The subversion of complex systems
Chaos and catastrophe are intrinsic attributes of complex systems. Structure and organization involve a significant cost overhead, an investment of energy proportional to the complexity of the system.
From the macro scale of galactic clusters to the micro scale of subatomic particles, order and chaos dance a dynamic duet of destruction and creation, expansion and contraction.
Civilization is a complex system of the highest order. Society must invest an enormous amount of energy and resources to maintain control and provide for the population.
But there is always a limit to the availability of energy and resources. There inevitably comes a time in the development of a complex system where the available energy is insufficient to maintain order. At that point, chaos and catastrophe strike.
Chaos theory provides a host of mathematical and conceptual tools for the study of complex systems. Social activists can gain insight and guidance by learning from the science of chaos.
Order and stability are characterized by small incremental changes against a backdrop of seeming continuity. Conditions of equilibrium dominate complex systems. The very laws of nature, their constancy and invariance, enable the development of complex systems.
But these constant incremental changes generate tensions within the system as a whole that eventually exceed the constraints of stasis. At some point, organization fails and order gives way to chaos.
Throughout the history of life on earth, evolution has been sporadic, long periods of little change interrupted by mass extinction events and the rapid proliferation of new life forms. Evolutionary ecologists call this pattern “punctuated equilibrium”.
The imperceptible movement of tectonic plates creates tension that can trigger devastating earthquakes and tsunamis. The accumulation of ions in a thunderhead produces sudden dramatic bolts of lightening that rent the air and strike the ground at random. Open too many windows on your computer and the system becomes unstable.
In each example, the accumulated tension generated by “normal” processes precipitates a catastrophic event. This cataclysmic disturbance acts, in a way, to reset the system.
A key feature of complex systems is “sensitive dependence on initial conditions”, which gives rise to the phenomena known as the Butterfly effect. Small and insignificant perturbations in the system can, over time, lead to major ructions.
This attribute is of particular interest to social activists - it underpins the power of “memes”, movements like “critical mass” and the concept of “morphic resonance”. It reveals the importance of small actions.
Another striking characteristic of complex systems is the appearance of self-similarity across orders of magnitude. This phenomenon is best illustrated by fractal geometry, but it can be observed all around us in the real world, from the jagged appearance of the coastline, whether viewed from near or far, to the convoluted texture of vegetation or the grainy structure of rock.
This pattern of self-similarity is equally evident in human society. Political divisions exist within all levels of social organization, from the supra-national to the local, within tribes, families and the individual. While the issues and customs may vary, the degree of divergence remains constant across all levels of organization.
This aspect of complexity is particularly useful for activists who seek to bring about change at a grass-roots level. Such activity correlates with broader social movement in various ways. Grass-roots activism seeds the population with the impetus for change and energizes society.
Resistance and dissent are natural responses to excessive control and oppression. Civilization is the inevitable consequence of rising social organization, but somewhere along the way, it begins to sacrifice individual freedom for the sake of order.
At this point, individuals face the challenge of reshaping their reality, sowing the seeds of revolution, preparing the ground for changes yet unseen but well underway. As complexity multiplies, the system groans under its own weight, and people sense calamity brewing.
The most effective strategy in such circumstances is one that employs the creative power of chaos. By tweaking the system in small ways, like a butterfly beating its wings, original ideas can produce extraordinary results.
Whether an activist chooses the path of “subversive compliance” or “disorganized resistance”, working alone or in small groups, spreading memes or fostering alternatives, their efforts are part of a much grander scheme, barely perceived by most.
Lao Tzu said, great acts are made up of small deeds. And so it is for the activists, quietly, steadily working toward enlightening and transforming their world.
Thursday, December 30, 2004
Wednesday, December 22, 2004
The pattern of war crimes in Iraq
Coalition forces are committing war crimes in Iraq. Several soldiers from the US Army’s 41st Regiment appeared before a military court in Baghdad last week, charged with murder. One of the soldiers, Sgt John Horne, pleaded guilty and was sentenced to three years in prison for killing a wounded Iraqi child.
Other members of the Regiment face charges arising from excessive and indiscriminate use of force in the suburbs of Sadr City, where US troops have been fighting Shiite militia. And two members of the 41st face murder charges for killing two fellow soldiers.
But it’s not just individual soldiers losing their grip in the heat of battle. War crimes in Iraq reveal a pattern of widespread, systemic contempt for the laws of war and fundamental human rights.
In Samarra, bodies littered the streets, untended because of the fear of snipers. Families tried to bury their dead, but the road to the cemetery was blocked off by US troops. Witnesses said many civilians were killed. President Ghazi Yawar called the assaults “collective punishment”.
AFP and Channel 4 both report that troops in Fallujah were given orders to shoot all males of fighting age, armed or unarmed. Article 48 of the Geneva Conventions requires that “Parties to a conflict shall at all times distinguish between civilians and combatants”.
US forces have bombed hospitals, shot ambulances and prevented medical aid from reaching Fallujah. They refused to let men flee the kill zone. The Geneva Conventions require that hospitals, their staff, the sick, wounded or infirm, are all afforded protection and respect.
More than 200,000 people, forced to flee Fallujah when US troops attacked the city last month, now face the trauma of returning to their shattered homes. The city remains without power and water, its antiquated infrastructure has been ruined and hundreds of buildings have been destroyed. The stench of death still lingers in the air.
Tom Lasseter, a reporter embedded with the 1st Infantry Division’s Alpha Company, described the attack on Fallujah with intense detail. Phosphorous shells released bouncing white orbs of smoke. “We’re going to destroy this town” one soldier said, “I hope so” replied another.
Lasseter recalls Alpha Company occupied an abandoned home. They urinated in the corners and defecated on the floor. Many of the men wore skull and crossbones patches sewn onto their vests. One marine said it felt like the enemy was everywhere. “So we just went ape shit with the cannon, shooting everything,” he said.
General Natonski said “We had the green light, we went all the way.”
Foreign Minister Downer told ABC Radio the assault on Fallujah was necessary “to dig out and defeat the terrorists” and “to ensure that the Iraqis can have an election”. He said the carnage would give Iraq’s new government “democratic legitimacy and the support of Iraqi people”.
John Burns, reporting for the New York Times, said the “Marines envision a huge effort of social and physical engineering, all intended to transform a bastion of militant anti-Americanism into a benevolent and functional metropolis.” There are plans to rebuild the city and an American corporation has a contract to repair a wastewater treatment plant damaged by American bombs.
But Dahr Jamail found that many Iraqis don’t appreciate the West’s benevolence. “They are all liars, the government and the Americans,” one resident said. “The mujahedin didn’t hurt us. They helped us.” A grieving mother weeps, “This is the third of my kids to be killed. The Americans are savages. They do nothing but bring injustice.”
Meanwhile, the Boston Business Review reports that Raytheon, a US weapons company, has developed a new Humvee mounted ‘heat beam’ weapon which they hope to test in Iraq. Charles Heal, a former Marine who advised Raytheon on the beam’s development, said “It’s ready, it will likely be in Iraq in the next 12 months.”
From the lies told about WMD to the abuses at Abu Ghraib, the fifty failed attempts to murder Saddam, the desecration of holy sites, the destruction of civilian infrastructure, the willful killing of wounded and unarmed individuals... Howard, Ruddock, Hill and Downer have all knowingly conspired with the Bush regime to commit just about every war crime imaginable.
These creeps don’t care about the Geneva Conventions, and why would they - as elected representatives of a “civilized democracy” and allies of the United States, they can defy international law with impunity.
Other members of the Regiment face charges arising from excessive and indiscriminate use of force in the suburbs of Sadr City, where US troops have been fighting Shiite militia. And two members of the 41st face murder charges for killing two fellow soldiers.
But it’s not just individual soldiers losing their grip in the heat of battle. War crimes in Iraq reveal a pattern of widespread, systemic contempt for the laws of war and fundamental human rights.
In Samarra, bodies littered the streets, untended because of the fear of snipers. Families tried to bury their dead, but the road to the cemetery was blocked off by US troops. Witnesses said many civilians were killed. President Ghazi Yawar called the assaults “collective punishment”.
AFP and Channel 4 both report that troops in Fallujah were given orders to shoot all males of fighting age, armed or unarmed. Article 48 of the Geneva Conventions requires that “Parties to a conflict shall at all times distinguish between civilians and combatants”.
US forces have bombed hospitals, shot ambulances and prevented medical aid from reaching Fallujah. They refused to let men flee the kill zone. The Geneva Conventions require that hospitals, their staff, the sick, wounded or infirm, are all afforded protection and respect.
More than 200,000 people, forced to flee Fallujah when US troops attacked the city last month, now face the trauma of returning to their shattered homes. The city remains without power and water, its antiquated infrastructure has been ruined and hundreds of buildings have been destroyed. The stench of death still lingers in the air.
Tom Lasseter, a reporter embedded with the 1st Infantry Division’s Alpha Company, described the attack on Fallujah with intense detail. Phosphorous shells released bouncing white orbs of smoke. “We’re going to destroy this town” one soldier said, “I hope so” replied another.
Lasseter recalls Alpha Company occupied an abandoned home. They urinated in the corners and defecated on the floor. Many of the men wore skull and crossbones patches sewn onto their vests. One marine said it felt like the enemy was everywhere. “So we just went ape shit with the cannon, shooting everything,” he said.
General Natonski said “We had the green light, we went all the way.”
Foreign Minister Downer told ABC Radio the assault on Fallujah was necessary “to dig out and defeat the terrorists” and “to ensure that the Iraqis can have an election”. He said the carnage would give Iraq’s new government “democratic legitimacy and the support of Iraqi people”.
John Burns, reporting for the New York Times, said the “Marines envision a huge effort of social and physical engineering, all intended to transform a bastion of militant anti-Americanism into a benevolent and functional metropolis.” There are plans to rebuild the city and an American corporation has a contract to repair a wastewater treatment plant damaged by American bombs.
But Dahr Jamail found that many Iraqis don’t appreciate the West’s benevolence. “They are all liars, the government and the Americans,” one resident said. “The mujahedin didn’t hurt us. They helped us.” A grieving mother weeps, “This is the third of my kids to be killed. The Americans are savages. They do nothing but bring injustice.”
Meanwhile, the Boston Business Review reports that Raytheon, a US weapons company, has developed a new Humvee mounted ‘heat beam’ weapon which they hope to test in Iraq. Charles Heal, a former Marine who advised Raytheon on the beam’s development, said “It’s ready, it will likely be in Iraq in the next 12 months.”
From the lies told about WMD to the abuses at Abu Ghraib, the fifty failed attempts to murder Saddam, the desecration of holy sites, the destruction of civilian infrastructure, the willful killing of wounded and unarmed individuals... Howard, Ruddock, Hill and Downer have all knowingly conspired with the Bush regime to commit just about every war crime imaginable.
These creeps don’t care about the Geneva Conventions, and why would they - as elected representatives of a “civilized democracy” and allies of the United States, they can defy international law with impunity.
Friday, December 17, 2004
Nonreciprocal Mutual Obligation
The Howard government is an advocate of “personal responsibility” and “mutual obligation”, but only for Centrelink customers. Tax payers, they say, expect welfare recipients to work for their benefits.
There is widespread concern, as Kim Beazley put it, that “an awful lot of Australians have security in their unemployment payments, and that gives a mind-set to keep away from the work force”.
Senator Jocelyn Newman claims an “entrenched culture of welfare dependency has meant that certain members of our community are not only prepared, but feel entitled to exploit the social safety net.”
The unemployed are routinely denounced as “work shy”, “job snobs”, “dole bludgers” and “welfare cheats” by politicians and media shock jocks. This attitude appears to resonate with the broader community.
Portraying unemployment as a matter of choice rather than circumstance places the blame for unemployment squarely on the shoulders of the unemployed. This way the government negates its obligation to ensure an equitable distribution of prosperity and opportunity for all Australians.
According to the government, poverty and unemployment are caused by individual attitudes toward work and welfare. The only way to deal with the unemployed, we are told, is to grab them by the scruff of the neck and force them to work for nothing.
