Ozzy Moron

Humanitarian Intervention ... no way

2011-10-13T23:31:00.001+11:00

Under the aegis of peace laureate puppet Obama, the predator drone president, warmongers have revived their "humanitarian intervention" narrative to augment the tattered "terror war" theme that's been employed to absolve unlawful aggression for the past decade.

Their "responsibility to protect" is propaganda to promote war under the guise of noblesse oblige. But the ploy fell apart at the UN last week, when China and Russia exercised their veto powers to defeat a Western backed resolution that could have been used to launch a Libya-style assault on Syria.

This prompted an outburst from US ambassador Susan Rice, who declared the Council had "utterly failed to address an urgent moral challenge", then stormed from the chamber. She later claimed Washington was "outraged" by opposition to the resolution, even though the US routinely vetos UN resolutions critical of Israel. In fact, the US holds the world record for vetoing UN resolutions.

Having witnessed the way the US and its NATO allies used Resolution 1973 to mercilessly pound Libya for the last seven months, Russia and China finally took a stand against the "philosophy of confrontation", as Russian ambassador Churkin put it. Perhaps they suspect the real agenda is more about enriching the West's military industrial plutocracy.

UN Resolution 1973 authorized "all necessary measures" to protect civilians, but it did not authorize unlawful aggression for the purpose of regime change, which is what it was used for. While there is still some doubt about whether Qadaffi was actually killing civilians, there is now no doubt that Western military and intelligence operatives were in Libya fomenting the conflict, arming and supporting the rebels, bombing from air and sea, destroying infrastructure and killing countless civilians.

The entire campaign was a war crime from the start. Once again the UN was used as a vehicle to further US hegemonic ambitions, with Resolution 1973 providing a thin veneer of legitimacy. Unilaterally, the US claims the right to change regimes it doesn't like, because, as Hillary Clinton proudly crowed, "We chose to lead the world".

The defeat of the UN resolution condemning Syria won't deter Washington from its quest for war nor quell its belligerence, but it might just hinder the West's reckless rush into yet another costly and unnecessary conflict.

Nuclear power in context

2011-07-03T20:59:00.001+10:00

The debate over nuclear power is an asymmetric contest. On one side we have a multi-billion dollar industry backed by the full might of government. This alliance has at its disposal, vast sums of money and an awesome array of resources, including PR agents, lawyers, lobbyists and media pundits.

The opposing team consists of ordinary citizens who wield little more than common sense and thoughtful concern to counter pro-industry propaganda. The glaring difference in influence between these opposing forces is matched by the divergence of issues concerning each side.

While the nuclear industry and their allies in government are motivated by profit, power and prestige, ordinary citizens are concerned about the near and long term health and environmental effects of radioactive pollution.

Nuclear power has never been an economically viable way to produce electricity. The initial purpose of the nuclear reactor was to produce fissile material for atomic bombs. The entire industry was subsidized by government from the begining and it could not survive without state funding.

Promotion of the nuclear industry is an example of techno-utopian hubris, the reckless pursuit of power and profit based on a paradigm in which arbitrary and subjective value judgements, such as measures of "wealth" and "quality of life", are given precedence over concern for the integrity of nature's life-support systems.

Only by concealing, discounting or denying the true costs of nuclear power can proponents of the industry claim it is clean, safe and economic. The true costs include all costs associated with the nuclear fuel cycle; social, economic, environmental, from mine site to final disposal and all steps in between, such as reprocessing, storage and security.

Three hundred thousand tonnes of spent fuel, radioactive waste that will remain hazardous for a 100,000 years, is temporarily stored alongside reactors at 440 nuclear plants around the world, with still no solution to the problem of disposal, a cost and a liability that industry proponents prefer to ignore.

As the explosions at Fukushima demonstrated, this dangerous nuclear waste can escape and spread into the environment, contaminating air, sea, land and ground water. While the cost of this contamination will be borne by many for centuries to come, the corporations that profited from the plant in the past are protected from liability by government legislation.

The role of responsible government should include protecting citizens from the reckless excesses of industrial giants. But according to a recent report in the Guardian, the UK government secretly colluded with industry behemoths to mislead the public about the dangers associated with nuclear power.

Decades of popular protest and patient warnings about the hazards of nuclear power have had little effect on policy makers and politicians, who have traditionally been supportative of the industry.

Given that an overwhelming majority of citizens around the world are strongly opposed to nuclear power, staunch support for the industry by elected governments makes a mockery of democracy.

Belatedly, the tide is turning against the nuclear industry. In the wake of Fukushima, the governments of Germany, Switzerland and Japan have all committed to phasing out nuclear power and Italy recently reaffirmed its decision to remain nuclear free.

In the US, a hundred aging reactors are reaching their use-by date and requiring evermore maintenance at increasing cost. The New York Times has reported that cracks and leaks have been found at half of US reactors and in many places ground water has been contaminated with radioactive Tritium.

The future expense of decommisioning reactors, more than a billion dollars over ten years, represents a significant cost to plant operators. Many are now seeking 20 year extensions to their operating licenses, a process that requires expensive assessment of facilities.

These aging power plants are ticking, radiological timebombs. Any one of them could become the next Fukushima.

Al-Qa’ida is a proxy force

2011-03-29T05:28:00.011+11:00

The conflict in Libya has shed new light on the true nature of al-Qa’ida, the shady, ubiquitous terror franchise purportedly responsible for the events of 9/11. This amorphous group had its origins in the Afghan covert war against the Soviets, where the CIA armed, trained and sponsored Islamic "freedom fighters".

Testifying before the 2002 Joint Inquiry into 9/11, DCI Tenet described the intelligence community's ongoing engagement with al-Qa'ida, which he said included the "recruitment of well-placed agents" and efforts to "infiltrate terrorist groups". A transcript of Tenet's testimony is available on the CIA's website.

In 2007, the Pentagon commissioned a study by the Combating Terrorism Center of the US Military Academy at West Point, which produced a report entitled Al-Qa’ida's Foreign Fighters in Iraq.

In that report, below a chart entitled Foreign Fighters: Country of Origin, the authors state that "Libya contributed far more fighters per capita than any other nationality". Most of the Libyan recruits came from Darnah and Benghazi and were "linked to the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group" which "had officially sworn allegiance to al-Qa’ida".

This happens to be the very same group we're aiding in Libya today. Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the leader of Libya’s armed insurrection, is a member of the LIFG and admits his fighters have al-Qa’ida links. He was captured by US forces in Afghanistan a decade ago, spent time in Gitmo and was eventually released to Libya in 2008. Now, al-Hasidi, with US arms and Coalition air support, is our ally against Qaddafi.

A recent New York Times article describes CIA and MI6 activities in Libya, where Obama has authorised a "shadow force of Westerners", who provide arms and train militia groups to "help bleed Qaddafi’s military".

These militia groups have been deemed terrorists and insurgents to justify sustained military engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq. But now in Libya, the same motley crew are portrayed as freedom fighters and champions of democracy, deserving our support and justifying yet another military intervention in an oil-rich region.

The very obvious implication to my mind, which may seem bizarre to some, is that al-Qa’ida, in effect, is a proxy force, covertly co-opted and deployed to facilitate the hegemonic agenda of the privatised, corporatist, oil-fired, nuclear-armed military industrial plutocracy.

Science, censorship and the media

2011-01-09T23:04:00.041+11:00

The Australian Prime Minister gave a speech before the House on Wednesday, November 17, 2010, replayed on the ABC's Science Show, in which she reflected upon the "special place science holds in the fabric of our Australian society".

She emphasised the esteem held for science that places it in company with such noble values as an independent public service and the rule of law, praising science as "one of the fundamental platforms on which we base our conception of a modern advanced society".

"The objectivity and rigour of science are basic to our existence and success as a community of reason ... Science," she said, "has freed humanity from the habits, fears and superstitions of the past."

If only it were true. For if it were true, the science of 9/11 would be admitted by politicians and the mainstream media. The empirical evidence and scientific reasoning that indisputably disprove the official 9/11 conspiracy theory would be well known and widely acknowledged.

The fact is, scientists who research 9/11 (eg. Steven Jones, Niels Harrit, Frank Legge) are censured and ridiculed while their findings are censored and ignored. This fact exposes the absurdity, hypocrisy and conceit implicit in the PM's speech, a speech that merely demonstrates the smarmy superficiality of political exposition.

Scientific analyses of the evidence from the events of 9/11 unequivocally and comprehensively disprove the governments' 9/11 conspiracy theory. Hence, the science of 9/11 is deliberately and systematically censored by government and the mainstream media.

In the absence of informed debate, based on objective and impartial assessment of empirical evidence, an accurate appraisal of the issue is impossible. This is perhaps the intention of those who seek to stifle any mention of the subject.

The censorship of 9/11 is implemented in a variety of ways. The techniques employed can be characterised as either passive or active.

Passive censorship involves simply ignoring facts, failing to report events or cover media briefings and refusing to respond to written representations or formal requests.

Active censorship entails deliberate attacks and insults directed at any who dare raise the issue in public. This form of censorship relies on scorn, ridicule, derision and intimidation to discredit and discourage open discussion of the subject.

These forms of censorship have become pervasive in the mainstream media and political establishment in relation to 9/11. Nowhere is the issue of 9/11 allowed to be raised in a mature, rational manner. Any attempt to do so meets with hysterical invective and abuse.

A typical example is Jon Feine's failed attempt to ambush Kevin Braken on ABC radio, eloquently deconstructed in this video by Anthony Lawson.

My own correspondence with the ABC, including notable media personalities Phillip Adams and Robin Williams, reveals contempt for any who raise the issue of 9/11 to be rife in the ranks of the ABC.

Similarly, the renowned dissident intellectual, Noam Chomsky, appears unable to deal with the facts surrounding the destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11. Chomsky likes to argue that in any complex event, there'll always be a mass of unexplained phenomena - including, necessarily in the case of 9/11, magic and miracles - an argument that completely precludes the examination of evidence.

It is remarkable that individuals who evince respect for logic and reasoning, can so readily abandon the precepts of scientific rigour and reject the import of fact and evidence when discussing 9/11.

Invariably, these learned individuals attempt to twist the conversation round to make it something about conspiracy theory, which is perhaps because that's all they know about the subject.

They don't know anything about the evidence of molten metal in the rubble of the World Trade Center, they don't know about the sudden, symmetrical free fall of Building 7 or the presence of hi-tech nano-thermite in the dust ... indeed, they're clueless and incurious.

The mainstream media and their armchair intellectuals know only one thing about 9/11 ... it's a conspiracy theory. And if you dare talk about 9/11, you must be a conspiracy theorist, in other words, a kook. Very convenient ... they can dismiss the issue without ever having to address the evidence, the facts of the matter.

However, if you put them on the spot and demand they address the evidence, they very quickly become testy and defensive, and shortly thereafter, refuse to respond, thus relieving themselves of the discomfort of not having a leg to stand on.

It is really quite disturbing to see intellectual celebrities of this calibre, crumble in the face of a few unpleasant facts. And what does it say about the mainstream media and academia, that such intellectual shonkyness is deemed appropriate and acceptable.

Debt, dominance and stability

2010-12-07T18:48:00.024+11:00

The United States finds itself constrained by debt and losing leverage on the world stage. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, concedes this "sends a message of weakness internationally."

Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, believes this is bad for America and bad for the world. According to Haass, the diminution of US dominance over the world system will herald "an era of international relations in which things get a lot messier."

Clearly, Clinton and Haass subscribe to the establishment consensus, that the United States has been a benign hegemon, indefatigably "promoting prosperity and stability around the world", by being able to "lead and act in the ways it has ... since World War II."

These "ways" include flagrant disregard and explicit contempt for international law, unprovoked aggression and war crimes, covert and overt interventions abroad, massive corporate fraud and a host of horrendous atrocities around the world.

If there were any truth to the claims made by the Anglo-American establishment and their Western vassals, promoting and endorsing US dominance of the world system, would there be any need for multi-trillion dollar war spending? Would there be millions starving in Africa while millions suffer obesity in the West?

Has fifty years of western military intervention around the world made the place safer or more stable, is there any evidence that the trillions spent on war have served to enhance security and prosperity for more than a super-rich clique?

It requires a peculiar US-centric perspective on the world and blind faith in the efficacy of force to believe that US dominance of the world system is good for America and good for the world.

A more balanced and realistic view of the world permits the possibility that US interventionist policies and disregard for international norms actually provoke hostility, promote conflict, undermine the rule of law and foster global instability.

The United States' fiscal deficit is not its only deficit - of equal significance is its deficit in trust and credibility. The decline in the value of the US dollar is concomitant with a decrease in the standing of the US on the world stage. As the US is progressively reduced in wealth and standing, it will be subjected to ever-greater pressure to conform to international norms.

The loss of American "exceptionalism" will curb the United States' predilection for unilateral intervention in other nations' affairs. Fiscal constraints will be compounded by political and military constraints. Unsustainable war spending will have its day of reckoning.

The dissolution or fragmentation of the unipolar world system will hasten the "emergence of a polycentric international system", a more equitable and representative balance of powers on the world stage. This might seem like a frightening prospect for the failing superpower, but for the rest of the world, it offers promising possibilities.

The trend is well illustrated in this analysis by Kaushik Deka,
Towards a new world order ...

The global economic downturn has severely hurt the American economy. This, together with the military reverses in Iraq and Afghanistan, show America’s dwindling authority in controlling the once US-dominated world order. The biggest casualty, however, has been America’s image of invincibility. China, in contrast, has shown remarkable resilience economically, increasing its global influence tremendously. This has raised legitimate questions about who is going to lead the globalisation process in future and how will it affect the shaping of the global order.

The United States always justified its primary position in the globalisation process due to its strong economy and armed superiority. Now, employing the same logic, the Chinese have started staking their claim for a greater leadership role in global financial institutions. The recent G20 summit in Seoul, besides showcasing growing Chinese strength, proves that the US and its allies are capable of neither unilaterally deciding the outcome of any major global summit nor imposing their interests on other state actors.

Further, many of America’s former allies are being seen as supporting the Chinese stand on several financial issues. This is indeed a silent but defining shift in the global order. Global capitalism, therefore, is no longer being led by the Unites States alone; rather, it is equally being taken forward by emerging economies like China and India.

Honesty, credibility and legitimacy

2010-07-20T16:15:00.018+10:00

People don't trust the government. A recent study by the Pew Research Center found a "perfect storm" of popular discontent associated with distrust of government.

Western governments have lost respect and credibility, in no small part due to the secrecy and deceit with which they conduct their affairs these days.

Many people are waking up to the fact that their governments lie, habitually ... that democracy as we know it is a sham, a charade.

The influence of corporate power, private wealth and the war industry is blatant, potent and uncompromising.

People are beginning to realize their public rights have been usurped by private interests and there's nothing they can do about it, because the government is beholden to a powerful, unaccountable few.

Government is rotten at the core and people are starting to see this.

Western governments defy international law with impunity.

They preach, hypocritically, lofty ideals of freedom and democracy, while cynically dismantling longstanding principles of common law and recklessly eviscerating civil liberties.

Our governments have fabricated evidence to mislead us into war, they've handed billions of public money to super rich private bankers. They recruit terrorists, abet terrorist organizations and fund false flag terror attacks against their own citizens.

It is no wonder people are feeling disgusted with their governments.

Dictatorships rule by force, western governments rule by farce.

Political theorists suggest the legitimacy of democratic government is derived from popular assent, which is empowered and conveyed through suffrage and demonstrated periodically by popular vote.

But the choices available to voters are exceedingly limited and determined by secretive and unaccountable processes. Real power in western democracies resides with those who determine the choices available to voters, not the voters themselves.

By controlling preselection and the provision of funds, vested interests control the democratic processes that supposedly endow the people with sovereignty and self-determination.

By ensuring that only those who share the interests and concerns of an influential few are ever elected to parliament, the ruling elite protect and preserve the status quo.

Politicians strut about, pretending to love babies and hate terrorists. They practice their performance in public like pop stars or prancing ponies, preened and pimped to private wealth behind closed doors.

Safely cocooned in a haze of myopic, self-congratulatory complacency, they drift, oblivious to the tide of rising anger that threatens to maroon them all, high on a rocky shore, somewhere unforgiving.

