America’s shame, two years on from ’Mission Accomplished’
Robert Fisk examines the institutional use of torture by American forces in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay:
"With an insurgency growing ever more vicious and uncontrollable, the emptiness of Mr Bush’s silly boast is plain ['Mission Accomplished]. The real mission, it seems, was to institutionalise the cruelty of Western armies, staining us forever with the depravity of Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and Bagram - not to mention the secret prisons which even the Red Cross cannot visit and wherein who knows what vileness is conducted. What, I wonder, is our next 'mission'?"
His investigative journalism reveals that any chance of democracy "flowering" in Iraq is neutered by the "trail of prisons that now lies across Iraq...a shameful symbol not only of our cruelty but of our failure to create the circumstances in which a new Iraq might take shape." Fisk also examines other fields in the "War on Terror": "I have interviewed a Palestinian who gave me compelling evidence of anal rape with wooden poles at Bagram [in Afghanistan] - by Americans, not by Afghans."
With dozens of allegations, few arrests and little accountability for the top military and political brass in America, Australia or Britain, our establishment press prefers to offer this propaganda (courtesy of Murdoch's Australian). Uncomfortable truths are airbrushed, like obedient generals in a Third World dictatorship:
"Does anybody, apart from Islamist ideologues in the Middle East and Left ideologues in the West, seriously believe the coalition troops are on some kind of imperialist adventure in Iraq? The 8 million Iraqis who turned out to vote in January did not think they were participating in some kind of empty charade, or they would surely not have braved the terrorists' threats and bombs. The terrorists want our troops out for the simple reason that a progressive and prosperous Iraq will show up the lie in their claim that Islam and democracy are incompatible. Iraq is not about a clash of civilisations but about defeating those who dream of bringing about such a clash."
Erna Flegal was Hitler's nurse and survived the last days in the Berlin bunker as the 1000-year Nazi reign crumbled. She's never spoken publicly about her experiences, until now.
On Hitler: "His authority was extraordinary. He was always polite and charming. There was really nothing to object to."
On Magda Goebbels: "She was a brilliant woman, on a far higher level than most people. I wanted her to take at least one or two of them [her children] out of the city. But Mrs Goebbels simply said, 'I belong to my husband. And the children belong to me.'"
On Eva Braun: "Oh dear God. She didn't have any importance. Nobody expected much of her. She was just a young girl, really. She wasn't really his wife."
On her attitude to Nazism and her role in it: "After 1945 people started pointing fingers at each other. A great many people didn't say anything. Later it was still a source of controversy. I didn't discuss it."
This interview emerges as the powerful Downfall is screening across Australia - "They got a few small details wrong. But generally it was correct," Flegal said. "I even recognised myself as a nursing sister" - and reminds us of the importance of revealing the cogs in the wheels of movements such as Nazism. Without many of these individuals, 20th century history could have been radically different.
"Abu Faraj Farj al-Libbi, allegedly number three in the al-Qaeda network and a close associate of Osama bin Laden, has been captured in Pakistan, the country's information minister said on Wednesday."
The Sydney Morning Herald, and a host of world newspapers, published this story on May 4. George W. Bush said his capture removed a "direct threat" to America and "represents a critical victory in the war on terror".
The magnitude of the arrest was explained: "Security officials said al-Libbi took over the command of al-Qaeda in Pakistan after the capture in March 2003 of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, believed to be the key planner of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States."
But it now looks like Bush and his media cheerleaders may have been premature in celebrating. Yesterday's Murdoch's UK Sunday Times reported a rather different story:
"According to European intelligence experts, however, Abu Faraj al-Libbi was not the terrorists’ third in command, as claimed, but a middle-ranker derided by one source as “among the flotsam and jetsam” of the organisation."
The story paints a devastating picture of intelligence bungling, an unquestioning media all-too-ready to hail the capture of Bin Laden's right-hand man and a cynical hyping "by two countries [Pakistan and America] that want to distract attention from their lack of progress in capturing Bin Laden, who has now been on the run for almost four years."
This major revelation didn't stop today's Sydney Morning Herald publishing an article that continued the propaganda:
"Intelligence officers who have been questioning Abu Faraj al-Libbi, the senior al-Qaeda suspect arrested last week, have cast doubt over claims by Pakistan's Prime Minister, Shaukat Aziz, that the interrogation is "proceeding well". Libbi, 28, who is said to be al-Qaeda's No. 3, had defied efforts to make him give details about its senior hierarchy, despite coming under physical pressure to do so, officials said on Saturday."
Had the paper not read yesterday's Sunday Times? Did they not care? The fact that they didn't have publishing rights to the Murdoch story shouldn't mean that they published an article with major question marks over its allegations. Whatever the reason, it's unacceptable that the so-called Fairfax flagship newspaper is publishing material of dubious factual accuracy.
I was working at a Melbourne David Jones in formal wear. I was dressed in a suit and tie, as were my male colleagues. Suddenly a fire alarm sounded and we ran to the exit and towards the central meeting place in times of an emergency. For some inexplicable reason, the meeting point seemed like miles away and I was running for what felt like hours. I could see all my associates far ahead and I knew I'd probably be the last to arrive.
Finally I saw the fire warden and he looked at my sternly. I apologised profusely for being late and next thing I knew we were discussing the impending changes to the cross media laws. He couldn't understand why I was so passionate about maintaining diversity and fundamentally mistrusted the media groups and moguls advocating change. He talked about the "gold old days" of Fairfax when "journalists were keen to take on the big boys". I wished for those days again too. We simply believed in achieving these aims differently.
Then I woke up. My dream last night amused me. I've only worked briefly in retail. I do believe in maintaining diversity within the media. I've never really engaged with a fire warden. In hindsight, I could probably improve my arguments in relation to the media moguls. They are, after all, the easiest to demonise and yet rarely examined by our mainstream media. This will change.
Refugee advocates Project Safecom are pushing for a Royal Commission into asylum seeker policy. The petition reads as follows:
We, the undersigned petitioners, citizens and residents of the Australian Commonwealth: Request from the House of Representatives:
- to establish, as a matter of the highest priority, a Royal Commission into the treatment of asylum seekers, refugees and immigration detainees from the introduction of mandatory detention, with particular reference to the period of Howard government. Your petitioners therefore ask the House to ensure that this inquiry includes investigations into:
• conditions, incidents and events, in Australian and 'Pacific Solution' detention centres & all other forms of immigration detention and prisons, police lock-ups, home detention, including how incidents were acted upon and followed up;
• engagement and administration of the contract between ACM and the Commonwealth of Australia from 1997-2004 incl., and Group 4Falck from 2003 onwards; and the conduct of ACM and GSL in their operation of IDCs;
• the sinking of SIEVX and the possible role of AFP, ASIS and agents recruited, equipped or tasked by either AFP or ASIS;
• whether the Howard government influenced ADF & other Commonwealth agencies to suppress information about interception procedures and measures regarding Australia's rescue obligations to refugee claimants attempting to reach Australia in SIEVs;
• into deaths of immigration detainees including the adequacy of any previous investigations and responses to their deaths, and unnatural deaths of TPV holders in the community;
• compliance of the TPV regime with international refugee law and its impact on the human rights of refugees on TPV's;
• whether a bias was present or created in refugee assessment and review;
• the effects of preventing due access by lawyers, media agents and the public in order to assess, assist, support and report;
• whether obstructions were caused to the unfettered access to all aspects of legal recourse during assessment, review and appeals;
• the effects of government policies on their physical and mental health and that of their families and dependants;
• damage and disruption to asylum seekers' lives, family and career plans;
• deportees and their fate upon return;
• and into the cost to the Australian community of these policies.
This Inquiry also should address accountability mechanisms and remedies, compensation, etc available for persons who have suffered violations of human rights as a result of Australia's refugee and immigration detention regime.
The Committee to Protect Bloggers primary aim is to "focus...on the inappropriate use of state force against bloggers." They link today to a new project from Human Rights Watch, aimed at convincing people to speak out, research and disseminate information to fight for human rights through blogging. In countries such as Iran and China, bloggers are frequently the target of state repression. Publicising these cases and highlighting the need for Western governments to increase the pressure (especially on China, Australia's newfound friend in the region), becomes vital.
A "sorry what?" comment from a token right-winger at last night's Sydney Glogblogging. Fun was had by all. Politics, Bush, Howard and tequila were debated. Uniform agreement that quality of informed debate in Australia is lacking. Work needed.
