Tag Archive for 'mainstream media'

Australian mainstream newspaper dares to say a few things about East Jerusalem

Published on 16 March 2010 in Israel. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , , .

For the Sydney Morning Herald, yesterday’s editorial is pretty strong. A sign, perhaps, that the Zionist lobby isn’t always running the agenda in the corporate media:

Stephen Smith, the Foreign Minister, is right to be outraged by Israel’s announcement last week of plans for 1600 houses for Jewish settlers in East Jerusalem. Venturing beyond Australia’s usual safe diplomatic language on the Arab-Israeli conflict, Smith called it “a bad decision at the wrong time” and “not a helpful contribution to the peace process”. The timing – just as Joe Biden, the US Vice-President, arrived in Israel to help restart peace talks – could hardly have been worse. Smith was still smarting from unresolved tensions with Israel over the use of forged Australian passports in the assassination of a Hamas leader in Dubai, widely believed to be the work of the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad. Even more than that episode, the tactless announcement over East Jerusalem highlights Israel’s apparent disregard for the role of goodwill in relations with even its closest allies.

Palestinians see East Jerusalem as their future capital, should a two-state solution to the Middle East conflict ever come to pass. Yet the housing plan is just one more event in a process by which the Israeli government has been busily remaking East Jerusalem in Israel’s own image, often disregarding Arab heritage. Jewish tourist parks, conservation areas and archaeological digs have sprouted in Palestinian districts. There are reports that Israel plans to build another 50,000 housing units in East Jerusalem over the next few years. Shocked, angered and embarrassed enough just by hearing of the plan for 1600 houses, Biden condemned it as “precisely the kind of step that undermines the trust we need right now”.

The undermining was a product of the inability of the Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, to control his coalition of right-wing and religious parties since he took power a year ago. The housing announcement came from Eli Yishai, the Interior Minister, who is head of the right-wing Sephardic-Orthodox party, which champions Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem. Israel’s defence ministry quickly deplored the announcement as “unwarranted”. Yet however deep the divisions are among Israelis themselves, Netanyahu’s failure at least to reprimand his minister publicly leaves questions over how serious he is about pushing ahead with a peace deal.

The affair has harmed prospects for the so-called “proximity talks”, in which Israelis and Palestinians are to meet separately with American mediators. Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian President, has threatened to pull out, saying Palestinians have been “given the finger by Netanyahu”. Since late 2008, Australia has supported a freeze on Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem. We must now follow this through and bring what pressure we can on Israel to grasp the goodwill so vital to the peace process.

Murdoch casts a spell over already gutless corporate reporters

Published on 14 March 2010 in General. 0 Comments Tags: , , .

Former executive editor of the New York Times Howell Raines writes in the Washington Post that American mainstream journalists are scared of the power of Fox News and should fight back:

Why has our profession, through its general silence — or only spasmodic protest — helped Fox legitimize a style of journalism that is dishonest in its intellectual process, untrustworthy in its conclusions and biased in its gestalt? The standard answer is economics, as represented by the collapse of print newspapers and of audience share at CBS, NBC and ABC. Some prominent print journalists are now cheering Rupert Murdoch, the head of News Corp. (which owns the Fox network) for his alleged commitment to print, as evidenced by his willingness to lose money on the New York Post and gamble the overall profitability of his company on the survival of the Wall Street Journal. This is like congratulating museums for preserving antique masterpieces while ignoring their predatory methods of collecting.

Look, says reporter, we’re winning the war in Afghanistan…the military says so

Published on 12 March 2010 in General. 2 Comments Tags: , , .

How many Western journalists either fell for the spin or were happy to propagate lies helpfully provided by Washington and her allies?

The U.S. media told the public for weeks that a big, offensive battle was taking place in Marja, in Afghanistan, a “city of 80,000 people” in Helmand province which was also the logistical hub of the Taliban. The description gave the impression that the U.S. presence in Marja was a major strategic objective, and that the city was more important than other district centers in the province. But the picture the military painted of Marja and duly reported by a biddable news media was one of the most dramatic pieces of misinformation so far in the entire war, aimed at hyping the offensive as a big turning point in the conflict. In truth, Marja is not a city or even a town, but either a few groups of farmers’ homes or a large farming area encompassing much of the southern Helmand River Valley. The sparsley populated area is completely rural, with no incorporated city or town. The fiction that Marja was a city of 80,000 got started at a briefing given by officials on February 2 at the U.S. Marine base called Camp Leatherneck. Officials referred to Marja as a populous city. The Associated Press put out an article that same day saying they expected up to 1,000 insurgents were “holed up” in the “southern Afghan town of 80,000 people,” a statement that evoked a picture of house-to-house, urban street fighting. ABC News perpetuated the myth the next day, in a story that referred to the “city of Marja” and claiming that the city and its surrounding area were “more heavily populated, urban and dense than other places the Marines so far have been able to clear and hold.” The rest of the news media fell in line, giving fake descriptions of a densely populated, urban Marja, often using the terms “city” and “town” interchangeably, without fact-checking the descriptions. On February 22, the Washington Post reported that the decision to launch the big offensive against Marja was intended largely to impress U.S. public opinion with the military’s effectiveness in Afghanistan by showing that it could achieve a “large and loud victory.” The false idea that Marja was a significantly large city center was an essential part of that message.

When Barack Obama goes Down Under

Published on 12 March 2010 in General and Israel. 6 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , .

My following article appears in the Huffington Post:

The arrival of the new American Ambassador to Australia was breathlessly welcomed by the Australia media pack in late 2009. Jeffrey Bleich, an American lawyer from California, assumed his position in Canberra and was introduced to the country through an interview on the public broadcaster ABC.

After the reporter Leigh Sales congratulated Bleich on his appointment, he was treated to softball questions and allowed to outline, unchallenged, the Obama administration’s agenda.

Sales and Bleich joked over the ambassador’s Elvis obsession but substantive questions were almost absent (or follow-ups probing Bleich’s non-answers). No comments about Obama’s continuation of Bush administration policies towards indefinite detention of terror suspects and warrantless wiretapping.

On the eve of Obama’s first visit to Australia in late March, the Sydney Morning Herald’s political editor Peter Hartcher informed his readers that, “the remark by the US ambassador to Australia that his kids are brushing up on their Wii skills is a marker of the rejuvenation of the alliance.”

Hartcher wrote:

“By bringing his family, Obama will give a new generation of Australians a sense of connection with their country’s chief ally… Where the relationship between [former Australian Prime Minister John] Howard and [George W.] Bush was forged in the fire of September 11 terrorism and the Afghan and Iraq invasions that followed, [Australian Prime Minister Kevin] Rudd and Obama have developed a post-crisis partnership.”

