Antony Loewenstein

“The Simon Wiesenthal Centre gives its 2005 tolerance award to a torturer. It also gave the Sudanese government its 2005 award for ethnic harmony.”

Via the Angry Arab.

The Centre, according to its website, is:

“…an international Jewish human rights organization dedicated to preserving the memory of the Holocaust by fostering tolerance and understanding through community involvement, educational outreach and social action. The Center confronts important contemporary issues including racism, antisemitism, terrorism and genocide and is accredited as an NGO both at the United Nations and UNESCO.”

Speaking of praising false prophets, read this astounding report into the brutal Ethiopian government and the British government support.

Tony Blair and Gordon Brown care about Africa, do they? Pull the other one.

The recent controversy over Chinese diplomat Chen Yonglin continues. He is currently waiting for confirmation of his Australian asylum bid. Road to Surfdom reports today – and Tim Dunlop expresses initial scepticism of his source – of an alternative perspective on the Chen case and his claims. The anonymous author takes on the Howard government’s lofty claims of fighting tyranny and analyses Chen’s public story thus far. He also offers a disturbing insight into China’s “re-education” programs.

A blogosphere exclusive.

The Guardian reports:

“The war in Iraq is creating a new breed of Islamic jihadists who could go on to destabilise other countries, according to a CIA report. The CIA believes Iraq to be potentially worse than Afghanistan, which produced thousands of jihadists in the 1980s and 1990s. Many of the recruits to Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida had fought in Afghanistan.”

What is that rhetoric – echoed by Howard, Bush and Blair – that the world is a safer place after the Iraq invasion? Some, of course, have too much invested in the lie and prefer to live with their delusions.

Fairfax’s new chief operating officer Brian Evans has ordered his management team to slash $100 million from the publishing company. The Australian’s lead media story this week must have made News Limited staff smile. It’s a worrying development, however. Evans is asking for massive cut across all divisions, including editorial.

The paper reports:

“The closure of overseas bureaus, almost certainly starting with Tokyo, the merging of the Canberra bureaus of The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald, and the merging of the staffs of the broadsheet Herald and the tabloid Sun-Herald also have been mooted.”

Redundancies of journalists are also likely. Evans, a former regional newspaper executive, has suggested one way of raising revenue: “the introduction of more advertorials in the broadsheet newspapers.”

As I’ve written many times before, Fairfax is a sick company and I’m very glad that I’ve left there as a full time staff member. However, a strong alternative to the pro-war, pro-free market, pro-Howard agenda, blindly echoed in the Murdoch press, is essential in a true democracy. Australia, sadly, has the most concentrated media ownership in the Western world and is about to get worse, if the Howard government and Communications Minister Helen Coonan get their way.

Speaking on last week’s Media Report, Coonan mentioned the words “diversity” and “choice” many times, giving the false impression that her proposed changes to cross media would bring both. Nothing could be further from the truth. She is already talking to industry stakeholders to negotiate possible options.

Cast your mind back to media player John Singleton’s comments from April, speaking on ABC Inside Business:

ALAN KOHLER: Do you think the cross-media rules and the foreign ownership rules will change so therefore there will be a shake up in the media that you can participate in?
JOHN SINGLETON: … I don’t know. I can tell you only this – there’s sure to be no decisions made that are going to in any way affect the chances of John Howard being re-elected as Prime Minister in the next term, so …
ALAN KOHLER: What does that mean?
JOHN SINGLETON: Well, it means the terms are going to be, the changes to the media cross-ownership laws will be only those that don’t make any existing media owners, doesn’t disadvantage them.
ALAN KOHLER: And what do you think that turns into?
JOHN SINGLETON: It means life’s a rort and it’s only a rort if you’re not in it, that’s what it means. And John Howard likes being Prime Minister so he’s not going to set out to upset the existing media owners by saying, “Oh, laissez-faire, let’s have every available – let’s have 50, 100 radio stations, 20 TV stations …”… And the natural barriers to entry in other things like magazines and newspapers preclude it in any event, so…”

Fairfax should be afraid. Alternatives are needed.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has told an audience in Egypt that America’s policy towards the Middle East has been wrong for a very long time:

“For 60 years my country pursued stability at the expense of democracy in this region here in the Middle East, and we achieved neither. Now we are taking a different course. We are supporting the democratic aspirations of all people. Throughout the Middle East, the fear of free choices can no longer justify the denial of liberty. It is time to abandon the excuses that are made to avoid the hard work of democracy.”

