Antony Loewenstein

Perhaps you’re feeling confused about the recent decision of British university lecturers to boycott a handful of Israeli institutions claiming they were complicit in the ongoing oppressive occupation of Palestinians. Personally, I find it highly regrettable that the situation has escalated this far, but I’ve read enough about the general gutlessness of Israeli academia to stand up for what’s right, and international attention and pressure may be the best way forward.

And now, something special for our US readers, from media critic and author Jeff Cohen:

Looking for an easy way to protest Bush foreign policy week after week? And an easy way to help alleviate global poverty? Buy your gasoline at Citgo stations.

And tell your friends.

Of the top oil producing countries in the world, only one is a democracy with a president who was elected on a platform of using his nation’s oil revenue to benefit the poor. The country is Venezuela. The President is Hugo Chavez. Call him “the Anti-Bush.”

Citgo is a U.S. refining and marketing firm that is a wholly owned subsidiary of Venezuela’s state-owned oil company. Money you pay to Citgo goes primarily to Venezuela – not Saudi Arabia or the Middle East. There are 14,000 Citgo gas stations in the US. (Click here to find one near you.) By buying your gasoline at Citgo, you are contributing to the billions of dollars that Venezuela’s democratic government is using to provide health care, literacy and education, and subsidized food for the majority of Venezuelans.

Instead of using government to help the rich and the corporate, as Bush does, Chavez is using the resources and oil revenue of his government to help the poor in Venezuela. A country with so much oil wealth shouldn’t have 60 percent of its people living in poverty, earning less than $2 per day. With a mass movement behind him, Chavez is confronting poverty in Venezuela. That’s why large majorities have consistently backed him in democratic elections. And why the Bush administration supported an attempted military coup in 2002 that sought to overthrow Chavez.

So this is the opposite of a boycott. Call it a BUYcott. Spread the word.

Of course, if you can take mass transit or bike or walk to your job, you should do so. And we should all work for political changes that move our country toward a cleaner environment based on renewable energy. The BUYcott is for those of us who don’t have a practical alternative to filling up our cars.

So get your gas at Citgo. And help fuel a democratic revolution in Venezuela.

The Newsweek controversy. Left and right wingers are using the so-called stuff-up of the establishment mouthpiece to prove their respective points. Tiresome, mostly. The key issues have been ignored and it’s taken muckraker extraordinaire Greg Palast to lay some facts on the table:

“It’s appalling that this story got out there,” Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on her way back from Iraq. What’s NOT appalling to Condi is that the US is holding prisoners at Guantanamo under conditions termed “torture” by the Red Cross. What’s not appalling to Condi is that prisoners of the Afghan war are held in violation of international law after that conflict has supposedly ended. What is NOT appalling to Condi is that prisoner witnesses have reported several instances of the Koran’s desecration. What is appalling to her is that these things were REPORTED.”

“Newsweek has now publicly committed to having its reports vetted by Rumsfeld’s Defense Department before publication. Why not just print Rumsfeld’s press releases and eliminate the middleman, the reporter?”

The reluctance of the American media to investigate allegations of abuse in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo Bay has been explained. God forbid an editor or journalist discovers something shocking, what individual, other than the bravest, will want to be chastised by Bush and his cronies?

I would have thought it was a badge of honour to expose the duplicity of the current regime and its client states. Thankfully, some people still think so.

Carmela Baranowska is an independent filmmaker based in Melbourne. Her documentary, Taliban Country, won a Walkley in the short documentary category. She was incorrectly reported missing while in Afghanistan but the source for this incorrect information has never been found.

SBS Dateline screened the program in a shortened version but last night I finally watched the disturbing 45-minute version, after being given the original on DVD by Carmela last month. The film documents allegations of abuse by US Marines in some of the most remote areas of Afghanistan. The US military has supposedly investigated the claims and unsurprisingly concluded that the charges are without basis.

A blog run by an American friend of Carmela’s is “dedicated to providing an on-going record of US military interrogation and detention policies in Iraq and Afghanistan.” Take a look around as much of the information rarely gets an airing in Australia.

There is little more I can add to the current torture debate. My personal view is clear. Torture cannot be justified and those supporting opening the door just a little are playing with fire. Surely history teaches us that figures in authority cannot be trusted on matters of such grave importance? Abu Ghraib stands as a living testament to out of control power. Giving such power to a government or unregulated, secretive body to harm people is not something a democracy should be granting. Besides, because many countries currently practice torture (so-called democracies and despots alike) is hardly reason to condone placing electrodes on a person’s genitals. Where would it stop? To prevent a terrorist act? A murder? Bank heist?

