Monthly Archive for March, 2005

The "no kidding" stories of the day

John Danforth, a former senator and US ambassador to the United Nations, writes in yesterday’s New York Times that the Republican Party has fallen hostage to the religious right. “Republicans have transformed our party into the political arm of conservative Christians”, he said.

Palestinian women have borne the brunt of the pain inflicted by four-and-a-half years of conflict but their plight has been largely ignored, Amnesty International says and reported by The Independent today. Both the Israelis and Palestinians are criticised. The Israelis for regularly refusing women to cross checkpoints and gain medical access and the Palestinian Authority (PA) for not addressing issues such as honour killings.

Watch these stories ignored or spun out of recognition in the West. Bush devotees will mention his democratic vision and love of freedom, conveniently ignoring issues such as Guantanamo Bay and the Palestinians will be blamed for causing terrorism and therefore, by extension, shouldn’t be expecting treatment with compassion. The PA will be dismissed as corrupt (which it is) and ineffective (fairly accurate) but frequently forgotten in this debate is the fact that the Israeli military has spent the last four years destroying the entire infrastructure within Palestinian society.

Torture, Colin says "oops" and what we should be doing

German publication Der Spiegel yesterday released a report showing that US General Ricardo Sanchez authorized illegal interrogation techniques in Iraq just months before the Abu Ghraib abuses. In further evidence that Geneva conventions were wilfully ignored after the US invasion, the latest revelations add weight to the charge that senior elements of the US military acted in the knowledge that their superiors were unlikely to chastise them.

Furthermore, former US Secretary of State Colin Powell said this week that he was “furious and angry” that the information he presented to the UN in February 2003 was wrong. “We were sometimes too loud, too direct, perhaps we made too much noise,” Powell told Germany’s Stern magazine. Admitting that blatant lies were told that led to an illegal invasion isn’t something we’re likely to hear Powell admit anytime soon.

Before I’m told that the Left should “get over” the reasons behind the war, I have this to offer. An unprecedented number of people around the world protested before the war and signalled their opposition to an invasion without UN sanction. Ignoring ever-increasing amounts of information that proves duplicity by the leading governments is irresponsible, especially in light of US sabre-rattling towards Iran, Syria and North Korea. We must learn the lessons of past mistakes and hold our leaders accountable. Elections are but one way of doing this.

Journalists shouldn’t see themselves as beholden to government spin. Indeed, the finest reporters are those individuals who work outside the system, cultivating contacts and presenting alternative narratives from the official line, likely to be inaccurate and air-brushed (UK-based Medialens expertly dissects the true role of journalists in Western “democracies.”)

Sadly in Australia, we are yet to produce an equivalent to Seymour Hersh, although Dateline’s Mark Davis is perhaps as close as we get.

Popularity contest

John Brown works for the University of Southern California. He runs a website dedicated to examples of US public diplomacy ” including current issues in U.S. foreign policy, international broadcasting and media, propaganda, cultural diplomacy, educational exchanges, anti-Americanism, and the reception of American popular culture abroad.”

Is Iran next?

Scott Ritter is a former UN Weapon’s Inspector in Iraq and one of the few voices before the invasion to claim that Saddam was essentially disarmed. Mainly ignored in the Western media – keener to accept and propel government spin on WMD – he now publishes regularly in the Arab world, including al-Jazeera.

His latest article warns of the threat posed by blindly following the lead of the US and Israel, two countries encouraging action against the Islamic state. Caution should be exercised, Ritter argues, as facts on the ground are sketchy, at best.

The December edition of The Atlantic asked whether Iran was next on the neo-con hit-list and in an analysis that completely ignored the civilian population conducted a Pentagon war-game to determine US military success. Failure was the result, thankfully.

They voted…against the US

Two months after the “historic” Iraqi elections, Western propaganda continues to push the line that the Iraqis voted for democracy and freedom. Many did, but one key factor has been erased: the leading parties campaigned for an end to US occupation. In his latest interview, Noam Chomsky explains the true significance of the January elections:

“I agree that the elections were a success…of opposition to the United States. What is being suppressed – except for Middle East specialists, who know about it perfectly well and are writing about it, or people who in fact have read the newspapers in the last couple of years – what’s being suppressed is the fact that the United States had to be brought kicking and screaming into accepting elections. The U.S. was strongly opposed to them.”

Read the whole thing.

Speaking out in Nepal

When Nepal’s King Gyanendra sacked his country’s government and declared a state of emergency in early February, press freedom immediately suffered. We now learn from the Committee to Protect Bloggers that a small group of bloggers in Kathmandu are fighting back and spreading the word of democracy. One was recently dubbed the “Salam Pax of Kathmandu”, a reference to the trail-blazing resident of Baghdad who reported on his city’s journey during the period before and after the US invasion of 2003.

