Category: Australia

  • Palace coups have become a seasonal tradition in Australian politics.  Between 2007 and 2018, Australia had six prime ministers, four of whom were overthrown by their own parties, the first five never being allowed to complete their first term in office.  In contrast, between 1983 and 2007, the country could count on the dry, solid stability of three leaders.  The change of heart led to the irresistible description of Australia being “the coup capital of the democratic world”.

    In the Westminster system of government, where the executive is drawn from the representative chamber, prime ministers are at the mercy of party hacks and factional gangsters.  The party hacks, in turn, are terrified by the polls, the make-belief register of electoral emotion that psephologists pretend to decode.

    As has been shown recently in the United Kingdom, and for a longer stretch in Australia, no ruling leader is safe from their sponsoring party, the shallow and insecure apparatchiks who, always worrying about the next election, will carve you up if needed to make way for a more viable, vote-getting successor.  No principle is sacrosanct if it can be sacrificed in the name of victory, no policy worthwhile preserving.  Every conceivable weapon of choice will be deployed when it comes to ousting the leader of the day.  As for democratic sensibility: What of it?

    Nemesis, a three-part documentary series running on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, deals with the conservative side of the country’s politics, the Liberal-National coalition.  It should be seen alongside the Killing Season, which offered the Labor Party equivalent of ritual-killing and political cannibalism starring Australia’s current ambassador to Washington, Kevin Rudd, and its country’s first female prime minister, Julia Gillard.   Both series leave viewers scratching their heads and wondering what all the murderous fuss was about.

    For the three big figures in Nemesis, the fuss was ample, the disquiet loud.  Tony Abbott, the doctrinaire pugilist Catholic, aggressively superb in opposition but raggedly estranged from the electorate in office; the suave, money-attuned Malcolm Turnbull, lawyer, merchant banker, the thinking suit suspected for not being ideological enough; and the least sympathetic of them all, that walking advertisement of treachery and mendacity, Scott Morrison.

    With Abbott not participating in the series, we are left with the hammed-up Olympian wisdom of Turnbull, describing events with false detachment, and Morrison, his successor, who did as much to assist Turnbull as he did to oust him.  (He who uses the dagger for you is bound to use it on you.)  Morrison’s versions of events are much like that of the critic Mary McCarthy’s assessment of Lillian Hellman’s work: “every work she writes is a lie, including ‘and’ and ‘the’.”

    Most depressing of all is the distinct lack of ideas in the field of battle.  In politics, they shrivel before the glare of hatred, envy and fear.  In these bouts of savaging, leaders are not sacrificed because of their vast hinterland of thought and wonder.  They are not overthrown because one saw the numinous light, the other, despairing dark.  They are sacrificed because they lost, in Abbott’s case, 30 Newspolls in a row, supposedly making them unelectable.  They are removed – again, to take Abbott’s example – because they put their trust in a bullying advisor and confessor, such as the autocratic harridan Peta Credlin.

    When ideas do bubble to the top of the torrid sewerage, they feature such gruesome policies as “Turn Back the Boats,” an Abbott favourite from 2013 that was, contrary to what Morrison claims, popular in its cruelty, a real vote getter.  Voters can be convinced to do the goose step and stomp on the vulnerable if you give them reason to.  By turning back boats heavy with asylum seekers and refugees, a cheap humanitarian sentiment could be massaged: at least they did not drown, even if they were to rot in sadistic enclaves in the Pacific.

    A disturbing nugget from Abbott’s brief prime ministership (2013-2015) is thrown in.  With the downing of Malaysian Airlines MH17 over Ukrainian territory by Russian separatists in July 2014, Abbott was aflame with aggressive vengeance.  Of the 298 dead, 27 were Australians. While an officially cool version of Australian anger was offered by foreign minister, Julie Bishop, Abbott privately wanted the crash site overrun with Australian troops.

    The military establishment of the day was alarmed.  “I was concerned,” former army chief Sir Angus Houston stated, “that the military operation would be provocative, because the crash site was only a short distance from the Russian border, and already I was aware of a huge buildup of Russian forces on the border.” Houston’s effort at dissuading Abbott proved successful. “OK, Angus, I accept your advice,” the Australian PM responded.  “It’ll be a police-led operation.”

    Interestingly enough, the makers of the series omit a similar suggestion by Abbott in November 2014 that 3,500 Australian troops be sent to rescue Yazidis being butchered by zealots of the Islamic State (Daesh) on the desert sands of Iraq. There was not even a hint that US air support would be offered, nor participation from any other power.  Again, the caution of military officialdom and good sense prevailed, though Abbott denies ever floating the idea.

    In a peculiar way, those two suggestions, while coterminous with the fringes of lunacy, also showed a man of some principle, fanatical as it was. Muscular, masculine and misguided in his quixotic way, he was driven by a burning, messianic fire.  But in his broader outlook, Abbott resembled a warrior of yesteryear, a repository of anachronisms, the latter exemplified by his daft decision to give the late Prince Philip a knighthood. If there was ever talk about the superiority of Western civilisation, he would be there to boast about it. Increasingly, even proudly tone deaf to the electorate, he lost his seat in the 2019 election to the independent Zali Steggall. In doing so, he unintentionally laid the seeds for disruptive change that would, in May 2022, see the greatest number of independents ever returned to Canberra.

    The post Cannibalism, Conservatives and Lies: Australia’s Nemesis Story first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Kiwi researchers will begin working with the Adelaide-based SmartSat Cooperative Research Centre on collaborative space projects following a AU$5.6 million commitment from the New Zealand government. The funding, which comes out of the New Zealand government’s Catalyst Fund, is part of a memorandum of understanding (MoU) signed between the SmartSat Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) and…

    The post $5.6m for Aust-NZ space projects appeared first on InnovationAus.com.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.com.

  • By Patrick Decloitre, RNZ Pacific French Pacific desk correspondent

    French President Emmanuel Macron has defended his Indo-Pacific vision during the traditional New Year’s good wishes ceremony to the French Armed Forces in Paris.

    Macron said tensions in the Indo-Pacific zone were a matter for concern because France was an integral part of the Indo-Pacific — both in the Indian and the Pacific oceans.

    He recalled the French version of the Indo-Pacific had been masterminded in 2018 and had since been developed in partnership with such key allies as India, Australia, Japan and the United Arab Emirates.

    “But we have also consolidated it and, may I say entrenched it, in our own (overseas) territories,” he said, citing New Caledonia as an example of French army presence to defend France’s sovereignty and “the capacity for our air force to deploy (from mainland France) to Oceania within 48 hours”.

    He also praised the recent South Pacific Defence Ministers’ Meeting held in Nouméa last month when “France was the inviting power”.

    He said Paris was able to strike “strategic partnerships” with neighbouring armed forces.

    “The year 2024 will see us maintain without fail the protection of our overseas territories,” he told the troops.

    This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • COMMENTARY: By Caitlin Johnstone

    The International Court of Justice rejected Israel’s request to dismiss the genocide case brought against it by South Africa yesterday, ruling by a massive majority that the case shall proceed and instructing Israel to refrain from killing and harming Palestinians in the interim.

    Many Palestine supporters have expressed dismay that the ICJ did not explicitly order a ceasefire, while many others (including South African officials) argue that the ruling is very positive and tantamount to a ceasefire order because it demands the end of harm to members of the protected group.

    Imperial media are aggressively emphasising the absence of a ceasefire order in their headlines and many Israel apologists are framing that absence as a victory for their favorite ethnostate.

    Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
    Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu . . . “The charge of genocide levelled against Israel is not only false, it’s outrageous.” Image: AJ screenshot APR

    But such performative chest-thumping is severely undercut by the way high-level Israeli officials are currently accusing the ICJ of antisemitism and saying Israel should ignore its rulings.

    “The international court of justice went above and beyond when it granted South Africa’s antisemitic request to discuss the claim of genocide in Gaza, and now refuses to reject the petition outright,” complained Israeli defense minister Yoav Gallant in response to the ruling.

    “The decision of the antisemitic court in The Hague proves what was already known: This court does not seek justice, but rather the persecution of Jewish people,” said Israeli national security minister Itamar Ben Gvir.

    Ben Gvir also tweeted “Hague Schmague” immediately after the ruling was issued, which will probably go down in history as the most Israeli tweet of all time.

    Everyone’s arguing about whether or not the ICJ’s ruling is helpful, and I don’t know enough one way or the other to be sure either way, but from where things stand right now it does seem unlikely to me that managers of the Israeli war machine would be getting this freaked out and whipping out their tired old “antisemitism” song and dance if there wasn’t something of substance to it.


    The genocide case against Israel. Video: Al Jazeera

    International lawyer Francis Boyle, who won provisional measures against Yugoslavia at the ICJ in 1993, said the following of the ruling:

    “This is a massive, overwhelming legal victory for the Republic of South Africa against Israel on behalf of the Palestinians. The UN General Assembly now can suspend Israel from participation in its activities as it did for South Africa and Yugoslavia.

    “It can admit Palestine as a full member. And — especially since the International Criminal Court has been a farce — it can establish a tribunal to prosecute the highest level officials of the Israeli government, both civilian and military.”

    So take that for whatever that’s worth to you. In any case the butchery in Gaza still urgently needs to be ended, and only time will tell whether Friday’s development had any major effect on the outcome of this horror.

    But what I wouldn’t have given to be a fly on the wall at the meetings they were having at the US State Department on Friday.

    It’s days like this that remind you why empire managers switched from talking about “international law” to using the meaningless phraserules-based international order”.

    Caitlin Johnstone is an Australian independent journalist and poet. Her articles include The UN Torture Report On Assange Is An Indictment Of Our Entire Society. She publishes a website and Caitlin’s Newsletter. This article is republished with permission.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Australia and Japan have signed an agreement to enhance strategic capabilities in Robotic and Autonomous Systems (RAS) for undersea warfare, the Australia Department of Defence (DoD) announced on 23 January. According to the DoD, the inaugural research project will contribute to strategic capabilities in undersea communication and interoperability between Australia and Japan. The project involves […]

    The post Australia and Japan to jointly develop underwater RAS technology appeared first on Asian Military Review.

    This post was originally published on Asian Military Review.

  • Australia has revoked its “golden visa” immigration program targeted at attracting wealthy investors, a move that marks one fewer option for China’s rich to escape with their assets from an increasingly difficult political and economic climate at home.

    Australian media reported this week that the Labor government announced in December plans to scrap the program at the end of last year because it could not bring economic benefits to the country. Also, members of the Australian Values ​​Alliance – a group founded by Australians of Chinese heritage – pointed out that wealthy Chinese people have infiltrated politics.

    The program will be replaced by a new immigration plan to provide more visas for skilled immigrants.

    “It has been obvious for years that this visa is not delivering what our country and economy needs,” said Australian Home Affairs Minister Clare O’Neil in a statement Monday.

    “The investor visa is one of many aspects of the system which are reforming to create a system which delivers for our country,” she added.

    The Business Innovation and Investment Program (BIIP), commonly known as the “golden visa”, was launched in 2012. Unlike other visa programs, it did not require foreign immigrants to learn or master English, nor did it have age restrictions. It was only mandatory for foreign citizens to invest up to A$5 million (US$3.3 million) to obtain residence for five years.

    Research by the Australian government has, however, shown that the average economic value contributed by the immigrants in this program to Australia in their lifetime is $600,000, which is just slightly more than a third of the $1.6 million generated by Australian citizens.

    According to the Australian Department of Home Affairs, more than 100,000 overseas immigrants have used the program to obtain residency in the country since 2012, with 85% of successful applicants coming from China. Currently, about 26,000 people have successfully obtained permanent residence in Australia.

    The visa subclass was even given the number “888”, as eight stands for prosperity and is auspicious in Chinese numerology. 

    China’s rich – tools of CCP infiltration

    Over the years, critics have argued that the plan created not just a fast path for China’s wealthy to immigrate but had served as a conduit for corrupt officials in authoritarian countries to “move illicit funds.”

    Australian commentator Huangfu Jing told Radio Free Asia Cantonese that Chinese tycoon Huang Xiangmo, who was permanently banned from entering Australia for political donations in 2019, was a “golden visa” immigrant. The biggest problem with these wealthy Chinese immigrants, therefore, is not their inability to create greater economic value, but that they have become tools for the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) infiltration, she said.

    “Australia eventually discovered it didn’t earn much [from the program], but lost more, giving the CCP considerable penetration opportunities. A substantial number of these investment immigrants were pushed out and packaged by the CCP for all-round infiltration. Huang Xiangmo’s political donation is a typical example.”

    Huangfu Jing believes that the CCP, faced with economic difficulties, has nationalized assets of China’s rich through what it labeled as “public-private partnership” schemes. As a result, she said wealthy Chinese, stripped of their wealth, will certainly flee China but at the same time, Western countries are increasingly aware of the risks and shutting their doors early.

    Former Chinese diplomat Chen Yonglin claimed that wealthy Chinese immigrants who landed in Australia also brought in a legion of unproductive people with no economic contribution to the country. He said they cause social havoc with bad Chinese cultural behavior and habits, including bribery and corruption that influences politics.

    Still, Chen believes that the door should remain open for these affluent affluent businessmen.

    “Moving their money out will hollow out China’s economy and prompt social change; there’s no downside, in fact only benefits,” Chen said.

    Apart from Australia’s “golden visa”, the “golden passport and visa” of some European Union countries are also popular among China’s rich. Countries like Malta, Cyprus and Bulgaria have issued “golden passports” to foreign investors, while Greece and Portugal granted “golden visas,” at investment prices ranging €1 million (US$1 million) to €5 million. 

    As early as January 2019, the European Commission warned countries offering “golden visas” to foreign investors that their schemes may help organized crime groups infiltrate the EU and increase money laundering, corruption and tax evasion and other risks.

    In February 2023, Ireland announced the closure of the “golden visa” program. Portugal followed suit and stopped a similar program in March of that year.

    Translated by RFA Staff. Edited by Mike Firn and Taejun Kang.


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Yitong Wu for RFA Cantonese.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • His type should never be seen again.  Born from the dark well of swill and advertising, former Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison was always the apotheosis of politics’ worst tendencies: shallow form, public service for private interest, and, ultimately, the scrap for survival at the expense of the grand vision.  Get the vote, keep the seat.  Get the party in, forget the intellectual or social picture.  Bugger the broader society with a hefty stick, sod the beastly populace, betray your colleagues and everybody else besides: there is only me, Scomo, the man who will reliably fail you at every turn and stab you in the front, given a chance.

    In a January 23 Facebook post, Morrison announced his decision to – and here, his priorities are clear – “leave parliament at the end of February to take on new challenges in the global corporate sector and spend more time with my family.”  Making the announcement now would “give my party ample time to select a great new candidate who I know will do what’s best for our community and bring fresh energy and commitment to the job.”

