This piece was first published in the Sun Herald yesterday.

 

OK, it’s Howard and Bush v Latham at the federal election. Howard’s 2004 replica of his fear-and-anxiety 2001 Tampa victory is “Vote for me or the Yanks will abandon us”.

Venus crossing the sun last Tuesday – an event the world’s people watched in awe and that no one has seen since 1882 – heralded the confirmation of Howard’s and Latham’s war plans, and boy oh boy did their visions of who we are and what we stand for clash. Peter Garrett and the Bush boys bounced off each other to define the election battleground. It’s David v Goliath folks, and Latham must be praying we’ll live up to our reputation for backing the underdog.

Abstract thinkers have taken to calling Europe Venus and the US Mars. Which planet – which view of maximising the chances of peace and happiness – will we Aussies choose to hang our hats on in 2004?

Anti-war, anti-nuclear weapons campaigner Peter Garrett is a mainstream conservationist who brought greenies and farmers together to try to save our land and preserve our water, and who sang songs which made many of us feel proud to be Australian. Now Latham punches him into a safe seat. Latham really does want to smash the corrupt NSW Labor machine and, through sheer audacity, regenerate the Labor Party for the 21st century.

At the same time, the Bush dump on Latham beside a smugly smiling Howard in Washington was shown to be the launch of brutally explicit threats by the Bush administration to abandon the American alliance if we elect Latham. That is, Bush and Howard have agreed to do whatever it takes to get each other re-elected this year, whatever the cost.

Howard is confident he can scare us into voting for him again out of deliberately, cynically engineered fear. Then again, the transparency of the fear politics and its disregard for the national interest of either Australia or America might make some voters think a vote for Howard is a vote for Bush. Some might even think that a vote for Latham would encourage the American people to chuck Bush out and elect a sane, competent and decent administration that would increase the odds of peace and promote enduring Western values throughout the world.

The election campaign has begun, and I reckon Howard will make us vote in August to capitalise on the momentum he and his Bush mates are building before we work out their self-serving spin. Here’s what Web diarists think:

Rod Smith in Sydney: “This is risky and flamboyant politics by both Latham and Garrett and I love it. I’d vote for Garrett because he has always been true to what he believes in. I want Garrett to keep singing the songs of the Oils in his political life and inspire free thought and policy in Australian politics.”

Nick W: “As a committed Howard lover I am over the moon about Peter Garrett joining Labor. It’s just another nail in Labor’s coffin – now we have two outspoken anti-American MPs in the Labor Party. Australia will reject Labor – if they rejected a Hawkish pro-American Beazley then they’re not going to risk our alliance on Latham.”

Shannon Roy: “The bleating about the US alliance being on the table in this election is idiotic. It’s a strong alliance because Australia and the US need each other. We need our ‘great and powerful’ friend and they need their large, immobile aircraft carrier (we call it Australia) in the middle of the Pacific/Indian oceans – and a politically stable place to handle the information nexus of this hemisphere (Pine Gap et al). Don’t make the mistake of taking George W(MD) Bush at his word. That would simply compound the foolishness of having done it twice already.”

Chris Murphy: “Bush and his mates are clearly mad. Not content with severing friendship with long-serving European allies, they now threaten to turn their backs on one of their closest allies if its people employ their basic democratic rights. At least now we can be sure what ‘friendship’ really means.”

John Richardson in Sydney: “In asserting that torture is justified by ‘necessity and self-defence’, the Bush Administration has embraced the doctrine that the ends justify the means and that the law of the jungle should override the rule of law. Unless the morally bankrupt administrations of Bush, Blair and Howard are removed, we will all have become terrorists.”

Get the picture? This election will be wild, maybe the wildest since 1975. It’s the most important election in my lifetime. Are we prepared to insist on our independence and demand to be treated by America as a friend, not a slave? Does always saying yes to the United States mean that we can never say no?

Fasten your seatbelts for the “Never-say-no-to-the-Yanks-or-else” election.

***

READER QUOTE OF THE WEEK

Greg Carroll

“We can only hope that Latham sticks with the politics of hope and continues to assert Australia’s independence and national pride. It’s crash or crash through time for Latham, but I wouldn’t be too pessimistic. I reckon people know when a government is pissing all over them. Howard looks increasingly desperate, and running to Big Brother George for help won’t have much impact on how people vote. Maintain the rage!”

Wondering why the Prime Minister said that his favourite Midnight Oil song was ‘Beds are Burning’ (from ‘Diesel & Dust’)?

 

Webdiarist Mark Hayes in Brisbane does:

Remember back in August 2000, when the Olympics were on after hundreds of thousands of Australians showed their support for Aboriginal Reconciliation though the famous bridge walks and seas of hands? The Prime Minister had, and has, refused to apologise and say ‘Sorry’ to the Aboriginal people.

At the closing ceremony of the Games – that huge stadium party and concert broadcast live around the world to an audience of over one billion people – Midnight Oil, dressed in black track suits with the word ‘Sorry’ stencilled on them, ripped into ‘Beds are Burning’ before an ecstatic crowd.

Yothu Yindi followed up with ‘Treaty’.

The crowd at Olympic Stadium went berserk in screaming support, knowing exactly what was being done to shame the Government over Reconciliation.

Sitting in the audience with nowhere to run or hide, and no ‘I am advised’ to scuttle behind, Prime Minister Howard had no choice but to squirm and receive the huge, public, ‘F… You’ delivered loudly, proudly, and strongly by the Oils and Yothu Yindi.

He never forgets any slight delivered upon him, and exacts revenge whenever and wherever possible. This was a massive public rebuke at his meanness. And he won’t ever forget it.

That’s why his favourite Oils song is ‘Beds are Burning’, and he won’t sleep while his bed is burning for revenge against Labor for publicly embracing Peter Garrett, who delivered that most public of attacks on John Howard at what should have been one of his triumphant moments.”