Both leaders would be able to “share satisfaction in the early progress of the new strategy in Afghanistan.”

The American/Australian alliance has always been built on supporting Washington’s wars, despite public opinion often opposing these engagements (such as the current Afghan deployment).

After the humanitarian and military disaster in Iraq, the only reason to maintain Australian troops in Afghanistan is to try and regain Washington’s credibility; a difficult task when civilians continue being killed. Australia’s objective has therefore nothing to do with bringing freedom and democracy to Afghanistan.

Furthermore, Australians troops are suspected of committing war crimes in the country and military lawyers are inadequately trained to assess possible breaches of humanitarian law in the field.

A senior Australian Army media adviser who served in Afghanistan and Iraq accused the Australian government of a culture of excessive spin and unnecessary secrecy, lying about local engagement with the civilian populations and obscuring the mission’s purpose.

There is little discussion in the corporate media over what Australian troops are actually doing in Afghanistan. Instead, the public are mostly treated to articles advocating military escalation. Take this recent piece by Rupert Murdoch columnist, Greg Sheridan, arguing that, “a serious ally would take the lead in a province, as we did in Vietnam.” Public opinion, or morality, is damned.

America has consistently thanked Australia for its reliability. George W. Bush awarded John Howard the Presidential Medal of Freedom in early 2009. Bush said that, “He [Howard] never wavered in his support for liberty, and free institutions, and the rule of law as the true and hopeful alternatives to ideologies of violence and repression. That’s why I called him a man of steel.”

Howard was a full backer of Bush’s “war on terror”, including Guantanamo Bay and extraordinary rendition.

Britain’s Tony Blair and Colombian President Alvaro Uribe were also awarded at the White House ceremony.

Managing the alliance between America and Australia takes little work or imagination from Washington. They have a country desperate to keep on its good side, able to offer its own thoughts but likely to fall into line, no matter what. Washington rightly believes that Australia watches over the Pacific, influencing and pressuring small nations heavily reliant on foreign aid.

Some mainstream commentators have suggested that Obama’s upcoming trip should allow serious discussion about China and energy co-operation.

But Obama’s fortunes are dwindling in America and key policies, on health and climate change, are stalled with little positive resolution expected any time soon. Although a senior Australian minister claimed last week that Obama’s visit would “generate a great deal of interest from the Australian public“, I know of a number of anti-war groups who will peacefully protest America’s ongoing wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen and support for Israel.

Australian backing for America isn’t automatic and requires constant massaging by embedded journalists. The Australian-American Leadership Dialogue is a regular and private gathering of the political elites from both countries. Senior journalists, most of whom never disclose their participation, regularly return from meetings praising American initiatives.

As far as I know, there has never been a comprehensive article in the mainstream press that debunks the agenda of the Dialogue or the opinion-shapers involved. Instead, we are treated to occasional references without context.

Australia has long suffered from an inferiority complex towards its super-power boss. Disagreements aren’t unknown between Washington and Canberra – Kevin Rudd refused to help re-settle released Uighur detainees from Guantanamo Bay despite a request from the Obama administration – but Australia is far more comfortable seeing America as an irreplaceable friend who supposedly shares the same values. China is only a vitally important trading partner.

There is no doubt that Obama himself remains popular in Australia – his allegedly charming demeanour is still profiled in gossip magazines – but the mainstream media reports the torturous progress of the Democrat’s health care bill and the political effectiveness of the Tea Party movement.

Obama’s upcoming visit will be primarily an opportunity for Kevin Rudd in an election year to bask in the glow of a President whose popularity is diving in America but remains buoyant globally.

At a time when America’s ability to shape events in vast swathes of the world are in decline, including throughout South America and the Middle East, Obama will be pleased to visit an unquestioning ally.

Friedman welcomes Iraqi democracy…glosses over the deaths

Published on 11 March 2010 in General. 1 Comment Tags: , , , , .

Earth to the New York Times and Thomas Friedman. Backing an invasion of Iraq requires responsibility, not more platitudes. Of course, when you’re not doing the fighting, wars seem so noble:

Former President George W. Bush’s gut instinct that this region craved and needed democracy was always right. It should have and could have been pursued with much better planning and execution. This war has been extraordinarily painful and costly. But democracy was never going to have a virgin birth in a place like Iraq, which has never known any such thing.

Some argue that nothing that happens in Iraq will ever justify the costs. Historians will sort that out. Personally, at this stage, I only care about one thing: that the outcome in Iraq be positive enough and forward-looking enough that those who have actually paid the price — in lost loved ones or injured bodies, in broken homes or broken lives, be they Iraqis or Americans or Brits — see Iraq evolve into something that will enable them to say that whatever the cost, it has given freedom and decent government to people who had none.

Violence is a means and an end: an interview with Mark Danner

Published on 2 March 2010 in General. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

My latest article for New Matilda is an interview with leading American reporter Mark Danner:

Leading US journalist Mark Danner calls a spade a spade and examines the political value of violence in this exclusive interview with Antony Loewenstein

Mark Danner has some unusual characteristics for a mainstream US journalist.

He has published in some of America’s finest literary journals and is an irregular contributor to the New Yorker and New York Review of Books. Yet despite his impeccable media establishment credentials he remains entirely capable of critiquing its failures.

In an exclusive interview with newmatilda.com last week, Danner covered a lot of ground. He is haunted by his country’s use, abuse and boasting of torture on “enemy combatants” and the inability or unwillingness of Obama to challenge the criminality of the Bush years.

I raised with him the roughly 700 military bases or outposts across the world that Washington acknowledges it operates, according to American historian Chalmers Johnson. When I asked Danner what the US needs them for, he spoke with a frankness unusual in a mainstream journalist about the way the media avoids using words “empire” and “imperialism” to describe America’s role in the world.

“People don’t want to use that kind of terminology because they’ll get placed on the Left. It is viewed as an inherent denunciation of American policy. To talk about empire, you’re automatically Noam Chomsky, you’re making a point about hegemony but I don’t see it like that. The United States has imperial visions and responsibilities and that’s just a fact. It obviously works differently to the Roman Empire or the British Empire.

“But the US worldwide has interests and it controls the sea-lanes. The American navy is absolutely unparalleled in the world and nobody rivals this power. There is no other worldwide navy, though the Soviets tried to build one and failed. That’s what empires do — they keep the sea-lanes clear. China is building a blue-water navy but it’s generally thought that Beijing wants to construct a ‘string of pearls’ — military bases from China to Africa because at this stage their foreign policy is primarily focused on securing resources.”