It seems I'm the default winner of Tim Blair's Iron Blogger showdown. True to his word, Tim couriered $250 cash (along with a courtesy copy of The Bulletin) to my home yesterday. I'm yet to decide how the money should be dispersed. Stay tuned for details as they emerge.
"God is in the air. Or talk about Him, anyway. It is bouncing off satellites, radiating from broadcast towers, winding through cable systems, and glowing on screens in millions of living rooms. Evangelical Christians have created a vast and expanding alternative media universe that includes music, movies, sitcoms, and reality TV. But the brightest constellation now is news and public affairs programming, a potent mix of God, news, and right-wing politics."
The current media frenzy around John Howard and his patient deputy Peter Costello is tiring. Throughout this saga, political journalists have been content playing the insider's game, gaining interviews with the key players and parading their "insights". Take today's article in the Sydney Morning Herald by Peter Hartcher. A full page in the paper and yet virtually not a word about the values, ideas or policies Costello as Prime Minister may express. Would the voting public not be interested in what Costello actually stands for? He has remained virtually silent on numerous government decisions since 1996, including asylum seekers, Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, just to say a few. The timing of a potential leadership tussle is interesting, to a point, but simply becoming the conduit through which this drab political game is played suggests that these kind of journalists are simply content to be involved, get a quote and feel close to the action.
When Hartcher says John Howard is "looking every bit a statesman" after his recent foreign policy adventures, would he like to convince readers that issues such as Guantanamo Bay have simply disappeared? Channeling government propaganda has never looked so tawdry.
"Fairfax's robust Iraq correspondent, Paul McGeough, is in the news again, this time playing a dicey game of diplomacy to try to free Australian hostage Douglas Wood. The results of his talks with various sheikhs are splashed over the front pages of The Smage (here), and McGeough has been all over the radio this morning. But Alexander Downer is not impressed. The foreign minister went on radio this morning warning that, in this case, too much publicity is bad publicity.
"I'd rather this kind of material wasn't covered too much in public," said Downer. And he answered questions about the government's efforts to free the hostage with a Downeresque flourish: "I'm not going into the names of the people we're talking to... Sheikh This, or Minister That."
"McGeough's efforts at international diplomacy and delicate hostage negotiation are not out of character. Readers will recall that McGeough made headlines last year, reporting that Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi had personally executed prisoners – a sensational claim that remains unsubstantiated.
"This time we hope the well-connected McGeough (a former Herald editor whose partner is Fin Review power hackette Pam Williams) can bring home the bacon. But diplomacy is a tricky trade, and McGeogh shouldn't expect much help from Allawi."
The role of journalist as intermediary is ethically fraught. In this case, McGough appears to be establishing contacts with influential leaders that the Australian government would never know about (and makes you wonder what kind of contacts the Howard government truly has in the country, other than US officials or US proxies.) We wish nothing but success to McGeough and Douglas Wood, but somehow I suspect that behind the scenes the Australian government is furious with McGeough; his actions makes them seem utterly irrelevant to proceedings.
Australia's asylum seeker issues are making headlines in the UK. This is from today's Independent:
"Australia's treatment of asylum-seekers is under scrutiny again after revelations about a three-year-old girl who suffered serious mental health problems after spending her life in mandatory detention. Professional advice that Naomi Leong, a Malaysian child, should be allowed out to visit a playgroup for two hours once a week has gone unheeded."
"The Federal Government transferred two suicidal Baxter detainees to a psychiatric hospital shortly before a court decision that would have compelled them to do so. In a damning judgement, the Federal Court found yesterday the Government had breached its duty of care in failing to provide adequate psychiatric care for the two Iranians held in the detention centre in South Australia. The court also found that the Government's conduct "contributed to the progressive deterioration of the applicants" and that it "continued to commit itself to treatment plans that may have been exacerbating, or else inadequately or inappropriately treating" their conditions."
Some are now calling for a Royal Commission into issues related to refugees and detention. In light of ABC TV's Lateline discovering that as many as 100 individuals may have been wrongly detained over the last three years, surely we owe it to asylum seekers and mental health cases to discover the result of ongoing harsh refugee policy?
Equally important is an examination of the Howard government's decision to privatise detention centres. When ACM, a subsidiary of the American Wackenhut Corrections Corporation, used to run our centres, accountability was virtually non-existent and profits skyrocketed. Conditions at the centres were frequently unacceptable. For more information of why these services should not be privatised, read this ABC Background Briefing report from 2004:
"Richard Harding [the Inspector of Custodial Services in Western Australia]: It shows that without proper supervision or care from DIMIA [Immigration Department], ACM did indeed develop its very own culture of indifference and worse than indifference, in fact virtually all of the riots that we’ve seen film and video of over the years, shows not riot control so much as riot provocation behaviour by the on-site operators, ACM. But you always come back to the fact that this is being allowed to happen by the persons with the responsibility in international law, in duty of care terms, in political terms, for running a decent operation. DIMIA and ultimately the Minister and the Federal government."
Author Phil Rees ("Dining with Terrorists"): "...In using it [the word terrorism], you are buying into the support for the policies of the United States and George Bush..."
Host Richard Aedy: "Do you really think that? Do you think they’ve come to own that word?"
Phil Rees: "I do, and American military strategists will agree with me on this. They accept it, because after the end of the Cold War, they were looking for a new doctrine that would legitimise the role of the United States as the only superpower."
Sergeant Zachery Scott-Singley is a US soldier in Iraq in the 3rd Infantry Division (his job is translating Arabic). He's writing a blog, A Soldier's Thoughts. His most recent post, It was still dark, talks of his colleagues being on patrol, killing a young boy in cold blood and the US military's response to the atrocity.
As you can see on the sidebar to the right of this post, I’ve added a donation mechanism – a button if you will – to my blog. It’s been a tough decision.
Why?
Since starting this blog, a number of people have come forward to kindly offer financial support. Others have suggested the inclusion of advertisements. Until now I’ve resisted both. As many of you will know, I’m currently writing a book on Israel/Palestine and freelancing, and as much as I enjoy what I’m doing, I’m hardly living the life of a king.
So, after much consideration, I’ve decided to go ahead with the donation button. If you’re feeling generous, or would simply like to show appreciation for the unique material published here, you can click on it to make a donation. I will not be reminding readers regularly about this feature. Do with it as you will.
And here we thought only Republicans were God-fearing ideologues. Think again. Wonkette reports:
"The state of Texas, birthplace of sexy cheerleading, continues its efforts to ban it: Yesterday, a bill passed the House and now it moves on to the Senate. Its sponsor, Democrat Al Edwards, thinks unprotected cheerleading leads to "young girls being pregnant in middle and high schools, dropping out of school, having babies, and contracting AIDS and herpes." So in a way, a law against suggestive pom-pom twirling is probably a pretty fair compromise, because if Edwards finds out it's actually sex that leads to all those things, who knows what legislation he'll try to enact?"
UPDATE: Al Edwards offers his unique definition of sexually suggestive cheerleading: "Everyone has their own ideas about what a sexual movement is. But if you're an adult and you've been involved in sex, you know it when you see it," Edwards said.
The following report is released by Israeli peace group Gush Shalom. In yet another example of the Israeli state trying to shut down dissent, peace groups demonstrating the route of the "separation fence" are met with violence from IDF troops. No provocation occurred. Yet another sign of Israeli "democracy" at work:
"Following the brutal attack on the non-violent demonstration in Bil'in village on April 28, today (May 3) a press conference was called by the organizations that had taken part. Some dozen foreign correspondents attended the conference, which was held at the office of the Alternative Information Center in Jerusalem.
"After Elan Frenkel (AIC) analysed the land grab in this area, Uri Avnery (Gush Shalom), Yonathan Pollack (Anarchists Against the Wall) and MK Gamal Zahalkeh (Balad) described in detail the events during the demonstration and pointed out that:
- The security forces had prepared in advance a trap for the demonstrators. One of the purposes was apparently to try out new methods of the Massada unit of the Prison Service as well as new weapons.
- The sole incidents of violence against the security forces came from the undercover agents of the Prison Service disguised as Arabs. It was pointed out that the Prison Service admitted the next day that its agents had indeed thrown the stones, and that this is their way of merging in the crowd.
