Antony Loewenstein

The thugs running Sri Lanka in Colombo must have loved the attention of a leading British government minister. War crimes? Who cares, hey? The Guardian reports:

Liam Fox faced fresh accusations of running a shadow foreign policy after it emerged he was involved in setting up a private investment firm to operate in Sri Lanka in apparent contravention of UK government policy, with his controversial friend Adam Werritty as its key contact.

The defence secretary was intimately involved in negotiations with the Sri Lankan regime as recently as last summer, according to Lord Bell, his friend of 30 years, agreeing a deal that allows the Sri Lankan Development Trust to operate in the country in the same period in which he now says he withdrew his involvement. The trust was a venture designed to rebuild the country’s infrastructure using private finance with a sideline in charitable projects for Tamil communities.

Labour urged the government to come clean on Fox’s work in Sri Lanka and whether it might have contravened the government’s official policy, while a senior Whitehall source said the minister had been operating a “maverick foreign policy” and it is this that will ultimately decide his political fate.

The government has adopted an arm’s-length policy on Sri Lanka, calling for an independent inquiry into alleged war crimes. Since 2006 it has also had a policy to limit development work to urgent humanitarian assistance and “de-mining” areas affected by the civil war.

Fox told the Commons on Monday he had worked with “a number” of business, banking and political contacts to establish the trust in Sri Lanka.

He named only Werritty, his close friend who is at the heart of the scandal over his unofficial role as Fox’s adviser. “Neither myself, Mr Werritty nor others sought to receive any share of the profits for assisting the trust,” he said.

In June 2010, he met the Sri Lankan foreign minister in Singapore, along with Werritty and MoD officials. “The purpose of the meeting was to make it clear that although I would no longer be able to participate in the project, the others involved would continue to do so,” he said on Monday. But Bell told the Guardian on Thursday that discussions took place last summer in which Fox agreed with the governor of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka that the trust would invest in roadbuilding and other infrastructure projects using private investment.

Bell, whose PR firm Bell Pottinger was employed by the Sri Lankan government until last year to improve the country’s reputation abroad, said the deal had been struck between Fox and the head of the Sri Lankan bank: “In order for these funds to operate they would need an agreement with the country. The financial interests of Sri Lanka come under the governor of the Central Bank. My understanding is that the infrastructure development fund would be set up and have an agreement with the Sri Lankan government to invest in Tamil communities in Sri Lanka. It’s a fine idea with a good sense of purpose.”

He added that “of course” part of the strategy was to improve the regime’s reputation abroad.

A fascinating investigation by Michael Hastings in Rolling Stone – this is one journalist (and friend) with a fine record of uncovering secrets – on the internal American dialogue over military intervention in Libya. A key theme, repeated over and over again by various officials, is the desire by elements within the Obama administration to be on the supposed right side of history and not be seen as backing dictators (the default Washington position):

It is still debatable whether Libyan civilians ever faced a genocidal threat. But unlike the false accusations of WMDs leveled against Saddam Hussein, which were intentionally manufactured by the Bush administration to justify its invasion of Iraq, the concerns about atrocities by Qaddafi seemed all too real at the time. According to multiple sources who attended the meeting in the Situation Room, Obama quickly concluded that a no-fly zone wouldn’t be enough to stop the feared massacre: NATO would need to bomb Qaddafi’s tanks and missile sites as well.

“You’re telling me that Benghazi could be overrun this week, but you’re not giving me any options that stop it,” the president said after two hours of discussion. “I want real options.” Obama ordered his team to develop plans that would go “beyond a no-fly zone.” Then he ended the meeting, instructing those present to reconvene at 9 p.m. Donilon and McDonough peeled off to set up a smaller meeting with the national security staff, while Rice put out feelers at the U.N.

At nine, Obama returned from a dinner with Pentagon commanders and entered the Situation Room. (Because it was 3:30 a.m. in Cairo, Clinton was not present.) It was a contentious evening, according to sources familiar with the meeting. When Rice reported that she believed she could get U.N. support for a broader intervention, Gates butted heads with her, seemingly unwilling to relent. Rice argued that the credibility of the U.N. Security Council was at stake. Another senior adviser disagreed, pointing out that though Qaddafi was a horrible person, we had lived with him for decades. Why risk going down a road that could lead to a wider conflict, especially when there were plenty of worse atrocities elsewhere? Obama, as usual, listened without reacting. “He was invariably extremely calm,” said one official who attended the meeting. “He doesn’t get riled up.”

