The tactics of the pro-war crowd who�ve hung in there knowing we were lied to and watching a war about to enter its second year never change. The Spanish people are now appeasers, as is everyone else who opposed the war for what turned out to be bloody good reasons and now want the UN to take over as quickly as possible to end the US/British/Australian occupation.

 

Please have a read of New Spanish government a circuit breaker on Iraq by new Webdiarist Sam Guthrie. And please, Miranda Devine and co, accept that we all want to fight terrorism. Some of us, though, don�t believe we can do so when governed by liars and spinmeisters who we can�t bloody trust and who mow down people we feel we can trust.

A colleague sent me a great email today:

�I get the feeling there’s a great many people out there who really object to this issue being politicised at all. Did you read the Lateline transcript of Tony Jones’s interview with Downer? Downer’s pathetic waffle was a real object lesson in what happens when politicians think they can take people for complete fools. It would be worth a piece on whether the “art” of evasion is at all helpful when the world is witnessing the true horror of commuter trains being blown up by backpacks containing bombs triggered by mobile phone detonators. When that happens don’t we all expect our politicians (and journos) to get serious and coalitioned rather than point-scoring?�

In yesterday’s feedback Webdiary Spain aftershock: your say, several Webdiarists accused me of writing things I did not write, so I thought I�d make my position crystal clear. It is the same as that of Michigan history professor and Iraq expert Juan Cole, whose blog is a must-read on Iraq and its consequences. He wrote, on March 16, in part:

Did al-Qaeda Win the Spanish Elections? This silly question is being asked by billionaire Rupert Murdoch’s and Conrad Black’s media outlets all over the world in blazing headlines. For some strange reason, the billionaires aren’t happy that the Socialist Workers’ Party won the elections in Spain, and are trying to portray the outcome as cowardice on the part of the Spanish public.

The entire argument is specious from beginning to end. First of all, the Iraq war had nothing to do with the battle against al-Qaeda. Nothing whatsoever. Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz and others were pressing for a war against Iraq in the 1990s before al-Qaeda had even become much of a threat to the US… Jose Maria Aznar, in supporting Bush on the war against Iraq, was not standing up to al-Qaeda.

I believe that the Spanish public just recognized the correctness of the “opportunity cost” argument about the Iraq War and anti-terrorism efforts. Let’s say you are in business. If you put your capital, which is limited, into expanding one part of your business (“X”), you may make money – say 7% percent on your investment. But you had another opportunity to put your money into expanding a different part of the business (“Y”), and that would have given you a 25% percent return (which you did not know at the time). Giving up the 25% return is an opportunity cost of doing X rather than Y.

The Iraq War represents an enormous opportunity cost in the counter-insurgency struggle against al-Qaeda and its constituents. After the Afghanistan War, the Bush administration forgot to ask Congress for any money for Afghanistan reconstruction, and Congress helpfully put in $300 million. This year, the Bush administration will put $1 billion into Afghanistan, an immense country devastated by 25 years of war (for which the US bears some responsibility), in which the Taliban is having a resurgence…

Since the end of the Afghanistan War, al-Qaeda has struck at Mombasa, Bali, Riyadh, Casablanca, Istanbul, Madrid and elsewhere. Some chatter suggested that Ayman al-Zawahiri himself ordered the hit on Istanbul. The attack on a Spanish cultural center in Casablanca in May of 2003 now appears to have been a harbinger of the horrible Madrid train bombings last week. How much did Spain spend to go after the culprits in Casablanca? How much did Bush dedicate to that effort? How much did they instead invest in military efforts in Iraq?

Instead of dealing with this growing and world-wide threat, the Bush administration cynically took advantage of the American public’s anger and fear after September 11 and channeled it against the regime of Saddam Hussein, which had had nothing to do with September 11 and which never could be involved in such a terrorist operation on American soil because its high officers knew exactly the retribution that would be visited on them. Only an asymmetrical organization could think of a September 11, because it has no exact return address…

The Iraq adventure is likely to have cost the US nearly $250 billion by next year this time. The US is no safer now than it was before the Iraq war, since Iraq did not have any weapons that could hit US soil and would not have risked using them even if it did.

Let me repeat that. Maybe $1.3 billion for Afghanistan. $250 billion for Iraq. Bin Laden and his supporters are in Afghanistan. What is wrong with this picture?

There is not and cannot be such a thing as a “war on terror.” Terror is a tactic. There can be a global counter-insurgency struggle against al-Qaeda and kindred organizations. But a large part of such a struggle must be to deny al-Qaeda recruitment tools and propaganda victories. The way the Bush administration pursued the war against Iraq, as a superpower-led act of Nietzschean will to power, simply made it look in the Middle East as though al-Qaeda had been right. Bin Laden’s message was that Middle Easterners are being colonized and occupied by the United States.

There is no evidence at all that the Spanish public desires the new Socialist government to pull back from a counter-insurgency effort against al-Qaeda. The evidence is only that they became convinced that the war on Iraq had detracted from that effort rather than contributing to it. This is not a cowardly conclusion and it is not a victory for al-Qaeda…

Here is what Zapatero said about all this, according to the Washington Post:

�The war [in Iraq] has been a disaster; the occupation continues to be a disaster,” Zapatero told a radio interviewer. At a news conference later, he called the Iraq war “an error.” He added, “It divided more than it united, there were no reasons for it, time has shown that the arguments for it lacked credibility, and the occupation has been poorly managed.” He pledged to continue to combat international terrorism, but said the fight should be conducted with “a grand alliance” of democracies and not through “unilateral wars,” a clear reference to Iraq.��

Here’s my rough rendering of Zapatero’s full statement, which Fox Cable News will not read out in its entirety:

“Tonight I commit myself to commence a tranquil government and I assure you that power is not going to change me,” affirmed Zapatero between the applause of hundreds of people who congregated to celebrate the triumph.

“My most immediate priority is to fight all forms of terrorism (Mi prioridad mas inmediata es combatir toda forma de terrorismo). And my first initiative, tomorrow, will be to seek a union of political forces to join us together in fighting it.”

After defining himself as “prepared to assume the responsibility to form the new government”, Zapatero described his priorities.

“I will set out to strengthen the prestige of democratic institutions . . . to move Spain into the vanguard of European development and to guide myself by the Constitution at every moment”

“The government of change,” he added “will act from the dialogue, responsibility and transparency. It will be a government that will work by cohesion, concord and peace.”

After nearly four years of White House rhetoric stolen from old Clint Eastwood spaghetti Westerns, the determination in this speech to pursue anti-terrorism with an eye to establishing social peace and creating the conditions of human development hits me as a gale of fresh air.

So this is what al-Qaeda was going for with the train bombs? To create a “grand alliance” of democracies against it? Zapatero’s speech is a victory for Bin Laden?

No, it is a defeat only for the Bush administration and the Neoconservative philosophy of Perpetual War�

With the secession of Spain from the “coalition of the willing,” the rug has been pulled out from under the Bush doctrine of preemption, the Bush commitment to US military action without a proper UNSC resolution, and the Bush conviction that you can fool all the people all the time. Since Bush administration militarism and desire to go about overthrowing most of the governments in the Middle East actually was highly destabilizing and created enormous numbers of potential recruits for al-Qaeda, the Spanish actions are a great victory for the counter-insurgency struggle against al-Qaeda.

Webdiarist Luke Stegemann, a former resident of Spain now lecturing in Osaka, would also like to set a few records straight. He sees parallels between Australian and Spanish politics:

As a long-term Australian resident of Spain and having just left the country after spending most of the election campaign there, I must comment on the deeply insulting – not to say patronising – attitude shown by those who suggest that the new Spanish government is there thanks to Al-Qaeda, and that this is somehow a �victory for terrorism�.

This misguided view implies that the previous government is to be absolved of responsibility for its authoritarianism and highly divisive means of ruling the country. Anybody familiar with Spanish politics would have known that the country was ripe for change. The Spanish participation in the war in Iraq against the vast majority of people�s wishes was one of many reasons the Spaniards wished to change their government.

The new Spanish government was elected by the Spanish people through a transparent and democratic process. They’d had enough of a highly centrist and hard-right party. As far as the majority of Spaniards are concerned (and I�ve spoken to quite a few since the election result), the election was a victory for democracy, not terrorism. And isn’t the protection – or promotion – of democracy what the whole “war on terror” is about?

There are a number of striking parallels between the rise and fall and political hue of elected governments in Australia and Spain going back to the early 1980s. If the trend is to continue, there are some clear pointers to the national election later this year.

For the purposes of this comparison we can equate quite closely, in terms of ideology and political practice, the Australian ALP and the Spanish Socialist Workers Party (PSOE) and the Liberal Party and Spain�s conservative Partido Popular (PP).

In 1982, the PSOE swept to power as the first Socialist government since the days of the Civil War under the leadership of Felipe Gonzalez. This was mirrored the following year in Australia by the sweeping to power of the ALP under Bob Hawke in 1983 (notwithstanding the Whitlam years which look, in hindsight, like an historical and political aberration, despite the enormous social advances made in those three short years).

The PSOE ruled until 1996, increasingly alienated from its traditional support base as economic rationalism came to exert its grip on models of governance, and beset by corruption scandals. The ALP also held power until 1996.

In Spain, where elections are held every 4 years rather than our 3, the PSOE was widely tipped to lose power in 1992, until Felipe Gonzalez won an �unwinnable election� to take one more term, as did Paul Keating the following year in Australia. It was to be the final term for both parties.

The Spanish PSOE and the Australian ALP then went into the political wilderness as more right-wing governments took over. The Liberal Party under John Howard and the PP under Jose Maria Aznar came resoundingly to power on the same weekend in March, 1996.

The similarities between Aznar and Howard were both physical (small men who punched well above their weight) and ideological: neo-conservative, authoritarian, masters of the wedge, and so on.

Last year, Aznar and Howard stood shoulder to shoulder with Blair and Bush though curiously, while in Australia those opposed to the war or the �coalition of the willing� talk of the triumvirate of Bush-Blair-Howard (with no mention of Aznar), in Spain, where popular opposition to the war was even stronger than in Australia, everyone talks of the �assassins� Bush-Blair-Aznar � no-one has even heard of Howard!

A significant difference, and what may be more telling as time goes on, is that last year Aznar decided to step down and personally appointed his successor, Mariano Rajoy, as part of a generational change Howard has pointedly refused to entertain.

At the same time, the Spanish PSOE fielded their young leader, a fresh-faced 43 year-old (I know Mark Latham may not be fresh-faced, but does it sound familiar?) It is very easy to see the parallels continue between the two countries, with Mark Latham coming to power later this year on a wave of public frustration with intolerance and unadulterated spin, just as �bambi� Zapatero (as he is known) has taken the Spanish election.

Of course, the Australian elections � one hopes � will not take place against a background of near civil unrest such as was brewing on the streets of Spain last Saturday, as the PP continued in its fervent efforts to pin blame for the atrocity on ETA despite all the evidence to the contrary.

I was told by my Spanish wife (who was in the middle of it all) that such tension had not been felt on the streets of Spain since the aborted military coup of February, 1983, when gunmen opened fire in the National Parliament and the tanks rolled onto the streets of Valencia.

Now we see that Pedro Almodovar is in hot water for making this very claim � that the country was close to a coup d�etat last Saturday evening. Yet even if we do go to vote, as expected and hoped, under very different conditions, the Australian people have more than enough reasons to cry, as the Spanish people have done in a different context, �Enough is enough�.

Since the last election, the children overboard affair and the war in Iraq are but two instances of appalling spin that one hopes will come back to haunt the Howard government and, like Spain�s conservatives, they will be made to pay for their contemptuous treatment of the general public by being thrown out of government. The argument of a good economic record will have nothing to do with it.

If Mark Latham and the ALP are elected to power later this year, the political nature of the respective governments in Madrid and Canberra will carry on in curious parallel, even after 22 years. And if Latham does win, let�s hope that no-one is contemptuous enough of the will of the Australian people to claim it as a �victory for Al-Qaeda�.

Tonight, the Webdiary debate began last night rages on. Here�s what you say.

Antony Loewenstein recommends Robert Fisk on Iraq and Al Qaeda in Al-Qa’ida Attacks Intensify, But Iraqi Police Say: “Let Them Come” and Iraq: a year of war.

Peter Woodforde: Australia’s police chiefs have, for a variety of plausible reasons, sought to expand powers of detention without trial or charges. That may be all very well, but given the recent demonstration of ruthless impropriety toward Federal Police chief Keelty by the PM’s murky private office, just who would wield the increased powers? The Keelty episode has shown once again the worryingly furtive and Kremlinesque atmosphere of the PM’s private office, and cut public trust in the independence of statutory office-holders.

Marcus Paul: Reading your Webdiary lately, it is easy to observe one particular strand of hopeful expectation in the comments on the war on Iraq, the terrorist bombing in Spain, any threat of terrorism in this country, and the various governmental deceits involved. A number of Webdiarists seem to hope that the Australian public will respond to the body of lies and half-truths that surround the Howard government’s handling of these matters. I suggest that people have come to expect such deceit from the coalition. It might even be said to be a non-issue. It is only the more discursive media outlets such as the Sydney Morning Herald and your own Webdiary that exhibit an ongoing concern with John Howard’s record on the truth. It is interesting to note that Mark Latham too has been conspicuously silent on these matters. He knows all to well that there is little electoral mileage to be had in criticising the coalition. Of course, should the worse happen and Sydney or any other Australian city falls prey to terrorist atrocity, the debate would be one which all Australians would have to engage with. Let us hope this is a future we never have to witness. We would no doubt respond very differently to the Spanish. For one thing, it is unlikely that the Labor Party could ride into government on any resentment at Australia’s participation in the latest Gulf War, or any related rendering of Australia as a terrorist target.

Jim Stewart: Two readers cite Spanish Prime Minister Zapatero’s: “Mr Blair and Mr Bush must do some reflection and self-criticism. You can’t organise a war with lies.” Surely its time someone pointed his mistake. It�s an historical fact that not only can you organise a war with lies, but that to win wars (and elections) leaders need to be good liars! More important, since the spread of ‘real time’ mass media they need reporters and commentators to report their lies as if they are worth hearing. Imagine if all viewers ever heard on TV/radio was: Because we try to report only the truth, Alexander Downer/Mark Latham (or as appropriate) was asked to clarify or correct his confusing and public lies in his media statement but refused to do so and just changed the subject!

***

Michael Grimes, on debut

I’ve been an avid reader for some time, but I’ve never felt moved to write until now. What brought about the shift from observer to participant is the almost brutish crudity of the arguments of some of your right-wing correspondents, and their willful determination to misunderstand the nuances of the anti-Howard, anti-war arguments.

Let’s start with Shaun O’Brien in Missive from a critic:

“This is a war between those who hate the US and those who support/have similar cultures as the US and nothing more.”

How simplistic is that? What room for manooeuvre does this kind of thinking give our policy-makers? If we simply assume away the root causes of terrorism, we are left with no option but to pursue a policy of all-out war, which has been spectacularly unsuccessful so far.

Mitchell Beston believes that:

“We are all targets. The only way to avoid terrorism, is to join Islam and renounce Western values and lifestyle.” What, exactly, are “Western values and lifestyle”? Given that Islam has existed for well over a thousand years, why has this kind of terrorism begun to surface only in recent decades? Why are there so many countries with “Western values and lifestyle” that don’t appear to be of any interest to the terrorists? His comment about “gutless Saddam-supporters” demonstrates just how divided a nation we have become under Howard. It is contemptuous in the extreme, and such comments make it almost impossible to respond in a civilised fashion.

The anonymous “HR” writes:

“If any legitimacy is placed on terrorism it wins and it breeds more terrorism. If at any stage we bow to it, it will breed.”

Are we to infer that it’s not breeding now? The logical extension of this argument is that the origins of terrorism lie in our failure to stand up to terrorism. What kind of nonsense is that? Terrorism does not occur in a vacuum. I can almost hear the response already – that I am somehow making excuses for cold-blooded killers, that I am a “Saddam-supporter” or some other inexcusable crudity.

What can I say? I’m not doing either of these things. I’m making a pragmatic plea for understanding. We won’t solve this problem until we understand it. Shaun, Mitchell and HR do not understand it. I don’t either, but at least I’m trying. At least I’m approaching it as a problem that can be understood if we take the time and the trouble to face it honestly and courageously, look at our own role in generating these feelings in the Islamic world, and don’t allow ourselves to be defeated by our baser instincts. That can only lead us into unending chaos and horror.

I do understand HR’s fear. I do understand why we are all concerned about the escalation in terror attacks. I feel as vulnerable as anybody else. But it is imperative that we understand the reasons for it. Otherwise we are condemned to live in a world where it just goes on escalating.