To implement this strategy, the government introduced “Work for the Dole”. Tony Abbott’s website claims “Work for the Dole is providing hope, experience and opportunity” for the unemployed. But an independent study commissioned by the government found that “Work for the Dole reduces the job prospects of unemployed people”.
The report, which was suppressed by the government, concluded that Work for the Dole did not develop skills, was not aimed at finding work and was not linked to continuing employment.
ACOSS has criticised the program for lacking an adequate training component and failing to provide experience in real jobs. Anglicare described Work for the Dole as “fundamentally flawed”.
The real effect (and perhaps the purpose) of Mutual Obligation is to punish and discourage the unemployed, while at the same time, undermine workers’ rights.
Apparently, Centrelink is not obliged to provide Work for the Dole participants a fair wage or safe working environment, Work Cover, Superannuation, sick leave or any of the protections and entitlements of employment required by Industrial Relations legislation.
Centrelink informs job seekers that “Your mutual obligation responsibilities are spelt out in your Preparing for Work Agreement. This Agreement is negotiated between you and your Centrelink contact officer”. The fact is, this legally binding “agreement” is not “negotiated” at all, it is imposed upon participants who have no choice but to accept, or starve.
The late great philosopher, John Rawls, explained that “obligations arise only when institutions are just and individuals are able to freely accept social benefits in a context of meaningful alternatives.” But the government’s concept of Mutual Obligation is far from just, and for most recipients, Centrelink payments are a necessity, not a choice.
As Pamela Kinear from The Australia Institute wrote about the ethics of Mutual Obligation, “Australia’s system of economic management has relied on creating joblessness to sustain economic growth ... policies to promote economic reform have created structural unemployment in order to strengthen the economy as a whole. Unemployed people have therefore made an involuntary sacrifice for the economic well-being of employed people. As a result, the starting point for obligations to accrue is not just.”
The imposition of Mutual Obligation requirements on the poorest and most disadvantaged members of society, the young and unemployed, single parents, people with chronic illness or disabilities, suffering difficult life circumstance or employment discrimination, creates a pool of cheap labour to compete with low paid workers, especially in the community services sector.
This practice, like industry downsizing and deregulation, produces labour market conditions that favour management, and disadvantage workers. While productivity and company profits have soared, wages have remained steady and workers are expected to work harder.
According to Princeton University economist Paul Krugman, over the past three years, wage and salary income grew less than in any other postwar recovery while profits grew at more than ten times that rate, the fastest growth in company profits since World War II.
The official unemployment rate is a statistical device designed to obscure the true state of the labour market. It grossly misrepresents the extent of under-employment and falling workplace participation.
A surplus of cheap labour and the stigma of unemployment keeps workers worried about their job security and allows management to resist demands for higher pay and improved working conditions. The worse life gets for the unemployed, the better it is for capital.
Such inequalities are emblematic of neoliberal free market ideology. People are viewed as resources to be exploited for private profit, their intrinsic value discounted. Notions of social justice and equality of opportunity have no place in the modern economy.
The onerous requirements of Mutual Obligation imposed on the unemployed, combined with a punitive system of “breaching” and cancellation of payments, affect over 200,000 Centrelink customers and saves the government more than $170 million dollars a year.
Given that simply arriving late for a Job Network interview can result in a “breach”, effectively a fine of $1000, the system is obviously intended to make life as hard as possible for the unemployed.
But it's not just the unfortunate individual who suffers, this money would normally flow directly into the local economy, sustaining shop keepers, service providers and small businesses, not to mention the 10% that flows straight back to the government in GST.
The government’s rhetoric of “mutual obligation” does nothing to address the deep-seated structural causes of unemployment, it merely shifts blame to the victims and conceals the fact that this government has failed to implement a comprehensive labour market strategy.
As an ethical argument, it rings hollow. While the government demands mutual obligation for the disadvantaged, it waives such requirements for the privileged. Government and businesses are free from any obligation to create and maintain adequate employment.
Moreover, corporate welfare remains sacrosanct. According to the Productivity Commission, industry received more than $10 billion in government assistance last year, mostly with no strings attached. The beneficiaries of this largesse are company shareholders, not obligated to contribute anything in return. And to top it all off, our politicians lie and defy international law with impunity.
The Howard government has a clear strategy for political success - patronize the privileged and demonize the disadvantaged. Obligation and responsibility, it seems, are for Centrelink customers only.
There is widespread concern, as Kim Beazley put it, that “an awful lot of Australians have security in their unemployment payments, and that gives a mind-set to keep away from the work force”.
Senator Jocelyn Newman claims an “entrenched culture of welfare dependency has meant that certain members of our community are not only prepared, but feel entitled to exploit the social safety net.”
The unemployed are routinely denounced as “work shy”, “job snobs”, “dole bludgers” and “welfare cheats” by politicians and media shock jocks. This attitude appears to resonate with the broader community.
Portraying unemployment as a matter of choice rather than circumstance places the blame for unemployment squarely on the shoulders of the unemployed. This way the government negates its obligation to ensure an equitable distribution of prosperity and opportunity for all Australians.
According to the government, poverty and unemployment are caused by individual attitudes toward work and welfare. The only way to deal with the unemployed, we are told, is to grab them by the scruff of the neck and force them to work for nothing.
To implement this strategy, the government introduced “Work for the Dole”. Tony Abbott’s website claims “Work for the Dole is providing hope, experience and opportunity” for the unemployed. But an independent study commissioned by the government found that “Work for the Dole reduces the job prospects of unemployed people”.
The report, which was suppressed by the government, concluded that Work for the Dole did not develop skills, was not aimed at finding work and was not linked to continuing employment.
ACOSS has criticised the program for lacking an adequate training component and failing to provide experience in real jobs. Anglicare described Work for the Dole as “fundamentally flawed”.
The real effect (and perhaps the purpose) of Mutual Obligation is to punish and discourage the unemployed, while at the same time, undermine workers’ rights.
Apparently, Centrelink is not obliged to provide Work for the Dole participants a fair wage or safe working environment, Work Cover, Superannuation, sick leave or any of the protections and entitlements of employment required by Industrial Relations legislation.
Centrelink informs job seekers that “Your mutual obligation responsibilities are spelt out in your Preparing for Work Agreement. This Agreement is negotiated between you and your Centrelink contact officer”. The fact is, this legally binding “agreement” is not “negotiated” at all, it is imposed upon participants who have no choice but to accept, or starve.
The late great philosopher, John Rawls, explained that “obligations arise only when institutions are just and individuals are able to freely accept social benefits in a context of meaningful alternatives.” But the government’s concept of Mutual Obligation is far from just, and for most recipients, Centrelink payments are a necessity, not a choice.
As Pamela Kinear from The Australia Institute wrote about the ethics of Mutual Obligation, “Australia’s system of economic management has relied on creating joblessness to sustain economic growth ... policies to promote economic reform have created structural unemployment in order to strengthen the economy as a whole. Unemployed people have therefore made an involuntary sacrifice for the economic well-being of employed people. As a result, the starting point for obligations to accrue is not just.”
The imposition of Mutual Obligation requirements on the poorest and most disadvantaged members of society, the young and unemployed, single parents, people with chronic illness or disabilities, suffering difficult life circumstance or employment discrimination, creates a pool of cheap labour to compete with low paid workers, especially in the community services sector.
This practice, like industry downsizing and deregulation, produces labour market conditions that favour management, and disadvantage workers. While productivity and company profits have soared, wages have remained steady and workers are expected to work harder.
According to Princeton University economist Paul Krugman, over the past three years, wage and salary income grew less than in any other postwar recovery while profits grew at more than ten times that rate, the fastest growth in company profits since World War II.
The official unemployment rate is a statistical device designed to obscure the true state of the labour market. It grossly misrepresents the extent of under-employment and falling workplace participation.
A surplus of cheap labour and the stigma of unemployment keeps workers worried about their job security and allows management to resist demands for higher pay and improved working conditions. The worse life gets for the unemployed, the better it is for capital.
Such inequalities are emblematic of neoliberal free market ideology. People are viewed as resources to be exploited for private profit, their intrinsic value discounted. Notions of social justice and equality of opportunity have no place in the modern economy.
The onerous requirements of Mutual Obligation imposed on the unemployed, combined with a punitive system of “breaching” and cancellation of payments, affect over 200,000 Centrelink customers and saves the government more than $170 million dollars a year.
Given that simply arriving late for a Job Network interview can result in a “breach”, effectively a fine of $1000, the system is obviously intended to make life as hard as possible for the unemployed.
But it's not just the unfortunate individual who suffers, this money would normally flow directly into the local economy, sustaining shop keepers, service providers and small businesses, not to mention the 10% that flows straight back to the government in GST.
The government’s rhetoric of “mutual obligation” does nothing to address the deep-seated structural causes of unemployment, it merely shifts blame to the victims and conceals the fact that this government has failed to implement a comprehensive labour market strategy.
As an ethical argument, it rings hollow. While the government demands mutual obligation for the disadvantaged, it waives such requirements for the privileged. Government and businesses are free from any obligation to create and maintain adequate employment.
Moreover, corporate welfare remains sacrosanct. According to the Productivity Commission, industry received more than $10 billion in government assistance last year, mostly with no strings attached. The beneficiaries of this largesse are company shareholders, not obligated to contribute anything in return. And to top it all off, our politicians lie and defy international law with impunity.
The Howard government has a clear strategy for political success - patronize the privileged and demonize the disadvantaged. Obligation and responsibility, it seems, are for Centrelink customers only.
Monday, December 13, 2004
Violence, Religion and the Media
Apologists for state sanctioned violence were busy this week casting aspersions against the Muslims of Indonesia and Islam in general.
The Australian Broadcasting Corporation, a government funded public broadcaster, was at the forefront of a media beat-up comparable to the current harangue against Iran and reminiscent of the smear campaign that preceded the attack on Iraq.
True to form, ABC News and Current Affairs journalists and editors dutifully purveyed the neoconservative interpretation of an opinion survey conducted by the US-backed Freedom Institute in Jakarta.
ABC’s morning news program, AM, which was publicly attacked by the Howard government for being insufficiently supportative of the illegal invasion of Iraq, has obviously learnt to oblige the Liberal party hacks that control the ABC’s purse strings.
On December 6, ABC reporter Tony Eastly led a news item about the International Dialogue on Interfaith Co-operation held in Java this week, with the following comment...
Palmer added that “The motivation spelt out in the surveys suggests American foreign policy, particularly in Iraq and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, is feeding the numbers supporting radicalism. ”
Furthermore, we are told, “Details of the negative attitudes to America and Australia revealed in the survey have been held back by the US Embassy in Jakarta, which funded the poll. But those figures reveal negative sentiment towards Australia. ”
The same day, ABC News Online published a news item with the headline “Support mounts for Indonesian Islamic extremists”, which basically recapped Tim Palmer’s report.
Two days later, on December 8, the ABC Religion Report made its contribution with a discussion about the International Dialogue on Interfaith Co-operation.
The program began with the comment...
Stephen Crittenden, compere of the Religion Report, wasted no time in debunking the notion that western secular democracies actually support or promote violence. Guest speaker, the Reverand John Baldock from the Anglican Church in Melbourne, a self-described sceptical realist, dismissed such criticism of the West as merely an attempt to shift blame.
Rev. Baldock said it was
I can just imagine it, Cardinal Pell, the haughty, ultra-conservative Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, a stalwart of the Prime Minister, John W. Howard, and an outspoken critic of secular democracy, agitated and defensive, chastising a Muslim leader who dared to criticise Australia’s support for US military aggression.
Of course, Pell is considered a moderate in today’s Australia. His recent remarks likening Islam to Communism barely raised a murmur from the pallid Australian commentariat.
But why would Australians criticise their own religious and political leaders when it’s so much safer to criticise those of others?
Stephen Crittenden again ...
What would Crittenden know about Muslims?
For most Australians, safely cocooned in a zone of artificial wealth and prosperity, well-fed, well-housed, well-educated, the reality of life in a foreign land is simply incomprehensible.