Suckered by concensus reality

2010-03-09T01:37:00.004+11:00

Consensus reality is a reality based not upon direct experience or evidence, but upon what is popularly believed to be true. In other words, consensus reality is a collective fantasy.

An example of consensus reality is the popular belief that Islamic extremists were responsible for the crime of 9/11, despite an overwhelming preponderance of evidence to prove otherwise.

Another example of consensus reality is the popular belief that governments are essentially honest, law abiding organizations, despite an overwhelming preponderance of evidence to prove otherwise.

At the root of consensus reality is the herd-like mentality of the public mind. Humans are inherently social creatures and hence they naturally tend toward behaviours that conform with what they perceive to be socially acceptable norms. This makes humans particularly susceptible to influence by societal pressure, whether in the form of peer group pressure, regulation by authorities or manipulation by public relations and propaganda.

Let's consider some historical examples of consensus reality. There was the belief that the earth lay at the center of the universe. that the sun and the planets and the stars revolved around the earth. There was the belief (still held by a few) that God created the earth in seven days, 4000 years before Christ. The ancients attributed many natural phenomena to super natural entities or gods.

In more recent history there's been the consensus reality of the colonialists, that indigenous peoples were savages to be hunted down and slaughtered or sold into slavery, and the consensus reality of the Nazis, that Jews and Communists and the Roma were subhuman and needed to be exterminated for the national good.

Many people like to imagine that modernity has delivered us from such fanciful notions, that science and technology have revealed the true nature of the universe and our place in it. Demonstrably, however, this is not the case. Humans are still primarily driven by needs and desires that arise from deep within the human psyche, from a place where logic and reason are absent, a place that decides according to the psychological needs of the individual, not the objective reality of the external world.

For this reason, many people make the most important decisions of their lives based on how they feel and not what they think. Few people spend a great deal of time considering the factors that determine who they marry, or what career path they choose, or how many children they have or where they decide to live. Very often these decisions are made without much forethought and in accord with the nature of the contingency as it arises.

It is not surprising, therefore, that when it comes to matters of great importance and complexity, many people decide upon an opinion determined by others who appear to be authoritative and informed. This relieves the individual from the responsibility of discovering for themselves, the truth of the matter. There is some comfort in the belief that your opinion is shared by the majority - you have a stake in the consensus reality.

This position is particularly resistant to evidence since it takes as its premise for certainty, the superior knowledge of an authoritative entity, such as the government, experts, a guru or religious doctrine. The individual who holds the beliefs so acquired has no need or desire to look at evidence, since he or she can assume that the authorities have already looked at all the evidence.

War, terror and intelligence

2009-12-10T21:38:00.014+11:00

The war on terror, aka the struggle against violent extremism, are terms used to "sell" or rationalize the West's military engagement in many parts of the developing world, especially the oil rich regions of Central Asia, the Middle East and Africa.

The conventional wisdom, propounded by government officials and foreign policy experts, postulates a world in which the developed nations are threatened by radical religious fanatics and violent extremists who are determined to attack us.

Accordingly, our only recourse against such an irrational, implacable and demonic threat is a massive military engagement of indefinite duration and unspecified cost. Without such effort we are sure to be overrun by terrorists of evermore cunning and sophistication.

The ultimate, undeniable proof of this grave danger, is the ever-present specter of 9/11. Lest anyone doubt the gravity of our predicament, or the necessity of our war, simply recite the official refrain, "they attacked us on 9/11", and who dares argue with that?

Needless to say, conventional wisdom is not always right. Indeed, it can even be an obstacle to introducing new theories, or explanations. "This is to say, that despite new information to the contrary, conventional wisdom has a property analogous to inertia that opposes the introduction of contrary belief, sometimes to the point of absurd denial of the new information set by persons strongly holding an outdated (conventional wisdom) view. This inertia is due to conventional wisdom being made of ideas that are convenient, appealing and deeply assumed by the public, who hangs on to them even as they grow outdated. The unavoidable outcome is these ideas will eventually not match reality at all, so conventional wisdom will be violently shaken until it doesn't so blatantly conflict with reality." Wikipedia

With the mainstream media shackled to a trivia driven, non-stop entertainment frenzy, and an academia steeped in technical minutia and controlled by corporate interests, it is not surprising to find a dearth of critical literature, or informed commentary, extolling the virtues of our campaign and recounting its successes, since there are none.

Instead, we have the same old rhetoric, the tired, hackneyed monologue, the political doctrine of the Bush/Cheney regime ...
the unassailable official dogma.

But why would anyone want to question the official narrative?

Why would anyone doubt the honesty of government officials, or the veracity of their pronouncements? Is there any justification for such a lack of trust in government and officialdom?

Of course not! Government officials are honorable, respectable, upright characters, they wouldn't stoop to crime or misconduct. Of course, they're only human, so sometimes they make mistakes, but they'd never intentionally do anything naughty.

You believe me, don't you?

Okay, so you think they might be influenced by large sums of money, tempting promises or perhaps even career advancement ... let me assure you, that sort of thing does happen, but not on any sort of organized scale, just a few bad apples, you know.

No look, government officials are trying to protect us, they want to do a good job keeping the terrorists at bay so we can all be safe... that's all there is to it. These guys are simply doing a difficult job as best they can, and we shouldn't be trying to second guess their methods, cos they're the experts, right?

In fact, snooping around trying to find out what they're really up to is only making their job harder, exposing methods and sources, informing the public, all this does is make it easier for the terrorists, don't you see?

I mean, really, who needs to know that our intelligence agencies infiltrate terror groups, recruit terrorist operatives or even fund, arm and train private militia run by war lords and drug barons. If people hear about all this, next thing they'll want to know just how much influence we have with these terrorist organizations, and why are we helping them, if we're supposed to be at war with them.

And you can't expect the public to comprehend the subtleties, the nuances of international relations and the geostrategic balance of power... they're too stupid to understand the real situation, that's why they must be kept distracted and deluded.

Let's face it, if too many people wake up to what's really going on, things could get messy!

The Fifth Estate

2009-12-08T00:48:00.002+11:00

Most of us rely upon the mainstream media for information about the world each day. But the view we get that way is fragmented and confused, it's a kaleidoscope of images and sound bites without context or meaning.

We're fed bits of news and views on a wide range of subjects by experts and professionals, a constant stream of discrete entries, a flood of florid reports, a swamp of tripe and trivia. We sink or swim in this soup, swayed by the currents of opinion that swirl randomly within it, subsumed by its persuasive and pervasive conurbation, seduced by the assurance it offers, the comfort of certainty, the bliss of ignorance.

If we are to make sense of the world around us and of the painful perturbations that periodically rock humanity, we will first require a mechanism, a process that captures, corroborates and compiles information in a way that renders it comprehensive and comprehensible. In other words, a system of obtaining and organizing information so that it actually tells us something useful and truthful.

When disparate aspects of a situation are presented in isolation, their relevance is lost, but when presented within a context that incorporates and explains their relationship, it can elucidate the situation, broaden the perspective and deepen the understanding.

The mainstream media presents a bewildering array of sounds and images that serve only to madden the mind and make sick the body. The mainstream media is an opiate that has destroyed the moral and intellectual fibre of humanity. Its inevitable demise can only be a good thing, but in its place we must strive to build a fifth estate that truly serves the long-term interests of humanity.

The Fifth Estate is a public media, a free media, an independent media. The Fifth Estate already exists online, where cooperative investigation and collaborative research is conducted across continents with increasing skill and alacrity. This growth in public media, the convergence of independent sources, citizen journalists and an ever expanding information resource base, offers an opportunity for some real social advances, especially in the field of public education.

The internet offers access to enormous quantities of information. What we need are the tools, the skills required to search, sift and sort that information, and to assemble that information into narratives that explain the way the world works and how we should deal with it.

Phillip Adams and 9/11 denial

2009-08-16T23:18:00.056+10:00

Psychological defences protect us from painful truths.

Now, as we all know, the destruction of the World Trade Center had absolutely nothing to do with bin Laden, it was carried out by President Bush, working closely with the FBI and the CIA, who we know have a long history of doing this, look at the Kennedy assassination. Now I have been inundated with emails and DVDs for months and months and months on these batch of conspiracy theories, which are often overlapping and contradictory...
Phillip Adams, Late Night Live

Phillip Adams' attempt to discredit and discourage discussion about 9/11 typifies mainstream commentary on the matter. So we have, for example, from Psychology Today, Paranoia, 9/11, and the roots of conspiracy theories, by Joshua D. Foster and Ilan Shrira, which portrays those who question the official story of 9/11 as suffering some kind of psychological disorder characterised by "intense anxiety about an apparent loss of autonomy".

Or this, from ScienceNews, The inner worlds of conspiracy believers, by Bruce Bower

Those who subscribe to 9/11 conspiracy beliefs are generally suspicious, a new study suggests. [The study] offers a preliminary psychological profile of people who believe in 9/11 conspiracies.

[The study] identified several traits associated with subscribing to 9/11 conspiracies, [including] taking a cynical stance toward politics, mistrusting authority, endorsing democratic practices and displaying an inquisitive, imaginative outlook.

And this, from the ABC Unleashed, Conspiracy theory lunacy by Hugh Tobin,

The theories are motivated from a variety of factors sometimes relating to anti-Americanism and most commonly from a psychology of mistrust and paranoia.

Those involved establish their conclusions first, and gather their evidence later. Contradictory evidence is either ignored or discredited.

The conspiracy theorists are oppositional by nature. They will believe 11 different versions of what occurred, even if they are all contradictory, but only as long as they are not related to the official version of events.

And again, from the ABC Unleashed, The philosophy of conspiracy by David Coady,

People in the "9/11 truth movement" are often dismissed as "conspiracy theorists"... The problem with the 9/11 truthers is that they are committed to an irrational and false theory ...

And back to Phillip Adams, writing for the Australian, Benefits in the doubt ...

I'm found wanting because I accept as fact that bin Laden and the lads were responsible for 9/11 when anyone with half a brain knows that the CIA, FBI and Bush did it. With some help from Mossad. My central argument is that Bush proved that he and his administration were dunderheads by stuffing up everything from Afghanistan to Iraq to New Orleans - that they couldn't raffle a duck in a country pub, let alone bring off the greatest act of treason in history. But to oppose 9/11 conspiracy theorists is to prove yourself part of the conspiracy.

Such dunderheads that they couldn't steal not one but two elections, couldn't start not one, but two wars, couldn't kill not one but two million people, couldn't fleece the American taxpayer of not one but two trillion dollars. Yeah right, whatever you say, Phillip, please, do continue...

As with the 9/11 conspiracy nutters and the historical revisionists of the Holocaust ... these sceptics fall into the category of 'deniers'.

There is a common thread running through all these examples... attack the messenger, smear by association, portray those who question the official dogma as being crazy, mentally deranged, unable to think properly... these 9/11 conspiracy theorists, they're kooks, they refuse to look at the evidence, they deny the facts, their minds are made up and closed... blah blah blah... there is this attempt to belittle or denigrate the individual, the questioner, without addressing the issue, the question.
It is simply "shut up", "go away", "we don't want to hear you", "we're not interested in your questions"... which is really rather like denial, in a way... refusing to listen, refusing to think, refusing to allow others to question... it's about suppressing enquiry, it's about controlling the discourse, it's about imposing the official dogma....

This is what mainstream media is really all about.

Crap agenda propaganda!

But let's dig a little deeper, let's look at some of the psychological factors underlying the pundits' aversion to addressing the issue of 9/11 with an open mind, objectively and impartially. We can gain some insight by examining the arguments they employ to denigrate those who question the official dogma.

For example, the pundits accuse those who question the official dogma of believing and promoting "conspiracy theories", when in fact it is the pundits who believe in and promote a 9/11 conspiracy theory, the one about 19 Arab hijackers.

Similarly, the pundits accuse those who question the official dogma of refusing to consider the evidence, but those who question the official dogma do so on the basis of the evidence. They have studied the evidence and are not satisfied with the official explanation. It is the pundits who refuse to look at the evidence.

And again, the pundits accuse those who question the official dogma of having closed minds, but clearly, those who question the official dogma are open to alternative explanations. Rather it is the pundits who have closed their minds to new evidence, who refuse to reconsider their position in light of new information.

What we see at work here is a psychological defense mechanism whereby people attribute their own undesirable traits to others. This is known as projection.

From the Encyclopedia Britannica ...

Projection is a form of defense in which unwanted feelings are displaced onto another person, where they then appear as a threat from the external world.

Another psychological defense mechanism at work here is denial. The pundits deny that there is any problem with the official account, they deny the possibility of a cover up. They deny that the issue has any relevance or significance. Denial, as a defense mechanism, occurs when "a person who is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept, rejects it and insists that it is not true, despite what may be overwhelming evidence." Wikipedia

The pundits and proponents of the official 9/11 conspiracy theory accuse those who question 9/11 dogma of being in denial, but clearly, it's the pundits themselves who are in denial, and that's understandable... the study of 9/11 is emotionally and intellectually challenging, evaluating the evidence is difficult and time consuming. Some people might find the evidence leads to conclusions that are too disturbing to consider... for others, it's just all too complex for their simplistic world view to accomodate.

The attitude that seems to prevail at the ABC, as at other corporate media networks, towards citizens who have concerns, questions or doubts about the official explanation for 9/11, is an attitude of scorn, ridicule and derision. The questions raised by those who have doubts about the official explanation are rarely, if ever, seriously addressed by the main stream media. Instead, the questions are dismissed as "irrelevant", "illogical" or "already explained" and the concerned citizens are labeled "kooks", "loons", "deniers" and "conspiracy nutters".

What do they hope to achieve by denigrating and insulting citizens who seek only to learn the truth about 9/11, why refuse to let them have a voice and air their doubts, why dismiss their concerns without at least examining them first? Is this any way to treat the citizenry, do they think the public should just shut up and butt out? Are we supposed to just accept whatever story the authorities hand down, without question, as in a totalitarian state?

I have not yet heard the issue of 9/11 aired objectively, impartially or rationally on any mainstream media outlet. The subject is only ever raised in the context of "those crazed conspiracy kooks are at it again, they just won't shut up, perhaps we should label them terrorists and rendition them to Yemen for a bit of torture". I think this is an indication of just how compromised and incompetent the mainstream media is at investigating, understanding and informing the public about matters of paramount importance to the social and political health of our culture and system of governance.

Indeed, the appalling failure of mainstream media to address such crucial matters as the crime of 9/11 and the illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention any number of scandals and atrocities that likewise never make the news, has, in my opinion, completely destroyed the credibility of mainstream media. These days, I simply cannot endure the clueless, hackneyed, monologue of conventional trivia spouted by mainstream journalists and commentators. It seems they're preaching to a very small and ever shrinking congregation.

Those who impugn the people who attempt to research, to investigate, to expose and to describe the dynamics of 9/11, function as gatekeepers for the ruling order, they are an obstacle in the path. They do nothing to illuminate what has to be done. They do everything to protect the perpetrators of this crime. We have to call it by its name. We have to tell it like it is and we have to organize and mobilize around this reality... Ralph Shoenmann

Media Spin fit for the bin

2009-06-28T18:45:00.026+10:00

Mr. Obama and Mr. Medvedev
New York Times editorial
July 3, 2009

By the time President George W. Bush left office, Russian-American relations had deteriorated alarmingly. Russia bore a good part of the blame, harassing opponents, stifling a free press and bullying its neighbors.

Of course, it's the fault of those Ruskies... wouldn't have anything to do with the belligerant unilateralist approach of the Bush administration, or the arrogant hypocrisy of the US polity.

Unmasking the mysterious 7/7 conspiracy theorist
By Mike Rudin,
BBC News Magazine
June 30, 2009

In the absence of a public inquiry into the 7 July bombings, conspiracy theories have filled the vacuum.

The government has always resisted calls for an independent public inquiry, and has decided not to actively counter conspiracy theories.

But there is concern that conspiracy theories are divisive and could alienate Muslims from the authorities. The former Metropolitan Police Deputy Assistant Commissioner, Brian Paddick, says action is needed to prevent further atrocities.

"Hopefully there will be people in the police service, the security service and in government who will realise how important conspiracy theories are. And how important it is… that every attempt is made to try and counteract them."

Yeah right! Maybe they should outlaw conspiracy theories.

But wait a minute, isn't the government's account itself a conspiracy theory?

Four muslims conspired to bomb the Londay subway, right?