The Committee blog focuses primarily on attempts by governments in the Middle East to restrict blogging access and voices other than the official line. They are, of course, fighting a battle they will never win.

New Matilda

Any kind of new so-called alternative voices are welcome in the closed Aussie media environment. New Matilda started in 2004 and aims to provide a centre-left outlook on Australia and the world. This week’s editorial paints a typical picture of John Howard and his seeming inability to feel compassion towards refugees who desire better lives in supposedly open Australia while he expresses compassion towards victims of natural disasters and terrorism over “there” in faraway lands.

The online publication has been very uneven. Speaking to the soft Left voter within, the editors appear generally unwilling to publish writers operating outside the establishment media or academia. Furthermore, this attitude rarely allows any serious examination of political life beyond a two-party system. Perhaps I’m being unfair. I’m happy to continue supporting attempts to highlight the failure of mainstream media in holding business and government accountable. Truly brave indy publishing is something like US-based Counterpunch, though whether Australia can support something like this is debatable. And now we have until May to wait for The Monthly, “a new national magazine of politics, society and the arts.” Pray for guts.

Facts on the ground

If one is thinking of travelling to Iraq as a journalist, would the US Embassy be the best source of security information? Contact information for the relevant personnel can be found here. Considering the fact that the US military have killed numerous journalists in suspicious circumstances (including the recent near-death experience of Italian reporter Giuliana Sgrena), I would encourage would-be visitors to post-Saddam Iraq source their security info elsewhere. A good place to start could be here.

Anti-chewers unite

In the latest news not getting appropriate coverage in the anti-humour Australian media, citizen groups in the US are fighting the ever-increasing trend of second-hand tobacco spit in public. New York resident Glen Abramson explains: “I can’t go to a bar without coming home reeking of tobacco spit. I have to wring my clothes out in the sink before I go to bed. Sometimes, I’ll get them back from the dry-cleaners with flakes of chew still clinging in the weave.”

Timor sea justice

Channel 7 and SBS have refused to show these ads funded by millionaire businessman, Ian Melrose, explaining the ways in which the Australian government is stealing the oil and natural gas reserves in the Timor Shelf.

Crikey today reports that Melrose is bewildered by the networks’ decision:

The networks have not yet supplied written statements outlining the reasons why they refuse to screen the ads, but have indicated that they were concerned about the content of the ads for young viewers. Melrose says this is nonsense: “The ads have already been approved by the appropriate bodies and were deemed suitable for free-to-air television, so that can’t be the reason,” he told Crikey today.”

“What I want to know,” says Melrose, “is, has there been any correspondence between the networks and the Australian government?”

It’s a good question and one unlikely to be answered by government still basking in the glow of “liberating” East Timor in 1999.

Iraq still matters

Many adults in the US still regard the situation in Iraq as vitally important, according to a new poll by CBS News. Indeed, it is the most pressing issue according to respondents, followed by the economy/jobs and terrorism.

Before last year’s Federal election, Australians overwhelmingly thought that the Iraq war increased the terrorist threat to our shores. The recent announcement of a further deployment of 450 troops has also left the public feeling great unease.

These results are hardly surprising. Australians are wary of engaging even further in Iraq when more and more countries are withdrawing. What has John Howard promised that we aren’t being told?

Former US Presidential candidate and consumer advocate, Ralph Nader, claims that a US withdrawal from US is now more likely than ever. Frankly, I think he’s deluding himself. The US have never set a timetable for withdrawal because they intend to maintain a sizeable presence in the country for the foreseeable future – Iraq remains a key strategic asset in the region.

One big prison

B’Tselem is one of Israel’s premiere human rights organisations. Its latest report, One Big Prison, makes for disturbing reading. It’s well worth quoting in full:

Israel has cut off the Gaza Strip from the rest of the world to such an extent that it is easier for Palestinians in Israel or the West Bank to visit relatives in prison than visit a relative in Gaza. This is one conclusion of the 100-page report that B’Tselem and HaMoked publish today. One Big Prison documents the ongoing violations of human rights and international law resulting from Israel’s restrictions on the movement of people and goods between Gaza and the West Bank, Israel, and the rest of the world. The report also warns against Israel’s attempt to avoid its responsibility toward residents of the Gaza Strip following disengagement.