Gates offered a last-ditch case against intervention, arguing that Libya had little strategic value. He warned that the U.S. often ended up “owning” what happened, pointing to Kosovo and the no-fly zone over Kurdistan in Iraq. He said he was wary of getting involved in a third Muslim country, and feared “a stalemate.”

The president answered these arguments himself. According to one participant’s summary, Obama said: Look, the question of who rules Libya is probably not a vital interest to the United States. The atrocities threatened don’t compare to atrocities in other parts of the world, I hear that. But there’s a big “but” here. First of all, acting would be the right thing to do, because we have an opportunity to prevent a massacre, and we’ve been asked to do it by the people of Libya, their Arab neighbors and the United Nations. And second, the president said, failing to intervene would be a “psychological pendulum, in terms of the Arab Spring, in favor of repression.” He concluded: “Just signing on to a no-fly zone so that we have political cover isn’t going to cut it. That’s not how America leads.” Nor, he added, is it the “image of America I believe in.”

The debate was over. The president ordered Rice to go back to the U.N. and “lean forward” on a resolution that would authorize NATO to strike targets on the ground and take “all necessary measures.” The humanitarian argument for intervention had carried the day. “The media makes as if this was an esoteric discussion on a foreign-policy website about intervention versus realism,” says a White House official. “That’s crap when you’re sitting in the Situation Room and a city of 700,000 is facing indiscriminate slaughter. That’s what moved the president.”

From the Wall Street Journal:

It seems a strange way to build up support for traditional Islamic beliefs, but Malaysia’s Obedient Wives Club says it is all right for a husband to have sex with all of his wives at the same time. In some circumstances, it might even be encouraged.

“Islamic sex” — whatever that is — also appears to be a fresh weapon against Judaism, at least according to a new sex manual published by the group this week called “Islamic Sex: Fighting Jews to Return Islamic Sex to the World.”

A pro-polygamy group, the Obedient Wives Club, isn’t a stranger to controversy and previously has embarrassed many mainstream Muslims in this multicultural country with its pronouncements. While polygamy is legal for Muslims, this year the group’s vice president, Rohaya Mohamad, angered women’s rights groups here by advising its members to avoid marital problems by acting like a “first-class whore” in bed. “Rather than allowing him to sin, a woman must do what she can to ensure her husband’s desires are met,” she told reporters in June.

“That was such an affront to us, that it’s our fault if our husbands stray,” said Akmal Zulkifli of the women’s rights group Sisters In Islam. “It’s also not an accurate portrayal of Islam in Malaysia. This group is just justifying its own lifestyle choices.”

Now the group is stepping up the cringe-factor with its new 115-page book, which it portrays as a self-help guide for young brides to satisfy their husbands in bed.

In it, the Obedient Wives Club argues that women give their husbands only a fraction of their bodies and offers graphically illustrated tips on how to satisfy their partners. Chapter 8 goes on to explain how sex can become an act of worship.

It isn’t entirely clear how Islamic sex helps battle Judaism, however. Leaders of the Obedient Wives Club couldn’t immediately be reached for comment, and some analysts suggest it could be a marketing gimmick in a country where the Palestinian cause resonates.

Here’s how the war economy works. Get in the military. Learn about “terrorism”. Preach “counter-insurgency” tactics to a gullible establishment and media. Talk about understanding local cultures while at the same time backing kill/capture methods that routinely fail/murder innocents/kidnap the wrong person (hello Afghanistan, latest report here and here).

A perfect example of this person is Australian David Kilcullen.

And what is he doing now? Making a living by running a consultancy firm to leverage his supposed experience in the field. Think there’s anything wrong with that cosy little arrangement? Failure=success. War=peace.

Here’s Kilcullen telling Forbes about his deep knowledge helping people in developing countries. Seriously:

Rahim Kanani: Describe a little bit about the founding and motivation behind Caerus Associates.