That's a conspiracy theory, not a proven fact.

So are we meant to believe that government conspiracy theories are infallable, unifying and conducive to trust in the authorities, but all other conspiracy theories are divisive, alienating and dangerous, the product of crazed lunatics and people with too much time on their hands?

Taliban Losses Are No Sure Gain for Pakistanis
By JANE PERLEZ and PIR ZUBAIR SHAH,
The New York Times,
June 28, 2009

The Pakistani military has claimed success in the Swat Valley, but the stability may be threatened by the militants’ decision to flee, possibly to return later.

I suppose stability would have flourished if the militants' decision had been to stay and possibly be slaughtered... now that would have made an interesting story.

Death in the Afternoon
Author not cited
From the Times Online
June 27, 2009

The shooting of a music student in a Tehran side street encapsulates for the world the brutality of a regime that kills to stay in power

But of course, the shooting of an electrician, Jean Charles de Menezes, in a London subway, did not encapsulate for the world the brutality of a regime that kills to stay in power.

U.S. and Russia Differ on a Treaty for Cyberspace
By JOHN MARKOFF and ANDREW E. KRAMER
The New York Times,
June 27, 2009

The unique challenge of cyberspace is that governments can carry out deceptive attacks to which they cannot be linked, said Herbert Lin, director of a study by the National Research Council, a private, nonprofit organization, on the development of cyberweapons.

Oh really, what's unique about that? Governments can carry out deceptive attacks to which they cannot be linked, in any theatre of operations. It's called false flag or black-ops, ie. covert operations. You would think both Herbert Lin and the journos know this, so what gives...

According to the Department of Defense, a covert operation is "so planned and executed as to conceal the identity of or permit plausible denial by the sponsor."

Test Looms as U.S. Tracks North Korean Ship
By CHOE SANG-HUN
The New York Times
June 21, 2009

A North Korean ship shadowed by an American Navy destroyer and possibly heading toward Myanmar on Sunday could pose the first test of how far the United States and its allies will go under a new United Nations resolution to stop the North’s military shipments.

So eh!... the first test of how far the United States and its allies will go ... under a new United Nations resolution ... to stop the North’s military shipments ... hmmm ...

From the Chronology of U.S.-North Korean Nuclear and Missile Diplomacy ...

December 9, 2002: U.S. forces intercept and search a ship carrying a shipment of North Korean Scud missiles and related cargo to Yemen.

So this new United Nations resolution must be pretty important then, must give the US even more power to board and search North Korean vessels on the high seas... hmm, pity the journo doesn't bother to tell us anything at all about this new United Nations resolution, not even its number, but the article does provide a link to another NYT article that gives the number and says this about the new UN resolution ...

The sanctions in Resolution 1874 were considered tougher than previous versions largely because China and Russia, the closest thing North Korea has to friends, agreed to a mixture of financial and trade restrictions designed to choke off military development.

Got that, financial and trade restrictions designed to choke off military development... hmmm, them sounds like teeth.

http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_resolutions09.htm

This isn't the first test of the United States ability to intercept and search North Korean vessels on the high seas, that happened in December 2002... at that time the US had no legal authority under international law to sieze the cargo. The only significant change in that respect was made in 2006, three years ago, when the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1718... it would only take a few minutes for a journo or editor to check these facts, but apparently they'd rather look stupid than take the time to check a few facts.

http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_resolutions06.htm

By creating the impression that the United States was somehow testing newfound powers, the author has completely misrepresented the truth of the matter, and quite deliberately, as evidenced by the marked lack of information regarding the UN resolution referred to in the lead paragraph. Was this done simply to make a good story, or is there some other explanation? Is this a healthy journalistic practice?

The crunch is coming

2009-05-25T02:55:00.001+10:00

9/11 was a hoax, steel frame skyscrapers don't crush themselves to dust at freefall speed, not in the real world. Al Quaeda couldn't shutdown US air defences, they couldn't manipulate the masses into believing the obviously ridiculous official conspiracy theory, they couldn't even take a crap without some Criminally Insane Agency holding their hand.

The people who pulled off 9/11 cynically exploited their attack on humanity to justify murdering millions more in their so-called War on Terror. Their objective, clearly, is to take control of the worlds rapidly dwindling oil and gas reserves. They will kill anyone who stands in their way and they're not about to change course. They own the politicians, they own the media, they use them to brainwash the masses.

The emporer is not just naked, he's stark raving mad, and as much as we'd like to believe otherwise, we're in deep shit. These people have no problem lying to us, they don't mind killing folk, if that's what the emporer orders.

Slaves to the system; patsies, minions, goons... we're surrounded by them, they inhabit every dank corner of bureaucracy and every echelon of the corporate hierarchy... craven fools and servants of the oligarchs. They can't think for themselves, they have to be told what to do and what to fear, they believe whatever the TV and newspapers spew at them.

But the tide is turning, more and more people are waking up to the lie, they're turning away from the hatred and fear that's been forced down their necks by the mindless moronic media and the corrupt polity of the establishment.

People are pooling their talents and their wisdom now in ways that trouble the ruling elite, and the control exerted through manufactured terror is losing its power. The more recognition there is of the corruption and the destruction and the violence that is engendered by this clique of filthy rich, obscenely powerful individuals, the less they will get away with.

We don't need their war, we don't need their industry, we don't need their pollution, we don't need their terror, but they need us to remain ignorent and dull and pathetic and gullible and credulous and eager to swallow whatever crap they choose to serve up on the nightly news. We don't need cars and computers and television to survive, but they do need armies and wars and mass murder to maintain their power and privilege.

We must starve the beast. Don't submit to their mind control, turn off the propaganda machine, turn your back and walk away from the abuse and the insults and the mind numbing trivia they want you to consume. Find solace and truth by living simply, consuming little and avoiding the system. Join with friends to grow your own food and learn how to live close to nature, in simple structures.

Get off fossil fuels, reduce your energy consumption, give up television and newspapers, ignore the establishment, quit working for the system and get well clear of suburbia, because the crunch is coming, and it ain't gonna be a pleasant sight.

Investigate 9/11

2009-05-11T23:57:00.003+10:00

The justification for the war on Afghanistan, as we all know, is the attack of 9/11. The government would have you believe that terrorists attacked us that day, and we must deny the terrorists safe haven so they won't attack us again. Right?

There are, however, some important facts that have been omitted from the official narrative and ignored by the corporate media.

Here are just a few examples:

Fact: The twin towers were designed and constructed to withstand fire and structural damage resulting from the impact of a Boeing 707 jet airliner.

Fact: On 9/11, the 110 story buildings fell at near free fall acceleration, unheard of in fire ravaged buildings but typical of controlled demolition.

According to the official theory, fire weakened the impact damaged section which then failed, allowing the upper floors to fall through the remaining steel and concrete structure, crushing the building to smithereens in about the same amount of time it would take to fall through thin air... approximately 10 seconds.

But it should be obvious that gravitational force alone could not account for the sudden explosive disintegration of a building like that - some extra force was required to pulverize each 500,000 ton structure, from top to bottom, in about 10 seconds. That this is not widely recognised is testament to the efficacy of propaganda.

Fact: Heavy steel columns were ejected horizontally at high speeds, puncturing nearby buildings and landing hundreds of feet from the base of the towers.

Fact: A pyroclastic surge of pulverized concrete, gypsum and asbestos dust engulfed lower Manhattan, moving at speeds in excess of 60 kph.

Fact: The dust plume contained significant quantities of vapourised iron, which condensed into tiny iron microspheres, only visible under microscope.

Fact: Pools of molten iron were found at the base of the rubble piles and remained molten for many weeks after the towers came down.

Many of these facts are contained in official documents such as the reports from FEMA, the 9/11 Commission and the NIST Investigation. Most of them can also be observed in readily available video footage and photographs of the event and crime scene.

Furthermore, researchers from the Department of Chemistry at the University of Copenhagen, Denmark, last month presented a paper in the peer reviewed Open Chemical Physics Journal, entitled Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 WTC Catastrophe.

The paper details evidence of unreacted nano-thermite in the dust from "ground zero". This unusual high energy material is an advanced exothermic compound, similar to thermite and more powerful than dynamite, that can be used for cutting or melting steel, or as an explosive.

You won't hear it from the mainstream media, but skepticism about the official version of 9/11 is widespread and broadly based. There are many organisations, such as Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth, Scholars for 9/11 Truth, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Lawyers for 9/11 Truth and Fire Fighters for 9/11 Truth, all calling for a proper investigation of the 9/11 catastrophe.

They want to know how and why the WTC towers spontaneously disintegrated into fine powder and modular lengths of steel after burning for less than two hours, given the buildings were in fact designed to withstand the collision of a Boeing 707.

They contend that much of the real world evidence and fundamental laws of physics refute the official collapse theory and support the controlled demolition theory.

Standard investigative procedures and fire protection codes actually require the sort of analyses that scientists, architects and engineers are calling for, so it's not an unreasonable or controversial demand.

So far, official investigations have failed to look for evidence of controlled demolition, presumably because "we have no reason to suspect it, so why look for evidence of it". They have also declined to investigate the actual "collapse" of the towers, instead limiting their study of evidence from time of impact up to the point at which the towers were "poised to collapse", implying that rapid and complete "collapse", once it began, was natural and inevitable.

The government and corporate media will tell you it's crazy and wrong to question the official conspiracy theory, but remember, real science cannot be fudged... challenging the official dogma is not a sign of madness, it's an act of civic responsibility.

What's the point?

2006-09-25T00:32:00.000+10:00

Modern science describes the universe in terms of forces and dimensions. We all know force, that which can do work, often called energy. And we’ve all heard of three dimensional space, if not four dimensional space-time. But these common terms are misnomers, there are in fact four dimensions of space, not three.

The simplest, most elemental dimension of space is the point, a theoretical dimension without length, width or height, a zero dimension, sometimes called a singularity. Trying to imagine a theoretical point is as difficult as trying to imagine space or time continuing on for ever, without end.

String an infinite number of points together, end to end, and you have a one dimensional line. Now we can all relate to a line, something to hang the clothes on. But a theoretical line cannot be observed, since it has only length, no width or height. To the naked eye, it would be invisible.

Stack a heap of lines on top of each other and we have a two dimensional plane. This we can easily imagine, it looks like a wall, or a flat screen, but again, these everyday examples are an illusion, an imagining, since we know that all examples of planes are actually surfaces of “three dimensional” objects. A theoretical plane, having only width and height but no depth, would be invisible.

So far, we’ve identified three dimensions of space; the point, the line and the plane, which means the next dimension, the one called “three dimensional space”, is actually the fourth dimension of space, since it contains all of the three simpler dimensions, point, line and plane.

Now we can be sure that “three dimensional space” really does exist, it’s not just theoretical, it’s not an illusion, we know three dimensional space exists because we can walk around in the room and feel it. But what if that space existed for no time at all, could we say it really existed? Can there be existence without duration? Can space really exist without time? We know it always takes time to move through space, but apart from that, there is no obvious connection between the four dimensions of space and the fifth dimension of time. Whereas the four dimensions of space are bound together in a theoretical hierarchy, from the simple point, through line, plane to volume, time is an entirely different concept, yet in a way, essential to our observation and understanding of space. Notice this curious interdependence between the various dimensions, each one seems to rely on the others and/or human imagination to exist.

To this point, we have described an observable, multi-dimensional environment which we call the Universe. We can all agree that this environment exists, because we live in it, we experience it. But would it exist if there was nothing to observe it? If we could not imagine the first three theoretical dimensions of space - the point, the line and the plane - would we be aware of space? Would it exist? This is a question that continues to puzzle philosophers and theoretical physicists. The science of quantum mechanics recognises the integral role of the observer in constructing theories and modelling sub-atomic events. Maybe the human imagination, or the experience of mind, is yet another dimension of reality, interdependent with the others.

A theoretical point doesn’t really exist, but is contained within a theoretical line, which doesn’t really exist either, but is contained within a theoretical plane, which likewise doesn’t really exist but is contained within a theoretical volume which doesn’t really exist except that it is contained within time, and since we can observe it over time, we can be sure it exists. So has the Universe created us to observe and imagine itself, or have we created the Universe through our observations and imaginings?

Just wondering.

American humour

2006-05-06T00:34:00.001+10:00

The Washington Post headline reads

U.S. Warns Russia to Act More Like A Democracy...

Haha hah a haha hah ahaha hahaha hahaha, hahahahaha hah a haha haha hah ahah allah akbah ah ahahaha hahahahaha, haha hahahaha haha haha haha hah a haha hah aha hahahaha hahahahaha haha hahahaha hahahahahaha.

Ha haha? Hahaha haha. Ha hah a hate hahahaha haha hahahaha. Ha haha liar aha hah a hah aha. Haha hahahaha haha hahaha hah aha haha hahahaha – hah ahahaha hahaha hahahaha. Ha hah ahahaha hahaha hah a haha hah a haha hahahaha haha. Haha haha haha haha haha kill aha hah ahaha.

Ha hahahaha haha hahahaha, hahahaha hah a haha hahaha hah aha, haha haha hahahahaha hahaha hah ahaha hahahaha. Haha hah ahahahahahaha hill aha haha – haha hahaha, haha hahaha, haha hahaha-hahaha. Ha haha haha hah aha haha. Haha haha haha?

Ha hah aha haha hahahaha. Hahaha hah aha haha hah a 9/11 haha hahaha hah aha hah ahaha ha, hahaha hah a hahaha hahaha. Haha hahahaha haha hahaha fall aha hahahaha hah ahahaha, hah aha haha hah ahaha hahaha. Hahaha hahaha hah ahaha hahahahahaha hell ahaha hehe hahahahaha.

That's a good one :-0

Is it "Do as I say, not as I do"

or should it be

"Practice what you preach"

“America has a choice to make, and there is no question that a return to democratic reform in America will generate further success for its people and greater respect among fellow nations.”

Digging up the past

2006-04-04T22:08:00.000+10:00

The Howard government has quietly stifled debate about the war in Iraq, and the opposition seems content to let the matter lie. The mainstream media is similarly disinclined to revisit the ugly episode that led to the invasion of Iraq. The whole topic is now officially taboo.

It’s old news, the warmongers murmur, there’s nothing to be gained by digging up the past, let’s move on, after all, we’re at war now, not a time for disunity or self-criticism.

Yet every day, the violence and chaos that Bush, Howard and Blair unleashed, takes its toll on human life and the environment in Iraq, and each day heralds anew this crime against humanity, while our politicians and media commentators gloss over the polity’s hypocrisy and culpability.

There has been no expression of regret or contrition on the part of those who actively championed aggression against Iraq and who did so in defiance of international law, with reckless indifference to the consequences and little more than contempt for the life and rights of Iraq’s innocent civilians.

Indeed, despite conceding that Iraq had no WMD or links to al Qa`ida, and in the face of a disastrous security situation, the proponents and instigators of the Iraq war continue to insist they did the “Right Thing”. From their point of view, the facts on the ground are irrelevant.

It is tempting to view the current crises in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and the Levant as the intended consequence of the Bush administration’s “Global War on Terror”, a shadow-war that has reinvigorated the Pentagon, nourished the US armaments industry and pushed up the price of oil, to the benefit of US oil majors now reaping record profits.

Is it merely a coincidence that Bush, Rice and Cheney are all closely associated with the US oil industry, or is there a conflict of interest in the White House? Are the best interests of the citizenry completely compatible with the corporate interests of big oil and the weapons industry?

Is Australia sending armed forces abroad to kill foreigners so that US capitalist heavyweights can maintain their unfair advantage on the world market? Do we benefit from the wanton slaughter of innocent civilians in far flung places, and if so, by how much?

Howard and his ministers have never even attempted to explain exactly what we're doing with the Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan, there has been no intelligent debate or discussion in Parliament or the media ... it’s just been shut up, keep quiet, don’t say anything ... and from both sides of the political divide.

If this keeps up, I fear we’re cruising for a bruising.

The themes of pro-war cant

2005-12-05T02:36:00.000+11:00

The case for war was a complex tapestry of fabrications, exaggerations and misrepresentations. It was based on the conflation of several key themes, all of which represent serious international concerns, but none of which actually applied to the Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein.

Let’s take these themes one at a time.

First, there was the allegation that Iraq possessed “massive stockpiles” of WMD. Certainly, the proliferation and use of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons is a major international concern, and there is widespread public support for the banning of such weapons.