Danner was in town last week to give a talk at Sydney University, and to promote his most recent book, Stripping Bare the Body. During his talk Danner challenged the core beliefs of the American-led battle against terrorism by outlining the wide gulf between reality and rhetoric. He cited President Barack Obama’s “eloquent address” in Cairo last June that articulated the importance of reframing the relationship between the West and the Muslim world.

But Washington seemed to ignore the contradictions of an African-American president talking about democracy and human rights while still wholeheartedly backing dictatorships in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan. Both Saudi Arabia and Egypt are key targets for al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden. Danner observes that while such inconsistencies might escape the mainstream Western voter, they are at the very centre of the way people in non-Western countries see US behaviour. Obama’s seeming endorsement of the policies of client states such as these — or at least no public moves to condemn their brutality — plays directly into the hands of those who point to America as the great hypocrite.

In that context, Danner argued that the Muslim Brotherhood gaining influence in Egypt through democratic elections should be cautiously welcomed and a “salutary” lesson for a super-power long used to backing anti-democratic forces.

He argued that after one year in office, Obama would get a failing grade on the project of completely ending torture and closing Guantanamo Bay. More ominously, lamented Danner, many polls find a majority of Americans now believe that torture is necessary to keep the homeland safe from terrorist attack. “Fear is now a permanent feature of American life”, Danner said.

He reminded the audience that the filibuster technique, ruthlessly used by the Republicans in the last 12 months to block Democrat-led initiatives in Congress, had an ironic history. “It used to be something Democrats used to block civil rights legislation to allow African-Americans to vote”, Danner explained, “and today the same tool is being used by the Republicans against a African-American President.” He wasn’t optimistic that this political gridlock would be broken anytime soon.

Far from being a beltway analyst, commenting on events from the safety of the US, much of Danner’s fame stems from his influential first-hand coverage of conflicts outside the US and of the effects of his country’s foreign policy. As well, his work has dealt frequently with the seeming inability of the corporate press to report honestly on conflicts and trauma both near and far from America. “The verdict since 9/11 is quite mixed”, he told me. “What the press did in the run-up to the Iraq war was a terrible job. One of the mitigating reasons for that was that the Bush administration chose to make its case [over Iraq] on intelligence grounds and put journalists in the position of being seals, wanting fish. The ones who clapped most agreeably, such as Judith Miller at the New York Times, got the biggest fish. Intelligence stories depend on leaks. Secondly, the political elites essentially closed ranks over the invasion.”

Danner argues that the Iraq invasion potentially hurt the Democrats more than the Republicans, as the so-called “Left” didn’t want to be seen as being on the wrong side of history. “Anybody on the Democratic side who thought they might be President in 2004, such as Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, all supported the war; it was the smart vote, in part because of what happened after the earlier Iraq conflict in 1991 when Democrats opposed a very popular war.”

Violence as a catalyst for action is something that Danner looks at in a variety of ways in his book. As he says, “for leaders in a democracy, charged with crafting a foreign policy that can attract consensus or at least acquiescence, the instinctual power exerted by the spectacle of violence is a reality to be managed and sometimes feared.”

And that’s a dynamic that has certainly applied to the rapacious relationship between the US and a place in which Danner did some of his most powerful early journalism: Haiti. In the aftermath of the recent earthquake, Danner wrote in the New York Times that the country needed a serious and long-term commitment from Washington to build a “new Haiti”, but not of the militaristic kind: “Haitians have grown up in a certain kind of struggle for individuality and for power, and the country has proved itself able to absorb the ardent attentions of outsiders who, as often as not, remain blissfully unaware of their own contributions to what Haiti is. Like the ruined bridges strewn across the countryside — one of the few traces of the Marines and their occupation nearly a century ago — these attentions tend to begin in evangelical zeal and to leave little lasting behind.”

Events have brought Haiti back to attention in the most unfortunate way. But it is hard to see a lot of hope for the US altering the way it goes about its business there or elsewhere. In one of the most telling passages in Stripping Bare the Body, Danner describes another US intervention in Haiti, this time during Clinon pesidency: “The Americans, exerting their overwhelming power to reshape the politics of a tiny immiserated land, failed disastrously in Haiti. They underestimated the nationalist response that would accompany their every move, blundering about like a watchmaker blinded by his own shadow.”

And to anyone who has watched the US in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, that’s a description that sounds tragically familiar.

Can Zionists report fairly for the Times on matters of Palestinian importance?

Published on 2 March 2010 in Israel. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , , .

A fine piece of analysis by Middle East correspondent Jonathan Cook:

A recent assignment had me covering Israel’s presumed links to the assassination of Hamas leader Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh; it provoked some more thoughts about the New York Times reporter Ethan Bronner, the Jerusalem bureau chief at the center of a controversy since it was revealed last month that his son is serving in the Israeli army.

Despite mounting pressure to replace Bronner, the NYT’s editors have so far refused to consider that he might be facing a conflict of interest or that it would be wise to post him elsewhere.

Last week, when suspicion for the assassination in Dubai started to fall on Israel’s Mossad, a newspaper editor e-mailed to ask if I could ring up my “Israeli security contacts” for fresh leads. It was a reminder that Western correspondents in Israel are expected to have such contacts. The point was underlined later the same day when I spoke with a left-wing Israeli academic to get his take on Mabhouh’s killing

I had turned to this Ashkenazi professor because he counts many veterans of the Israeli security services as friends. At the end of the interview, I asked him if he had any suggestions for people in the security services I might speak with. He replied: “Talk to Ethan [pronounced Eitan] Bronner. He has excellent contacts.” Miss-hearing “Eitan”, I asked how I could reach this expert on the veiled world of the Israeli security establishment. Was he employed at the professor’s university? “No, ring the New York Times bureau,” he responded incredulously. Oh, that Eitan.

A more interesting question than whether Bronner is now facing a conflict of interest over his son serving in the Israeli army, is whether the NYT reporter was facing such a conflict long before the latest revelations surfaced. Could it be that it is actually incumbent on Bronner, as the NYT’s bureau chief, to have such a conflict of interest?

Consider this: The NYT has a regular response when it comes to turning a blind eye to reporters with conflicts of interest in Israel – aside, I mean, from the issue of the reporters’ ethnic identification or nationality. For example, I am reminded of a recent predecessor of Bronner’s at the Jerusalem bureau – an Israeli Jew – who managed to do regular service in the Israeli army reserves even while he was covering the Second Intifada. I am pretty sure his bosses knew of this, but, as with Bronner, did not think there were grounds for taking action.

