The precedent of a ‘‘lawless enclave’’

In early November 2001, a small group of White House officials worked in great secrecy to devise a new system of justice for the Global War on Terror   ~   The New York 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

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

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

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

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.