Yet there are many countries that do, in fact, possess, develop and produce such weapons. These countries include the US, Britain, France, Russia, China, Pakistan, India and Israel.

While Iraq did use chemical weapons against the Iranians during the 80’s Iran-Iraq war, at a time when the US was providing moral and material support to Iraq, it is now widely recognized that Iraq was effectively disarmed in 1991, following the first Gulf War.

The disarmament of Iraq was part of its punishment for invading Kuwait in 1990. There were also harsh economic sanctions imposed by the United Nations against Iraq, which made it almost impossible for Iraq to rebuild and modernize its industrial base. The people of Iraq suffered much hardship as a result of these sanctions. But in March, 2003, Iraq did not possess WMD, nor was it actively developing WMD.

Predicated on the incorrect assumption that Iraq continued to retain, possess and develop WMD, was the accusation of Iraqi noncompliance with UN Security Council resolutions. For example, on September 16, 2002, prime minister Howard told parliament:

The central issue in front of the world community now is Iraq’s failure to comply. That is the issue; that is the matter that should be of concern not only to this parliament but to parliaments around the world. The ways and means of ensuring that Iraq does comply with not only past but also future obligations established by the Security Council should be the preoccupation of the world. It is fair to say that has been the theme that has emerged from the statements of many over the past week.

But you don’t enhance the authority and credibility of international law by punishing a country for supposedly developing WMD when they aren’t, while turning a blind eye to countries that are. And in the absence of evidence to prove guilt, such punishment is unjust.

In March, 2003, Bush, Howard and Blair were all aware there was no evidence to support their charge that Iraq did in fact possess WMD, which is why they needed another angle, another set of accusations.

Next, consider the claim that Iraq was likely to give its (nonexistent) WMD to “terrorists”. This charge was very effective, not because there was any evidence to support it, but because it played on the post-911 fear of terrorism.

Bush, Howard and Blair accused Iraq of providing support for al Qa'ida and conjured up images of terrorists armed with nuclear bombs, but they offered no evidence to support these grave allegations against Iraq, because the truth is, there was no such collaboration between Iraq and al Qa'ida.

It is, however, common knowledge that Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United States all provided weapons, training and finance to al Qa'ida throughout the 80’s and 90’s.

So again, we have a strong argument for muscular action, but not against Iraq. And so, another element was brought into play, a tactic familiar to all the political protagonists in this monstrous charade, the practice of character assassination.

Saddam Hussein and his regime would be subjected to a campaign of unrelenting abuse and vilification. They would be accused of torture, aggression and mass murder. The Iraqi government would be accused of lying and cheating and scheming, and their representations would be dismissed out of hand.

Saddam Hussein was accused of flouting international law and displaying a studied contempt for the world community. The Iraqi’s were alleged to be actively obstructing the UN weapons inspectors.

The invective extended to any who dared oppose the push to war.

But while Iraq was actually complying with the UN inspectors, Bush, Howard and Blair were preparing to thumb their noses at the Security Council if it did not authorize their plan to attack Iraq.

Apparently, Bush, Howard and Blair believe that while Iraq should comply fully and unreservedly with the rulings of the UN Security Council, Anglo-American powers (including Australia) should be exempt from such constraints.

There has been no admission or even recognition of this inconsistency by the politicians and pundits who made the case for war. Of all the themes involved in justifying armed aggression against Iraq, this theme was the most hypocritical.

We need only reflect on the Australian government’s ambivalent attitude toward UN agencies like the Human Rights Commission, the World Court and international conventions like the Kyoto Protocol. The US record on international treaties is no better, and indeed, many countries show scant regard for international law.

The notion that the very legitimacy of international law was jeopardized by alleged Iraqi non-compliance was overblown to the point of absurdity. The fact is, Iraq had endured 12 years of the most severe and comprehensive sanctions ever applied to a nation.

Iraq had been disarmed and reduced to a state of abject poverty. Iraq posed no threat to any other nation and was essentially defenseless. Iraq had already been stripped of the sovereign rights most countries take for granted. It certainly had no power to protect itself.

In the absence of any real evidence to prove the most damning accusations against Iraq, and given the highly dubious and ethically challenged arguments for invading Iraq, the warmongers attempted to construct a legal argument to justify aggression. This argument was based on the reinterpretation of Security Council Resolution 678, which authorized “all necessary means” to evict Iraq from Kuwait.

The pro-war lobby claimed this authorization was still applicable because Iraq had not fully disarmed and was therefore in breach of the ceasefire agreement. This argument clearly fails the test of logic in light of the fact that, in 2003, Iraq did not possess and was not developing banned weapons.

All these themes were clearly specious at the time they were presented and all have since been proven false, yet still the war supporters and their apologists in the media imply that taken together, these themes provided a compelling and convincing case for war.

This is not just an example of the whole being greater than the sum of its parts. This is a case of intentional deception for the purpose of misleading the public about the reasons for invading Iraq.

A tangled web of deception

2005-11-19T23:16:00.000+11:00

In the US, independent bloggers are forcing the mainstream media to belatedly take up the task of unraveling the tangled web of deception spun from the White House and lately, US journos have begun writing about issues that should have been raised three years ago.

But in Australia, the Murdoch Packer dominated media is still woefully remiss in its reporting of the political fraud that led to an illegal invasion and culminated, to quote retired US Army General William Odom, in the “greatest strategic blunder” of modern times.

Instead, the Australian media dutifully regurgitates the “stay the course” mantra, a “course” that former CentCom Chief, retired US Marine General Anthony Zinni, said is “headed for Niagara Falls”.

For example, consider this recent piece by The Australian journalist, Paul Kelly, an article entitled “In Iraq for a long haul”, in which Kelly debunks the notion that withdrawal from Iraq is likely any time soon.

“It is wrong,” Kelly writes, “to believe that Prime Minister John Howard and [Foreign Minister Alexander] Downer are looking for a quick departure from Iraq. Quite the reverse. [...] Howard’s message on Iraq is clear: to see the job through.”

But nowhere in his 1200 word opinion piece does Kelly address the crucial question, what is the “job”? Does anyone have a clue, apart from “talking up the training of Iraqi security forces”, what we are actually doing in Iraq?

Is there some way to gauge the progress of our “job” in Iraq?

Before the invasion, Kelly was writing about the threat of Iraq’s WMD and the need to disarm Saddam. Now he is writing about the need to stay in Iraq indefinitely, in order to “see the job through”, but what job? Certainly not the job of disarming Iraq.

The mediocrity of Kelly’s analysis would not be so disturbing if he was just some regular media hack, but Kelly is widely considered to be an authoritative journalist. His failure to scrutinize the ever shifting rationales and political manouvering of the war party highlights the pitiful standard of mainstream commentary in this country.

When Howard says “we won’t cut and run until the job is done”, is there a journalist who will dare or bother to ask, “exactly what job is that?” They probably won’t get a straight answer, but it is their job to ask. They never do.

When Howard says, “everyone agreed Saddam had WMD”, is there a journalist who will ask, “what about the UN weapons inspectors, Hans Blix and Al Baradai, did they agree?” No, they won’t ask that, because the honest answer might embarrass the prime minister.

It is perhaps not surprising that our mainstream media hacks have remained silent for so long on the question of how and why we were dragged into the unending occupation of Iraq.

After all, they helped get us there, though they’re loath to admit it. Murdoch himself inveighed against caution and common sense in an interview with Packer’s Bulletin magazine, when he predicted that the greatest thing to come from war in Iraq would be $20 a barrel for oil.

The litany of lies the government used to mislead our nation to war cannot be simply waved aside or swept under the carpet. The pattern of fabrication, exaggeration and misrepresentation is far too complex and deliberate to be dismissed as just the result of faulty intelligence.

There was clearly a coordinated campaign to betray honesty, decency and reason in pursuit of an ideological agenda, a blatant geopolitical scam devised with reckless disregard for the consequences, certainly a crime by any civilised standard.

The free press, which likes to portray itself as some kind of watchdog for the public interest, has behaved more like a lapdog for the vested interests that profit from war.

Still to this day, the mainstream media in Australia is reluctant to review its own performance in the lead up to war, or admit the role it continues to play in protecting the government from criticism and maintaining support for our involvement in the occupation of Iraq.

It is no criticism of our armed forces to point out that Australia’s contribution in Iraq is little more than a token gesture of Howard’s devotion to Bush and a demonstration of our subservience to the US.

But where, in the Australian press, will you find an intelligent, objective analysis of the economic and geostrategic consequences of defining Australia’s foreign policy to suit US national security interests in general, or the Bush Cheney agenda in particular?

It’s not there, because it would be deemed “anti-american” by Downer and “unaustralian” by Howard, and therefore not fit for publication. The journalists and editors, apparently, know whom to please.

The legacy of John W. Howard

2005-10-02T14:48:00.000+10:00

Howard lovers never tire of lauding the PM’s economic management credentials, his strong and decisive leadership, his steady, experienced hand on the tiller in these troubled times. But many of us have a different take on the leadership qualities of John Howard, an appreciation acquired by peering behind the facade of fiscal responsibility and taking a good hard look at his record.

Howard won office with a guarantee to “never ever” introduce a GST, a regressive tax that unfairly burdens the poor, and he promised to govern for ALL Australians. It wasn’t long before the “Beazley black hole” was unearthed to justify Costello’s razor gang, which set about cutting millions from public sector spending.

Howard wasted no time expanding the uranium mining industry in Australia, giving the green light to Roxby Downs, Ranger and many others, including acid leach mines. The multinational group Pangea was invited to look at Australia as a possible international high-level nuclear waste dump, and recently, the Howard government illegally commandeered a site near Woomera for a national radioactive waste repository.

Then came zero tolerance on drugs, opposition to needle exchanges, injecting rooms, harm minimization and more recently, a proposal to legalize discrimination against drug addicts. There was Howard’s refusal to halt the homophobic smear campaign against Justice Kirby, which contrasted starkly with the PM’s high praise and moral support for Bishop Pell and the GG when they were under public scrutiny.

Howard’s regard for the original inhabitants of this country became apparent long before his ten point plan to nobble Wik, no apology for the stolen generations, the demolition of ATSIC and Wilson “Ironbar” Tuckey’s repeated assaults on the Aboriginal Tent Embassy.

Another defining characteristic of the Howard government has been its concerted attack on workers rights, unions and unfair dismissal laws. The unemployed and disadvantaged have faired no better, often referred to as work shy, job snobs, dole bludgers and welfare cheats, their rights have been systematically eroded with work for the dole schemes, onerous administrative requirements and punitive breaching regimes. Cutting people off the dole may lower the unemployment rate, but it leaves the individual without any assistance at all, possibly hungry and homeless.

When it comes to dumping on the defenceless and blaming the victims, those poor refugees who sailed into our waters have worn more than their fair share. The current Immigration Minister, Senator Amanda Vanstone, has implied that indefinite detention of child refugees is necessary to send the “right” message to people smugglers.

From Tampa to SIEV-X, from the Pacific Solution to “children overboard”, asylum seekers have been treated with contempt and cruel indifference. And all the while, then Minister for Immigration, Phillip Ruddock, was quietly accepting Liberal Party donations from influential persons seeking favourable immigration outcomes, and DIMIA was secretly smuggling refugees out of Australia.

After 9/11, the Howard government introduced some of the most draconian anti-terror laws in the western world. Though slightly improved by the Senate, they remain a serious blight on the civil rights of all Australians. And if anything undermines our national security, it has to be Howard’s fawning endorsement of preemptive war and his high-profile role as deputy sheriff to George W Bush.

With extraordinary enthusiasm, the Howard government peddled faulty intelligence and fueled the demonization of Saddam Hussein, whipping up fear and loathing in an effort to generate public support for the invasion of Iraq, with little thought for the victims of war and the mayhem it would cause.

Since then, the government has routinely attacked senior public servants who depart from the Liberal party line, the ABC for “anti-Americanism” and “left-wing bias”, the National Museum for being too “politically correct”, state schools for being too “values neutral” and church leaders who dare to speak out on “political issues” like refugees and war.

During the last election campaign, the Howard government bribed voters with tax cuts for the rich, extravagant handouts and cynical policy backflips on temporary protection visas, all the while sharpening the wedge and shovel, busy with the muck raking and character assassination, hoping most Australians would remain ignorant of the truth.

Tony Abbott once warned Australians not to become so tolerant that they tolerate the intolerable. I fear we have already reached that point, we are tolerating an intolerable government.

Terrorist war hysteria

2005-09-27T23:30:00.000+10:00

profits despotic regimes.

Terrorist war hysteria

creates a climate of fear and insecurity

which despots use to justify draconian laws

increase the power of the executive branch

promote public acceptance of intrusive policing

foster submission to state authority and a

willingness to surrender personal rights

* * * * *

Terrorists hate our freedoms

they hate our values

so let’s surrender them

let’s discard our civil rights

let’s capitulate to the terrorists

let’s forgo our liberties, in the name of terror

let’s accept random bag searches, random body searches

let’s embrace summary executions, torture

presumption of guilt, detention without charge ...

Our governments want to hand victory to the terrorists.

They willingly surrender our rights to the terrorists.

The terrorists are no doubt greatly encouraged

to see how easily we surrender our rights and freedoms.

It looks like our governments are helping the terrorists win.

Or are the terrorists actually helping our governments

providing the authorities an excuse to increase control

Are the terrorists actually government black-ops

designed to provide cover for the preparations

in anticipation of impending calamity

the inevitable depletion of oil

Do the anti-terror laws have a more sinister purpose?

Are they to be used to silence dissent and intimidate critics?

Will they be used to suppress and disrupt civil protest?

As oil depletion constricts supply and energy prices soar

as factories and airlines and transport companies flounder

as farmers go broke and labourers are laid off

as the public rails against inflation

as the ranks of the homeless and unemployed swell

as protests and general strikes and civil unrest erupt on the streets

will the government be disappearing the trouble makers

with these anti-terror laws

The Great Downer

2005-09-27T02:07:00.000+10:00

Australian foreign minister, Alexander “The Great” Downer,
has been making a fool of himself again at our expense.

Downer let fly a bucket load of sanctimonious hogwash at the United Nations last week, exposing the feeble minded backwater of contemporary Australian politics for the whole world to witness.

Downer is the prototypical postmodern politician; smug, arrogant, petulant, lazy, complacent and incompetent. He exhibits about as much political acumen as the tar baby.

He is completely impervious to rational thought and utterly intolerant of criticism. He can be condescending, haughty and hurtful at times.

His innate ability to avoid public debate and parley nonsense rivals that of his fellow western leader, friend and coconspirator, George W Bush, president of the United States.

Downer suffers from an incurable case of self-importance, which has been exacerbated by ten years of ministerial privilege and preening.

He fancies himself as a great statesman, striding the world and dispensing pearls of wisdom. But those pearls are plastic imitations.

He is in fact, a phoney, a fraud, a laughing stock. He’s a prancing pony, a flamboyant fruit cake, a perfumed powder puff.

Downer is the political equivalent of a loose cannon with a screw loose.

He is a bumbling, fatuous half wit with unbounded pretension.

Radio shock jock Ray Hadley once called him “a pompous dope”.

Downer exemplifies the shallow absurdity of the pro-war, anti-democratic, neoconservative, post-9/11 terror-crazed, groupthink mindset that as become de rigueur in the current political climate.

His performance at the UN provides an illuminating illustration of just how lame brained and ill informed our foreign minister really is.

Downer launched a scathing attack on the UN for failing to prevent the spread of nuclear technology and get tough on terror.

He criticised the “outdated ideology” of some UN delegates who believe that “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”.

Wasn’t that the ideology of Reagan and Bush senior, whose CIA financed, trained and armed with stinger missiles, the anti-Soviet Afghan Mujahedin “freedom fighters” throughout the eighties.

But wait a second, aren’t Bush, Blair, Howard and Downer currently supporting the Northern Alliance “freedom fighters” in Afghanistan and the Peshmurga “freedom fighters” in Kurdistan?

Downer said it was important to criminalise “terrorist organisations and their foot soldiers - like those captured in Afghanistan - who bear arms on a battlefield but pay no heed to the laws of war, fight for no regular army, wear no uniform, and no recognisable insignia”.