- The use of "Arabized" undercover agents ("Mista'arvim") is designed to sow suspicion between Israeli and Palestinian peace activists and between the Palestinians themselves, in order to sabotage joint solidarity demonstrations. Every demonstrator can suspect the person next to him as an undercover agent.
- In the course of the demonstration it was apparent that for the Prison Service unit, which has never been used for such a purpose, this was a training exercise, and that it was trying out new methods.
- The officers present lied through their noses throughout the demonstration. They promised to release the prisoners within 10 minutes after the ending of the demonstration. When the demonstrators dispersed, the prisoners were not released.
"Sharon Dolev, one of the demonstrators hit by salt bullets, a registered nurse, showed the two wounds on her belly. Five days after the action, she still had black and red wounds. She complained of pains, and it seems that one of her ribs has been damaged.
"During the conference, a documentary filmed by Shay Pollack and Imad was shown. The film shows clearly that the security forces shot many dozens of gas grenades at the demonstrators without any provocation. The demonstrators were not violent at any stage.
"In particular, the film shows how the undercover agents, who look in the beginning like ordinary demonstrators, suddenly take off their masks, don police caps and draw revolvers, using ferocious violence to arrest the persons next to them, for no apparent reasons. This, too, looks like a training exercise.
"The foreign journalists posed many questions. Among others, they asked if such means were ever used against right-wing Israeli demonstrators. (The answer: No.)
"MK Zahalkeh announced that he is calling for a meeting of the Knesset Committee for Internal Affairs to discuss the grave events, and that he will demand the appointment of an official inquiry committee."
Watch this video to see exactly what happened - it makes for disturbing viewing.
"Personally, I'm voting Draino, the only party that promises to get people's drains unblocked within four calendar years of the blockage being reported."
Monty Python Terry Jones informs British voters where to direct their valuable vote during today's election. "Rampant voter apathy" is guaranteed.
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is arguably Washington's most powerful lobby group. The organisation holds extreme views on the Israel/Palestine conflict and has been a long-time opponent of negotiation with the Palestinians. Indeed, AIPAC's public and private persona couldn't be more different. Jeffrey Blankfort reported in 2003: "It [AIPAC] wanted to appear to be supportive of the 'road map,' while working to derail it." The uniformity of consensus within Washington towards Israel is partly due to the effectiveness of AIPAC's intense lobbying. Any Congressman or woman who dares speak out against Israel or its policies will find a better funded opponent next election.
Last August came a bombshell. It emerged that Larry Franklin, the Pengaton's then top Iran desk officer, met repeatedly with Naor Gilon, head of the political department at the Israeli Embassy in Washington, and a specialist on Iran's nuclear weapons program. Juan Cole reported last year: "Franklin did succeed in giving a confidential draft presidential directive on Iran to AIPAC officials, who then passed it to someone at the Israeli Embassy, perhaps Gilon. It is telling that the official took hard copy from AIPAC, presumably because he trusted them implicitly, whereas Gilon had rejected it from Franklin."
But does all this mean? The facts in this case still remain unclear but more pieces of the puzzle are emerging. AIPAC supports "regime change" in Iran. The removal of the mullahs in Tehran would eradicate another regional enemy of Israel, so the thinking goes. A number of senior members of the Bush administration are also opposed to Iran and support military action against the country's supposed nuclear capabilities. The involvement of a lobby group in the formulation of government policy strikes at the heart of America's faltering democracy.
Franklin surrendered to the FBI yesterday to face charges of illegal disclosure of classified information to AIPAC. This development, and much of this story, has received virtually no media coverage in Australia, and little in the US. Gorilla in the Room has summarised the major questions arising out of the latest revelations. These include:
- Franklin is known to have passed onto two now former senior AIPAC officials, Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman, "a draft Presidential decision directive which would have, if approved, made regime change rather than negotiation official U.S. policy toward Iran."
- A major goal of the Israeli government is military action against Iran. AIPAC, an American proxy of the Israeli government, with Franklin's help, has been pressuring members of Congress to support military strikes against Iran.
- What does the FBI have on AIPAC? It is quite possible that the Jewish lobby group would be exposed as leading the charge against Iraq. Phonetaps undoubtedly exist. Gorilla: "After all, the Office of Special Plans at the Pentagon was very heavily staffed with political appointees with very close personal ties to Israel. (This is the truth that dare not speak its name, but it's critical to understanding how the U.S. got snookered into invading Iraq.)"
- How much of the bogus intelligence used by America and its allies to justify action against Iraq came from Israeli intelligence sources? And is similarly flawed intelligence being used to lead the charge against Iran? When Ariel Sharon recently met Bush, he presented the US President with evidence that "proved" Iran was "near a point of no return" on its nuclear program.
- The infamous case of the forged documents related to alleged sales of uranium yellowcake from Niger to Iraq, infamously used by Bush in his State of the Union address in 2003. Somebody forged the documents. But whom? It seems unlikely that the Israelis did it, despite their large support for the Iraq invasion. Exposure would have resulted in a uncomfortable relationship between Israel and the US. But did one of the neo-cons do it for them? Larry Franklin perhaps? A timeline suggests this may have been the case.
The seriousness of these allegations has resulted in the mainstream media backing away from covering it in much detail at all. Discussion of the influence of Israel and its agents in America, and indeed Australia, remains one of the last great taboos.
Journalists should be demanding answers to these key questions:
1) Did we (America and its allies) invade Iraq partially due to pressure from the Israel lobby?
2) Are we moving in a similiar direction with Iran based on identical motives?
3) Does AIPAC's equivalent in Australia, AIJAC - a long-time supporter of war against Iraq and now making hawkish noises towards Iran - present Australian government officials with intelligence of Iran's "imminent threat"? Is there a possibility that a Larry Franklin equivalent exists in Australia, passing classified information to Israeli lobby groups?
Until a full investigation is conducted into AIPAC and its proxies in the Bush administration (unlikely to happen in the current political climate in Washington) we won't know the true impact and long-time ramifications of even partially subverting foreign policy to the Middle East only "democracy."
UPDATE: Haaretz provides a less than thorough "analysis" of the latest developments.
John Pilger released his new book in 2004, Tell Me No Lies: Investigative Journalism and its Triumphs. The collection contained numerous examples of exemplary reporting from the likes of Seymour Hersh, Robert Fisk, Greg Palast, Edward Said, Anna Politkovskaya, Martha Gellhorn and Pilger himself. Pilger wrote in the introduction of an age when questioning authority was never more essential. "Secretive power loathes journalists who do their job: who push back screens, peer behind facades, lift rocks", he wrote.
Then this gem:
"[A] favourite quotation belongs to the great Irish muckraker Claud Cockburn. "Never believe anything", he wrote, "until it is officially denied." That the state lies routinely is not what the media courses teach. If they did - and the evidence has never been in greater abundance - the cynicism that many young journalists believe ordains them as journalists would not be directed at their readers, viewers or listeners, but at those in false authority."
The Sydney Morning Herald published a positive review of the book on January 1, 2005. Written by Wendy Bacon, associate professor in journalism at the University of Technology, Sydney, it concluded that questioning the established orthodoxy was often what distinguished truly great journalism.
The following story reveals the duplicity of Australia's mainstream media, in this case the Melbourne Age, and the hidden agendas that frequently operate. It has not been published before.
*
The Age printed a review of the book on November 27, 2004 (no link available). It was written by Michael Gawenda, former editor-in-chief of The Age and current Washington correspondent for The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald. Here's his review:
The rants of a conspiracy theorist
John Pilger is a visiting professor at Cornell University in New York. His journalism is widely published in Britain, in the US and occasionally in Australia. His books sell in their thousands. His documentaries are shown on television all over the world. He is a success. Yet he writes as if he is the quintessential outsider who has suffered terribly for his craft, for his integrity, for being the voice of the down-trodden and the powerless.
Most journalists, according to Pilger, have been tamed by media corporations that employ them. The corporations do not serve the public interest; they serve the interests of the powerful, the rich, the corporations that run the world economy and most of all, the interests of the US, a brutal, ruthless imperial power, the 21st century incarnation of fascism.
Not Pilger. No one tames Pilger. His journalism is angry, self-righteous and fiercely polemical. There are no complexities in Pilger's journalism, no shades of grey. There are good guys and bad guys and the bad guys are invariably very bad indeed. Come to think of it, Pilger often sounds like George Bush in this, though they would have different takes on who are the good guys and who are the bad ones.