Globally we are, in a sense, in the same situation as Israel. Before Sharon came to power, terror attacks were happening sporadically. In an effort to eradicate them completely, he has erected walls, destroyed homes, sidelined Arafat, attacked the cars and homes of known terrorists with rockets launched from helicopters, killing many civilians in the process, and generally engaged in an onslaught of unprecedented ferocity on the enemies of Israel. Terror attacks are now virtually a weekly phenomenon.

Is this what we want for the world?

***

Mick Dean in Springwood, NSW

‘HR’ says:

“I for one do trust the government. I trust the government because they are presenting an argument that makes much more sense than yours. I trust the government for they haven’t misled me in the way people like you are continually trying to convince me that they have. In doing so you are the true misleaders.”

I wonder where he/she was when the lies about ‘children overboard’ were brought to the public’s attention – sounds like someone with selective hearing to me.

“WMDs were not found but this was not the only reason.”

Well, actually it was, if HR listened to Johnny.

“The WMD reason is one we had to use to get the UN to do something about it because the UN is too weak to intervene in situations where a leader’s tyranny is the reason for intervening.”

So why didn’t Johnny just say this? Too weak perhaps? Too scared of the political consequences? So much for “one has to base it on what is right.” Hypocritical? Me?? Huh!

As for the line “Your argument basically says that it is right for terrorists to strike Spain for it’s involvement in the Iraq war”, that’s as blinkered as the ludicrous argument that if you were against the war in Iraq then you support Saddam Hussein.

At least Shaun O’Brien had the balls to put his name to his critique – I didn’t agree with it, but if you have something you want others to hear, then you should be prepared to put your name to it. Otherwise you might be accused of being gutless and not basing your actions on ‘what is right’!

Reveal yourself “HR”!

***

Jane Macdonald

I agree with much of what Shaun O’Brien, Daniel Maurice, David Tester, Mike Lyvers, Mitchell Beston and HR said in Webdiary today. However, like Shaun O’Brien, I won’t shed any tears when Howard resigns or is voted out.

But what would Latham and Labor offer as an alternative?? Honest politics? I don’t think so.

And where are some PRAGMATIC policy ideas from the opposition on this increasing threat of terrorism? How about a look in Webdiary at how Costello is doing a great job of shadowing Latham and catching him out at any opportunity.

If only Howard hadn’t been so ‘power hungry’ and handed over to Costello, we’d now be watching a fascinating contest between the two forty somethings rather than a stale and somewhat desperate Howard versus someone who appears to be a ‘media darling’ but who does not inspire me with confidence that he has the ability to do the job.

What sort of PM would Costello make if he ever gets the chance? (MARGO: I don�t think Costello could hold the mix of constituencies Howard has. I think the battlers would trust Latham more than Costello.)

***

Yutaka Yoshino

The lesson for the government from the Spanish election should be “saying it is so does not make it so”. It is unfortunate that there is strong faith in the notion that reality is shaped by what is declared publicly, loudly and repeatedly. The serious confusion amongst those in power between spin and reality is furthered by a media with no sensitivity to the difference between the two.

The contortions in logic and rhetoric required to continue to deceive self and the populace, all for the maintenance of the alliance with the United States, is beginning to make the leaders appear utter fools.

Given November is not far away, it is time to start thinking clearly, if not to avoid future terrorist attacks, to regain a little self respect. It may not be too late to begin to distance Australia from Bush’s failed war on terror.

Should Bush not be reelected there will be substantial changes to American behaviour. Should the unthinkable occur and Bush is reelected, there is even better reason to avoid becoming caught in the cross fire in a perpetual war.

***

Philip Hewett in East Gosford

Robert Bosler�s The Liberal Party: headed for oblivion? is superb. He distilled the essence of what is gnawing at millions of Australians as they see Howard and his cowed ad subservient cabinet ministers perverting and dismantling the Australian social system.

Listening to and reading the aggressive authoritarian rhetoric of Howard’s supporters and apologists gives the impression that Howard has become a cult figure to his followers. I fully expect to see massive posters of Howard smiling paternalistically down on ‘his’ people in the near future.

Just as the victims of Stalin refused to see him as their persecutor, Howard�s followers are selectively blind. To them he is the personification of political perfection – he is their ‘father’, their protector in times of grave fear. To these deluded citizens Australia’s problems are the fault of Howard ‘haters’ – along with greenies, feminists, unions, public school teachers, Aboriginals and middle eastern migrants, ad infinitum.

I get the uneasy feeling that if their ‘Glorious Leader’ were to give the right dog whistle in times of social duress, his blinded followers would turn on their own – and history is littered with examples.

***

Jenny Green

Although I think Shaun O�Brien is wrong to assert that Webdiary refuses to assess the alternatives on offer to the Howard government, his piece made me think about the duties we (the non-journos and non-pollies) owe to the democratic process.

Surely the first thing we owe to ourselves, and to our community, is to educate ourselves about the issues and events which raise such anger and resentment directed at the Howard government. It is not enough to go entirely by the pronouncements of politicians or the media of either side. We are all sick of being treated like credulous sheep by the current government et al � and I think the only thing which is going to change that is to make sure that we don�t waste time venting spleen at the expense of trying to understand exactly what is going on.

For instance, I find Shaun�s response �Should the invasion have happened? I really don�t know etc� irresponsible. An essential part of our civic duty is to debate and learn about the important issues of our community.

We have a duty to examine our own beliefs and decide where we stand, where our line in the sand is, and what we cannot accept. Otherwise our whining that the politicians don�t listen to us is just that � whining too late after the fact.

Any preliminary investigation of modern Iraq and the circumstances surrounding the war would have come up with one glaring fact � Saddam is Sunni, while the majority of Iraq is Shia. If the coalition of the willing invaded Iraq to free the country from Saddam�s tyranny and �grant� them democracy, majority rule would result in a government similar to that of Iran.

Think about it � why would the US go to such great lengths to replace Saddam with a sort of government it has named in the �the axis of evil�

O�Brien�s piece also contains the unthinking assumption that all problems in the middle east are a result of one issue � a clash between eastern and western culture. That Bali equals Madrid, equals 9/11 etc. We all should be better informed than that.

I�m sure most of us have read or heard the statements and speeches released by Al Qaeda, various militant organisations and prominent Muslim figures. Did we even try to understand what these people were saying were the reasons for much of the current strife? Or did we consider it all lies because it came from terrorists and others we consider simply as the enemy? How easy for us � and again, how irresponsible.

Anyone who has read a fraction of these statements could not help but notice two things � the Palestine issue is mentioned over and over and over again; and it seems clear that many people in this large chunk of the world feel that they are being treated as inferior to those in the west, that their concerns are not as important to the international community, that their way of life is considered inferior to ours.

To say this is simply the outpouring of evil men is saying that we want to shut our eyes and slyly give the nod to our politicians to dispose of these issues without reference to us in the way which best suits their purpose.

To be blunt, we haven�t got a chance of sorting out this mess unless we all make the effort to try and understand what�s going on before we rush to fight it. To demonise the �other side� in a conflict only leaves the path open for the same problems to happen again, and again, and again. Even the military are aware of this � the concept of studying your enemy is as old as history.

How many of us are aware that the Sari club in Bali did not allow local Balinese in as patrons? What does that say about the nature of the target?

How many of us understand the way sanctions across the middle east have affected the local population? What have the governments concerned and the people concerned said about this? Do you understand why? What do YOU think should happen?

Have you tried to imagine how horrific living in a camp in the territiories would be? Have you imagined what daily life in Jerusalem is like for those living under the constant threat of terrorist bombs?

Have you put yourself in the place of a resident of Baghdad in April 2003? What would it be like? Do you care?

O�Brien says that Al Qaeda had nothing to do with pre-war Iraq. I think he�s probably right. But if one thing is clear about Al Qaeda, it�s that they seek to take on all the perceived slights, all the criticisms, all the attacks on the Islamic nations, and wreak their own bloody, terrifying revenge.

The fact that this is evil does not make it less true. We must deal with this fact if we are to destroy terrorism. To pretend it�s not there is, on all of our parts, irresponsible. We must get over our cowardly �if I don�t acknowledge that it�s true, I can just dismiss it� response. That response is all about political posturing, and has nothing to do with the will and desire to do something about the current tragedy.

O�Brien says that allowing �people� to �thumb their noses� at the US is �bad for the world�. I cannot begin to describe how much the blind subservience, the unthinking unselfconsciousness of that statement frightens me. He negates the will and power of the people, and betrays a unconscious willingness to overrule them in the statement �Now it looks like a terrorist act can bring down a government�.

The people brought down the government, not the terrorists. To believe anything else makes a mockery of grassroots democracy, that thing we all say we prize so much we believe it should be imported to those who do not have it.

All these points have worrying implications for our communal integrity and willingness to seek a solution. But the icing on the cake is the statement �Local politics are clouding the whole problem in dealing with these terrorists�.

The Islamic community is divided within itself in ways we do not want to learn about, each with a history we can�t be bothered to investigate. Until we have the guts to accept that local politics, as well as international actions, are the cause of the problem, our breathtaking arrogance will ensure that our children, and our children�s children will inherit a world permanently at war.

Our refusal to legalise the death penalty is based on a belief that all human life is sacred, and that all human life is equal. We must stop this ‘them against us’ attitude and begin to see all the different players in this drama as our global community, whom we value as ourselves, and whom we want to help, for the common good of all.

G�day. I got my first deluge of emails for the year – on Spain, Iraq and Keelty � and you�re split. The Iraq war takes centre stage, yet again, and it�s hard to imagine it won�t be a factor at the election. I�ve published a strong piece by new Webdiarist Sam Guthrie on the Spanish election and where it might lead which might help clarify our thoughts about this latest twist in the Iraq war saga. Tonight, it�s over to you.

 

NOTICEBOARD

John Dalton recommends kuro5hin for on the ground insights into what�s happening in Spain. He also recommends wikipedia on Madrid attacks: �The quality of this article is really opening my eyes to the power of collaborative media.�

John Boase recommends, as I do, juancole for intelligent and informed daily coverage and opinion on the war.

Antony Loewenstein recommends The Aftershocks from Madrid.

Ross Sharp recommends iraqontherecord: �It was prepared at the request of US Rep Henry A. Waxman and details 237 instances of misleading statements made by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and Powell over 125 public appearances in the lead-up to the Iraq adventure. It certainly bears out Spain’s new PM Jos� Luis Rodr�guez Zapatero when he said: ‘Mr Blair and Mr Bush must do some reflection – you can’t organise a war with lies.'”

Scott Burchill recommends A Year After Iraq War Mistrust of America in Europe Ever Higher, Muslim Anger Persists, a survey by the Pew research center for the people and the press.

And Scott notes a rare occasion when Howard doesn�t echo Bush:

“…it’s my view that Iraq is really irrelevant to the intent and the purposes of Al Qaeda.” (John Howard, 7.30 Report, 15 March 2004, ABC.)

“Al-Qaeda has an interest in Iraq for a reason, and that interest is they realise that this is a front on the war on terror. And they fear the spread of freedom and democracy in places like the greater Middle East, and so it’s essential that we remain side by side with the Iraqi people as they begin the process of self-government.� (George W. Bush, AM, 17 March , 2004, ABC.)

An Australian reporter made a good point on the Keelty thing: �In all the coverage there’s one issue that’s missed the attention it deserves: The AFP Commissioner does not enjoy the independence enjoyed by many other departments and statutory authorities in the Federal Government. He’s essentially a political appointee, there at the sufferance of the Attorney General. This means that it’s very hard for the AFP commissioner to do anything other than what he’s told. Doesn’t this saga highlight the need for senior public servants to have security of tenure….like they used to. So they can tell the Minister to f*** off.�

North Shore Peace and Democracy, featured in Webdiary in Liberal elder to Abbott: Dear friend, make amends on Iraq, advises Sydney readers of events to mark the first anniversary of the Iraq war:

Global Day of Action: Saturday, March 20

10-11 am Vigil & collection for medical aid to Iraq. George Street, just outside Town Hall Square. Organised by Sydney Peace and Justice Coalition.

11 am � 12 noon Community memorial service . Pitt Street Uniting Church, 264 Pitt St Sydney (near Park St). Speak out our grief, our vision and our commitment Organised by Sydney Peace and Justice Coalition.

12 noon March and Rally: Assemble at Hyde Park North. March through the city back to Hyde Park Speakers include John Pilger, Andrew Wilkie, Senator Kerry Nettle, Saif Abu Keshek. Organised by Stop the War Coalition.

Palm Sunday March & Rally for Peace: Sunday April 4, 1 pm, Belmore Park. Palm Sunday service & Multi-Faith Prayers for Peace. Then march to Hyde Park North. Speakers include Sharan Burrow, ACTU President, Andrew Wilkie, former intelligence analyst. Organised by Sydney Peace and Justice Coalition Sponsored by NSW Ecumenical Council.

The Victorian Peace Network advises that the Melbourne rally for peace begins at the State library at 1pm on Saturday 20th March. Terry Hicks, father of David Hicks, will join Church and union speakers in calling for peace and an end to pre-emptive wars.

***

SHORTIES

Brett Hocking: I am surprised that many journalists, including you, seem to believe that changing parties at elections, whether here or overseas, makes a difference. The forces driving the world do not stand for election, and never have.

Lesley Snow: I was looking at the messages on the placards carried by Spanish protesters in Madrid – the one that stuck out was ‘do you think we are idiots”? Does this mean that citizens around the world are starting to wake up to the daily diet of humbug, spin, manipulation and out right lies we are being fed?

Graeme Richardson in Albury: Confucius said: �If language is not correct, then what is said is not what is meant; if what is said is not what is meant, then what ought to be done remains undone.” Do the “undone”, that is fall in line with the Howard agenda and in the judgement of Alexander Downer you change from being Lord Haw Haw one day to George Washington the next.

David Eastwood Elizabeth Bay: It’s odd that a Prime Minister who mad a virtue out of scrapping political correctness and claiming that a plurality of views was good for Australia should react so badly when a view that contradicts his political position is aired by a credible figure. My democracy doesn’t need this kind of hypocrisy.

Daniel Maurice: I dipped into your column today after an absence of some months only to catch your latest diatribe, “Why won’t Howard let us trust anyone?” Depressingly I found another entirely predictable attack on Howard – full of bile, hysteria, exaggeration, lies and rhetoric. Don’t you see the irony of using the very tactics to attack the Government that you accuse the Government of? This is not journalism, but polemics. You continue to contribute nothing to reasoned debate on important public policy issues.

 

Graeme Rankin in Holder, ACT: I am absolutely revolted by the sheer arrogance of the Australian Government to label any dissenting view on Iraq or the war on terror put forward by people, both in the know or from a concerned general public, as support of terror and terrorists. This arrogance makes anything Paul Keating did or said pale into insignificance! Howard, Downer and Ruddock are a disgrace as Ministers and despicable as people.

 

David Tester: By changing government the Spanish people have increased the terrorist threat to all nations involved in the war on terror, which is pretty much everybody. Al Qaeda’s Spanish mission was accomplished. Had the former government been returned, Al Qaeda’s attack would have failed. A simple but unpleasant fact. Margo, you seem to be under the illusion that the defeat of Bush, Blair and Howard will change things with regard to Iraq. It won�t. Get some perspective if you want to be credible. No doubt this survey won’t get a link at Webdiary: Survey finds hope in occupied Iraq.

Shayne Davison in Mulwala: Margo, your article Why won�t Howard let us trust anyone? on our lying government is spot on. Despite the attempted intimidation by Howard and his Media Moles I will be attending the protest on Saturday to remind him that we knew he was lying about the Iraqi threat then, and we know he is lying now. Roll on the Election.

Bill Parnell: I’m absolutely sick to death of this guy who grabs onto any straw he can to shore up his faltering leadership. He is becoming a chatterbox talking about whatever trivial issue crosses his path yet fails to address monumental issues such as the disaster that Iraq has become. I’m not a Labor person or a Latham fan (just yet) but I’ve had about as much of Howard as I can take and I believe I’m in a majority right now. I wish he’d just piss off and leave the stage to someone else. He’s becoming an embarrassment to the country and the world.

Jack Robertson: Alexander Downer’s performance on Lateline on Tuesday night plumbed new depths of embarrassing exposure, and further revealed the Foreign Minister’s staggering disdain and contempt for the Australian people. Downer would do well to consider the most important single soundbite in the ‘War on Terror’ to be made by a wartime leader so far. It comes from new Spanish Prime Minister Zapatero: “Mr Blair and Mr Bush must do some reflection and self-criticism. You can’t organise a war with lies.” Sooner or later John Howard will wake up to the fact that almost none of his citizens believe a word anyone in his government says now. And that is disastrous for us all. Stop playing games with us, John and Alexander and Phillip and Co. Start treating us with a tiny bit of intellectual respect. We’re not stupid, and there’s simply no-one left to spin to anymore.