But wait a second, isn’t that an exact description of the two British spies caught in Basra last week. Isn’t that pretty much an exact description of the American and Australian spies operating in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere round the world. And isn’t that an accurate description of all those mercenaries employed by private security firms in ever greater numbers.

“How can some nations continue to assert that the deliberate maiming and targeting of civilians is sometimes justified?” Mr Downer asked.

But wait a second, aren’t we one of those nations that asserts it is justifiable to deliberately target, kill and maim civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, in order to spread freedom and democracy?

And just who was responsible for the failure of the UN summit to reach an agreement to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons? Well of course, it was Downer’s good friend and ally, George W Bush, who, according to senior diplomats quoted in the Observer, “sabotaged” the agreement by refusing to countenance any form of disarmament.

Downer desperately needs a reality check. His conception of the world bears little relation to the situation he helped create in Iraq and Afghanistan.

His rhetoric about “staying the course” and “getting the job done” is meaningless drivel, errant nonsense, misguided, misleading and deluded tripe authored by the White House.

His stubborn refusal to consider any viewpoint other than his own, his denial or ignorance of pertinent facts and his blasé rejection of expert opinion, leaves him with very little to recommend his attitude or substantiate his position, apart from his title of foreign minister.

But these days, political office is sufficient to garner credence.

An historic victory

2005-09-25T02:23:00.000+10:00

Speaking at the Pentagon yesterday, Bush reaffirmed his commitment to the US occupation of Iraq. Withdrawing US forces from Iraq, he said, would let “terrorists claim an historic victory over the United States.”

“The only way the terrorists can win is if we lose our nerve and abandon the mission. For the safety and security of the American people, that’s not going to happen on my watch,” he said.

But actually, that’s not the only way the “terrorists” can win. Ironically, Bush has put the “terrorists” in a win-win situation. For sure, if America retreats, it will look weak and ineffectual. This will be a great loss for America, and an equally significant gain for its enemies.

On the other hand, while America remains in Iraq, its reputation crumbles, its enemies multiply, its resources are depleted, its debt climbs, its “best and brightest” die in vain while Bush and his cronies reap enormous profits.

This is clearly a loss for America, even if it benefits Bush and his ilk.

Equally, it benefits America’s enemies, rivals and competitors.

Whether by coincidence or design, the Bush-Cheney agenda has reaped immense personal benefit for a select few at home, while the power and prestige of America abroad has dramatically declined.

Bush is the one who has given the so-called terrorists the opportunity to benefit from Americas trouble in Iraq, and he is the one who has left America with no alternative but to eventually leave Iraq, stained with humiliation and defeat.

With each passing day and every brutal killing, the role of the US in Iraq is questioned anew, their motives and objectives are reconsidered, the outcome is queried, strategy is scrutinized, tactics are criticized, principles are compromised, credibility is strained and trust is frayed.

Every day, the task gets harder, the resistance grows stronger, the losses accumulate, the costs rise, the opposition gets louder, the leadership loses direction, the rhetoric becomes repetitive, the assurances ring hollow, the killing continues, the grieving mounts, anger rises and Bush shrugs.

Bush doesn’t care, he doesn’t get it, he’s useless, incompetent, immoral and corrupt. He is a liar and a cheat, a mass murdering warmonger who has dragged his country into the mire of Middle Eastern conflict for secret reasons and personal advantage.

When America finally wakes up to the reality of what Bush has done, it will be shocked at how badly its system of government has failed to protect itself, its constitution and its people from the sort of criminality that pervades the Bush-Cheney regime.

Fall of the Lying Criminals

2005-09-22T00:34:00.000+10:00

Bush, Howard and Blair told lies to justify their attack on Iraq.

They told lies about Iraq’s ties to al Qa`ida and support for terrorism.

They told lies about “massive stockpiles” of chemical and biological weapons, including anthrax, sarin and VX nerve gas.

They told lies about aluminium tubes and mobile laboratories, and they told lies about Iraq seeking uranium from Africa.

Those who tried to expose the lies were either ridiculed or ignored by the pro-war corporate politico-media establishment.

The lying criminals that conspired to attack Iraq really did not care about lying to the public, nor did they hesitate to lie to their parliaments. The power of executive privilege would protect them, or so they believed.

Those who spoke out against the lying criminals were quickly silenced, some permanently. Smear and fear are the tactics most commonly used by the lying criminals to silence and intimidate critics, but not all critics can be silenced, and some are simply too credible to ignore.

Former US ambassador Joe Wilson was not afraid to challenge the lying criminals. The CIA sent Wilson to investigate the claim that Iraq had sought uranium from Africa. He found the claim was false and based on forged documents. He later wrote an editorial in the New York Times that exposed the “uranium from Africa” lie. The Bushites knew they had a problem on their hands, and being inveterate liars with very few scruples and too much power, they responded in the usual way, the only way they know, with lies, smear and innuendo.

Karl Rove is principal political strategist, right-hand man and bossum buddy to the president. Bush dubbed him “Turd Blossum”, due to his skill at dirty politics. Others simply call him “Bush’s Brain”, due to his crucial role in the Bush ascendency.

Rove is the master of smear and character assassination. When Bush ran against fellow Repug John McCain in the 2000 primaries, Rove spread rumours that McCain had fathered an illegitimate black child.

Rove probably orchestrated the bugging of the UN building in New York and the salacious smear campaigns against Hans Blix and other UN weapons inspectors.

When former Counter Terrorism Chief Richard Clarke resigned and then criticised the Bush administration, Karl Rove launched a vicious smear campaign against Clarke.

The 2004 Swift Boat Veterans for Truth smear campaign against presidential contender John Kerry was a brainchild of Karl Rove.

And when Joe Wilson exposed the uranium lie, Rove leaked the identity of his wife. Rove told reporters that Wilson was sent to Africa by his wife who works for the CIA, a lie which implied that nepotism was rife at the CIA.

Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, worked undercover for the CIA in a front company called Brewster Jennings and Associates. This firm posed as an energy consultancy with offices and contacts all round the world, but it was secretly gathering intelligence about nuclear proliferation.

When Rove leaked Plame’s identity, he also exposed the true identity and nature of the firm she worked for, effectively destroying an entire clandestine network, an important national security asset that had taken years to establish. The CIA was mighty pissed off.

George Tenet, then head of the CIA, demanded an investigation into who leaked the identity of an undercover CIA operative. The White House lie machine went into overdrive. The lying criminals were in a panic. Bush insisted that he would tell the truth, he would demand that his staff tell the truth and cooperate fully with the investigation.

Of course, that was just another lie, he can’t stop lying now, even if he knew how to, because the truth will destroy his presidency. And so, Rove lied to the FBI, and he lied to the grand jury, and Bush lied, and Cheney lied, and Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Cheney’s chief of staff, he lied, they all lied and lied, that’s what they do, they can’t help themselves.

But you know, it’s illegal to lie to the FBI, and it’s illegal to lie to the grand jury, and it’s illegal to lie to Congress and it’s illegal to leak classified information to the media. And in war time, the penalty for leaking classified information relating to national security, is death.

That’s right, the death penalty, or any term up to life in prison.

The Grand Old Party, Joe Conason opines, has “became a front for sleaze, corruption and cynical criminality. Across the country, from the Capitol to statehouses, Republican officials are under indictment, under investigation or under suspicion.”

These lying criminals have conspired to commit very serious crimes, not least of which, the bombing of Iraq and the slaughter of thousands based on the fabrication of evidence; perjury, treason and espionage; obstruction of justice and very shortly, special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald and his grand jury will begin presenting indictments against Bush administration officials.

And then FBI agents will begin arresting them.

Hold onto your seats, this will be big!

Peak Oil: a matter of opinion

2005-09-18T03:18:00.002+10:00

Despite the growing public awareness of Peak Oil, the mainstream media continues to portray the issue as a polarized debate between doomsayers and techno-optimists. For example, an opinion editorial in the New York Times opens with the views of Mr Pickens, a reputable Texan oilman, who has “taken sides in a surprisingly heated debate” because he “subscribes to what is being called the peak oil hypothesis”.

The Times editorial declares the “peak oil hypothesis ... holds that there simply isn’t very much new oil left to be found in the world. As a result, we are currently in the process of draining the proven reserves that are still in the ground.”

The Times editorial characterizes the world view of those it terms “peakists” with a quote from Matthew Simmons, that energy demand is about to outstrip supply and “we are in a serious energy crisis”.

Opposing this view, of course, is another group, “who argue with equal vehemence that the world is not in an energy crisis and it probably won’t face one for a very long time.”

Notably, this other group is spared the trite epithet “theorist”. Their arguments are never labelled “hypotheses”. Perhaps that’s because this group rallys to the mantra, “Price is the only thing that matters.”

That’s right, “It’s the geologists on one side and the economists on the other side”, energy analyst Seth Kleinman explains.

Not surprisingly, given their god-like status these days, the economists are revered with child-like credulity, while the geologists are deemed mere theorists. Moreover, the issue is not so much about scientific fact as it is about opinion.

Does it surprise you, that the issue would be portrayed as an argument about whether or not we are facing a crisis? It shouldn’t.

This representation of the Peak Oil debate exemplifies the fanfare and pretension that characterises much of the mainstream commentary on most issues. It reveals a lack of intellectual rigour and an inability to comprehend some fairly basic science.

For a start, Peak Oil is not a theory or hypothesis, it is an observable phenomenon. Peak Oil is simply the point at which oil production from a notional deposit ceases to increase and begins to decline. If oil production from a typical field is graphed against time, it follows a bell curve, the familiar pattern of a normal distribution. The peak in oil production is that portion of the curve tangent to maximum production.

Peak Oil applies equally to individual well heads, oil fields, basins, producer states, regions and the world as a whole. There is no dispute about the fact that Peak Oil is an intrinsic attribute of oil production.

Indeed, every single oil producing country outside OPEC and the FSU has already peaked and is now in terminal decline. For example, Germany peaked in 1967, the US peaked in 1971, Indonesia in ’77, India in ’95, Malaysia in ’97, Columbia, Equador and the UK in ’99, Australia in 2000, Oman and Norway in ’01. Peak Oil is a fact!

By comparison, the economists’ arguments really are pure theory, with very little relevence to the real world beyond the rarified climes of financial institutions. So let’s take a look at their theories.

The economists describe two possible consequences of escalating oil prices; one is that higher energy prices will make it viable to invest in more expensive and less profitable energy sources, such as deep water reserves, shale oil and tar sands. The other possibility is that higher energy prices will dampen demand and reduce consumption, which will lower the price of oil.

The dilemma for investors is the risk that major capital investments could prove unprofitable if energy prices fall. Proven short term profits are substantially more attractive than possible longer term losses. Hence the energy industry prefers to maximize the profit making capacity of proven reserves while minimizing exposure to future losses.

There is a temptation to postpone major capital investment in the face of future economic uncertainty, and focus on the near term advantage of high profits. This approach ensures future supply constraints and prices hikes, which in turn raise the likelihood of economic recession.

The free market forces of supply and demand form the fundamental framework of neoliberal economic theory. The profit motive is the prime mover of all transactions, in a game plan where self interest is the ultimate goal.

Three basic assumptions are axiomatic to economic theory; resources are limitless, knowledge is perfect and markets are rational. Of course, in the real world, resources are very much limited, knowledge is never perfect and markets do not always act rationally.

The challenges posed by the inevitable depletion of world oil reserves represent a set of circumstances for which contemporary economic theory has no logical solution. The techno-optimist fantasies of hybrid cars, nuclear reactors and fuel cells are about as plausible as the clean green dream of corn and sunflower powered trains and planes.

The real debate is about the precise timing and consequences of Peak Oil. The Times editorial alludes to this fact, but nowhere makes it explicit. Instead, it presents an argument that is completely irrelevant and actually misleading, an argument that serves to confuse and obscure the fundamental dilemma posed by Peak Oil, an argument that stifles and obstructs the development of strategies for responding to the inevitable and predictable consequences of Peak Oil.

Like much of the mainstream commentary on Peak Oil, the New York Times erroneously portrays the Peak Oil debate as a political battle, a matter of opinion, devoid of real world certainties. This approach to news reporting is becoming increasingly popular, since it requires so little thought or research. Journalists are encouraged to champion conventional wisdom and obscure unpleasant facts.

Natural limits, ignored by economic theorists but recognised and studied by ecologists, biologists and geographers to name a few, clearly apply to humankind as much as to any other species, notwithstanding our sophisticated technology and ability to manipulate the environment.

The ecological carrying capacity of the environment is a natural limit that cannot be ignored with impunity. Any species which exceeds that limit risks calamity and mass starvation. For this reason, in nature, most species are limited in range and number. Humans are unique in that our population has hitherto grown exponentially, a trend that is clearly unsustainable.

The single most important limiting factor for any species is the availability of energy. Sunlight is the primary source of energy for life on earth. Seasonal fluctuations in plant growth and animal reproduction correlate with variations in the amount of solar energy available from one season to the next.

Humans have been able to exceed the natural ecological carrying capacity of the environment by exploiting energy reserves that have accumulated over millions of years. There is nothing inherently wrong or immoral about this, but it is important to realize that there is a cost associated with exceeding natural limits.

In our case, the cost could be as high as mass starvation, or as low as a simple change in attitude and lifestyle. The determinant will be global political leadership. If the risks are recognised in time and the appropriate solutions are devised and implemented, it is possible that future generations will be spared the worst consequences of Peak Oil, the twin perils of energy scarcity and environmental degradation.

But while our leaders maintain their current stubborn delusion and misplaced faith in economic theory, while they continue to ignore the warning signs and scientific studies, the prospects of a brighter future fade by the day.

Potus calls kettle black

2005-09-15T22:03:00.000+10:00

Last week, Bush told the UN that it must be “free of corruption and accountable to the people it serves”. This is of course, good advice, but coming from Bush, it smacks of hypocrisy.

Consider for a moment, the corruption of process that led to the war on Iraq, the fabrication and exaggeration of evidence, the disinformation and propaganda used to justify aggression.

Consider the multi-billion dollar reconstruction contracts given to leading US corporations with close ties to the Bush administration, firms that have engaged in fraud, bribery and other corrupt practices in Iraq.

Is anyone in the US government accountable for the loss of life and limb or the destruction of towns and villages in Iraq? Is anyone accountable for wasting $200 billion on a war of aggression?

Bush also told the UN it must “live by the high standards it sets for others”. But presumably, that is not a goal Bush sets for himself.

In fact, quite the opposite. While Bush preaches freedom and democracy, praising respect for human rights, equality and the rule of law, his government and their allies are systematically eroding those very principles, both at home and abroad.

Consider the “free speech zones”, the suppression of dissent, the obsessive secrecy, the cronyism, the hidden agendas, the contempt for government agencies like the CIA, FEMA and the EPA.

Witness the prison camps in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, the torture and humiliation of detainees, the legal void in which the accused are deprived due process, all by presidential decree.

The use of collective punishment, summary execution and torture are the hallmarks of brutal dictatorships. They are not compatible with the high standards championed by the United States. And yet this is the standard that Bush has achieved.

The divergence between the rhetoric and the reality of US foreign policy under George W Bush is stark and pronounced. With every escalation of his skillfully crafted flourishes and grandiose speeches, there is further descent into fear and destruction as Bush employs his forces in Iraq.

Sure, it is easy to criticize the United Nations, an improbable organization with an impossible task. As a force for peace and collective security, it could not protect one of its members from unprovoked aggression and it has since failed to confront the aggressor, restore order or provide security in Iraq.

At the same time, the UN has been attacked by the US for failing to support US aggression. The US exhibits a curious ambivalence toward the UN, which it views as an important instrument for pursuing and legitimizing US national security and foreign policy goals, but also as a threat to US ambitions when the UN opposes or fails to comply with US demands.

Perhaps the best thing would be for Bush to stop lecturing the UN and take time to reflect on his own performance, and that of the United States, and see if he can make some use of his own advice.

Erasing Standards

2005-09-05T21:23:00.000+10:00

A report on the ABC’s evening news and current affairs program, PM, about the plight of Australians stranded in New Orleans and the slow response by government, is typical of many news reports where the treatment of important issues is reduced to, or subsumed by, petty theatrics and party political point scoring.

This is exactly the sort of “news story” that reflects poorly on both politicians and journalists.