Frankly, I find his journalism tiresome and his writing over-blown and often close to a rant. He loves conspiracies. Nothing is as it seems. Nothing is ever a cock-up. He reads the report of the 9/11 Commission and what does he see? That senior Bush Administration officials including Vice-President Dick Cheney and Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld could have done something about the hijacked aircraft but didn't because they wanted something terrible to happen so they could get on with their real goal; the war against Iraq.
How does Pilger reach this conclusion? Well, the various agencies charged with homeland security failed to stop the September 11 attacks. He concedes, reluctantly, that they could have just cocked things up, but in Pilger's world, only tame journalists working for corrupt corporations would pretend to believe such nonsense. One of the occupational hazards of investigative journalism is the tendency to believe that nothing ever is as it seems, that everything that happens can be explained by some sort of conspiracy. Sometimes of course, it can be so. Great investigative journalism is capable of changing the way we see the world. It can reveal how the exercise of power is often accompanied by an amoral ruthlessness, how greed can be all consuming, how a lack of a moral and ethical compass can lead people to commit the most appalling acts of betrayal. It can force us to confront the inexplicable - the inhumanity that human beings are capable of, the almost unimaginable cruelty.
Sometimes, however - I'd say most of the time - the world is chaotic, human beings are full of contradictions, good is not in a clear-cut battle with evil and shit sometimes happens for no discernible reason. Some of what I would describe as investigative journalism - the work of, say, Helen Garner in Australia, Jeffrey Goldberg for The New Yorker, even Tom Wolfe before he became a second-rate novelist, would, I suspect, not be considered investigative journalism by Pilger. In a review of several books of journalism by A.J. Liebling in The New York Review of Books, Russell Baker writes that Liebling worked in an age when "all good journalists knew they had plenty to be modest about. The modest style required letting the reader know that the reporter was not godlike . . . but merely another frail human, maybe too woefully human to be entirely trustworthy. Liebling almost always made his presence felt, conceding that he was capable of error . . ."
Wonderful. I wonder how many journalists today would agree that they are frail human beings, capable of getting things wrong and, more importantly, that the best they can do and report what they see and hear and leave it to their readers to decide what it all means - if it means anything at all.
Liebling is not represented in Pilger's new book, a selection of articles by some of the best-known investigative reporters of the past half century, with an introduction by Pilger and with a short piece by him setting the context for each article. Neither is Garner, Goldberg, Wolfe - nor for that matter, Norman Mailer, whose journalism in the 1960s and '70s, unlike his fiction, is still worth reading. Among the 30 pieces in the book, there's Martha Gellhorn's description of the Dachau concentration camp on liberation, Wilfred Burchett's report from Hiroshima after the bomb, Seymour Hersh's article on the My Lai massacre in Vietnam, the CBS broadcaster Ed Murrow's attacks on McCarthyism and a few pieces by Robert Fisk, The Independent's long-time Middle East correspondent.
There is some really good journalism in the book - Hersh's My Lai investigation is outstanding as is Linda Mervin's piece on the Rwandan genocide - and most of the pieces, for working journalists at least, are well worth reading.
I could have done without Pilger's outrage in the introduction and his take on the context of each article. But those who like their journalism over-blown, will, undoubtedly enjoy the Pilger sermons in this book.
*
A few days after publication, Pilger wrote a letter to the Age in response, but it was rejected, he was told, "because we don't run responses to reviews."
This is a copy of Pilger's letter:
"The headline over Michael Gawenda's "review" of the collection I edited, Tell Me No Lies (November 27) is "The rants of a conspiracy theorist". This is how the Age represents 620 pages of some of the finest investigative journalism ever written. The introduction to the book refers to a degradation of modern journalism of which Gawenda's abuse is a vivid example. Apart from a few grudging words acknowledging the journalistic giants in the book, his article is both false and dishonest.
"He refers to the great reporter Linda Melvern as Linda Mervin. He says I describe the United States as "the incarnation of fascism"; I have never written anything of the kind. To substantiate his thesis that I am a conspiracy theorist, he totally misrepresents an article of mine which refers to the Kean Commission on 9/11 and which is not part of the book, although he gives the impression that it is. This deception is compounded by the fact that the article has never been published in Australia.
"None of this is surprising. In 1999, during the NATO attack on Yugoslavia, Gawenda, then editor of The Age, suppressed a piece of mine from the Guardian in London, saying that he didn't want "any of that anti-war stuff in the paper." Thereafter, under his editorship, almost all my syndicated work was rejected by that paper that once carried my world exclusive reports from Cambodia and East Timor. Such is the malaise of modern journalism, which Tell Me No Lies highlights, that this important collection was given out for review to one whose hatchet job was assured. Readers of The Age deserve better."
*
The week before the review's publication, Pilger was in Melbourne for an Age sponsored event promoting Tell Me No Lies. The paper's literary editor, Jason Steger, introduced Pilger and by all accounts offered a warm welcome. Pilger then wrote the following letter to him on November 29:
"When we spoken on Friday at the lunch, you knew very well that Gawenda had done his dishonest hatchet job on Tell Me No Lies. You would have signed off on the disgraceful headline. The corruption is pervasive; I have just learned that my letter to The Age, setting the record straight, is suppressed because "we don't run responses to reviews." Catch 22.
"However, your duplicity will not go unrecognised, be assured. I am including this episode, your role and Gawenda's, as a telling example of why press freedom in Australia stands at 50th in the world in a paper I am giving to media colleges here and in the UK and at Cornell University in the United States. This will form part of the introduction of my new book, due for completion in 2005, to be published in the UK, the US and here."
UPDATE: I have published the above correspondence and review to underscore the lengths to which dissenting voices are routinely shunned in the Australian media, especially a major figure like Pilger. He is one of our finest reporters, inquisitive, gutsy and consistent. Lest anybody misunderstand my intentions, the above example is a perfect case to me of the need for figures such as Pilger. The Age should be ashamed of its behaviour - I hope this example exposes them just a little.
Freedom House is a US-based "non-profit, nonpartisan organization...a clear voice for democracy and freedom around the world." Their latest report details the state of press freedom in the world in 2005. Notable setbacks were registered in the United States, the Americas and a host of other countries. Ukraine and Lebanon improved as did some nations in the Middle East.
"While the United States remained one of the strongest performers in the survey, its numerical score declined due to a number of legal cases in which prosecutors sought to compel journalists to reveal sources or turn over notes or other material they had gathered in the course of investigations. Additionally, doubts concerning official influence over media content emerged with the disclosures that several political commentators received grants from federal agencies, and that the Bush administration had significantly increased the practice of distributing government-produced news segments."
Australia fares little better, coming in 30th, way behind New Zealand, Jamaica, Ireland, Portugal and many others. Western Europe retains the highest level of press freedom worldwide while the worst rated are Burma, Cuba, Libya, North Korea, and Turkmenistan.
The report continues: "In terms of population, 17 percent of the world's inhabitants live in countries that enjoy a Free press, while 38 percent have a Partly Free press and 45 percent have a Not Free press. This situation represents a decline over the past year, as the percentage of people who live in countries with a Not Free media environment has increased by 2 percent."
US News and World Report magazine recently complained that the Bush administration has ''quietly but efficiently dropped a shroud of secrecy across many critical operations of the federal government - cloaking its own affairs from scrutiny and removing from the public domain important information on health, safety, and environmental matters. The result has been a reversal of a decades-long trend of openness in government.'' Similar complaints could be directed at the Howard government in Australia.
Until the mainstream media join forces to complain frequently and loudly about these erosions to our right to know, our democracy will continue to diminish.
Bob Hunter, founder of Greenpeace, has died. Long live the memory of a man who understood what humans were doing to the planet:
""An eco-shitstorm is coming...everything rests upon whether or not we come to terms with the politics of earth and sky, evolution and transformation. Otherwise, in our lifetimes, we shall suffer...the fall of nature itself."
Iraqi journalists are complaining of restrictions while trying to report fairly. Iraqi and American forces are making numerous arbitrary arrests, frequently without cause. "If things carry on like this, we will have to carry weapons along with our cameras and recorders," said Israa Shakir, editor of Iraq Today, an independent Baghdad newspaper. "Under such circumstances, we should be worried about the future of democracy."
