were you only hinting at those FOI requests, Glenn, as part of a �friendly message delivery service� on behalf of some government player inside the Canberra Bubble, who�s a bit worried about being done for busting the Crimes Act?

3. Is this why the Bolt leak is running dead as a story, senior members of the Australian Press Gallery? Is it that you and all the most senior politicians in Canberra on both sides know that there�s been so many skeletons dumped in so many closets across the last two decades of incestuous games, covers-up, back-scratching, leaks and inside dealings that nobody wants to set the house of cards tumbling?

4. Is it true that ever since some of you senior journalists helped Bob Hawke knife Bill Hayden way back in 1983, those incestuous games have been growing gamier in smell? Is that why none of you want the Bolt leaker to get �done�? Because then the Brereton leaker would get �done�, too, and then maybe Butler would get �done�, and he�d take half of Keating and Hawke�s Cabinets down with him, too – including dear old Richo, who of course is in a bit of strife elsewhere just now, too, and he knows where just about every skeleton in Australia is closeted? Including those that might rattle all you �senior political correspondents� right to the professional eyeballs? Is all that about right? Or close, Glenn? Were you simply warning Labor (and everyone else who�s anyone in Canberra) off the story on behalf of your government sources and contacts?

No? Just me being conspiratorial again? Fine. Then let�s hear all about Governor Butler�s �dark� past in your very next column please, Glenn Milne. What was that about Thailand again? What was that about all those FOI requests, Rupert?

Come on, then. We�re waiting. (We�re VERY �publicly interested� in Governor Butler�s past). Oh, and let�s also have someone senior and influential in the Press Gallery � Malcolm Farr say, since he�s not terribly busy just now, apparently – pick up the phone tomorrow, next week, some time soon in your collective journalistic future – and impolitely ask Mr Howard, Mr Downer, Mr Varghese, AFP Commissioner Mick Keelty, Attorney General Ruddock and Kevin Rudd, MP, when we, the Australian public who pay them all, can expect to hear a PUBLIC progress report on the Bolt leak investigation that is a little more information-rich than: �Since this is an on-going investigation, it is inappropriate to comment at this stage.�

It�s almost a year now since someone inside the Canberra Bubble smashed the Crimes Act and breached national security at exactly a time when my little brother was on a battlefield getting shot at in the name of �national security�. That person was almost certainly the authorised recipient (or someone acting as proxy middleman for them) who asked for and received a copy of Wilkie�s report just a few days before 23 June. An �authorised� recipient means a senior government, military or public service official with a TOP SECRET, AUSTEO security clearance, and I�m sorry, but there just ain�t that many who fit the bill if you can narrow down what part of the Canberra Bubble they work in.

That person�s name is also written down on a piece of official paper inside ONA.

So I now want to know who that person was, Australian Press Gallery. The AFP has had a bloody year to investigate, and I�m fed up with waiting for a progress report. I want to know who asked ONA for that single copy. I want to know why they needed a six-month out-of-date, pre-invasion report in late June 2003. I want you � the �free� press – to find out who then leaked it to Andrew Bolt, too.

Then I want someone�s head to roll. For once. I want our honourable military, public service and especially our intelligence professionals protected from security breaches, political exploitation, buck-passing, can-carrying and general anti-democratic abuses of this Canberra Bubble game-playing kind. How about you, Glenn Milne? You�re the one who seems to know which Manuka swillhouse dunnies the gobbier Deep Throats hang about in these days.

It�s decision time, Australian Mainstream Press. At Webdiary we media nobodies have been bashing out heads against your Canberra Bubble for four long years, and often over mouse poo like phone cards and budget leaks and polly perk rip-offs – but this time our weak leaders got us drawn into an involvement in an illegal, immoral, unnecessary and possibly unwinnable �war� that you could well have helped us (and them) avoid if you�d only done your jobs properly. You all need to stop excusing your professional inadequacies and failures with ironic chatter and knowing Boomer sophistication, and start doing something about them.

So I�ll end my latest open letter appeal by asking the senior, more cynical among you � who just might remember such late colleagues from your own idealistic youths � a question I first posed way back in November 2000:

I urge you all to think about Greg Shackleton�s last report from Balibo at least once every day of your increasingly-complex working lives. My heart swells with pride at being a Human Being every time I watch it. As a Reporter, where do you stand in relation to it?