Despite the easing of restrictions that Israel declared following the Sharm el-Sheikh summit in February 2005, there has been almost no improvement in the movement of Palestinians to and from Gaza, nor in the movement of goods. The report illustrates the extent to which Israel treats many fundamental human rights – among them the right to freedom of movement, family life, health, education, and work – as “humanitarian gestures” that it grants or denies at will.

Report Highlights:

• As a result of the economic siege on Gaza, more than 77 percent of Gazans (1,033,500 people) now live below the poverty line – almost double the number before the intifada. Some 23 percent of Gazans (over 323,000 people) are in “deep poverty,” meaning that they do not reach the subsistence poverty line even after receiving aid from international agencies.

• The forced isolation of Gaza tears many Palestinians from their families, and in some cases even separates spouses. The report includes the testimonies of a woman whose husband was expelled from the West Bank to Gaza, and of a mother whose son has never seen his father.

• Almost all the restrictions on movement are imposed on entire categories of people, based on sweeping criteria, without checking if the individual poses a security risk, and without weighing the harm the person will suffer, or if less harmful alternatives are available. In most cases, where Israel denies a permit and human rights organizations intervene, Israel reverses its decision to avoid an embarrassing legal challenge.

• Most components of the policy of strangulation are illegal under international and Israeli law.

The strangulation of the Gaza Strip increased following Palestinian attacks against civilians in Israel and the Occupied Territories over the past few years. Targetting civilians is a “war crime” and never justified. Israel is entitled, even obligated, to protect its citizens. However, Israel’s right to self-defense does not permit it to trample on the rights of an entire population.

Israel declared that “completion of the disengagement will invalidate the claims against Israel on its responsibility for the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.” In the report, HaMoked and B’Tselem emphasize that all the suffering described in the report is likely to continue, and even worsen, after disengagement, for which Israel will be continue to bear legal responsibility.

What peace process?

We’re told that Israel is serious about peace. We’re informed that Palestinians must stop “terrorism” before serious negotiations can occur. We’re deluged with propaganda in our media that reassures us that there is a new hope for peace since the death of PLO leader Yasser Arafat. If you believe all this, you’re living in fairyland.

How to explain this in yesterday’s Haaretz?

“We can’t expect to receive explicit American agreement to build freely in the settlements,” Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said at Sunday’s cabinet meeting. The large blocs of settlement in the West Bank “will remain in Israel’s hands and will fall within the (separation) fence, and we made this position clear to the Americans. This is our position, even if they express reservations,” he said.

Damning the Greens

Rupert Murdoch’s media empire is known to despise the Greens under Senator Bob Brown. For these establishment media-types, a two-party system is all a democracy needs, thanks very much, and if anybody dares steal the limelight from the corporate-driven Labor or Liberal parties, watch out. Such was Melbourne’s Herald Sun newspaper during last year’s Federal Election campaign.

The Greens complained to the toothless Press Council and won. Murdoch’s minions refuse to accept the decision and today publish a scathing “examination” of the Council’s findings. Indignation runs high, as ever, and Greens are once again deemed dangerous to society. The party has responded though where is the Fairfax press? Neither The Sydney Morning Herald nor Age, the supposed quality broadsheets of Sydney and Melbourne respectively, have covered this story in depth. It’s a common theme. The Murdoch press regularly attacks the Fairfax press, and nothing more than a whimper is ever heard in reply.

If the powers that be at Fairfax reckon they’re above such petty squabbles, they should think again. The Australian media landscape is increasingly dominated by Murdoch and his agendas. Sometimes you’ve got to play dirty, especially when your already dwindling readership is diving even more. Issues of media accountability are important and people do care. Are the editors of Fairfax simply waiting for the cross-media laws to pass the Senate after July 1 and then calmly watch as any kind of investigatve journalism remaining is reduced to make way for more advertising dollars? It’s happening already.

My brief

I’m a freelance journalist based in Sydney, Australia, writing primarily on international affairs, the Israel/Palestine conflict and domestic politics. Few areas don’t interest me. Sadly, the Australian media is increasingly complicit in the actions of John Howard’s government. Rupert Murdoch owns 70% of my country’s print media, the highest percentage of any Western nation. The alternatives, The Melbourne Age and Sydney Morning Herald, are frequently little better. Fear of seriously tackling governmental corruption and injustice as well as business interests pervades much of the mainstream media. Corporate news values permeate everything and information that slips through is the exception rather than the rule.

Alternative news sources are therefore essential. This blog is but one example. The fight back has begun. It’s time that media existed not solely for the advertising dollar, but for informing readers. Let’s get beyond the Right and Left divide. They exist of course, but increasingly partisan news agendas don’t serve the public interest. I love that the mainstream media is struggling to understand or accommodate the blogging revolution. It’s time they acknowledge that their agendas and angles are no longer the only truth. Far from it. The Iraq war proved once and for all that Iraqi and Western bloggers were the most fascinating source for conditions on the ground, not embedded journalists with the New York Times.