    This was the sort of thing he should have done months ago, along with a few other former Coalition MPs.  Depart, disappear, vanish into history’s chronicles on refuse.  But Morrison is fastidious about soiling venerable institutions on his terms.  He does not so much dismantle as vandalise them in his own inimitable way.  Given the chance, he is likely to head off with his host’s toilet seat.

    As a federal member for the seat of Cook, his lack of attention to the burghers must surely have been noted after his electoral defeat in May 2022.  Local representation, if taken seriously, is a grind, a series of constituency concerns, attending events and yawning at meetings.  It’s hard to tend to such things if you are on the payroll of the Hudson Institute being praised for countering “an increasingly assertive China in the Indo Pacific and beyond” or spending time in Israel praising that state’s execrable efforts in quashing aspirations for Palestinian statehood.

    None of this bothers the departing Morrison as being inconsistent.  He can still say in his official statement of departure that he was “able to deliver new and upgraded sport and community infrastructure, such as major upgrades to our local surf clubs and new artistic installations and visitor facilities being provided at Cook’s landing site at Kurnell.”  And let’s not forget the charity work, the grants programs, and the activities he had a minimal hand in.

    That remains Morrison’s talent: greased enough to wriggle out of failure; an opportunist determined to take credit for the successes of others.  Take one example.  Australia’s attempts to prevent the transmission and spread of COVID-19 during the global pandemic was mostly aided by the variable policies of the country’s states and territories.  The Commonwealth merely turned off the tap to visitors and, scandalously, Australian citizens desperate to return to their homeland.  Stranded, often impecunious, and left without resources in countries being ravaged by the coronavirus, such citizens were demonised rather than aided.

    Morrison’s sole obligation, at that point, was to make sure that vaccines being developed would be made available to the public in due course.  Instead of ensuring standard, ready supply when the time came, the rollout, as it was termed, was a stuttering affair.  But the then Australian PM had a familiar retort: global supply lines had been “choked”.  Again, he wasn’t to blame.

    The list of errors and stumbles is extensive, showing varying degrees of callousness and indifference.  When parts of Australia were being incinerated by bush fires in the latter part of 2019, he thought it wise to take an unannounced holiday to Hawaii.  He was forced to admit “regret” for “any offence caused to any of the many Australians affected by the terrible bushfires by my taking leave with family at this time”.

    Like a walking advertisement of anachronism, he loved the fossil fuel industry with such passion he brought a lump of coal into Parliament to assure fellow lawmakers that they need not fear it.  He issued directives that the words “climate change” would not feature in environmental talks Australian diplomats would participate in.  He scorned the Pacific Island states for worrying about disappearing under the sea because Australia was not pulling its weight in cutting green-house gas emissions.

    As a proponent of cruelty and plain sadism, Morrison’s true Pentecostal spirit was also on show.  As immigration minister, he presided over the “turn back the boats” policy of the Abbott government, treating the naval arrival of refugees and asylum seekers as a national security threat.  Towing boats out to sea, bribing traffickers to return, and sending broken, traumatised people to such Pacific prison outposts as Manus Island and Nauru, were all cloaked in the secrecy of Operation Sovereign Borders.  When the New York Times interviewed Morrison after becoming prime minister, the paper noticed that, “His office features a model migrant boat bearing the proud declaration ‘I Stopped These’.”

    His qualifications as a dinner circuit speaker, boring lecturer, tedious advisor, and outrageously paid consultant, are next to nil.  But near the universe of zero, the cusp of talent’s infinite absence, opportunities bloom.  The corporate entities and think tanks, many keen to ensure the enduring power of the US imperium, will barely notice the man’s colossal ignorance, his cultural insensitivity, his lack of education.  What mattered was that he could be Washington’s stalking horse in the Indo Pacific.

    Eventually, the member for Cook proved to be more than just that.  He would go so far as to sell off Australian sovereignty for a song via the AUKUS security agreement promising nuclear powered submarines, leaving the Australian taxpayer in bondage to Washington for the next half-century.  What a triumph that was, and if Samuel Johnson was right in calling patriotism the last refuge of the scoundrel, he would have had someone like Morrison in mind: the figure who uses patriotism as a guise for his own scoundrel cunning.

    The post May His Like Never Be Seen Again first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Pacific Media Watch

    The incoming chair of the ABC, Kim Williams, must immediately move to restore the reputation of Australia’s national broadcaster by addressing concerns about the impact of external pressures on editorial decision making, says the media union.

    The Media, Entertainment & Arts Alliance, the union representing journalists at the ABC, today called on Williams to work with unions to support staff who were under attack, reaffirm the commitment to cultural diversity in the workplace, and uphold the standards of reporting without fear or favour that the public expected of the ABC.

    MEAA welcomed the appointment of Williams, a former chief executive of News Corp Australia, noting that he had decades of media experience including senior management positions at the ABC, commercial broadcast media and arts administration in the past, and that he had been recommended by an independent nomination panel.

    The acting chief executive of MEAA, Adam Portelli, said the new chair would take office at a critical time for the ABC’s future following a staff vote of no confidence in managing director David Anderson earlier this week over the handling of a crisis over pressure from pro-Israeli lobbyists in the war on Gaza.

    “On Monday, union members overwhelmingly said they had lost confidence in David Anderson because of his failure to address very real concerns about the way the ABC deals with external pressure and supports journalists from First Nations and culturally diverse backgrounds when they are under attack,” he said.

    “Public trust in the ABC as an organisation that will always pursue frank and fearless journalism has been damaged, and management under Mr Anderson has not demonstrated it is taking these concerns seriously.

    Buttrose ‘completely out of touch’
    “Following yesterday’s board meeting, the current chair, Ita Buttrose, revealed she is completely out of touch with the concerns felt in newsrooms across Australia,” Portelli said.

    “Dozens of staff have told us their first hand experiences of feeling unsupported by management when under external attack and the negative impact this is having on their ability to do their jobs and on the reputation and integrity of the ABC. But Ms Buttrose failed to acknowledge these concerns.

    “ABC journalists have put forward five very reasonable suggestions to restore the confidence of staff in the managing director but at this stage, Mr Anderson has not committed to an urgent meeting as they requested.”

    Portelli said MEAA was optimistic that Williams would bring a more collaborative approach to dealing with issues of cultural safety and editorial integrity than had been witnessed under Buttrose.

    “He must understand that nothing less than the reputation of the ABC is at stake here,” Portelli said.


    This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Pacific Media Watch

    Union members at the Australian public broadcaster ABC have today passed a vote of no confidence in managing director David Anderson for failing to defend the integrity of the ABC and its staff from outside attacks, reports the national media union.

    The vote was passed overwhelmingly at a national online meeting attended by more than 200 members of the Media, Entertainment & Arts Alliance (MEAA), the union said in a statement.

    Union members have called on Anderson to take immediate action to win back the confidence of staff following a series of incidents which have damaged the reputation of the ABC as a trusted and independent source of news.

    The vote of ABC union staff rebuked Anderson, with one of the broadcaster’s most senior journalists, global affairs editor John Lyons, reported in The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age as saying he was “embarrassed” by his employer, which he said had “shown pro-Israel bias” and was failing to protect staff against complaints.

    This followed revelations of a series of emails by the so-called Lawyers for Israel lobby group alleged to be influential in the sacking of Lebanese Australian journalist Antoinette Lattouf for her criticism on social media of the Israeli genocidal war on Gaza that has killed 25,000 people so far, mostly women and children.

    Staff have put management on notice that if it does not begin to address the current crisis by next Monday, January 29, staff will consider further action.