Yours sincerely,

Webdiary Meeja Watch

This piece was first published in the Sun Herald yesterday.

 

When I started reporting politics in the late 1980s, prime ministers and ministers lied as a last resort. Fifteen years later, government deceit is just another way to win a political debate or destroy a political opponent. How come?

Sir Robert Menzies once said that political systems have much more frequently been overthrown by their own corruption and decay than by external forces. And that is what’s happening in our democracy, in large measure because of the total breakdown of our democratic tradition of ministerial responsibility and a frank, non-partisan public service.

Here’s how it used to work. One duty of senior public servants was to keep ministers fully informed of important developments and ensure they did not unintentionally mislead the public. Ministers demanded that service because if they misled the people and did not immediately correct the record, they were duty-bound to accept responsibility and resign.

Under this system, public servants and ministers had a great incentive to be meticulous with the facts. If a minister made a false statement, public servants would immediately advise him or her. If a minister had to resign because of the failure of the public service to keep him informed, more than one public service career would also be over. It was a virtuous circle, encouraging ministers and public servants to take their duty to tell the people the truth very seriously.

Under John Howard, the virtuous circle has been replaced with a circle of self-interest which expels the people and destroys their right to know. Here’s how the new system works.

A minister lies or misleads to score a point. His public servants do not advise him of the error. If the lie is discovered, the minister says he won’t resign because his public service didn’t tell him. The head of his department takes the rap and gets a gold star. Public servants down the pecking order quickly learn that unwelcome information is to be bottom-drawered.

We saw a couple of classic examples of Howard’s way last week. Recently, a former inmate at Guantanamo Bay stated that Australian David Hicks had been tortured by his American captors. Hicks’s lawyer said the same. Howard rubbished the claims, saying Hicks had never told Australian Government visitors any such thing.

Good point, we, the people, thought.

Last week, a Senate inquiry discovered that Hicks had told ASIO a year ago that he had suffered beatings at the hands of the Americans. Will Howard resign? No. He hadn’t been told. Would the head of ASIO resign for not advising Howard he was wrong? No. On what basis did Howard make his false claim? He probably didn’t ask for a brief, but assumed what suited him because he hadn’t been told otherwise. Why not? Because the public service knew Howard wanted to create no waves with the Americans so they didn’t tell. Easy, isn’t it?

As an invader of Iraq, Australia has legal and moral responsibilities to ensure that prisoners of war are treated humanely.

Our soldiers in Baghdad knew last November that the Americans were torturing POWs in Abu Ghraib. In the old days, such important information would have reached government quick smart.

Yet Howard and Defence Minister Robert Hill told us after the torture photographs shocked the world last month that they knew nothing until then. That meant that when Howard and Hill visited Iraq this year and spoke to American commanders they did not raise the matter. Or so they say. Both said they should have been told.

If Howard and Hill are telling the truth, in the old days Defence Department Secretary Ric Smith and Defence chief General Peter Cosgrove would have resigned pronto. No excuses.

Instead, when the story broke that Australia had known and investigated, and given legal advice to the Americans last year, Smith and Cosgrove put out a statement denying it outright, and Howard assured Parliament the story was a lie.

But it was true! It took the Senate two days to drag the truth out of Smith and Cosgrove. Did Howard resign? No. Did Smith and Cosgrove resign? No. Instead Hill praised them as great men. Everyone gets off scot-free again, except the poor bastard at the end of the food chain: our main man in Baghdad, Major George O’Kane, whose career is finished.

I reckon the media has to adapt to the new system. We can’t just report what the leaders say as fact any more. Everything they say must be reported as a claim unless they can state what their evidence is and have confirmed the facts with the public service.

As the system becomes more corrupt, its watchdogs must get more aggressive. If we don’t, the public won’t have a hope in hell of getting near the truth of what is being done in our name without our consent.

Harry Heidelberg is a Webdiary columnist.

 

“Day by day and almost minute by minute the past was brought up to date. In this way every prediction made by the Party could be shown by documentary evidence to have been correct; nor was any item of news, or any expression of opinion, which conflicted with the needs of the moment, ever allowed to remain on record. All history was a palimpsest, scraped clean and reinscribed exactly as often as was necessary.” 1984 George Orwell

We feel numb because the unimaginable horror story has become reality. When you don’t know whether to laugh, cry or throw a brick through the window, you become numb. Eventually the emotion will out. It was always objectionable but somehow understandable when other parts of the world succumbed to the netherland of the big lie. We’d read about Fascism and Communism but we’d never experienced it directly and we knew we never would. It was there all along: our moral superiority. Bad things don’t happen in our sunny English speaking world.