Don�t those days seem too long ago. The last gasp of the old Australia before Howard�s makeover was complete, perhaps? Here�s what I wrote after at the time, in Cathy: the rights and wronged:

Cathy ”Freeman”, get it? Tonight, one of Australia’s most apolitical citizens climaxed the Olympics we had to have with an exclamation mark. As an Aboriginal Australian she won easily after coming from behind. When she’d done it and celebrated draped in the white and the black flag, she set us free to be us.

While buying champagne to celebrate her victory, I found myself in intense conversation with the checkout bloke and the next customer about the race. Everyone was ”stoked”, I think the Olympics cliche is.

To some political junkies, her victory was ”necessary”, an important symbol in the ongoing cultural wars over what we did, who we are and what we aspire to be. But what if she’d lost? If we really wanted her to win, how could we have asked her to light the flame, given that she had the biggest race of her life to run a few days later?

After the opening ceremony image of ”Freeman”, who could contemplate defeat? What would a loss do to our national pride after the spectacular sight of her, us, in the circle of fire? Didn’t she have every right to lose under the weight of all our hopes?

Perhaps she won because she cares only for the job she has chosen to do and is the best in the world at achieving that state of mind. But the way she won! We’d heard for days that ”Freeman” does only enough to win and no more. Last night, behind on the turn, she won by miles.

Last week, many letters to the editors of newspapers critiqued Cathy’s selection to light the flame. She hadn’t proved herself, some said. The choice was some sort of politically correct (ergo horrible) act by the elites. After all, she’d told a British newspaper recently that she strongly opposed John Howard’s refusal to apologise on behalf of the nation for the treatment its colonists had meted out to the original Australians, so that we could look at each other as equals.

That’s why she won by miles.

G�day. There�s an interesting vibe in Australian politics post the Venus phenomenon, eh? Webdiary�s Queens Birthday entry as we ponder our past and consider our future, is on the clash of Garrett and the Bush boys, by Webdiarists.

 

Harry Heidelberg suggests this Oils song as Labor’s election theme, from the album �Blue Sky Mining�.

ONE COUNTRY

Who’d like to change the world, who wants to shoot the curl

Who gets to work for bread, who wants to get ahead

Who hands out equal rights, who starts and ends that fight

And not not rant and rave, or end up a slave

Who can make hard won gains, fall like the summer rain

Now every man must be, what his life can be

So don’t call, me, the tune, I will walk away

*

Who want’s to please everyone, who says it all can be done

Still sit up on that fence, no-one I’ve heard of yet

Don’t call me baby, don’t talk in maybes

Don’t talk like has-beens, sing it like it should be

Who laughs at the nagging doubt, lying on a neon shroud

Just gotta touch someone, I want to be

So don’t…

*

(One country one, country one country)

*

Who wants to sit around, turn it up turn it down

Only a man can be, what his life can be

One vision, one people, one landmass, we are defenceless, we have a lifeline

One ocean, one policy, seabed lies, one passion, one movement, one instant

One difference, one lifetime, one understanding

Transgression, redemption, one island, our placemat, one firmament

One element, one moment, one fusion, yes and one time

***

Webdiarist Peter Best in Sydney is gloomy – heh Peter, play the song! Peter wrote:

In my darker hours I fear that Australians have dumbly accepted the replacement of old-fashioned values like honesty and kindness with the more thrusting business virtues of aggression, greed and mendacity. After all, the money-changers have swarmed into the Temple, thrown out the priests, sold off the icons and erased most of the Commandments while our Prime Minister beams approval.

Can he really regard himself as a Christian? It seems so, but these days the Christians in Washington and Canberra don’t seem to be reading the New Testament. Rather, the old testament looks like their text, with its vengeful God, its tribal bloodbaths and its focus on the Israelites.

I was bemoaning the flight from conscience to a friend when he raised a worrying point. Could it be that Howard hasn’t brought out the worst in us, but merely let our nature assert itself once more after an uncharacteristic period of compassion and tolerance that lasted from Whitlam’s election until Keating’s defeat? Perhaps we’re mostly greedy, brutal racists, relieved to again be allowed to behave as we wish with nobody – no Governor-general, no Prime Minister, no sporting hero – to reproach us or set an example.

Depressing, eh? But if the people can be swayed from empathy and social compassion to greedy self-interestedness by the exhortations and example of their community leaders surely there’s hope yet?

Mark Latham isn’t another Gough Whitlam, but he’s not another John Howard either. Howard has presided over administrations unrivalled in their corruption of parliament and of the national discourse; ministerial accountability has vanished, Jesuitical weasel-words like “core” and “non-core” have been thrust at us with a straight face, journalists buy every dummy pass that’s thrown and have no idea where the ball is any more.

I think – I fervently hope – that Australians can tell the difference between someone who “wasn’t told” and someone who lied, between a promise and a betrayal, between a threat to the nation and a threat to the coalition’s electoral prospects.

A few years ago we learned that there’s only so much destruction of our society the Australian people will tolerate. Remember Jeff Kennett?

***

RECOMMENDATIONS

JR: The Bush misleader website, �a daily chronicle of bush administration distortion.

Scott Burchill: Going to War Not Worth It, More Voters Say for the latest Americans� mood on Iraq, and ZNET for Chomsky�s �Doctrines And Visions: Who Is To Run The World, And How?� (search under Noam Chomsky):

�There is a curious performance under way right now among Western commentators, who are solemnly debating whether the Bush administration downgraded the “war on terror” in favour of its ambitions in Iraq. The only surprising aspect of the revelations of former Bush administration officials that provoked the debate is that anyone finds them surprising – particularly right now, when it is so clear that by invading Iraq the administration did just that: knowingly increased the threat of terror to achieve their goals in Iraq.

Jozef Imrich: Is US like Germany of the ’30s?: �Has the combination of the World Trade Center attack and a president who believes his instructions come from God unleashed the dark side of the American heritage?�

Carl Cranstone: Bush’s Erratic Behavior Worries White House Aides

Ian Read: For you and your readers’ information, the Pentagon Torture Memo that Ashcroft refuses to release can be downloaded at what really happened

Adam Fenderson in Melbourne: Thank you for helping bring the issue of oil depletion to a wider audience (Oils ain’t just oils, they’re to die for and Deputy PM confirms oil crisis). Readers in Melbourne are invited to the screening of The END of SUBURBIA, a film about Peak Oil, on June 29.