    The acting chief executive of MEAA, Adam Portelli, said staff had felt unsupported by the ABC’s senior management when they have been criticised or attacked from outside.

    Message ‘clear and simple’
    “The message from staff today is clear and simple: David Anderson must demonstrate that he will take the necessary steps to win back the confidence of staff and the trust of the Australian public,” he said.

    “This is the result of a consistent pattern of behaviour by management when the ABC is under attack of buckling to outside pressure and leaving staff high and dry.

    “Public trust in the ABC is being undermined. The organisation’s reputation for frank and fearless journalism is being damaged by management’s repeated lack of support for its staff when they are under attack from outside.

    “Journalists at the ABC — particularly First Nations people, and people from culturally diverse backgrounds — increasingly don’t feel safe at work; and the progress that has been made in diversifying the ABC has gone backwards.

    “Management needs to act quickly to win that confidence back by putting the integrity of the ABC’s journalism above the impact of pressure from politicians, unaccountable lobby groups and big business.”

    The full motion passed by MEAA members at today’s meeting reads as follows:

    MEAA members at the ABC have lost confidence in our managing director David Anderson. Our leaders have consistently failed to protect our ABC’s independence or protect staff when they are attacked. They have consistently refused to work collaboratively with staff to uphold the standards that the Australian public need and expect of their ABC.

    Winning staff and public confidence back will require senior management:

    • Backing journalism without fear or favour;
    • Working collaboratively with unions to build a culturally informed process for supporting staff who face criticism and attack;
    • Take urgent action on the lack of security and inequality that journalists of colour face;
    • Working with unions to develop a clearer and fairer social media policy; and
    • Upholding a transparent complaints process, in which journalists who are subject to complaints are informed and supported.

    A further resolution passed unanimously by the meeting read:

    MEAA members at the ABC will not continue to accept the failure of management to protect our colleagues and the public. If management does not work with us to urgently fix the ongoing crisis, ABC staff will take further action to take a stand for a safe, independent ABC.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • By Binoy Kampmark

    The Age has revealed the dismissal of ABC broadcaster Antoinette Lattouf last December 20 was the nasty fruit of a campaign waged against chair Ita Buttrose and managing director David Anderson.

    The official reason for Lattouf’s dismissal was ordinary: she shared a post by Human Rights Watch about Israel “using starvation of civilians as a weapon of war in Gaza”, calling it “a war crime”.

    It also noted the express intention of Israeli officials to pursue this strategy. Actions were also documented: the deliberate blocking of food, water and fuel “while wilfully obstructing the entry of aid”.

    Sacked ABC presenter Antoinette Lattouf
    Sacked ABC presenter Antoinette Lattouf . . . bringing wrongful dismissal case. Image: GL

    Lattouf shared it after management directed staff not to post on “matters of controversy”.

    Prior to The Age revelations, much had been made of Lattouf’s fill-in role as a radio presenter — which was intended for five shows.

    The Australian, owned by News Corp, had issues with Lattouf’s statements on various online platforms. It found it strange in December that she was appointed “despite her very public anti-Israel stance”.

    She was accused of denying that some protesters had called for Jews to be gassed outside the Sydney Opera House on October 7. She also dared to accuse the Israeli Defence Forces of committing rape.

    ‘Lot of people really upset’
    It was considered odd that she discussed food and water shortages in Gaza and “an advertising campaign showing corpses reminiscent of being wrapped in Muslim burial cloths”. That “left a lot of people really upset’,” The Australian said.

    ABC managing director David Anderson
    ABC managing director David Anderson . . . denied “any external pressure, whether it be an advocacy group or lobby group, a political party, or commercial entity’. Image: Green Left

    If war is hell, Lattouf was evidently not allowed to go into quite so much detail about it — at least concerning the fate of Palestinians at the hands of the Israeli war machine.

    What has also come to light is that the ABC’s managers were not targeting Lattouf on their own. Pressure had been exercised from outside the media organisation.

    According to The Age, WhatsApp messages by a group called “Lawyers for Israel” had been sent to the ABC as part of a coordinated campaign.

    Sydney property lawyer Nicky Stein told members of that group to contact the federal Minister for Communications asking “how Antoinette is hosting the morning ABC Sydney show” the day Lattouf was sacked.

    They said employing Lattouff breached Clause 4 of the ABC code of practice on “impartiality”.

    Stein went on to insist that: “It’s important ABC hears from not just individuals in the community but specifically from lawyers so they feel there is an actual legal threat.”

    No ‘generic’ response
    She goes on to say that a “proper” rather than “generic” response was expected “by COB [close of business] today or I would look to engage senior counsel”.

    Did such threats have any basis? Even Stein admits: “There is probably no actionable offence against the ABC but I didn’t say I would be taking one — just investigating one. I have said that they should be terminating her employment immediately.”

    It was designed to attract attention from ABC chairperson Ita Buttrose, and it did.

    ABC political reporter Nour Haydar
    ABC political reporter Nour Haydar . . . resigned last week citing concern about the ABC coverage of Israel’s war on Gaza. Image: Green Left

    Robert Goot, deputy president of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry and part of the same group, boasted of information he had received that Lattouf would be “gone from morning radio from Friday” because of her “anti-Israeli” stance.

    There has been something of a journalistic exodus from the ABC of late.

    Nour Haydar, a political reporter in the ABC’s Parliament House bureau and another journalist of Lebanese descent, resigned on January 12 citing concern about the ABC’s coverage of Israel’s war on Gaza.

    There had been, for instance, the creation of a “Gaza advisory panel” at the behest of ABC news director Justin Stevens, ostensibly to improve coverage.

    Journalists need to ‘take a stand’ over the Gaza carnage after latest killings

    Must not ‘take sides’
    “Accuracy and impartiality are core to the service we offer audiences,” Stevens told staff. “We must stay independent and not ‘take sides’.”

    This pointless assertion can only ever be a threat because it acts as an injunction on staff and a judgment against sources that do not favour the line, however credible they might be.

    What proves acceptable, a condition that seems to have paralysed the ABC, is to never say that Israel massacres, commits war crimes and brings about conditions approximating genocide.

    Little wonder then that coverage of South Africa’s genocide case against Israel in the International Court of Justice does not get top billing on the ABC.

    Palestinians and Palestinian militias, however, can always be described as savages, rapists and baby slayers. Throw in fanaticism and Islam and you have the complete package ready for transmission.

    Coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the mainstream media of most Western countries, as the late Robert Fisk pointed out, repeatedly asserts these divisions.

    After her resignation, Haydar told the Sydney Morning Herald: “Commitment to diversity in the media cannot be skin deep.  Culturally diverse staff should be respected and supported even when they challenge the status quo.”

    Sharing divisive topics
    Haydar’s argument about cultural diversity should not obscure the broader problem facing the ABC: policing the way opinions and material on war, and any other divisive topic, is shared with the public.

    The issue goes less to cultural diversity than permitted intellectual breadth.

    Lattouf, for her part, is pursuing remedies through the Fair Work Commission and seeking funding through a GoFundMe page, steered by Lauren Dubois.

    “We stand with Antoinette and support the rights of workers to be able to share news that expresses an opinion or reinforces a fact, without fear of retribution.”

    Kenneth Roth, former head of Human Rights Watch, expressed his displeasure at Lattouf’s treatment, suggesting the ABC had erred.

    ABC’s senior management, via a statement from Anderson, preferred the route of craven denial. He rejected “any claim that it has been influenced by any external pressure, whether it be an advocacy group or lobby group, a political party, or commercial entity”.