Robert Fisk makes justified mince-meat of Rice’s deluded utterings:

“I don’t think there’s going to be democracy in the Middle East and I don’t really think we want democracy. One of the problems of democracy in the Middle East is that, if it really exists, the Arabs may not do what we want them to do, and it’s much more easy to have dictators, generals, businessmen running countries on our behalf, rather than saying, “Let’s have a fair vote”, because in many cases, we may find Islamist governments take over, which we don’t want.”

Fisk continues on last night’s ABC Lateline – for the record, why is SBS Dateline the only other show on Australian television who ever features arguably the world’s greatest foreign correspondent? – and highlights the rank hypocrisy and Western-centric perspective of Rice’s speech:

“If you live in the Middle East, it doesn’t look like this. The Arab world, which is principally what we’re talking about, would love some of this shiny beautiful democracy which we possess and enjoy. They would love some of it. They would like some freedom. But many of them would like freedom from us – from our armies, from our influence. And that’s the problem, you see. What Arabs want is justice as much as democracy. They want freedom from us, in many cases. And they’re not going to get that. They’re not going to get it in Uzbekistan, which is not apparently in the little circle of democracy which Condoleezza Rice is talking about. I’d like to believe that what the Americans say is true, but living here, I don’t believe it is.”

Of course, those with the most to gain from Iraqi “democracy”, the pro-war crowd still crowing about success and free elections and heart-warming tales of electricity given and torture offered, continue their little delusions. Never let facts get in the way of healthy propaganda. American casualties in Iraq are skyrocketing and leaders are starting to prepare their citizens for the long haul. Disaster has struck.

Israel is currently going through a bleak period in its history. Why?

I’ve been commissioned to write three articles for online magazine New Matilda on the subject, as well as examining the wider implications for the Middle East and the journalistic profession.

My first piece is here.

“Israel of 2005 is a state in crisis. During my recent visit to the country, I was constantly told that Israel was a democracy, if you were Jewish. In July 2004, the Israeli cabinet voted to extend a law that blocked Israeli citizenship from Palestinians who marry Israeli citizens. The real reason behind such racism can be found in Israel’s demographic time bomb. Within a few years, Jews are likely to become a minority in their own country, leaving Palestinians and Arabs in the majority. Israeli MP Ehud Olmert expressed it best: “It’s only a matter of time before the Palestinians demand ‘one man, one vote’ and then, what will we do?”

The White Australia policy is a blight on our history. A new book examines this legacy and my review in this week’s Bulletin is here.

Author and refugee activist Arnold Zable recently launched the book in Melbourne. His speech captured the essence of Gwenda Tavan’s book:

“Perhaps, one day, we will again have a prime minister who can fully embrace an inclusive and plural society based on the recognition that we are, in essence, a land of indigenous peoples and immigrants, a new world with an ancient past. Meanwhile, we rely on the efforts of advocates and support groups with an alternative vision, and on the efforts of dissident backbenchers. We also need studies like Gwenda Tavan’s to learn of the hard-won reforms that took Australia beyond the racially based policies of the past.”

The Los Angeles Times recently tried a noble experiment by introducing a wikitorial asking readers to rewrite an editorial on the Iraq war. The paper received over 1000 participants but closed it down when abuse and pornography was posted.

Deputy Editorial Page Editor Michael Newman told Editor and Publisher that the paper was considering reintroducing the experiment soon. “Readers took things in an unforeseeable way,” he said. “They put up different editorials, they fine-tuned things, and had some high-minded debates.”

The future of online editorials is coming. Collaborate with your readers and media companies will find a readership more willing to trust the outcomes.

Bloggers under repressive regimes are fighting a brave battle against censorship, imprisonment and torture. The BBC examines a few case studies, especially Iran and Nepal.

World solidarity with these gutsy men and women prove that they will not be forgotten.

The Liberal Government has finally relented on some of the harshest measures of its draconian mandatory detention system but the changes don’t go nearly far enough. In fact, resting more power with Immigration Minister Amanda Vanstone seems about as logical as asking Saddam Hussein to monitor human rights abuses in a Basra jail (though perhaps not quite as inappropriate.)