It seems every issue has to be portrayed as a party political struggle, right versus left, us against them, with a winner and a loser. There is little intelligent debate based on factual evidence or rational thought, instead there is a steady stream of personal abuse and character assassination.

Consequently, both journalists and politicians end up losing respect and credibility.

Even worse, the public remains ill-informed and disempowered.

The media likes to absolve itself by claiming it is simply the messenger, but it is the selection of news stories and the focus of attention that ultimately determines public perception.

For example, in the story referenced above, the producers may well claim that they were simply highlighting the “poor behaviour” of politicians in general by giving airplay to parliamentary antics.

Such an argument would carry some weight if there really was an effort to analyze and critique the behaviour in some way, but there never is. Instead, political rhetoric and partisan grandstanding is simply piped wholesale, with very little relevance to anything at all.

There seems to be an aversion to critical thinking when it comes to dealing with current affairs and political issues in general, with a tendency to trivialize or ignore serious concerns about some issues (eg. the effects of western aggression) while enflaming passions on others (eg. the threat of terrorism).

There appears to be little rhyme or reason to the waft of daily news, with very little thought given to the role media plays in portraying reality, nurturing fantasies and promoting conformity.

The media is not a passive player in shaping public opinion, and nor should it be. But if the media is to truly serve the public, it must operate on a moral basis. It must clearly differentiate between truth and falsehood, between the trivial and the significant.

The media - reporters, journalists and editors alike - share a great responsibility to serve the public good, not just by accurately reporting events, but equally important, placing those facts into context, whereby they make sense and provide useful information.

In the matter of the story referenced above, the debate could have focused on the lessons we can learn about how and why human systems fail under extreme circumstances, and how best we can translate those lessons into methods for preparing and dealing with future disasters.

Instead, the debate degenerates into the tired old charade of empurpled politicians abusing each other across parliamentary benches.

If journalists were not entirely comfortable with such a puerile performance, surely they would find more important stories to report, or at least treat it with the disdain it deserves.

But the fact that AM, PM and the World Today routinely channel this sort of political bombast, without ever intelligently addressing the practice, suggests that many ABC journalists simply don’t realize how low standards have dropped.

Unfortunately, journalistic standards do not appear to be very much better than parliamentary standards, and neither journalists nor politicians seem to care much about raising their standards.

Raising Standards

I listened to an interview with Liberal Senator Russell Trood on The National Interest this week, and I was startled to hear something so unusual as to be almost unique.

What I heard was a pro-war politician actually being asked challenging questions about why he supports war in Iraq.

At first I was amazed, excited and impressed, and even felt some grim satisfaction that at last a war supporter was being put on the spot.

But as the senator’s responses reverted to the impenetrable dissembling and obfuscation that has characterised pro-war propaganda from day one, the memory of the nightmare that was “the making of the case for war” came back and hit me like a Mack truck.

Half-baked, flimsy, incoherent arguments and unsubstantiated allegations, absurd and irrelevant analogies, outright conceit and deception. Twisting the truth, rewriting history, this is how war was and is justified.

The spin, the hype, the lies, the blood lust that spread and engulfed the mass media, the corruption embedded at the highest levels of government, the disdain for the United Nations and international law, the catastrophic loss of life ... all this and so much more has been buried from view, rarely mentioned in the mainstream media.

The architects and perpetrators of this stupendous scandal remain revered and protected from public scrutiny by a servile, complicit mass media establishment.

Pro-war politicians have been allowed to shift all responsibility for the war in Iraq to “faulty intelligence”, without so much as a peep from mainstream media commentators.

Government inquiries have cleared their governments of any wrong doing and ministers have dismissed claims they manipulated intelligence to support the case for war.

The mainstream media has not challenged the official denial of government culpability in the decision to attack Iraq, nor has it seriously reviewed the case for war.

Sure, they want us to move on, put all that behind us, what’s done is done, mistakes were made, blah blah... but of course they would say that, because in truth, they know their actions were illegal, immoral and unjust, and of course, they are shit-scared of the consequences should the depth and extent of their crimes of complicity ever surface to public view.

Which is why we so desperately need the sort of quality journalism offered by shows like The National Interest, Late Night Live and a (very) few others. Keep up the pressure, don’t stop questioning, it’s really important we get to the truth and expose the deceit and corruption that has led us to war.

Nature, politics and disaster

2005-09-04T02:29:00.000+10:00

The chaos that befell New Orleans in the wake of hurricane Katrina is a foretaste of the calamity that will engulf thousands of cities around the world in the wake of peak oil.

The political failings that made worse the inevitable and predictable disaster in New Orleans, as in Iraq, are the very same flaws that will help ensure a much worse global catastrophe some time in the not
too distant future.

These political failings range from permitting gross social disparities to ignoring human induced environmental harm, from denying the depletion of natural capital to wasting resources on weapons and war.

The combination of short-sighted profiteering, a reckless disregard for predictable risk factors and a refusal to consider the legacy we are leaving our descendents, constitutes a lethal political failing.

A few simple precautions and commonsense solutions could prepare us for the imminent global catastrophe, but politicians will continue to ignore the warning signs until a few days after disaster strikes.

That’s because their corporate task masters want to maximize profits from the dwindling resource base. Any reduction in consumption or demand will bring prices down and cut corporate profits.

The economy must continue to grow and devour more resources in order to increase wealth and prosperity, the economists preach. Natural limits are not permitted to interfere with this ideology.

Evangelical techno-optimists prophesy miraculous inventions to solve every problem, but their snake-oil cures and whimsical charms are comfort only for the ignorant and deluded.

The problems we face are wide ranging and far reaching. There is no quick fix, no simple solution to the problems of oil depletion, climate change, toxic waste, species extinction, mass starvation and war.

Our best friends are foresight, forethought and forewarning, which may enable us to take precautions and make preparations for the inevitable collapse of the global industrial economy.

In New Orleans, had thought been given to the likelyhood of massive flooding, effective preparations could have saved thousands of lives. So too, around the world, if thought were given to the prospect of global petroleum shortages, life saving preparations could be made.

But the task falls to the people, because our politicians are working for big business and the military industrial complex. We know the ruling elite will protect itself at any cost, even if that means marshal law, mass murder and environmental devastation.

Trusting governments, corporations and politicians is the worst mistake we can make. If we hope to survive the coming crisis, we must work toward local self sufficiency in food, fuel, fibre, basic services and security. If we wait for government to provide solutions, we’ll end up like those stranded in New Orleans.

Politically expedient hypocrisy

2005-08-07T14:52:00.000+10:00

Behold the colossal hypocrisy of pro-war politicians accusing others
of inciting “terror”, and demanding that others denounce the use of violence. Recall the words used by Bush, Howard and Blair et al to argue the case for war, words contrived to incite violence.

We’re talking about a regime that will gouge out the eyes of a child to force a confession from its parents. This is a regime that will burn a person’s limbs in order to force a confession ... a cruel and despotic regime ...
John Howard - March 13, 2003

On Saddam Hussein’s orders, opponents have been decapitated, wives and mothers of opponents have been systematically raped as a method of intimidation, and political prisoners have been forced to watch their own children being tortured.
George W Bush - October 7, 2002

Saddam Hussein is a threat that has to be dealt with. Saddam is unrivalled as the world’s worst regime: brutal, dictatorial, with a wretched human rights record.
Tony Blair - September 10, 2002

There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, there is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies and against us.
Dick Cheney - August 26, 2002

There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons ... he has the ability to dispense these lethal poisons and diseases in ways that can cause massive death and destruction.
Colin Powell - February 5, 2003

The language used by the war party and its supporters to vilify Saddam Hussein and his regime was designed to rally support for war. The denunciations and fabrications used to justify the attack on Iraq were intended to arouse hatred toward Iraq and induce indifference to the impact that armed aggression would have upon the citizens of Iraq. And clearly, the mainstream media participated in the promulgation of this pro-war propaganda.

It is hypocritical in the extreme for our political leaders to promote and justify the enormous violence of war and occupation, while at the same time demand that others denounce violent resistance to aggression.

Our leaders claim the right to use violent force against a perceived threat, preemptively and unilaterally, without regard to established international law, in a manner completely disproportionate to the actual threat and utterly devoid of concern for human life or the environment, but they wish to deny those they attack, the right to respond with force.

It is as if they are saying, we have the right to attack others without just cause, but they have no right to defend themselves. This absurd proposition is a contradiction of Article 51 of the UN Charter, which states in part ...

“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.”

The mainstream media routinely ignores this apparent double standard. The prevailing assumption seems to be that Anglo-American military action is inherently benign, presumably because it represents the supposedly legitimate and well-intentioned aspirations of “western civilization” or “liberal democracy”. This commonly accepted premise receives very little media attention or analysis.

It is not sufficient to loudly condemn atrocities committed by others, while remaining silent about atrocities committed by our own. Yet that is how our media and government behave. While politicians and pro-war pundits readily denounce what they call “acts of terror”, very few of them ever condemn the use of violent force by our governments, even when that use of force is reckless, unlawful and results in the death of innocent civilians or the destruction of civilian infrastructure.

Opposition to violence requires more than politically expedient rhetoric. High flown sentiment alone cannot enhance international security or reduce conflict. It is necessary to recognize that Anglo-American violence and aggression is perceived as a threat by others, and that others have a right to defend themselves.

The United States and its allies have flouted international law and jeered at the Geneva Conventions, they have lied to the United Nations and their own people, they have ignored all opposition to their war plans and completely trashed the notions of universal human rights, due process and the rule of law. Their actions have betrayed the values they claim to uphold and severely undermined their moral legitimacy and credibility.

The corporate media has generally failed to challenge or even recognise the deceit, hypocrisy and corruption that permeates and flourishes throughout the highest levels of government. Consequently, the mainstream conception of the real world is fragmented, confused and ill-equipped to deal with the rapidly deteriorating circumstances currently facing humanity as a whole — the scourge of war, resource depletion, climate change, starvation and species extinction to name just a few.

The media as a whole, and journalists individually, share a responsibility to serve the public by scrutinizing the use and abuse of political and corporate power, by exposing corruption and wrong doing, by providing an accurate, objective account of the truth for the benefit of society at large.

When the media adopt the role of mere mouth-piece for the powerful and act as apologists and supporters for the government, irrespective of the merit or behaviour of its leaders, hesitant to question or confront conceit and deception, reluctant to grapple with the complexity of political intrigue, incapable of formulating comprehensive models for understanding and analyzing contemporary affairs .. when the media act as a conduit for government propaganda, promoting conformity of opinion and reducing complex issues into unchallenged, meaningless catchcries (eg “we won’t cut and run, until the job is done”), the media is facilitating governmental misconduct, failing society and betraying the heritage and principles of a free press.

Given the reek of violent death and destruction that haunts the administrations of Bush, Howard and Blair, and given the tendency of the corporate media to appease these governments, to give them the benefit of every doubt, to ignore stories that contradict the official version and refrain from drawing unfavorable conclusions, the idea that their collective declarations bare any relationship to real world events, or that their pronouncements should be given any credence at all, is simply risible.

No morality or equivalence

2005-07-16T00:08:00.000+10:00

In March 2003, Australia joined Britain and the United States in a campaign of violence that would result in large scale destruction of civilian infrastructure and untold thousands of casualties. On the first day of “shock and awe”, coalition forces dropped several hundred tons of high explosives on Iraq.

The mainstream media gloated over this display of hi tech savagery
as if it were a New Year’s Eve fireworks spectacle. Armchair generals and pro-war commentators waxed lyrical about the sophistication of US military power, seemingly indifferent to the carnage and human misery that was unfolding in Iraq.

The politicians responsible for inciting this callous act of aggression assured us that civilian casualties would be minimal, thanks to the exquisite precision of satellite guided munitions. The people of Iraq, we were told, would greet us as liberators and shower us with flowers.

Toward the end of May 2003, Alexander Downer stood atop the newly “liberated” roof of Saddam International Airport and marvelled at the smouldering ruins of Baghdad. “It feels good” he told his entourage of reporters, “to look out upon a liberated city”.

That night, millions of Iraqis went to bed fearful, hungry and cold. Their city had been shattered, telephone and power lines were down, water and sewage pipes were broken, medical supplies were scarce and security was nonexistent. Thousands of Iraqis had lost jobs, friends, family, limbs and lives.

Not many politicians spoke out against this illegal, unjustified aggression. Very few journalist dared condemn this atrocity or admonish its architects. Nor did they show much concern for the innocent victims of our violence.

But when a few pounds of high explosives were detonated in the London subway, journalists and politicians recoiled in horror, declaring it an evil and barbaric attack by “sub-human filth who must be captured and eliminated”, as Kim Beazley so eloquently put it.

Predictable outrage and hypocritical rhetoric spread like wildfire, “terrorists hate us because of who we are, not what we do... they hate our values, they hate our freedom.” Any suggestion that “terrorist attacks” are inspired by our own acts of violence is vehemently denounced as “moral equivalence”.

There can be no justification for such terrible violence, our politicians declare with an air of righteous indignation. But justifying violence is what our governments and pro-war pundits do all the time, they seek to justify our violence in terms of “defending our values”, “responding to acts of terrorism”, “liberating oppressed peoples”.

The truth is that our violence is all about imposing the neoliberal ideology of “free market” capitalism, controlling resources vital to the advanced industrial economies of the world and asserting authority via military force.

Indeed, there is no morality here, nor is there any equivalence. A thousand tons of high explosives used in Iraq, a few kilos in London. Whole cities smashed in Iraq, minor structural damage in London. Ten thousand deaths in Iraq, less than a hundred in London. Simply no comparison.

Our tough talking politicians seem to think the best way to deal with “terrorism” is to up the ante, escalate the violence, bomb more towns, level more homes, kill more individuals. The pro-war moralists want to believe that our violence is noble and legitimate. They talk about spreading freedom and democracy as a justification for mass murder. Collateral damage is unfortunate, they say, but not morally wrong, because our intentions are good.

Of course, such distinctions are academic. It is the type and quantity of explosives that determines a bomb’s lethality, not the intentions of the bomber. Our bombs cause more harm than “terrorist” bombs, because ours are bigger and far more numerous. Our “values” and “intentions” do not in anyway ameliorate the harm done by our bombs.

It is about time our warmongering politicians and their media hacks realized this fact. Their turgid love of military force is reaping conflict and provoking hostility. Their reckless, ill-conceived “War on Terror” is undermining international security and exposing our social and economic systems to the vagaries of fourth generation warfare.

We cannot hope to protect our way of life by escalating violence without regard for the human cost on both sides of the conflict. If we are a civilised democracy, as we claim to be, it really is our collective responsibility to demand an end to our part in this spiral of violence.

And if we fail to challenge our governments and hold them to account, if we continue to ignore the effect of our violent and predatory foreign policy, then we can expect yet more “terrorist” retaliation.

Lies, Laws and the Media

2005-07-07T23:00:00.000+10:00

The exposure of deception that triggered the spat that led to the outing of Valerie Plame has landed someone in jail. It is a delicious irony that journalist Judith Miller, who worked so hard and did so much to help promote the Bush administration’s fantasy about WMD in Iraq, ends up the first to go behind bars in this whole sordid affair.

Not surprisingly, the self-obsessed navel-gazing acolytes of the mainstream media think this story is about them, their privileges as the honest broker, the courageous, objective, impartial warriors of news gathering, scouring the horizons for information, fearlessly challenging authority, reporting with fairness and independence.

In fact, most of them sit at their desks all day, pampering themselves with donuts and milk coffee, flirting, farting and waiting for a phone call from their “confidential sources”, red hot tips, straight from the lips of a “senior official who wishes to remain anonymous”, and we’re supposed to swallow this crap and marvel.

Give me a break. If these guys think it’s more important to protect their sources than assist the investigation of a crime, then perhaps they need to change their occupation. Isn’t it bad enough that we have to put up with this sort of anti-social, anti-democratic behaviour from our political leaders? Do journalists expect the public to simply accept being lied to, misinformed, hoodwinked, led up the garden path... by journalists who are more concerned about currying favour with the “powers” than with exposing deceit and corruption in high office.

Anonymous sources do not automatically bestow credibility. As Richard Stengel at the Philadelphia Inquirer opined, such sources “should be used to level the playing field between the powerful and the powerless... But more often than not these days, they have become a device to preserve and enhance power rather than question it - a tool journalists use to advance their own careers rather than the disinterested pursuit of the truth.”