The best explanation of “why not” is Tim Dunlop at Road to Surfdom.

Let’s not forget that we’ve had this debate before. Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz argued in 2003 that Western democracies “should never under any circumstances allow low-level people to administer torture. If torture is going to be administered as a last resort in the ticking-bomb case, to save enormous numbers of lives, it ought to be done openly, with accountability, with approval by the president of the United States or by a Supreme Court justice.”

Dershowitz may argue that the process would not lead down a slippery slope, but this is a man who believes Israel to be a prime example of a country upholding human rights.

As Australians, we should listen to the sane voice of Richard Slade of Quakers Hill, letter writer in today’s Sydney Morning Herald:

“Clarke and Bagaric need to study history before they say any more about the reasons torture should be allowed. Our species has a long and terrible history of using torture for “noble reasons”. History is full of stories of victims who will say anything they think the torturers want to hear in the hope that the pain will stop. Of course, the fanatic is the one person least likely to yield to torture, so what good things will torture achieve? And how does the torturer choose appropriate victims with certainty?”

My latest freelance article is now live at Online Opinion. A thorough examination of the mainstream’s delusions when it comes to true journalistic investigations. Our establishment reporters are frequently reluctant to challenge the status-quo, making alternative media an even more essential outlet. The how, why and who is examined.

I’m pretty busy at the moment, so pardon the lack of posts. Life dramas followed by book deadlines makes a very busy boy.

“Britain has been increasing sales to Uzbekistan of equipment with potential military use, despite condemnation of its human rights record by the foreign secretary, Jack Straw. Export licences have been approved for “strategic exports” ever since Uzbekistan became an ally in the “war on terror”. The government said last year it approved export licences for “armoured personnel carriers”, which could be used for internal repression.”

The Guardian reports that British actions are contradictory. In one breath, Blair’s government condemns human rights abuses in the country while at the same time doesn’t want to upset the US relationship with Uzbek President Islam Karimov.

Britain’s hypocrisy is nothing new. In 2000 it was revealed that the country was licensing the export to Zimbabwe of spare parts for Hawk aircraft. Such activity was likely to allow the Zimbabwe government to continue its deadly bombing runs in the Congo. The editor of Zimbabwe’s non-governmental newspaper, the Zimbabwe Independent, said the sale was prompted “purely” by economic considerations. “The British government”, he said, “was opposed to Zimbabwe’s involvement in the Congo war and is opposed to human rights abuses perpetrated by the Mugabe regime, but it is willing to support the Mugabe government by selling it arms.” The British government finally buckled under public pressure and revoked all licences to Mugabe’s dictatorship.

Former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook gave a famous speech in 1997 where he discussed a new era in foreign policy:

“Our foreign policy must have an ethical dimension and must support the demands of other peoples for the democratic rights on which we insist for ourselves. The Labour Government will put human rights at the heart of our foreign policy…”

The reality, however, was far different. Despite the Guardian still offering support for Cook’s message in 2001, a 1997 BBC interview with Cook revealed the real pragmatism behind the policy. He was forced to admit Britain was still selling military hardware to Indonesia although was assured the arms would not be used against the still occupied East Timorese. British oil companies were operating in Burma as Cook lamely defended his government’s high ideals. Cook did indeed resign from the Blair government over the Iraq war and became a constant critic of Britain’s obedience to the US but his principles were sorely lacking while in government.

British historian Mark Curtis has written extensively on Britain’s largely secret trade in arms. He said in 2004:

“It has always struck me that many people on the British left know far more about US foreign policy horrors than those committed by this country. This is, perhaps, unsurprising since the mainstream media and British academics systematically keep the public in the dark about such abuses.”

Curtis then revealed the litany of arms sales to numerous countries around the world both before and after Cook’s “ethical foreign policy” speech. These included:

2001: British arms exports to Israel are twice those for the year before, reaching £22.5m as Israel steps up aggression in the occupied territories.

2002: Britain gives £3m military aid to Nepal, whose forces are responsible for the majority of deaths in a vicious civil war with Maoist rebels.