Over-weight, ill-informed, complacent, uncaring, racist, homophobic. A majority of Australians support a government that shamelessly championed the unlawful invasion of Iraq.
They don’t care a damn about the effect our military adventurism has on the rest of the world, just so long as interests rates stay low, property prices appreciate and credit remains cheap.
It’s all very well to criticise and condemn extremist groups that advocate violence, but until we acknowledge and address our own extremist tendencies, our own reliance on the threat or use of violence, our willingness to slavishly emulate US interventionism and happily hitch our guns to the US war machine — until we accept responsibility for promoting horrendous carnage in the name of so-called Western values, our carping will remain little more than useless, irrelevant, self-serving hypocrisy.
Let’s not imagine that we are so bloody wonderful we can afford to gloss over our obvious shortcomings. The crimes and scandals that make the headlines are barely the tip of the iceberg. Insularity and contempt for others contaminate every aspect of our society.
Our treatment of child refugees contravenes international law, our complicity in the invasion of Iraq was in defiance of the Security Council. Our politicians lie and twist in the wind, they cover-up and deny any evidence against them, they bully the media and do secret deals with powerful businessmen.
And let’s not pretend that Islam is the only religion that promotes violence and conflict. The Christian Science Monitor published an article on December 10 entitled Marines talk of guns and God on the front lines. According to CSM, Corporal Milholin, a 21-year-old marine, “is as well-versed in the King James text as he is in the killing potential of hollow-tipped bullets”
Another such enlightened soldier, Lt. Col. Gareth Brandl, told the BBC “The enemy has got a face. He’s called Satan. He lives in Fallujah.”
We’re not a model of the moderate, tolerant society we champion.
If we want the high moral ground, we need to clean up our act.
No good blaming the Indonesians.
The Australian Broadcasting Corporation, a government funded public broadcaster, was at the forefront of a media beat-up comparable to the current harangue against Iran and reminiscent of the smear campaign that preceded the attack on Iraq.
True to form, ABC News and Current Affairs journalists and editors dutifully purveyed the neoconservative interpretation of an opinion survey conducted by the US-backed Freedom Institute in Jakarta.
ABC’s morning news program, AM, which was publicly attacked by the Howard government for being insufficiently supportative of the illegal invasion of Iraq, has obviously learnt to oblige the Liberal party hacks that control the ABC’s purse strings.
On December 6, ABC reporter Tony Eastly led a news item about the International Dialogue on Interfaith Co-operation held in Java this week, with the following comment...
The conventional belief that Indonesian Islam is a particularly tolerant and moderate form is being challenged by a new survey showing sympathy for the murderous activity of bombers like Imam Samudra, and intolerance for other religions, as well as some anti-Australian feeling.According to the ABC’s Indonesia Correspondent, Tim Palmer, “the latest research on attitudes of Indonesian Muslims suggests a far greater acceptance of the extremists than previously thought.”
Palmer added that “The motivation spelt out in the surveys suggests American foreign policy, particularly in Iraq and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, is feeding the numbers supporting radicalism. ”
Furthermore, we are told, “Details of the negative attitudes to America and Australia revealed in the survey have been held back by the US Embassy in Jakarta, which funded the poll. But those figures reveal negative sentiment towards Australia. ”
The same day, ABC News Online published a news item with the headline “Support mounts for Indonesian Islamic extremists”, which basically recapped Tim Palmer’s report.
Two days later, on December 8, the ABC Religion Report made its contribution with a discussion about the International Dialogue on Interfaith Co-operation.
The program began with the comment...
In response to Alexander Downer’s call for religious leaders to denounce terrorism from their pulpits, the leader of one of Indonesia's largest Muslim organisations accused Australia of backing state sponsored US terrorism in Iraq.But to hope this intro might lead to some fair and balanced commentary would be to hope in vain.
Stephen Crittenden, compere of the Religion Report, wasted no time in debunking the notion that western secular democracies actually support or promote violence. Guest speaker, the Reverand John Baldock from the Anglican Church in Melbourne, a self-described sceptical realist, dismissed such criticism of the West as merely an attempt to shift blame.
Rev. Baldock said it was
a little bit disturbing, you know, some people simply shifted the blame elsewhere, that it’s "all the product of colonialism", or "all the products of globalisation", or "the interference of the US", or in fact with others, even a denial that a problem existed, as though a particular religious tradition could never sponsor terrorism, or our adherents simply don’t behave in that way, they couldn’t be those kinds of people.Crittenden noted that
Cardinal Pell on the Australian delegation, made a very interesting and perhaps important intervention on just that question. There was a suggestion about State-sponsored terrorism and everything being the fault of the West, and he came in very strongly I understand, and sort of said that you know, there were very specific things that signified a terrorist.Yeah right... like their religion I s’pose.
I can just imagine it, Cardinal Pell, the haughty, ultra-conservative Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, a stalwart of the Prime Minister, John W. Howard, and an outspoken critic of secular democracy, agitated and defensive, chastising a Muslim leader who dared to criticise Australia’s support for US military aggression.
Of course, Pell is considered a moderate in today’s Australia. His recent remarks likening Islam to Communism barely raised a murmur from the pallid Australian commentariat.
But why would Australians criticise their own religious and political leaders when it’s so much safer to criticise those of others?
Stephen Crittenden again ...
One of the things that came out even on the first day of the conference was a great reluctance on the part of Muslims to be self-critical...Oh, really, is that so?
What would Crittenden know about Muslims?
For most Australians, safely cocooned in a zone of artificial wealth and prosperity, well-fed, well-housed, well-educated, the reality of life in a foreign land is simply incomprehensible.
Over-weight, ill-informed, complacent, uncaring, racist, homophobic. A majority of Australians support a government that shamelessly championed the unlawful invasion of Iraq.
They don’t care a damn about the effect our military adventurism has on the rest of the world, just so long as interests rates stay low, property prices appreciate and credit remains cheap.
It’s all very well to criticise and condemn extremist groups that advocate violence, but until we acknowledge and address our own extremist tendencies, our own reliance on the threat or use of violence, our willingness to slavishly emulate US interventionism and happily hitch our guns to the US war machine — until we accept responsibility for promoting horrendous carnage in the name of so-called Western values, our carping will remain little more than useless, irrelevant, self-serving hypocrisy.
Let’s not imagine that we are so bloody wonderful we can afford to gloss over our obvious shortcomings. The crimes and scandals that make the headlines are barely the tip of the iceberg. Insularity and contempt for others contaminate every aspect of our society.
Our treatment of child refugees contravenes international law, our complicity in the invasion of Iraq was in defiance of the Security Council. Our politicians lie and twist in the wind, they cover-up and deny any evidence against them, they bully the media and do secret deals with powerful businessmen.
And let’s not pretend that Islam is the only religion that promotes violence and conflict. The Christian Science Monitor published an article on December 10 entitled Marines talk of guns and God on the front lines. According to CSM, Corporal Milholin, a 21-year-old marine, “is as well-versed in the King James text as he is in the killing potential of hollow-tipped bullets”
"I pray earnestly every day, and believe that God puts his angels out before us, to protect us," says the marine. "The big thing is the spiritual battle going on in our lives - the fight we're fighting is good against evil."
US marine, Corporal DeBlanc, easily reconciles war with the biblical commandment against killing. "Doesn't the Bible say: 'There is a time to pick up the sword, a time for peace, and a time for war?' " he asks. "I can pull the trigger here and have a clear conscience."
Another such enlightened soldier, Lt. Col. Gareth Brandl, told the BBC “The enemy has got a face. He’s called Satan. He lives in Fallujah.”
We’re not a model of the moderate, tolerant society we champion.
If we want the high moral ground, we need to clean up our act.
No good blaming the Indonesians.
Saturday, November 20, 2004
Cruelty and contempt for human life
When a car bomb exploded outside the Australian embassy in Jakarta on September 9th, our politicians were quick to condemn the perpetrators, calling them “evil and barbaric” terrorists.
Last week, the US military used tanks, artillery, heavy machine guns, attack helicopters, AC-130 gunships, F-16 fighter jets, 2000 lb bombs, mortars, missiles and snipers in a devestating assault on the Iraqi city of Fallujah, destroying homes and vital civilian infrastructure, indiscriminately killing, wounding and terrorizing residents trapped in the city.
Fallujah has been razed, its residents have been denied food, water and medical aid. Electricity and sewage systems have been smashed. Mosques, hospitals and clinics were bombed. Woman and children were crushed under the rubble of their homes. The streets were strewn with dead and dismembered bodies.
This is terrorism, state sanctioned terrorism.
Yet we have not heard a single word of concern for the civilian population of Fallujah from any of our politicians. Not one word of condemnation for this brutal and excessive use of force against a civilian population.
Instead, they offer glib rationalizations for the carnage in Fallujah. Foreign Minister Downer said the attack was necessary to “ensure the Iraqis can have an election.” Downer believes the slaughter of innocent civilians will give the new Iraqi government “democratic legitimacy and the support of the Iraqi people.”
Minister Downer exhibits all the characteristics of a prototypical sociopath — deceitfulness, aggression, a lack of responsibility, failure to consider consequences, a reckless disregard for the safety of others, an absence of guilt or remorse and an inability to tolerate dissent or delay.
Phillip Ruddock - apologist for torture - another sociopath.
John Howard - jailer of children - an unapologetic war criminal.
Our government has about as much regard for innocent life as it has for international law. While our politicians pay lip service to the primacy of the individual, they openly disregard their obligation under the UN Charter to “refrain from the threat or use of force”.
The rank enthusiasm for war shown by our politicians, mainstream commentators and the establishment at large, is an indication that cruelty and contempt for human life are thriving in our society.
The callous brutality of our government is aided by the abject debasement and moral vacuity of the mainstream media, which slavishly and uncritically peddles pro-war propaganda.
I have absolutely no sympathy for this resurgence in nationalistic militarism and no faith in the advocates of armed aggression or the spurious arguments they use to legitimize violence.
As Albert Einstein once said, “It is characteristic of the military mentality that nonhuman factors are held essential, while human beings - their thoughts and desires - are considered to be unimportant or secondary.”
But society at large tends to glamorize war and glorify the fallen.
Media moguls endorse our government’s complicity in the unlawful attack on Iraq and its continuing support for the criminal behaviour of the Bush administration and the US military.
The media neglects to address the moral, legal and political issues surrounding our government’s commitment to war. This attempt to gloss over the cost of war must be confronted and discredited.
Freedom, democracy and the rule of law have failed to quell state sanctioned violence. More than ever, peace and justice require steadfast opposition to the use of armed force.
Politicians who advocate war need to be challenged and condemned for promoting violence. Corporations that profit from war should be identified, scrutinized and denied political influence.
Civil society must resist the creeping scourge of militarism.
We need to rethink the current defence and security paradigm.
While most people believe in the need for a strong and effective defence force, few are prepared to scrutinize the effect that militarism has on formulating national policy and managing international relations.
If we were truly committed to pursuing global peace and security rather than corporate windfalls for the weapons industry, we would investigate and promote alternatives to armed conflict when it comes to resolving disputes.
Ultimately, peace and security will be achieved through international cooperation, arms control and multilateral disarmament. Only by strengthening ties and promoting trust between nations can we hope to deal with the problems that face a globalized world.
If war supporters would flex their minds just a little, if they could comprehend the suffering caused by the warring they're so fond of, the world might become a place where humanity can co-exist peacefully.
Certainly, without that glimmer of empathy and compassion in the hearts of our fellow citizens and leaders, we will end up destroying ourselves, and much of the beauty and wonder of this world as well.
Last week, the US military used tanks, artillery, heavy machine guns, attack helicopters, AC-130 gunships, F-16 fighter jets, 2000 lb bombs, mortars, missiles and snipers in a devestating assault on the Iraqi city of Fallujah, destroying homes and vital civilian infrastructure, indiscriminately killing, wounding and terrorizing residents trapped in the city.
Fallujah has been razed, its residents have been denied food, water and medical aid. Electricity and sewage systems have been smashed. Mosques, hospitals and clinics were bombed. Woman and children were crushed under the rubble of their homes. The streets were strewn with dead and dismembered bodies.