The Americans have always been overt in expressing their moral superiority. They were an exceptional society founded under God. The British had centuries of tradition, continuity and relative stability. The Australians knew it so deeply in their hearts, that there wasn’t even a need to crow about it. Why crow about givens? We know we’re a decent people and we invented the “fair go”. We’d never engage in grand conspiracies. We had no need to and it was never really our style anyway.

The D-Day commemorations in Normandy this weekend will be a reminder of our shared history. The bonds of the member countries of the English speaking world are incomparable and apparently unshakable. When does it become unhealthy though? When do the bonds become shackles? All the signs are there for anyone who cares to glance for longer than a nanosecond. One sign could be that two of our “sisters”; Canada and New Zealand are at odds with us. There wasn’t a lot of ambiguity about D-Day though.

Now we seem mired in ambiguity and the worst part of all is that our leaders are burying us in the stuff. So what is our mire made of? Bullshit. In the ultimate nightmare scenario, 1984 and Animal Farm have merged to become the compendium we call 2004.

Some might say that there’s a cloud over D-Day. A commemoration is about remembering. There’s no cloud over that day. It was the beginning of the end of terror in Europe. This continent stands today as the European Union. The world has never seen nations come together like this. A bold enterprise affecting the daily lives of 450 million people.

Creating a new Europe has been a long and difficult road and we’re only part way along it. The pathfinders of the new united Europe were dismissed last year by the Americans as being “Old Europe”.

At the conclusion of World War II, the POW conventions in Geneva were drafted. The UN was formed and these days it is all treated as frankly blah. There was a reason for it though. Countries like ours were at the forefront of these endeavours. We had a clear vision founded on core beliefs that had served us well.

One of our own, Doc Evatt, was elected Secretary General of the United Nations in 1948. Imagine how he would have felt to be the leader of the UN when the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was passed? This was Australia walking tall. Not in a brash or ungainly way but in a stubborn attempt to find the right way ahead.

We’ve lost our way and it’s possible to find inspiration in our past in order to set ourselves right again. We do have a duty to set ourselves right again because our leaders will not do it for us. When our leaders start to sound like “Squealer” in Orwell’s Animal Farm, the time has come to take our country back.

Squealer said, “Do not imagine, comrades, that leadership is a pleasure. On the contrary, it is a deep and heavy responsibility. No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?”

The words we hear from our leaders are a daily diet of lies, spin and hypocrisy. You know it is unravelling when they start contradicting themselves on the same day.

We’re not dumb farmyard animals and we’re not going to be taken for a ride, we’re not going to be patronised.

We are living in dangerous times and its becoming harder to breathe. Many of us don’t like the media but right now we need them more than ever. Truth is our only source of oxygen. We still need the media to help us find it. No one else will help us.

Societies based on lies and led by individuals with no moral compass will inevitably collapse. History tells us this and there is no better weekend than this one to remember that.

Lest we forget.

Blogjam creator Tim Dunlop is back! Thanks to David Tiley and Terry Sedgwick for filling in.

 

 

There’s a lot of election stuff out there in blogland at the moment, which is how it will probably go for the rest of the year. Good thing too because it gives us some insight into how ordinary citizens are thinking about the upcoming choice. My impression is that people on the sensible left can smell Coalition blood, even though they are not particularly thrilled about the prospect of a prime minister Latham. Those on the right are keeping their fingers crossed and no doubt scanning the political horizon looking for another Tampa to sail into view, or counting on John Howard to build one out of gay marriage and whatever other wedge scraps he can find lying around on the floor at Kirribilli and paddle it to shore himself.

 

 

Having said that, no-one is willing to declare victory or defeat this far out from an election that hasn’t even officially been announced. (Remember, the election isn’t on until the prime minister notifies the Governor General, and it’s starting to look like the PM has forgotten which cupboard he locked Major General Jeffery in.)

 

 

So off we go.