Darren Urquhart: Have a look at Coup D’etat: The Real Reason Tenet and Pavitt Resigned from the CIA on June 3rd and 4th, Bush, Cheney Indictments in Plame Case Looming, by Michael C. Ruppert. It seemed pretty way-out until I read the 5 preceding articles he refers to in paragraph 5. He has been on the money for some time.

Mark Kelly, Townsville: A few tenacious souls on the ground in Iraq have been working to record local civilian injuries and fatalities during the ‘clean’ war. It is depressing. I just hope humanity in the UK, US and here exercises a collective democratic statement during 2004 and sweeps out the ‘hear no evil, see no evil’ monkeys that are presently ‘governing’ us.

A federal public servant: For those who haven�t read it, please read Al Gore�s on May 26. I have taken a lot of heart from the speech – it really is one of the great commentaries about the Bush’s administration handling of the Iraq conflict. It was run in full on Bruce Springsteen’s website.

***

THE BUSH/HOWARD, LATHAM/GARRETT SHOW

Peter Woodforde in Canberra: “Having finished with Mark Latham, will the Bush White House now turn its guns on Play School? I mean, poor old John Anderson can’t be expected to do the War on Lesbians by himself, can he?”

Mike Lyvers in Queensland: “Mark Latham praised Peter Garrett for his “passion” and “commitment” to politics. Then it turns out Garrett hasn’t even voted in 10 years! Such “passion,” such “commitment” indeed! I had a good laugh out of this incident, however sad for the Labor party.”

Michelle Wright: Re Peter Garrett, I think every election has its own special twist. If a person who has not bothered to vote for 10 years is now motivated enough to run for parliament, and if people like me are motivated enough to actively agitate for change, then maybe this is the “twist” and “energy” of election 2004.

Nick Porecki: Did Peter vote or didn’t he? Who are we to believe – poor little whingeing John or Peter Garrett? Who has a track record of lying through his teeth at every opportunity? It’s your word against Peters word John – why should I believe you?

Steve: You suggested in Howard’s 2004 Tampa: director George Bush that the election could be as early as 7th August. My neighbour studies political science and history and told me about two weeks ago that the Libs have already booked their standard election night haunt in Sydney for August 7.

***

Shannon Roy

As I was (until recently) an enrolled elector in P Garrett’s “safe seat”, a friend recently asked me if I’d vote for him. I would vote for him for two reasons:

1. The Labor party needs talent. I have seen Garrett (in my former life as an employee at his music company) run a fractious band and actually achieve consensus among a large group (Oils were a BIG band) of musicians and label drones, people generally noted for their individuality and strong dislike for authority or “toeing the line”. He has leadership and consensus building skills that are top-class, a sharp mind, and a clear voice. His weakness would be that people perceive him as a screamer; actually he’s a principled compromiser and that’s the soul of a good politician. It’s the unprincipled compromisers that get us into trouble.

2. I long ago resigned myself to voting for the party that was “most likely to be the party I would feel happy about voting for” – therefore I would vote for whomever Labor selected in that seat. I have MANY bones to pick with Labor policies past and present, but they are FAR more likely to do things I want than the other side.

So let’s talk about the “other side”. Unlike many I think John Howard is a phenomenal leader who has led Australia extremely well. I never voted for him, or his party, and I know we all secretly want to follow our parties like football teams and scream from the stands for the blood of the other side whatever the evidence, but let’s just consider the evidence for a moment.

1. We shouldn’t have gone to Iraq for reasons that should be clear to all but the screaming supporters of the other football team, but now that we’ve participated in bombing it to hell, destroying its infrastructure and dropping it into massive danger of erupting into all out chaos, pulling the troops out and saying “f� you” to the Iraqis is morally bankrupt. We erred, as a country. So we must put it right. Otherwise we’re not worth spit.

2. Remember, John Howard is gun laws (after the NSW experience Labor would never have done the same thing); John Howard is East Timor (after Keating’s comprehensive rimming of Suharto they never would have gone); John Howard is fiscal austerity in the good times which means Australia survived the Asian crisis which would have left a Labor government with a mountain of debt and no way out.

3. BUT John is also asylum seekers, which although a poison chalice which kills everyone who sips it, does need to be handled ethically. Remember Crean’s position was also mandatory detention. Remember that similar regimes exist all around the world and compared to many others ours is humane and generous. But it’s still wrong, and this is one area I think Labor could have done better, and hopefully will do better. And Howard’s other negative things, too, some fairly on his shoulders, and some, like uni fees, just a small step away from what Labor introduced in their long run (I marched against HECS, for example, which blind Freddy could see would lead to full fees).

Australians know all these things, which is why John keeps being elected, football mentality of the general voter or no. He is the most powerful Australian politician of our times. He has managed to make phenomenal positive changes in our economic life (for a small over governed economy like ours, the GST was the right move and Keating knew it). That and a massive lack of talent in Labor ranks have made it hard voting in Australia. We’ve two centre parties, and only one has had any real mandate in the “conservative capitalist” backlash that was the 90s.

Now we’re in a new era, the “terror” era, maybe Labor should have a go again.

One last thing: the idiotic bleating that’s going on at the moment about the US Alliance being on the table in this election is just that, idiotic. It’s a strong alliance because Australia and the US need each other. We need our “great and powerful”. They need their large, immobile aircraft carrier (we call it Australia) in the middle of the Pacific/Indian oceans and a politically stable place to handle the information nexus of this hemisphere (Pine Gap et al). There’s no way those two things are going away.

Don’t make the mistake of taking George W(MD) Bush at his word. That would simply compound the foolishness of having done it twice already.

*

P. Doyle

I have too much time on my hands, so I’m familiar with some of your writings. I can’t remember agreeing with a single word, but there is something strangely appealing about reading your nonsense.

I suppose it�s not so much the nonsense itself, but rather the place at which the nonsense resides. That is, how long will Fairfax allow such desperately silly and biased writings to continue and or increase? Is the Sydney Morning Herald immune to embarrassment?