***

 

Mike Lyvers

 

You write: “Does the government think we�re stupid? The former Spanish government thought its people were when it blamed ETA for the bombings without evidence, and look what happened to it!”

Margo, I guess the UN also thinks you’re stupid, as they drew the exact same initial conclusion that ETA was responsible. Do you now suggest replacing the UN?

Another question. Do you think the people of Iraq would benefit if all “Coalition of the Willing” forces immediately withdrew and left them to their fate? I was against the invasion of Iraq but NO WAY do I think those forces should depart at this time of civil unrest and internal conflict. Much less in response to the terrorist attack in Spain, which probably had more to do with Ferdinand and Isabella than Iraq in any event.

I see you are STILL obsessing over the Sunken Children business. (I call it Sunken Children because their parents purposely sank the vessel their children were in, effectively tossing them into the water.) Old news, Margo, get over it.

Or can you? It seems to me that you’ve succumbed to an ends-justifies-the-means approach recently. That is, say ANYTHING to get rid of Howard. Why? Where does all this desperation come from? And do you really think Mark Latham is any different? Perhaps your talents should be directed elsewhere than the get-rid-of-Howard-at-all-costs theme.

***

Peter Anderson

 

I don’t know why I was shocked when I saw the way Howard and his playground bully boys behaved after Mick Keelty’s simple statement of fact on the ‘Sunday’ programme. As a retired senior executive service officer in the Commonwealth Public Service you’d think one would get used to this type of political ineptitude. Still, each time it happens it seems that the institution of the public service is struck yet another blow in the process both sides of politics have been waging against it since the first Hawke/Keating government.

 

 

What was particularly disdainful was the behaviour of Dennis Richardson (head of ASIO). Rather than support his colleague (or just say nothing) Dennis weighed in on the side of his political masters. Since the Petrov affair ASIO has been treated as a joke by the rest of the intelligence community. It�s always been (and probably still is) an organisation staffed mainly by misfits who were not bright enough or couldn’t pass the physical to be accepted into one of the state police forces. Along comes 9-11 and suddenly its star rose.

 

 

Dennis is not going to let his organisation’s new-found glory disappear; so in he wades to support ‘school yard bully’ Ruddock – what an appalling display.

 

 

Whatever happened to ‘frank and fearless’ advice from the public service? I know that ministerial responsibility has been dead for a very long time. Sadly, the Keelty fiasco is just another step on the rung to the complete politicisation of the public service, a process that will leave Australia the much poorer.

 

 

Sorry if I ranted a bit; but this is a topic I still find appalling, even after nearly three years of retirement.

 

 

***

 

 

Mitchell Beston in Woy Woy, NSW

 

Margo, what a load of crap you wrote in �Why won’t Howard let us trust anyone?� So your pin-up boy has changed his mind and clarified his statements. This was done, not due to pressure from the Government but because Mick Keelty saw that his comments were being twisted by the gutless Saddam-supporters. The world is a better place for Saddam being removed from power. How can anyone argue the opposite?

Why was New York and Bali attacked? Was it due to the war on Iraq? Wake up! We are all targets. The only way to avoid terrorism, is to join Islam and renounce Western values and lifestyle.

Move on Margo, you are nitpicking. Oh and by the way, you need to get out more. The majority were not against the war in Iraq, it was a noisy minority. You should read other newspapers. This one is full of journalists aligned to the left politically, which is why I have trouble getting my letters printed. Anyway, have an enjoyable St Patrick’s Day. (Freedom’s great isn’t it).

***

Michael Hannon

Thanks for continuing to highlight the treachery of the Howard government in this latest affair with Mick Keelty. Why won’t Howard let us trust anyone?). I hope Australia kicks that little terrier out of power the first opportunity it gets.

What upsets me is the lack of political consequences for the government over Iraq. What has happened to democracy in Australia that there hasn’t been more uproar about it? We’ve seen the consequences for Blair and the increasingly bad feeling towards Bush and his cronies – but Howard seems to sail through everything unscathed, while at the same time humiliating public officials – and everyone else who dares to contradict him – with impunity.

One thing that struck me about the Madrid bombings was that if they had happened in America 3 days before an election, there is no way the information would have gotten out that it was caused by Al Qaeda. That news would be buried until well after the election. So maybe it gives some credit to the former Spanish government that they allowed the news to come out at all. (How cynical have we become?). What would happen in Australia?

***

Kylie Ritter

I was so relieved to read ‘Why Won’t Howard Let Us Trust Anyone’. I am normally a fun-loving, fairly passive, un-political 26 year old female, but I am currently appalled at what is going on in the world and Australian politics. I can’t help but be moved to enragement (and the use of profanity) when I read things like like:

“The Australian Federal Police Commissioner, Mick Keelty, has backed away from controversial comments linking the Madrid terrorist bombings to Spain’s involvement in the invasion of Iraq, which contradicted the position of the Federal Government.”

Isn�t it painfully clear that the reason why trains are being detonated in Spain is directly related to the Spanish to Spanish support of the US in Iraq?

Or am I missing something? Why the f*ck are politicians being so dishonest and deceitful about this issue? Masses of innocent people are being killed for god�s sake. Not to mention the affect on the families of the victims.

What makes Mick Keelty’s comment so controversial? It’s the f*ckin truth. I just don’t understand. Don’t we have the democratic right to contradict the Federal Government? The Howard government is acting like some kind of dictatorship or communist regime, controlling the media and suppressing our right to freedom of expression.

And when I try to discuss this with people, they just go quiet and think I am a maniac for even caring about it – how can people not care about this? Our minds are being manipulated and our fundamental right to the truth and our freedom is being screwed by people in positions of power who don’t have the best interest of humanity in mind, but rather their own personal gain – all in the name of power and wealth for the selected few. Can’t everyone see how hugely destructive, shallow and inhumane this is?

I’ve never been a ‘letter to the editor’ type person, but today feel compelled to express myself to someone who shares a similar sentiment, and ask for advice on what I can personally do about this? It’s not enough just to show concern or be enraged about these issues.

***

HR (who says he or she wants to remain anonymous �for now�)

I just read Howard at end of credibility line on Iraq and am dumbfounded by your inability to understand the issues at hand. Your inability to consider all the facts to strengthen your argument is criminal for any journalist, but for a journalist who apparently is the protector of society it’s deplorable. Your line of thinking is so off the mark that it begs the question whether you are so biased you cannot see the forest for the trees.

Firstly open your eyes and understand that the world is at war. A war like no other and one where the combatants are relying on people like you to win it. You talk about Spain as a perfect example of why supporting the war with Iraq was wrong but you fail to realise that this was exactly the response the terrorists were looking for. It underscores their belief in the weakness of the west and they are exploiting these weaknesses for their gains. It insults the intelligence of clear thinking peoples and plays to the hearts and minds of the weak.

One cannot base foreign policy on whether it�s detrimental to one’s country or not – one has to base it on what is right. If we where to do the former then the terrorist would have already won. If we were to do the former terrorist would truly be able to terrorise.

Your argument basically says that it is right for terrorists to strike Spain for it’s involvement in the Iraq war, that somehow Spain brought this upon itself. (MARGO: I made no such argument.) When will people like you understand that nothing justifies the deliberate targeting and killing of innocent civilians (which is very different to accidental killing of civilians which people like you seem to like to use for the justification of NOT waging war).

When will you people understand that at the very heart of the argument is the fact that terrorism must never be rewarded in any way shape or form? To do so is to give it legitimacy and that is exactly what people like you are doing.

If any legitimacy is placed on terrorism it wins and it breeds more terrorism. If at any stage we bow to it, it will breed.

Spain must be commended for its courage in standing up to terrorist and sending the correct message to these killers. They supported the US because they have experienced terrorism for many years and have grown to understand it and know that there is only one way to defeat it and that is by attacking it, not rewarding it. No government should ever negotiate with terrorists for terrorism in itself forfeits any rights to negotiation.

The current Spanish Government, if it goes ahead with its threat to withdraw troops, would be making a grave error, but if you read between the lines the current leader has not said he would withdraw troops outright. He said he would only do it if the UN did not take over. Don’t be surprised if he finds other ways of not removing troops.

It is only when these things are properly understood by all that we will defeat terrorism. It took Spain many years to understand this concept and it will take the rest of the world the same sort of time. But there will come a time when it will be understood, but unfortunately many more attacks will need to take place before the penny drops for all. Europe is now beginning to realise this.

An attack on France or Germany will help galvanise the concept. France especially will receive a wake up call. It did not support a war with Iraq but it is still a target because of its western system of values. Especially it’s ultra secular society. So here we have a country not meddling in the affairs of others and still it is a target, so where is you argument now. Terrorist are insulting your intelligence and you seem to be going for the ride.

You talk about the reduction of civil liberties through the introduction of draconian laws by the government and at the same time advocate tighter security at entry points and any other areas where terrorist may strike. Do you not see the inconsistency of you own argument? On the one hand you want civil liberties and on the other you want us to have to go through police state controls at airports. Isn’t this a reduction in civil liberties?

Civil liberty is not only the ability to live life without the fear of an all powerful police force or government but also the ability to live life without the constant threat of indiscriminate violence and it’s systems to control it. If you have ever been to Israel you would know that that is no way live. You need to understand that to defeat terrorism you need to defeat terrorism not minimise its risk for you cannot guard against suicide attacks. No security can guard against these sorts of attacks and it’s understandable that the government doesn’t want to introduce overly heavy airport security.

You are the sort of person that asks for these things but any day now I can see you writing an article on how some so and so was mishandled at an American airport while at the same time advocating tighter airport security. You�re a hypocrite clear and simple. One final thing. You ask the question whether we trust the Government and by “we” I assume you mean all Australians. You are not the voice of all Australians so don’t speak for all Australians.

I for one do trust the government. I trust the government because they are presenting an argument that makes much more sense than yours. I trust the government for they haven’t misled me in the way people like you are continually trying to convince me that they have. In doing so you are the true misleaders.

WMDs were not found but this was not the only reason. There are many more reasons, some plainly obvious like the tyrannical rule of a ruthless leader and some are slightly more subtle. You continually ignore this point because it muddies your argument.

The WMD reason is one we had to use to get the UN to do something about it because the UN is too weak to intervene in situations where a leader�s tyranny is the reason for intervening. Look at Africa, what has the UN ever done? Tony Blair’s comments of last week (which would have caused horror in minds like yours) about doing something about these sorts of regimes is one of the most refreshing and enlightened things to come out of a leader for many years. You want civil liberties, then why not free the peoples that have none?

It is through people like you that terrorists have a chance of winning and destroying the very values that you vehemently uphold. They know every one of your strings and are more than adept at pulling them any which way they wish. To see an intelligent person be played in this way is so sad but to see someone like yourself wearing your insulted intelligence on your sleeve is the saddest thing of all.

‘On my rough count, there are 100 times as many political bloggers in Australia as there are sports bloggers. Therefore, I unsyllogistically conclude that Australians are 100 times more interested in politics than sport.’ Tim Dunlop

On my rough count, there are 100 times as many political bloggers in Australia as there are sports bloggers. Therefore, I unsyllogistically conclude that Australians are 100 times more interested in politics than sport.

 

If, by chance, you are in the sporting minority, the place to go is Ubersportingpundit, where, for instance, the topic of cricket’s best chuckers is being addressed.

One of the things I got emails about after last week’s blogjam was how to start a blog. I wrote back to everyone, but here’s some links for any others who are interested. Still the quickest, easiest and cheapest way to start your own blog is Blogger – yep it’s free. For a more versatile approach you can try Movable Type, though you will need to have some idea about building websites to use it.

Alternatively, you can use their Typepad version, which gives you many of the advantages of Movable Type but is quick and easy to set up. Costs start at about $US5 a month. And if you do start a new blog, don’t forget to let me know about it over at Surfdom.

On a related subject, the ongoing debate about the influence and usefulness of blogs continues apace, and Jozef Imrich collects a bunch of stories on the topic.

And some people got a widdle bit upset that I didn’t include them in last week’s round-up, so go and say hello to this poor fellow.

Ken Parish penned an interesting piece about the new Iraqi constitution and there was follow-up at Southerly Buster.

John Quiggin was on the topic with this discussion of how to assess how well things have gone in Iraq since the US occupation. All these sites also link to other relevant stories, which is one of the nice things about blogs, one post generally leads to another and another and maybe even another and another.

Intellectual property expert, Kim Weatherall, discusses the recent High Court ruling in the case where Channel 9 sued Channel 10 about The Panel using Channel 9 newsclips on their show. Flick through Kim’s other writings on aspects of the recent free-trade agreement between Australia and the United States.

Clarence Street wrote a review of the way in which the Weekend magazines in Australian newspapers have been revamped (bonus picture of Halle Berry).

If you ever wanted to understand the term “assassin”, then Soul Pacific has the post for you – and incidentally, Soul Pacific will give an idea of the quality of presentation possible on a humble blog.

I also discovered an Australian blog I hadn’t seen before: Frankenblog seems to deal mainly with science stories and issues related to science and public policy. I haven’t had a good look around yet, but it looks interesting.

Meanwhile, Helen looked at affirmative action for men in the teaching profession, while the Bulldogs’ gang rape story, which is one that the blogosphere has shied away from a little, was tackled over at Williams Burrough’s Babboon, who has some words about Herald columnist, Miranda Devine’s take on the matter.

Chris Sheil moved the discussion in another direction and discussed the future of Rugby League.

The blogs I read kinda got taken over this week by the story of the terrorist bombings in Madrid and the subsequent Spanish election. I mentioned at my site the travel blog of Australian musician, Sophia, who blogs atKrokodilla, . She is currently working in Madrid and offered this personal account of the terror attack there. She has other posts up now, and her writing highlights how blogs can offer an immediacy and intimacy not generally found in mainstream media.

Early on, journalist/blogger Christopher Allbritton discussed the likelihood of an ETA/al Qaeda collaboration.

As events unfolded, it became generally accepted that there was an jihadist connection to the bombing, and when the people of Spain threw out their conservative government, many (especially here in America) were quick to condemn this as capitulation to the terrorists. I wrote an argument against that point of view but I’m not sure I convinced a whole lot of people.

Bunyip, for one, thinks the Spanish people sold their souls. Canadian journalist, Mark Steyn, took exception to the Australian Federal Police Commissioner suggesting Australia’s relationship with the US might make us vulnerable to terrorist attack, and he was roundly chastised from Gummo on the left and Gnu on the right.

Gnu expanded his discussion in this post.

Steve at the Daily Slander suggested there were lessons from Spain for John Howard about being honest with voters, while one of the Libertarians discussed if terrorism could ever be justified.

Finally, one of the nice things about doing blogjam for Margo is that you get noticed by the Governor General. More next week.

Tonight, riled reader Shaun O’Brien debuts on Webdiary with a rip roaring critique of Webdiary, me and politics in general. Welcome aboard Shaun!

 

The sky is falling

by Shaun O’Brien

Often I have poised over the keyboard ready to unleash a tirade of abuse towards the thoughts expressed in WebDiary over the last few years but have always restrained by saying “Whats the point?” Not being “political savvy” enough to know what is really going on behind the scenes has always been at the top of my mind, especially when I can’t say for sure that what I read/see/hear from the media from ALL sources can be relied upon as being factually correct and not so biased that it incorrectly gives the wrong impression of what’s really happening. Doesn’t say much for your profession does it? I think lawyers are thought of better.

Some History of my leanings

I began my political awareness at uni (surprise, surprise) seeing for the first time grass roots level action and reading current affairs in a new light as I ventured out into the big world on my own. My staple diet of information was The Australian and it is still is my favourite media outlet, however I counterbalance this right wing media by reading smh.com.au, which by the way leaves the news.com.au site for dead (daylight second).

I have never joined a political party and never will. My parents are small business owners with no tertiary education, catholic backgrounds and conservative in voting. I am also a conservative voter, although less enthusiastic about the Queensland conservatives (I have nil desire for any Queensland party right now!). I am a Liberal supporter but don’t believe that Howard is the only reason to vote for the Libs. In fact I dislike the carping nature of his leadership – I put it down to “small man syndrome”. However the general beliefs of the Libs are close to my heart and that’s why I vote for them. I will shed no tears when Howard resigns.

Knowing that the SMH is generally left leaning, I recognise that Webdiary is a place for non-Liberal/Howard writings, but there seems to be a failure in actually promoting pragmatic solutions (not ideological theories that would make Lenin proud) and actually assessing what the alternative parties offer instead of current federal government policies.

