Crikey John Howard has a bloody hide!

 

He says human induced climate change is �one of the major challenges confronting the world this century�. He says fuel emissions account for the bulk of global warming and that �the potential for climate change is real and addressing it will require changes to the way the world produces and uses energy.� His �Securing Australia�s energy future� White Paper boldly states:

�Emissions of greenhouse gases have the potential to raise global temperatures, resulting in deleterious effects to people and the natural world, its land and seascapes, its flora and fauna. Substantial reductions in global greenhouse emissions will be needed to avoid these effects� ENERGY SECTOR EMISSIONS MUST BE REDUCED AS PART OF ANY EFFECTIVE GLOBAL CHANGE RESPONSE.�

So what does Howard do?

He slashes fuel taxes or abolishes them for business and farmers at a cost of $1.5 billion, and promises to spend a third of that to promote cleaner, greener energy!

Howard’s Spin City has spun so completely out of control that he�s proclaimed a policy aim directly contradicted by the policy itself. I did economics at university a long time ago, but the basics haven�t changed. To promote less use or a shift to alternatives, you raise the price. To encourage more use, you drop the price. What the hell is this about?

Easy. Pure politics at its most debased � devastatingly bad policy for our environment and our energy security, but impossible for Labor to oppose on the eve of an election. Yet another Howard bribe, and yet another emptying of the bank account to stop Latham announcing any big new policy. And what, we might ask, will Peter Garrett think of the almost inevitable decision by Labor to let the cuts through?

Howard is repeating his Beazley trap of 2001, when he abolished the indexation of fuel excise and robbed a potential Labor government of billions over time with which we could have repaired our rivers and brought our universities back to life. Beazley had no political choice but to back Howard, and was left with nothing in the kitty to fund his planned higher education vision. (For a refresher see Petrol pump politics, March 1, 2001.)

Remember the negotiations with the Democrats to get Howard�s GST through after the 1998 election? Howard wanted a big slash of diesel fuel taxes to business and farmers. In a meeting with Treasurer Costello, Dems leader Meg Lees pointed out that encouraging people to stay with diesel and use more fuel would add to global warming. Costello�s mouth fell open � he hadn�t even considered the issue!

The rail industry camped in Meg�s office for days, and she finally scored a bit of an incentive for rail freight. Five years later, Howard and Costello still don�t give a damn about global warming, but now they�ve put cuts in fuel prices for business and farmers in an energy statement touting the need for alternative energies to take over from oil. And it�s not only global warming that�s urgent, but the world�s supply of oil is running out (see Oils ain’t just oils, they’re to die for and Deputy PM confirms oil crisis).

Howard has now made heavy freight trucks shoot way ahead of rail, yet Deputy PM Anderson trumpets the scam, baldly proclaiming that the policy would make �Australia�s road transport sector even more efficient and competitive�. What a way to reduce emissions.

The question of the day was from the Daily Telegraph�s Malcolm Farr: �How is making fossil fuel cheaper for more people part of an overall programme to wean us off dirty fuel sources?�

Howard: �I�m not� what the essential argument of this paper, and I hope of my remarks Malcolm, is that whatever may be the merits of renewables, the reality is that the older fuels of which we have large supplies are going to contribute the bulk of our energy needs and what we have to do is to make them cleaner…”

How about making them cleaner AND minimising their use? Can�t get your head around the old carrot and stick approach, John?

After the oil shock in the 1970s Australia�s government changed tax policy to make LPG much cheaper than petrol, a much dirtier fuel. Taxi companies converted their fleets to LPG, and the trend to smaller, more fuel-efficient cars began. Now, the differential in price is almost gone, and so is the incentive to convert to LPG. John, the world�s oil is running out and oil is destroying the world we live in, environmentally and in the Middle East. We need to REDUCE its use, not increase it.

Yet he�s �clever�, yet again. Bankrupt on the national interest, yet again. Whatever it takes, yet again.

This �package� makes absolutely no sense except in terms of debased politics in pure form. One little example. Howard said he�d spend $75 million on a trial of subsidised solar power in two or three communities. He mentioned Sydney and Adelaide as desired venues. Huh? Surely Brisbane, Darwin, Townsville, Cairns or Perth � with lots of sun and lots of air conditioning costs � would be the best places to start?

Where are the marginal seats Howard fears losing? Why, in Adelaide and Sydney, of course. Sickening but true. The only way to excuse this bloke is to assume that he�s got so imperial that he truly believes that his personal interest IS the national interest. Of course the means justify the ends if John Howard is the great leader we need now. Of course.

PS: Does Howard really care about global warming? The Herald Sun�s Jason Frenkel asked: �Would you be able to tell us what�s being done to conserve water and electricity and other resources at Kirribilli House and the Lodge?�

PRIME MINISTER: Well, I have given instructions that any of the local water consumption protocols and rules that have been laid down by the ACT Government and the New South Wales are strictly observed. And when they came out I made a particular point of asking my department to send a memorandum to staff in relation to the water restrictions and if there�s any breaching of them, well that would be against my expressed request and instructions.

