Antony Loewenstein

Australian Lawyers for Human Rights yesterday released the following statement:

“The panel of experts appointed by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, to advise him on accountability issues for the events in Sri Lanka during the period of civil war should recommend that the United Nations set up a properly resourced, independent and transparent inquiry into possible war crimes”, the President of Australian Lawyers for Human Rights (“ALHR”), Stephen Keim, said today. “The inquiry should address actions by the Sri Lankan government and its authorities and the actions of the defeated Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (“LTTE”). The inquiry should have the power to recommend criminal prosecution for war crimes and crimes against humanity before a properly constituted and fairly run criminal tribunal”

ALHR, last week, forwarded a submission to the Panel of Experts. The submission draws upon the work of respected non-government organisations (“NGOs”) such as the International Crisis Group; Amnesty International; and Human Rights Watch. The submission argues that there is ample credible evidence available pointing to the commission of crimes such as the deliberate targeting of civilian populations and humanitarian workers and the killing of captives to justify setting up a properly resourced inquiry. The submission argues that the inquiry should be set up despite the likelihood that no cooperation will be forthcoming from the Sri Lankan government. “Evidence has already been gathered by non-government organisations in Sri Lanka and in Australia as well in other countries without cooperation from the Sri Lankan government at this point”, said Mr. Keim. “A properly resourced international inquiry would be able to receive the evidence that has been gathered and continue the process.”

“The Australian government should support the setting up of an inquiry”, said Mr. Keim. “The government should also assist by carrying out its own investigations. Up to this time, Australia seems to have shown greater concern about collaborating with the Sri Lankan authorities to deter asylum seekers attempting to travel to Australia. However, since many asylum seekers and persons already granted asylum are from the areas where conflict was carried out, they are people who can potentially assist any future international inquiry.”

“It is an important part of the Nuremberg heritage that we all carry that those responsible for serious war crimes are made accountable”, said Mr. Keim. The other important aspect of that heritage is that any court or tribunal which hears allegations of war crimes be conducted fairly and with all necessary procedural safeguards. The obvious candidate to hear any recommended prosecutions is the International Criminal Court. Since Sri Lanka is not a party to the Rome Statute, it would be necessary for the Security Council to make a referral. A well conducted inquiry would support the case for such a referral to be made,” said Mr. Keim.

It looks like many Australians believe in greater transparency in global dealings. Governments and corporate journalists, are you listening?

Most Australians support the release of the WikiLeaks cables, say that Julian Assange should receive legal support, and are critical of the federal government’s rhetoric on the issue, new polling reveals.

And support for Assange and the diplomatic document leaks is largely uniform across party lines, with Labor and Coalition voters approving the right of WikiLeaks to release the highly sensitive information.

A weekly online poll from Essential Research found more than half of voters approve of the release of the cables (33% approve; 20% strongly approve), compared to a quarter who expressed concern (14% disapprove; 11% strongly).

Support for WikiLeaks was, not surprisingly, highest among Greens voters (80% total approval) but still strong across party lines — 55% of Labor voters approve in total compared to 51% of Liberal/National supporters. Disapproval ratings were the same (30% in total) across both sides of politics.

Thank you.

When it was announced in October that the largest delegation ever of politicians and journalists were going to Israel in December I predicted the focus would be Iran. Screw the Palestinians.

Well, you can imagine my deep shock to read over the weekend one of the supposedly serious reporters on the trip (Lenore Taylor of the Sydney Morning Herald) writing all about…Iran.

It’s an utterly embarrassing piece, talking openly about the “nuclear arms aspiration of Iran” and repeating uncritically a litany of Zionist “experts”. No dissent is offered (and indeed, there is no evidence of Tehran getting the bomb but who cares about mere facts and hard evidence?). And why? Because Taylor would not have been introduced to any of them and therefore didn’t think of finding them. That’s not journalism; it reeks of stenography:

Eight years after my first visit to Israel, one of the most striking things about the discussions during this week’s Australia Israel Leadership Forum has been the extent to which the increasing regional dominance and nuclear arms aspiration of Iran is overshadowing and enmeshing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

How would Gaza, controlled by Iranian-aligned Hamas, fit in to any peace deal struck between Israel and the Palestinian Authority?

Would any deal be possible if both Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon were emboldened by the backing of a nuclear-capable Iran?

…

Israeli politicians, of all persuasions, saw Iran’s growing influence as both the biggest threat to Israel and the world and also a factor making a peace deal far more elusive.