Journalists need to lift their game if they wish to regain credibility for their profession. Their appalling collective malperformance during the pre-war phase of operation Iraq has seriously undermined public confidence in the ability of journalists to discern fact from fiction, let alone penetrate the obfuscation that passes for “media management” in the contemporary political environment. The Valerie Plame affair is a classic example of this “media management” by government.

Frank Rich, writing for the New York Times, compares the scandel to Watergate, noting that “the most important difference between the Bush and Nixon eras has less to do with the press than with the grave origins of the particular case that has sent Judy Miller to jail.” Those origins being the litany of lies Bush used to justify the invasion of Iraq.

Rich concludes his editorial with a pertinent question and an astute observation... “has [special prosecutor] Patrick Fitzgerald moved on to perjury and obstruction of justice possibly committed by those who tried to hide their roles in that outing? If so, it would mean the Bush administration was too arrogant to heed the most basic lesson of Watergate: the cover-up is worse than the crime.”

Exposing the name of an undercover CIA operative is a federal offence under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. The fact that Ms Plame worked covertly on WMD nonproliferation makes the disclosure of her identity all the more treacherous, since many if not all the “clients” and “contacts” of the clandestine network she worked with in the CIA front company, Brewster Jennings & Associates, and their role of gathering information to help defend America, have now been placed in jeopardy and rendered useless to the CIA. By revealing Ms Plame’s identity, certain individuals have done real and irreparable harm to US national security. This is exactly the sort of misconduct the Intelligence Identities Protection Act was designed to combat.

But it’s not the only statute applicable in this case. As Citizen Spook has noted, the indictment brought against Larry Franklin last week for conspiracy to communicate national defense information in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 793, could equally apply in the case involving the disclosure of Valerie Plame’s identity. And given that the disclosure occured during a time of war (the Global War on Terror), the matter could even attract indictments under Title 18, USC, Section 794, which stipulates in part b)...

Whoever, in time of war, with intent that the same shall be communicated to the enemy, communicates, or attempts to elicit any information ... relating to the public defense, which might be useful to the enemy, shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for any term of years or for life.

Which should give an indication of just how serious this matter really is, and may explain why the adminstration has decided to redefine the “war on terror” as the “struggle against violent extremism”.

What the mainstream media needs to realize is that this story is not about them, it’s not about their precious sources, it’s not about the First Amendment, it’s not about free speech or confidentiality, or loyalty, or favours... it’s about something far more tangible and a lot more important than Ms Miller and some of her colleagues seem to appreciate - it’s about crimes in high places ... get it!?

It’s about an administration that has no regard for the truth and zero tolerance for dissent. It’s about an arrogant, corrupt administration that has lied us into war, plundered the coffers, desecrated civil liberties... it’s an administration that slinks around in armoured convoys and displays a pathological obsession with secrecy. It bullies, bribes and coerces without qualms, showing nothing but contempt for human rights, labour rights, international law, the United Nations and the Geneva Conventions.

Media darlings, get with it. Wake up to the real world, have a good hard look and a long hard think about the way you’re reporting it.

War for oil reaps disaster

2005-06-24T04:15:00.000+10:00

A little over two years ago, Tony Blair told a packed parliament that the impending invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with oil, adding that if we really needed the oil, it would be much easier and cheaper to simply buy it from Iraq. At the ABC’s Munster Forum six months later, pro-war columnist Greg Sheridan declared the “war for oil” accusation was an “undergraduate conspiracy theory” peddled by anti-american elements of the lunatic fringe.

These arguments are still used by those who believe the war in Iraq has nothing to do with oil and that spreading freedom and democracy in Iraq is an act of pure altruism. The countless dead and wounded, the leveled towns and broken homes, the $200 billion spent so far are a testament to the incomparable philanthropy of George W Bush.

It is, of course, either naive or misleading to imply that mere access to oil was the sole motivation behind the Bush administration’s desire to attack Iraq. Clearly, the plan was to establish a permanent military presence at the center of the world’s most important oil producing region. US military dominance of the Persian Gulf is an essential component of America’s geostrategic agenda, which, it should be noted, enjoys bipartisan support in Australia. The goal is to secure and ensure the flow of Gulf oil. Why? Because, as Bush recently put it, “We’re hooked on oil from the Middle East, which is a national security problem and an economic security problem.”

America is not just the world’s greatest consumer of oil, devouring in excess of 20 million barrels a day, it is also a significant oil producer. For more than a hundred years, America prospered as the world’s leading oil producing nation. That began to change in the 1970’s, following the peak in US oil production. Since then, the depletion of US oil reserves has led to a decline in America’s domestic oil industry. Compared to the giant Saudi and Iraqi oil fields, which can produce oil for less than a dollar a barrel, US oil fields are simply not competitive.

It would be a mistake to assume that the Bush plan was to hand Iraqi oil fields over to US oil companies, who would then rapidly develop those oil fields to boost production and thereby lower the price of oil. This seems to have been the reasoning behind Rupert Murdoch’s prediction that “The greatest thing to come out of this [war] would be $20 a barrel for oil”. But such a course was never really viable. For a start, Bush has no authority to appropriate Iraqi oil. Companies that collude in what amounts to theft would be exposed to litigation, and Big Oil may not share Bush’s cavalier disregard for the law.

The United States’ need for oil, according to economist Henry Liu, “is not a credible justification for war [because] the US already controls most of the world’s oil by virtue of oil being denominated in dollars that the US can print at will with little penalty.” However, Liu notes, “war spending is an economic stimulant, so long as collateral damage from war occurs only on foreign soil. War profits are always good for business, and the need for soldiers reduces unemployment.”

Furthermore, increased oil production and lower oil prices would not benefit the oil majors. As Liu explains, “oil in the ground is now more valuable than oil above ground because it can serve as a monetizable asset through asset-backed securities in the wild world of structured finance... while there is incentive to find more oil to enlarge the asset base, there is little incentive to pump it out of the ground merely to keep prices low.”

Another obstacle for Bush is the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), of which Iraq is a member. The privatization of Iraqi oil reserves would be seen as a direct challenge to OPEC’s authority and credibility, and a threat to OPEC’s oil revenues. OPEC would certainly resist any attempt by Washington to reduce the power and influence that OPEC currently enjoys. And let’s not forget, any reduction in the price of oil would also make it harder for the embattled US domestic oil industry to compete on the world market.

Bush and Cheney are Texan oil men and Condi Rice sat on the board of Chevron for eight years before joining the Bush administration. These people have close ties to the US oil industry, they are aware of its difficulties and they understand the geostrategic importance of oil. The security and control of energy resources is, and always has been, the single most important aspect of national security. Without a guaranteed supply of fuel, even the world’s greatest economy is vulnerable.

It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that America intends to maintain its “sole superpower” status indefinitely, and for that reason it will continue to disregard world opinion and the rule of international law. The hubris associated with this attitude has the unfortunate side-effect of suppressing rational thought and discouraging intelligent discourse. Such uncompromising self-certainty and contempt for reason can have disastrous consequences. Already we are witnessing a diminution in the power and credibility of the US administration.

Targeted assassinations, indefinite detention without trial, summary executions, torture and other crimes committed by US military personnel, hired guns and intelligence agents operating in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, have tarnished America’s reputation as a champion of human rights and raised doubts about the United States’ commitment to justice, due process and the rule of law. Senior administration officials are facing increased scrutiny and criticism of their role in leading the nation to war. The threat of legal indictments and presidential impeachment appears to be mounting.

The occupation of Iraq places huge financial burden on the US budget and puts enormous stress on the US military. The constant loss of personnel and equipment is draining the morale and resources of US forces, causing great consternation among senior military officials. The public is getting sick of the daily carnage and there is a growing demand for some kind of exit strategy. But Bush has no such plans. He cannot possibly withdraw from Iraq. The puppet regime will not survive without US military support, and having already invested many billions in the construction of fourteen hi-tech military bases, the US is obviously not planning to leave Iraq any time soon.

As the costs mount, the fight gets harder. For two years now, US forces have been attempting to impose their authority on the people of Iraq. But all the while, resistance has grown stronger. Part of the problem is the calculus employed to measure success. From the military’s point of view, flattening a village is a “small victory”, killing Iraqis is the way to “win”. By systematically destroying towns and killing Iraqis, the military hopes to win the war and achieve total victory.

But to be fair, not all military minds think this way. Tom Lasseter quotes Marine Major Nicholas Visconti as saying “If it were just killing people that would win this, it’d be easy... Killing people is not the answer; rebuilding the cities is”. Unfortunately, such level headed logic eludes the civilian leadership and military brass at the Pentagon.

The occupation itself is a catalyst for violence and a guarantee of further conflict. The continuing bloodshed serves to entrench anger, hatred and fear. This vicious spiral into death worship and chaos creates its own vortex, a tornado of madness, a furnace of horror that consumes civilians as well as combatants. It spreads terror and breeds violence. The CIA is now warning that Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other countries will have to contend with militants who leave Iraq equipped with considerable experience and training.

Extricating ourselves from this nightmare will not be easy, and it won’t happen while our political leadership conducts the business of state in secret, unaccountable and unsupervised. The occupation of Iraq is yet another product of an aggressive industrial paradigm that promotes the exploitation and desecration of earth’s riches - a mindset that destroys life and poisons the soul. The lifestyle we take for granted, the comforts and convenience of the modern world, this “culture” demands massive and unsustainable energy consumption. Our dependence on finite, nonrenewable energy resources is a huge vulnerability, one we must confront openly and honestly.

Bush and his team rant about freedom and democracy but their actions betray greed and hypocrisy. It is unlikely that his administration or their local counterparts or any of their successors will embrace the transition to an ecologically sustainable, low energy, low growth social economy, based on local permaculture gardens, food forests, appropriate technology and cottage industries, free from the hyperactive neuroses of neoliberal economania. The habit of the ruling elite is to serve and protect the interests of the wealthy. It is the task of citizens to promote social and political change through debate, education, civil protest and nonviolent direct action.

Terrorism and the Media

2005-05-06T00:26:00.000+10:00

The Media Report on ABC Radio National this week aired a perspective on terrorism that is unfortunately all too often ignored by mainstream media, especially in the United States and here in Australia.

Phil Rees, author of Dining with Terrorists, was talking to ABC journalist Richard Aedy, about the media’s selective use of morally loaded language and the impact such terminology has on the public perception of events.

Rees correctly identifies emotive labels such as “terrorist” and “freedom fighter” as impediments to a thoughtful and thorough understanding of the nature, context and history of conflict.

His point of view is not clouded by pseudo-philosophical arguments about moral equivalence or moral relativism versus moral absolutism. Rees talks plainly about the substance of the issue, the nature of the conflict, the tactics of the combatants, the motivations behind the struggle.

But it is an uphill battle to convince the average pundit that the real world contains many shades of color and countless hidden facets. Most people want “black and white” certainty and decisive “good versus evil” action, without having to worry about facts.

And so we have a situation whereby information and communication can be used to shape consensus, irrespective of the actual facts.

A classic example of this was the media coverage of the Iraqi WMD story. Prior to the invasion, the mainstream media relentlessly channeled government propaganda, never bothering to challenge the veracity of official statements, simply an endless recitation of completely bogus accusations, on the basis of which, supposedly, we invaded Iraq.

Since then, of course, the mainstream media has been reluctant to admit its grievous collective failure, its abandonment of responsibility, its neglect of core principles, its betrayal of the general public and more broadly, humanity at large.

Phil Rees has made a brave attempt to inject some intelligent thought into the task of journalism by actually applying the notions of impartiality and objectivity to the way he thinks about his subjects.

Some critics seem to regard this approach as tantamount to condoning the tactics and activities of the people Rees interviews and observes, an accusation that typifies a common trend toward discouraging free and intelligent debate. Does Bob Woodward, author of Bush at War and Plan of Attack, condone the war in Iraq? Does it matter?

Journalism is important, not least for the information it contains, but perhaps more so for the values and ideals implied by the viewpoint of the journalist. Some journalists seem to let their viewpoint colour their perceptions and obscure their perspective to the point where their opinions become nonsensical. Rees is not one of them.

The way we talk about issues affects the way we think about them, and vice versa. If we want to attain a good understanding of a subject, it helps to recognise our own inherent biases and preconceived notions. It is sometimes hard to see another perspective, or reassess cherished ideas, but such mental agility is often a prerequisite for insight and understanding.

Rees offers a sound and incisive critique of Islamic jihad and the so-called global war on terror (GWoT), uncontaminated by the emotive labels and hysterical fear-mongering that passes for news and current affairs in the mainstream media.

He makes a convincing argument that the “global war on terror” is actually a predatory politico-military agenda designed to justify the Pentagon’s continued existence as the post Cold War world’s dominant military force.

I think it is worth considering the viewpoint Rees offers and perhaps pay a bit more attention to the way the media portrays actors and events on the world stage.

Pragmatic Amity

2005-04-28T23:16:00.000+10:00

The Howard government has displayed an unusual degree of political pliancy in recent weeks, making adjustments to “iron-clad” saftey-net guarantees, revisiting the maritime boundary dispute with East Timor and reviewing the treatment of refugees.

This new-found flexibility has been particularly evident in the government’s approach to the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation. Initially rejected by Howard as anachronistic and merely symbolic, signing the treaty has since become desideratum for ascension to the Association of South East Asian Nations.

Now you might wonder what could be the problem with amity and cooperation. Well, according to prime minister Howard, the treaty reflects “outdated values, relations and ideas” (read Cold War era neutrality) which may impinge upon our subserviance to America.

Howard seems to prefer relations and ideas that provoke conflict and encourage contempt for international treaties. And his sidekick, Lord Downer, an embarrassingly outspoken critic of the UN treaty system, also apparently discounts the value of friendship and cordiality.

According to Downer, a willingness to sign the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation would be seen as weak and mendicant. “Australia doesn’t need to go begging”, he told ABC radio last week.

But given Howard’s record of unprovoked aggression based on bogus intelligence and in defiance of international law, it is not surprising that our neighbours are concerned about his refusal to sign the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation.

While some people may deride the inevitable decision to sign the treaty as a political back-flip, such a reversal will surely benefit our relations with the region and cannot possibly harm our security.

Symbolism can be an important part of foreign relations, especially when it truly reflects good will and friendship between neighbours.

Talk about Peak Oil

2005-03-27T13:13:00.000+10:00

PEAK OIL has gained the attention of mainstream media. In recent months there’s been a front page piece in the respected Wall Street Journal, an editorial in the New York Times, a lengthy interview with Colin Campbell on Lateline and an interview with Kenneth Deffeyes on Counterpoint.

Last week, Roscoe Bartlett, the Chairman of the Projection Forces Subcommittee of the US Armed Services Committee, gave a presentation about peak oil to the US Congress. He began with examples of recent news headlines bemoaning the real economic damage caused by rising oil prices and the falling dollar, then proceeded to outline the scientific method of modelling oil reserves that was pioneered by the geophysicist, M. King Hubbert.

A scientist working for Shell Oil in the 1950’s, Hubbert studied the productive life cycle of many oil fields and found that for a typical deposit, oil production followed a regular and predictable “bell shaped” curve. His analysis of US oil fields led him to correctly predict that US oil production would peak in 1970. Hubbert’s model, applied to world oil reserves, predicts global oil production will peak sometime this decade.

Last month, Andrew McNamara, the Labor MP for Hervey Bay, gave a speech in the Queensland parliament warning of the impending peak in global oil production. Peak oil, he said, “represents the most serious and immediate challenge to our prosperity and security. It will impact on our lives more certainly than terrorism, global warming, nuclear war or bird flu.”

MacNamara went on to explain that once oil production peaks, oil flows decrease as the pressure in the oil basin declines and the cost of recovering the oil rises steeply. He also mentioned reports that Shell Oil overstated its oil reserves by 40% and expressed concern that many producer nations, including Saudi Arabia, may have similarly overstated their reserves.

The global industrial economy, the world wide network of sea and air ports, road and rail ways, electricity grids, mines, power stations, factories, cities and towns, are all powered by fossil fuels, primarily oil. The broad acre cultivation of crops is made possible by oil powered farm machinery and oil based fertilizers. Our militaries require vast amounts of oil to power their warplanes, tanks and destroyers.