 

 

Taking time out from giving decidedly dodgy footy tips, Virulent Memes backs into the pack this week to provide his view of the upcoming Federal election, suggesting that “it might well come down to the stench of the Howard government playing against the untried economic credentials of Latham and Co”. Which sounds about right to me, though there is obviously more to it than that, much of which is covered in the rest of the post. As we say in the blogosphere, read the whole thing.

 

 

Over at Public Opinion, Gary surveys recent politicking and concludes, “The ALP reckon that with the Howard Government in freefall they can win the election, if they just hang on, stay together and talk in unison from the same script,” though Gary begs to differ. He’s also concerned about the lack of coverage being given to key issues in the mainstream media.

 

 

Recent polls get a working over at Back Pages, who tells the ALP, “Don’t Panic” about the latest Newspoll, “a gobsmacker, presenting a 6 point election winning 2pp lead for the Coalition (53/47), which also has a 10 point lead on the primary count (47/37)”. Christopher and his kind commenters reckon it is probably a rogue poll, though conservative Andrew Norton can’t help but get a little light-headed that it might represent a change in fortune for his team. He nonetheless concludes, “I will be very surprised – though pleasantly surprised – if the Coalition sees 53% 2-party preferred again until well into a Latham government.”

 

 

Another rightie, Scott Wickstein, also thinks it’s a rogue while the Gnu Hunter compares recent newspaper accounts, takes them as proof of leftwing bias, and ends by quoting and agreeing with John Howard.

 

 

One of the election-related topics to light up the blogs and their comments boxes in the last day or two has been the revelation that the stuff Mr Howard and his government told us about what and when Australian officials knew of the torture and abuse in Abu Ghraib prison. Steve Wadeconfides that he’d like to see the Howard government returned but is more than a little concerned: “Perhaps this government of ours will learn the hard way that trying to put it over the people isn’t appreciated.” Well, Steve, that’s entirely up to people like you. Remember, even Hitler got the trains to run on time.

 

“My take on it is simply to point out the obvious, that John Howard has finally turned into Paul Keating. Having come to power on a promise to be more “in touch” with “ordinary Australians”, this is just the latest example of the the Howard Government being caught out misleading them. Once is a mistake. Twice is clumsy. To make it a defining feature of your reign is just plain contemptuous.

John Quiggin believes Mr Howard’s explanation that he was simply given incorrect information, but pointedly points out, “In the light of the ‘children overboard’ business and the more recent humiliation of Mick Keelty, what officer would be foolish enough to pass bad news of this kind on to his or her superiors?” Indeedydodahday.

Elsewhere, Southerly Buster provides a handy-dandy guide to the government’s SOP: “1. Deny everything. 2. Admit it when it becomes unavoidable. 3. Insist you never got the papers. 4. Blame everything on the troops.”

On the other handy-dandy, some bloggers think it is all a media beat up. At Chrenkoff, Arthur is upset that the Greens are concerned about issues other than the environment (why, he doesn’t say) and wonders in regard to the Abu Ghraib story mentioned above, “How low can the media go in their attempt to get the Government on this issue? My guess is, very low.” Well guessing is one thing, Arthur: how about some evidence? And please try and keep in mind that the prime minister has admitted the error.

And could we go a week without the right having conniptions about the latest Media Watch story or the ABC in general? No we could not. Tim Blair gets the ball rolling, though Rob Corr thinks Tim has misunderstood the claim that was made. And as usual, Uncle is not happy with how the ABC is doing its job – which is why he started blogging in the first place I presume. Rob Corr runs the blue pencil over Uncle’s jottings.

Speaking of the ABC, rightwingers Paul and Carl find something to praise about an ABC program, presumably because it catered to their biases.

That other favourite target of rightwing spleen, the Oscar and Canne Film Festival award-winning film-maker Michael Moore (who I believe is also in line for a Nobel Peace Prize, a sainthood and a lovely motherhood award)also gets a good working over this week. Mike Jericho takes delight in a story that Moore wasn’t invited to a film festival in his hometown, while Evil Pundit has some fun with Moore via his photoshop bag of tricks.

Bargarz also asserts his membership of the reflexively anti-Moore crowd by noting that a Brisbane cinema “rushed to get their message (of congratulations) on the marquee”. He seems to take this as self-evidently beyond the pale.