1. War on Terror

I agree that the Federal Government went to war lying to the public as to the real reason and that the WMD claims were garbage. They should have just said that we had to do it to keep the USA on side for the ANZUS alliance (as per Kim Beazley comments on the recent intelligence report). And that is reason enough, since we are not big enough to be alone in this region without a sympathetic friend and we are not Asians regardless of what the ALP says and never will be in the eyes of our neighbours. That alone is enough to ensure we have a powerful friend to call upon. It happened once before and only a fool would think it couldn’t happen again!

Should the invasion have happened? I really don’t know since it seems that the form of a future Iraqi Government that may take hold when they finally have elections may produce a form of country not too dissimilar to Iran, and that won’t be good for the region.

As far as increasing the risk of terrorist activity all I can say is that what happened in Madrid would have happened anyway even if Saddam were still there, just like Bali, and will continue to happen whilst nation states allow their lands and resources to be used by terrorists.

There are probably dozens of these countries and Iraq was NOT one of the main offenders. But allowing him to thumb his nose at the UN in particular and the US allows these other states to feel emboldened and allow terrorists in their countries and to do what they do is bad for the world.

Now it looks like a terrorist act can bring down a government, and many seem to be cheering the end result. Would they be happy if another terror act in Britain brought down Blair? Or have another plane plough into the Empire State Building to end GWB? What about Australia?

These people have nothing better to say than “I told you so”, even though what happened in Iraq has nothing to do with what these terrorists are trying to achieve.

Al-Qaeda had nothing to do with pre-war Iraq so why does the media say that the terrorists bombed Spain for their contribution to the Iraq war? When the media say this what they are really referring to is “support for the US” in general.

This is a war between those who hate the US and those who support/have similar cultures as the US and nothing more.

GWB could have remained out of Iraq or we could have had a Democrat in the White House and Latham in the Lodge and the bodycount from terrorist bombs would have been the same. Those who say it wouldn’t are lying as much as Howard did.

Local politics are clouding the whole problem in dealing with these terrorists, and will continue until there is bipartisan support and agreement as to the real reason why there are Al Qaeda/Islamic extremism/Middle East problems, including oil production and consumption issues.

Those who that France is a beacon for world harmony forget Rainbow Warrior and Pacific Island testing. How quickly we forget – they are no better than the US.

2. Pauline Hanson and Abbott

Another issue I have dwelt on for a while is your negative stance to the attempts by Abbott (and whoever else) to bring down Hanson covertly. As a fellow conservative seeing Pauline Hanson’s rise was very worrying as it tried to move the country to the far right.

However the left leaning media people went after Howard for not putting Pauline and her supporters in their place immediately. So what was he supposed to do? Most if not all of her ideas were stupid, but it did hit a cord with those ultra conservative voters who would have naturally voted Libs/Nats anyway.

Margo, not once have I seen you or your fellow colleagues advocate that the ALP dismiss and repudiate the Greens in the same way for their stupid unworkable ideas, that would never work or would cost so much in employment, jobs and growth etc.

Green voters would generally vote ALP if that were all they could vote for, just as One Nation supporters vote for the Coalition.

Why has the media let this hypocrisy happen? Why does the ALP get away with getting close to the Greens (re Latham and Tassie trip for Green preferences) when if the Coalition did the same with One Nation supporters/party (overtly anyway) they would be crucified? Many journalists should be dismissed from their industry on this point alone!

Anyway Abbot should be congratulated for taking a stand not supported by this country’s media in dealing with One Nation because they were disaffected Coalition supporters at the end of the day.

The media wanted the Coalition to take them Pauline Hanson apart with a sledgehammer instead of dealing with them as the ALP treats its Green friends. SHAME ON THE MEDIA.

And why were the Greens so quiet when the debate raged in 2000/1 on the increases in fuel excises from CPI adjustments/GST. I never heard a word from them (or the ALP) about how it’s better for the environment if the country got used to not using their cars and only the “stick” (higher fuel prices) will achieve this – no “carrots” large enough as an alternative. I would love to debate Bob Brown on this point alone!

3. Ladder of Opportunity?

Seeing Latham rise in the polls and use his “ladder of opportunity” raises some interesting points as to where he (and you Margo) would like to see the country head if he won office.

The ALP stands for nothing more than mediocrity. Sure the ALP will want people to climb that ladder, but once they get to the 4th rung its greased up so no-one can climb any further.

Just in case you manage to get a few rungs more with lots of hard work, the lackeys of the ALP will be at the bottom of the ladder shaking it so you fall off. Since when does it mean that even when you pay taxes, if you choose to go outside the system (ie health/education) then you are not entitled to any return on the tax dollars you have put into the system. Socialism at its finest!

Why does a child get discriminated against as to how much tax dollars go to his/her education depending if they go public/private. If I choose private education why should my child be denied the same tax dollars I put into the system as the person who sends his child to a public school? If I want to put more of my hard earned money into my child’s education why should I be penalised?

I haven’t won Gold Lotto but that’s how the ALP treats anyone who wants to spend more to get something extra.

The same goes to health as well. I see little of my Medicare Levy each year but I do get the 30 percent private health insurance rebate which allows that if I do need medical treatment I won’t need a public bed but again the ALP sees that I must forgo my tax dollars if I go outside the public domain. The ALP’s slogan should be to climb the “stepladder of opportunity” cause that’s as high as they want you to get in life.

Well that’s about as far as I can go for today. As to the title “The sky is falling…” it’s because my small children listen to a ABC playschool tape when in the car about these animals who think that the sky is falling and nearly get eaten by the wolf who knows better. Perhaps you should be careful about exclaiming how bad things are supposedly in Australia and how democracy is crumbling – neither are happening and you are taking your eye off reality.

Kerry Packer is always waiting around the corner, Margo, if you are not careful.

Sam Guthrie’s first piece for Webdiary is in Howard at end of credibility line on Iraq. He has a masters degree in Political Science and International Relations.

 

The victory of the Zapatero Socialist Workers Party (PSOE) over the Aznar Government in the recent Spanish elections has induced wide spread speculation that a �wind of change� is sweeping through the so called Coalition States.

Commentators have suggested that the devastating defeat of the Spani sh Popular Party (PP) indicates a similar fate may await the Bush, Blair and Howard Governments as their populations condemn the war in Iraq. Such speculation comes amid reports that Spain�s new Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero is intending to withdraw all of the 1300 Spanish troops that have so far played a peace keeping role with the Coalition in Iraq.

Out of either a sincere fear for the consequences of this or to score domestic political points through instilling such fear, Governments in the Coalition have claimed that a Spanish withdrawal from Iraq would bring needless destruction to the occupied country and send a message to terrorist organisations that bombings are effective tools to bring about change in Western policies.

Such claims are simplistic and misleading, as they frame the debate in a �black and white�, either/or analysis similar to the belligerent �you�re either with us or against us� rhetoric of the Bush Doctrine which took us to Iraq in the first place.

The current interpretations of the PSOE and Spain�s options have been framed as follows: EITHER 1) remain with the Coalition in Iraq and continue to fight the war on terror, OR 2) withdraw entirely from the war against terror and hand the terrorists a victory.

Ironically such narrow analysis is mirrored in its impracticality by the equally black and white analysis coming from left wing commentators. Their analysis is that as the war in Iraq was illegal and opposed by vast proportions of the public, we should immediately withdrawal. That is EITHER 1) we withdraw from Iraq as we were wrong to go there in the first place OR 2) we stay and remain in violation of International Law, Moral Law and the demands of the public which ultimately will result in a Spanish style defeat for all Governments involved.

By framing this debate in such basic either/or terms, both sides are failing to understand the fluidity of international politics and succeeding only in crippling our policy options in the cess pit of �fit for sound bite� black and white analysis. Whilst this may benefit their short term political aspirations it will not aid the suffering citizens of Iraq, nor will make the world safe from the fascism of fundamentalist terror. As banal as the allusion is, de Bono is right. We need to �think outside the square�.

The major danger we face in fighting the war on terrorism is to allow our forces to be divided. As Foreign Minister Downer expressed during a fleeting moment of �spin-free� clarity in last night�s Lateline interview:

�What they’re doing with the Iraq issue is trying to divide western countries, both internally and between those countries, in order to weaken our resolve to fight terrorism…�

That is an accurate assessment and describes a tactic that has been used by �terrorist� organisations in Afghanistan, Algeria, South Africa and Vietnam, indeed through out history. (Obviously the label �terrorist� is debatable in some of these examples. I chose it only as a reproduction of the description adopted by those involved in the fight against such forces.)

Historically terrorist organisations take the view that, unable to compete with their enemy in brute strength, they must attack using strategic means. As Sun Tzu said: �What is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy�s strategy. The next best is to disrupt his alliances.�

This is exactly the strategy al-Qaeda has taken, using the invasion of Iraq to sap the once strong support of the United States. Opportunistic as always they have run to the moral defense of Iraq, a dictatorship they loathed on religious grounds, and used it as a rallying point against the US throughout the Middle East and indeed Europe.

Their cause has been aided by the determination of the Bush Administration to alienate and divide its allies through sheer arrogance and unforgivable policy narrowness. The tunnel vision of the �with us or against us� mantra that ran through the 2002 US National Security Strategy (NSS) and the accompanying rhetoric displayed a black and white view of the world comparable to the authoritarian ideologies at the heart of the fundamentalists themselves.

It had the effect of dismantling the multilateral alliances that had been built in the face of 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan, and may have limited the exchange of strategic ideas, operational assistance, and limitless intelligence between Europe and the US.

Not only did such tunnel vision cause the splintering of alliances and alienation of friends, it profoundly limited the strategic options of the United States. By formulating policy with the �black and white� interpretation of the world as displayed in the NSS the US limited its options in a war that, by its very nature, must be fought with high levels of fluidity and adaptability.

We must remember that whilst the mindset of the fundamentalists is equally as narrow as that of Neo-Conservative America, their strategy is not. Terrorists are a fluid, non-linear fighting force who adapt themselves to their surroundings. Unlike them we, as allies of the US, have allowed our strategy in the war on terror to become as equally limited as the rhetoric of our mindset. Thus our options have been reduced profoundly.

This black and white analysis has continued in the wake of Spain�s change of Government. Since Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero�s rather candid assessment of the Iraq war, (he claimed it “divided more than it united”, that “the occupation has been managed badly”, and that “you can’t organise a war with lies,”) tunnel vision commentators asserted that the Spanish withdrawal of troops from Iraq would inspire other coalition states to do the same nad mean a profound victory for the terrorists both inside Iraq and those responsible for the train bombings in Madrid.

A White House official said Mr. Bush wanted to make it “clear to all around the world that nations cannot make a separate peace with terrorists”.

David Gergen, former communications adviser to several U.S. presidents, said the Spanish Prime Minister�s words were �a terrible message to send, it’s very divisive,” and that “this weakens U.S. policy in trying to bring unity to the West as we try and fight terrorism”.

Such sentiments were echoed by our own Foreign Minister:

“[I also said] we very much hoped that they wouldn’t withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq, that it was enormously important that the international community sent a strong message to Al Qaeda �that we will not weaken in the face of terrorism… It’ll be interpreted in some parts of the world as a great victory for the terrorists who committed the atrocity of March 11.”

And the Polish Prime Minister:

“Revising our positions on Iraq after terrorist attacks would be to admit that terrorists are stronger and that they are right.”

And the Dutch Prime Minister:

“We cannot leave a country like Iraq on its own�Because of terror you can’t just say: now we say no to them.”

As I have indicated, the other side of the debate is no better and even provides some credence to the panic displayed by Coalition commentators who fear the developments in Spain will lead to a turn of the political tide and universal acceptance that the war was indeed illegal and strategically ill-advised. Even if this view point is correct, to formulate policy on such matters of principle � �we were right you were wrong� � is childish and irrelevant.

Groups like the UK based ‘Stop the War Coalition’ claim that:

�Any war will simply add to the numbers of innocent dead, cause untold suffering, political and economic instability on a global scale, increase racism and result in attacks on civil liberties.”

Similarly Bob Brown of the Australians Greens stated in a Media Release that:

�While no nation can subjugate its policies to terrorism it was a double mistake for Australians to be sent to Iraq… The government) should bring our military personnel home first.�

The fact is we are in Iraq NOW, we have invaded and now we occupy. And because of this we have responsibilities both to the people of Iraq and our own strategic goals for global security. To dismiss these responsibilities and desert the country purely on claims that we shouldn�t have gone there in the first place, is naive.

If we pack our bags and go home, not only will we be in breach of The Fourth Geneva Convention, which clearly states our responsibility as occupiers, we will leave the country in the clutches of an almost certain civil war from which will grow further terror attacks against innocent citizens both in Iraq and elsewhere.

To seek to desert Iraq because we should not have gone there in the first place is equally as black and white and strategically blinkered as the position that claims we must remain in the coalition of the willing despite the �winds of change� blowing out of Spain.

What should we do? Let’s return to the change in Spain and reassess the comments of Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero. In addition to leveling refreshing criticism at Bush and Blair for the invasion of Iraq the new Spanish Prime Minister said the following:

�I want to create an alliance against violence and all kinds of terrorism.�

�The Socialist Party is going to keep relationships with all the governments of the world, including the United States, even though we don’t agree on some issues.�

Neither of these statements are acknowledged by commentators whose black and white interpretation of Spain�s options lead them to believe the Socialist Government is on the verge of withdrawing completely from the war against terrorism and turning its back on the alliances fighting this war. Nor do they pay heed to the following notable statement, repeated more than once since the election:

�If the U.N. doesn’t take control of Iraq, I think Spanish troops are going to come back, and the date is June 30… I don’t think the administration in Iraq is the best.”

Here we see the Prime Minister acknowledging the ineffective nature of the US led invasion and occupation of Iraq. He is moving his Government away from the either/or of the former Aznar Popular Party and drawing closer to the alleged �old Europe� of France and Germany, who through out the entire debate have subverted black and white analysis by demanding the consideration of �other options� in dealing with Iraq. What these other options are is made obvious by the above statement. Spain will withdraw IF the United Nations doesn�t take control.

The UN is the answer to the black and white tunnel vision displayed since the US walked away from the institution in 2002. It symbolises the triumph of multiple perspectives and the consideration of many points of view. It also allows for the creation of strategy to win the war on terror in Iraq and the rest of the world without the susceptibility of that strategy running aground on the either/or, �our way or the high way�, blinkers of Neo Conservative America.

Previously both Germany and France claimed that Iraq was not a front in the war against terror, that the dispute with Saddam Hussein was immaterial to the battle against al-Qaeda. Correct or not at the time, it is undeniable that Iraq is NOW a terrorist hive and possibly the most active front in this war. This means all countries dedicated to fighting against terrorism, all members of the UN Security Council who signed Resolutions 1378 and 1373 and all signatories of the General Assembly 56/1 resolution in the wake of the September 11 attacks, have an obligation to combat terrorism in Iraq. This will only take place under a multi-lateral UN mandate.

The Zapatero PSOE Government�s position is analogous with this. Whilst blinkered media and political commentators have dwelt on their threats to withdraw Spanish forces from Iraq, they continue to ignore Zapatero�s repeated calls for the UN to return to the country to play an administrative and peace keeping role as the Iraqi Interim Government clambers to its feet.

Supporters of the occupation of Iraq state three reasons why it is necessary for the Coalition to remain: 1) Due to our responsibilities as occupiers under the Geneva convention; 2) Due to our commitment to fight terror and not submit to it; 3) Due to the need to stabilise the region now at risk by a potential civil war inside Iraq. These factors would all be addressed and satisfied by a UN administrative force replacing the American led coalition. A UN administrative force however would have the additional benefit of shifting the perception of the international force from that of occupier to stabiliser.

It is universally acknowledged that the battle in Iraq and indeed against terrorism generally is also a battle for �hearts and minds�. With the US as the occupying force al Qaeda has infinite propaganda with which to create divisions amongst, not only the Iraqi people and the Interim Government, but, as we have seen, amongst the Western allies themselves. Under a multilateral UN administration this occu pying force takes on the form of a peace keeping outfit thus sidelining the perception of the occupation as mere US imperialism.

Whilst it can be argued that the presence of the UN will not sooth the Islamists, it is not the Islamists whose hearts and minds we are wishing to win, but those of the Iraqi people themselves. The terrorists are responsible for the killings of many Iraqis including the bombings early this month in Karbala and Baghdad which targeted Shia Muslims. Working alongside the Iraqi people, indeed dying alongside them as allies and peace keepers, not occupiers, will pave the way for a cooperation with the citizens of Iraq currently rendered impossible due to the Coalition�s inability to sideline the terrorist�s anti-American rhetoric.