This is terrorism, state sanctioned terrorism.
Yet we have not heard a single word of concern for the civilian population of Fallujah from any of our politicians. Not one word of condemnation for this brutal and excessive use of force against a civilian population.
Instead, they offer glib rationalizations for the carnage in Fallujah. Foreign Minister Downer said the attack was necessary to “ensure the Iraqis can have an election.” Downer believes the slaughter of innocent civilians will give the new Iraqi government “democratic legitimacy and the support of the Iraqi people.”
Minister Downer exhibits all the characteristics of a prototypical sociopath — deceitfulness, aggression, a lack of responsibility, failure to consider consequences, a reckless disregard for the safety of others, an absence of guilt or remorse and an inability to tolerate dissent or delay.
Phillip Ruddock - apologist for torture - another sociopath.
John Howard - jailer of children - an unapologetic war criminal.
Our government has about as much regard for innocent life as it has for international law. While our politicians pay lip service to the primacy of the individual, they openly disregard their obligation under the UN Charter to “refrain from the threat or use of force”.
The rank enthusiasm for war shown by our politicians, mainstream commentators and the establishment at large, is an indication that cruelty and contempt for human life are thriving in our society.
The callous brutality of our government is aided by the abject debasement and moral vacuity of the mainstream media, which slavishly and uncritically peddles pro-war propaganda.
I have absolutely no sympathy for this resurgence in nationalistic militarism and no faith in the advocates of armed aggression or the spurious arguments they use to legitimize violence.
As Albert Einstein once said, “It is characteristic of the military mentality that nonhuman factors are held essential, while human beings - their thoughts and desires - are considered to be unimportant or secondary.”
But society at large tends to glamorize war and glorify the fallen.
Media moguls endorse our government’s complicity in the unlawful attack on Iraq and its continuing support for the criminal behaviour of the Bush administration and the US military.
The media neglects to address the moral, legal and political issues surrounding our government’s commitment to war. This attempt to gloss over the cost of war must be confronted and discredited.
Freedom, democracy and the rule of law have failed to quell state sanctioned violence. More than ever, peace and justice require steadfast opposition to the use of armed force.
Politicians who advocate war need to be challenged and condemned for promoting violence. Corporations that profit from war should be identified, scrutinized and denied political influence.
Civil society must resist the creeping scourge of militarism.
We need to rethink the current defence and security paradigm.
While most people believe in the need for a strong and effective defence force, few are prepared to scrutinize the effect that militarism has on formulating national policy and managing international relations.
If we were truly committed to pursuing global peace and security rather than corporate windfalls for the weapons industry, we would investigate and promote alternatives to armed conflict when it comes to resolving disputes.
Ultimately, peace and security will be achieved through international cooperation, arms control and multilateral disarmament. Only by strengthening ties and promoting trust between nations can we hope to deal with the problems that face a globalized world.
If war supporters would flex their minds just a little, if they could comprehend the suffering caused by the warring they're so fond of, the world might become a place where humanity can co-exist peacefully.
Certainly, without that glimmer of empathy and compassion in the hearts of our fellow citizens and leaders, we will end up destroying ourselves, and much of the beauty and wonder of this world as well.
Saturday, November 06, 2004
Cheap and transparent propaganda
- Propaganda ~
- (usually derog) Information that is spread for the purpose of promoting some cause. Organized scheme for propagating a doctrine or practice.
More likely the head of ASIO was simply handed a summary by one of his staffers, and a prepared spiel designed to minimize any impact that bin Laden’s message might have on the domestic audience. No doubt our government also emulated the US State Department’s attempts to discourage the media from reporting the bin Laden videotape.
There is some irony in Mr bin Laden’s unexpected appearance which serves to highlight and confirm Dennis Richardson’s recent warning that the “Iraq war has provided al Qa`ida with propaganda and recruitment opportunities” and that the occupation of Iraq is being used as “another justification or rationalisation for acts of terrorism.”
Of course, it’s not just bin Laden and al Qa`ida churning out propaganda. Our own governments also have very sophisticated schemes for propagating their agenda and shaping public opinion. It may be instructive to compare their opposing representations.
Bush, Howard and Blair say they are fighting to spread freedom and democracy, liberating millions from the torment of tyrants. They claim to have killed or captured most of the al Qa`ida leadership and point to the overthrow of Saddam and the Taliban as evidence that their policies are working. Even the worsening violence in Iraq and Afghanistan is proof that the coalition’s strategy is succeeding.
Yet they insist that our national security, indeed our very way of life, is threatened by radical Islamic extremists who “hate our freedoms” and want to destroy civilization. Western politicians and military spokesmen constantly remind us that we are at war with evil and barbaric terrorists, cold-blooded killers who think nothing of murdering innocent women and children.
We are told that our defence forces must attack the enemy abroad to prevent them from attacking our “homeland”. The threat to our “values” is real and imminent, requiring strong and decisive action. We cannot afford to show any weakness in the face of terrorism, as this will only comfort and encourage the enemy.
For his part, bin Laden says he is fighting“to restore peace to our nation” and he condemns the “oppression and tyranny of the American-Israeli coalition against our people in Palestine and Lebanon”. Mr bin Laden declares that “oppression and the intentional killing of innocent women and children is a deliberate American policy”.
The Saudi sheik expresses surprise at the West’s failure to learn from the past. “I am amazed at you,” he says, “Even though we are in the fourth year after the events of September 11th, Bush is still engaged in distortion, deception and hiding from you the real causes. And thus, the reasons are still there for a repeat of what occurred.”
He goes on to explain his reasons for attacking America, citing the 1982 US-backed Israeli invasion of Lebanon in which “many were killed and injured and others were terrorised and displaced.” These events “affected my soul in a direct way. I couldn’t forget those moving scenes, blood and severed limbs, women and children sprawled everywhere. Houses destroyed along with their occupants and high rises demolished over their residents, rockets raining down on our home without mercy.”
Significantly, bin Laden lays claim to the authorship of 9/11.
The sight of those demolished towers in Lebanon “produced an intense feeling of rejection of tyranny, and gave birth to a strong resolve to punish the oppressors... it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children.”
While bin Laden’s efforts to date could be viewed as punishment and just retribution for the West’s past aggression and complicity in the oppression of Muslims, they do not appear to have deterred the West from further aggression. In fact, many would say the terror attacks of September 11 actually provoked the military response that has culminated in the occupation of Iraq.
But remember, this is all just propaganda.
The essence of real propaganda is consistent repetition of the message. The al Qa`ida leader clearly understands this. “Defending oneself and punishing the aggressor in kind... This is the message which I sought to communicate to you in word and deed, repeatedly, for years before September 11th. And you can read this, if you wish, in my interview with Scott in Time Magazine in 1996, or with Peter Arnett on CNN in 1997, or my meeting with John Weiner in 1998. You can observe it practically, if you wish, in Kenya and Tanzania and in Aden. And you can read it in my interview with Abdul Bari Atwan, and my interviews with Robert Fisk. ”
Perhaps most troubling for our political leaders and military strategists is the al Qa`ida leader’s incisive critique of the West’s weakness in the war on terror, his keen insight into the Bush administration’s real agenda and his obvious enthusiasm for the struggle he has embarked upon.
Mr bin Laden describes the results of the war on terror as “positive and enormous,” that have “by all standards, exceeded all expectations.” He attributes these satisfying results to his clear understanding of the “Bush administration, in light of the resemblance it bears to the regimes in our countries, half of which are ruled by the military and the other half which are ruled by the sons of kings and presidents”.
“Our experience with them is lengthy, both types are replete with those who are characterised by pride, arrogance, greed and misappropriation of wealth. This resemblance began after the visits of Bush Snr to the region... he was affected by those monarchies and military regimes, and became envious of their remaining decades in their positions, to embezzle the public wealth of the nation without supervision or accounting. ”
The similitude of the Bush administration to the corrupt regimes of the Middle East “made it easy for us to provoke and bait this administration.” The West’s paranoia gives bin Laden a significant advantage. “All that we have to do is to send two mujahidin to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al-Qaida, in order to make the generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic, and political losses without their achieving for it anything of note other than some benefits for their private companies. ”
These mocking words may well have played on the minds of US counterterrorism advisers as White House officials met to consider elevating the terror alert level in the wake of bin Laden's video message. Attorney General John Ashcroft and others favored raising the alert level, but homeland security secretary, Tom Ridge, FBI director, Robert Mueller and other senior officials disagreed. A decision to raise the terror alert would have cost America millions of dollars and effectively affirmed bin Laden's claim that he has US officialdom running scared and jumping at shadows.
Mr bin Laden also claims he has an advantage due to al Qa`ida’s “experience in using guerrilla warfare and the war of attrition to fight tyrannical superpowers, as we, alongside the mujahidin, bled Russia for 10 years, until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat... So we are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy.”
But Usama bin Laden does not claim sole credit for “achieving those spectacular gains. Rather, the policy of the White House that demands the opening of war fronts to keep busy their various corporations - whether they be working in the field of arms or oil or reconstruction - has helped al Qa`ida to achieve these enormous results.”
Mr bin Laden is, of course, a brilliant and highly refined propagandist with a wry sense of humor. He is well aware that “it has appeared to some analysts and diplomats that the White House and us are playing as one team towards the economic goals of the United States, even if the intentions differ.”
“And it was to these sorts of notions and their like that the British diplomat and others were referring in their lectures at the Royal Institute of International Affairs. [When they pointed out that] for example, al-Qaida spent $500,000 on the event, while America, in the incident and its aftermath, lost - according to estimates - more than $500 billion. Meaning that every dollar of al-Qaida defeated a million dollars by the permission of Allah, besides the loss of a huge number of jobs.”
The economic consequences of the war on terror are key elements of bin Laden’s propaganda. He reflects on the size of the US deficit and claims “the mujahidin recently forced Bush to resort to emergency funds to continue the fight in Afghanistan and Iraq, which is evidence of the success of the bleed-until-bankruptcy plan - with Allah’s permission.”
“It is true that this shows that al-Qaida has gained, but on the other hand, it shows that the Bush administration has also gained, something which anyone who looks at the size of the contracts acquired by the shady Bush administration-linked mega-corporations, like Halliburton and its kind, will be convinced. And it all shows that the real loser is ... you.”
Now this is very clever, bin Laden is employing the arguments of Bush’s domestic political opponents and casting aspersions against the president’s competence and integrity. This is not likely to damage Bush’s reputation among his supporters, but it certainly highlights the question of his real agenda and suggests al Qa`ida understands the White House better than Bush understands bin Laden.
Military strategists will tell you, it pays to know your enemy.
The most scathing criticism of the president occurs in bin Laden’s assessment of the US response to September 11. And here again, we get a glimpse of the Arab millionaire’s sardonic humor. According to bin Laden, the plan to fly planes into US skyscrapers required that “all the operations should be carried out within 20 minutes, before Bush and his administration notice.”
“It never occurred to us that the commander-in-chief of the American armed forces would abandon 50,000 of his citizens in the twin towers to face those great horrors alone, the time when they most needed him. But because it seemed to him that occupying himself by talking to the little girl about the goat and its butting was more important than occupying himself with the planes and their butting of the skyscrapers, we were given three times the period required to execute the operations - praise due to Allah.”
Continuing his attack on the president’s competence and credibility, bin Laden recalls that “the thinkers and perceptive ones from among the Americans warned Bush before the war and told him: All that you want for securing America and removing the weapons of mass destruction - assuming they exist - is available to you, and the nations of the world are with you in the inspections, and it is in the interest of America that it not be thrust into an unjustified war with an unknown outcome.”
“But the darkness of the black gold blurred his vision and insight, and he gave priority to private interests over the public interests of America.”
There you have it, an eminently plausible conclusion.
Propaganda generally has a grain of truth to it.