I doubt there’s a political blogger in the world who isn’t in it at least partly because of their dissatisfaction with the way the mainstream media do their job. Ken Parish takes them task over a non-political issue, coverage of the Falconio trial in the Northern Territory:

 

“Joanne Lees will be hunted down like Osama bin Laden and �Nick� subjected to torture by media. Why? Because Ms Lees refused to play the media game � a game by the way where all goal posts are placed by the media. Her crime? The Yorkshire lass who set off for the trip of a lifetime had the misfortune to become a victim of crime, then a victim of media speculation. What�s worse, she didn�t take a media handling course before she was catapaulted into this extraordinary nightmare.”

 

Remember, Ken is a genius, as is evidenced in posts like this.

Elsewhere, the Evil Pundit ventures into the realm of political philosophy, and although I disagree heartily with his conclusion and with the logic he uses to get there, it’s good to see such topics being broached. The issue at hand is “Free speech and its enemies” and it has generated a lengthy discussion thread which you might want to join.

It was also good to see the prime minister’s attempts to ban gay marriage being given some serious attention by the right of the blogosphere. Well, one blog anyway. Alan Andersondiscusses both the definitional issues and the matter of adoption as presented within the legislation and says that “Regardless of your views on these issues, the legislation doesn’t make sense.” I hope someone does him the courtesy of taking up his arguments. Alan is also unhappy about the government having an environmental policy, calling the prime minister’s latest announcement a “pointless Liberal capitulation to the Green movement.” Come on, Alan, do you really think the prime minister considers it pointless?

Finally, a get-well-soon message to long-time blogger and Geelong journo, Bernard Slattery, who has had some difficulties with his eyes of late.

This is a legal opinion by Professor Donald Rothwell, the Challis Professor of International Law at the Sydney Centre for International and Global Law, Univesirtyy Sydney, on Australia’s obligations in Iraq under the Geneva Conventions on prisoners of war. For some background on what’s at stake, see Avoiding the Geneva Conventions: how Australia does the job.

 

INTERNATIONAL LEGAL OBLIGATIONS IN POST WAR IRAQ UNDER GENEVA CONVENTION III AND GENEVA CONVENTION IV AS THEY RELATE TO THE TREATMENT OF PRISONERS AND DETAINEES

INTRODUCTION

1) On or around 20 March 2003 the Coalition military forces of Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States commenced operation “Iraqi Freedom” in the territory of Iraq. These operations were conducted, according to Australia and the United Kingdom, under the auspices of several United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolutions, including UNSC Resolution 1441.

2) Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States are all parties to the four 1949 Geneva Conventions. In addition Australia is also a party to 1977 Geneva Protocol I. Consistent with the principles of international humanitarian law, the armed conflict in Iraq was conducted on the basis that the Geneva Conventions, the Geneva Protocols, and the related principles of customary international law as reflected in the Conventions and Protocol applied during the conflict.

3) On 1 May 2003, US President George W. Bush Jr. declared that active hostilities in Iraq had come to an end. This was a view apparently shared by Australia and the United Kingdom as members of the coalition.

4) Since May 2003, Iraq has remained under occupation. The relevant legal regime governing that occupation is Geneva Convention IV Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (Geneva IV).

5) The United Nations Security Council has, since March 2003, adopted a number of Resolutions concerning the situation in Iraq. These Resolutions include: 1483 (2003) – adopted on 22 May 2003; 1500 (2003) – adopted on 14 August 2003; and 1511 (2003) – adopted on 16 October 2003.

6) The effect of the UNSC Resolutions has been to address the obligations of the occupying powers under Geneva IV, the post-war reconstruction of Iraq, the oil-for-food program adopted under previous UNSC Resolutions, the maintenance of the security situation in Iraq, and the post-war transition to a new Iraqi government.

AUSTRALIA AS AN OCCUPYING POWER

7) Upon entering Iraq in March 2003, Australian forces were engaged in a mission to disarm the Iraqi armed forces and to control the civilian population. These operations raised a multitude of issues under both the Geneva Conventions and Protocols and international humanitarian law in general.

8) Australia, as a party to the military operations in Iraq has assumed obligations under Geneva IV as an Occupying Power, a fact effectively acknowledged by Prime Minister Howard on 10 April 2003.