Already the Interim Government is almost unanimous in its call for the reentry of the UN into Iraq. Even Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who held reservations after the UN envoy Lakhdar Brahimi reported that elections were not possible in Iraq before June, has now voiced his support for the multilateral organisation to play a large role in supporting the new Iraqi constitution and ultimate goal of self Governance.

All such developments are possible if we shake off the shackles of a policy that, through its failure to make the world a safer place since 9/11, has already proved past its use by date.

Similarly, those who have opposed the strategies of the war on terror stop trying to justify the total withdrawal from Iraq – they are failing to address themselves to the state of the world NOW.

The �winds of change� blowing out of Spain could sound the death knell of blinkered policy analysis which has compromised our ability to fight with the fluidity and adaptability necessary to win any war against terrorism.

The Zapatero Socialist Workers Party is initiating a reassessment which does indeed symbolise a change in the global order. If we look closely we see that like Zapatero there are a number of multilateralists waiting in the wings to take there place on centre stage: Kerry in the US, Latham in Australia and the desperate search already occurring within the UK�s New Labour to find a replacement for Blair.

The black and white policy makers understand this and over the next few weeks they may become more influenced by a new Spanish Prime Minister plucked from political obscurity. We will see movement where there was none before. Bush towards the UN, Blair towards the EU.

The tables of perception have been turned, and those who have fixed their colours to the mast of tunnel vision will be blown away by the resurgence of UN multilateralism: the only Coalition with diversity of opinion enough to keep us safe, and win this war.

Mick Keelty. It took 48 hours, but they got him to sign his name to utter rubbish, humiliate himself, and thus hammer the nail in the coffin of the government�s credibility on security.

 

Does the government think we�re stupid? The former Spanish government thought its people were when it blamed ETA for the bombings without evidence, and look what happened to it!

When was the last time the government forced a very, very senior public official � one we trusted � to sign a false statement to protect the government�s lies?

Why, it was in the last week of the 2001 federal election campaign, when this government without honour humiliated the then chief of the navy, Admiral David Shackleton.

How sickening is John Howard�s government allowed to get before we sack it?

On November 8, 2001, three days before the election, Admiral David Shackleton told reporters that boat people had NOT thrown children overboard (see Red light questions and Photo fraud). His statement came within hours of John Howard falsely claiming during questions at the National Press Club that ONA had confirmed the throwing (in fact, ONA was reporting press reports of the government�s claim, as it made clear in its brief to the PM�s office).

Within hours, a statement under Admiral Shackleton’s name appeared as follows:

Statement by the Chief of Navy, Vice Admiral David Shackleton AO RAN

“An AAP report (1640 8/11/01) attributed to me, following today’s farewell of HMAS Adelaide and HMAS Kanimbla in Western Australia, concerning unauthorised boat arrivals is inaccurate.

“My comments in no way contradict the Minister.

“I confirm the Minister was advised that Defence believed children had been thrown overboard.”

Further information: Tim Bloomfield (Department of Defence) Ph 0404 822361 (See Circling the wagons).

How misleading can you get? As we found out during the unthrown children inquiry, a defence force bloke running on a verbal report and speaking without authority had told the government verbally that children had been thrown overboard, but the Navy tried its arse off, through all available channels including a call from the acting chief of the defence force Air Marshall Houston to defence Minister Reith, to correct the record.

I remember very well calling Mr Bloomfield on the matter. It was interesting, since the Government had insisted throughout the election that journos only speak to Reith�s PR flack Ross Hampton (who later refused to give evidence to the inquiry and is now Brendan Nelson�s press secretary). When the shit hit the fan, of course, the government palmed it off to defence people with orders to say nothing! (For Howard�s lies after the statement, see Howard throw)

Revolting, isn�t it.

And now, AFP commissioner Mick Keelty gets the treatment for telling the truth. God, he�s been loyal. Keelty refused to cooperate with the unthrown children�s inquiry�s questions on SIEV-X, and in the end pleaded privilege to avoid answering questions about how far the AFP had gone in it s �disruption program� of boats.

But when push came to shove, he became just another victim of this government without shame. Now, he says, without explanation, that he was was �taken out of context�. Crap.

This is what Keelty said on the Sunday program, a standard view of every expert in the world who is not compromised by connections with George Bush and his cronies:

JANA WENDT: Well, Commissioner, that brings me to the question that most Australians are asking themselves. Could this happen here?

MICK KEELTY: Well, I think we’ve said all along this is an uphill battle. This is a marathon, not a sprint. The reality is, if this turns out to be Islamic extremists responsible for this bombing in Spain, it’s more likely to be linked to the position that Spain and other allies took on issues such as Iraq. And I don’t think anyone’s been hiding the fact that we do believe that ultimately one day, whether it be in one month’s time, one year’s time, or ten years’ time, something will happen.

And no one can guarantee it won’t. And I think there’s a level of honesty that has to exist here in terms of what the problems are here, not only in Australia but in our region. (Sunday transcript)

Honesty? Was he joking?

That�s the last thing the government which ordered Australian troops to invade another country despite the wishes of the majority of Australians wants. The last thing (see Howard at end of credibility line on Iraq).

The Lateline transcript of Tony Jones� interview with Alexander Downer has not been published as I write, but the interview tells the story of the corner the government is in. At last.

We can analyse it to our hearts content later today, but basically, Downer admits that the war on Iraq is irrelevant to Al Qaeda, except in its usefulness as a propaganda and recruitment tool.

That is, he admits, finally, because there�s nowhere left for him to go, that invading Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with the �war on terror�.

Oh, and he denies that he was critical of Keelty�s capacity to do his job when he said his comments were �expressing a view which reflects a lot of the propaganda we’re getting from al-Qaeda”. Only the ABC had that view, Downer said. No wonder the government wants to get rid of the ABC!

Downer claims a Spanish pullout from Iraq would hurt the war on terror. Bullshit. The first thing the new Spanish leader said was that fighting terrorism was his first priority. The Iraq war has exacerbated the terrorism threat, as every sensible international affairs expert, and the CIA, warned at the time.

Early election please.

“The Liberal Party’s arc of relevance has peaked and is steadily falling. Looking at the massive social shift, for personal and economic growth, onto Relationship, the Liberal Party must change its philosophical reason for being. If it doesn’t, as the groundswell keeps moving forward the Liberal Party’s current trajectory could well see it dead in fifteen years.” Robert Bosler

Artist and Webdiarist Robert Bosler reckons the Libs are gone and we’re about to do the vision thing. His previous work on the Zeitgeist includes An artist’s blueprint for a Latham win and Death of the Liberal’s liberalism?

 

Through the length of just these words we are going on a journey. It�s a journey that will peel back the madding rush of everyday life and we’ll be able to see into the deep groundswell of thought and feeling that is moving our nation forward.

As you do so, you’ll be aware that you’ll be looking into the minds and hearts of Australians moving surely in a clear direction. You will see some people are well aware of where they are going, while others may be less aware, but walking that way nonetheless, looking more at what is beside them than what lays ahead.

This is the world of vision. It�s also the world of the strategists who seek to dive in and return with a treasure of insight which will set the bearing on the compass of their political party towards where the groundswell of people are moving.

We�re going into those depths now. But before we do, a word of warning. It is often scary. Please take that seriously. It can be very, very frightening. We will discover things that we never before knew; and the fear we feel will come from discovering that what we find in there had been living there a long time, and that it is not going to go away.

It can also be thrilling, ecstatically. How much fear you have will depend on how much you resist what you see. Let�s go in and look.

Unlike diving into the depths of the ocean, or into the universe of outer space where we have to put things on, like protective suits, to go into the depths of the hidden inner world of the nation�s heart and mind we have to take our protective suits off.

We have to remove our prejudices and our pressing need to do whatever is pressing on us to do. We have to strip away our daily concerns, take it all off, and sit there, free. Peaceful. We feel the quiet descend on us. We become aware of our breathing. Breathing in. Breathing out.

There. Down we go. Into the depths. We are on our way in.

The first thing we see is that it�s big. For twenty million people it�s bound to be…but isn’t it strange, we don’t see twenty million people. We don’t see any people at all. We see a kind of an organism, where the oceans of peoples� hearts and the universe of their minds sort of melds together, moving gently, warm, just seeming to move over itself. All sharpness and hardness went long ago. We are inside the warm soft pulsing body that is our nation�s heart and mind. It seems to just want to experience itself. That�s all it seems to want to do, to feel itself, explore itself, enjoying itself, slowly and timelessly. It seems to delight in its very own existence, as though that delight is reason enough for its being.

It�s sensational! Are you smiling a little? That�s it, right there. That is the heart and mind, the soul, of our nation.

It is precious, isn’t it. Precious and delightful, almost breathtaking.

There�s no rush. We can take time to enjoy this, if you�re seeing it for the first time. Amazing. See how it loves to move through itself. Discovering itself, delighting itself. This is the silent, deep inner depth, of who we all are.

When you are ready, let�s go back in time.

How, do you ask? Easy. We just stay right here. This deep in here we can watch the groundswell of our national heart and mind move over the top of us, from decade to decade. All we have to do is to put our heads up.

Up we go. Let�s go back up towards the surface now. There. What you see now is Australia, and the year is 1944. The country is at war. See all the people. Look at what they are wearing. It�s grey, it�s all grey. There�s no colour. They�re all doing what they�re doing but they seem like they are all boxed in. They�re all sort of trapped within themselves.

And there now we see the great leader of the time, Mr Menzies.

He�s talking to the people. What�s he saying? He�s saying he wants to give everyone there �more personal choice, more personal freedom�. He does indeed look like a man of greatness; courageous. He has a gentle authority. Well, these people here in 1944 certainly need more personal choice, and more personal freedom, that�s for sure. It looks like every man has set jobs to do, as the breadwinner. That�s all. It looks like every woman has to have a baby and clean the house. That’s all. This is no joke; it�s not much better than that for man or woman. That�s not life as we know, from where we come; but there it is, all grey and boxed in, in 1944.

Let�s consider Mr Menzies� task for a moment. The Australian people we see here are vastly different from us. Mr Menzies has a seriously big ask here. �To provide people with more individual choice and freedom.� Can he do it?

Inspirationally, he establishes in this year a political party for that very purpose, and it�s called the Liberal Party of Australia.

Let�s leave Mr Menzies and those boxed in war time Australians. Let�s leave 1944.

Let�s go back in.

Breathing in. Breathing out.

Silently, deeply. Down we go. Down into the depths of the national heart and mind. Gently. Pulsing. Enormous. Delightful. Warmly and lovingly discovering itself. You’ve been here before, and once here, it never really leaves you.

Let�s stay here and just watch what is going on up above. And looking up, we watch the groundswell of the national heart and mind wash over us.

Soon we see the war has finished. Finished!

Perhaps we’ll leave the Australians of that time to rejoice, as they all come back together again; it will take them a few years to try to sort through what life is without a world heavy in battle.

Look up. Bummer. The 1950’s and it�s still grey. The men and women of Australia are still all trapped and caught up in the roles life has set for them. It�s like they are living life on traintracks. It�s a stilted existence, this. What is it gonna take for them to be free?

It would take an explosion. And the western world got it, and how! There we see it, as time moved forward into the sixties. Huge. Boundaries break and boxed in lives burst, exploded. Colour!

The seventies, we see, everything is trying to settle again, falling back into a new world order. Like exploded embers coming back to earth. But the social ground had burst from under the people, so there in the seventies we see the difficulty people are having, trying to put their new world back into place, bit by bit. Because they have been released from their boxes and thrown away the traintracks, people there now have these fabulous new ideas about how their new world can be – but without any real solid ground under them yet it�s hard for them to make those ideas last. Let�s leave them time to let it all fall into place, and let the new social ground form.

Breathing in. Breathing out.

Now, it is getting interesting. There we see the eighties. This is different, big time. The ground beneath the people there has become solid, very solid. Ideas from each and every individual can take root and they can grow. And look at the colour! Look at the vibrancy and richness of life. There�s a woman excelling in a professional career, heading up a boardroom. There�s a man staying home looking after his children. The people are, individually, free. If only Mr Menzies could see this. These people have individual choice. Look, they can do what they want, be what they want. Look at the power it is giving the people.

It�s like a hunger for them. Well, let them eat. They’ve been starved of individual expression and starved of individual freedom of choice, so let them gorge themselves. This is real freedom; this is real choice. It�s on solid ground, and the sky is the limit.

What more could we want? And what a relevant question. This is the me-want time of Yes! Money? Not a problem, watch them go for it.

The crying need for the fully free individual, the time of individual choice, has arrived. Achieved. Done. On solid ground. And aren’t they hungry, and isn’t that all they want. Look at them, satisfying their hunger. Gorging. Mr Menzies, and your Liberal Party, what you set out to achieve is now here, in abundance. Whatever any individual wants to do, here in the eighties, that individual has solid ground beneath them and they can set out freely to do it. They are hungry; we’ll let those individuals feast on their freedom and their limitless choice.

Before we leave the eighties, a quick look at this question between two of the people from that time. What happens if one said to the other �I want to create a political party who�s philosophy is all about individual freedom and choice�?

By us going on this journey, we now know the response would be: �There is no need to have a political party with that philosophy. We are doing that already. It�s been done. Our society has achieved that already. There�s no need to try to do it for our country, it�s already happened.�

�You mean it�s not a good idea?�

�I mean there�s no need for it any more. You don’t need to build a political party to do something that has already been done. The party would be irrelevant. No one would notice it. It would be like building a big political party whose whole purpose is to give us the ability to breathe, or nod or wink. We already have it. Freedom and choice is part of us now.�

Breathing in. Breathing out.

What we’ve just heard takes a moment to sink in. We know in 2004 the Liberal Party still exists, but we’ve just heard how even there in the eighties Australia doesn’t need it any more. And that�s big news.

That�s the frightening part, right there, that we talked about at the start.

Before we left we were prepared for what we might find. And find it we have.

It may take a while for it to be absorbed, but there you have it. The Liberal Party is now philosophically irrelevant.

All that is required is the maintenance of the choices and freedom Australians have, and to ensure the choices and freedom of parts of the nation as those parts evolve and arise, and that can all be done by any capable political party.

The Liberal Party was built in 1944 upon a philosophical premise: to satisfy the hunger from the groundswell of Australians, calling out from the depths for a better life. That life has been achieved.

The Liberal Party of today has been slowly rendered philosophically irrelevant. And it has been that way for some time. Only now could we say so. The groundswell has passed over us sufficiently, so that here now in 2004, we can see clearly where that groundswell has been, and what it needed as it moved along.

We have now a political party that exists in name alone, in party structure and membership, and in political acts alone. It is, at its core, no longer relevant.

This is not word play here. We went on a journey of discovery, and we have brought back a truth that is hard in this day and age to swallow.

To make more sense of this, we need to look at what has happened between the eighties and now.

We saw that freedom and choice had arrived, secure, in the eighties. That it is secure is important. We needed the time of the eighties to see that the peoples� freedom and choice was standing on solid ground.

We knew it had arrived when we saw on our TV creens the news item telling us that a black woman had been made a judge. That signaled the full arrival of the individual of freedom and choice, standing on solid societal ground. That a woman could choose and build a professional career like that was sign enough. That it would be a black woman who could now sit in judgement over whites and decide impartially upon their fate, when for centuries earlier her sisterfolk was bound in the shackles of slavery, signaled the end of the ball game for the liberal vision. The world over: liberal fulfillment had been sought for so long, the evidence was clear that now it had come.

Eat too much, and you don’t need to eat any more. So it was in the eighties, with people gorging on their individual choice and freedom. And filled people were. The groundswell was ready to move on. And was it all positive? What was the cost?

The cost of the feasting on our individuality was what we did to our natural environment. Blindly in our personal hunger we massacred it.

Amongst the din of the feast we heard other noises during the eighties. We heard it in the distance, and we heard it from those who had been quietly studying the environment for years. We heard alarm bells. We heard for the first time in our history the very, very serious threat detailing the end of our species if we kept blindly gorging on satisfying just ourselves.

There was a social cost, too. Some individuals just couldn’t grow, couldn’t prosper, couldn’t feast on what was provided for them by this individual freedom and choice. Wondering how to give them more and more individual freedom and choice was never going to help these people: they need help in other ways. Besides, they knew they had available all the freedom and choice they could ever want, and knowing it was available made it even more painful for them that they couldn’t prosper in it.

How do we help them?

And those who no longer wanted to feast, and are comfortable with what they obtained, what do they want now? To where was the groundswell moving?

Here we come to the treasure that the strategists want to find. We’ve had the frightening thing given us from this journey, now let�s get the gem.