Shortly after I wrote my first article on the Bronner issue, pointing out that most Western coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict is shaped by Jewish and Israeli journalists and that Palestinian voices are almost entirely excluded, a Jerusalem-based bureau chief asked to meet. Over a coffee he congratulated me, adding: “I’d be fired if I wrote something like that.”

This reporter, who, unlike me, spends lots of time with the main press corps in Jerusalem, then made some interesting points. He wishes to remain anonymous but agreed to my passing on his observations. He calls Bronner’s situation “the rule, not the exception,” adding: “I can think of a dozen foreign bureau chiefs, responsible for covering both Israel and the Palestinians, who have served in the Israeli army, and another dozen who like Bronner have kids in the Israeli army.”

He added that it is very common to hear Western reporters boasting to one another about their “Zionist” credentials, their service in the Israeli army or the loyal service of their children. “Comments like that are very common at Foreign Press Association gatherings [in Israel] among the senior, agenda-setting, elite journalists.”

My informant is highly critical of what is going on among the Jerusalem press corps, even though he admits the same charges could be levelled against him. “I’m Jewish, married to an Israeli and like almost all Western journalists live in Jewish West Jerusalem. In my free time I hang out in cafes and bars with Jewish Israelis chatting in Hebrew. For the Jewish sabbath and Jewish holidays I often get together with a bunch of Western journalists. While it would be convenient to think otherwise, there is no question that this deep personal integration into Israeli society informs our overall understanding and coverage of the place in a way quite different from a journalist who lived in Ramallah or Gaza and whose personal life was more embedded in Palestinian society.”

And now he gets to the crunch: “The degree to which Bronner’s personal life, like that of most lead journalists here, is integrated into Israeli society, makes him an excellent candidate to cover Israeli political life, cultural shifts and intellectual life. The problem is that Bronner is also expected to be his paper’s lead voice on Palestinian political life, cultural shifts and intellectual life, all in a society he has almost no connection to, deep knowledge of or even the ability to directly communicate with.

“The presumption that this is possible is neither fair to Bronner nor to his readers, and it’s really a shame that Western media executives don’t see the value in an Arabic-speaking bureau chief living in Ramallah and setting the agenda for the news coming out of the Palestinian territories.”

All true. But I think there is a deeper lesson from the Bronner affair.

Editors who prefer to appoint Jews and Israelis to cover the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are probably making a rational choice in news terms – even if they would never dare admit their reasoning. The media assign someone to the Jerusalem bureau because they want as much access as possible to the inner sanctums of power in a self-declared Jewish state. They believe – and they are right – that doors open if their reporter is a Jew, or better still an Israeli Jew, who has proved his or her commitment to Israel by marrying an Israeli, by serving in the army or having a child in the army, and by speaking fluent Hebrew, a language all but useless outside this small state.

Yes, Ethan Bronner is “the rule,” as my informant notes, because any other kind of journalist – the goyim, as many Israelis dismiss non-Jews – will only ever be able to scratch at the surface of Israel’s military-political-industrial edifice. The Bronners have access to power, they can talk to the officials who matter, because those same officials trust that high-powered Jewish and Israeli reporters belong in the Israeli consensus. They may be critical of the occupation, but they can be trusted to pull their punches. If they ever failed to do so, they would be ejected from the inner sanctum and a paper like the NYT would be forced to replace them with someone more cooperative.

When in later years, these Jerusalem bureau chiefs retire from the field of battle and are promoted to the rank of armchair general back at media HQ – when they become a Thomas Friedman paid to pontificate regularly on the conflict – they can be trusted to talk to those same high-placed officials, explaining their viewpoint and defending it. That is why you will not read anything in the NYT questioning the idea that Israel is a democratic state or see coverage suggesting that Israel is acting in bad faith in the peace process.

I do not want here to suggest there is anything unique about this relationship of almost utter dependence. To a degree, this is how most specialists in the mainstream media operate. Think of the local crime reporter. How effective would he be (and it is invariably a he) if he alienated the senior police officers who provide the inside information he needs for his regular supply of stories? Might he not prefer to turn a blind eye to a scoop revealing that one of his main informants is taking bribes, if publishing such a story would lose him his “access” and his posting? This is a simple cost-benefit analysis made both by the reporter and the editors who assign him that almost always favors the powerful over the weak, the interests of the journalist over the reader.

And so it is with Israel. Like the crime reporter, our Jerusalem bureau chief needs his “access” more than he needs the occasional scoop that would sabotage his relationship with official sources. But more so than the crime reporter, many of these bureau chiefs also identify with Israel and its goals because they have an Israeli spouse and children. They not only live on one side of a bitter national conflict but actively participate in defending that side through service in its military.

This is a conflict of interest of the highest order. It is also the reason why they are there in the first place.

Secrets and lies between friends over Mossad murder

Published on 1 March 2010 in Israel. 1 Comment Tags: , , , , , , , , , , .

My following article is published today on ABC Unleashed/The Drum:

Israel is a protected species in the international arena. Many Western states, including Australia, have long tolerated behaviour by the Jewish state that is condemned if committed by any other democracy.

This reality makes the current scandal over the alleged Mossad hit last month in Dubai of a senior Hamas operative, Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, all the more fascinating. The Palestinian militant may be dead but Israel’s reputation and credibility have taken a severe beating. The Israeli press are reporting that up to a third of a key Mossad hit squad may have been compromised.

Australia has a long history of bi-partisan support for the Jewish state but I can’t recall another time when the Prime Minister and Foreign Minister have expressed such public outrage over Israel’s apparent use of Australian passports to cover their tracks in the Dubai murder. This is despite a Jerusalem Post columnist insisting that, “it behoves Western democracies not to lose sight of the fact there are instances in which ends do justify means”.

In this case, Australia apparently does not agree. Smith said he told Israel’s Australian ambassador, Yuval Rotem, that, “if the abuse of Australian passports was in any way sponsored or condoned by Israeli officials, then Australia would not regard that as the act of a friend.” Rudd was equally indignant though refused to specify what action might be taken if Israel did not co-operate. Senior ministers in both the ALP and Liberal party were equally vague on ABC’s Lateline on Friday.

Perhaps an early indication of Canberra’s anger was seen in a vote in the UN last week that saw Australia abstain from backing Israel against the serious allegations contained in the Goldstone Report related to allegations of war crimes in Gaza. This is a change from months of unqualified backing for Israel’s onslaught against Gaza in late 2008/early 2009.

The headline of an article by Sydney Morning Herald journalist Peter Hartcher summed up the mood: “Betrayed PM should not be taken for granted by Israel”. The Age’s Diplomatic Editor Daniel Flitton argued that, “a long friendship is on the line”.