Let me be more specific, starting with Stage set for David and Goliath battle. I think most readers immediately identify and scoff at such gratuitous lunges for underdog status, I know I did. I think most regard such lunges for underdog status, at least in relation to a political contest, as a byword. (Oh, and by the way, David was a conservative.)

I skipped passed your first, second and third paragraphs quite quickly. Although I did laugh at the usage of inverted comma’s girding your own thoughts. And I was delightfully baffled as you managed to make the astronomically significant Venus crossing sound so jingoistic. “Abstract thinkers” was also noted with a grin. (In 4000 odd years of “peace and happiness” have the Europeans ever gone a decade without an armed conflict? If history is any guide, I’ll hang my hat on Mars).

But the first real little Margo surprise came soon after, when you called the NSW Labor “machine”, corrupt! The mind boggles, as would their’s, as should your editors. What a hide you have. Not an eyebrow raised I bet, as you slipped in another monumentally cheap slur.

You describe Bush as having dumped on Latham, with “brutally explicit threats”. Again would you not be better served, by being less ridiculous (or deceitful)? Have a second look. How would you describe these comments made by Bush “It would be a disastrous decision for the leader of a great country like Australia to say that we’re pulling out”; “It would dispirit those who love freedom in Iraq.� Margo, could any fair, reasonable, or dare I say, sane individual, describe such comments as being “brutally explicit threats”? (Margo: I was referring to the threats by Armitage post Bush.)

Having already consumed more rubbish then any SMH reader should ever have to stomach, I lamentably continued. So please help me now Margo. What should I do next? I’ve just read “Howard is confident he can scare us into voting for him again out of deliberately, cynically engineered fear.”

Of course, I’ve encountered irony and hypocrisy before. But not to such an extent. I’m perplexed. Do I laugh, weep, or waste a few more minutes typing.

Actually, perhaps neither. I think I’ll wait until the election is one and lost, before weeping with laughter and finishing this e-mail.

*

Brad Spence in Newcastle

While I read your column every chance I get, I am reluctant to write to you as my thoughts can not be expressed with the same effectiveness of your other writers. However I have followed the comments of the US administration over recent weeks with some alarm.

Below is a copy of the thoughts I emailed to The Australian on the subject after reading a Paul Kelly story. I am not a gifted writer but I can not sit by and watch what happening to the media without trying to express my concern.

“Over the years The Australian finally lifted itself from the self-serving muck that saw it run the Labor Government out of office in the 1970s and hence became the balanced national newspaper we needed. Now when we need you the most, you have reverted to type.

�Whether or not Labor�s Iraqi policy is correct, America cannot treat the alliance, our economy and independence with such arrogance and manipulations. Is the alliance and the FTA (the worth of which is already under serious question) reliant on our 800 odd troops staying in Iraqi and not electing a Labor government?

When did we stop being an ally and become a subservient guest in the presence of the almighty? Why are you not asking these questions? Why not challenge both Armitage and Howard?

How could you claim that removing 800 troops 6 months after the handover of power would recruit more people to the terrorist cause than what America has been doing to the population! That is folly at best and a misrepresentation of the truth at worst.

We need the Australian to expose the truth for the benefit of Australia, not aimlessly follow the line of an overseas power to appease the boss.

***

Guido Tresoldi, an ALP member in Melbourne

Howard has tried to find a new ‘Tampa’ for some time now. But in my opinion unlike Tampa, what Howard with the help of the USA administration is doing is a double edged sword for him.

I don’t think any Australians would like anyone to threaten or blackmail them with threats of �behave or else�. While we resent powerful friends telling us what to do. we tend to run to them when we feel threatened. The only way Howards’ strategy will work is if we feel scared enough to want protection. This situation reminded me of when I was a child in Italy.

In Italy the late 70s early 80s were called ‘anni di piombo’, years of lead, where the red brigades and neo-fascist groups used violence to unbalance the state. In those years it was not uncommon for conspiracy theories to abound. One of the main ones was when in the 70s the Communist Party was on the verge of victory. This would have had huge geopolitical implications in the Cold War, considering Italy was a very important member of NATO.

Before the election campaign there was a spate of terrorist attacks, which were attributed to ‘communist terrorists’ although the red brigades did not claim to be responsible for them. The conspiracy theory was that the terrorism was sponsored by the USA in order to scare the populace to vote for the Christian Democrats (something that did happen).

This set me thinking about what George Bush said about Latham’s policies. It is interesting to note how Australia, a country that really the USA has not much interest in, has become a very important symbolic partner in Iraq.

If Australia withdrew its troops, it would have a really small impact on the ground, but it would have a major impact psychologically.

Now, if Howard is really looking down the gurgler, what would swing votes back to him (I’m not suggesting he would ever contemplate this). A little explosion somewhere in Australia? It would not need to hurt anyone. Anywhere in Canberra on a weekend could not hurt anyone even if it tried, considering the flight out of the place on a Friday night. (I’m not suggesting he would ever contemplate this).

This, helped by the pro-Howard commentariat emphasising that Latham would be too risky in such a dangerous time, would do the trick. What a Tampa opportunity, and the American neo-con administration would still have their man of steel.

***

Sacha Blumen in Sydney

I often enjoy reading your articles, and Howard’s 2004 Tampa: director George Bush was no exception. I’m glad at least one person in the media believes that truth and reality should be the basis for governments’ actions, and that they should be truthful with the population.

Unfortunately these self-evident notions seem to be foreign to Howard et al and it seems that he and his mates are prepared, as you state, to win at all costs – that seems to be all they care about. Stuff telling the Australian people the truth of their actions, inactions or the motives behind them, let alone attempt to have the best possible policies.

I was distraught at the idea, before the 2001 federal election, that Howard could win that election by running a campaign based on fear and people’s underlying prejudices and hatreds. I thought (and still think) that it was shocking that they should run such a campaign – and to my mind it was enough to morally disqualify them from running the country. Kim Beazley was correct when he called them “a gang of thugs” after the election. A shame he wasn’t so blunt beforehand.

