- Romania decides to withdraw its troops from Iraq.
- How Iranian Jews are learning to live with Ahmadinejad.
- Dahr Jamail on the real power in Iraq.
- A campaign to boycott Israel’s Gay Pride festival.
- Just how much are Palestinian lives really worth? Murdoch’s Australian shows its true, bigoted colours.
Relations with our neighbour remain as challenging as ever:
A recent poll has found that more than two-thirds (67 per cent) of NSW men between ages 40 to 49 felt that Australia did not stand up enough to Indonesia in its dealings.
And overall, the poll found that 58 per cent of Australians believe our government should stand up to Indonesia more often. In contrast, 31 per cent said we are strong enough.
Younger Australians are significantly more likely to perceive Indonesia positively, the poll found. 62 per cent of people aged 18 to 29 held a positive opinion of Indonesia and only 16 per cent negative.
Older Australians were more likely to hold negative perceptions of Indonesia; however, they still regarded the relationship as important.
A growing number of Australians have travelled to Indonesia and hold the country in high regard. After all, politicians are usually far behind public sentiment (as shown by flagging, public support for US foreign policy.)
Indonesia may be a complex country with contradictory aims (like any large nation), but Australia’s recent move to appease the Indonesians over refugee policy is misguided and not supported by the general population.
Once again, John Howard has been incapable of managing one of our most important relationships.
“Running the story about the money-tracing program is a version of giving Anne Frank’s address to the Nazis.”
Rupert Murdoch’s Australian newspaper understands news. Hence today’s page-one lead. A serious story about individuals who thrive on selling advertisements between diet shows.
Perhaps it would have been better to discuss Condoleezza Rice’s belief that the US has “moral authority.”
It is understandable that US officials would react with outrage to the idea of forgiving insurgents with American blood on their hands. As Senator Carl Levin said, “the idea that they should even consider talking about amnesty for people who have killed people who liberated their country is unconscionable.” But Senator Levin and others like him seem to forget that liberating something means setting it free.
The Iraqis need the space to make hard decisions that will help them restore stability in their country. But they will never find this space so long as US officials continue to micro-manage the Iraqi government according to their own plan. What the Iraqis really need most now is what the Americans promised them long ago: freedom. And that ought to include the freedom to govern their own country in a way that will benefit the Iraqi people.
As Israel commits war crimes in Gaza (more here and here), a former adviser to the Israeli prime minister argues that the US Zionist lobby offers little more than fighting a perceived “enemy”:
Writing during the Rabin era in an article entitled “Foreign Affairs: Mischief Makers,” Tom Friedman argued, “It is as if these organizations can only thrive if they have an enemy, someone to fight. They have no positive vision to offer American Jews.”
It would require huge institutional and personal efforts and realignments, but it is still not too late for AIPAC to be a part of providing that positive vision. That would mean cutting the umbilical cord to the neoconservatives, the Christian right, and Israel’s (now fringe) Likud party. The alternative for AIPAC would be to ultimately become a much loathed obstructionist footnote in history. The alternative for the moderate majority of Israeli and American Jews will be to forge new alliances and ensure that this time, the shared interest of peace and ending the occupation carries the day.
Zionists are unlikely to take this advice. After all, creating an enemy makes good financial sense.
My latest New Matilda column discusses the growing, Western admiration for empire:
Despite the odious history of the British and US Empires in the last centuries, it has become increasingly acceptable to express respect for these long-forgotten days (in the case of Britain) or their continuation (in the case of the US). After all, there are an awful lot of uncivilised people around the world just waiting to be invaded and occupied.
Britain is currently undergoing such a discussion. Niall Ferguson is a Harvard professor of history, senior research fellow at Oxford University and a senior fellow at Stanford University. He writes polemics for the UK Daily Mail (and irregularly contributes to The Australian). His main area of interest is empire — he’s rather fond of it.
My New Matilda archive is here.
When the New York Times and a host of other newspapers recently published stories about the US Treasury Department’s program to covertly monitor worldwide money transfers of “terrorists”, it was a necessary and important story.
It is not the job of journalists or media companies to support any administration or governmental authority. It is certainly their duty to undermine actions that are unaccountable and possible illegal. The Bush administration is a legitimate and worthy target of contempt, and should be undermined at every opportunity.
Unsurprisingly, a number of extremists are claiming the Times should be punished and prosecuted. Some are even issuing death threats to senior members of the Times family. Such individuals or groups would clearly prefer to live in a nation where the press simply publishes governmental press releases, asks no questions and conducts wars as silently as possible. Such people don’t believe in democracy.