Not so fast. Canberra is apparently upset that Israel has abused its deep friendship. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government probably presumed that a strong ally such as Australia would be unfazed by the abuse of its passport system or more likely hoped it would never become public. An Israeli official, anonymously of course, told the conservative Washington Times that the revelation of Mossad’s behaviour in Dubai would not affect intelligence sharing between Israel and the West.

But a former Australian Middle East ambassador, Ross Burns, is pleasantly surprised by the Rudd government’s strong line. It is time, he writes, that Australia matures and gets past its “smitten” love affair with the Jewish state.

It is possible that Australia will briefly downgrade its relationship with Mossad, as Canada did after the botched assassination attempt in 1997 of Hamas leader Khaled Mashal using fake Canadian passports, but backing Israel for Australia is too central to its complicity with the US alliance to seriously question or radically change.

A better example may be New Zealand in 2004, when then Prime Minister Helen Clark discovered Israeli agents trying to steal the country’s passports and suspended diplomatic relations until an apology was forthcoming.

Countless reports have emerged over the years of Israeli allegedly using Australian passports as cover for covert activities but successive Australian governments have never fully pursued the leads. The public should ask why.

The Australia/Israel relationship is not based on shared values, as constantly stated by the elites in both countries. Instead, Canberra’s usual blind backing of Israeli actions is directly related to the relationship with Washington. If US President Barack Obama suddenly cut all aid to the Jewish state due to its intransigence, rest assured Australia would follow. Our foreign policy in the Middle East is not independent.

But there is no doubt that Kevin Rudd, like most Prime Ministers before him, view Israel as a unique state deserving special privileges. Former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser said on the weekend that Rudd must take a much harder line on Netanyahu.

The Holocaust could no longer be used to justify acts of terrorism in the name of supposed security, he argued: “That happened 65-66 years ago and it cannot be used any longer to prevent proper discussion of Israel’s policies when those policies are counter-productive to world peace. To suggest that those who are critical are anti-Semitic – I reject that utterly.”

Others, such as The Australian’s Greg Sheridan, applauded the murder of the Hamas leader but asked Israel to be more careful next time. In other words, don’t get caught with blood on your hands.

Outright condemnation of Israeli actions has risen in the mainstream press. Amin Saikal in the Sydney Morning Herald accused Israel of committing state terrorism and The Age claimed Israel had “lost friends” over the scandal.

Extra-judicial killings are a central feature of the “war on terror” and Israel is only one of its supporters. The Bush administration (along with the Obama White House) strongly backed the concept of assassinating individuals deemed to be “terrorists” in countries such as Yemen, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Salon’s Glenn Greenwald articulates the largely hidden program:

“Barack Obama, like George Bush before him, has claimed the authority to order American citizens murdered based solely on the unverified, uncharged, unchecked claim that they are associated with Terrorism and pose ‘a continuing and imminent threat to U.S. persons and interests.’ They’re entitled to no charges, no trial, no ability to contest the accusations.”

A robust democracy would not allow the executive to engage in wanton killing in the name of eliminating “terrorists” but little has been discussed in Australia that acknowledges the fundamental problems with this post 9/11 reality (despite the occasional exception).

Israel’s actions over the Hamas murder are deplorable and must be fully investigated (and Washington pressured to join the hunt for clues). The image of Israel in the wider Australian society has inevitably taken a welcome hit but it remains highly unlikely that the political and media elites will implement the obvious implications of the latest affair; Israeli behaviour in the Middle East and the occupied territories are not the sign of a responsible or democratic nation.

Australian media continue to drag Israel down to where she belongs

Published on 1 March 2010 in Israel. 2 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , .

“Jerusalem has lost friends” is the headline on this Age story:

This vote is clearly an act of retaliation by Australia – and by Britain, France and Germany. Israel has lost friends thanks to the sordid affair in Dubai concerning fake passports and murder, and the stink will hang in the air a good while yet.

Australia has made a calculated switch away from backing Israel’s complaints about bias in the United Nations system. Don’t be fooled. There are plenty of gripes about how Israel is unfairly targeted in the UN, but Tel Aviv takes these votes very seriously and lobbies hard to win countries to its side.

Now Israel has lost key supporters. In New York on Friday night, Australia abstained from a resolution calling for further investigation of the 2009 Gaza conflict and war crimes allegations. Not so long ago Australia was one of 17 countries to join Israel to vote against a similar resolution. The message is clear.

Britain and France went further. Having abstained in the vote last November, on Friday both backed the need for further investigations. Germany switched along the same lines as Australia, while Ireland – the other country caught in the visa scandal – has voted for investigation both times.

The fact is the war crimes questions arising from Gaza are separate from the passport affair and Australia should vote consistently. But the UN is first and foremost a venue for power politics.

This can take many forms, and subtle changes to behaviour can send a strong message.

Australia has demanded Israel co-operate with an inquiry to determine how three Australian passports ended up in the hands of an apparent Mossad hit squad. But if Israel continues to hide behind a policy of ”never confirm or deny”, Australia has little choice but to seek alternative ways to apply pressure for co-operation. For all the talk of close ties between the two countries, Australia has little other leverage.

More revelations are to come from this Dubai affair. The local authorities claim more suspects will soon be identified and are demanding the countries caught up in the scandal do more than condemn the forgery of their passports but help catch the killers. Australia will also feel the pressure to take strong action in the weeks ahead.

And here’s the anonymous quote that explains Australia’s position:

One Department of Foreign Affairs source told the Herald there was no doubt the decision to abstain [at the UN] was intended as a sign to Israel not to take Australian support for granted.

”A number of things made it easier for us to switch our vote,” the source said.

”Firstly, the Americans helped the Palestinians to soften the wording of this resolution compared to the last one. Secondly, a number of other countries had indicated that they were toughening their own positions on Goldstone. But there is no question that the debacle surrounding our passports being used in Dubai helped to make up the government’s mind to abstain. The final decision was taken late on Friday, Australian time, just a few hours before the vote.

”Our pattern in the past has been to vote with the US when it comes to Israel, to show as much support for Israel as possible.

”We were also aware that the UK’s decision to vote in favour of the resolution was influenced by the fact that so many of their citizens had been caught up in the Dubai assassination.”

The opposition foreign affairs spokeswoman, Julie Bishop, yesterday accused the government of downgrading its support for Israel as part of its campaign to win a UN Security Council seat.

”I don’t understand the government’s change of heart,” she told the Herald.

”The Coalition’s position has been consistent. Having voted against the Goldstone report, we would continue to vote against it … Since coming to office the government has weakened Australia’s long-held position of supporting Israel at the UN.”