    Dr Binoy Kampmark is a senior lecturer in global studies at RMIT University, Melbourne. This article was first published by Green Left Magazine and is republished here with permission.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • By Binoy Kampmark

    The Age has revealed the dismissal of ABC broadcaster Antoinette Lattouf last December 20 was the nasty fruit of a campaign waged against chair Ita Buttrose and managing director David Anderson.

    The official reason for Lattouf’s dismissal was ordinary: she shared a post by Human Rights Watch about Israel “using starvation of civilians as a weapon of war in Gaza”, calling it “a war crime”.

    It also noted the express intention of Israeli officials to pursue this strategy. Actions were also documented: the deliberate blocking of food, water and fuel “while wilfully obstructing the entry of aid”.

    Sacked ABC presenter Antoinette Lattouf
    Sacked ABC presenter Antoinette Lattouf . . . bringing wrongful dismissal case. Image: GL

    Lattouf shared it after management directed staff not to post on “matters of controversy”.

    Prior to The Age revelations, much had been made of Lattouf’s fill-in role as a radio presenter — which was intended for five shows.

    The Australian, owned by News Corp, had issues with Lattouf’s statements on various online platforms. It found it strange in December that she was appointed “despite her very public anti-Israel stance”.

    She was accused of denying that some protesters had called for Jews to be gassed outside the Sydney Opera House on October 7. She also dared to accuse the Israeli Defence Forces of committing rape.

    ‘Lot of people really upset’
    It was considered odd that she discussed food and water shortages in Gaza and “an advertising campaign showing corpses reminiscent of being wrapped in Muslim burial cloths”. That “left a lot of people really upset’,” The Australian said.

    ABC managing director David Anderson
    ABC managing director David Anderson . . . denied “any external pressure, whether it be an advocacy group or lobby group, a political party, or commercial entity’. Image: Green Left

    If war is hell, Lattouf was evidently not allowed to go into quite so much detail about it — at least concerning the fate of Palestinians at the hands of the Israeli war machine.

    What has also come to light is that the ABC’s managers were not targeting Lattouf on their own. Pressure had been exercised from outside the media organisation.

    According to The Age, WhatsApp messages by a group called “Lawyers for Israel” had been sent to the ABC as part of a coordinated campaign.

    Sydney property lawyer Nicky Stein told members of that group to contact the federal Minister for Communications asking “how Antoinette is hosting the morning ABC Sydney show” the day Lattouf was sacked.

    They said employing Lattouff breached Clause 4 of the ABC code of practice on “impartiality”.

    Stein went on to insist that: “It’s important ABC hears from not just individuals in the community but specifically from lawyers so they feel there is an actual legal threat.”

    No ‘generic’ response
    She goes on to say that a “proper” rather than “generic” response was expected “by COB [close of business] today or I would look to engage senior counsel”.

    Did such threats have any basis? Even Stein admits: “There is probably no actionable offence against the ABC but I didn’t say I would be taking one — just investigating one. I have said that they should be terminating her employment immediately.”

    It was designed to attract attention from ABC chairperson Ita Buttrose, and it did.

    ABC political reporter Nour Haydar
    ABC political reporter Nour Haydar . . . resigned last week citing concern about the ABC coverage of Israel’s war on Gaza. Image: Green Left

    Robert Goot, deputy president of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry and part of the same group, boasted of information he had received that Lattouf would be “gone from morning radio from Friday” because of her “anti-Israeli” stance.

    There has been something of a journalistic exodus from the ABC of late.

    Nour Haydar, a political reporter in the ABC’s Parliament House bureau and another journalist of Lebanese descent, resigned on January 12 citing concern about the ABC’s coverage of Israel’s war on Gaza.

    There had been, for instance, the creation of a “Gaza advisory panel” at the behest of ABC news director Justin Stevens, ostensibly to improve coverage.

    Journalists need to ‘take a stand’ over the Gaza carnage after latest killings

    Must not ‘take sides’
    “Accuracy and impartiality are core to the service we offer audiences,” Stevens told staff. “We must stay independent and not ‘take sides’.”

    This pointless assertion can only ever be a threat because it acts as an injunction on staff and a judgment against sources that do not favour the line, however credible they might be.

    What proves acceptable, a condition that seems to have paralysed the ABC, is to never say that Israel massacres, commits war crimes and brings about conditions approximating genocide.

    Little wonder then that coverage of South Africa’s genocide case against Israel in the International Court of Justice does not get top billing on the ABC.

    Palestinians and Palestinian militias, however, can always be described as savages, rapists and baby slayers. Throw in fanaticism and Islam and you have the complete package ready for transmission.

    Coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the mainstream media of most Western countries, as the late Robert Fisk pointed out, repeatedly asserts these divisions.

    After her resignation, Haydar told the Sydney Morning Herald: “Commitment to diversity in the media cannot be skin deep.  Culturally diverse staff should be respected and supported even when they challenge the status quo.”

    Sharing divisive topics
    Haydar’s argument about cultural diversity should not obscure the broader problem facing the ABC: policing the way opinions and material on war, and any other divisive topic, is shared with the public.

    The issue goes less to cultural diversity than permitted intellectual breadth.

    Lattouf, for her part, is pursuing remedies through the Fair Work Commission and seeking funding through a GoFundMe page, steered by Lauren Dubois.

    “We stand with Antoinette and support the rights of workers to be able to share news that expresses an opinion or reinforces a fact, without fear of retribution.”

    Kenneth Roth, former head of Human Rights Watch, expressed his displeasure at Lattouf’s treatment, suggesting the ABC had erred.

    ABC’s senior management, via a statement from Anderson, preferred the route of craven denial. He rejected “any claim that it has been influenced by any external pressure, whether it be an advocacy group or lobby group, a political party, or commercial entity”.

    Dr Binoy Kampmark is a senior lecturer in global studies at RMIT University, Melbourne. This article was first published by Green Left Magazine and is republished here with permission.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • The Australian Department of Defence (DoD) has awarded a contract worth A$37.4 million to Lockheed Martin Australia to produce guided multiple launch rocket system (GMLRS) missiles in Australia, the DoD announced on 16 January. Lockheed Martin Australia also announced separately that it will commence manufacture of GMLRS missiles at the government’s Defence Establishment Orchard Hills […]

    The post Australia awards contract for GMLRS production appeared first on Asian Military Review.

    This post was originally published on Asian Military Review.

  • The Australian Department of Defence (DoD) has awarded a contract worth A$37.4 million to Lockheed Martin Australia to produce guided multiple launch rocket system (GMLRS) missiles in Australia, the DoD announced on 16 January. Lockheed Martin Australia also announced separately that it will commence manufacture of GMLRS missiles at the government’s Defence Establishment Orchard Hills […]

    The post Australia awards contract for GMLRS production appeared first on Asian Military Review.

    This post was originally published on Asian Military Review.

  • On February 20, Julian Assange, the daredevil publisher of WikiLeaks, will be going into battle, yet again, with the British justice system – or what counts for it.  The UK High Court will hear arguments from his team that his extradition to the United States from Britain to face 18 charges under the Espionage Act of 1917 would violate various precepts of justice.  The proceedings hope to reverse the curt, impoverished decision by the remarkably misnamed Justice Jonathan Swift of the same court on June 6, 2023.

    At this point, the number of claims the defence team can make are potentially many.  Economy, however, has been called for: the two judges hearing the case have asked for a substantially shortened argument, showing, yet again, that the quality of British mercy tends to be sourly short.  The grounds Assange can resort to are troublingly vast: CIA-sponsored surveillance, his contemplated assassination, his contemplated abduction, violation of attorney-client privilege, his poor health, the violation of free-speech, a naked, politicised attempt by an imperium to capture one of its greatest and most trenchant critics, and bad faith by the US government.