While Western journalists are housed in a few hotels in Baghdad, rarely venturing outside to determine what real Iraqis think of the occupation, Iraqi journalists are on the ground and risking their lives to report bombings, arrests etc. Al-Jazeera is still banned in Iraq. The Iraqi government talks about fighting "terrorism" but in the process is reverting to techniques refined during the days of Saddam.
Should bloggers have to divulge if they're taking money to spruik political candidates or parties? The Washington Post investigates.
It seems pretty clear to me. If you're taking money from an individual or group and don't reveal the source and reason why, you're leaving yourself open to (justified) charges of being bought for positive coverage or online favours. Hardly ideal for an independent voice.
Veteran political commentator Michelle Grattan gave a speech in Melbourne last night for the Deakin lectures. She argued that the relationship between media and politicians was at an all-time low:
"When I arrived in Canberra in the 1970s, if you were armed with a Commonwealth Directory it wasn't hard to get to know a lot of bureaucrats and obtain basic background. Now, although some bureaucrats, especially senior ones, will talk to some journalists whom they trust, the majority will run a mile from the most innocuous media call. Most departments have strict rules that officers should report media contacts to the minister's office. Even the bureaucrats who will take the calls feel more constrained."
Her suggestions to improve transparency, accountability and honesty included making the media "simultaneously more constructive and more critical." Furthermore, Grattan talked of a need for "less trashing of politicians. On the other side of the coin, eyes should be sharper and should be more rigorous."
Grattan made some valuable comments and was at least capable, unlike most senior journalists housed in the Canberra Press Gallery, to criticise her colleagues frequent lack of determination in pursuing stories and contacts. "Political investigative journalism is not strong", she said. "Where, for example, is the expose of the culture of the Immigration Department?"
She did, however, miss some fundamentals. The failure of the mainstream media - certainly those not wedded to the establishment orthodoxy of market capitalism and gung-ho militarism (such as the Murdoch press) - is the ongoing acceptance of government stalling on major issues as little more than unfortunate. Not detrimental to open democracy, mind you. These same news organisations, including Fairfax, will still support the re-election of John Howard or, say, Bob Carr in NSW, two masters of spin and duplicity.
Take this example of Grattan's hypocrisy. When Australian citizen Mamdoub Habib was released from Guantanamo Bay earlier this year and returned to Australia, Grattan wrote that he "cannot reasonably complain about [remaining under watch] by Australian authorities." Despite a lack of evidence produced by the Australian or American authorities against Habib, Grattan still accepted the spin put forward by Attorney General Phillip Ruddock that continued surveillance of Habib was necessary. Perhaps she'd forgotten that Habib was an innocent man, held illegally and not charged with any offence.
But Grattan also forgot something else. If she is so concerned about the lack of transparency in contemporary Australian life, she should take a closer look at the Canberra Press Gallery. The ever-increasing intimacy between journalists and politicians is one of the great shams of the system. Have you ever noticed that politicians call reporters by their first name? Ever wondered why journalists faithfully visit the Lodge every Xmas for the annual end-of-year drinks? It is this collusion, and the lack of distance between what should be competing players, that make for truly diminished media coverage.
Journalists are not supposed to be mates with politicians or their press agents. A healthy working relationship is clearly essential but socialising together is inappropriate. During a recent conversation with Robert Fisk in Beirut, he reminded me of the situation in Washington during press conferences with Bush, Rumsfeld or a handful of other American leaders. "The journalists rarely ask tough questions", Fisk told me. "They're called by their first names by the politicians and prefer basking in the glow of thinking some hot-shot politician is taking their question." The situation in Australia is often little better.
Grattan ignores the corporate pressures on mainstream media organisations. Journalists wanting the truth will often not be a strong enough imperative to upset advertisers. UK-based Medialens has long campaigned about the inherent inability of the mainstream media to actively engage in issues that require in-depth critiques of big business and its connection to government. Their report of 16 February 2005 discussed the ways in which Tony Blair is praised for his commitment to the environment:
"This is the standard media view: on climate change, Blair is 'determined', 'committed' and 'listening' to the major NGOs. Thus: 'The Prime Minister is hosting a 'power breakfast' of business leaders, politicians and environmentalists at Downing Street on Wednesday, where he will unveil a new five-year strategy to combat global warming.' Mr Blair is calling for Britain to 'pull together as a country'."
Michelle Grattan may want tougher journalists and more pro-active editors but this wish will not be enough. How much longer will we rely on the mainstream media to deliver results when they are structurally incapable of delivering? Let us not forget the performance during last year's Federal Election. The ALP was seen as bad for business while the Liberals were seen to guarantee more of the same business-friendly, union-bashing policies.
Former media guru Max Suich may think that media owners have little influence anymore - "Australia's media outlets are less politically predictable these days. Why? Because of the freedom from board, management and proprietor interference that editors and reporters now enjoy. This journalistic freedom, an event of the past 15 years or so, is greater than at any time since World War II" - but he clearly has no understanding of media management in 2005. The Fairfax board, as one example, is made up of executives with no media experience and individuals determined to be bought by a financed media mogul after the cross-media laws inevitably change soon after July 1. Editorial quality is the least of their concerns. A high share price certainly will be their priority.
Grattan may have the best of intentions, but her naivety is stunning. Once again, independent media will continue to play an essential role in keeping the bastards honest.
Darfur continues to be a major humanitarian disaster. Despite international attention on the continuing massacres, little concrete action is occurring. The Americans are hesitating to get involved for reasons less than noble, the UN prevaricates, the EU is pre-occupied with (rightly) fighting American hegemony (though this is hardly an excuse not to act in circumstances like these) and the African Union is weak. The New York Times' Nicholas Kristof explains the background to Bush's inaction.
The Darfur Accountability Act, already passed by the US Senate, recommends "for such steps as freezing assets of the genocide's leaders and imposing an internationally backed no-fly zone to stop Sudan's Army from strafing villages." Bush is directing Congress not to take action. Why? Kristof explains three reasons. The third is the most disturbing:
"Sudan's leaders have increased their cooperation with the C.I.A. As The Los Angeles Times reported, the C.I.A. recently flew Sudan's intelligence chief to Washington for consultations about the war on terror, and the White House doesn't want to jeopardize that channel."
So there we have it. Collusion in the "War on Terror" takes precedence over saving millions of lives. Bush talks about spreading democracy and freedom around the world but the reality is much darker than he'd like people to know. Let us not forget that Sudan was a longtime supporter of al-Qaeda. It is now a "valuable ally" of the CIA.
As the LA Times reported on April 29: "Last month, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice sent a letter to the Bashir government [in Khartoum] calling for steps to end the conflict in Darfur. But the letter, reviewed by The Times, also congratulated Sudan for increased cooperation with an African Union mission to Darfur. It also said the administration hoped to establish a "fruitful relationship" with Sudan and looked forward to continued "close cooperation" on terrorism."
When our mainstream media pleads for the US to take a more pro-active role in ending the genocide in Sudan, watch if they even mention the ongoing collusion between the murderous regime in Sudan and Washington.
Former Soviet dissident Natan Sharansky has resigned from the Israeli cabinet due to his opposition to withdrawing Jewish settlers from Gaza and areas of the West Bank. "I consider the disengagement plan to be a tragic mistake that exacts a high price and also encourages terror," Mr Sharansky told Israel Army Radio.
The eccentric politician, who spent years in a Soviet gulag, has reportedly influenced George W. Bush after writing The Case for Democracy, a manifesto explaining the difference between societies of freedom (Israel, the US etc) and societies of fear (the Palestinian Authority, Iran etc.) In a recent interview, Sharansky outlined his philosophy: "I have said for years that it is much more important for us to deal with a democracy which hates you than with a dictator who loves you."
His theories sound convincing, in theory, but read the fine-print. Sharansky believes that Israel should offer no concessions to the Palestinians until they build an acceptable democracy. In other words, he tells PA leader Mahmoud Abbas, we refuse to negotiate with you until you've conducted actions that we, and only we, deem appropriate. Furthermore, he's been a long-time supporter of stripping rights of Palestinians living in and around East Jerusalem. In other words, his position on these matters allows him to fit in perfectly with any number of Israeli leaders who believe in the superiority of their cause over the Palestinians.