To get it, let�s go back to those two people talking. What were they doing? They were relating. Each had individual freedom. Each had individual choice. But, individually, that is all they were: individuals.

Together, they had a relationship.

The relationship allowed them to grow. One individual shared with another. One helped another. Together they shared in the issue. There was growth. Only then, from relationship growth, could they move forward.

Yes. We needed to achieve individual freedom and choice. We did. Yes, we need to maintain these. We will. But the individuals� growth and the prosperity of enterprise came from the relationship.

Just as we heard in the two people having the conversation, through that brief relationship, where one person, who needed something, got it, so too does that fulfilment come when there are three people, four, a hundred, a nation.

Relationship. The true essential power of our growth as a nation is built on Relationship.

We know we have our freedom and our choices. We now want quality Relationship. We want it personally. We are learning about it all; our television shows and bookshelves are filled with help about relationship. Society today is awash with the need for it. We want it internationally. We want it between institutions. We want it everywhere. Even hardline business wants it. The modern business world is philosophically built on it, and calls it in today�s world: interdependence. We are striving for quality relationship, through every area of life. Since the passing of the eighties, and here today, we are hungry for it.

The political gem that we have brought back with us on our journey of discovery is that now, in today�s times, the groundswell is hungry for quality Relationship. We know that through quality relationship we will all grow. We know now that is how we will all be secure and prosper.

Let�s get another gem. This treasure is less obvious in our daily life. But it�s there. And that is our nation�s relationship with the environment. We’ve not yet become serious about what we are doing to the environment. We know that. We’d put it off, but its time has come. We all know it. Like cleaning out the rubbish in the back yard to make it fresh and healthy again, we put the job off, but when we finally embrace what has to be done and we get it done, we feel… what…..we feel liberated!

How it is that liberation comes in often obscure and simple ways.

Care and management of our living with the environment is not yet a sexy subject. We have to embrace whatever is required. Verily we now know, our survival as a species relies on what we do with our environment.

There it is, today�s hunger, the new bursting need of the Australian society. Quality Relationship between the individual and the individual, and quality relationship between the individual and the environment.

What happens if we fail to satisfy this new hunger? What happens if we deliberately ignore it?

Unfortunately, that is happening now.

Where once the Liberal Party we saw had enormous relevance in what we needed as a nation, today because it is philosophically irrelevant, it has in ways become a danger. The danger now in the Liberal Party belief is that, by focusing on the Individual, Relationship stands to have no bearing whatsoever on what the party chooses to do, let alone any attempt at quality of it.

It either has to change its philosophical core – its reason for being – or the danger will persist.

Keeping the liberal philosophy in today’s times gives the Liberal Party the right to cut up portions of individuals, and put them in separate piles. If you are focused on the individual as you cut up the groups you won’t feel a thing about what is holding them together, or what could be nurtured to hold them together. Whatever holds them together to the Liberal Party is not relevant. The liberal focus is on the individual. The focus is not on the relationship. The focus is not on the glue that holds us all together.

Cut the relationship, and each individual withers and dies. Cut the ties that bind us together, cut the bond, cut our brotherhood and our sisterhood, and we suffer. We do not prosper, we do not grow.

Cutting social ties without philosophical responsibility or pain then becomes just a political ploy – it serves no value to anyone except the Liberal Party itself. This is what we hear described as wedge politics, and it is a ploy used by the Liberal Party as we know to hold on to power.

Let�s be clear about what a danger it has become, and let�s be sure we understand what is happening. Let�s be sensible and responsible in how we deal with this danger. We have heard the use of the ploy of wedge politics being described as �clever politics�. Now we know the danger of this political ploy, it is clearly irresponsible to regard it as clever.

Here is the harsh reality of what is really happening: would you stand for Mr Howard cutting up the bonds and separating your family so that he could stay elected? Would you do it? Why then do we let him do it to our Australian family?

Is it clever?

That’s why today Australian people are crying out daily in the public media forums and in their private moments of discussion about the sad principle-less act of wedge politics. It hurts the fabric of our nation�s precious hearts and minds. It tears it apart. It tears us apart. On the surface in our daily lives the living effect is we cannot walk through life together. We cannot work together. We cannot laugh together. We cannot play together. We cannot be Australians together. We cannot build our future together.

By focusing on the individual, as a philosophy for a political party in today�s times, that party is given the free right to cut the nation up like cutting up arms and legs and fingers and toes of our bodies, and not feel a thing. The Liberal Party of Australia is the only political party in Australia with that particular focus, and the only one with that free capability.

Sadly, if it continues, that is what is threatening to become of the great Liberal Party tradition: a cold hearted butcher to the withering slab of the Australian body, and the public get sausages for policy from the sweepings off the floor.

Let’s remember the seemingly ancient but courageous man of principle, Mr Menzies, and ask: is this what Mr Menzies had in mind for treatment of the Australian people?

We have seen the awesome courage and vision the principled Mr Menzies set his working life about. Why the world of difference between Mr Menzies and Mr Howard?

Today, with the Liberal Party philosophically rooted in 1944, like an anchor to a time no longer relevant, and because Mr Howard has clung to it all his working life, as the wheel of time moved forward past its relevance it looks sadly like he has been sucked hollow. Without a principle of relevance to nurture him and hold him to a central belief, and using political ploys, not principle, to maintain power, Mr Howard has in a political sense become a hollowed out monotone political shell.

This does not mean he cannot make policy. Or stand adamantly to deliver it. Far from it, of course. But the issue confronting the Australian people in modern times is that, without philosophical relevance, he can put on an adamant face here, a face there, without any core substance, and representing therefore nothing of relevance, he can pick and choose policy for policy sake, simply to hold on to power.

We saw this lack of philosophical core signaled clearly, very early in power, when Mr Howard enthused about “core and non-core promises”. We all know a promise is a promise, and what he said was ridiculous, and, sadly, inherently dangerous. Mr Howard himself was voicing his own inability to be of any core truth about what he stood for.

The other area where the danger remains with the Liberal Party ruling philosophy is that our precious environment doesn’t have to register in what they choose to do. Our human relationship with the environment is not philosophically written into the way the Liberals govern. In the early days when the liberal philosophy was needed to promote individual choice and freedom, there was not the need to deal with the damage this individual growth would do to the environment. The dangers today in ignoring the alarm bells about how we’ve treated the environment are so serious it could lead to the extinction of the human being, if the heartbreaking daily extinction of other species is not enough already!

To have a token entry about the environment in your political platform is not sufficient; and the small token mention of it in the Liberal Party�s current political platform signals today the danger of a philosophy of long lost relevance.

Sadly, for many of us, we were looking forward to learning how we could better manage our living in harmony with our environment, but our teachers were torn from our coming together when Mr Howard came to power. Many of us knew we had right here, on the oldest soil in the world, with the oldest culture in the world, what any truly clever country would have cherished: the Australian Aborigine.

What richness we have, right here, waiting patiently, with whom we can one day sit, at their feet, and learn philosophical means for our salvation from the destruction we ourselves wrought on our natural world.

The Australian Aboriginal people have lived in harmony with the environment some say for 40 thousand years, some say 120 thousand years, but either way it blitzes our brief and destructive reign and from them, right here, we can learn the philosophical approach aboriginals have to that longevity. The world�s teachers are right here. Our world�s beautiful precious gift, our own brothers and sisters. Waiting patiently.

No wonder our Aboriginal brother and sister is hurting, with so much precious knowledge to give, and a government not wanting us to hear. What burden of riches they carry, and we see only their suffering under its weight.

And in return, what would our precious Aboriginal culture get from us? They get the respect their ancient culture deserves. And with that sense of self respect, they find their own way into their own fulfilment; all they have ever as a culture wanted from us after what we have done.

It’s all about relationship.

It must have been very daunting for Mr Menzies, way back in the boxed up grey war world of Australia in 1944, to find the hungry treasure that people of the day were looking for, and to believe in that treasure, and to make that treasure become reality. People of the day then, let�s remember, would have been frightened of that change.

And so it is the same today. People are naturally frightened of change. That�s what our journey into vision has been all about. Stepping back from the madding rush and discovering what the groundswell of the nation is hungry for, and how it changes, even though some may not know that they themselves are hungry for it until they see others feasting and can view the fare. The latter is often the most in need. And some, frightened, resist, and loudly we will hear them. But hungry we all are.

As we knew at the beginning of this journey together, how much fear you have depends on how much you resist what you see.

And so to the Liberal Party. Its arc of relevance has peaked and is steadily falling. The wheels of time turn. Looking at the massive social shift, for personal and economic growth, onto Relationship, the Liberal Party must change its philosophical reason for being. If it doesn’t, as the groundswell keeps moving forward, the Liberal Party’s current trajectory could well see it dead in fifteen years.

But sooner than that Mr Howard will go; what then? Mr Costello appears as the only person in the party showing sensitivity to the social needs of today, through ever so scant mentions at that. Sadly, his talent is rendered flippant and powerless because of the irrelevance of what his party stands on. In political terms he appears somewhat forlornly as the lost soul of modern politics. The public are not seeking his lead, though they enjoy from him as an aside their tiny glimpse of government colour.

Who then? Mr Abbott? Mr Nelson? Ms Patterson? Ms Vanstone? Mr Ruddock? Do these people reflect even a hint of what the public are hungry for? Does anyone want to seek from them our social future? And from any of them, do we hear even a word about the environment?

The real pain will lie with the Liberal Party backbenchers, who have not had the attention these ministers have had. Would the Liberal Party backbenchers have realised the irrelevance their party belief would become? Good folk no doubt, how would they have been able to see the movement of the groundswell when they first invested in their Liberal Party careers? What fear would they have for their own political time ahead? Will they want to continue to invest their lives in something continually moving away from them?

Though it is hard to swallow, unchanged, the collapse of the party is a very real possibility. It cannot survive on name alone. It cannot survive on what has been sadly and wrongly called �clever politics� alone.

For relevance in today�s Australia any political party must now we see have a Relationship strength in their philosophical purpose. The real excitement surely must exist within the young at heart, who can look upon all this and create their own vision of what a political party of today would be. There would be confidence in doing so, as their vision would last until if ever Australians satisfied their need for relationship and all the gifts that relating with their varied fellow man and woman and environment can bring.

Why have a philosophy at all? Because if it is a good and relevant philosophy we can hold them to it. And because a philosophy shows us the party�s belief – what each of them are all about – and we can see, and feel, if it reflects our current needs.

The Liberal Party: what is to happen to it? The party�s urgent clinging ploy maker, Mr Howard, will go, sooner or later, one way or another. Who�s left? What then?

We’ll leave the last word to Mr Howard himself, in his own voice – the word he uses to describe his fear of the political fate of his beloved Liberal Party.

�Oblivion.�

Why won’t John Howard admit that our participation in the invasion of Iraq increased the risk that Australia will be targetted for a terrorist attack?

Pretty simple really. If he admits the obvious, as the AFP chief Mick Keelty did, then he’s back to square one in explaining his decision to go to war (see Terrorist attack on Australia inevitable, warns FBI expert).

We know that intelligence agencies advised that invading Iraq would INCREASE the risk of terrorism in general. We know that there were no WMDs, so Howard’s stated reason for war – that it would reduce the terrorist risk – is wrong, and we also know that Howard was not relying on the intelligence service’s objective assessment of the Iraq risk, but, like Bush and Blair, decided to invade then looked for evidence to convince the UN it was justified (see the Parliamentary Committee WMD report) .

We also know that the Iraq invasion and occupation split the world and damaged co-operation in controlling terrorism, and that the war could drag on indefinitely, sucking energy from the United States defence force and adding people to terrorist ranks.

Surely, we’re reaching endgame on Howard’s credibility on security. Surely few of us trust him to tell us the truth any more.

That’s how I explain the sudden rush for even more terrorism laws – now to include socialising with suspected terrorists – crushing even more civil liberties. The idea is to force Labor to oppose some of the more extreme measures, and thus blame Labor if an attack occurs. Basic stuff.

The NSW government’s announcement that it would extend its already draconian terror laws is based on a different calculation. The Carr government is now so discredited and rancid that any way to divert attention from its disgraceful management of our hospitals, schools and public transport is a relief. On past performance the State Liberals will back any extension of anti-terror laws. Carr’s justification – that existing laws weren’t designed to deal with “murder planned on such a vast scale” as Madrid – is ludicrous. He passed his laws after Bali!

Overlaying the decisions by the NSW and federal governments is the calculation that they want to be SEEN to be responding to Spain, and this way there’s no real financial investment required. If you wanted to defend us against terrorism at home, you’d be training drivers of chemical trucks how to react to a hijacking, you’d be securing ALL our airports, and you’d be widely encouraging participation by the public. But that requires money and it also requires TRUST.

Do we trust the federal and state governments? No.

I set out the premium on trust between citizens and government in today’s world in reporting Carr’s new anti-terror laws in 2002, and suggested that the use of Carr’s extraordinary new police powers be overseen by an Australian trusted by all of us, like Sir William Deane. But no, the police minister oversees everything, and he doesn’t even need to report to Parliament. My reports included Costa: Police watchdog, Protecting our safety AND our liberty and Democracy’s watchdogs blind to the danger

On the federal front trust is even more important, so people feel safe in coming forward to give information about their suspicions, particularly people from minority communities. Locking people up for ‘consorting’ will REDUCE trust and REDUCE cooperation.

From what I’ve read a big factor in the rejection of the Spanish conservatives by the Spanish people was disgust that they ware again being lied to, with the government blaming ETA without evidence. I hope the people also sack Howard, Bush and Blair to cleanse all their democracies and allow their successors to rebuild the trust in government so vital to defeat terrorism (see the Financial Times report Blair more isolated over Iraq policy).

Today, a piece by Webdiary debutant Sam Guthrie on Keelty, Damien Hogan rounds up progress on the war on terror, and some seriously wild reports claiming the US is importing WMDs into Iraq. Noam Chomsky’s latest on Iraq is at The Guardian.

*

Sam Guthrie

In response to The American elections, the future of alliances and the lessons of Spain, and the article I am sure you are about to write regarding the Government’s reaction to Commissioner Keelty’s analysis of the terror threat to Australia post Iraq, please find the attached torrent.

As a PhD student in politics and international relations I am wading through security related analysis every day. I find the Howard Government’s attack on Commissioner Keelty and every academic and analyst who correctly assert the view that our membership of the Coalition of the Willing has made us a more prominent terrorist target, absolutely appalling. It is a new low in political expediency.

The Abstract Reality Express rumbles back into town

What is the latest political dumb show our Prime Minister is performing? Are we in for more of the rhetorical hop scotch we saw during the recent WMD inquiry? Hands up if you’re sick of being treated like an imbecile by a Government whose grasp on the concept of honesty extends only as far as the sound bite of a few cautious, well chosen words from a suburban lawyer “based on the information available to us at the time”.

Yes the Abstract Reality Express has rumbled back into town as the Prime Minister and Attorney General attempt to sell the idea that whilst the security of the country is at constant risk from Islamic terrorism, such risks are in no way connected to or increased by Australia’s role in the invasion of Iraq. This despite claims to the contrary yesterday by such authorities as the Federal Police Commissioner, the NSW Police Commissioner, internationally acclaimed Al-Qaeda analyst Rohan Guna Ratna and a videotape, purportedly from Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda, saying it carried out the attacks in Spain due to that country’s support for the US-led war on Iraq.

Is there a better example of a Government wanting to have its cake and eat it too? On one hand they jump on the events in Madrid knowing it facilitates the opportunity to trot out the national security credentials which since 2001 have inspired enough fear to translate into electoral support for the Coalition. On the other, the Government furiously seeks to avoid any responsibility for a rise in the level of potential terrorist threat which may be due to their strategically naive involvement in Iraq.

What is more disturbing is the fact that the Prime Minister, the Attorney General and today the Foreign Minister and Defence Minister are willing to compromise the vital experience and expertise of the Federal Police Commissioner to defend themselves.

This is the blame shifting tradition that saw the anonymous bureaucrats and members of the Defence Force blamed for the children overboard claim, and ONA blamed for Howard’s false WMD claims. In the face of ailing support and descending polls it seems the Government has become even more brazen in placing its own political success above the security of the nation.

Today as FBI executive assistant director (counter-terrorism) John Pistole, goes on record stating Australia’s alliance with the US has made it more of a terrorist target, we discover that moments after making a similar claim on Channel Nine’s Sunday program Federal Police Commissioner Keelty was rebuked by Arthur Sinodinis, the Prime Minister’s chief of staff, for contradicting the Government’s message.

Whilst such a contempt for truth may be permissible when used merely to manipulate the trauma of drowning refugees to win an election or to justify sending the sons and daughters of Australia into an unjust war, when it directly effects the security of the nation surely the Government must, at last, be called to account.