9) Immediately after entering Iraq, Australian forces began to exercise the authority of an Occupying Power including the taking of prisoners, the maintenance of security in villages, towns, and cities, the protection of civilian infrastructure, and the day-to-day management of essential services (eg. Australia’s role in air traffic control at Baghdad airport). There is no evidence, however, that Australian forces had any primary responsibility for any detention facilities or prisons.

10) Geneva III applies from the outset of any conflict or occupation (Article 6) and to “all cases of partial or total occupation” (Article 2).

11) The application of Geneva IV ceases “one year after the close of military operations” (Article 6), with the exception of those Occupying Powers which exercise the functions of government in which case several core provisions of Geneva IV continue to apply until that role has ended (Article 6).

12) UNSC Resolution 1483 acknowledged the role of the UK and US as occupying powers under unified command following a letter from those two States to the President of the Security Council.

13) UNSC Resolution 1483 requests the UK and US acting as the “Authority” to act consistent with the Charter of the UN and relevant international law, and to promote the welfare of the Iraqi people including the restoration of security and stability (UNSC Res 1483, para 4)

14) In addition, UNSC Resolution 1483 also calls upon “all concerned to comply fully with their obligations under international law including in particular the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Hague Regulations of 1907”.

15) In October 2003, UNSC Resolution 1511 authorised the creation of a multinational force under unified command to contribute to the security and stability of Iraq (‘the Iraq stabilization force’). Australia, along with approximately 32 other UN member States have contributed to this force under US command. The mandate of the Iraq stabilization force will continue under UNSC 1511 until early 2005 when a constitutional conference is planned for Iraq.

16) As one of the three principal States which commenced military operations in Iraq in March 2003, including the occupation of Iraq, Australia as a party to Geneva IV acquired obligations as an Occupying Power.

17) While the Preamble of UNSC 1483 expressly recognizes the UK and US as Occupying Powers and designates them as the “Authority”, the Resolution does not purport to be exhaustive in its recognition of States with obligations under the Geneva Conventions and indeed expressly recognizes that other States are present in Iraq.

18) Consistent with Geneva IV, Article 6, it may be argued that Australia’s obligations as a Occupying Power ended on or around 1 May 2004 that being one year after the declared close of military operations.

19) However, the better view would be that:

a) In view of the ongoing military operations throughout Iraq since May 2003, including the very extensive military operations during April 2004, there has yet to be “a general close of military operations” as envisaged by Article 6;

b) Even if there has been a “general close of military operations”, Australia the UK and the US continue to occupy Iraq and have a significant role in the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA).

20) Under Geneva IV, Article 6, Occupying Powers remain bound by several provisions relating to the protection of civilians “for the duration of the occupation” to the extent that they exercise the “functions of government”. In particular, Occupying Powers are prohibited from causing the physical suffering of protected persons in their hands.

PRISONERS OF WAR AND THE APPLICATION OF GENEVA CONVENTION III

21) Unlike the 2001 Afghanistan conflict, there was little debate over the application of Geneva III during the 2003 Iraq War. It was conceded by all parties to the conflict that prisoners taken would be entitled to the protections of Geneva III.

22) Under the provisions of Geneva III, there are extensive provisions governing the internment and treatment of POWs. In particular, POWs are to be humanely treated and protected against acts of violence or intimidation (Article 13), and in all circumstances are entitled to “respect for their persons and their honour” (Article 14).

CIVILIAN DETAINEES AND THE APPLICATION OF GENEVA CONVENTION IV

23) Since the commencement of the 2003 Iraq War, civilians have also been detained by coalition forces. Civilians are not entitled to the protections of Geneva III as prima facie they are non-combatants nor do they meet the definition of a POW as found in Geneva III, Article 4.

24) Civilians detained by Occupying Powers in Iraq are however protected under the provisions of Geneva IV which contains extensive provisions regarding the treatment of detainees and prisoners.

25) Occupying Powers are entitled to enforce the penal laws of occupied territories, and also adopt additional provisions which are considered essential to enable the Occupying Power to fulfil its obligations including the maintenance of orderly government of the occupied territory (Geneva IV, Article 64).

26) Civilians accused and detained for investigation arising from criminal acts within the Occupied territory are capable of being placed on trial before the courts of the occupied territory, or properly constituted non-political military courts (Geneva IV, Articles 64 and 66). No sentence can be pronounced against a civilian except after a regular trial (Geneva IV, Article 71).