Meanwhile, back in reality, the Iraqi town of Fallujah continues to struggle under the weight of US occupation.
UPDATE: The New York Times answers its critics.
The Columbia Journalism Review Daily reports:
In November, 2001, at the outset of its military campaign to oust the Taliban and hunt down Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, a U.S. missile levelled the Kabul bureau of the Al Jazeera television network. In his new book, The One Percent Doctrine, Ron Suskind alleges that Al Jazeera was intentionally targeted.
So why isn’t the press paying attention?
If Suskind was somewhat vague about the incident in his book (he writes that “inside the CIA and White House there was satisfaction that a message had been sent to Al Jazeera” on the day of the bombing), he cleared up any ambiguity during an appearance this week on CNN’s Situation Room. “My sources are clear that that was done on purpose, precisely to send a message to Al Jazeera, and essentially a message was sent,” he told Wolf Blitzer. “…There was great anger at Al-Jazeera at this point.” He added, “I’ll tell you emphatically it was a deliberate act by the U.S.”
Suskind’s statement is hardly the last word on the matter, but the deliberate US bombing of al-Jazeera should open the eyes of anyone who still believes that the US aims to bring democracy to the Middle East.
Poland is currently experiencing a resurgence of the far-right (recently highlighted here.) This latest news is bound to cause concern:
Piotr Farfal has had a stellar career. The 28-year-old Pole is a lawyer. He is also a far-right political activist, a card-carrying right-wing extremist and former editor-in-chief of the Polish skinhead magazine Front, which openly supports anti-Semitism and right-wing extremist violence.
And now he has been appointed as deputy chairman of the board of Poland’s state-run public television. People are wondering how this could have happened - even in a country such as Poland that is going through dramatic social and political change.
Farfal, however, has powerful friends in high places. Among them is the leader of the right-wing League of Polish Families, Roman Giertych, who is also Poland’s deputy prime minister and education minister in the country’s new government. It was Giertych that got Farfal his appointment.
Amartya Sen, International Herald Tribune, June 26:
Informed by the harrowing lessons of World War II, the United Nations Charter was signed in San Francisco on June 26, 1945. Exactly 61 years later, the UN review conference on small arms will open on Monday in New York. This will be the first major conference on the UN program of action on the global menace of small and light weapons of combat.
In recent years, discussions on terror and safety have tended to concentrate on weapons of mass destruction. And yet there are other problems that are already causing havoc, which also demand urgent attention. It is important to appreciate why an effective system of the control of trade in small arms is so badly needed right now.
First, the use of small arms is constantly fed and heavily promoted in the world by the sellers, for there is much profit to be made there. While it is true that arms trading needs willing buyers in addition to eager sellers, the pushing of arms is no less a phenomenon today than the pushing of drugs.
East Timor’s Prime Minster, Mari Alkatiri, has resigned, but the story behind the country’s recent turmoil remains highly suspicious. One of Australia’s finest journalists, John Martinkus, has discovered the situation is far more complex than we have been led to believe:
In a wide-ranging interview last week, East Timor’s embattled Prime Minister Mari Alkatiri accused opposition groups and their foreign supporters of repeatedly trying to convince prominent commanders in the East Timorese armed forces to overthrow his government in an armed coup. “They were always trying to get the command of Falintil, F-FDTL. They tried to convince the command to order and participate in a coup. They failed.” It was then he said his opponents embarked on a program to weaken the influence of the military. “When they failed to bring the command to join their forces in a coup then what they did is they tried to break Falintil F-FDTL and they did it by bringing out of the barracks almost 600 which they called the petitioners.”
For the first time Prime Minister Alkatiri has given his version of what exactly led to the chaos in the capital Dili in late May and the breakdown of law and order that led to 130,000 internal refugees and the deployment of 2,200 troops from Australia, New Zealand and Malaysia to quell the violence. He says his political opponents exploited ethnic divisions within the police force to create unrest. “Then they try to influence the PNTL [East Timor National police force]. How did they do it? Through this kind of propaganda, Loromunu, Loro Sae [West vs. East]. They succeeded in dividing the people within the PNTL. This is the whole strategy. Then they put groups of PNTL against groups of F-FDTL in confrontation. And they succeeded again. This is why I requested assistance from outside,” he said.
Senior sources within the command of the East Timorese armed forces; the F-FDTL confirmed that not one but three separate attempts had been made to the leadership of the F-FDTL to lead a coup against Prime Minister Alkatiri in the last 18 months.