These are classic stalling tactics. How dare a man who claims to believe in democracy restrict the right of an occupied people to resist their oppression? What kind of so-called democrat is happy allowing Israel to continue building settlements in the West Bank while severely restricting freedom of movement for Palestinians? No wonder Sharansky calls Bush a "dissenting" President because "my enthusiasm for Bush is in his return to the line taken by President Reagan.
As a Justice Department aide in January 2002, John Yoo wrote a legal brief arguing that fighters captured by U.S. troops in Afghanistan were not covered by the Geneva conventions.
Woo is now a Professor of Law at Boalt Law School. He recently engaged in a debate at Columbia Law School with Columbia University Professor Jeremy Waldron. Topic of discussion was the use of torture by the Bush administration and legal covers for doing so. Yoo was perfectly comfortable with his original advice and moreover suggested that it wasn't the job of a lawyer to inject morality into the debate:
"In [writing] the legal memos, what’s the function of a lawyer? I view the function of a lawyer in those cases as to interpret the Geneva Conventions or the torture statute and not to interject my own moral views into what the government should do. . . [The moral arguments] are the kinds of things that ought to be considered in an analysis that’s separate from the legal analysis."
Waldren disagreed.
"I think with regard to some law, you can do the strict separation between the letter of the law and the moral spirit that Professor Yoo has indicated. [W]ith regard to much human rights law, and much international law, and much constitutional law, sometimes you cannot do that; you cannot understand the human rights provisions without understanding - at least in some sense - the moral ideas that inform it, imbue it, give it its coherence, shape its concepts, give us our sense of its importance. I believe that’s true of human rights provisions prohibiting torture. I believe it’s true also of the scheme of protection laid down in the Geneva Conventions. You need to understand this not as a strange set of runes which we will look at as if we’ve never seen them before, and have no idea what they’re trying to do, but [will] try to figure out what the text requires. In some sense, that’s obtuse lawyering, as well as obtuse morally."
Waldren's essential message was one of duplicity and hypocrisy. How can America expect other countries to follow international law and norms, when its own government so openly flaunts the rulebook? Legal blog Ex Post explains a defence of Waldren ("...the positive law absolutely forbids torture, period") and dismisses the "nuclear scenario" posed to him, namely that if the US government had, say, an al-Qaeda operative who allegedly knew of a nuclear attack, torture would be a legitimate form of interrogation in a post 9/11 world.
Ex-Post: "The unreality of that hypothetical, to reiterate, is this: Al Qaeda, in the real world, does not trust its operatives enough to let any one of them know the details of its operations. Neither, for that matter, did/does the IRA in Ireland. Terrorists, no strangers to torture themselves, prepare to avert its risks. Further, our intelligence gathering against Al Qaeda occurs over years, not in discrete, crucial moments, conveniently and identifiably proximate to the tragedy being plotted. How many people are too many to torture, over how much time, and with what variability of certainty as to their knowledge of what might be transpiring?"
The 2005 Orwell Awards have been announced, dedicated to "the worst violators of press freedom in the past year." The local recipient joins an illustrious overseas winner. Both men have shown utter contempt for truth and fairness and frankly deserve an extended holiday in a country perhaps more suited to their temperament.
Debbie Stach was an old friend. A questioning Jew who believed in the tradition of Tikkun, to heal, repair and transform the world. She became a doctor and dedicated herself to helping Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory. She died in a car accident in South Australia in February 2004. I only discovered the news today after reading the Australian Jewish News.
Her death, nearly 1.5 years ago, makes me realise how we'd completely lost touch. We dated briefly many years ago and I remember her challenging me on my increasingly anti-Zionist ideas. How could I reconcile my Judaism with my views on Israel, she would ask? It's a question I'm still struggling with today. She also had a cheeky sense of humour.
Her parents have established the Debbie Stach Memorial Fund to support initiatives in areas to which she was committed, such as environment issues, artistic and cultural pursuits and Aboriginal health.
For those inclined, tax-deductible donations can be sent to:
Debbie Stach Memorial Fund PO Box 2265 Caulfield Junction VIC, 3161 Australia
Robert Fisk reflects on Western support for dictatorships in the Middle East. From Iraq to Syria, Egypt to Saudi Arabia, the US and Britain have long aided and abetted those country's dictators hold on power and their regular abuse of it. Those days are over? Hardly, as Fisk explains:
"Jack Straw, my favourite Trot, branded Gaddafi a "statesman" after he vowed to dismantle the non-existent weapons of mass destruction he claimed to possess, but that was only a few weeks before the Saudis discovered that Gaddafi was planning to assassinate Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, one of George W Bush's best friends in Arabia - enough of this story, because it has not been told."
(Furthermore, numerous "terrorists" are currently residing in Florida, who "for decades have waged a campaign against Cuba of hit-and run attacks, sabotage, infiltration of armed agents, assassination, etc.")
In the wake of recent allegations that Tony Blair agreed to send troops into Iraq months before informing the British public (the top secret document of 2002 outlines the desired course of action, including this conclusion: "We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action"), the Observer printed another startling report yesterday that has been ignored in Australia:
"The man who led Britain's armed forces into Iraq [Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, the former Chief of the Defence Staff] has said that Tony Blair and the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, will join British soldiers in the dock if the military are ever prosecuted for war crimes in Iraq." Moreover, despite rhetoric suggesting otherwise, the US and Britain (and therefore Australia) are today fighting a war in Iraq that is getting worse, not better.
Boyce was never shown the legal cover required to guarantee him future protection against prosecution. "If my soldiers went to jail and I did, some other people would go with me," he said.
While we're bombarded with propaganda on the supposed dangers of North Korea, Iran and Syria, reports such as this are routinely ignored:
"The U.S. military plans to allow regional combatant commanders to request the president for approval to carry out preemptive nuclear strikes against possible attacks on the United States or its allies with weapons of mass destruction, according to a draft new nuclear operations paper."
Kyodo News outlines the Bush administration's seeming willingness to even discuss the possibility of engaging with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons.
The lack of understanding of Judaism and Israel in Bangladesh is examined by writer Tanveer Ahmed in the country's leading English language paper (scroll down the page.)
Ahmed reckons the reason behind ignorance in the community is simply because so few Jews have ever lived in Bangladesh:
"An interesting fact is that the Bangladeshi passport is accepted in every country in the world except for Israel. There was also the notable incident in 2003 where journalist Mr Salah Choudhury was arrested for anti-religious activities and accused of treason for daring to board a plane in Dhaka that was bound ultimately to Israel. He was going to address a human rights conference in Tel Aviv to help encourage tolerance between Muslims and Jews."
Former leader of the Australian Labor Party and potential Prime Minister, Mark Latham, is publishing his memoirs. After a vigorous bidding war, Melbourne University Press (MUP) will be releasing the diaries in October. Promising vitriol against Labor and the media, Latham's book has been described by MUP CEO Louise Adler as, "an intoxicating cocktail" and "letters from the trenches".
$150,000 is the rumoured price for the work, although this figure is unconfirmed. I've never been a strong supporter of Latham or the Labor party, but a tell-all memoir may be just what the party needs to shock it out of its entrenched conservatism. We can only hope.
(Disclosure: MUP is publishing my book on the Israel/Palestine conflict in 2006.)
"A Web site claiming close ties to Al-Qaida has announced that the leader of the international terror network, Osama bin Laden, is dead, the London-based Arabic daily Asharq Al Awsat reported Friday."
Who won tonight's prestigious award for Australia's Worst Male TV Personality?
I shall add little more than hearty congratulations to the winner and wish him less exposure in the coming year. Kerry Packer will thank you, Mr Everywhere.
Attacks on public broadcasters around the world have increased in the last years. Murdoch has been a longtime critic of the BBC, ABC and PBS. His media cheerleaders talk about ingrained left-wing bias and lack of accountability in these institutions but their true aim is more sinister - the eradication of any credible competition to the corporate agenda. Who can forget Murdoch crony Tony Ball talking about the public's supposed dissatisfaction with the BBC? His plan, of course, was to split up the national broadcaster and lessen its overall reach across Britain and the world. It matters little to Murdoch and his ilk that in survey and survey the public express strong support in the independence of the BBC. Likewise with the ABC in Australia.
Take this 2003 survey conducted by British public relations company Weber Shandwick in relation to Iraq's WMD. The results speak for themselves: "The public is two times more likely to trust the BBC over the Government on the issue of weapons of mass destruction. More than half (54%) of the respondents are much more likely (28%) or somewhat more likely (26%) to believe the BBC on the issue of WMDs. Only one in five (21%) are much more likely (9%) or somewhat more likely (12%) to believe the government.