Let’s have a discussion about what media you want, what you dislike, what you think your media isn’t telling you and what perspectives they’re ignoring or highlighting. Blogging allows media to be owned by us, the reader and participant. And that’s the most democratic thing that’s happened to media for a generation.

Who remembers their dead?

“In an age where war has become a policy option rather than a last resort, where its legitimacy rather than its morality can be summed up on a sheet of A4 paper, we prefer to concentrate on the suffering caused by “them” rather than “us”, writes Robert Fisk in his latest article for The Independent.

Fear America

“Australians are as just as concerned about United States foreign policy as Islamic extremism and regard the US as more dangerous than a rising China, according to a new poll.” It’s a sign that recent Bush administration adventurism and illegalities, from Iraq to Guantanamo Bay, are causing uncertainty here. This is not about moral equivalence, but rather the welcome failure of the Howard government to convince us that America is our saviour and a sole force for good in the world along with the legitimate fear of a terrorist attack.

The poll was commissioned by the Lowy Institute for Public Policy. Its executive director, Alan Gyngell, said yesterday that he suspected the results would have been different during the presidency of Bill Clinton. He sounded somehow disappointed that the Howard government hadn’t convinced enough people of the Bush doctrine.

Gorilla in the room

The now deceased Edward Said once said that the last great taboo in America is that country’s relationship with Israel. It’s rarely discussed in Australia, either, though I’ll be examining it throughout my upcoming book on the Israel/Palestine conflict, out with MUP in early 2006.

Gorilla in the Room is a new blog based in Washington, dedicated to “shattering the taboo on discussion of Israel’s “Agents of Influence”. It’s a fascinating read and deconstructs the incestuous alliances between pro-Israel lobbyists such as AIPAC, the Bush administration and the formulation of foreign policy.

Australia in the cold

David Marr, one of Australia’s finest journalists and co-writer of Dark Victory – the devastating examination of the 2001 election and the injection of racial prejudice into the public domain by the Howard government – has returned to The Sydney Morning Herald after three years hosting ABC TV’s Media Watch.

His latest article tells the rarely reported saga of Australia’s increasingly sullied name overseas, especially in relation to human rights breaches. The UN’s Committee on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination brought down a judgement on March 12 which should make any compassionate Australian react with horror. “Australia was rebuked for its treatment of migrants, Muslims, asylum seekers, refugees and Aborigines”, it stated.

Marr skilfully explains the dominant culture within the Australian government and its American masters to consistently slam the UN, any of its decision and operate outside the established international norms. Foreign Editor of Rupert Murdoch’s The Australian, Greg Sheridan, articulated this position last weekend:

“Australia should be absolutely pragmatic about the UN. It is merely one form of international co-operation. It does some good things, which we should support, and some bad things, which we should oppose. But under no circumstances should any Australian government ever feel constrained by UN authority.”

So who, therefore, should make the key decisions leading to war, or an occupation or avoidance of conflict? When George W. Bush appoints an arch-enemy of multilateral institutions, John Bolton, as his UN ambassador, the new rules of the game are perfectly clear and the Howard government is more than willing to go along for the ride. This should be opposed by all people who believe in international law and accountability.

Just today we learn that David Hicks, the Australian captured by the Americans in Afghanistan and held for over three years without trial at Guantanamo Bay, is still facing an uncertain future. Publicly the Australian government expresses hope that there is enough evidence to try Hicks and little movement has occurred since his incarceration. Privately, ministers need to be shamed into more aggressively pursuing Hick’s release back to Australia.

All these cases are pieces of the same puzzle. We may see ourselves as a tolerant, easy-going and generous country, but in reality, the world community is becoming increasingly aware of Australia’s racist past and present. By all means imagine encourage much-needed reforms of the UN, but to imagine a world where American unilateralism is the sole arbiter of decision-making, we are heading for a divided world. Are you with or against US government policy? It’s not a decision that countries should have to make.

The problem is Blair

Easter Sunday. Sunny day in Sydney. And I’m cooking, a rare occurrence for a dinner party tonight with friends.
This story in today’s UK Independent peels back yet another layer in the Blair government’s rush to war. We await an equivalent dissection in Australia. Lies, deception and slave to American power:
“A former head of the Joint Intelligence Committee…said: “Any government that wants to manipulate the intelligence as shamelessly as this one did will find a way to bypass procedures. What went wrong was not an aberration of the system – the problem is Blair.”