Monday, October 25, 2004
The precedent of a ‘‘lawless enclave’’
In early November 2001, a small group of White House officials worked in great secrecy to devise a new system of justice for the Global War on Terror ~ The New York TimesIn the wake of the Abu Ghraib scandal, White House lawyer, Alberto Gonzales, wrote an opinion piece in the New York Times defending the “consistent and humane policy” of the United States toward detainees in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay. He described the Global War on Terror™ as a “lengthy campaign” with “dramatic strikes” and “covert operations” against enemies that “hide among civilians” and are therefore not protected by the Third Geneva Convention.
Gonzales conceded, however, that “Iraq presents a very different situation”, in which the “United States is bound to observe the rules of war”. The Bush administration, he said, “understands and seeks to comply with its legal obligations”. These assurances were somewhat vitiated a few days later when Newsweek published a memo written by White House lawyer Gonzales two years earlier, which warned that US officials could be prosecuted for “war crimes” due to the methods used by the Bush administration in its war on terror.
Under the 1996 US War Crimes Act, officials convicted for war crimes, including “grave breaches” of the Geneva Conventions, face severe punishment, up to and including the death penalty. Gonzales warned Bush that the Third Geneva Convention prohibited the “inhumane treatment of prisoners” and “outrages upon personal dignity”. He advised the president to declare the Global War on Terror™ and the detention of “suspected terrorists” to be exempt from the provisions of the Geneva Conventions.
“Your determination would create a reasonable basis in law that the [War Crimes Act] does not apply, which would provide a solid defense to any future prosecution” Gonzales wrote in January, 2002. Despite fierce opposition from Secretary of State, Colin Powell, Bush accepted his lawyer’s advice. He unsigned the Rome Treaty, disavowed the International Criminal Court and created a legal void in which systemic criminality flourished.
This legal void spread to Iraq when Bush declared it to be part of his Global War on Terror™. The constitutional validity of this “lawless enclave” was reviewed by the nine judges of the US Supreme Court, and their decision, which was handed down in June, affirmed that “suspected terrorists” do in fact have legal rights under the US Constitution. This ruling represents a clear repudiation of the Bush administration’s claim to be above the rule of law and opens the way for an avalanche of legal proceedings with far reaching consequences.
Contempt for international law has become a hallmark of the Bush-Howard-Blair alliance. The Howard government has been at the forefront of the attack on multilateral institutions, muzzling the Human Rights Commission and withdrawing from the jurisdiction of the World Court. Foreign Minister Downer, a staunch critic of the United Nations Treaty system, suggested the Security Council would look “weak, meaningless and ineffectual” if it failed to authorize the invasion of Iraq. Defence Minister Robert Hill was equally scathing, yet he now claims we invaded Iraq to “support the Security Council”.
The Howard government willingly colluded with the Bush regime, dissembled about the reasons for invading Iraq, ridiculed the United Nations, defied international law, participated in aggression against a civilian population and helped to conceal the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib. Consequently, it has been complicit in war crimes, human rights violations and grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. To date, the Howard government has been content to employ standard operating procedures when dealing with bad news from Iraq; simply lie, deny, ignore, spin and cover up. But this approach entails gross negligence, a lack of responsibility and contempt for the rule of law.
With the prospect of future war crimes prosecutions growing more likely by the day, as atrocities continue to pile up and the political fortunes of pro-war politicians hang in the balance, our Prime Minister’s lack of political acumen becomes ever more apparent. In the wake of the October 9 election, we have witnessed a clamouring and unedifying display of vain triumphalism by the re-elected Howard government. But the real test of their hubris will come when Howard and his henchmen are called to account for their complicity in the killing of a hundred thousand Iraqi civilians.
Friday, October 22, 2004
The strategic cost of imperial hubris
Rising oil prices, the ongoing conflict in Iraq and the increasing threat of terrorism are consequences of what the Flood Report described as insufficient consideration given to “the strategic cost implications for Australia, issues involved in post-Saddam Iraq and the impact of military action on the safety of Australia and Australians.”
Such important strategic considerations are certainly the ultimate responsibility of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. If John Howard is so “strong on national security”, why did he consistently ignore all warnings and refuse to consider the likely consequences of invading Iraq? Did his commitment to Bush prevail over his duty to Australia?
On numerous occasions before the invasion, journalists asked the Prime Minister if he would commit Australian troops to war in Iraq without UN authority. Howard dismissed these questions as entirely hypothetical. That seemed to typify Howard’s attitude throughout the whole affair, willful indifference and blind obstinacy.
According to informed sources, intelligence officials from the Office of National Assessments warned Howard, prior to the invasion, that war in Iraq would enflame extremism and increase terrorist recruitment. But when Howard gave a televised national address to announce we were at war, he assured Australians that “far from our action in Iraq increasing the terrorist threat, it will make it less likely that a terrorist attack will be carried out against Australia.”
When Federal Police Commissioner Mick Keelty, warned that Australia’s involvement in the Iraq war had increased the threat of terrorism, he was accused of “comforting the enemy” by Foreign Minister Downer. Prime Minister Howard reprimanded the Police Chief for making a “blunder” and demanded that he revise his statements.
More recently, Dennis Richardson, head of the Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation (ASIO), told reporters that the “Iraq war has provided al Qa`ida with propaganda and recruitment opportunities”, that the occupation of Iraq was now being used as a “justification and rationalisation for terrorism” and that it had “added to the number of terror groups and lead to further linkages between them”. He also said that Australia's involvement in the Iraq war had “increased the risk to Australian interests overseas”.
Now the impenitent Prime Minister points out that “it’s easy to be wise after the event”, which is quite true. But does that mean he found it difficult to be wise before the event? Was it really so hard to envisage the death and destruction, the chaos and conflict that would result from an unprovoked attack on Iraq? I don't think so.
It was obvious that such an attack on Iraq would destabilize the entire region, enflame anti-western sentiment, inspire jihad, spread violence and mayhem, jeopardize oil supplies, undermine the Western alliance, give impetus to the Sino-Russian accord and compromise the authority and credibility of the United States, the UN Security Council and the statutes of International Law.
I personally wrote dozens of letters to government and opposition members and newspapers, raising these concerns and calling attention to the likely repercussions. For example, on March 11, 2003, I sent an email to the Foreign Minister accusing him of “reckless disregard for the consequences of armed aggression” and “actively promoting terrorism by condoning the use of violence for political purposes.”
“Your support for war will undermine our national security and expose Australians to further terrorism by inciting enemies and provoking retaliation. You are pursuing a political agenda that is economically irresponsible, legally dubious, morally corrupt and profoundly destructive.” These seemed to me, reasonable apprehensions.
Like so many others, my letters were completely ignored by those who claim to represent us. Now they want us to believe they had no idea it would turn out like this. Well I’m not convinced, I suspect they know what they’re doing and would prefer we didn’t. I think they want to control Iraq’s oil and tender its economy to US corporations.
But this mad grab for wealth and power is failing miserably, the occupiers are tied down and stretched thin, the resistance is lethal, widespread and gathering strength. Iraq has become a vast training ground for Islamic jihadists, with funding and support pouring in from Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan.
The occupiers have no exit strategy, they are entangled in a conflict of their own making with no way out, every day the cost in life and treasure mounts with little to show in return. So I ask you, where is the strategic gain in destabilizing the Persian Gulf region, which supplies 25% of the world's oil?
Who benefits from record high oil prices? Big oil producing countries like Russia, Saudia Arabia and Iran. The oil majors, Texan oil men and pipeline companies like Halliburton. But what about the economy, what about agriculture and the transport sector, what about the humble consumer?
Who benefits from the global war on terror? The Pentagon, private military corporations and arms manufacturers like MPRI, Lockheed Martin and the Carlyle Group. And of course, the intelligence and security establishment. But what about Afghan hill tribes, Iraqi farmers or Colombian peasants?
Howard is devoted to the Bush White House, which represents the interests of big oil and the weapons industry. These people profit from conflict and instability. They are clearly a threat to humanity and should be dealt with accordingly.
Such important strategic considerations are certainly the ultimate responsibility of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. If John Howard is so “strong on national security”, why did he consistently ignore all warnings and refuse to consider the likely consequences of invading Iraq? Did his commitment to Bush prevail over his duty to Australia?
On numerous occasions before the invasion, journalists asked the Prime Minister if he would commit Australian troops to war in Iraq without UN authority. Howard dismissed these questions as entirely hypothetical. That seemed to typify Howard’s attitude throughout the whole affair, willful indifference and blind obstinacy.
According to informed sources, intelligence officials from the Office of National Assessments warned Howard, prior to the invasion, that war in Iraq would enflame extremism and increase terrorist recruitment. But when Howard gave a televised national address to announce we were at war, he assured Australians that “far from our action in Iraq increasing the terrorist threat, it will make it less likely that a terrorist attack will be carried out against Australia.”
When Federal Police Commissioner Mick Keelty, warned that Australia’s involvement in the Iraq war had increased the threat of terrorism, he was accused of “comforting the enemy” by Foreign Minister Downer. Prime Minister Howard reprimanded the Police Chief for making a “blunder” and demanded that he revise his statements.
More recently, Dennis Richardson, head of the Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation (ASIO), told reporters that the “Iraq war has provided al Qa`ida with propaganda and recruitment opportunities”, that the occupation of Iraq was now being used as a “justification and rationalisation for terrorism” and that it had “added to the number of terror groups and lead to further linkages between them”. He also said that Australia's involvement in the Iraq war had “increased the risk to Australian interests overseas”.
Now the impenitent Prime Minister points out that “it’s easy to be wise after the event”, which is quite true. But does that mean he found it difficult to be wise before the event? Was it really so hard to envisage the death and destruction, the chaos and conflict that would result from an unprovoked attack on Iraq? I don't think so.
It was obvious that such an attack on Iraq would destabilize the entire region, enflame anti-western sentiment, inspire jihad, spread violence and mayhem, jeopardize oil supplies, undermine the Western alliance, give impetus to the Sino-Russian accord and compromise the authority and credibility of the United States, the UN Security Council and the statutes of International Law.
I personally wrote dozens of letters to government and opposition members and newspapers, raising these concerns and calling attention to the likely repercussions. For example, on March 11, 2003, I sent an email to the Foreign Minister accusing him of “reckless disregard for the consequences of armed aggression” and “actively promoting terrorism by condoning the use of violence for political purposes.”
“Your support for war will undermine our national security and expose Australians to further terrorism by inciting enemies and provoking retaliation. You are pursuing a political agenda that is economically irresponsible, legally dubious, morally corrupt and profoundly destructive.” These seemed to me, reasonable apprehensions.
Like so many others, my letters were completely ignored by those who claim to represent us. Now they want us to believe they had no idea it would turn out like this. Well I’m not convinced, I suspect they know what they’re doing and would prefer we didn’t. I think they want to control Iraq’s oil and tender its economy to US corporations.
But this mad grab for wealth and power is failing miserably, the occupiers are tied down and stretched thin, the resistance is lethal, widespread and gathering strength. Iraq has become a vast training ground for Islamic jihadists, with funding and support pouring in from Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan.
The occupiers have no exit strategy, they are entangled in a conflict of their own making with no way out, every day the cost in life and treasure mounts with little to show in return. So I ask you, where is the strategic gain in destabilizing the Persian Gulf region, which supplies 25% of the world's oil?
Who benefits from record high oil prices? Big oil producing countries like Russia, Saudia Arabia and Iran. The oil majors, Texan oil men and pipeline companies like Halliburton. But what about the economy, what about agriculture and the transport sector, what about the humble consumer?
Who benefits from the global war on terror? The Pentagon, private military corporations and arms manufacturers like MPRI, Lockheed Martin and the Carlyle Group. And of course, the intelligence and security establishment. But what about Afghan hill tribes, Iraqi farmers or Colombian peasants?
Howard is devoted to the Bush White House, which represents the interests of big oil and the weapons industry. These people profit from conflict and instability. They are clearly a threat to humanity and should be dealt with accordingly.
Thursday, October 21, 2004
Costello warns of an oil price shock
With the election out of the way, the federal treasurer Peter Costello is now warning that high oil prices could harm the economy. Of course, this wasn't mentioned at all throughout the election campaign, not by Costello, not by Howard, not by Latham, nor Crean, the mainstream media didn't mentioned it either... makes you wonder.