This opinion article in the Sydney Morning Herald, by academic Amin Saikal, is strong and headlined, “It is time for Israel’s friends to condemn its acts of terrorism”:

By and large a one-dimensional approach has characterised our approach to understanding the phenomenon of terrorism. However, the recent gruesome killing of a Hamas figure, Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, in Dubai should make us cast our net wider to focus also on state terrorism.

The Dubai police have claimed with almost undisputed evidence that the Israeli intelligence agency, Mossad, was behind the killing. Israel has as usual maintained a policy of ambiguity by neither confirming nor denying Mossad’s actions, although some of its political leaders, specifically the Opposition Leader, Tzipi Livni, have applauded the killing on the grounds that Mabhouh was a terrorist and deserved to be eliminated.

If it is proved beyond doubt that Mossad agents, using forged passports in the names of British, French, Irish, German and Australian citizens, perpetrated the act, the killing clearly underlines a very disturbing aspect of Israeli behaviour.

It constitutes a blatant act of state terrorism, which places Israel in a position parallel to the very forces that it has unfailingly condemned as terrorist groups or networks.

Newsweek thinks only foreigner “who protest America” is a terrorist

Published on 25 February 2010 in General. 2 Comments Tags: , , , .

How to define terrorism has become absurdly loaded since 9/11.

According to key Newsweek journalists, it is simply impossible for Americans to commit terrorism; only Muslims are capable of doing so (and being labelled as such.)

Really.

Iraq in 2010

Published on 25 February 2010 in General. 1 Comment Tags: , , , .

One of America’s finest journalists, Nir Rosen – fearless, intense and unafraid to embed with the “enemy” – writes that Iraq is not likely to descend back into chaos (but the West has still created a sick experiment in post-dictatorship development, something welcomed by the New York Times’ Thomas Friedman):

It’s been frustrating to read the latest hysteria about sectarianism returning to Iraq, the threat of a new civil war looming, or even the notion that Iraq is “unraveling.” I left Iraq today after an intense mission on behalf of Refugees International. My colleague Elizabeth Campbell and I traveled comfortably and easily throughout Baghdad, Salahedin, Diyala and Babil. We were out among Iraqis until well into the night every day, often in remote villages, traveling in a normal Toyota Corolla. Our main hassle was traffic and having to go through a thousand security checkpoints a day.

…

From the beginning of the occupation the US government and media focused too much on elite level politics and on events in the Green Zone, neglecting the Iraqi people, the “street,” neighborhoods, villages, mosques. They were too slow to recognize the growing resistance to the occupation, too slow to recognize that there was a civil war and now perhaps for the same reason many are worried that there is a “new” sectarianism or a new threat of civil war. The US military is not on the streets and cannot accurately perceive Iraq, and journalists are busy covering the elections and the debaathification controversy, but not reporting enough from outside Baghdad, or even inside Baghdad.

Iraqis on the street are no longer scared of rival militias so much, or of being exterminated and they no longer have as much support for the religious parties. Maliki is still perceived by many to be not very sectarian and not very religious, and more of a “nationalist.” Another thing people would notice if they focused on “the street” is that the militias are finished, the Awakening Groups/SOIs are finished, so violence is limited to assassinations with silencers and sticky bombs and the occasional spectacular terrorist attack — all manageable and not strategically important, even if tragic. Politicians might be talking the sectarian talk but Iraqis have grown very cynical.

Rupert cares about getting the story (ethics are often ignored)

Published on 24 February 2010 in General. 0 Comments Tags: , , .

Next time anybody talks about the inherent morality within the Murdoch empire, remind them of this:

Rupert Murdoch’s media giant News International could face a judicial inquiry after a highly critical parliamentary report today accuses senior executives at its top-selling newspaper of concealing the truth about the extent of illegal phone hacking by its journalists.

The 167-page report by a cross-party select committee is withering about the conduct of the News of the World, with one MP saying its crimes “went to the heart of the British establishment, in which police, military royals and government ministers were hacked on a near industrial scale”.

MPs condemned the “collective amnesia” and “deliberate obfuscation” by NoW executives who gave evidence to them, and said it was inconceivable that only a few people at the paper knew about the practice.

White violence is clearly less problematic than Muslim violence

Published on 20 February 2010 in General. 0 Comments Tags: , , .

How does Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post report an attack when it’s “only” committed by a white person (instead of a Muslim?)

How much is that talking head on TV being paid?

Published on 18 February 2010 in General. 0 Comments Tags: , .

Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting ask a very good question:

Why are cable channels relying on paid spokespeople and lobbyists as commentators?

Where is the Tea Party movement going?

Published on 18 February 2010 in General. 0 Comments Tags: , , , .

A fascinating New York Times feature about the Tea Party movement in the US. To ignore it is foolish but we shouldn’t be under any illusion why growing anger exists in the US. Race, the economy, disillusionment and fear. A toxic mix:

Pam Stout wakes each morning, turns on Fox News, grabs coffee and an Atkins bar, and hits the computer. She is the hub of a rapidly expanding and highly viral political network, keeping a running correspondence with her 400 members in Sandpoint, state and national Tea Party leaders and other conservative activists.

Mrs. Stout forwards along petitions to impeach Mr. Obama; petitions to audit the Federal Reserve; petitions to support Sarah Palin; appeals urging defiance of any federal law requiring health insurance; and on and on.

Meanwhile, she and her husband are studying the Constitution line by line. She has the Congressional switchboard programmed into her cellphone. “I just signed up for a Twitter class,” said Mrs. Stout, 66, laughing at the improbability of it all.

Yet for all her efforts, Mrs. Stout is gripped by a sense that it may be too little too late. Yes, there have been victories — including polls showing support for the Tea Party movement — but in her view none of it has diminished the fundamental threat of tyranny, a point underscored by Mr. Obama’s drive to pass a health care overhaul.

She and her members are becoming convinced that rallies alone will not save the Republic. They are searching for some larger answer, she said. They are also waiting for a leader, someone capable of uniting their rebellion, someone like Ms. Palin, who made Sandpoint one of the final stops on her book tour and who has announced plans to attend a series of high-profile Tea Party events in the next few months.

“We need to really decide where we’re going to go,” Mrs. Stout said.

These questions of strategy, direction and leadership were clearly on the minds of Mrs. Stout’s members at a recent monthly meeting.

Their task seemed endless, almost overwhelming, especially with only $517 in their Tea Party bank account. There were rallies against illegal immigration to attend. There was a coming lecture about the hoax of global warming. There were shooting classes to schedule, and tips to share about the right survival food.

The group struggled fitfully for direction. Maybe they should start vetting candidates. Someone mentioned boycotting ABC, CBS, NBC and MSNBC. Maybe they should do more recruiting.