May 2003: Indonesia intervenes in Aceh province, using British aircraft and tanks.

June 2003: Amid mounting violence, rigged elections in Chechnya are welcomed by Britain as Russia widens its war in the Caucasus to the neighbouring Russian republic Ingushetia.

June 2003: With human rights atrocities by government and allied forces proliferating in Colombia, Britain organises international donors to increase support to the government of Colombian president Alvaro Uribe Velez, and steps up covert military aid to Bogota.

Come on down, Mark Slater of Page in the ACT:

“Of course John Howard has confidence in Amanda Vanstone. He is confident she will stonewall, blame-shift and protest ignorance just as his ministerial code of misconduct demands. After all, she’s learnt everything she knows about accountability from the Little Master; say as little of substance as possible and deny everything because eventually people will forget.”

(Sydney Morning Herald letters)

“The Jordanian businessman accused of passing oil money from Saddam Hussein to George Galloway has revealed that he is once again trading in Iraq and making trips to America with the approval of the US authorities.”

The Independent reports today that Fawaz Zureikat says “neither the new government in Baghdad nor US officials had raised any objections to him renewing his trade with Iraq.” These allegations emerge as Galloway himself will face his accusers in Washington over charges he received vouchers for 20 million barrels of oil from Saddam during the Oil for Food program.

I’m happy to be proven wrong, but somehow I suspect that the mud being thrown at Galloway will not stick. I smell a Republican hatchet job.

Gerard Henderson is known for being boring. He exceeds at his chosen craft, writing weekly in The Age and Sydney Morning Herald on matters of national importance and defending those groups, individuals or countries desperately in need of assistance. Today, the establishment’s friend and ally wraps his warm embrace around Bush’s America. Phil Gomes takes him to task:

“Gerard Henderson uses one reported case of sanity within the US diplomatic corps to disprove the madness of the rest”:

‘So much for the mythology that the Bush Administration is dominated by adventurous and unfeeling ideologues.’

“Apparently guys like John Bolton aren’t on Gerry’s reading list.”

When will Fairfax dump Gerry and find somebody, anybody, to replace a man running a close second to the Australian’s Greg Sheridan for getting up close and personal with those in power? But then, Fairfax wouldn’t want to rattle their ever-increasing senior readers. While at Fairfax, I was told that Miranda Devine was only chosen as a columnist – and poached from Murdoch – to “cause a bit of controversy.” Yawn. Content clearly ran a far second. How many writers with a direct line to the Bush/Blair/Howard phone does a newspaper need? A few outsiders are just what the mainstream needs. I’ll offer my services for a reasonable fee. Give me editorial control and I’ll give you a rattled readership.

What is the future of the Australian Liberal Party? When John Howard finally leaves the stage, what will remain? There is much evidence to suggest an organisation controlled by far right thugs. Enter Alex Hawke, Federal President of the Young Liberals.

The Sydney Morning Herald reported in May 2004 of a physical altercation between moderates within the party and hardliners. Hawke is backed by his boss, conservative upper house member David Clarke, a Christian against abortion, gay marriage, harm minimisation and drug law reform.

“The right were accusing the others of being pro-gay marriages, of being poofter lovers and pro-abortion. They were telling people to f— off out of there and pushing and shoving,” said one eyewitness, a moderate. One right-winger said: “These people brought people along who have written articles against the government, a lot of people who are Muslims and who are listed on the site islamicsydney.com.” The result was scuffles and police involvement.

Today we learn that the NSW Liberal Party is likely to soon have on its state executive a conservative Right wing in leadership. Conservatism isn’t the issue here, their tactics and attitudes are. The SMH explains: “It might all seem like another internal storm in a teacup except that the Right’s rise to power could change the face of the NSW Liberal Party from a secular party with liberal social values to one with strong links to Christian church groups and a conservative social platform.” Threatening tactics has been alleged by all sides as the party appears to be moving towards a more exclusionary future.

Hawke is a former staffer to Federal Communications Minister Helen Coonan, a so-called liberal within the party. What does all this mean? Quite simply, that although many commentators have recently argued that Peter Costello as Prime Minister would soften the party, direction at the grassroots is already proving that to be a mirage.

The situation is reminiscent of current debates in the USA. With the Republican Party moving further to the Christian Right and dissenters being shut out, moderates within the party are struggling to find a place. Let’s hope both the Republican and Liberal Party implode within the decade.