Often I wonder what I can do to help get rid of this dreadful mob. I really don’t know. At the moment I’m trying to finish my PhD thesis, which is challenging enough, and I don’t have much time. I gain some satisfaction from writing e-mails to federal ministers demanding reasons for their latest appalling statment, but the responses, if any, are usually unsatisfactory.

Sometimes I despair – why can’t we at least have people with good hearts in politics – that would be a massive improvement on the current federal government. I don’t usually agree with conservative politicians, but it would be much better if conservatives with good intentions and good hearts went into the conservative parties so there could be proper debates about ideas and policies – not these so-called debates often apparently spurred by the desire to appeal to prejudice and fear.

I believe that political life would be grately improved if the ideas floating around it were informed by imagination and open minds. Do you think that’s possible? (Margo: Yes, if we make it so.)

*

Steve Turbit, ALP member

It is pretty obvious what Howard is up to here. He is trying to use the Americans to help get him reelected, and as usual he will stop at NOTHING! He’s even got the Governor-General in on the act.

However, I think this one may backfire on him. If you look at the ninemsn poll, 67% of the respondents think that the United States is getting too heavily involved in our domestic politics. Australians don’t like anyone, but particularly the Yanks, butting in and telling us what to do an how to run our affairs. This is a big gamble by Howard – it may pay off but I really don’t think so.

I think Howard’s tactic is to set up a number of fronts and hope that one or more will pay off. You have the disgraceful Medicare propaganda ads paid for by us, the huge budget bribes, the gay marriage bill, the Auslink bribe, and the Iraq tactics that he’s getting help with from the Americans just to name a few. I think Howard is running out of ideas, and I think he’s WORRIED – seriously. He’s starting to look a little more than desperate, and that is a good sign. The shoulder twitch is back. There is still a long way to go and anything could happen, but I think we might be starting to see the beginning of the end. The important thing at this point is not to drop the guard and underestimate him.

One of my friends commented a couple of weeks ago that he can see some comparisons with the current Howard Government and the dying days of the Keating Government. I can see his point. All the messages that the Government is trying to send to the electorate are being drowned out by Ministerial scandals and stuff-ups along with more bad news from Iraq.

Also, like Howard in 1996, Latham is showing incredible tenacity. He won’t back down, and actually I think he’s starting to prevail on Iraq. Once he makes his mind up on something he sticks to it through thick and thin. This makes him look strong and decisive. And he refuses to lose his cool.

And for those who choose to remember, the economy wasn’t in trouble in 1996 either. It had recovered and was putting along quite sweetly. Keating and Hawke survived bad economy elections, and I actually think that people feel better about ejecting a government at a time of economic certainty rather than uncertainty. So don’t think a strong economy will keep the Government alive.

I hope I am proven to be right. What do you think? (Margo: I think Labor will always lose an election campaign on race or the American Alliance, unless the leader is brave enough to do something seriously special, and damn the risk.)

*

Sasha Marker in Sydney

I am concerned and alarmed at the suspicious lack of response in the media regarding the impending increase of US military personnel and equipment on Australian shores. Coupled with the story in the SMH about the massive US troop withdrawal from South Korea, it might be possible to put two and two together and conclude that the US military mean to set up shop permanently in Australia, whether we want them to or not. And, I have to wonder if our government signed and sealed this bargain when it prostituted itself to the US for their war on terror.

I first heard about American military designs for a greater military presence in Australia in 1997. My ex-spouse was a lowly NCO (with a security clearance) and it seemed to be a fairly common topic of conversation among the Marines that northern Australia was the preferred location for another US military installation.

The Marines think of Australia quite fondly and Waltzing Matilda is played every morning in Camp Pendleton, San Diego at 7:30am as it is the official hymn for the 1st Marine Corp division stationed there. They would love to come. I remember laughing and telling my ex that no Australian government would be stupid enough to allow it. Alas, we have finally descended to the necessary levels of stupidity.

After living in East Asia (Korea and Japan), I’ve seen and heard first hand some of the problems associated with having a permanent US military presence (outside of spy bases) in a foreign country and I am appalled that the Australia government would even consider it. No amount of profit will ever be worth it. With the Australian press turning the other cheek to this, I was just wondering if there is any sense of collective outrage somewhere or is it just me?

Page one of the Sydney Morning Herald today said it all. It�s gunna be the beds are burning election, alright. There�s Garrett glaring at the camera, strong, passionate and angry, nailing his colours to the �Anyone But Howard� mast. And beside him, the Bush administration�s latest, most extreme threat to dump the American Alliance if Australians dare elect Mark Latham: “Think about life without the US, says Bush�s man.” (and see Armitage on Lateline last night).

 

Howard knows he�s got his 2004 Tampa: director George Bush and Latham knows it too. In 2001 the fear politics was headlined �WE will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come�. In 2004, it is �We will do everything the Republican Americans tell us to because we hope that if we do they�ll look after us in the course of their endless empire wars.� This time, it�s Latham who might defiantly assert: �WE will decide when we go to war and the circumstances in which we go and leave.�

To save their careers, Howard and Bush have made a Faustian pact to change Australia into the 51st state � without voting rights � after making Australians too frightened to freely exercise their democratic vote. Bush led the campaign, then Richard Armitage turned the screws in serial interviews with Australian media. Today, a convenient charging of David Hicks, whose incarceration without charge or trial in Guantanamo Bay for more than two years was getting excruciating for Howard. And on Sunday, Colin Powell will join the pack through an interview with the ABC Insider�s program. There�ll be more, much more, as Howard presses more firmly on his red button before, if his scheme goes well, calling an early �Say yes to the Yanks or else� election.

Garrett�s recruitment to Labor symbolises Latham’s determination to call Bush�s bluff in Tampa Mark II. Wild politics, folks. Seriously wild.

Howard and Bush -v- Latham looks like the sort of David and Goliath battle Australians might enjoy. Will they be consumed with fear of America deserting us and put back Howard? Or will they realise that this extraordinarily brutal Bush administration bullying is all about helping Bush and Howard win their respective elections. A vote for Howard is a vote for Bush. A vote for Latham is a statement that we�d like the American presidency to return to sane, competent and decent leadership.