The Howard Coalition is fast losing its credibility on the last policy front upon which it thought it could hold its ground: National Security. Rather than providing the country with a single streamlined department specifically dealing with security issues the Governments anti-terrorism apparatus has been exposed as fractured, de-centralised and at the whim of a blinkered political agenda.

The treatment of Commissioner Keelty is despicable considering the remarkable role he has played in furthering the security of the country since 9/11. During the Bali investigations he worked not only as the operational chief of the AFP but as a fine diplomat for Australian security, developing a level of regional cooperation which the erratic diplomacy of our Foreign Minister had failed to achieve. The regional networks on security that he continues to spearhead, the experience he has garnered working on the ground in terrorist related investigations and his exposure to vast intelligence sources (including that of ASIO) makes him one of the most well informed commentators in the country on matters of security. By rebuking him the Government has not only shown its contempt f or Keelty but the role of the AFP and the vital work it has achieved since 2001.

It is widely acknowledged that the war against terror is an untraditional conflict, a war that will not be won on a battlefield but rather through the effective analysis of intelligence. The treatment of Keelty underlines the reoccurring crisis in Australian intelligence and indeed the wider Public Service. He has been rebuked for not initiating the self censorship that the Parliamentary Joint Committee Inquiry into Intelligence on Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction found rife in ONA’s analysis of the WMD threat.

In short, Keelty has been attacked for not telling the Government what it wanted to hear. This, during a time where our intelligence should be our strongest weapon against the terrorist threat, is further evidence of the Governments inability to priorities the security of the country over the security of its’ own opinion polls.

***

Damien Hogan

With the dust yet to settle in Madrid and our own Prime Minister claiming “security” as one of his pre-election strengths, I thought a quick roundup of the War on Terror might be in order.

Obviously this is not a war in the traditional sense. Al Qaeda have no plans to occupy and hold the western half of Utah or embark on a Lend-Lease agreement. So what are their plans and how has the war been going for them? By a stroke of luck Osama’s “secret” plans were left on the bus seat next to me today:

Our Secret Plan – August, 2001

* Create fear

Fear is the backbone of any terrorist organisation. Lacking the resources to mount any large scale invasions or military occupations, the anticipation of horror is our greatest weapon. The acts themselves will probably generate their own publicity, but ideally local politicians should never let the concept slip from the public’s mind for more than a few days – some kind of “terror indicator” (colours would be good) that can be placed on the front pages of newspapers or in TV bulletins would be useful. Obviously, it is mere fantasy to think of it, but an expensive television advertising campaign promoting the concept of “being terrified” would be great. To make it more palatable we might have to substitute the word “alert” for “terrified”, but the message should still be clear.

* Alienate US from her allies

The combined forces of The West are enormous. With a unified approach they would be almost unbeatable. We must divide and conquer. The UK is touch and go (and Australia is simply untouchable) but 150+ or more of the remaining countries should be easily separated. The mere appearance of the US (or even a small handful of minor powers) as “rogue states” will be an enormously powerful propaganda tool in recruiting new members.

* Massively increase US military spending

This should weaken one of America’s great strengths (their economy) and may directly lead to pain in the American community (via reduced services and/or higher taxes). A massive military build up in conventional weapons (and high tech weapons in particular) would be largely ineffectual in fighting us and so should be encouraged. In a perfect world a focus on space-based weapons or even a missile shield would be excellent as these are simultaneously astronomically expensive and entirely useless. As an additional benefit, military spending also consumes resources that might otherwise be used to woo our power-base of poverty stricken, powerless, despotically ruled zealots.

* Unite the Arab world

There is no need to spell out that fighting amongst ourselves is the road to ruin. Whilst our differences are large, we can surely draw together around a common enemy. If we can somehow get the US president to use terms like “crusade” when discussing various conflicts we will be doing very well indeed. I can’t see how this is possible as it would play completely into our hands… but Allah willing.

* Disperse US forces

The more countries the US attacks the better. Occupation will generate thousands of new supporters. Standard military theory teaches that the concentration of force is vital for any victory. Arab countries are preferred targets but beggars can’t be choosers. There will be real dangers for us if America remains focussed on Afghanistan for any length of time. An attack on Iran or Syria would be excellent – North Korea would be OK, but would take the spotlight of us and is not preferred. I was joking the other day with Omar about how funny it would be if the US attacked that infidel Hussein!

* Training facilities

If I may briefly continue the joke and presume that somehow all sense had left our enemy’ minds and that they DID invade Iraq – well that would be a great service. A fundamentalist Islamic government would almost certainly eventually take power and prior to that event many of the techniques of terrorism would be best taught in the kind of arena that Baghdad would offer. I think we could say with great confidence that Baghdad would become to us what Fort Bragg is to the Americans.

* USA out of Saudi

We must remove American military forces from the holy land.

* Weaken moderate leaders

We should hope for US arrogance towards unstable regimes. If possible open threats and/or blatant bribes by the US should be encouraged. We must separate the people from their governments. This should create either a shift to policies more favourable to our position or alternatively more repression from those regimes. Either helps us.

* Increase recruitment

Any US action which leads to increased recruitment or support from the countries in which we operate should be supported. It goes without saying that the American’s only real chance of final victory is to turn the locals against us. We must prevent this. Racism is our friend.

* Attack American legal institutions

Whilst there is already plenty of material to work with, anything which increases global the perception of hypocrisy by the Americans will be propaganda gold. This is a very tough one as many of the American’s rights are enshrined in the constitution. But since we are making wish lists, it would be great to get the US to hold without trial (or even deport) thousands of innocent middle eastern looking citizens. The rights of the 1st and 4th and 5th amendments should be gutted. Gulags would be good. In addition, multilateral treaties (eg Chemical, Nuclear or Biological treaties) should be ignored for the US and Israel but rigorously applied to others.

* Ignore Palestine

Any peace in Palestine would be a terrible blow and rob us of a great deal of “righteousness”. Luckily the US seems to determined to let the Israelis solve this one on their own! So that pot should be boiling for a couple of decades yet.

* Discourage non-military solutions

Military solutions inevitably lead to collateral damage no matter how carefully they are carried out. Collateral damage is the life blood of “radical” recruitment. Occupation is equally useful. If possible every problem should be viewed by the US as a military problem.

* Finally – avoid capture of important leaders (eg Me)

Whilst I technically play a very small role in the actual organisation, my capture would be a significant propaganda defeat. America will probably recognise this and would show themselves as complete fools if they were to become distracted by other less important targets e.g. Hussein. If however I am captured alive then under no circumstance must I be tried fairly for my crimes or kept alive to rot in a cell. My trial must appear to be manifestly biased (or even illegal if possible) and martyrdom would greatly increase the movement’s power and legitimacy.

*

Two things occurred to me as I sat on the bus and read this document.

1) Even blind Freddy could guess Al Qaeda’s plan, and

2) There appeared to be not a single significant setback in the last 4 years.

***

The following reports were compiled by Scott Burchill, who warns they have not been verified to date

U.S. Unloading WMD in Iraq

Tehran Times | March 13 2004 – TEHRAN: Over the past few days, in the wake of the bombings in Karbala and the ideological disputes that delayed the signing of Iraq’s interim constitution, there have been reports that U.S. forces have unloaded a large cargo of parts for constructing long-range missiles and weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in the southern ports of Iraq.

A reliable source from the Iraqi Governing Council, speaking on condition of anonymity, told the Mehr News Agency that U.S. forces, with the help of British forces stationed in southern Iraq, had made extensive efforts to conceal their actions.

He added that the cargo was unloaded during the night as attention was still focused on the aftermath of the deadly bombings in Karbala and the signing of Iraq’s interim constitution.

The source said that in order to avoid suspicion, ordinary cargo ships were used to download the cargo, which consisted of weapons produced in the 1980s and 1990s.

He mentioned the fact that the United States had facilitated Iraq’s WMD program during the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq and said that some of the weapons being downloaded are similar to those weapons, although international inspectors had announced Saddam Hussein’s Baath regime had destroyed all its WMD.

The source went on to say that the rest of the weapons were probably transferred in vans to an unknown location somewhere in the vicinity of Basra overnight.

“Most of these weapons are of Eastern European origin and some parts are from the former Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc. The U.S. obtained them through confiscations during sales of banned arms over the past two decades,” he said.

This action comes as certain U.S. and Western officials have been pointing out the fact that no weapons of mass destruction have been discovered in Iraq and the issue of Saddam’s trial begins to take center stage.

In addition, former chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix has emphasized that the U.S. and British intelligence agencies issued false reports on Iraq leading to the U.S. attack.

Meanwhile, the suspicious death of weapons inspector David Kelly is also an unresolved issue in Britain.

*

Occupation Forces Official Claims to Have No Information About Transfer of WMD to Iraq

A security official for the coalition forces in Iraq said that he has not received any information about the unloading of weapons of mass destruction in ports in southern Iraq.

Shane Wolf told the Mehr News Agency that the occupation forces have received no reports on such events, but said he hoped that the coalition forces would find the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction one day.

Coalition forces and inspectors have so far been unable to find any Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. The U.S. invaded Iraq under the pretext that Iraq possessed a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction.

*

US tried to plant WMDs, failed: whistleblower, see http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/?page=story_12-8-2003_pg1_9

Daily Times Monitor – Lehore, Pakistan – 15 March: According to a stunning report posted by a retired Navy Lt Commander and 28-year veteran of the Defense Department (DoD), the Bush administration’s assurance about finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was based on a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) plan to “plant” WMDs inside the country. Nelda Rogers, the Pentagon whistleblower, claims the plan failed when the secret mission was mistakenly taken out by “friendly fire”, the Environmentalists Against War report.

Nelda Rogers is a 28-year veteran debriefer for the DoD. She has become so concerned for her safety that she decided to tell the story about this latest CIA-military fiasco in Iraq. According to Al Martin Raw.com: “Ms Rogers is number two in the chain of command within this DoD special intelligence office. This is a ten-person debriefing unit within the central debriefing office for the Department of Defense.”

The information that is being leaked out is information “obtained while she was in Germany heading up the debriefing of returning service personnel, involved in intelligence work in Iraq for the DoD and/or the CIA. “According to Ms Rogers, there was a covert military operation that took place both preceding and during the hostilities in Iraq,” reports Al Martin Raw.com, an online subscriber-based news/analysis service which provides “Political, Economic and Financial Intelligence”.

Al Martin is a retired Lt Commander (US Navy), the author of a memoir called “The Conspirators: Secrets of an Iran-Contra Insider,” and is considered one of America’s foremost experts on corporate and government fraud. Ms Rogers reports that this particular covert operation team was manned by former military personnel and “the unit was paid through the Department of Agriculture in order to hide it, which is also very commonplace”.

According to Al Martin Raw.com, “the Agriculture Department has often been used as a paymaster on behalf of the CIA, DIA, NSA and others”. According to the Al Martin Raw.com story, another aspect of Ms Rogers’ report concerns a covert operation which was to locate the assets of Saddam Hussein and his family, including cash, gold bullion, jewelry and assorted valuable antiquities. The problem became evident when “the operation in Iraq involved 100 people, all of whom apparently are now dead, having succumbed to so-called ‘friendly fire’. The scope of this operation included the penetration of the Central Bank of Iraq, other large commercial banks in Baghdad, the Iraqi National Museum and certain presidential palaces where monies and bullion were secreted.”

“They identified about $2 billion in cash, another $150 million in Euros, in physical banknotes, and about another $100 million in sundry foreign currencies ranging from Yen to British Pounds,” reports Al Martin.

“These people died, mostly in the same place in Baghdad, supposedly from a stray cruise missile or a combination of missiles and bombs that went astray,” Martin continues. “There were supposedly 76 who died there and the other 24 died through a variety of ‘friendly fire’, ‘mistaken identity’ and some of them?their whereabouts are simply unknown.” Ms Rogers’ story sounds like an updated 21st-century version of Treasure Island meets Ali Baba and the Bush Cabal Thieves, writes Martin.

“This was a contingent of CIA/ DoD operatives, but it was really the CIA that bungled it,” Ms Rogers said. “They were relying on the CIA’s ability to organise an effort to seize these assets and to be able to extract these assets because the CIA claimed it had resources on the ground within the Iraqi army and the Iraqi government who had been paid. That turned out to be completely bogus. As usual.”

“CIA people were supposed to be handling it,” Martin continues. “They had a special ‘black’ aircraft to fly it out. But none of that happened because the regular US Army showed up, stumbled onto it and everyone involved had to scramble. These new Iraqi “asset seizures” go directly to the New US Ruling Junta. The US Viceroy in Iraq Paul Bremer is reportedly drinking Saddam’s $2000 a bottle Napoleon-era brandy, smoking his expensive Davidoff cigars and he has even furnished his office with Saddam’s Napoleon-era furniture.

Webdiary columnist Polly Bush explains the decision by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission not to allow the Catholic Church to discriminate in favour of men in teaching education. She also answers queries by Webdiarist Rob Bruce in Wedgewatch.

Poor Jim was being discriminated against and was suffering a ‘crisis in masculinity’. As a Christian white male, he had terrible trouble coping with his ambition to be a primary school teacher, subject to the brutal qualities of what was heralded a “feminine” occupation. The girls at uni picked on him all the time, relentlessly taunting and teasing him and making sexist jokes. Plus, he couldn’t keep up with the intrinsic drinking culture the female students embraced. Some, drunkenly made moves on him, reducing him to feeling like an objectified piece of meat. Others talked over the top of him in class, ignoring his ideas, and praising other women when they echoed his ideas moments later. Jim just couldn’t win in this cruel female dominated world. He would just have to take the first job he could nail following graduation, and safely assume the male passage out of the lower paid classroom and into the higher paid assistant principals office and assume his dreaded role in life. And gawd help the male kiddies who missed out on a male “role model” and were subject to the teachings of all those women, no doubt teaching them no good.

Since when did the Howard Government become a champion of addressing gender inequity in the workplace? Did I miss something? If Howard truly is the champion of gender equity, will he override the Sex Discrimination Act to ensure an increase in the pathetic figure of 8% of women who are directors in Australia’s top 200 companies? Will he suddenly embrace Joan Kirner and Emily’s List in seeking more female representation in Australian parliaments? Will he address the issue of women earning 66% of mens total average weekly earnings? Will he address the lack of visibility of female role models in sport, sports people who are arguably better role models than rugby league players? Will he sort out the bloke near my work who regularly greets me with the phrase “nice tits”? Will he accept female applications to join the frontline of our Defence force? And if he’s still around for another term or so (sorry Pete), will he search Australia high and low for a woman good enough to be governor-general or a High Court judge, cos gawd knows there’s gotta be one or the other out there?

The Howard Government’s latest proposal to override the Sex Discrimination Act after the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission’s rejection of an application by the Catholic Education Office to provide male-only teaching scholarships has similarities with the last time the Government tried to fiddle with the Act.

Like the initiative to ban single women and lesbians from accessing fertility treatments, the Government has hidden behind the agenda of addressing the so-called lack of male role models and this crazy concept labelled a ‘crisis in masculinity’.

The male teaching push not only gives the Government another reason to bemoan the so-called lack of male-role models, but also shows up Howard’s complete disregard of human rights and his misunderstanding of discrimination and the Sex Discrimination Act (SDA) itself.

It also demonstrates the Government’s naivety in introducing real long-term policies to address the number of male teachers in primary schools. The reality is twelve teaching scholarships for men are hardly going to balance up the numbers. (MARGO: But Howard’s planned law will give blanket authority ‘to discriminate against another person, on the ground of the other persons sex, by offering scholarships to persons of the opposite sex in respect of their participation as students in a teaching course…’.)

It’s the twenty year anniversary of the Sex Discrimination Act, an Act the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) says has “played a crucial role in promoting a greater acceptance of the need for equality between women and men”.

Under the Act, sex discrimination is unlawful. The HREOC identify the major objectives of the Act as being to:

* promote equality between men and women;

* eliminate discrimination on the basis of sex, marital status or pregnancy and, with respect to dismissals, family responsibilities; and

* eliminate sexual harassment at work, in educational institutions, in the provision of goods and service, in the provision of accommodation and the administration of federal programs.

Under Section 44 of the Act, the HREOC has the power to grant temporary exemptions. The Act also provides a range of permanent exemptions (the HREOC uses the example of “where the sex of the employee is a genuine occupational qualification”). In such instances, there is no need to apply for a temporary exemption.

On top of the permanent exemptions granted, Section 7D of the Act provides the allowance of “special measures” exemptions. Under this provision, the HREOC states:

“It is not discriminatory to take an action (for example an act, practice, policy, plan, arrangement etc) for the purpose of achieving substantive equality between men and women, people of different marital status or women who are pregnant/potentially pregnant and those who are not. For example, an action that has the purpose of addressing disadvantages experienced by pregnant/potentially pregnant employees in areas where they have been and continue to be unequal may be a special measure.”