Isaac Herzog, who is one of a number of declared challengers to Ehud Barak, the current leader of Israel’s beleaguered Labor Party, was clear that Iran posed ”the world’s biggest challenge”.

Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, warned about the sheer unpredictability of a radical Islamist state with the bomb.

…

But most thought that at the very least sanctions have to be combined with the credible threat of a military strike to be effective.

In fact, many senior figures argued that the only way to force Iran to halt the development of nuclear weapons was to convince the regime that the West had the stomach to launch a military strike.

But the rapidly looming question is what to do should all else fail and a nuclear-armed Iran appear inevitable, a situation analysts say could arise within months and is extremely likely to arise within years. Could the region, could the world, live with the nuclear arms race in the Middle East that would then ensue? Could Israel live with the emboldened Iranian-backed states around it? And, given the extreme reluctance of the US to get involved in any more conflicts in the region, would Israel act alone?

The questions are even tougher than those that have dogged the Arab-Israeli peace process for years, and there is far less time to find an answer.

Such hyperbolic nonsense plays directly into the hands of those longing for an Israeli/American attack on Iran. The job of a real journalist, if one takes a free trip to another country, is not to forget one’s critical faculties. Taylor, like virtually every reporter on such visits, has pleased her hosts and sponsors no end.

My following book review appeared in yesterday’s Sydney’s Sun Herald newspaper:

AUTOBIOGRAPHY
Guantanamo: My Journey
David Hicks (William Heinemann, $49.95)
Reviewed by Antony Loewenstein

Almost 10 years after the Bush administration launched the ‘‘war on terror’’, the victims of the policy remain largely voiceless.

The unknown number of civilians murdered by Western bombs have no way to express their outrage. They are invisible, mostly in countries Australia has either occupied (Iraq or Afghanistan) or helped colonise (Pakistan).

But Australian David Hicks is a notable exception. Imprisoned for years in Guantanamo Bay, tortured and then tried before a flawed military commission, he now lives as a free man in Sydney. This book is an attempt to set the record straight from his perspective.

Critics of Hicks in the corporate press still abound. The Sydney Morning Herald columnist Gerard Henderson wrote in 2008 that there was ‘‘no need to analyse the case against Hicks advanced by the United States and Australian governments and/or other agencies’’. In fact, the opposite was true, with the legality of Hicks’s incarceration, the torture he suffered while there and the bogus ‘‘trial’’ all condemned by human rights groups and Attorney-General Robert McClelland, who said in 2003 that practices at Guantanamo Bay were ‘‘alien to Australians’ expectations of a fair trial’’.

More recently, Henderson claimed Hicks was in ‘‘denial’’ for not telling the truth about his behaviour and activities during the past decade, with his book (and supporters) having whitewashed his alleged consorting with al- Qaeda. Even ABC reporter Leigh Sales argued in The Australian that Hicks wasn’t entirely honest about his activities before and after September 11, 2001.

But only a fair and open civilian trial could conclusively determine the possible guilt or innocence of Hicks.

His reactions to the charges against him are relevant but My Journey carefully explains the Howard government’s capitulation to Washington dictates in the years after September 11. John Howard’s autobiography details his admiration of George W. Bush’s world view. Bush barely mentions Howard in his own recent book. A memoir is always selective in its focus.

The most revealing sections of this book concern illegal incarceration in Guantanamo Bay.

Hicks details guards who punished him for simply studying his legal options. He often asked for medical care to help stress fractures. Little help was given. ‘‘You’re not meant to be healthy or comfortable,’’ he was told.

Faeces flooded the cage where Hicks lived and slept, ignored by the American officials. Dirty and unwashed clothes were common. Deafening loud music was pumped into cells to disorientate prisoners. Hicks writes of having to urinate on himself while being shackled during countless hours of interrogation. Detainees on hunger strikes were regularly force-fed.

Many of these actions are defined as torture under international law and yet nobody has faced trial for imposing such restrictions.

Indeed, the Obama administration still retains the right to incarcerate individuals indefinitely without trial or even after they are found innocent. Guantanamo Bay remains open and Hicks notes grimly, as he arrives at the ‘‘notorious’’ Camp Five in 2005, the involvement of American multinationals Halliburton and Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR).

My Journey is written with workman-like efficiency. Glamorous prose is ignored, as it should be. Not unlike another Guantanamo Bay detainee illegally imprisoned and tortured, Briton Moazzam Begg, who wrote a book about the experience called Enemy Combatant, Hicks aims to tell readers what Australia (and Britain) supported in its desperate bid to stay on the good side of Bush.