27) Civilians convicted of offences in Iraq are to be detained in Iraq. Geneva IV accords them certain rights including conditions of food, hygiene, and medical attention (Article 76).

28) Geneva IV makes it clear that the parties to the Convention are prohibited from causing the physical suffering of protected persons who are in their hands (Article 32). This prohibition applies not only to murder, torture and other maltreatment “but also to any other measures of brutality whether applied by civilian or military agents.” No physical or moral coercion, including murder or torture, may be exercised against protected persons in order to obtain information from them (Article 31).

29) Geneva Convention IV also makes provision in Article 5 for civilians (protected persons) who are suspected of engaging in activities hostile to the security of the State. Those persons are not entitled to claim the rights and privileges under the Convention. However, it is made clear that such persons are to be treated with “humanity”, which would clearly suggest that are protected from acts of torture and murder. While the obligation upon Australia is less clear in this instance of where it has detained persons who are engaging in such hostile activities (insurgents, terrorists etc), as a party to Geneva IV Australia has an obligation to ensure the Convention provisions are met.

TRANSFER OF PRISONERS OF WAR AND CIVILIAN DETAINEES

30) Geneva Convention III provides for the transfer of prisoners of war (POW) from a Detaining Power to an Accepting Power under Article 12. That Article makes clear that once prisoners are transferred the Accepting Power is to treat those prisoners in accordance with the provisions of the Convention and responsibility falls upon Accepting Power to meet those Convention obligations.

31) A Detaining Power which transfers POWs is not absolved of responsibility for the prisoners. The Detaining Power should:

a) At the time of transfer of POWs seek an assurance that the prisoners will be treated in accordance with the provisions of the Convention;

b) Upon becoming aware that the Accepting Power is not meeting its Convention obligations “take effective measures to correct the situation” or it may request the return of the prisoners.

32) Geneva Convention IV deals with civilians in occupied territories. The Convention refers to civilians as ‘Protected Persons’ (as opposed to combatants and non-combatants actively engaged in an armed conflict). Article 45 is in similar terms to Article 12 of Geneva Convention III. Protected Persons may be transferred by a Detaining Power to another Power who is a party to the Convention. Upon making the transfer the Detaining Power must be satisfied that the other Power will apply the terms of the Convention to those persons.

33) Australia, as a Detaining Power is not absolved of responsibility for any civilian detainees which it has transferred to either the US or UK. Under the terms of Geneva IV, upon becoming aware that the other Power is not meeting its Convention obligations it is to “take effective measures to correct the situation” or it may request the return of the prisoners.

34) The 23 March 2003 Agreement for the Transfer of Prisoners of War, Civilian Internees, and Civilian Detainees entered into between Australia, the UK and US is to be read consistent with Geneva Convention III and Geneva Convention IV (see clause 1). That Agreement provides for the procedures to be put in place for the transfer of prisoners and detainees between the parties, but does not derogate from the provisions of the Conventions, nor could it derogate from the provisions of the Convention from a perspective of international treaty law.

35) On 22 March 2003, the ADF reported that HMAS Kanimbla while patrolling offshore Iraq had taken up to 50 Iraqi POWs which were subsequently transferred to another Party.

36) Australia has ongoing obligations under Geneva III and Geneva IV for those POWs it detained and transferred to either the US or UK during the conflict period between March-May 2003, and for any civilians which it has detained since March 2003 to the present and transferred to either the US or UK.

37) Australia’s obligations towards both POWs, civilian detainees and civilian prisoners do not turn on whether Australia was, is, or remains an Occupying Power in Iraq.

WAR CRIMES AND CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY

38) The Geneva Conventions make reference to those acts which constitute war crimes under the Conventions. These acts may be subject to internal military discipline, national prosecution by the States whose personnel commit these crimes, or prosecution by the International Criminal Court (ICC) in cases where the ICC has jurisdiction and the prosecutor commences prosecution or where a State party refers a matter to the Court.

39) Grave breaches of Geneva III includes acts of:

Wilful killing;

Torture or inhuman treatment; and

Wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health (Article 130).

40) Grave breaches of Geneva IV include acts of:

Wilful killing;

Torture or inhuman treatment; and

Wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health (Article 147).

41) On the facts as they are currently available, there would seem to be compelling evidence that war crimes have been committed in Iraq through the murder and torture of Iraqi prisoners and detainees.