John Howard knows how high he�s raised the stakes with his devil�s deal to put the Alliance on the table to save his career. Yesterday, Perth ABC’ radio�s Liam Bartlett asked Howard to reveal his favourite Peter Garrett song:

PRIME MINISTER: Oh, I quite like Beds are Burning.

BARTLETT: Do you? What about US Forces?

PRIME MINISTER: Pass!

So here it is, Australia�s John Howard�s election theme for the most important election in my lifetime. Funny it�s about Land Rights. A fair Go. A statement of who Australians are and what we believe in to which Howard does not subscribe. Maybe he liked it because it reminded him what he hated about Australia. Then, �US Forces�, the Oils anthem Howard passed on.

Midnight Oil – Beds are Burning

Out where the river broke

The bloodwood and the desert oak

Holden wrecks and boiling diesels

Steam in forty five degrees

*

The time has come

To say fair’s fair

To pay the rent

To pay our share

The time has come

A fact’s a fact

It belongs to them

Let’s give it back

*

How can we dance when our earth is turning

How do we sleep while our beds are burning

*

Four wheels scare the cockatoos

From Kintore East to Yuendemu

The western desert lives and breathes

In forty five degrees

***

Midnight Oil – U.S. FORCES

US forces give the nod

it’s a setback for your country

bombs and trenches all in rows

bombs and threats still ask for more

*

divided world the CIA

who controls the issue

you leave us with no time to talk

you can write your own assessment

*

sing me songs of no denying

seems to me too many trying

waiting for the next big thing

*

will you know it when you see it?

high risk children dogs of war

now market movements call the shots

business deals in parking lots

waiting for the meat of tomorrow

*

everyone is too stoned to start emission

people too scared to go to prison

we’re unable to make decisions

political party line don’t cross that floor

L. Ron Hubbard can’t save your life

superboy takes a plutonium wife

in the shadows of ban the bomb we live.

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.

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.

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.

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.

G’day. I feel that knowing the detail of prisoner of war law is the key to emerging evidence that Australia has connived in the abandonment of the Geneva Conventions. The government seems to have attempted to contract out of its solemn responsibilities under the Conventions by not knowing, or pretending not to know, what the Americans have been doing in Abu Ghraib and other Iraqi prisons. It’s like children overboard – just about every public servant in Canberra knew long before election day 2001 that no kids had been thrown overboard, but somehow, some way, a corrupt pact between senior public servants and the government allowed the latter to argue that it had never been told. Rewards followed for the public service and government staff conspirators.

Today I publish the official document setting out the agreement between the invaders – The U.S., the U.K. and Australia on the Geneva Conventions in Iraq. We learned in Senate Estimates this week that an unwritten side deal was made between Australia and America that when our soldiers detained an Iraqi, we would hand him over to any American we could find and pretend the American had detained him, thus artificially avoiding our obligations as the “detaining power” to ensure that the “transferring power” not torture our prisoners of war (see the postscript to Did our government lie to us to protect America?) This was taken, it seems, to ludicrous lengths. For example, Australians on HMAS Kanimbla detained and transported Iraqi prisoners, but Cosgrove argued in Senate Estimates that somehow, some way, the prisoners were actually detained by “US coastguard personnel”.

We have also sought to avoid our responsibilities by claiming that Australia is not an “occupying power”, which imposes obligations to protest at abuses which come our to our attention and, if necessary, request the return of prisoners we’ve detained to our custody. See Our ‘special responsibility’ betrayed at Abu Ghraib for the legal opinion of one of Australia’s leading international lawyers, Professor Don Rothwell, that Australia IS an occupying power. Most international lawyers agree, and it will come as no surprise that the government has not released its legal advice to the contrary.

In my view, one reason for the cover-up of Australia’s knowledge is the desire to avoid the appearance of having abandoned the Geneva Conventions, when Australian military lawyers were intimately involved in preparing untenable legal assertions that torture at Abu Ghraib did not breach the Conventions. Australian officers also played the central role in dealing with the Red Cross during its visits to Abu Ghraib.

Rothwell is one of many international lawyers incredulous that military lawyers would not have immediately reported as a matter of utmost urgency to Canberra the details of multiple serious breaches of the Geneva Conventions detailed by the October Red Cross report. Remember, that report preceded more shocking abuses in November photographed for the world by some of the perpetrators. And remember that the Americans only got stuck into at least appearing to clean up their torture palace in January, after a brave American soldier slipped some torture pornography under a senior officer’s door. Could we have made a difference? Maybe not, but it had to be worth a bloody good try.

The Australian military knows very well that the safety of Australian prisoners of war could depend on our record – indeed, that our compliance with the Geneva Conventions is the only real power we have to reduce the risk of torture of our people.

Was there an instruction to close eyes? Or did the entire public service know, after Howard’s refusal to protest in any way about the illegal detention of Hicks and Habib in Guantanamo Bay that they’d be hung, drawn and quartered if they dared tell Defence Minister Hill, Foreign Affairs Minister Alexander Downer or Attorney-General Amanda Vanstone about it? It is so convenient that Howard now says he SHOULD have been told and that OF COURSE he’d have protested if he had. Far too convenient.

Because of what is claimed to be the failure of these minister’s departments to draw the pending debacle at Abu Ghraib to political attention, Robert Hill can smugly give evidence in Senate Estimates suggesting that Australia complies not only with its legal obligations, but its ‘moral’ – remember that word? – responsibility to ensure to the best of its ability that the Geneva Conventions are complied with by our partners in war.

He acknowledged that the abuses reported by the Red Cross in October last year were serious, and continued:

“Our interest is really the interest of a party that believes in the Geneva Convention and humanitarian treatment of individuals, not only according to the law but in the spirit of those documents. We talk at a political level…to other parties who have authority or influence in these issues.”

So we’re assured that if they’d been told, Hill and Howard would have queried the senior American military and occupation officers they met in Iraq this year before the scandal broke. Believe that, and you believe pigs fly. The fact that there are no casualties in the public service or the government after this debacle is testament to Howard and co’s real feelings on the subject.