Yes siree, deep green Howard insisted that the current law be obeyed. What a guy.

This piece was first published in the Sun Herald yesterday.

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

READER QUOTE OF THE WEEK

Greg Carroll

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

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

 

Webdiarist Mark Hayes in Brisbane does:

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

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

Yothu Yindi followed up with ‘Treaty’.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That’s why she won by miles.

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

 

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

ONE COUNTRY

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

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

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

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

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

Now every man must be, what his life can be

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

*

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

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

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

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

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

Just gotta touch someone, I want to be

So don’t…

*

(One country one, country one country)

*

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

Only a man can be, what his life can be

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

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

One difference, one lifetime, one understanding

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

RECOMMENDATIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

THE BUSH/HOWARD, LATHAM/GARRETT SHOW

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

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

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

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

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

***

Shannon Roy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

P. Doyle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

Brad Spence in Newcastle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

Guido Tresoldi, an ALP member in Melbourne

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

Sacha Blumen in Sydney

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

Steve Turbit, ALP member

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

Sasha Marker in Sydney

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

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

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

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

Andrew Denton made this speech on June 6 at the world premiere of ‘Helen’s War’, a documentary on the life and times of Australian anti-nuclear campaigner Dr Helen Caldicott.

 

A few months ago I read the obituary of a Russian public servant called Valerie Mitrokhin, a file clerk in the KGB at the height of the Soviet Empire. He was a trusted man, one of the faceless bureaucrats so central to Stalin’s totalitarian dream who served his country faithfully for many years.

But as he served, Valerie began to think about the horror of the tyrannical regime whose daily excesses were stored so neatly in the sea of files it was his job to keep orderly. So Valerie decided to do something about it. Every night, this quiet, anonymous man, would take one file from the KGB’s filing cabinets, put it under his greatcoat, and smuggle it out of the office, past the guards, to be hidden at his home. If he’d been found out, of course, he would have been shot.

Every night he did this. For 20 years. So that, when he did eventually flee to the West, where he ended up living under an assumed identity in London until his death earlier this year, he brought with him such a wealth of material that many KGB operations were stopped dead in their tracks and countless lives were saved.

And it reminded me that, no matter how huge and fearful a machine may be, there is always a weak link, a gap in the fence, and always someone determined and motivated enough to go through it. Always.

Which brings us to Helen Caldicott.

Or should I say, the hateful, ungrateful, harmful, hysterical, irrelevant, shrill, fossilised crackpot and left-wing twit, Helen Caldicott – just some of the free character appraisals she has received in various arms of the media lately.

Or should I say, instead, Dr Helen Caldicott. For Dr. she is – a paediatrician – and never let us forget it. Nor should she.

Because there is something about the appellation “Dr” that immediately has you marked out as a beacon of wisdom and humanity. How else can one explain the fact that Dr. Henry Kissinger has not yet been strung up by his heels and used as a human pi�ata by the good citizens of the Third World? Or that Dr. Geoffrey Edelsten was ever seriously considered as a doctor? Or that Dr. John Hewson was ever seriously considered? Period.

No, Helen has got the Dr. thing all worked out. She’s smart enough to know that it makes people think that she’s smart – and that she cares about them. Lucky for them, she is and she does.

Like many an impressionable early-twentysomething, I was galvanised in the early ’80s by the likes of Dr. Helen Caldicott to do something about the state of Mutually Assured Destruction to which the world had been consigned. I marched in rallies. I handed out How-To-Vote cards for Peter Garrett. I attended Palm Sunday gatherings in the hope of a nuclear free world and also, maybe, of finding someone who would have sex with me. How little I knew. And I did something even more radical and committed. I wrote poetry. Here is a sample:

Undertakers Overture

We’re overpaid and overfed, we’re oversexed (I’ve heard it said) We overact and over-reach, we over-use our soap and bleach We overspend and over-drink … then vomit over kitchen sinks And now I find – the bitterest pill – we’re under threats of overkill From overseas, just overnight (in what might be an oversight), A squadron flying overhead can nuke us til we’re overdead.

It was powerful stuff and I waited for it to take effect on the military-industrial complex. Nothing happened. I couldn’t believe it. This was some of my best verse. Disillusioned, knowing I had given it my all, I left nuclear disarmament to others, safe in the knowledge that it was only a matter of time.

Skip forward 20 years to June of last year and Helen Caldicott – Dr. Helen Caldicott – appeared as a guest on Enough Rope.

There was a fair argument against talking to Helen. She was from another time. The Cold War was long since over. She was a lost soul spruiking a won cause. In many ways, a trivia-question-in-waiting. Or so it seemed.

How little I knew. Her appearance on the show electrified our studio audience. We got a mountain of viewing mail as well. And all because of radical statements like these:

“We’re all capable of denying evil. We’ve got to get in touch with our humanity and not follow orders if the orders are going to kill people. We’ve got to stop killing people or we’ll blow up the earth.”

It was amazing. Not that somebody was saying such stuff, but that saying it should be considered so amazing. Who would have thought that advocating a world where we don’t all have to die an agonizing death of melted eyeballs and seared flesh is considered radical?