The European Federation of Journalists reports that journalists across Europe are banding together to voice their concern over the crisis in public broadcasting. Arne König, the Chairman of the EFJ, says that aside from worker's rights being questioned, political pressure is attempting to silence dissenting viewpoints. "More than ever, these values need to be defended," says König.
The state of Australia's public broadcasters, ABC and SBS, is worrying. Governmental pressure is resulting in increasingly reluctant staff tackling the hard issues or asking the tough questions. We now have to rely on comedy to provide the most incisive political comment:
INTERVIEWER: Mr Howard, I wondered if the meaning of Anzac Day has somehow changed?
JOHN HOWARD: Anzac Day is a day of great importance in the Australian calendar, Graham.
INTERVIEWER: What do you think that importance is?
JOHN HOWARD: Well, I think the essential lessons and characters of Anzac Day are as they have always been, Bryan.
INTERVIEWER: And what are they?
JOHN HOWARD: Well, it celebrates that very important time when the Australian Government made a very significant decision, Bryan to
INTERVIEWER: To do as it was told by an imperial power.
JOHN HOWARD: -- to assemble a very, very impressive body of young men, very talented, very resourceful young men and to send them away to
INTERVIEWER: Invade another country.
JOHN HOWARD: -- to defend Britain.
INTERVIEWER: By invading Turkey.
***
The Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA) is holding the annual Orwell Awards - "the gong for the annual tongue-in-cheek anti-press freedom awards." Aimed at those in power who actively discourage press freedom, including the majority of the ministers in the Howard government. One note of advice to the MEAA. Holding an Inaugural World Press Freedom Dinner tomorrow night is a noble idea, and speakers include shit-stirrers David Marr, Richard Neville and John Birmingham. But how the hell did the NSW Premier Bob Carr score an invitation? He has more press secretaries than John Howard and is the master of spin. His press secretary Walt Secord won an award in 2003 for best spinner in the state.
***
A final warning to those who believe in retaining the current state of affairs regarding Australian defamation laws. This report by the University of Melbourne proves that our freedom of speech, compared to the US, is being seriously eroded:
"This article reports on a comparative content analysis of more than 1,400 Australian and US newspaper articles. The study suggests that in the US - where defamation plaintiffs face much heavier burdens than under Australian law - defamatory allegations are made more frequently against both political and corporate actors than in Australia. The US articles contained apparently defamatory allegations at nearly three times the rate of the Australian sample. In particular, the Australian media appeared to be less comfortable making allegations in relation to corporate affairs than its US counterpart. In addition, some US articles included far more extreme commentary than the Australian sample, which suggests a less restrained style of public debate may be fostered under US law. Through introducing comparative content analysis to Australian media law research, the article supports the idea that Anglo-Australian defamation law has a chilling effect media speech."
Reform is essential, as online magazine Crikey have been saying for years.
The release of UK Attorney General Lord Goldsmith's pre-war legal advice regarding Iraq throws the debate into unchartered territory. Tony Blair has been forced to speak weasel words in his defence ("I did not lie over Iraq") but a large percentage of the British public now simply do not believe their Prime Minister.
Fundamental to Australia is the legal advice offered to John Howard. On what basis did the Prime Minister commit this country to war? Legal eagle Richard Ackland today asks the key question:
"How did the legal smoke-and-mirrors game play out in this corner of the globe? The Prime Minister, John Howard, told the House of Representatives on March 18, 2003: "Our legal advice … is unequivocal … This legal advice is consistent with that provided to the British Government by its Attorney General.
"As we now realise, the legal advice to the British Government was highly equivocal. With which piece of legal advice was Howard's legal advice consistent?"
Pressure must be placed on the government to release its own legal advice. Without it, serious doubts will remain over the true intentions of our elected officials.
Ahmed Chalabi, former Pentagon favourite, failed coup leader, alleged spy for Iran and provider of false information regarding Iraq's WMDs, is back. As acting Iraqi oil minister. The mind boggles. The oil fields were "secured" almost before the invasion began and yet more than two years after the invasion, oil revenues are reaping not a fraction that was predicted.
Deputy Secretary of Defence, Paul Wolfiwitz, told the U.S. House Budget Committee on February 27, 2003 that oil exports would pay for the reconstruction of post-invasion Iraq: "It's got already, I believe, on the order of $15 billion to $20 billion a year in oil exports, which can finally - might finally be turned to a good use instead of building Saddam's palaces. It has one of the most valuable undeveloped sources of natural resources in the world. And let me emphasize, if we liberate Iraq those resources will belong to the Iraqi people, that they will be able to develop them and borrow against them.”
One can safely interpret "borrow" to mean the rapid arrival of massive financial loans on the condition that privatisation of natural resources and essential services are undertaken by Western multinationals.
But I digress. The Sydney Morning Herald's Paul McGeough reports today on the suffering of Iraqi children due to the effects of depleted uranium.
McGeough writes: "The rest of the world vowed to help Iraq after the ousting of Saddam Hussein. Billions ofdollars have been set aside and because Basra is Iraq's only city by the sea, hundreds of military and civilian supply convoys thunder past its hospitals, heading to Baghdad and other centres as part of a huge military and reconstruction effort.
"But few trucks stop at these hospitals. A few did pull up outside the Al-Sadr Teaching Hospital a month ago and dumped donated second-hand hospital equipment from Japan in the forecourt. But no one knows how to install it all - so the delivery just gathers dust and its flat surfaces have become an extension of the waiting room for day patients."
Chalabi's reputation is so sullied that his appointment throws into question the agendas behind the endorsement of a government by the National Assembly. Already, Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari's connections to Iran remain unclear.
"Tony Blair was told by the government's most senior law officer in a confidential minute less than two weeks before the war that British participation in the American-led invasion of Iraq could be declared illegal."
A startling revelation in today's Guardian and a story that should receive widespread coverage in Australia, but has not, thus far. The BBC and Independent are leading with the story and yet neither the Sydney Morning Herald nor News Limited websites mention the yarn at all. The Age features the story from Reuters. Will any paper in Australia dare print the story on their front page tomorrow, giving it equal weight to the numerous page one articles before the war channelling government propaganda on WMDs?
Let's take a look back. At the time of the Iraq invasion in early 2003, Bush, Blair and Howard all claimed that the "Coalition of the Unwilling" was engaged in lawful behaviour. John Howard said on March 14, 2003: "There is adequate legal authority in the existing [UN] resolutions for force to be used." Dissenting views were expressed but had little practical effect.
Fast forward to 2005. The British election is days away. Tony Blair is likely to win (a report in today's Australian explains this will be largely due to a "badly distorted electoral system") but the leaking of the UK Attorney General Lord Goldsmith's pre-war advice reveals that serious doubts were expressed merely days before the invasion, not least because of dubious evidence of Iraq's WMD capability. Ten days later, Blair claimed his country could enter the war legally. What happened during those ten days remains a mystery though governmental pressure on the Attorney General seems likely.
In October 2003, leading Pentagon hawk Richard Perle admitted that the Iraq war was illegal. "International law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone", and this would have been morally unacceptable, Perle said. This caused barely a ripple. Indeed, in 2003 the New Yorker's Seymour Hersh uncovered numerous shady dealings involving Perle and arms dealing. Today, however, with an upsurge in violence across Iraq, an ever-increasing "Coalition" death toll and no clear exit strategy, the new leaks will hopefully re-focus attention on the nature of taking a country to war.
Families of some of the British soldiers killed in Iraq are preparing legal action against Blair based on the leaked information. Furthermore, the initial concerns expressed by Lord Goldsmith were never seen by the British Cabinet, "an apparent breach of the official code covering ministerial behaviour", reports the Guardian.
Can you imagine a world where Western leaders could be brought before an international court and charged with war crimes? As John Pilger said in 2003: "To call them war criminals is not to take a cheap shot. It is to speak the truth. In 1946, the judges at the Nuremberg war crimes trials said that unprovoked aggression against another state was, and I quote, 'the supreme international war crime because it contains all the evils of other war crimes.'"
Those who argue that the Iraq issue is dead misunderstand the direction our leaders are taking us. Just a few weeks ago, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon asked George W. Bush to step up pressure on Iran's alleged nuclear weapon's facilities. Today we learn that the US is likely to sell bunker-buster bombs to Israel, weapons designed to destroy underground nuclear factories.