UPDATE: This was highlighted in comments but it’s worth repeating here. The Liberal Party, and Tony Abbott, has a long history of attracting far-right extremists to the party. Crikey reported the goings-on in 2003.

“For the past three weeks, a set of figures has been working a hole in my mind. On April 16th, New Scientist published a letter from the famous botanist David Bellamy. Many of the world’s glaciers, he claimed, ‘are not shrinking but in fact are growing. …555 of all the 625 glaciers under observation by the World Glacier Monitoring Service in Zurich, Switzerland, have been growing since 1980.’ His letter was instantly taken up by climate change deniers. And it began to worry me. What if Bellamy was right?”

George Monbiot’s latest column is a fascinating tale of how environmental fact is skewed by dubious science and hijacked by the far right. The result is a world sicker by the day.

This story has it all. Hater Lyndon Larouche, architects posing as scientists, human error and conspiracy.

(PS. Yes, glaciers are in fact melting.)

With another Central Asian nation suddenly in the news and the outbreak of violence causing hundreds of deaths (blamed both on Muslim extremists and the army), let’s take a look at this virtually ignored country in the region.

As widely reported, Uzbek President Islam Karimov is a staunch ally in George W. Bush’s “War on Terror” since giving the Americans the use of an airbase in 2001. Washington cut some financial aid in 2004 and announced that the Uzbek leader had failed to meet certain human rights targets.

Karimov is a dictator, however, who runs a one-party police state, making a mockery of Bush’s message of spreading democracy around the world. When democracy suits, in other words. Short-term military needs appear to be America’s priority, said John Schoeberlein, head of the Program on Central Asia and the Caucasus at Harvard University in 2002. “The Uzbek government is serious in recognizing the need to satisfy the US on this…but it is not sincere. Basically, it’s just PR.”

After 9/11, Washington and Tashkent formed a mutually agreeable relationship in their battle against Muslim extremism. American officials claim that closeness with regimes such as Uzbekistan allows greater ability to press for human rights improvements. In theory this may be true, but the reality is far removed from this utopian vision. Human rights campaigners in the country bristled at the sight of Karimov travelling to the White House in 2002 and receiving thanks from Bush for his anti-terror coalition.

The human rights abuses are notorious. Evidence has emerged that America has sent “terrorist” suspects to Uzbekistan for “interrogation”, while the US government issues reports outlining the gross violations in the country’s jails. The New York Times reported earlier this month about Craig Murray, a former British ambassador to Uzbekistan. Murray complained to his former British superiors of the use of torture in gathering intelligence.

“Mr. Murray, who has previously spoken publicly about prisoner transfers to Uzbekistan, said his superiors in London were furious with his questions, and he was told that the intelligence gleaned in Uzbekistan could still be used by British officials, even if it was elicited by torture, as long as the mistreatment was not at the hands of British interrogators. ‘I was astonished,’ Mr. Murray said in an interview. ‘It was as if the goal posts had moved. Their perspective had changed since Sept. 11.’”

The US State Department’s most recent report on human rights in Uzbekistan found the following: “Torture was common in prisons, pretrial facilities, and local police and security service precincts.”

Comments in 2004 by Gen. Richard B. Myers, the chairman of the US Joint Chief of Staffs, perfectly explained the attitude of the US towards despotic regimes. The US had “benefited greatly from our partnership and strategic relationship with Uzbekistan”, he said. And after explaining the concerns over human rights abuses, the following: “In my view, we shouldn’t let any single issue drive a relationship with any single country. It doesn’t seem to be good policy to me.”

And America wonders why an increasing number of countries, including Russia, reject the Bush doctrine of spreading freedom and democracy around the world and charge Bush with double-standards. Hypocrisy never gets a country anywhere, least of all respect. But then, America has never been very good at learning from history.

UPDATE: Craig Murray explains the context of the current political unrent:

“The US will fund ‘human rights’ training in Uzbekistan but not help for the democratic opposition, in contrast to its policy elsewhere in the former Soviet Union. When Jon Purnell, the US ambassador, last year attended the opening of a human rights centre in the Ferghana valley, he interrupted a local speaker criticising repression. Political points, Purnell opined, were not allowed. The western news agenda has moved the dead of Andijan from the ‘democrat’ to the ‘terrorist’ pile. Karimov remains in power. The White House will be happy. That’s enough for No 10.”