On last night’s 7.30 Report, John Howard refused to apologise for treatement of refugees and blamed the parents for bringing their children here in the first place in an unauthorised way. The Prime Minister’s glaring ignorance of world affairs was all too apparent. As Kerry O’Brien asked, “would you agree that people who are facing the possibility of death for themselves and their children aren’t necessarily going to think in terms of whether they should or shouldn’t queue in a refugee centre in Pakistan or somewhere else for an indefinite number of years, where in fact people are dying in those camps?”

Howard ignored the question: “the reality is that not everybody who has sought to come here in an unauthorised way fits the category of somebody who’s genuinely in fear of their life…no country can afford to have an unrestricted approach to the entry of citizens of another country into our country.”

Do we need to say this again? Arriving in any country, including Australia, with no papers and claiming asylum is not illegal under international law.

As for the situation on Nauru, children and families in that post-colonial dependent nation can rot, as far as Howard is concerned.

Democrats Senator Andrew Bartlett reckons the changes announced by Howard are limited, at best: “I am amazed at how limited the changes are, how misleading the portrayal of the changes have been and how even more power has been given to a Minister and Department that has been shown to be highly dysfunctional.”

Lateline, meanwhile, continues its run of stunning investigative journalism, leaving much of its competition in the dust. Last night, Margot O’Neill (give that woman a Walkley, please!) uncovered evidence of a Chinese spy network in Australia, intimidating and threatening Falun Gung practioners. A huge story? The Sydney Morning Herald all but ignored it today.

Recently released Australian hostage Douglas Wood, currently in Melbourne with his family, is considering a return to Iraq to pursue “business opportunities.”

During a press conference upon his arrival at Melbourne airport, Wood said that he supported the American occupation of Iraq:

“I’d like to apologise to President Bush and Prime Minister Howard for things I said under duress. I actually believe that I am proof positive that the current policy of training the Iraqi army, of recruiting, training them worked because it was the Iraqis that got me out. I am proof positive that the current policies of the Americans and the Australian governments is the right one.”

I am very glad that Wood has been released unharmed and is safely back with his family. But I can’t help but think his belief in the Iraqi occupation is directly linked to his ability to make a buck. Wood may well be a free market profiteer, not unlike many who have flocked to Iraq to earn some quick money. It’s time to stop lionising the man, other than wishing him well.

The proliferation of private, Western contractors is a major source of concern for many Iraqis. Take the example of Zapata, a company commissioned to supervise the destruction and storage of U.S military ammunition worldwide to the tune of US$200 million. These companies lack accountability, to say the least.

Before we start labelling people like Wood heroes, let’s take a closer look at their role in the post-occupation phase and who is really benefiting. Daily Flute blog puts it best: “If profiteer Douglas Wood gets into trouble in Iraq again, what say he pays for the rescue efforts?” And a prediction. The money Wood will receive for appearing on Channel Ten television next week will not be going to the Iraqi people. I’d like to be proven wrong. Thus far, Wood has proven himself to be a lover of money rather than showing any affection for the people he was supposedly helping in Iraq.

UPDATE: Douglas will not be returning to Iraq. Perhaps he can make some money in another occupation zone. There must be some vital jobs in Afghanistan.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair sees himself, not dissimlarly to NSW Premier Bob Carr, as an environmentally caring leader. The facts, of course, bring no such confidence, but our media prefers to play along with their delusional games.

Yesterday’s UK Observer revealed (and thus far, in my reading, completely ignored in Australia) attempts by the Bush administration to undermine Blair’s feeble attempts at tackling climate change. The US administration is essentially denying reality when their papers have:

· Removed all reference to the fact that climate change is a ‘serious threat to human health and to ecosystems’;

· Deleted any suggestion that global warming has already started;

· Expunged any suggestion that human activity was to blame for climate change.

Let’s take a reasoned guess at the reasons behind such irresponsibility. Officials with ties to the fossil fuel industry often control and dictate government policy.

In Australia, meanwhile, the Howard government has been ignoring many of its own recommendations, according to a strong investigation by the Sydney Morning Herald:

“A Herald investigation has found that the Federal Government has not replied on time to a single public inquiry out of the 62 it has ordered in the House of Representatives since December 1998. It has given no reply at all to almost half of them.”

But the Liberal Party is a “party of ideas“, says John Howard. What ideas does he have in mind? A foreign policy dictated from Washington? A Pacific proxy? A refugee policy aimed deliberately at inflicting harm on those seeking asylum?

Perhaps our Dear Leader can enlighten those of us who believe the Liberal Party isn’t a party of ideas, so much as a rabble of extremists with supreme faith in the free market.