David Kilcullen: We founded Caerus Associates in January 2010.  At the depth of the recession, launching a start-up with no investors, no clients and no staff, we expected a very tough time. With generous help from our partner Noetic Group, we got started and then boot-strapped the whole operation, building from one client to another, creating a snow-ball effect. Today, less than two years later, Caerus has annual revenue just under $10m, zero debt, a multi-year backlog, a permanent team of 20 people and another 50 consultants and field staff, offices in three continents, and field programs in Afghanistan and Africa.

The fact that we took such a risk in founding the company, and that it paid off so well, underlines how firmly we believe in our concept: that the world’s most difficult problems – conflict, crime, energy shortage, poverty, climate and environmental degradation, disease – overlap in mutually exacerbating ways that make it extremely difficult for any one discipline (security, say, or international development) to address them.

The need is for multi-skilled, multi-disciplinary teams that can do everything from planning and training, through design and execution, to monitoring and evaluating programs, and can work in the complex overlapping space among all these problems, from the strategic and risk analysis level right down to field execution. Most of our work focuses on applying design thinking to help government and private sector clients find innovative ways to stabilize conflict-affected and poverty-afflicted environments.

We saw a need that we knew we could meet, as we built up our rather eclectic (not to say quirky) team, attracting some incredible talent and experience from diverse backgrounds in technology start-ups, NGOs, urban design, political risk consulting, the Peace Corps, aid agencies, policing, rule of law, and the Special Forces. Our people are known for their deep background, field experience, academic background and specialized skills, but also for a certain spark and energy, an innovative and creative approach that makes Caerus an incredibly fun place to work.

We provide clients with integrative design solutions in three practice areas: Plan and Prepare, Design and Execute, and Measure and Understand. Importantly, when we say “clients” we don’t just mean governments and businesses, but also communities.

Rahim Kanani: What kinds of projects are you currently involved in?

David Kilcullen: Here are a few examples of our projects:

– we have a pilot project in southern Afghanistan, trialling whether it is possible to use locally-grown biodiesel and solar systems to produce electricity at the village level in order to improve community stability and reduce people’s dependency on expensive and volatile imported fuel

– we have a project, in partnership with a design company, to develop a crowd-sourced geographic information system for aid workers, NGOs, local communities and disaster relief workers, where people can use pen-and-paper plus a smartphone, fax or camera to upload data layers that become part of an up-to-the-minute integrated picture of the environment where they are working

– we have a research team in Afghanistan providing insight to aid agencies and the military on the effectiveness of their programs

– we have another similar team in Libya working to provide information on local humanitarian needs to NGOs and aid agencies

– we have a project, in development, to provide political risk analysis to businesses and NGOs in Africa

Overall we have seven major projects in the fields of education, technology, energy, analytics and assessments, and humanitarian assistance

What an important move, if it happens, and an acknowledgement that such firms are increasingly operating on a global scene without any real checks and balances:

Switzerland wants to banish mercenary firms and tighten the rules for private security companies based in the country in a bid to safeguard its tradition of neutrality, the government said Wednesday.

A draft bill submitted to parliament would ban Swiss-based companies from direct participation in armed conflicts abroad, and from recruiting or training mercenaries in Switzerland.

The proposal, which lawmakers have until the end of January to consider, also requires private security companies to report their activities to Swiss authorities, and to abide by an international code of conduct.

The code was agreed last year by governments and industry representatives at a meeting in Geneva. It requires companies to respect human rights and the rule of law in conflict zones, to refrain from taking part in military offensives, and to restrict the use of lethal force to instances where the contractor or a third person’s life is being protected.

The government said it estimates some 20 private security companies currently operate in Switzerland.

The bill was prompted by the decision of Aegis, one of the world’s biggest private security contractors, to set up a Swiss holding company in 2010. Such holding companies are explicitly included in the proposal, meaning Aegis would have to report its activities to Swiss authorities if the bill is passed.

The British company didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

The bill foresees a penalty of up to three years imprisonment for individuals found to have broken Swiss law.