It has already been proven that the Iraq war was illegal. The next challenge is to bring accountability back to Western democracy and today's news brings the public one small step closer to realising how far our governments have strayed.
"Journalism is not a profession or a trade. It is a cheap catch-all for fuck-offs and misfits - a false doorway to the backside of life. A filthy, piss-ridden little hole nailed off by the building inspector, but just deep enough for a wino to curl up up from the sidewalk and masturbate like a chimp in a zoo cage."
This weekend signals the beginning of the Eighth Annual Freelance Convention for Journalists, Artists and Photographers organised by the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance. If you're in Sydney, or feel the need to get here, it'll be well worth a visit. Speakers include ABC's Kerry O'Brien and Jonathan Harley and Garry Linnell, editor-in-chief of The Bulletin. They'll be talking on all media matters, including pitching stories to editors, interview techniques and new media.
I'll be speaking on Sunday morning on the topic: "Web Tactics: Blogging and New Technologies." I'll be joined by Trevor Cook, a director of PR firm Jackson Wells Morris. Expect heated debate over the impact of blogging on journalism and perhaps the odd joke about Rupert Murdoch's recent realisation that money could be made on the internet.
George W. Bush isn't one to engage in debate. Indeed, he much prefers talking to slavish followers, Republican hacks and media cheerleaders. He recently toured the US promoting his plan to privatise social security. He conducted fake town hall meetings where nobody spoke out of line and everybody congratulated their President. Why? Republican media strategist Frank Luntz explains: "A real town hall can be very dangerous if it gets out of control. A town hall where the speaker cannot command the respect and the control of the audience can look very bad on television. ... To me the most important component of a successful town hall is the visual, is the backdrop." And, Luntz forgot to add, a lack of real debate. The Bush administration is getting pretty proficient at selling itself and many news organisations are either oblivious or happy to go along for the ride.
Watch this exclusive report to prepare yourself for the onslaught of fake news coming soon to a TV near you.
The election of Josef Ratzinger as the new Catholic Pontiff has drawn the predictable cries from familiar circles, including this one. And critics are just warming up. How about the connections between Ratzinger and Opus Dei, the secretive sect associated with fascism and American Supreme Court judges? What about the links between the new Pope and the Bush family? Conspiratorial? Hardly. Take this example, one of many detailed by the Planetary Movement:
"When George Bush visited John Paul II in June of last year, he asked the Pontiff for a political favour. Shortly thereafter, Cardinal Ratzinger issued a letter to American bishops that essentially threatened to excommunicate all Catholics who voted for John Kerry. Upon receipt of the letter, five prominent Roman Catholic bishops held an unprecedented press conference to proclaim their preference for George Bush over his rival, John Kerry. Bush received 6% more Roman Catholic votes last year than he did in 2000, even though his opponent was a lifelong Catholic who had served as an altar boy. Ratzinger’s political intervention had worked wonders for neoconservativism, and it is now being recognized as one of the most decisive factors in Bush’s electoral strategy."
Ratzinger has a history of silencing critics who challenge the church's behaviour over sexual abuse. Many critics, including some critical of this blog, argue that challenging the new Pope is somehow inappropriate, insensitive, intolerant, prejudicial. My point has never been to chastise Catholics for their faith. I take issue, however, with the history of Ratzinger, his associations and the likely future of an increasingly tight union between religious fundamentalism and the political realm. The flaunting of religious belief for the sake of political gain seen across the Western world is yet another sign of traditional democratic values being challenged.
Ratzinger deserves to be questioned and investigated like any other religious leader. Of course, not many other religions would appoint someone like Ratzinger to the throne.
Will the US need to reinstate the draft? The military establishment realise that to maintain troop levels in Iraq and throughout the world, 100,000 more men and women are required.
This could be the best thing for the movement against American militarism in decades.
The following is Israeli peace group Gush Shalom's weekly message to be published tomorrow in Haaretz:
After 29 years of occupation, the last Syrian soldier has left Lebanon.
The Syrians consider Lebanon part of their "historic homeland". They thought that their occupation is "irreversible". Now, suddenly, they were forced to leave.
Many Israelis consider the occupied territories part of our historic homeland. They believe that the occupation is "irreversible".
But in the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and the Golan Heights, too, the occupation will come to an end. And perhaps much sooner than many people expect.
Jonathan Steele, the Guardian's senior foreign correspondent and Dahr Jamail, a freelance American journalist explain the significance of Fallujah and the price paid in that "hotbed" of anti-American insurgency.
We still don't know the true cost of American attacks. Casualty figures vary wildly, but thousands of civilians may have been murdered. This town, the "symbol of defiance", is still under siege and atrocities are being reported by the few brave journalists entering the city.
"Dr Hafid al-Dulaimi, head of the city's compensation commission...reports that 36,000 homes were destroyed in the US onslaught, along with 8,400 shops. Sixty nurseries and schools were ruined, along with 65 mosques and religious sanctuaries.
"Daud Salman, an Iraqi journalist with the Institute for War and Peace Reporting, on a visit to Falluja two weeks ago, found that only a quarter of the city's residents had gone back. Thousands remain in tents on the outskirts. The Iraqi Red Crescent finds it hard to go in to help the sick because of the US cordon around the city."
Read the whole thing. This is Iraqi "liberation" in the trenches.
Many in the mainstream media shun bloggers, content believing that by burying their head in the sand, the online revolution will simply disappear. No such luck, cultural heathens. Most bloggers have no corporate affiliation, are independently funded and can speak their mind freely, without having to toe the company line. True independence within the corporate media structure is next to impossible. Mainstream journalists know it and owners love it.
Juan Cole helpfully articulates the reasons bloggers are vitally important in this age of "consolidation":
"If we were the mainstream media, we would be accountable to CEOs and editors and advertisers, all of whom have motives for suppressing some pieces of news and highlighting others. You might think to yourself that this is a diverse enough group that the story would still get through. But with media consolidation, fewer and fewer persons make the decisions."
Media owned by Rupert Murdoch or newspapers published by Fairfax have both hidden and acknowledged agendas. So do many bloggers. But self-censorship is the only thing stopping bloggers highlighting a story or putting forward an opinion.
"We are not the mainstream media, and we are here. Get used to it." Cole tells it like it is. Besides, are we going to simply rely on the Sydney Morning Herald or New York Times for information?
Gorilla in the Room continues its essential role in discussing the unmentionable. They highlight a startling article in Haaretz by Efraim Halevy, former head of the Mossad and now Ariel Sharon's national security advisor. In a candid piece aimed at an Israeli audience, Halevy analyses the desired future role of the US in the Middle East. Gorilla outlines the revelations:
"A large part of the reason Saudi Arabia is so unstable right now is the U.S. presence in Iraq, which has made the vast majority of Arabs and Muslims feel that the U.S. has gone to war against the whole Islamic world. Halevy's (and the neocons', and AIPAC's) preferred solution for all of this is additional U.S. wars against other Arab and Muslim (Iran) states, a resumption of the draft (where else would we get hundreds of thousands of additional Americans to serve as cannon fodder for this?), and a "generational" presence as occupiers in the region. (Of course, this would generate additional impetus for terrorism against the U.S. itself.)"
To this I would add the following. As an Australian, I question whether the government of John Howard is signing us up for adventures in Iraq, Afghanistan and who knows where else, with a vested interest in allowing America's role in the region to increase. When Australia sends more troops to Iraq, we are asked to believe that it's to secure the Iraqi people and provide democracy. Alternative theories are essential. Historian Clinton Fernandes argues, instead: "Today, Australian military personnel are participating in the US-led attempt to create a stable investment climate, complete with a vast military presence, in Iraq." This involvement mirrors, Fernandes posits, a repeat of similiar behaviour in relation to Asia, especially Indonesia under General Soeharto.
It's time to dispense the myth that the Iraq invasion was about bringing democracy to the country. American, British and Australian financial and political interests are seen to align in the Middle East region. Never believe anyone who says otherwise.
I'm currently reading a fascinating book that expands on these matters. Iraq Inc.: A Profitable Occupation reveals the private contractors profiting from the occupation. Writer Pratap Chatterjee (managing editor of CorpWatch) painfully details how going to war makes good business sense. Hear the storm clouds gathering over Iran?