“How do you keep on fighting?” Mrs. Stout asked in exasperation.

Lenore Generaux, a local wildlife artist, had an idea: They should raise money for Freedom Force, a group that says it wants to “reclaim America via the Patriot movement.” The group is trying to unite the Tea Parties and other groups to form a powerful “Patriot lobby.” One goal is to build a “Patriot war chest” big enough to take control of the Republican Party.

Not long ago, Mrs. Stout sent an e-mail message to her members under the subject line: “Revolution.” It linked to an article by Greg Evensen, a leader in the militia movement, titled “The Anatomy of an American Revolution,” that listed “grievances” he said “would justify a declaration of war against any criminal enterprise including that which is killing our nation from Washington, D.C.”

Mrs. Stout said she has begun to contemplate the possibility of “another civil war.” It is her deepest fear, she said. Yet she believes the stakes are that high. Basic freedoms are threatened, she said. Economic collapse, food shortages and civil unrest all seem imminent.

“I don’t see us being the ones to start it, but I would give up my life for my country,” Mrs. Stout said.

She paused, considering her next words.

“Peaceful means,” she continued, “are the best way of going about it. But sometimes you are not given a choice.”

Mainstream media begins to finally explain what actually happens under occupation

Published on 17 February 2010 in Israel. 1 Comment Tags: , , , , .

A very strong article by Fairfax Middle East correspondent Jason Koutsoukis that outlines a Jewish state increasingly at war with itself, while the Jewish Diaspora simply whistles while their beloved state walks towards a cliff:

On the way out of a popular Jerusalem steakhouse last Wednesday, I was introduced to an American-Israeli named Eliza.

A member of the Israel Defence Forces public relations unit, Eliza quickly explained that she was busy hosting a dinner for some foreign journalists. “Whom of course, internally, I despise,” she added apologetically, not knowing who I was.

Among the “despised” journalists at her table were Charles Levinson of The Wall Street Journal, and Sheera Frenkel, who writes for The Times of London. Both are American-born Jews, and neither they, nor their Murdoch-owned mastheads, are what you would call typically rabid haters of Israel.

Whether or not the IDF flack actually loathed these two reporters hardly matters. What her comments do reveal is the deep resentment felt by Israel’s political elite towards what is perceived to be a biased foreign press corps.

After last year’s war in Gaza, and the later report for the United Nations Human Rights Council by Justice Richard Goldstone that accused Israel of war crimes, sensitivity to how Israel is perceived abroad has been more heightened than ever. Yet the most piercing insights into the Israeli-Arab conflict today have nothing to do with the foreign media. They come from within Israeli society itself.

In the past two years, internationally acclaimed films such as Waltz With Bashir, Ajami, and Lebanon, have added exceptional context to the deep divisions within Israeli society and the long-term effects of the conflict on its people. More disturbing still are the verbatim accounts of some of the soldiers who have served in the occupied Palestinian territories of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

The damaging effects of the occupation, not just on Palestinians but on the soldiers themselves, are laid bare in a booklet published last week by the group Breaking the Silence, an organization of Israeli army veterans who have taken it upon themselves to expose life in the occupied territories to the Israeli public. Titled Women Soldiers’ Testimonies, the booklet details the experiences of more than 40 female soldiers who have served in various roles in the territories since 2000.

Testimony 24 was provided by a sergeant on a night-time search for weapons near Hebron, a Palestinian city that is also sacred to Jews and whose centre has been taken over by Israeli settlers. It was about 2am when the raiding party climbed the steps to a large Palestinian house.

“So we entered these people’s home, the father opens the door for us, in his robe, and the mother and grandmother and two little kids woke up too. Now they look at you with this look, like ‘you’re entering our home at two o’clock in the morning’.

“Everything was just so messed up . . . and the father tries to ask, the owner tries to ask questions and talk and none of us even bother to speak to him at all. The soldiers go on, opening and trashing and trashing just about everything in that house, turning the whole place inside out . . . all the drawers, the closets, everything. And we didn’t find a thing. Nothing.”

After an hour, the soldiers went on to a second house.

“That was the first moment I realised why we are looked at like that, and why we are so hated. You enter in the most disgusting manner, without a drop of humanity, because the disrespect in the answers the man was given — the wife and children were not even addressed — I mean, no one even looked at them.

“I can’t even begin to describe to you the shame I felt, ashamed of the way we were behaving, entering their home like that, that we . . .

“I’ll never forget this as long as I live, I’m telling you. I have this picture in my head, of those kids staring at me.”

Maybe Iceland will help investigative journalism

Published on 16 February 2010 in General. 2 Comments Tags: , , .

The campaigning website Wikileaks, recently out of action due to lack of funds, may soon have a new lease on life, thanks to the forward thinking of Iceland:

In my role as WikiLeaks editor, I’ve been involved in fighting off more than 100 legal attacks over the past three years. To do that, and keep our sources safe, we have had to spread assets, encrypt everything, and move telecommunications and people around the world to activate protective laws in different national jurisdictions.

We’ve become good at it, and never lost a case, or a source, but we can’t expect everyone to make such extraordinary efforts. Large newspapers, including the Guardian, are forced to remove or water down investigative stories rather than risk legal costs. Even internet-only publishers writing about corruption find themselves disconnected by their ISPs after legal threats. Should these publications not relent, they are hounded, like the Turks & Caicos Islands Journal, from one jurisdiction to other. There’s a new type of refugee – “publishers” – and a new type of internet business developing, “refugee hosting”. Malaysia Today is no longer published in Malaysia. Even the American Homeowners Association has moved its servers to Stockholm after relentless legal attacks in the United States.

That’s why I’m excited about what is happening in Iceland, which has started to see the world in a new way after its mini-revolution a year ago. Over the past two months I have been part of a team in Iceland advising parliamentarians on a cross-party proposal to turn it into an international “journalism haven” – a jurisdiction designed to attract organisations into publishing online from Iceland, by adopting the strongest press and source protection laws from around the world.

Because of the economic meltdown in the banking sector, which, per capita, was the largest of any western country, Icelanders believe that fundamental change is needed in order to prevent such events from taking place again. Those changes include not just better regulation of banks, but better media oversight of dirty deals between banks and politicians.

In fact, Iceland’s banks became fans of libel tourism. For instance, the largest, Kaupthing, succeeded in bringing a libel suit against a Danish tabloid, Ekstra Bladet, in London. A similar Danish article looking into the alleged Russian connections of Landsbanki, Iceland’s second-largest bank, and its online banking arm Icesave, was also attacked and removed from the online public record.