Now that’s imaginative civil disobedience:

Occupy Wall Street take note: when garnering headlines that don’t have anything to do with NYPD brutality, nudity—or more specifically, orgies—may be the way to go. At a meeting between British and Canadian officials yesterday in London, to discuss the UK’s purchase of Canada’s sweet sweet tar sands oil, two protesters stood up, stripped down, covered themselves in “oil” (what appears to be chocolate) and begin an “oil orgy” that looks like something out of a Christopher Guest movie.

“Ohhhh Canada! Ohhhhh Canada!” the man representing the UK moans. “Wait, what about the science? What about human rights?” he hesitates. “This is more ethical than Saudi Arabia!” the woman representing Canada shouts. All of the old white men assembled don’t appear very fazed: we suppose it wasn’t their first oil orgy.

A spokesperson for the protest group, UK Tar Sands Network, said in a statement“, We interrupted the Energy Round table today because the UK and Canadian governments flirtations are developing into friends with benefits. This seedy relationship puts profits for the oil industry and banks ahead of much needed legislation which will curb emissions from transport fuel in Europe.”

Canada’s tar sands are the biggest supplier of oil to the United States, and there are many serious environmental risks associated with extracting the petroleum. A Canadian oil company is also planning on building a $13 billion pipline from Alberta to the Gulf of Mexico, a move opposed by activists. Yet if the United States doesn’t install the pipeline, the oil will be transported to European and Asian countries, causing even more environmental harm in transit.

“Oil Orgy” invades Energy Summit from You and I Films on Vimeo.

Barely a day goes by when another report emerges of locals in PNG not gaining anything from multinationals pillaging the vast natural resources of the country.

This week’s Guardian features a story on the subject and explains how the PNG government is more than happy to allow rapacious corporations to extract the valuable assets from underground but the resource curse is never far away:

The issue of resource ownership continues to dominate public discussion in a country experiencing an unprecedented resources boom. The biggest development now under way is Exxon Mobil’s $15bn gas field project in the remote Highlands. The oil giant plans to pump the product down a 850km pipeline across several provinces, starting in 2014.

Peter Graham, the managing director of Exxon’s subsidiary Esso Highlands Ltd, who is managing the project, says Papua New Guineans should benefit from the development. “Some analysts forecast a doubling of the GDP of the country; I think education and health will also benefit in the communities,” he says.

All this sounds promising for a country beset by failing public administration and systematic corruption, and that looks set to fail all of the UN Millenium Development Goals despite strong economic growth of the last few years.

But even in the midst of construction, the gas field project is clouded by landowner issues, particularly among those who didn’t sign up to a benefits sharing agreement that the government oversaw in six weeks of negotiation in 2009. One of these is Simon Ekanda, a landowner from Tugubu in Southern Highlands. He says the focus of those talks on thousands of individuals who claimed, often illegitimately, to be land rights holders is in conflict with customary culture.

“We’ve been here for a long time,” Ekanda says. “The land is owned by the tribe, not the individual. Individual ownership is a western concept. That’s not our culture.” Ekanda claims that the state, which has 19.4% equity in the gas project, is playing the wrong role in developing the country’s natural resources. “Developer should be dealing with landowner directly and the government should be the regulator alone.”

Spot on:

So what are we doing here? Let me tell you a wonderful, old joke from Communist times. A guy was sent from East Germany to work in Siberia. He knew his mail would be read by censors, so he told his friends: “Let’s establish a code. If a letter you get from me is written in blue ink, it is true what I say. If it is written in red ink, it is false.” After a month, his friends get the first letter. Everything is in blue. It says, this letter: “Everything is wonderful here. Stores are full of good food. Movie theatres show good films from the west. Apartments are large and luxurious. The only thing you cannot buy is red ink.” This is how we live. We have all the freedoms we want. But what we are missing is red ink: the language to articulate our non-freedom. The way we are taught to speak about freedom— war on terror and so on—falsifies freedom. And this is what you are doing here. You are giving all of us red ink…

What do we perceive today as possible? Just follow the media. On the one hand, in technology and sexuality, everything seems to be possible. You can travel to the moon, you can become immortal by biogenetics, you can have sex with animals or whatever, but look at the field of society and economy. There, almost everything is considered impossible. You want to raise taxes by little bit for the rich. They tell you it’s impossible. We lose competitivity. You want more money for health care, they tell you, “Impossible, this means totalitarian state.” There’s something wrong in the world, where you are promised to be immortal but cannot spend a little bit more for healthcare.