In the first two weeks of October, the price of oil rose 10% from $50 a barrel to $55, and that's up from $35 a barrel at the end of June, a rise of 60% in the last quarter. Suddenly, Costello thinks we're heading for a “third oil price shock” and describes it as the “greatest global risk” to the economy.
Not surprisingly, Costello does not mention his government's role in precipitating this threat to the global economy. No mention of the “risk premium” due to the surge in terrorism and deteriorating security in the Persian Gulf, no mention of the loss of two million barrels a day in exports of crude oil from Iraq. No mention of the rampant growth in US demand for oil to meet its soaring military needs.
In a statement that acknowledged a recent sharp decline in growth, a weakening job market and slow business investment, the US Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan, admitted “the current situation reflects an increasing fear that existing reserves and productive capacity have become subject to potential geopolitical adversity.”
Of course, there are many factors contributing to the relentless climb in oil prices. The weakening US dollar, the ongoing industrial disputes in Venezuela, conflict in Nigeria, uncertainty over the future of Russia's oil major, Yukos, and the recent hurricane damage to offshore production facilities in the Gulf of Mexico all put upward pressure on the price of oil.
There has also been a significant increase in demand due to the rapid growth of US-style, capital and energy intensive industrialisation in the emerging economies of China and India. This trend can be partly attributed to the successful promotion of neoliberal economic theory by western governments and institutions such as the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO.
But the root cause of the spiraling cost of oil is the lack of spare capacity in crude oil production - or more accurately, extraction. The so-called “tight market” is an indication that global oil extraction is nearing its peak and the prospects of future decline in supplies are beginning to spook the market.
The gathering threat of global oil depletion is serious. Among the most vulnerable stakeholders are the advanced industrial economies of the west, which are already deeply indebted and struggling to maintain economic growth. As the price of oil continues to climb, corporate profits will shrink, energy intensive and fuel dependent industries will falter, jobs will be lost and commodity prices will rise.
Clearly, the contemporary paradigm of consumer and investment driven economic growth is fundamentally ill-equipped to deal with the geophysical reality of long term energy decline and the corresponding collapse of the world's industrial economies. Unfortunately, scientific rigour and real world evidence have no place in economic theory.
The high-priests of economic theory are inveterate enviro-skeptics and techno-optimists. Like Alan Greenspan, they give an upbeat and reassuring prognosis that new technologies and the market forces of supply and demand will somehow magically reduce the world's dependence on oil.
And lest there be any doubt about the genius of economic theorists, Greenspan concedes “the risk of more serious negative consequences would intensify if oil prices were to move materially higher.” By describing the inevitable transition to alternative energy as similar to the historic change from wood to coal, or from coal to oil, Greenspan betrays a poor understanding of the real world.
The historical fact is that coal was never replaced by oil, rather it was supplemented by petroleum products, starting from about 1860. At that time, global annual consumption of coal was not much more than a million tons. Since then, the world's population and its energy consumption have increased exponentially.
Today, coal consumption exceeds 5 billion tons a year, in addition to nearly 4 billion tons of oil. There are no vast reserves of concentrated, renewable energies just waiting to be discovered and exploited, nor are there any magical free-energy technologies on the drawing board.
While the gurus of neoliberal capitalism continue to foster the fantasy of limitless resources, perfect knowledge and rational markets, the reality of dwindling oil reserves, fraudulent accounting practices and irrational markets presents western economists with an insurmountable dilemma of their own making.
The only way to avoid a catastrophic economic meltdown is to recognize the fact that fossil fuels are finite, non-renewable resources, that fossil energy consumption, by definition, is unsustainable, and that a fundamental economic rethink and lifestyle changes are required to reduce energy dependence and promote sustainable economies.
This is a problem that's not going away. Politicians really need to get a handle on this issue and start developing policies and setting the agenda in preparation for the transition to a post-petroleum world. The arrival of peak oil, the impending oil crisis and subsequent oil crash will have enormous consequences for politics at all levels of government.
In the first two weeks of October, the price of oil rose 10% from $50 a barrel to $55, and that's up from $35 a barrel at the end of June, a rise of 60% in the last quarter. Suddenly, Costello thinks we're heading for a “third oil price shock” and describes it as the “greatest global risk” to the economy.
Not surprisingly, Costello does not mention his government's role in precipitating this threat to the global economy. No mention of the “risk premium” due to the surge in terrorism and deteriorating security in the Persian Gulf, no mention of the loss of two million barrels a day in exports of crude oil from Iraq. No mention of the rampant growth in US demand for oil to meet its soaring military needs.
In a statement that acknowledged a recent sharp decline in growth, a weakening job market and slow business investment, the US Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan, admitted “the current situation reflects an increasing fear that existing reserves and productive capacity have become subject to potential geopolitical adversity.”
Of course, there are many factors contributing to the relentless climb in oil prices. The weakening US dollar, the ongoing industrial disputes in Venezuela, conflict in Nigeria, uncertainty over the future of Russia's oil major, Yukos, and the recent hurricane damage to offshore production facilities in the Gulf of Mexico all put upward pressure on the price of oil.
There has also been a significant increase in demand due to the rapid growth of US-style, capital and energy intensive industrialisation in the emerging economies of China and India. This trend can be partly attributed to the successful promotion of neoliberal economic theory by western governments and institutions such as the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO.
But the root cause of the spiraling cost of oil is the lack of spare capacity in crude oil production - or more accurately, extraction. The so-called “tight market” is an indication that global oil extraction is nearing its peak and the prospects of future decline in supplies are beginning to spook the market.
The gathering threat of global oil depletion is serious. Among the most vulnerable stakeholders are the advanced industrial economies of the west, which are already deeply indebted and struggling to maintain economic growth. As the price of oil continues to climb, corporate profits will shrink, energy intensive and fuel dependent industries will falter, jobs will be lost and commodity prices will rise.
Clearly, the contemporary paradigm of consumer and investment driven economic growth is fundamentally ill-equipped to deal with the geophysical reality of long term energy decline and the corresponding collapse of the world's industrial economies. Unfortunately, scientific rigour and real world evidence have no place in economic theory.
The high-priests of economic theory are inveterate enviro-skeptics and techno-optimists. Like Alan Greenspan, they give an upbeat and reassuring prognosis that new technologies and the market forces of supply and demand will somehow magically reduce the world's dependence on oil.
And lest there be any doubt about the genius of economic theorists, Greenspan concedes “the risk of more serious negative consequences would intensify if oil prices were to move materially higher.” By describing the inevitable transition to alternative energy as similar to the historic change from wood to coal, or from coal to oil, Greenspan betrays a poor understanding of the real world.
The historical fact is that coal was never replaced by oil, rather it was supplemented by petroleum products, starting from about 1860. At that time, global annual consumption of coal was not much more than a million tons. Since then, the world's population and its energy consumption have increased exponentially.
Today, coal consumption exceeds 5 billion tons a year, in addition to nearly 4 billion tons of oil. There are no vast reserves of concentrated, renewable energies just waiting to be discovered and exploited, nor are there any magical free-energy technologies on the drawing board.
While the gurus of neoliberal capitalism continue to foster the fantasy of limitless resources, perfect knowledge and rational markets, the reality of dwindling oil reserves, fraudulent accounting practices and irrational markets presents western economists with an insurmountable dilemma of their own making.
The only way to avoid a catastrophic economic meltdown is to recognize the fact that fossil fuels are finite, non-renewable resources, that fossil energy consumption, by definition, is unsustainable, and that a fundamental economic rethink and lifestyle changes are required to reduce energy dependence and promote sustainable economies.
This is a problem that's not going away. Politicians really need to get a handle on this issue and start developing policies and setting the agenda in preparation for the transition to a post-petroleum world. The arrival of peak oil, the impending oil crisis and subsequent oil crash will have enormous consequences for politics at all levels of government.
Sunday, October 03, 2004
Sack these mass murdering warmongers
The death toll reaches one hundred and twenty five in Samarra and another twelve killed in Sadr City 
as the US military prepares to level Fallujah. Bush once said, “If you’re not with us, you’re with the terrorists.” Doesn’t matter whether you’re a six year old girl or a sixty year old man, if you don’t love America, you’re a terrorist.
I was born on the fourth of July, 1961. All my life I have watched America wage war around the world. In my country, the US has long been regarded as a friend and ally, a true champion of freedom and democracy. I have always imagined America to be a nation and a people committed to human rights and the rule of law.
Now I feel like my illusions have been shattered. The America I once admired has turned into a nightmare of violence and aggression. The US president turns out to be a homicidal maniac, and Americans are cheering him on. What has happened to this once great nation?
There is no way the attack on Iraq was a legitimate response to the events of 9/11. The belligerent Bush administration has completely squandered the world wide sympathy and good will afforded America in its darkest hour. Now the sentiment has turned to fear and loathing.
Do you think America has the right to attack another country on the basis of fabricated, flawed and exaggerated evidence, and then deny people their right to self defence? Do you really believe that’s fair?
Do you think you can label anyone a terrorist and murder at will, with impunity? Do you really believe you can force people to submit by killing their friends and family? Do you want to be hated?
Have you any idea what you’re doing in Iraq and Afghanistan? Don’t you ever think about the innocent lives you are destroying? Do you really believe you’re doing God’s work, killing children?
What the hell are you trying to prove... that you’re tough? That you have the best military technology and the bravest warriors? Whoop! You can kill hundreds, kill thousands, women and children, does that make you feel safer?
Bush is doing to America what Sharon is doing to Israel, turning their democracies into rogue states, international outlaws, enemies of the civilised world, terrorist entities in their own right.
If America has any desire to reclaim its reputation as a leader of the civilised world, it had better start reflecting on the effect it is having around the world, it needs to listen and learn from the wise counsel of others. No nation, no matter how powerful, can rule the world by military force alone.
I’ve got a message for our warmongering politicians, Arial Sharon, Bibi Netanyahu, George W Bush, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Tony Blair, Jack Straw, Geoff Hoon, John Howard, Alex Downer, Robert Hill...
wake up to yourselves!
as the US military prepares to level Fallujah. Bush once said, “If you’re not with us, you’re with the terrorists.” Doesn’t matter whether you’re a six year old girl or a sixty year old man, if you don’t love America, you’re a terrorist.
I was born on the fourth of July, 1961. All my life I have watched America wage war around the world. In my country, the US has long been regarded as a friend and ally, a true champion of freedom and democracy. I have always imagined America to be a nation and a people committed to human rights and the rule of law.
Now I feel like my illusions have been shattered. The America I once admired has turned into a nightmare of violence and aggression. The US president turns out to be a homicidal maniac, and Americans are cheering him on. What has happened to this once great nation?
There is no way the attack on Iraq was a legitimate response to the events of 9/11. The belligerent Bush administration has completely squandered the world wide sympathy and good will afforded America in its darkest hour. Now the sentiment has turned to fear and loathing.
Do you think America has the right to attack another country on the basis of fabricated, flawed and exaggerated evidence, and then deny people their right to self defence? Do you really believe that’s fair?
Do you think you can label anyone a terrorist and murder at will, with impunity? Do you really believe you can force people to submit by killing their friends and family? Do you want to be hated?
Have you any idea what you’re doing in Iraq and Afghanistan? Don’t you ever think about the innocent lives you are destroying? Do you really believe you’re doing God’s work, killing children?
What the hell are you trying to prove... that you’re tough? That you have the best military technology and the bravest warriors? Whoop! You can kill hundreds, kill thousands, women and children, does that make you feel safer?
Bush is doing to America what Sharon is doing to Israel, turning their democracies into rogue states, international outlaws, enemies of the civilised world, terrorist entities in their own right.
If America has any desire to reclaim its reputation as a leader of the civilised world, it had better start reflecting on the effect it is having around the world, it needs to listen and learn from the wise counsel of others. No nation, no matter how powerful, can rule the world by military force alone.
I’ve got a message for our warmongering politicians, Arial Sharon, Bibi Netanyahu, George W Bush, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Tony Blair, Jack Straw, Geoff Hoon, John Howard, Alex Downer, Robert Hill...
wake up to yourselves!