Then, on 31 July last year, ­WikiLeaks released Kaupthing’s confidential large loan book, which exposed €6bn of loans. Kaupthing threatened us and our source with a year in prison under Icelandic banking secrecy law. The leak was to become a major story, but five minutes before the national broadcaster, RÚV, could report it, the news desk was slapped with an injunction by Kaupthing. The first such Icelandic newsdesk injunction in living memory. Lost for words, RÚV filled the time with an image of WikiLeaks, outraging the public, who could all access a copy of the primary source document.

This is the backdrop which has led to the development of the “Icelandic Modern Media Initiative”, a proposal that binds the government to draft legislation to develop an attractive package of free speech and openness laws, including source protection, internal media communications protection, protection from libel tourism, immunity for intermediaries such as ISPs, and a tight statute of limitations on litigation. It is to be filed by tomorrow and has cross-party support, including from the governing coalition. Although the political environment in Iceland is still highly charged over the 6 March referendum about the Icesave dispute, it is expected to be voted through. Not surprisingly, the foreign press has developed an interest in the proposal. All over the world, the freedom to write about powerful groups is being smothered. Iceland could be the antidote to secrecy havens, rather it may become an island where openness is protected – a journalism haven. Sleet Street 2.0.

Most reporters are happy to be embedded with the army mindset

Published on 13 February 2010 in General. 0 Comments Tags: , , , .

Patrick Cockburn, a Western journalist who doesn’t celebrate when the military “kills terrorists”, challenges the relationship between the mainstream media and the armed forces:

The press likes short wars. Its audience is never so eager for news as during an armed conflict. The first newspapers date from the wars of the late 16th and early 17th centuries. Television likes the melodrama of exploding shells and blazing tanks. And it is this very eagerness to report the fighting that makes it so easy to manipulate. The US army successfully sold the “surge” in Iraq as a military victory so that the American public scarcely noticed that US troops were withdrawing, leaving Iraq in the hands of a government closely allied to Iran.

Journalists love to compete for meaningless scoops about vacuous politicians

Published on 13 February 2010 in General. 0 Comments Tags: , , .

Need evidence that most corporate journalists see politics as a game, like sport? Over to you, Politico:

Fox News has been making a serious charge about mainstream political reporters: They hate Sarah Palin.

This is not just wrong, it’s absurd. The reality is exactly the opposite: We love Palin.

And if Palin does not exactly love us, she’s smart enough to recognize how quickly reporters devour every provocative remarkinfluence in Republican politics. she utters. She knows how to exploit our weakness to guarantee herself exposure far out of proportion to her actual

It’s a tangled, symbiotic affair—built on mutual dependency and mutual enabling.

For the media, Palin is great at the box office. Among modern American political figures, she is second only to Barack Obama in generating clicks (for Web sites like this one) and ratings (for the cable news networks hungering around the clock for fresh material.)

Melbourne Age chastises Colombo over rights abuses

Published on 12 February 2010 in General. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , , , .

Following yesterday’s strong editorial in the Sydney Morning Herald over Sri Lanka, today the Melbourne Age adds its voice to the outcry.

I can’t read these pieces and not think about the gutlessness of the corporate press when writing about the Middle East. Slamming Sri Lanka is risk-free for editors. Seriously challenging Israel’s occupation of Palestine involves dealing with annoyed Zionist lobbyists:

Beautiful country, blighted land: hardly the type of slogan to welcome tourists, but sentiment that sadly sums up life in Sri Lanka. Decades of civil war have sabotaged the economy of what should be a jewel of the Indian Ocean. For the more than 21 million people – Sinhalese and Tamil mostly – squeezed into an area not even a third the size of Victoria, the suffering has been needless and long.

Despite the cautious hope that greeted the end to almost 30 years of war last May, ominous clouds are again gathering. The move by President Mahinda Rajapaksa this week to arrest Sarath Fonseka, his former chief general and subsequent opponent in January’s presidential election, smacks of authoritarianism. Mr Fonseka fell out with Mr Rajapaksa after leading government troops to bludgeon Tamil Tiger remnants last year in the east of the island. Both men, undeterred by allegations of human rights abuses in the final days of the conflict, sought the credit for finishing off the Tigers’ cadres, and Mr Rajapaksa prevailed where it counts – at the ballot box.

Apparently not content with the voters’ decision to return him to office, Mr Rajapaksa appears determined to also crush any future opposition. Mr Fonseka is accused of ”military offences” and though he is no longer a military officer, he faces a court martial. And Mr Rajapaksa has since dismissed the parliament two months ahead of schedule, seeking to ram home his advantage against a dispirited opposition reeling from Mr Fonseka’s arrest. Mr Fonseka had forged an unlikely coalition with Tamil parties, promising to submit to scrutiny for his role in the conflict. The Sri Lankan army is accused of shelling Tamil civilians trapped in a cantonment with the last of the Tigers and Mr Fonseka is also accused of involvement in the death of the newspaper editor Lasantha Wickrematunge, an Australian permanent resident. Mr Rajapaksa remains defiant, intent on keeping the final days of the war secret.

Sri Lanka must honestly account for its conduct of the war if the country is to start on the path to a more stable future. On ABC Foreign Correspondent this week, former United Nations spokesman in Sri Lanka, Australian Gordon Weiss, claimed the last stages of the conflict cost as many as 40,000 civilian lives. His claim sits at odds with the official UN estimate of 7000 killed, fuelling suspicions that the cost of defeating the Tigers was far greater than the government in Colombo has been willing to admit. Without a transparent inquiry, questions over the conduct of the campaign will haunt Sri Lanka, undermine trust in the government and ultimately hold back much-needed development.

Australia has major interests in Sri Lanka, not least because the country is the main source of asylum seekers willing to risk the perilous journey by boat to Australia. The war and instability in Sri Lanka affect all the countries of South Asia – and by extension, Australia, as an Indian Ocean power. If the Rudd government genuinely seeks a reputation for an ”activist” foreign policy, Australia should take a stand against Sri Lanka’s slide from democracy.

Australia has so far merely said it was watching developments closely. This passive attitude could be easily confused with a willingness to pander to Colombo out of fear that any criticism could jeopardise Sri Lankan co-operation with Australia on immigration matters. It would be a greater betrayal of the Sri Lankan people should Australia be seen to abandon support for democracy in order to preserve relations with an increasingly authoritarian ruler.

For a different island nation in the Pacific, Australia did take a strong stand. After Fiji broke from democracy, Australia was at the spearhead of moves to suspend the country from the Commonwealth. Sri Lanka is also a member of the Commonwealth, and should be put on notice that it risks a similar penalty.