    Campaigners for the cause have been frenzied.  But as the solution to Assange’s plight is likely to be political, the burden falls on politicians to stomp and drum from within their various chambers to convince their executive counterparts.  In the US Congress, House Resolution 934, introduced on December 13 by Rep. Paul A. Gosar, an Arizona Republican, expresses “the sense of the House of Representatives that regular journalistic activities are protected under the First Amendment, and that the United States ought to drop all charges against and attempts to extradite Julian Assange.”

    The resolution sees a dramatic shift from the punishing, haute view taken by such figures as the late Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein, who was one of the first political figures to suggest that Assange be crucified on the unsteady timber of the Espionage Act for disclosing US cables and classified information in 2010.  The resolution acknowledges, for instance, that the disclosures by WikiLeaks “promoted public transparency through the exposure of the hiring of child prostitutes by Defense Department contractors, friendly fire incidents, human rights abuses, civilian killings, and United States use of psychological warfare.”  The list could be sordidly longer but let’s not quibble.

    Impressively, drafters of the resolution finally acknowledge that charging Assange under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) for alleged conspiracy to help US Army intelligence analyst Chelsea (then Bradley) Manning access Defense Department computers was a fabled nonsense.  For one, it was “impossible” – Manning “already had access to the mentioned computer”.  Furthermore, “there was no proof Mr Assange had any contact with said intelligence analyst”.

    Ire is also directed at the espionage counts, with the resolution noting that “no other publisher has ever been prosecuted under the Espionage Act prior to these 17 charges.”  A successful prosecution of the publisher “would set a precedent allowing the United States to prosecute and imprison journalists for First Amendment protected activities, including the obtainment and publication of information, something that occurs on a regular basis”.

    Acknowledgment is duly made of the importance of press freedoms to promote transparency and protect the Republic, the support for Assange, “sincere and steadfast”, no less, shown by “numerous human rights, press freedom, and privacy rights advocates and organizations”, and the desire by “at least 70 Senators and Members of Parliament from Australia, a critical United States ally and Mr Assange’s native country” for his return.

    Members of Australia’s parliament, adding to the efforts last September to convince members of Congress that the prosecution be dropped, have also written to the UK Home Secretary, James Cleverly, requesting that he “undertake an urgent, thorough and independent assessment of the risks to Mr Assange’s health and welfare in the event that he is extradited to the United States.”

    The members of the Bring Julian Assange Home Parliamentary Group draw Cleverly’s attention to the recent UK Supreme Court case of AAA v Secretary of State for the Home Department which found “that courts in the United Kingdom cannot just rely on third party assurances by foreign governments but rather are required to make independent assessments of the risk of persecution to individuals before any order is made removing them from the UK.”

    It follows that the approach taken by Lord Justices Burnett and Holroyde in USA v Assange [2021] EWHC 3133 was, to put it politely, a touch too confident in accepting assurances given by the US government regarding Assange’s treatment, were he to be extradited.  “These assurances were not tested, nor was there any evidence of independent assessment as to the basis on which they could be given and relied upon.”

    The conveners of the group point to Assange’s detention in Belmarsh prison since April 2019, his “significant health issues, exacerbated to a dangerous degree by his prolonged incarceration, that are of very real concern to us as his elected representatives.”  They also point out the rather unusual consensus between the current Australian Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, and his opposition number, Peter Dutton, that the “case has gone on for too long.”  Continued legal proceedings, both in the UK, and then in the US were extradition to take place “would add yet more years to Mr Assange’s detention and further imperil his health.”

    In terms of posterity’s calling, there are surely fewer better things at this point for a US president nearing mental oblivion to do, or a Tory government peering at electoral termination to facilitate, than the release of Assange.  At the very least, it would show a grudging acknowledgment that the fourth estate, watchful of government’s egregious abuses, is no corpse, but a vital, thriving necessity.

    The post The Last Flurry: The US Congress and Australian Parliamentarians seek Assange’s Release first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • COMMENTARY: By Caitlin Johnstone

    The Biden administration has officially re-designated Ansarallah – the dominant force in Yemen also known as the Houthis – as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist entity.

    The White House claims the designation is an appropriate response to the group’s attacks on US military vessels and commercial ships in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden, saying those attacks “fit the textbook definition of terrorism”.

    Ansarallah claims its actions “adhere to the provisions of Article 1 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide,” since it is only enforcing a blockade geared toward ceasing the ongoing Israeli destruction of Gaza.

    One of the most heinous acts committed by the Trump administration was its designation of Ansarallah as a Foreign Terrorist Organisation (FTO) and as Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGT), both of which imposed sanctions that critics warned would plunge Yemen’s aid-dependent population into even greater levels of starvation than they were already experiencing by restricting the aid that would be allowed in.

    One of the Biden administration’s only decent foreign policy decisions has been the reversal of that sadistic move, and now that reversal is being partially rolled back, though thankfully only with the SDGT listing and not the more deadly and consequential FTO designation.

    In a new article for Antiwar about this latest development, Dave Decamp explains that as much as the Biden White House goes to great lengths insisting that it’s going to issue exemptions to ensure that its sanctions don’t harm the already struggling Yemeni people,

    “history has shown that sanctions scare away international companies and banks from doing business with the targeted nations or entities and cause shortages of medicine, food, and other basic goods.”

    DeCamp also notes that US and British airstrikes on Yemen have already forced some aid groups to suspend services to the country.

    Still trying to recover
    So the US empire is going to be imposing sanctions on a nation that is still trying to recover from the devastation caused by the US-backed Saudi blockade that contributed to hundreds of thousands of deaths between 2015 and 2022. All in response to the de facto government of that very same country imposing its own blockade with the goal of preventing a genocide.

    That’s right: when Yemen sets up a blockade to try and stop an active genocide, that’s terrorism, but when the US empire imposes a blockade to secure its geostrategic interests in the Middle East, why that’s just the rules-based international order in action.

    It just says so much about how the US empire sees itself that it can impose blockades and starvation sanctions at will upon nations like Yemen, Venezuela, Cuba, Iran, Syria and North Korea for refusing to bow to its dictates, but when Yemen imposes a blockade for infinitely more worthy and noble reasons it gets branded an act of terrorism.

    The managers of the globe-spanning empire loosely centralised around Washington literally believe the world is theirs to rule as they will, and that anyone who opposes its rulings is an outlaw.

    Based on power
    “What this shows us is that the “rules-based international order” the US and its allies claim to uphold is not based on rules at all; it’s based on power, which is the ability to control and impose your will on other people.

    The “rules” apply only to the enemies of the empire because they are not rules at all: they are narratives used to justify efforts to bend the global population to its will.

    We are ruled by murderous tyrants. By nuclear-armed thugs who would rather starve civilians to protect the continuation of an active genocide than allow peace to get a word in edgewise.

    Our world can never know health as long as these monsters remain in charge.

    Caitlin Johnstone is an Australian independent journalist and poet. Her articles include The UN Torture Report On Assange Is An Indictment Of Our Entire Society. She publishes a website and Caitlin’s Newsletter. This article is republished with permission.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • What a cowardly act it was.  A national broadcaster, dedicated to what should be fearless reporting, cowed by the intemperate bellyaching of a lobby concerned about coverage of the Israel-Gaza war.  The investigation by The Age newspaper was revealing in showing that the dismissal of broadcaster Antoinette Lattouf last December 20 was the nasty fruit of a campaign waged against the corporation’s management.  This included its chair, Ita Buttrose, and managing director David Anderson.