Friday, October 01, 2004
Bush claims credit for disarming Gadhafi
During the presidential debate on national security, George Bush repeatedly asserted that his doctrine of unilateral preemptive aggression had forced Libya to disarm and helped expose Dr Khan's nuclear proliferation network.
Bush first began crowing about Libya's disarmament in his State of the Union Address back in January. "Colonel Gadhafi correctly judged that his country would be better off and far more secure without weapons of mass murder" Bush said, adding "no one can now doubt the word of America". But the fact is, Libya had already committed to unilateral disarmament and was negotiating with British and American officials well before Bush invaded Iraq.
Senator Kerry, who should have seen this coming, failed to challenge Bush on this point, which is somewhat surprising, given that Libya's disarmament actually had nothing to do with the attack on Iraq. Anyone familiar with the history of US-Libyan relations knows that Gadhafi had been pursuing better relations with the West for many years, and the decision to embrace the Libyan dictator had more to do with diversifying energy supplies to the West than disarming Libya.
According to Paul Kerr of the Arms Control Association, Libya was motivated to give up its weapons by the desire to end UN sanctions and restore profitable economic relations with the United States. "The invasion of Iraq does not appear to have been the decisive factor in Libya’s decision. But even if it was, this is at best a fortunate by-product of the war that does not provide a useful guide for future non-proliferation policy - the United States obviously cannot invade one country to scare another into disarming."
Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association and a prominent non-proliferation expert, has said that Libya's disarmament resulted from the combination of preventative diplomacy, a non-proliferation treaty, weapons inspections, the lifting of economic sanctions, and the provision of incentives rather than the threat of Bush's "Preemptive Strike Doctrine."
And Suh Jae Jung, a professor of politics at Cornell University and an expert on U.S. foreign policy has said, "There is a tendency in which people believe that the United States' power-based foreign policy made Libya surrender, but the fact is that it was negotiation and compromise between the two countries rather than unilateral power exertion."
As Cheong Wook Sik explains, the Libyan model of disarmament stands in stark contrast to the Bush doctrine and is clearly at variance with the methodology espoused by the neoconservative hawks in the Bush administration. In dealing with Gadhafi, Bush was willing to build trust through direct negotiations and trade off economic sanctions as an incentive to give up WMD. But with Iraq, Iran and North Korea, Bush has championed a hard-line, uncompromising approach based on threats and acts of military aggression. It is simply disingenuous to ascribe the successful disarmament of Libya to the utterly disastrous consequences of the attack on Iraq.
The discovery of Dr Abdul Khan's nuclear supermarket likewise had little to do with Bush and his crusading neocon warriors. Khan's operation was an open secret for years among intelligence officers and officials in Pakistan, the US and elsewhere. When the illicit trade in nuclear materials and technology came to light in August 2003, it was a major embarrassment for the Bush administration, which had made such a big fuss about non-existant WMD in Iraq, all the while oblivious to the nuclear proliferation activities of Dr Khan and his associates.
Bush first began crowing about Libya's disarmament in his State of the Union Address back in January. "Colonel Gadhafi correctly judged that his country would be better off and far more secure without weapons of mass murder" Bush said, adding "no one can now doubt the word of America". But the fact is, Libya had already committed to unilateral disarmament and was negotiating with British and American officials well before Bush invaded Iraq.
Senator Kerry, who should have seen this coming, failed to challenge Bush on this point, which is somewhat surprising, given that Libya's disarmament actually had nothing to do with the attack on Iraq. Anyone familiar with the history of US-Libyan relations knows that Gadhafi had been pursuing better relations with the West for many years, and the decision to embrace the Libyan dictator had more to do with diversifying energy supplies to the West than disarming Libya.
According to Paul Kerr of the Arms Control Association, Libya was motivated to give up its weapons by the desire to end UN sanctions and restore profitable economic relations with the United States. "The invasion of Iraq does not appear to have been the decisive factor in Libya’s decision. But even if it was, this is at best a fortunate by-product of the war that does not provide a useful guide for future non-proliferation policy - the United States obviously cannot invade one country to scare another into disarming."
Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association and a prominent non-proliferation expert, has said that Libya's disarmament resulted from the combination of preventative diplomacy, a non-proliferation treaty, weapons inspections, the lifting of economic sanctions, and the provision of incentives rather than the threat of Bush's "Preemptive Strike Doctrine."
And Suh Jae Jung, a professor of politics at Cornell University and an expert on U.S. foreign policy has said, "There is a tendency in which people believe that the United States' power-based foreign policy made Libya surrender, but the fact is that it was negotiation and compromise between the two countries rather than unilateral power exertion."
As Cheong Wook Sik explains, the Libyan model of disarmament stands in stark contrast to the Bush doctrine and is clearly at variance with the methodology espoused by the neoconservative hawks in the Bush administration. In dealing with Gadhafi, Bush was willing to build trust through direct negotiations and trade off economic sanctions as an incentive to give up WMD. But with Iraq, Iran and North Korea, Bush has championed a hard-line, uncompromising approach based on threats and acts of military aggression. It is simply disingenuous to ascribe the successful disarmament of Libya to the utterly disastrous consequences of the attack on Iraq.
The discovery of Dr Abdul Khan's nuclear supermarket likewise had little to do with Bush and his crusading neocon warriors. Khan's operation was an open secret for years among intelligence officers and officials in Pakistan, the US and elsewhere. When the illicit trade in nuclear materials and technology came to light in August 2003, it was a major embarrassment for the Bush administration, which had made such a big fuss about non-existant WMD in Iraq, all the while oblivious to the nuclear proliferation activities of Dr Khan and his associates.
Tuesday, September 28, 2004
America is losing the war in Iraq
The United States is headed for an ignominious defeat in Iraq, the consequence of egregious strategic and political incompetence on the part of the Bush administration.
Under the banner of a radical Wolfowitzian plan to ‘spread freedom and democracy’ around the world, Bush and his entourage of corporate profiteers are making a killing in Iraq, literally and figuratively.
But while Big Oil and the military industrial establishment are reaping the rewards of chaos and instability, the civilised world is crying out for sanity and humanity to prevail.
Nothing exemplifies the appalling dysfunction of the Bush administration better than the President himself, who continues to justify the attack on Iraq as a noble, altruistic act of liberation, while ignoring the unpleasant fact that Iraq has descended into violent anarchy with little hope of immediate improvement.
Perhaps Bush believes he can convince the American electorate that his grand vision is succeeding and real world evidence to the contrary is irrelevant and should be ignored. Unfortunately, such collective delusion on the part of American society will do little to improve the situation in Iraq.
Parading his puppet prime minister, Iyad Allawi, before a joint congressional sitting last week, simply further confirms the utter contempt Bush has for tact, reason and the views of those who oppose his reckless and aggressive unilateralism.
The mutual confidence and excessive cordiality evident between Bush and Allawi is more a reflection of inherent dependence than any sincere expression of trust or friendship. The President desperately needs to believe his strongman can deliver stability in Iraq, and Prime Minister Allawi cannot hope to survive without the President's support and a cordon of US bodyguards.
Each needs the other more than they care to admit, but neither can really feel assured the other will deliver. The stakes are high. For Bush, failure to secure peace and stability in Iraq will cost America dearly; financially, strategically and politically. A defeat of the US military at the hands of the Iraqi resistance will undermine US credibility and weaken America's willingness to engage threats elsewhere in the world. Bush will go down in history as the president who single-handedly neutered the US military.
For Allawi, failure to gain the support of his fellow citizens by restoring security and essential services will very likely cost him his life, or many more years in exile. Ironically, his vaunted propinquity with the Bush administration may well be his greatest liability. There is no doubt the majority of Iraqis are bitterly opposed to the US occupation, and anyone closely associated with the occupation forces is generally considered to be collaborating with the enemy. Such widespread popular sentiment bodes ill for Allawi's future in Iraq.
Allawi's gravest mistake has been his eagerness to align himself closely with Bush, compounded by his failure to moderate the aggressive behaviour of US forces in many parts of the country. Most Iraqis now regard Allawi as little more than an American stooge, doing the dirty work for George Bush and his neocon warriors. Allawi's reputation sinks lower with each additional civilian death, and his inability to stem the violence undermines his support, both at home and abroad.
There are now signs coming from the White House that suggest some senior administration officials are beginning to doubt the wisdom of open ended support for Allawi. The other day, Defence Secretary Rumsfeld opined that US forces might be withdrawn from Iraq even before the violence and conflict is resolved. He was signalling Allawi that America cannot be relied upon to restore security to that war ravaged nation.
And last week, the right wing journalist, Robert Novak, wrote that inside the Bush administration, "there is strong feeling that US troops must leave Iraq next year," a determination "not predicated on success in implanting Iraqi democracy and internal stability." Novak made the astute observation that "getting out of Iraq would end the neoconservative dream of building democracy in the Arab world."
With insufficient military strength on hand to defeat the resistance in Iraq, the US has three available options. They can maintain troop numbers and continue to fight an interminable guerilla war, with the ever increasing cost in life and treasure for no discernable advantage. Or they can greatly increase troop numbers and the use of force in an effort to subdue the resistance, an extremely expensive and potentially disastrous escalation of the conflict with no guarantee of success. Or they can cut their losses and leave.
According to Novak, well-placed sources in the administration are confident that Bush, Rice and Wolfowitz all favour withdrawal. This would leave Allawi in a precarious position as the various tribal and sectarian groups battle among themselves for power in the chaotic emergence of a new Iraqi government. Apparently, the Bush administration views such an internecine outcome as vastly preferable to Saddam's regime.
With typical insouciant certainty, Bush is displaying the sort of limited strategic cognisance that has epitomised his presidency. No thought given to the longer term ramifications of his belligerence, no regard for America's standing in the world, little more than arrogance, blind obstinacy and pig-headed aggression.
The attack on Iraq has been nothing short of an unmitigated strategic disaster for America, with serious geopolitical consequences for the whole world. It has weakened the international system of collective security. It has undermined US credibility on the world stage and consequently strengthened the position of other major forces, including non-state actors like al Qaeda. It has destabilized a region of immense strategic significance, at enormous cost to the United States, creating conditions that will lead to even more conflict and instability.
It is a testament to the fatuity of the Bush administration that they continue to portray their achievement in Iraq as a benefit to America and the world. But for those who appraise the situation with a modicum of objectivity, the horrible truth is all too apparent.
Under the banner of a radical Wolfowitzian plan to ‘spread freedom and democracy’ around the world, Bush and his entourage of corporate profiteers are making a killing in Iraq, literally and figuratively.
But while Big Oil and the military industrial establishment are reaping the rewards of chaos and instability, the civilised world is crying out for sanity and humanity to prevail.
Nothing exemplifies the appalling dysfunction of the Bush administration better than the President himself, who continues to justify the attack on Iraq as a noble, altruistic act of liberation, while ignoring the unpleasant fact that Iraq has descended into violent anarchy with little hope of immediate improvement.
Perhaps Bush believes he can convince the American electorate that his grand vision is succeeding and real world evidence to the contrary is irrelevant and should be ignored. Unfortunately, such collective delusion on the part of American society will do little to improve the situation in Iraq.
Parading his puppet prime minister, Iyad Allawi, before a joint congressional sitting last week, simply further confirms the utter contempt Bush has for tact, reason and the views of those who oppose his reckless and aggressive unilateralism.
The mutual confidence and excessive cordiality evident between Bush and Allawi is more a reflection of inherent dependence than any sincere expression of trust or friendship. The President desperately needs to believe his strongman can deliver stability in Iraq, and Prime Minister Allawi cannot hope to survive without the President's support and a cordon of US bodyguards.
Each needs the other more than they care to admit, but neither can really feel assured the other will deliver. The stakes are high. For Bush, failure to secure peace and stability in Iraq will cost America dearly; financially, strategically and politically. A defeat of the US military at the hands of the Iraqi resistance will undermine US credibility and weaken America's willingness to engage threats elsewhere in the world. Bush will go down in history as the president who single-handedly neutered the US military.