The interest of this government is always about appearance, not reality. Let’s hope no Australian ends up paying an awful price for that policy.

AN ARRANGEMENT FOR THE TRANSFER OF PRISONERS OF WAR, CIVILIAN INTERNEES, AND CIVILIAN DETAINEES BETWEEN THE FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND, AND AUSTRALIA.

This arrangement establishes procedures in the event of the transfer from the custody of either the US, UK, or Australian forces to the custody of any of the other parties, any Prisoners of War, Civilian Internees, and Civilian Detainees taken during operations against Iraq. The Parties undertake as follows:

1. This arrangement will be implemented in accordance with the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War and the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, as well as customary international law.

2. US, UK, and Australian forces will, as mutually determined, accept (as Accepting Powers) prisoners of war, civilian internees, and civilian detainees who have fallen into the power of any of the other parties (the Detaining Power), and will be responsible for maintaining and safeguarding all such individuals whose custody has been transferred to them. Transfers of prisoners of war, civilian internees, and civilian detainees between Accepting Powers may take place as mutually determined by both the Accepting Power and the Detaining Power.

3. Arrangements to transfer prisoners of war, civilian internees. and civilian detainees who are casualties will be expedited, in order that they may be treated according to their medical priority. All such transfers will be administered and recorded within the systems established under this arrangement for the transfer of prisoners of war, civilian internees, and civilian detainees.

4. Any prisoners of war, civilian internees, and civilian detainees transferred by a Detaining Power will be returned by the Accepting Power to the Detaining Power without delay upon request by the Detaining Power.

5. The release or repatriation or removal to territories outside Iraq of transferred prisoners of war, civilian internees, and civilian detainees will only be made upon the mutual arrangement of the Detaining Power and the Accepting Power.

6. The Detaining Power will retain full rights of access to any prisoners of war, civilian internees, and civilian detainees transferred from Detaining Power custody while such persons are in the custody of the Accepting Power.

7. The Accepting Power will be responsible for the accurate accountability of all prisoners of war, civilian internees, and civilian detainees transferred to it. Such records will be available for inspection by the Detaining Power upon request. If prisoners of war, civilian internees. or civilian detainees are returned to the Detaining Power, the records (or a true copy of the same) relating to those prisoners of war, civilian internees, and civilian detainees will also be handed over.

8. The Detaining Powers will assign liaison officers to Accepting Powers order to facilitate the implementation of this arrangement.

9. The Detaining Power will be solely responsible for the classification under Articles 4 and 5 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of potential prisoners of war captured by its forces. Prior to such a determination being made, such detainees will be treated as prisoners of war and afforded all the rights and protections of the Convention even if transferred to the custody of an Accepting Power.

10. Where there is doubt as to which party is the Detaining Power, all Parties will be jointly responsible for and have full access to all persons detained (and any records concerning their treatment) until the Detaining Power has by mutual arrangement been determined.

11. To the extent that jurisdiction may be exercised for criminal offenses, to include pre-capture offenses, allegedly committed by prisoners of war, civilian internees, and civilian detainees prior to a transfer to an Accepting Power, primary jurisdiction will initially rest with the Detaining Power. Detaining Powers will give favorable consideration to any request by an Accepting Power to waive jurisdiction.

12. Primary jurisdiction over breaches of disciplinary regulations and judicial offenses allegedly committed by prisoners of war, civilian internees, and civilian detainees after transfer to an Accepting Power will rest with the Accepting Power.

13. The Detaining Power will reimburse the Accepting Power for the costs involved in maintaining prisoners of war, civilian internees, and civilian detainees transferred pursuant to this arrangement.

14. At the request of one of the Parties, the Parties will consult on the implementation of this arrangement.

Done at Camp As Sayliyah, Doha, Qatar on this 23rd day of March 2003.

For the United States of America: John P. Abizaud, LTG, USA, United States Central Command

For the United Kingdom of Great Britain And Northern Ireland: B.K. Burridge, Air Marshall, United Kingdom National Contingent Commander

For and on behalf of Australia: M. R. McNarn, Brigadier, Commander Australian National Headquarters

The plot thickens. The chief of the defence force General Cosgrove has been caught misleading the people yet again. He told Senate Estimates this week that Australia had an agreement with the Americans that they would detain POWs in Iraq on our behalf so we could avoid our responsibilities under the Geneva Conventions to ensure they were not tortured. Today, �Defence Minister� Robert Hill � the bloke so desperate to avoid the truth coming out about our increasingly obvious complicity in American war crimes at Abu Ghraib that he banned the key witness, Major O�Kane, from telling his story – admitted there was no such agreement.

 

There was an agreement for Afghanistan, a vastly different war – which the ADF now can�t find, Hill says – but nothing for Iraq. That means there is no legal basis for us to palm off our responsibilities. That means, perhaps, that the agreement made for Iraq on March 23, 2003requiring detaining powers to meet their Geneva Convention obligations stands. And that would mean that we did have a duty to protect the 59 Iraqis even Hill admits Australians captured from American torture, and that we did have a duty to do what we could to stop the blatant American breaches of the Geneva Conventions once they came to our attention last November. (Although we do anyway according to most international lawyers – see Our ‘special responsibility’ betrayed at Abu Ghraib.)

Bloody hell!! Sometimes, just sometimes, politicians who want the people to believe the opposite of the truth get trapped by their own spin. Let�s hope it�s not too late for our proud and honourable military tradition to be saved. Come on, whistleblowers, now�s your best chance to clean out the yes men from defence ‘leadership’ and expose the political monsters who�ve misused and humiliated the force ever since �Tampa� and children overboard and relentlessly co-opted it to bolster their political fortunes.

For those of you who remember your ‘unthrown children’ history, the progress of this scandal is deja vu. Last time, Howard ordered an inquiry by his own department, which, of course, produced a cover-up of the cover-up. So the Senate called an inquiry, which found out lots, but couldn’t nail the real culprits – Reith and co – because the government banned staffers and key public service witnesses from giving evidence. We’re at the second stage now – the farce of a Defence force and department ‘Fact Finding’ inquiry into themselves. Why not an independent inquiry to get the bloody truth! Because truth hurts a government which ditched truth as a concept a long time ago. Revolting.