    The official reason for that dismissal was disturbingly ordinary.  Lattouf had not, for instance, decided to become a flag-swathed bomb thrower for the Palestinian cause.  She had engaged in no hostage taking campaign, nor intimidated any Israeli figure.  The sacking had purportedly been made over sharing a post by Human Rights Watch about Israel that mentioned “using starvation of civilians as a weapon of war in Gaza”, calling it “a war crime”.  It also noted the express intention by Israeli officials to pursue this strategy.   Actions are also documented: the deliberate blocking of the delivery of food, water and fuel “while wilfully obstructing the entry of aid.”  The sharing by Lattouf took place following a direction not to post on “matters of controversy”.

    Human Rights Watch might be accused of many things: the dolled up corporate face of human rights activism; the activist transformed into fundraising agent and boardroom gaming strategist.  But to share material from the organisation on alleged abuses is hardly a daredevil act of dangerous hair-raising radicalism.

    Prior to the revelations in The Age, much had been made of Lattouf’s fill-in role as a radio presenter, a stint that was to last for five shows.  The Australian, true to form, had its own issue with Lattouf’s statements made on various online platforms.  In December, the paper found it strange that she was appointed “despite her very public anti-Israel stance.”  She was also accused of denying the lurid interpretations put upon footage from protests outside Sydney Opera House, some of which called for gassing Jews.  And she dared accused the Israeli forces of committing rape.

    It was also considered odd that she discuss such matters as food and water shortages in Gaza and “an advertising campaign showing corpses reminiscent of being wrapped in Muslim burial cloths”.  That “left ‘a lot of people really upset’.”  If war is hell, then Lattouf was evidently not allowed to go into quite so much detail about it – at least when concerning the fate of Palestinians at the hands of the Israeli war machine.

    What also transpires is that the ABC managers were not merely targeting Lattouf on their own, sadistic initiative.  Pressure of some measure had been exercised from outside the organisation.  According to The Age, WhatsApp messages had been sent to the ABC as part of a coordinated campaign by a group called Lawyers for Israel.

    The day Lattouf was sacked, Sydney property lawyer Nicky Stein buzzingly began proceedings by telling members of the group to contact the federal minister for communication asking “how Antoinette is hosting the morning ABC Sydney show.”  Employing Lattouff apparently breached Clause 4 of the ABC code of practice on impartiality.

    Stein cockily went on to insist that, “It’s important ABC hears from not just individuals in the community but specifically from lawyers so they feel there is an actual legal threat.”  She goes on to read that a “proper” rather than “generic” response was expected “by COB [close of business] today or I would look to engage senior counsel.”

    Did such windy threats have any basis?  No, according to Stein.  “I know there is probably no actionable offence against the ABC but I didn’t say I would be taking one – just investigating one.  I have said that they should be terminating her employment immediately.”  Utterly charming, and sufficiently so to attract attention from the ABC chairperson herself, who asked for further venting of concerns.

    Indeed, another member of the haranguing clique, Robert Goot, also deputy president of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, could boast of information he had received that Lattouf would be “gone from morning radio from Friday” because of her anti-Israeli stance.

    There has been something of a journalistic exodus from the ABC of late.  Nour Haydar, an Australian journalist also of Lebanese descent, resigned expressing her concerns about the coverage of the Israel-Gaza conflict at the broadcaster.  There had been, for instance, the creation of a “Gaza advisory panel” at the behest of ABC News director Justin Stevens, ostensibly to improve the coverage of the conflict.  “Accuracy and impartiality are core to the service we offer audiences,” Stevens explained to staff.  “We must stay independent and not ‘take sides’.”

    This pointless assertion can only ever be a threat because it acts as an injunction on staff and a judgment against sources that do not favour the accepted line, however credible they might be.  What proves acceptable, a condition that seems to have paralysed the ABC, is to never say that Israel massacres, commits war crimes, and brings about conditions approximating to genocide.  Little wonder that coverage on South Africa’s genocide case against Israel in the International Court of Justice does not get top billing on the ABC news headlines.

    Palestinians and Palestinian militias, on the other hand, can always be written about as brute savages, rapists and baby slayers.  Throw in fanaticism and Islam, and you have the complete package ready for transmission.  Coverage in the mainstays of most Western liberal democracies of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as the late Robert Fisk pointed out with pungency, repeatedly asserts these divisions.

    After her signation Haydar told the Sydney Morning Herald that, “Commitment to diversity in the media cannot be skin deep.  Culturally diverse staff should be respected and supported even when they challenge the status quo.”  But Haydar’s argument about cultural diversity should not obscure the broader problem facing the ABC: policing the way opinions and material on war and any other divisive topic is shared.  The issue goes less to cultural diversity than permitted intellectual breadth, which is distinctly narrowing at the national broadcaster.

    Lattouf, for her part, is pursuing remedies through the Fair Work Commission, and seeking funding through a GoFundMe page, steered by Lauren Dubois.  “We stand with Antoinette and support the rights of workers to be able to share news that expresses an opinion or reinforces a fact, without fear of retribution.”

    Kenneth Roth, former head of Human Rights Watch, expressed his displeasure at the treatment of Lattouf for sharing HRW material, suggesting the ABC had erred.  ABC’s senior management, through a statement from managing director David Anderson, preferred the route of craven denial, rejecting “any claim that it has been influenced by any external pressure, whether it be an advocacy group or lobby group, a political party, or commercial entity.”  They would, wouldn’t they?

    The post Cancelling the Journalist: The ABC’s Coverage of the Israel-Gaza War first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • The Ukraine war has revealed that C-UAS equipment must now be a fundamental part of any military force. Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) are now a staple for most militaries, but the ability to counter them has lagged considerably. Thanks to the Nagorno-Karabakh 2020 conflict and ongoing Ukraine War, armed forces are belatedly recognising the need […]

    The post Counter-UAS Market Set for Steep Rise appeared first on Asian Military Review.

    This post was originally published on Asian Military Review.

  • What a show!  As US Secretary of State Antony Blinken was promoting a message of calm restraint and firm control in limiting the toxic fallout of Israel’s horrific campaign in Gaza, a decision was made by his government, the United Kingdom and a few other reticent collaborators to strike targets in Yemen, including the capital Sana’a.  These were done, purportedly, as retribution for attacks on international commercial shipping in the Red Sea by the Iran-backed Houthi rebels.

    The wording in a White House media release mentions the operation’s purpose and the relevant participants.  “In response to continued illegal, dangerous, and destabilizing Houthi attacks against vessels, including commercial shipping, transiting the Red Sea, the armed forces of the United States and the United Kingdom, with support from the Netherlands, Canada, Bahrain, and Australia, conducted joint strikes in accordance with the inherent right of individual and collective self-defense”.

    US Air Forces Central Command further revealed that the “multinational action targeted radar systems, defense systems, and storage and launch sites for one way attack unmanned aerial systems, cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles.”

    The rationale by the Houthis is that they are targeting shipping with a direct or ancillary Israeli connection, hoping to niggle them over the barbarities taking place in Gaza.  As the Israeli Defence Forces are getting away with, quite literally, bloody murder, the task has fallen to other forces to draw attention to that fact.  Houthi spokesperson Mohammed Abdusalam’s post was adamant that “there was no threat to international navigation in the Red and Arabian Seas, and the targeting was and will continue to affect Israeli ships or those heading to the ports of occupied Palestine.”