The fact that Andrew MacNamara was speaking in support of a bill designed to facilitate oil exploration in the state of Queensland should not detract from the importance of his message. Peak oil is real, it’s not some corporate conspiracy and it doesn’t mean we’re about to run out of oil. It may well lead to the collapse of the global industrial economy, but there is still plenty of scope for innovative responses.

In his closing remarks, MacNamara offered what I think is sound practical advice. “The challenges we face will require localised food production and industry in a way not seen for 100 years. Self contained communities living close to work, farms, services and schools will not be merely desirable, they will be essential.”

Madness Madness War

2005-01-23T15:48:00.000+11:00

Peace is at war spreading freedom and democracy, restoring chaos to the world.

There are threats who are friends of America and terrorists hold us hostile, but the person who gets to decide, the president of everybody, a compassionate American who understands the frankly mood of the world, doesn’t need to be subliminable.

With his weapons of mass production and a desire to conflict great harm, having won the trifecta and passed his moment of accountability, the tough talking texan now has fire in the mind and a great passion for whatever you want to call it.

President Moron is the laughing stock of the world, we’re all eagerly waiting to see what monstrous debacle he will proceed with next. Surrounded by fawning sycophants, oozing smugness and insularity, feigning magnanimity, the poor deluded fool plunges ever deeper into his nightmare of homocidal megalomania.

Trapped in a fantasy realm far removed from reality, the great dictator and his coterie of lunatic ideologues are clearly oblivious to the calamity unfolding around them. This is great news for the opponents of American Empire Inc., but not so great for all those Americans who value their international reputation.

Goaded by the growling gall of Dick Cheney and the bombastic belligerence of Don Rumsfeld, steeped in the hubris of dynastic privilege and the conceit of unbridled power, George Bush has embraced a mission as dangerous as it is demented.

The inevitable consequence will be a greatly weakened and humiliated America, untold thousands of dead and maimed, billions of dollars wasted, rampant violence and mayhem, global insecurity, environmental devastation and universal opprobrium.

So bring ’em on, Mr Bush... let’s see more of your
innovative and resourceful ways to harm America.

Chaos and Catastrophe

2004-12-30T01:09:00.000+11:00

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.

The pattern of war crimes in Iraq

2004-12-22T01:27:00.000+11:00

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.

Nonreciprocal Mutual Obligation

2004-12-17T22:44:00.000+11:00

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.

Violence, Religion and the Media

2004-12-13T15:57:00.000+11:00

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...

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.

Cruelty and contempt for human life

2004-11-20T16:49:00.000+11:00

When a car bomb exploded outside the Australian embassy in Jakarta on September 9^th, 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.

Cheap and transparent propaganda

2004-11-06T22:15:00.001+11:00

Propaganda ~: (usually derog) Information that is spread for the purpose of promoting some cause. Organized scheme for propagating a doctrine or practice.

Ozzy spy chief, Dennis Richardson, dismissed the recent video message from Usama bin Laden as nothing more than “cheap and transparent propaganda” and vowed it would not deter the West from its war on terror. He said Australia was “well placed” to fight a long war — but if Richardson has actually read the full transcript of bin Laden’s speech, his trite remarks may well belie some real concern.

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 11^th, 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 11^th. 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.

The precedent of a ‘‘lawless enclave’’

2004-10-25T18:24:00.000+10:00

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 Times

In 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.

The strategic cost of imperial hubris

2004-10-22T20:32:00.000+10:00

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.

Costello warns of an oil price shock

2004-10-21T15:52:00.000+10:00

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.

Sack these mass murdering warmongers

2004-10-03T22:21:00.000+10:00

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!

Bush claims credit for disarming Gadhafi

2004-10-01T23:05:00.000+10:00

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.

America is losing the war in Iraq

2004-09-28T11:42:00.000+10:00

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.

World must respect the rule of law

2004-09-22T22:56:00.000+10:00

The 59^th Session of the United Nations General Assembly opened this week in New York, with a stern warning from the indomitable Kofi Annan...

“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

Not everyone agreed Iraq had WMD

2004-09-21T17:42:00.000+10:00

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.

Australia threatens first strike on terror

2004-09-20T21:32:00.000+10:00

Ozzy PM, John Howard, today reiterated his intention to unilaterally and preemptively strike at suspected terrorist targets in Australia's neighbouring countries, if he believed they represented a threat to Australia's security.

Given Howard's record of involvement in a preemptive strike against Iraq, based on the mistaken belief that Iraq posed a serious threat, many of our neighbours could be excused for feeling concerned and uneasy about the Howard government's bellicose posturing.

Add to that, Howard's enthusiasm for the US missile defence system and his decision to purchase $450 million worth of intermediate range cruise missiles, which enhance our capability to conduct such preemptive strikes, it is quite likely that some of our neighbours are wondering where all this is headed.

Perhaps most troubling is the Howard government's determination to impose US-style hegemony on the region, taking its cue from the unilateralist Bush administration, and living up to its reputation, in some quarters, as an arrogant "deputy sheriff" of the United States.

The opposition leader, Mark Latham, wasted no time in condemning Howard's "clumsy foreign policy", ruling out any support for such preemptive strikes and reaffirming his party's commitment to work cooperatively with our neighbours in the region.

This in turn provoked the usual accusations of Labour being "weak on national security" from Howard and Downer, who have both become increasingly shrill in their personal attacks on Mark Latham in the lead up to the October 9 federal election.

No doubt, many in the region will be hoping for a change of government here in Australia, not least the East Timorese, who have been rather unfairly treated by the Howard government over the marine boundary dispute involving the offshore Greater Sunrise petroleum reserves.

In that dispute, Howard has unilaterally withdrawn Australia from the jurisdiction of the World Court and refused to negotiate on the contested boundary, claiming Australian possession of the seabed to within 9 miles of the East Timorese coast line, 60 miles from Australian shores.

The alternative Latham government has said it will return to the negotiating table with East Timor, a welcome sign that Australia might soon become, once again, a fair-go sort of country that respects the rights and aspirations of our neighbours.

Apocalyptic violence & the war on terror

2004-09-20T11:10:00.000+10:00

We will export death and violence to the four corners of the earth
in defense of our great nation -- Bush at War

To what extent does apocalyptic theology inspire and inform the protagonists on either side of the war on terror?

If we compare the rhetoric of extremist Islamic jihadis with that of the crusading Christian evangalists, we notice some fascinating similarities.

For example, they both portray the current conflict as a "monumental struggle of good versus evil".

They both promote violence as an instrument of divine will, a cleansing force that will purge the world of sinners and deliver an age of peace and religious purity.

Each side justifies their violence in terms of "retribution" and "retaliation", blaming the other side for creating conditions in which violence is the only viable response.

George Bush says he is doing God's work, hunting down and destroying evil doers. The Jihadis constantly punctuate their threats and Fatwahs with the phrase God willing. In each case, they hand responsibility for their violence up to God.

Both sides deny the possibility of dialogue, compromise or negotiated settlement, preferring instead to rely entirely upon the purifying power of apocalyptic violence.

Each side believes they have God and Right on their side, and nothing less than complete annihilation of the other can guarantee their own survival.

They share a bizarre, almost obscene enthusiasm for a conflict that they believe heralds the "end time", culminating in God's destruction of the world and the return of the messiah.

Their zealotry is characterised by a combination of grandiosity and paranoia, a pathological brew of omnipotence and vulnerability, as if each is both the instrument and the victim of devine wrath.

Another interesting correlation is the way these fundamentalists reject the moderate elements of their own societies, often with great loathing and hostility.

For example, bin Laden has condemned the Saudi royal family as corrupt, despotic apostates and has called for their overthrow.

On the other side, evangelist Jerry Falwell has blamed the attacks of 9/11 on fellow Americans who are gay, pagan, pro-choice, feminist &/or involved with the American Civil Liberties Union.

What I find disturbing is the fact that mainstream moderates are also peddling alarmist hysteria. We have politicians like Kim Beazley and Robert Hill, warning that civilization itself, indeed our very existance, is threatened by evil terrorists who must be destroyed.

Fueling this phenomena is the practice of politicians and the media, who use language to shape our understanding of the conflict and our opinion of the opponents.

So for example, violence against the West is described as "vile", "heinous" and "barbaric", the perpetrators are called "murderous criminals" and "terrorists".

On the other hand, violence by the West is described as a "military response" or an "air strike". The perpetrators are "brave men and women serving their country and defending our freedom".

Similarly, any suggestion that our violence is harmful and might actually create or provoke more violence against us, is vehemently condemned as "moral equivalence", "appeasement" or "aiding the terrorists".

Very often we find those who are the most enthusiastic about the use of violence against others are also the most vitriolic in their condemnation of the use of violence by others.

It is precisely this sort of bigotry, prejudice and hypocisy that presents the greatest obstacle to resolving conflict around the world.

International Law and the Gulf War

2004-09-19T22:52:00.000+10:00

A week before the attack on Iraq, Foreign Minister Downer gave an interview on ABC Lateline in which he said “our judgment is that under Chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter, on the basis of Security Council resolutions, in particular, but not exclusively 678, 687 and 1441, there is authority to enforce those Security Council resolutions by militarily disarming Saddam Hussein”.

When asked if military action without specific UN authorisation would violate the UN Charter, he admitted that “without any authorisation that would obviously be a problem... I'm just saying that, sure, if you acted outside of the Charter and outside of the Council, that would be true, but our response to that is that if Saddam Hussein was disarmed through military action, that would actually be within the charter under chapter 7 of the charter and building on Security Council resolutions in the past, resolution 678 and 687 in particular”

Despite Howard's claim that he “tabled” his legal advice at the time, the government has NOT released its expert legal opinion, which according to the PM, said the invasion was "entirely legal". So we cannot comment on its content, or discuss its merits, because we do not know what it says. If it really does support his claim, why is he so reluctant to release it?

But it probably resembles the legal advice provided by the British Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, who has said that UNSC Resolution 678, which authorized "all necessary means" to evict Iraqi forces from Kuwait in 1991, and to "restore international peace and security" in the region, still applied or could be revived.

However, that resolution did not authorize the use of force to invade and occupy Iraq, or to change the regime, or even disarm Iraq. The authority to use force, provided by SCR 678, expired with the liberation of Kuwait. This was clearly the understanding held by most authorities at the time, including then president George H W Bush, who wrote in his 1998 book A World Transformed, "Going in and thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations mandate would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish."

The requirement that Iraq disarm was imposed after the ceasefire, along with many other demands and sanctions which were attached to the ceasefire agreement. These obligations were formalised in the subsequent UNSC Resolution 687, which became known as "the mother of all resolutions". SCR 687 did NOT authorize "all necessary means".

All subsequent resolutions relating to Iraq have referred to the obligations contained in SCR 687, but none of these resolutions explicitly authorize the use of force against Iraq. Furthermore, all these resolutions, up to and including SCR 1441, affirmed the Security Council would "remain seized of the matter" in order to "maintain peace and security".

In other words, the Security Council was pursuing a formal, legitimate process to ensure that Iraq complied with its obligations and was not a threat to international peace and security. UN weapons inspectors were actively inspecting facilities and interviewing Iraqi officials. There is simply no basis to the charge that UN processes had failed or that the Security Council was incapable of enforcing its resolutions.

The fact is, George W Bush unilaterally and unceremoniously terminated the UN process on March 19, 2003, when he announced his decision to attack Iraq. By aiding and abetting this unlawful aggression, the Howard government willfully defied the authority of the Security Council and conspired to commit war crimes.

The following is a summary of the legal advice from British Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith
Source: Downing Street, April 28, 2005

26. To sum up, the language of resolution 1441 leaves the position unclear and the statements made on adoption of the resolution suggest that there were differences of view within the Council as to the legal effect of the resolution. Arguments can be made on both sides. A key question is whether there is in truth a need for an assessment of whether Iraq's conduct constitutes a failure to take the final opportunity or has constituted a failure fully to cooperate within the meaning of OP4 such that the basis of the cease-fire is destroyed. If an assessment is needed of that situation, it would be for the Council to make it. A narrow textual reading of the resolution suggests that sort of assessment is not needed, because the Council has predetermined the issue. Public statements, on the other hand, say otherwise.

27. In these circumstances, I remain of the opinion that the safest legal course would be to secure the adoption of a further resolution to authorise the use of force. The key point is that it should establish that the Council has concluded that Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity offered by resolution 1441, as in the draft which has already been tabled.

28. Nevertheless, having regard to the information on the negotiating history which I have been given and to the arguments of the US Administration which I heard in Washington, I accept that a reasonable case can be made that resolution 1441 is capable in principle of reviving the authorisation in 678 without a further resolution.

29. However, the argument that resolution 1441 alone has revived the authorisation to use force in resolution 678 will only be sustainable if there are strong factual grounds for concluding that Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity. In other words, we would need to be able to demonstrate hard evidence of non-compliance and non-cooperation. Given the structure of the resolution as a whole, the views of UNMOVIC and the IAEA will be highly significant in this respect. In the light of the latest reporting by UNMOVIC, you will need to consider very carefully whether the evidence of non-cooperation and non- compliance by Iraq is sufficiently compelling to justify the conclusion that Iraq has failed to take its final opportunity.

30. In reaching my conclusion, I have taken account of the fact that on a number of previous occasions, including in relation to Operation Desert Fox in December 1998 and Kosovo in 1999, UK forces have participated in military action on the basis of advice from my predecessors that the legality of the action under international law was no more than reasonably arguable. But a "reasonable case" does not mean that if the matter ever came before a court I would be confident that the court would agree with the view. I judge that, having regard to the arguments on both sides, and considering the resolution as a whole in the light of the statements made on adoption and subsequently, a court might well conclude that OPs 4 and 12 do require a further Council decision in order to revive the authorisation in resolution 678. But equally I consider that the counter view can be reasonably maintained.

However, it must be recognised that on previous occasions when military action was taken on the basis of a reasonably arguable case, the degree of public and Parliamentary scrutiny of the legal issue was nothing as great as it is today.

31. The analysis set out above applies whether a second resolution fails to be adopted because of a lack of votes or because it is vetoed. As I have said before, I do not believe that there is any basis in law for arguing that there is an implied condition of reasonableness which can be read into the power of veto conferred on the permanent members of the Security Council by the UN Charter.

So there are no grounds for arguing that an "unreasonable veto" would entitle us to proceed on the basis of a presumed Security Council authorisation. In any event, if the majority of world opinion remains opposed to military action, it is likely to be difficult on the facts to categorise a French veto as "unreasonable". The legal analysis may, however, be affected by the course of events over the next week or so, eg the discussions on the draft second resolution.

If we fail to achieve the adoption of a second resolution we would need to consider urgently at that stage the strength of our legal case in the light of circumstances at the time.

Kofi Annan calls Iraq attack illegal

2004-09-17T21:40:00.000+10:00

United Nations Secretary General, Kofi Annan, set the cat among the pigeons this week when he said the attack on Iraq was illegal.

Standing by his decision to join the “illegal” invasion, Ozzy PM, John Howard, claimed he had “tabled” the legal advice his government received regarding the legality of the invasion of Iraq.

Howard is lying, again! He has consistently refused to make available the legal advice he received prior to the invasion.

Howard also expressed surprise that the issue of the legality of the invasion had been raised by Kofi Annan, questioning why such concerns had not been expressed earlier.

None so deaf as those who do not listen.

The UN Secretary General has previously expressed his concern about the legality of the invasion on a number of occasions. For example, one year ago, on Sept 23, 2003, in an opening speech to the UN General Assembly, Annan criticised states that assumed "the right and obligation to use force pre-emptively". Annan said "My concern is that, if it were adopted, it could set precedents that result in a proliferation of the unilateral and lawless use of force, with or without credible justification."

On March 11, 2003, nine days before the invasion, Kofi Annan warned that if the United States failed to win approval from the Security Council for an attack on Iraq, Washington's decision to act alone or outside the Council would violate the United Nations charter. ("Annan Says U.S. Will Violate Charter if It Acts Without Approval" By Patrick Tyler and Felicity Barringer, The New York Times, March 11, 2003)

"International lawyers around the world advised their governments that the US-led invasion of Iraq was in violation of fundamental international law. Professor Anne-Marie Slaughter, in her Presidential address to the Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law on Thursday, April 3, 2003, estimated that eight out of ten international lawyers have concluded the invasion of Iraq was unlawful". ( http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew107.php )