Tonight, long time Webdiarist Peter Funnell in Canberra, an ex soldier whose Dad was a POW in World War 11, lets fly.

***

Peter Funnell

Look mate, I have written this while I am white hot. It may not be worth much, but I reckon I know what these buggers have been up to. Whenever I think it can’t get any worse with the Howard Government, they top their last effort. Where is all this taking our nation? You know, sometimes things get so bloody broken they don’t go back together. How much more of this crap is there to find.

I am not a lawyer, but I was soldier for a long time. My father was a POW of the Japanese and I met plenty of his POW mates over many years. I can’t imagine any of them supporting what has gone on in Iraq jails while we helped hold the keys to the doors. This is how I see it.

It begins with illegal arrangements at Guantanamo Bay, arrangements that are so unfathomable that the US courts have great difficulty working out the status of those inside and whether they have rights in the US legal process. The US does not call them prisoners of war, they are detainees. The “detainees” were out of sight if not out of mind and the practices that would follow in Iraq were established there, then exported as acceptable operational practice to operations in Iraq.

As participants in the Afghanistan war, we were a party to all of this process. Two of our citizens are detainees. The Australian Government has made no effort to challenge this grotesque distortion of the accepted intentions conventions for the handling of those enemy combatants captured during operations. Our Government has now most reluctantly acknowledged the plight of our citizens, concealing their real intentions behind the proposition that there is nothing they can do. They care to do nothing.

It is against this background that the framework for operations where POWs were concerned in Iraq was established. Bad, wrong and illegal was about to get worse.

The real operational problem for the Australian military is that some elements of the forces deployed in Iraq would be very likely to capture Iraqis in battle. It could happen tonight if the small protection element gets into a fire fight with militia or others who may try to attack the personnel they are there to protect. They will go straight to the US yet you can bet there will not be a US soldier in sight at the time of capture. The whole business is too cute by half. But I get ahead of myself.

Australian military commanders obviously did not want to have full responsibility for POWs. That is to say, they did not want to run POW holding camps, so they made arrangements to had them over to the US who were going to establish these facilities. All correct so far – someone had to do it. (Margo: It now seems they didn’t – why not?! Did they agree on something they didn’t want to put in writing?) As expert contributors to Webdiary clearly point out, Australia still had continuing obligations to those they captured and handed over. It is inconceivable to me that these obligations were not known to Australian military commanders and planners. The Minister’s hazy recollection of an arrangement indicates it was planned for and covered in briefings.

I would suggest that the Army legal corps officers in place with the coalition headquarters knew exactly what was required in these matters. The conventions with regard to handling of and obligations to POWs are not hard to read and comprehend. The handling arrangements for POWs is a standard component of battlefield orders down to the smallest infantry unit – the rifle section. It is that basic!

But things had changed. The operational framework for POWs and their subsequent handling and interrogation was now well established. That is not to say that any one individual would support the foul goings on in the Iraqi prisons, but it does mean that everyone had become accepting of the US led approach to the abandonment of those parts of the international conventions for the handling of POWs that no longer suited. This was a juggernaut in motion.

When I first heard that an Australian army officer from the legal corps had been to the prison and made comment up his chain of command and that the information had not got to Minister or government I thought � that poor bastard, he’ll be hung out to dry. He’s conveniently expendable.

This is a fit up! When Cosgrove did his usual arm-in-arm with the Minister and PM and damned the officer with faint praise by referring to him as a junior officer (not correct by any means), I just knew the fix was in. The mystery to me was why the defence department Secretary and the Chief of the Defence Force were prepared to let defence and the ADF take such a fierce hit, to be made to look so deceitful, unprofessional and untruthful. Why?

The idea that some misguided military officer stuck the crucial October Red Cross report delivered by O’Kane after the Abu Ghraib scandal broke in the bottom draw of a filing cabinet and no one was the wiser is not believable.

Revelations about the army officers concerned did in Iraq plumbs darker possibilities. The fact that more than one officer visited Abu Ghraib many times can only be interpreted two ways. They were alarmed by what they saw and kept going back to verify the situation, or they understood the operational environment and were part of the wider process by which it all happened. It seems these officers were involved in preparing responses to the Red Cross, they were on the inside of this business.

It’s astonishing, for it clearly implies that this really was something to which we were a willing party.

This is where the credibility gap widens enormously. The likelihood that this aspect of the war in Iraq was confined to a few (like who by the way?) is just so much crap. It’s not the way the Army or the ADF works. People have to tell and do and they tell others that need to know.

If the CDF really didn’t know, he should leave the Service tomorrow. If the Secretary didn’t know, he should find other employment. If they knew and concealed it they have no excuse. If they knew and concealed it because they mistakenly thought they were acting in the nations or the ADF’s best interests, they were wrong and have no right to hold the offices they presently occupy.

The truth is probably as simple as it is dangerous for our democracy. It’s not unreasonable to conclude the worst. There has been too much spin, and it�s been too hard to get information out of these the flow accordingly, or that the same senior leadership is grossly incompetent. The lone incompetent is not a runner!

Nothing excuses the PM, his Minister for Defence and his Minister for Foreign Affairs. Nothing. But their fate can be settled at the next election, as it should be.

The Nuremberg defence is ever present. Our PM relies on his version of it – he was never told, so he is not to blame. It’s no excuse. It’s a rotten betrayal of everything that is good about our nation, but it does illustrate just how far down the slippery slope we have come in the Howard years. You see versions of this �going along to get along� in every Federal department.

Every time I hear the Minister(s) or the PM talk of this rotten business, they are so quick to say none of our troops were involved in the mistreatment of the POWs. That is probably true, but it was never the question. It makes me ill to hear the pathetic cowering and whining.

You see, we are responsible; because we callously or stupidly dismissed our obligations to those people we captured in battle, disarmed and had imprisoned. We are responsible! It is shameful.

The only good to come out of it all is that our Parliamentary system of accountability did work, because a few good Senators got stuck in and demanded answers. There is hope yet.