While there are certain criteria that need to be met in order to be eligible to use the special measure provision, if the action meets the criteria, again, there is no need to apply for a temporary exemption.

As the HREOC’s exemption guidelines explain, “Because the SD Act already provides for both permanent exemptions and special measures, the circumstances in which temporary exemptions need to be sought are therefore very limited. As a result, temporary exemptions are rarely granted.”

In 2002, the Archdiocese of Sydney’s Catholic Education Office applied to the HREOC for a temporary exemption to offer male-only teaching scholarships. The Commission’s first response was to seek public submissions on the matter, and as such, eleven were received.

According to the Commission’s Notice Of Rejection Of Application For Exemption, submissions supporting the Catholic Education Office argued, “male teachers are necessary for the sound development of boys, that male and female teachers teach differently, and that boys need male role models.”

On the other hand, submissions against the Catholic Education Office application argued, “the contention that the exemption sought would subvert the fundamental purpose of sex discrimination legislation to ensure equitable opportunities and economic parity between the sexes. A number of the submissions opposing the grant of the exemption pointed to what was said to be a lack of evidence showing that financial hardship is the barrier preventing a higher number of males from enrolling in primary teacher training.”

The Catholic Education Office also provided material which included statistics highlighting the difference in male and female teaching ratios in NSW, and a 1999 Catholic Church study titled, ‘Men in Primary Schools: An Endangered Species?’. According to the Commission, the study concluded, “the decline in males enrolling and completing teaching training is a ’cause of concern to educational administrators and systemic policy makers and [has] wide-ranging educational and social ramifications’.” (All documents are at HREOC.)

The House of Representatives 2002 report ‘Boys: Getting It Right’ was also examined by the Commission.

Based on the material, the Commission found that (a) there are more female primary school teachers, (b) reasons for the imbalance included the “status of teachers in the community, child protection issues and the pay and conditions of primary school teachers relative to other occupations”, (c) there is “insufficient evidence” the proposed scholarship scheme would address the imbalance, and (d) there is “insufficient evidence” the imbalance will “detrimentally affect school culture or the education of boys enrolled as students in primary schools”.

The Catholic Education Office’s application also cited Section 7D of the Act, the special measures provision, arguing the male only scholarships were an attempt to achieve substantive equality. As the Commission noted in its rejection ruling, “If this is correct, then it would be unnecessary for the Commission to grant a temporary exemption.”

The Commission inferred the Catholic Education Office had failed in sufficiently proving the scholarships would achieve substantive equality:

“Although not entirely clear, it does not appear to be suggested by the Catholic Education Office that the scholarship scheme is aimed at addressing alleged substantive inequality between male and female teachers. If such a suggestion is advanced, the Commission notes that the Catholic Education Office has not sought to identify any “practices said to exclude, disadvantage, restrict or result in an adverse effect” upon male primary teachers or “leave uncorrected the effects of past discrimination against them.”

To utilise the special measures provision, the Commission notes the most important element in addressing substantive inequality, is the examination of the “overall effect of current practices and to trace unequal outcomes to their source.”

In the rejection of the Catholic Education Office’s application, the Commission cited the ratio of female to male principals in primary schools, and the occurrence of men more likely being promoted in the teaching profession:

“In those circumstances, it is not at all clear that the Catholic Education Office would be able to identify an “overall effect” that amounts to substantive inequality favouring female teachers.”

The Commission also found that the Catholic Education Office had not established a link between the gender of teachers and improvements in boys’ performances. It cited the House of Representatives Standing Committee report ‘Boys: Getting it Right’, which states:

“In supporting the presence of more men in schools, the Committee is not suggesting that female teachers should be displaced in favour of men or that women are not equally good teachers. The Committee agrees that the quality of the teacher is more important than the gender of the teacher.”

Interestingly, the same Standing Committee Report recommended the introduction of teaching scholarships but not male only scholarships the Committee recommended HECS free scholarships for equal numbers of males and females, based on merit.

The Catholic Education Office is appealing the Commission’s rejection and the case is to be heard next month.

Despite this pending review, the Federal Government still pushed ahead with their proposal to override the SDA to allow the Catholic Education Office to offer male-only scholarships.

In response, Labor’s Shadow Attorney-General and Minister Assisting the Leader on the Status of Women Nicola Roxon accused the Prime Minister of failing to “understand the operation of existing laws” within the SDA.

Like Opposition Leader Mark Latham, Roxon argued that “The Catholic Education Office, in seeking to attract more male students to take up primary teaching courses, could have put their proposal forward as a ‘special measure’.”

Again, this would not have required the Catholic Education Office to submit a temporary exemption application.

In Bettina Arndt’s article, ‘Jobs for the boys’ (The Sydney Morning Herald, March 20 2003), Arndt reported on the rejection of the Catholic Education Offices application, and the alternative avenue of the special measures provision:

“All over Australia, there are universities being bold and getting away with it. Four years ago, HREOC told the Australian National University that it was not willing to grant an exemption to enable the university to offer women-only academic positions to address gender imbalances in earth sciences. However Susan Halliday, the then sex discrimination commissioner, advised the university that if they could show “barriers exist in relation to the appointment of women staff”, then advertising for women-only could qualify as a “special measure”. (She noted there were risks associated with this approach.) The university advertised the positions and got away with it.”

Arndt also addressed what Webdiary contributor Rob Bruce argued in ‘Wedgewatch’. Bruce challenged Margo Kingston to a Google challenge of sorts, and, using examples of scholarships offered to women in engineering and IT, queried her statement that “it is inconceivable that low percentages of women in other jobs would get such special treatment”.

Personally, I interpreted Margo’s description of special treatment as the Federal Government intervening to override the Act not the functions or exemptions of the Act itself.

Interpretations aside, Bettina Arndt raised the same comparison in her piece:

“It’s interesting to note that similar arguments could be made about scholarships to attract women into fields such as engineering – with the reasons women avoid engineering having more to do with the tough male-dominated work conditions than the costs of training. Yet here universities get away with offering women financial incentives.”

Similarly, Miranda Devine in her piece ‘Labor has a list for Emily … but not for Edward’ (The Sun-Herald, March 14, 2004), cited areas where women are being encouraged into professions, arguing the Labor Party was practicing “positive discrimination”:

“There’s Emily’s List, Joan Kirner’s instrument for enforcing targets of female representation in Parliament. And the Victorian Labor Government warning to law firms of dire consequences if female barristers didn’t get more government work. Women comprise 18 per cent of the Victorian bar, which happens to be almost exactly the percentage of males (18.8 per cent) among trainee primary school teachers in Australia.”

Is there any validity in comparing legal and engineering initiatives to the latest teaching decision? In Wedgewatch, and in response to Bruce’s engineering comparison, Margo asked if there were “any sex discrimination experts out there who’d like to comment?”

Tasmania’s Anti-Discrimination Commissioner Dr Jocelynne Scutt has provided Webdiary with this answer:

“The attempt at comparing engineering scholarships for women and teaching scholarships for men is misguided. Exemptions are not to be given lightly. Every application must be considered on its merits, in light of the facts of the particular application. Attempting to argue by analogy isn’t productive, and particularly in this area, because the principle is, as stated, that each case must be considered on its own merits, and exemptions should not be given lightly. Hence, if there is no valid or substantive argument on the basis of the application itself, there can be no grant of an exemption. What has or has not occurred in relation to a different set of facts, in a different area, trade or profession, cannot ‘shore up’ an entirely different application. An extraneous matter, such as the grant of another exemption which is based on its own terms, in relation to its own facts and circumstances, cannot bolster an argument or application dealing with a particular problem or issue in another area.”

Unproductive analogies aside, by taking up Bruce’s Google challenge, there is a lot of literature available tracking the barriers faced by women in engineering. The same cannot necessarily be said for men in the teaching profession.

In 1996, researchers Christopher McLean, Sue Lewis, Jane Copeland, Brian O’Neill, and Sue Lintern examined the Masculinity and the Culture of Engineering (Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, Vol 7, No. 2, 1997).

The researchers surveyed male students in engineering faculties at two Australian universities, as well as interviewing academics and looking at previous research with female engineering students. What they found was a masculine dominant culture in engineering, and resistance to those who attempted to change this culture:

“A number of students recognised that, to belong to the engineering group, there are certain rules of behaviour that need to be followed, and that pressure would be brought to bear on anyone who transgressed. Attempts to change the nature of engineering – such as special assistance for women – was often interpreted as an attack on the ‘group’ to be resisted strenuously. Similarly, unacceptable views or behaviours by students – such as feminism or homosexuality – were seen as warranting exclusion. Engineering was also quite clearly seen as ‘white’, with ‘Asians’ viewed as outsiders.”

Many of the male survey participants identified with the stereotypes normally associated with studying engineering like binge drinking and joking around. The researchers of the study also identified an underlying theme of sexism in the embrace of joking around:

“There was also a tendency to dismiss the issue of sexual harassment by saying ‘it’s just a joke’:

‘I think some females can be a little bit sensitive to comments whereas it’s not aimed to be sexual harassment or anything like that. I’m probably guilty of it myself. At one time in one of our subjects we were talking about setting up an office at a company. I said, ‘Oh, we need a secretary as long as she’s wearing a short skirt and topless’ as a joke, and I know I offended one person. I apologised afterwards, but it wasn’t meant to degrade anyone. It’s just an offhand joke.'”

Male respondents also spoke of the survival mechanism for women, suggesting women were more likely to fit in to the course if they were “one of the boys”:

“Several male students pointed out that female students who act like this are seen as ‘chicks with dicks’. As one noted:

‘I think that would make it one hundred per cent easier to do engineering if you were the sort of girl, you know … sort of act like one of the guys. Very strong-willed and not shy sort of pretty little girl sort of image that is portrayed. I think they would struggle to come to grips with all the guys. So if you act like one of the guys I’d say it would be a lot easier to cope, yes’.”

On the other hand, women who identified as feminists faced ridicule:

“It is clear that comfortable survival in an engineering faculty necessitates an open, even aggressive rejection of feminism. We argue that the sanctions contained in the dominant discourse act to ensure that females in engineering do not openly call themselves feminist or appear to be following a feminist political agenda. Some of the sanctions applied against those seen as feminist were laughter, exclusion from social and study groups, cruelty, rudeness, and labels of ‘lesbian’ and ‘masculine’.”

Far better to be a chick with a dick than lesbian or masculine. The research also referred to a letter to a student paper by a second year engineering student who wrote of the dominant male culture in the course:

“Being supportive of women’s issues and drawing attention to them, even referring to the fact that you are female and surrounded by men, gets you virtually nothing but hostility in engineering. Male students seem to think that you are trying to make them feel insecure, or gain some sort of advantage. They tend to become extremely defensive and obnoxious, or increasingly fearful and maintain a blank silence, neither of which are much help when you need their help or co-operation… There are no long-term advocates of any form of feminism in engineering.”

The report directly addressed the issue of female scholarships, and other such measures to encourage female participation in the face of the dominant male culture:

“We believe that strategies developed to increase women’s participation in engineering must take account of the culture of engineering faculties and should focus on changing this culture. Given the negative responses of female and male students towards special measures for women such as women’s officers, scholarships and extra support, it would seem that many of these measures are destined to provoke a backlash and in doing so, to essentially fail. In a sense, these measures are band aid measures because they are about enabling girls to cope in the existing culture of engineering rather than about challenging and changing that culture. Such measures still focus on the girls, rather than on males or on engineering itself. Having said this, we also recognise the importance of continuing these strategies, perhaps in low key ways – to continue to support the women who currently take advantage of these programs and support systems. Our experience is that some female students covertly participate in these events and have learnt to not mention their participation to the male students.”

Indeed, women or male only scholarships are a contentious issue, and it is valid to question the long-term solutions they provide. Former Federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Sue Walpole addressed the issue of special measure provisions in an International Womens Day address in 1997. Walpole said:

“Another reason for history being so difficult is that it leads us directly to the question of special measures. Recent amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act make it explicitly clear that special measures are not reverse discrimination. Rather, they are positive steps to achieve equality of outcomes for men and women. Despite this attempt to clarify the law, special measures remain controversial. We only have to reflect on recent debates around the so-called ‘race issue’ to understand this.

“In my view the main reason for the misunderstanding of special measures is that it is difficult for people to see positive steps in any other framework than a current zero-sum game: to give to one is to take from another. What this ignores is the question of historical discrimination and the reality of difference. Men and women are not the same. If we only treat them as the same we will not achieve equality of outcomes. Achieving equality is not merely a matter of applying a formal equation. It requires analysis, discussion, protest and a consistent focus on measuring the outcomes of what we put in place-rather than simply assuming that because we have policies, because we have procedures, then we will automatically get the right outcomes. If history teaches us anything, then it is clear that it teaches us this.”

History, has not been on women’s side, and if the Masculinity and the Culture of Engineering study is anything to go by, there are many barriers women still face. So where does that leave Poor Jim in the teaching profession? Well, in ten years time, my bet is Poor Jim will be taking up a more senior, higher paid position, perhaps in the Catholic Education Office.

This piece was first published in yesterday’s Sun Herald.

 

G’day. Last week, John Howard’s game plan to retain office was revealed, and what a wild ride it will be. It’s a carbon copy of his triumph in 2001, also after being written off early in the election year.

The wildcard is that the nation’s mood seems to have changed, so it’s a moot point whether the same plan can work twice.

There are three components to Howard’s war game:

1. Clear the decks

In 2001, Howard’s backbenchers said voters thought the Government “mean, tricky and out of touch”. Howard quickly apologised to voters for slugging them with an extra petrol levy in breach of his GST promise, and to prove his contrition abolished automatic indexation of the levy, costing billions.

In 2004, after he couldn’t budge voters in their determination to stop him from winding back Medicare, he found hundreds of millions more to beef it up. He even extended Medicare to health professionals who aren’t doctors and nicked a slice of Labor’s plan to resurrect the dental health program Howard abolished when he came to office.

2. Garner a key constituency

In 2001, Howard’s budget threw money, services, and tax cuts at our elderly, thus introducing age-based discrimination into our progressive tax system. There was no mention of the Government’s dire warnings of the increasing financial burden of our ageing population. At the election, over 55s flocked to Howard, the only age group which preferred him as Prime Minister.

In 2003, he is aggressively wooing the Catholic vote. He announced this year he would deliver lots more money to Catholic schools, and now proposes an amendment to the Sex Discrimination Act to exempt the church from its obligation not to discriminate against women by giving financial subsidies only to male students.

Howard’s also made it clear he’ll run strongly on his generous funding to independent schools, thus encouraging more religious schools at the expense of secular state schools.

3. Find a wedge

In 2001, Howard’s exploitation of Tampa broke Labor’s back. The teacher discrimination issue is a potential wedge this year, although his ditching of the Liberal’s long-held opposition to reverse discrimination is a sleeper.

Howard threw this up not only to woo the church, but to put Latham back in his box.

But now the teachers’ problem is out there for debate, and most people don’t seem to buy the line that teaching discriminates against men, especially since there are more male than female school principals!

Web diarist Peter Funnell wrote: “Once there were teachers’ scholarships offered by the Federal Government across every state and territory. It was a terrific system, reflecting the importance of maintaining and encouraging people into teaching. In its place today is an ever increasing HECS debt.

“Once, teaching was acknowledged as a highly respected occupation in the community. Sadly, the students they teach aspire to more glamorous and better paid occupations. Teaching does not pay well, not for the qualifications required and the debt they now incur to get them.

“If the minister wants to make a ‘positive’ whole-of-nation contribution to the teaching profession, reintroduce the scholarship system.”

David Eastwood suggested the preponderance of female teachers might be due to the discrimination against them in other jobs, especially on working hours: “Teaching offers females a better pay/status/conditions trade-off than they can get elsewhere in the workforce, so they flock to it. If this is true, our anti-discrimination regime is simply not working.”

Another wedge Howard is playing with is homosexual rights. He’s copycatting a wedge George Bush is trying in the US presidential election. Unfortunately for Howard, there’s no public outcry at the ACT’s recent law giving homosexual couples the right to seek to adopt a child. But he’s working on it – talking up the issue on radio in the expectation that his attack dogs in the media will stir the pot, and gaining the support of his ACT Liberal colleagues to overturn the law.

So let’s sit back and watch John Howard do whatever it takes to stay in power “for all of us”. And let’s see if Mark Latham can not only avoid Howard’s traps and set a few for Howard, but put policy muscle on his vision for a kinder, more ethical and more egalitarian Australia.