The following was sent yesterday:

Dear friends,

We are sending out our occasional newsletter and we would like to express our gratitude for the support we have received. In particular, we are grateful to various generous benefactors without whom our activities would not be possible.

We have recently joined the Australia Palestine Advocacy Network (APAN), which “has been formed by civil society groups to give a national voice to the Palestinian experience, with the aim of bringing balance and truth to the public debate in Australia about the Israel-Palestine conflict.” APAN “was officially established as an Incorporated Association in May 2011 and its founding membership base includes representatives of Palestinian groups, unions, churches, existing Palestinian solidarity organisations, and Jewish groups.” Peter Slezak is on the Executive, and we are encouraging both individuals and organisations to join. Please visit www.apan.org.au for more information.

Miko Peled, the grandson of one of the signers of Israel’s Declaration of Independence and the son of a general in the 1967 war, visited Australia recently for a number of talks and public events, sponsored by the Melbourne-based Australian for Palestine (AFP). Peter Slezak joined him and others for a Parliamentary dinner at the NSW Parliament. There is a good interview with Peled here.

The Leichhardt Friends of Hebron sponsored a forum recently on the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement. Speakers included Peter Slezak  Samah Sabawi (from Australians for Palestine) and Joseph Wakim (founder of the Arabic Australian Council). The forum was moderated by Peter Manning, senior lecturer at Monash University.

Also on the topic of the BDS movement, late last year Marrickville council in Sydney endorsed the BDS as a policy. There followed months of intense public debate, political attacks and misinformation about the BDS movement and the alleged costs to the council. In April of this year the council met to discuss whether to rescind their support for BDS. Antony Loewenstein and Peter Slezak, among others, spoke at the council meeting in support of BDS and the council’s decision of December 2010. Here is the the video of Antony’s speech. The council decided at the meeting to revoke their earlier decision to support BDS. For more information about the BDS movement, visit their website: www.bdsmovement.net

In May, the annual Jewish Limmud-Oz festival held at the University of New South Wales cancelled two speakers from their program following complaints that the two supported Marrickville council and BDS. The two speakers were Vivienne Porzsolt (from Jews Against the Occupation) and Peter Slezak. Here’s a Sydney Morning Herald article with more details of what happened, and here’s an article by Peter Slezak in which he discusses his removal from the Limmud-Oz program.

A forthcoming book may be of interest. It is edited by Avigail Abarbanel and called ‘Beyond Tribal Loyalties: Stories of Jewish Activists’ (in the Cambridge Scholars series), with a Foreword by Harvard’s Sara Roy and including chapters by Ilan Pappe, Jeff Halper, Anna Baltzer, and Peter Slezak and Vivienne Porszolt among others.

Here is an article by Antony discussing Palestine’s bid for UN statehood, and this piece, published on September 11, examines the Israeli/American relationship since 9/11.

In a significant development towards enhancing our efforts, we have hired Eran Asoulin as a part time executive officer to supplement the work he has been doing on a volunteer basis.

Among current plans, we hope to support Peter Slezak’s inclusion in the 2012 APHEDA tour of the Palestinian territories to report back in the form of public lectures, blogs and articles. APHEDA is the overseas humanitarian aid agency of the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU).

Finally, IAJV now has a facebook page and a twitter page, “like” or follow us if you use those services. We will be increasing our online presence with regular updates on many relevant issues, so please visit our website.

As always, we are grateful for funding support which has allowed us to undertake our various activities. To make a contribution you may either use the “Donate” button on our website or use the following bank details for making an electronic transfer:

Unicom Credit Union
BSB: 802-396
Name: IAJV
Account Number: 26241843

Thank you in advance.

Best wishes for now,

—

Independent Australian Jewish Voices
Peter Slezak
James Levy
Antony Loewenstein
Eran Asoulin
http://www.iajv.org/