Not everyone loved Helen, of course. Some thought that she was a mad, screeching prophet of doom. And there’s a little bit in that. One of the most revealing scenes in the film you’re about to see is a good old fashioned barney between the film-maker, Anna, and her subject, Helen, after Anna suggests that Helen’s shrillness is a real turn-off. It doesn’t quite reach Jerry Springer proportions, but it’s a willing exchange.

And there is something about Helen’s zealotry which doesn’t always wash. As she tried to persuade me on Enough Rope last year that the White House and Pentagon are full of cold-eyed, money-making ideologues who care nothing for the future of their children, I remember thinking, “too dramatic”. The cold-eyed, money-making ideologue bit I buy. But not caring for the future of your children? Flawed they may be, but these are humans we’re talking about here, not robots. It’s not as if Terminator is an official of the United States Govt, I though to myself. How little I knew.

There is also something about Helen’s optimism which borders sometimes on naivety. In the film, you’ll see Helen sending an email to the Pope with the words, “Off it goes to the Pope and he can save the world.” I’m sorry Helen, but if there’s one thing that won’t ever save this world it’s organised religion and the all-too-human leaders who claim to interpret God’s word for our betterment.

But it’s this faith in human nature that ultimately redeems Helen’s excesses. And in that, she reminds me of another great humanist, Spike Milligan, a man whose love and despair for the human race fought equally for control of his brain, and who, like Helen, was easily dismissed by those whom he offended with his clear-eyed honesty as “mad”. Spike once brilliantly said, “Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light.”

Indeed so. Not that I think, for one second, that Helen is mad. She just makes other people feel that way. But if, at times, she does appear to be over-the-top, I don’t think it’s because she’s unhinged. I think that so few voices are prepared to join hers in protest that she has to shout more and more loudly to be heard over the din of apathy. That she has the energy to keep doing so is an inspiration in itself.

And that’s why I’m here today. Because it is too easy to dismiss the Helen Caldicott’s of this world as mad. I can hear them now – the Piers Ackerman’s and Miranda Devines and Andrew Bolts – all sharpening their Mont Blancs.

And they’ll throw up a thousand justifications and case studies and facts, And most will be well-intentioned. And many will be right. Yes they will. But the thing is: They can be right a thousand times. Helen only needs to be right once and we’re all going to pay a terrible price.

So ask yourself this: What are the chances of Helen being right? To which the answer is: 100% and, to prove it, I will invoke a discovery I have made called the Ackerman Principle, which states that “Piers Ackerman’s argument that a nuclear disaster will never happen because we can trust human beings is negated by the fact that Piers Ackerman is a human being”.

In other words: Any system whose weakest link is human fallibility is doomed to failure.

Now the usual pack of right-wing bullyboys and girls can write Helen off as mad – in that strange way they have of writing off anyone as mad who thinks peace might be nice – but she shouldn’t have to stand alone while they, with their vast numerical superiority, ridicule her out of existence.

So I am happy to stand here beside her and declare:

Any woman who dedicates her life to saying “We can end nuclear war in 5 years. I know how to do it” will always have my support because think that’s a damned good idea.

And if you want to call me mad, too, I don’t mind because I am. And if you are, too, I’d like you to stick your head out of your window tonight and yell: “I’m mad as Helen and I’m not going to take it any more!”

To finish, let us go to another mad person, who lived on the fringes yet drove straight to the heart, the poet, Walt Whitman, who once said: “Behold, I do not give lectures or a little charity. When I give I give myself.”

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Helen Caldicott and ‘Helen’s War’.

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

BARTLETT: Do you? What about US Forces?

PRIME MINISTER: Pass!

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

Midnight Oil – Beds are Burning

Out where the river broke

The bloodwood and the desert oak

Holden wrecks and boiling diesels

Steam in forty five degrees

*

The time has come

To say fair’s fair

To pay the rent

To pay our share

The time has come

A fact’s a fact

It belongs to them

Let’s give it back

*

How can we dance when our earth is turning

How do we sleep while our beds are burning

*

Four wheels scare the cockatoos

From Kintore East to Yuendemu

The western desert lives and breathes

In forty five degrees

***

Midnight Oil – U.S. FORCES

US forces give the nod

it’s a setback for your country

bombs and trenches all in rows

bombs and threats still ask for more

*

divided world the CIA

who controls the issue

you leave us with no time to talk

you can write your own assessment

*

sing me songs of no denying

seems to me too many trying

waiting for the next big thing

*

will you know it when you see it?

high risk children dogs of war

now market movements call the shots

business deals in parking lots

waiting for the meat of tomorrow

*

everyone is too stoned to start emission

people too scared to go to prison

we’re unable to make decisions

political party line don’t cross that floor

L. Ron Hubbard can’t save your life

superboy takes a plutonium wife

in the shadows of ban the bomb we live.

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

1995: Graduates from University of Maryland.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

FOOTNOTES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

FURTHER READING

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

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

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

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

Le Monde Diplomatique on Middle Eastern anti-Semitism

***

aloewenstein@f2network.com.au

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