For Allawi, failure to gain the support of his fellow citizens by restoring security and essential services will very likely cost him his life, or many more years in exile. Ironically, his vaunted propinquity with the Bush administration may well be his greatest liability. There is no doubt the majority of Iraqis are bitterly opposed to the US occupation, and anyone closely associated with the occupation forces is generally considered to be collaborating with the enemy. Such widespread popular sentiment bodes ill for Allawi's future in Iraq.
Allawi's gravest mistake has been his eagerness to align himself closely with Bush, compounded by his failure to moderate the aggressive behaviour of US forces in many parts of the country. Most Iraqis now regard Allawi as little more than an American stooge, doing the dirty work for George Bush and his neocon warriors. Allawi's reputation sinks lower with each additional civilian death, and his inability to stem the violence undermines his support, both at home and abroad.
There are now signs coming from the White House that suggest some senior administration officials are beginning to doubt the wisdom of open ended support for Allawi. The other day, Defence Secretary Rumsfeld opined that US forces might be withdrawn from Iraq even before the violence and conflict is resolved. He was signalling Allawi that America cannot be relied upon to restore security to that war ravaged nation.
And last week, the right wing journalist, Robert Novak, wrote that inside the Bush administration, "there is strong feeling that US troops must leave Iraq next year," a determination "not predicated on success in implanting Iraqi democracy and internal stability." Novak made the astute observation that "getting out of Iraq would end the neoconservative dream of building democracy in the Arab world."
With insufficient military strength on hand to defeat the resistance in Iraq, the US has three available options. They can maintain troop numbers and continue to fight an interminable guerilla war, with the ever increasing cost in life and treasure for no discernable advantage. Or they can greatly increase troop numbers and the use of force in an effort to subdue the resistance, an extremely expensive and potentially disastrous escalation of the conflict with no guarantee of success. Or they can cut their losses and leave.
According to Novak, well-placed sources in the administration are confident that Bush, Rice and Wolfowitz all favour withdrawal. This would leave Allawi in a precarious position as the various tribal and sectarian groups battle among themselves for power in the chaotic emergence of a new Iraqi government. Apparently, the Bush administration views such an internecine outcome as vastly preferable to Saddam's regime.
With typical insouciant certainty, Bush is displaying the sort of limited strategic cognisance that has epitomised his presidency. No thought given to the longer term ramifications of his belligerence, no regard for America's standing in the world, little more than arrogance, blind obstinacy and pig-headed aggression.
The attack on Iraq has been nothing short of an unmitigated strategic disaster for America, with serious geopolitical consequences for the whole world. It has weakened the international system of collective security. It has undermined US credibility on the world stage and consequently strengthened the position of other major forces, including non-state actors like al Qaeda. It has destabilized a region of immense strategic significance, at enormous cost to the United States, creating conditions that will lead to even more conflict and instability.
It is a testament to the fatuity of the Bush administration that they continue to portray their achievement in Iraq as a benefit to America and the world. But for those who appraise the situation with a modicum of objectivity, the horrible truth is all too apparent.
Wednesday, September 22, 2004
World must respect the rule of law
The 59th Session of the United Nations General Assembly opened this week in New York, with a stern warning from the indomitable Kofi Annan...
But Kofi Annan was only just beginning, his message to the world was forthright and succinct...
Whatever challenges we face, the decisions we make must be guided by one "all-important framework - namely the rule of law." The Secretary General cited the vision of "a government of laws and not of men", one that embodies universal "principles of justice" including "legal protection for the poor" and "restraints on the strong, so they cannot oppress the weak."
The origin of law in ancient Mesopotamia, the land we now call Iraq, "was a landmark in mankind's struggle to build an order where, instead of might making right, right would make might." The United Nations was founded on these same principles, he said, "Yet today the rule of law is at risk around the world."
With unwavering nerve, Mr Annan went on to deplore the prevalence of war crimes and crimes against humanity around the world today, noting examples from the Sudan, Uganda, Palestine, Beslan and Iraq, including the "disgraceful abuse" of prisoners at Abu Ghraib.
Mentioning the war crimes of the US military in the same sentence as terrorist crimes is a bold exercise of impartiality, and one which will iritate the neoimperialist warmongers who regard themselves as being culturally and morally superior to the rest of us.
To drive the point home, Kofi Annan chastised world leaders for "our collective failure to uphold the law, and to instil respect for it in our fellow men and women." He urged all members of the United Nations to do whatever they can to restore that respect.
"We must start from the principle that no one is above the law, and no one should be denied its protection." The notion of equal justice under law, dispensed without fear or favour, lies at the heart of the American Constitution, but is it reflected in America's foreign relations?
But America is not the only western democracy that should consider itself chastened by the Secretary General. Countries like Britain, Australia and Israel should also pay heed to his warnings, especially if they wish to reverse the slide toward international anarchy and global insecurity.
“The United Nations is the indispensable common house of the entire human family. Let's not imagine that, if we fail to make good use of it, we will find any more effective instrument.”Those who believe US military might is the best guarantor of global peace and security, were no doubt rankled by the Secretary General's opening remarks.
But Kofi Annan was only just beginning, his message to the world was forthright and succinct...
“We have reached a fork in the road. If you, the political leaders of the world's nations, cannot reach agreement on the way forward, history will take the decisions for you, and the interests of your peoples may go by default.”
Whatever challenges we face, the decisions we make must be guided by one "all-important framework - namely the rule of law." The Secretary General cited the vision of "a government of laws and not of men", one that embodies universal "principles of justice" including "legal protection for the poor" and "restraints on the strong, so they cannot oppress the weak."
The origin of law in ancient Mesopotamia, the land we now call Iraq, "was a landmark in mankind's struggle to build an order where, instead of might making right, right would make might." The United Nations was founded on these same principles, he said, "Yet today the rule of law is at risk around the world."
With unwavering nerve, Mr Annan went on to deplore the prevalence of war crimes and crimes against humanity around the world today, noting examples from the Sudan, Uganda, Palestine, Beslan and Iraq, including the "disgraceful abuse" of prisoners at Abu Ghraib.
Mentioning the war crimes of the US military in the same sentence as terrorist crimes is a bold exercise of impartiality, and one which will iritate the neoimperialist warmongers who regard themselves as being culturally and morally superior to the rest of us.
To drive the point home, Kofi Annan chastised world leaders for "our collective failure to uphold the law, and to instil respect for it in our fellow men and women." He urged all members of the United Nations to do whatever they can to restore that respect.
"We must start from the principle that no one is above the law, and no one should be denied its protection." The notion of equal justice under law, dispensed without fear or favour, lies at the heart of the American Constitution, but is it reflected in America's foreign relations?
“Every nation that proclaims the rule of law at home must respect it abroad; and every nation that insists on it abroad must enforce it at home. Yes, the rule of law starts at home. But in too many places it remains elusive. Hatred, corruption, violence and exclusion go without redress.”The idea of a black African telling the mighty US of A, that it should abide by the same rules and standards it seeks to apply to others, is enough to send some patriotic Americans into fits of apoplexy.
“The vulnerable lack effective recourse, while the powerful manipulate laws to retain power and accumulate wealth. At times even the necessary fight against terrorism is allowed to encroach unnecessarily on civil liberties.”Powerful words from one who exudes composure and diplomatic restraint, words that carry the full weight of moral and intellectual authority. Mr Annan is, of course, quite right, “at the international level, all states - strong and weak, big and small - need a framework of fair rules, which each can be confident that others will obey.”
“Where the rule of law is most earnestly invoked, as in the Commission on Human Rights, those invoking it do not always practise what they preach. Those who seek to bestow legitimacy must themselves embody it; and those who invoke international law must themselves submit to it.”This is clearly an indirect criticism of the Bush administration's unilateralist approach to international affairs and the contempt for international law that has seriously undermined the credibility of the Security Council and the legitimacy of the United States' foreign policy.
But America is not the only western democracy that should consider itself chastened by the Secretary General. Countries like Britain, Australia and Israel should also pay heed to his warnings, especially if they wish to reverse the slide toward international anarchy and global insecurity.
“It is the law, including Security Council resolutions, which offers the best foundation for resolving prolonged conflicts - in the Middle East, in Iraq, and around the world. And it is by rigorously upholding international law that we can, and must, fulfil our responsibility to protect innocent civilians from genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.”Kofi Annan
Tuesday, September 21, 2004
Not everyone agreed Iraq had WMD
On ABC radio recently, John Howard claimed that "everyone agreed Iraq had WMD". Is this claim correct, or just another example of "truth overboard"?
Let's be quite clear about one thing, there was no unanimous agreement that Iraq did in fact possess WMD. While Britain, Australia and America all insisted Iraq had reconstituted its arsenal of WMD, they could not provide any credible evidence to support that claim.
The UN weapons inspectors were given unprecedented powers to inspect facilities, interview officials and search for evidence of WMD in Iraq. The Security Council urged all governments to provide any information that would assist the inspection process.
Despite these efforts, combined with intensive satellite surveillance and intelligence gathering by the CIA and MI6, the UN weapons inspectors and other independent experts were unable to find any evidence to support the claim that Iraq possessed stockpiles of WMD.
In December 2002, just weeks before the invasion of Iraq, chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, told the UN Security Council "UNMOVIC at this point is neither in a position to confirm Iraq's [disarmament], nor in possession of evidence to disprove it."
Again in February, 2003, Blix told the Security Council that UNMOVIC had found no evidence of WMD in Iraq, challenged several claims made to the UN by Secretary of State Colin Powell and accused the US administration of withholding intelligence information.
Intelligence agencies were equally equivocal, but Messrs Bush, Howard and Blair ignored all these uncertainties, caveats and qualifiers, instead they selected the most dramatic and often unsubstantiated accusations in their effort to justify aggression against Iraq.
Hans Blix, Scott Ritter, Rolf Ekeus, Joe Wilson, Greg Theilmann, Ray McGovern, Andrew Wilke, David Kelly... there were many experts who did not agree, but Howard can say "everyone agreed" and the media just lap it up, it seems no one wants to challenge the lies, the deceit, the misrepresentations that have become daily fare from the Howard government.
To their credit, both the Age and the SMH published articles on August 18, that revealed Blix had told Howard there was no evidence of WMD in Iraq as early as January, 2003. Yet Howard continues to insist that everyone agreed Iraq possessed WMD.
Let's be quite clear about one thing, there was no unanimous agreement that Iraq did in fact possess WMD. While Britain, Australia and America all insisted Iraq had reconstituted its arsenal of WMD, they could not provide any credible evidence to support that claim.
The UN weapons inspectors were given unprecedented powers to inspect facilities, interview officials and search for evidence of WMD in Iraq. The Security Council urged all governments to provide any information that would assist the inspection process.
Despite these efforts, combined with intensive satellite surveillance and intelligence gathering by the CIA and MI6, the UN weapons inspectors and other independent experts were unable to find any evidence to support the claim that Iraq possessed stockpiles of WMD.
In December 2002, just weeks before the invasion of Iraq, chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, told the UN Security Council "UNMOVIC at this point is neither in a position to confirm Iraq's [disarmament], nor in possession of evidence to disprove it."
Again in February, 2003, Blix told the Security Council that UNMOVIC had found no evidence of WMD in Iraq, challenged several claims made to the UN by Secretary of State Colin Powell and accused the US administration of withholding intelligence information.
Intelligence agencies were equally equivocal, but Messrs Bush, Howard and Blair ignored all these uncertainties, caveats and qualifiers, instead they selected the most dramatic and often unsubstantiated accusations in their effort to justify aggression against Iraq.
Hans Blix, Scott Ritter, Rolf Ekeus, Joe Wilson, Greg Theilmann, Ray McGovern, Andrew Wilke, David Kelly... there were many experts who did not agree, but Howard can say "everyone agreed" and the media just lap it up, it seems no one wants to challenge the lies, the deceit, the misrepresentations that have become daily fare from the Howard government.
To their credit, both the Age and the SMH published articles on August 18, that revealed Blix had told Howard there was no evidence of WMD in Iraq as early as January, 2003. Yet Howard continues to insist that everyone agreed Iraq possessed WMD.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)