Hicks isn’t proud of his previously anti-Semitic ravings, sent in letters to his family years ago, nor does he defend the violence committed by al-Qaeda. He strongly rejects ‘‘and always will, any claims that I was a terrorist or supporter of terrorism. My personal definition of a terrorist is a coward and a murderer.’’ He vehemently opposes occupation of lands such as Kosovo and Kashmir and demands the right to ‘‘bear arms and risk my life to help them’’.

This book won’t be the last word on Hicks. But it fairly stands as a personal tale of misdirection, struggle, hope, delusion and Western silence over torture.

The last significant individual abandoned by Canberra was legendary Australian journalist Wilfred Burchett. The true test of democracy is how the most unpopular individuals are treated by officialdom.

Kenneth Davidson in the Age gets it right:

As former Liberal prime minister John Gorton said in the 1960s, too many Australian politicians and bureaucrats are infected by the puppy dog syndrome: roll over and get your tummy tickled. Not much has changed. We are seen as a loyal ally. In Washington this gives Australian politicians and diplomats plenty of access but no influence when our interests aren’t in line with America’s.

Julian Assange is currently living in Britain under the roof of one Vaughan Smith, a man who believes in a free press.

More on him here:

Veteran BBC correspondent Loyn, who has known Smith for almost 20 years and worked with him in Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq, said Assange and Smith met “relatively recently” when Assange used the club as his London base.

The BBC correspondent says Smith is “intrigued by Julian and his work” and outraged by the way Assange has been treated.

“Vaughan has an old-fashioned sense of libertarian values. He supports Julian’s commitment and courage, even though he doesn’t necessarily support all the leaks, and wanted to help,” said Loyn. “Vaughan is an idealistic man who established the Frontline Club because he strongly believed in it—despite the huge financial risk.”

During his days as a cameraman, the risks were even greater. Smith was shot twice, leading him to joke he had “been shot more times than he had been credited by the BBC.”

He filmed the only uncontrolled footage of the Gulf War in 1991 after he bluffed his way into an active service unit disguised as a British Army officer.

On their dangerous trips together, the BBC veteran remembers Smith as “tough, very resilient and single-minded” as they trekked though Afghanistan living on boiled lentils cooked by Loyn.

But there was more to Smith than just his physical toughness. He was one of the first cameramen to edit his work on a laptop in the field before transmitting it back home. Loyn explains: “He had cutting-edge skills and always like to push the boundaries.”

It is that same ferocious determination in Assange to push the boundaries which Smith so admires and why he finds the “professorial” WikiLeaks’ founder “fascinating” company, according to Smith’s friends.

This is what passes for serious commentary in the US mainstream media.

Dana Milbank in the Washington Post, after smearing Julian Assange and Wikileaks – “I confess I’d like to throw a cream pie in his face myself” – doesn’t like to be told that his beloved US may not be such a fan of free speech after all:

It’s little wonder that Ellsberg himself empathizes with WikiLeaks. At a news conference at the National Press Club on Thursday – shortly before going to chain himself to the White House fence in a protest – the 79-year-old Ellsberg said Assange is a hero. Convicting Assange, he said, “would mean that the crown had returned to America . . . and that we’re really under a monarchical system of total control of information.”

Ellsberg was accompanied by an activist from Assange’s Australia, who lectured Americans on free speech. “We thought that America stood firm for the Constitution, for its First Amendment rights,” said the activist, Brett Solomon. “If something has changed, then let us know.”

That bloke was as insufferable as Assange.

Sweden is not an independent nation:

Karl Rove’s help for Sweden as it assists the Obama administration’s prosecution against WikiLeaks could be the latest example of the adage, “Politics makes strange bedfellows.”

Rove has advised Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt for the past two years after resigning as Bush White House political advisor in mid-2007. Rove’s resignation followed the scandalous Bush mid-term political purge of nine of the nation’s 93 powerful U.S. attorneys.

These days, Sweden and the United States are apparently undertaking a political prosecution as audacious and important as those by the notorious “loyal Bushies” earlier this decade against U.S. Democrats.

The U.S. prosecution of WikiLeaks, if successful, could criminalize many kinds of investigative news reporting about government affairs, not just the WikiLeaks disclosures that are embarrassing Sweden as well as the Bush and Obama administrations. Authorities in both countries are setting the stage with pre-indictment sex and spy smears against WikiLeaks leader Julian Assange, plus an Interpol manhunt.

The kind of Australian stamp we’d like to see.

Will Julian Assange regret being one of the key whistle-blower enablers?

If history is any guide – thinking of Daniel Ellsberg and Philip Agee – don’t count on it.