42) The 1998 Rome State of the International Criminal Court (ICC Statute) confers jurisdiction upon the ICC with respect to certain crimes (Article 5).

43) War Crimes are defined in the ICC Statute as being those which have been committed “as part of a plan or policy as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes”. War crimes include grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, and extend to:

Wilful killing;

Torture or inhuman treatment; and

Wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health.

44) Australia and the UK are parties to the ICC Statute; the US is not a party to the ICC Statute. Under both Australian and UK law, both countries have an obligation to prosecute nationals suspected of having committed war crimes as defined by the Geneva Conventions and the ICC Statute.

INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS STANDARDS AND OBLIGATIONS

45) In addition to principles of International Humanitarian Law, it is also arguable that the following international instruments are also applicable with respect to civilians detained in Iraq: 1948 Universal Declaration on Human Rights; 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; and 1984 Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Torture Convention). These instruments contain numerous provisions for the protection of prisoners, including the prohibition of torture.

46) Australia, the UK and US are parties to all of the above instruments, though in some instances subject to reservations.

STATUS OF OCCUPYING POWER POST 30 JUNE 2004

47) On 30 June 2004 it is planned to transfer sovereignty back to the Iraqi people. The exercise of Geneva Convention occupying power status post-30 June would be inconsistent with the notion that post-war Iraq has regained its sovereignty. Occupying Power status will therefore cease after this date.

48) Foreign military forces can remain in Iraq post 30 June 2004 at the invitation of the new Iraqi government. For Australia to reply upon this basis to justify its continuing military operations in Iraq it would require a formal request from the new Iraqi government.

49) It can be argued that continued foreign military presence in Iraq by the ‘Stabilization Force’ is authorised under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1511 adopted in October 2003. Whilst at all times recognizing Iraqi sovereignty, Resolution 1511 envisaged the creation of an interim Iraqi government, the holding of democratic elections, and the gradual restoration of full powers to national and local institutions. The first part of that timetable will be complete by 30 June 2004 handover. However the current UN mandate will continue until elections are held, though the Security Council will meet to review the operation of the multinational force prior to October this year.

50) UNSC Resolution 1511 does not adequately address post 30 June relationship between the members of the international ‘Stabilization Force’ and the Iraqi interim government. A new UNSC Resolution would be desirable to resolve this ambiguity.

51) It can be anticipated that the post 30 June interim Iraqi government would most likely not support the type of military force against its citizens of the kind used by the US in Falluja in April and May 2004. A new UNSC resolution would allow for clearer constraints on the use of force by international ‘Stabilization Force’ multinational forces as they engage in security and stability operations alongside newly trained members of an Iraqi Army and in cooperation with the Iraqi government.

CONCLUSIONS

52) At a minimum Australia assumed obligations under Geneva IV as an Occupying Power until 1 May 2004. However, it is arguable that in view of the continuing military operations and Australia’s ongoing engagement with the CPA, Australia and the other Occupying Powers remain bound by the core provisions of Geneva IV. These require detained civilians to be treated humanely. Protected persons may not be subject to coercion in order to obtain information (Article 31). In addition civilians must not be subjected to torture or other measures of brutality (Article 32).

53) Although it does not appear that Australia has at any time assumed responsibility in Iraq for detention facilities or prisons for either POWs or protected persons, Australia has an obligation under Geneva III and IV with respect to POWs, civilian prisoners and civilian detainees which it transferred to either the US or UK.

54) Australia is also under an obligation to “ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances” (Article 1). Arguably as an Occupying Power with ongoing obligations under Geneva IV, Australia has a special responsibility to ensure that other Occupying Powers respect their obligations under Geneva IV in relation to protected persons.

55) In addition to Geneva IV, the Occupying Powers are bound by the provisions of several human rights instruments, including the Torture Convention which applies to “any territory under [their] jurisdiction” (Article 2(1)). These standards remain binding and applicable irrespective of the status of the Occupying Powers according to the provisions of Geneva IV.

56) Occupying Power status will cease on and around 30 June 2004. However international forces may remain in Iraq after that day under the authorisation of UNSC Resolution 1511, though it would be desirable for a fresh UNSC Resolution to be adopted to clarify the relationship between those forces and the interim Iraqi government, the legal status of those forces, and limitations upon their use of force.