At best, Australia’s intentions are questionable.
The LA Times may claim that at least 50,000 Iraqis have been killed since the 2003 “liberation” - a grossly conservative figure, it seems - the Washington Post provides space for Richard Perle to demand US action on Iran:
I know it is not too late for us, not too late to give substance to Bush’s words, not too late to redeem our honour.
Perle and honour aren’t two words that automatically spring to mind. The fact that the Post still publishes people like Perle proves that the establishment respects individuals who express hyperbole and advocate war, yet refuse to take responsibility for their past, criminal actions.
The Western “mission” to bring democracy and freedom to Afghanistan has failed (the actual plan was to deliver compliant warlordism to the long-suffering population).
Jason Burke explains why.
Bolivia has good reason to distrust the US:
President Evo Morales drew a sharp denial from the U.S. Embassy when he claimed in a speech that the United States is sending soldiers disguised as students and tourists to Bolivia.
Morales said in a speech Tuesday that U.S. Ambassador David Greenlee had sought a meeting with him.
“But I also have the right to complain because U.S. soldiers disguised as students and tourists are entering the country,” said Morales, a leftist who has pledged revolutionary changes for the poor, including his recent move to nationalize Bolivia‘s natural gas industry.
The U.S. Embassy called Morales‘ charge “unfounded,” saying in a statement: “We reiterate once more that we are supporting Bolivian democracy in a consistent way.”
Meanwhile, Chilean people-power takes to the streets:
It was every adolescent revolutionary’s dream: schools throughout the country were occupied and the gates were barricaded.
Tens of thousands of uniformed pupils on the streets defied police brutality, support came in from across adult society and, to top it all, the education minister prevaricated hopelessly in the face of coherent, well articulated demands.
“Chile’s secondary school pupils have scored the highest marks in history,” wrote the University of Chile historian, Sofia Correa, in a recent newspaper column. “Their organization, media management, awareness of civic duty and timing, have all been outstanding.”
But this was about more than student proficiency. What started in April, as a gripe against school bus fares and university entrance exam fees, rapidly grew into a nationwide movement demanding quality education for all Chileans, irrespective of class, ability or spending power. Since Pinochet stood down sixteen years ago, no other mass movement has so successfully challenged the legitimacy of the neo-liberal state the General left behind him.
Is there a relatively unseen revolution occurring in China?
The following letter appears in today’s Australian newspaper:
Elisabeth Wynhausen’s piece (”Careful, they might hear you“, Inquirer, 10-11/6) is rife with inaccuracies, contradictions and non sequiturs.
For example, she provides evidence that the policy positions of the Australia/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council reflect the views of the majority of Australian Jewry. But then she expends most of the space in a transparent attempt to portray AIJAC’s advocacy as non-mainstream, wrong-headed, and somehow stifling of debate.
Further, Wynhausen implies that Jewish activists in Australia inappropriately brand critics of Israel as anti-Semitic but she provides not a single example.
As for claims we “bully” editors, AIJAC’s conversations with the media are not to prevent them publishing criticism of Israel but to encourage them to provide a balance by also running pieces explaining and giving sorely needed context to Israel’s actions.
Many groups in Australian society engage politicians, the media and others of influence. It is part of what makes us a democracy, and constitutes participation in debate, not its suppression. It is unfortunate that some see it as somehow sinister or inappropriate when Jews, and only when Jews, exercise this right.
Colin Rubenstein
Executive director, AIJAC
Rubenstein is being disingenuous. Nobody is suggesting Jews don’t have the right to lobby, agitate and promote their agenda. The issue is the ways in which it is done. As we’ve seen recently, Zionist lobbying regularly involves threats and vitriol, causing the opposite of the desired effect. Furthermore, more and more Jews are simply disengaging from the Zionist project. Rubenstein doesn’t have any answers to this dilemma, except stronger promotion of Israel’s exclusionary ideology.
Charles Krauthammer loves Australia and explains why our “geographic and historical isolation has bred a wisdom about the structure of peace.” This “peace” has been ensured, he laughably argues, by joining every imperial adventure over the last century. An independent foreign policy is scorned, but servitude is praised.
The friends we keep…
The Wall Street Journal opinion editor says gay marriage could lead to marrying snakes.
Antony Loewenstein is powered by WordPress 2.5.1 and K2
Modified by Jon Fox Image manipulation Gail Thomas Images created by Banksy
Hosted by
RSS Entries and RSS Comments