    But that narrative has been less attractive to the supposedly law-minded types in Washington and London, always mindful that commerce trumps all.  Preference has been given to such shibboleths as freedom of navigation, the interests of international shipping, all code for the protection of large shipping interests.  No mention is made of the justification advanced by the Houthi rebels and the Palestinian plight, a topic currently featuring before the International Court of Justice in the Hague.

    Another feature of the strikes is the absence of a Security Council resolution from the United Nations, technically the sole body in the international system able to authorise the use of force under the UN Charter.  A White House statement on January 11 attributes authority to the strikes much the same way the administration of George W. Bush did in justifying the warrantless, and illegal invasion of Iraq in March 2003.  (Ditto those on his same, limited bandwidth, Tony Blair of the UK and John Howard of Australia.)  On that occasion, the disappointment and frustrations of weapons inspectors and rebukes from the UN about the conduct of Saddam Hussein, became vulnerable to hideous manipulation by the warring parties.

    On this occasion, a “broad consensus as expressed by 44 countries around the world on December 19, 2023” and “the statement by the UN Security Council on December 1, 2023, condemning Houthi attacks against merchant and commercial vessels transiting the Red Sea” is meant to add ballast.  Lip service is paid to the self-defence provisions of the UN Charter.

    In a separate statement, Biden justified the attack on Houthi positions as necessary punishment for “unprecedented Houthi attacks against international maritime vessels in the Red Sea – including the use of anti-ship ballistic missiles for the first time in history.”  He also made much of the US-led Operation Prosperity Guardian, “a coalition of more than 20 nations committed to defending international shipping and deterring Houthi attacks in the Red Sea.”  No mention of the Israeli dimension here, at all.

    In addition to the pregnant questions on the legality of such strikes in international law, the attacks, at least as far as US execution was concerned, was far from satisfactory to some members of Congress.  Michigan Democratic Rep. Rashita Tlaib was irked that US lawmakers had not been consulted.  “The American people are tired of endless war.”  Californian Rep. Barbara Lee warned that, “Violence only begets more violence.  We need a ceasefire now to prevent deadly, costly, catastrophic escalation of violence in the region.”

    A number of Republicans also registered their approval of the stance taken by another Californian Democrat, Rep. Ro Khanna, who expressed with certitude the view that Biden had “to come to Congress before launching a strike against the Houthis in Yemen and involving us in another middle eastern conflict.”  Republican Senator Mike Lee of Utah was in full agreement, as was West Virginia Republican Rep. Thomas Massie.  “Only Congress has the power to declare war,” Massie affirmed.

    Unfortunately for these devotees of Article I of the US Constitution, which vests Congress approval powers for making war, the War Powers Act, passed by Congress in November 1973, merely requires the president to inform Congress within 48 hours of military action, and the termination of such action within 60 days of commencement in the absence of a formal declaration of war by Congress or authorisation of military conflict.  These days, clipping the wings of the executive when it comes to engaging in conflict is nigh impossible.

    There was even less of a debate about the legality or wisdom of the Yemen strikes in Australia.  Scandalously, and with a good deal of cowardice, the government preferred a deafening silence for hours in the aftermath of the operation.  The only source confirming that personnel of the Australian Defence Forces were involved came from Biden, the commander-in-chief of another country.  There had been no airing of the possibility of such involvement.  Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese had, in not sending a warship from the Royal Australian Navy to join Operation Prosperity Guardian, previously insisted that diplomacy might be a better course of action.  Evidently, that man is up for turning at a moment’s notice.

    In a brief statement made at 4.38 pm on of January 12 (there was no press conference in sight, no opportunity to inquire), Albanese declared with poor conviction that, “Australia alongside other countries has supported the United States and the United Kingdom to conduct strikes to deal with this threat to global rules and commercial shipping.”  He had waited for the best part of a day to confirm it to the citizenry of his country.  He had done so without consulting Parliament.

    Striking the Houthis would seem, on virtually all counts, to be a signal failure.  Benjamin H. Friedman of Defense Priorities sees error piled upon error: “The strikes on the Houthis will not work.  They are very unlikely to stop Houthi attacks on shipping.  The strikes’ probable failure will invite escalation to more violent means that may also fail.”  The result: policymakers will be left “looking feckless and thus tempted to up the ante to more pointless war to solve a problem better left to diplomatic means.”  Best forget any assuring notions of taking the sting out of the expanding hostilities.  All roads to a widening war continue to lead to Israel.

    The post Futile and Dangerous: Bombing Yemen in the Name of Shipping first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Maritime patrol aircraft from four Indo-Pacific countries – Australia, India, Japan, and South Korea – have deployed to the United States’ Anderson Air Force Base in Guam for the annual US Navy-led Sea Dragon anti-submarine warfare (ASW) exercise, which is taking place from 8 to 24 January. Sea Dragon 2024 will see participating nations and […]

    The post Exercise Sea Dragon hones ASW skills for Indo-Pacific stakeholders appeared first on Asian Military Review.

    This post was originally published on Asian Military Review.

  • BAE Systems has been awarded a US$255 million contract to supply the Royal Australian Navy’s (RAN’s) next-generation Hunter-class frigates with the Mk 45 naval gun systems. The company announced on 8 January that it will deliver three Mk 45 naval gun shipsets, each comprising the 127 mm, 62-calibre Mk 45 Mod 4A naval gun with […]

    The post BAE Systems contracted for Hunter frigate naval guns appeared first on Asian Military Review.

    This post was originally published on Asian Military Review.

  • COMMENTARY: By Caitlin Johnstone

    How is anyone still talking about October 7? What Israel has done since October 7 is many times worse than what happened on that day by any conceivable metric; the only way to feel otherwise is to believe Israeli lives are worth many times more than Palestinian lives.

    How is Israeli suffering still being centered over vastly less significant acts of violence three months ago while exponentially worse violence and suffering is being inflicted by Israelis right this very moment?

    If your nation is attacked, and you respond to that attack by immediately murdering thousands of children with incredible savagery, then you forfeit any right to expect anyone to give a shit that your nation was attacked.

    Israel responded to the Hamas attack by doing something much, much worse than anything Hamas has ever done, and in so doing completely delegitimizing itself as a state and completely validating everything the Palestinian resistance has been saying about the state of Israel since day one.


    Video: Visualising Palestine.

    This genocide is being live-streamed. We can’t say we didn’t know. For as long as we live we’ll never be able to say we didn’t know.

    [Oral submissions on South Africa’s genocide case against Israel start in the International Court of Justice The Hague today.]

    Biden is everything people feared Trump would be. A genocidal monster facilitating racially motivated murder and ethnic cleansing while rapidly accelerating toward a nuclear-age world war. Nothing Trump did was as evil as what Biden has been doing. Biden is the real Trump.

    Israel is in a nonstop state of conflict largely because it is such an artificial creation. Most states emerge in a more organic way out of the geographical, political and cultural circumstances of the land and the people in their unique slice of spacetime. Israel emerged because some people who didn’t live anywhere near the land of Palestine got some narratives in their heads involving an ancient religion and its adherents, and dropped a newly created country on top of a civilization that already existed there which had emerged organically out of the circumstances of the region.

    People came in from other nations all over the world, resurrected a dead language which had until then only remained used in religious rituals and called it their native tongue, and slapped together a 20th century nation and started LARPing that it was their native land. This caused massive shockwaves throughout the region because it didn’t happen in accordance with the organic geopolitical and cultural circumstances of the land and its people. It was an alien artificial construct from top to bottom, thrust upon a region for which it had no natural context or receptivity.

    Because it was such an unnatural foreign imposition, the political circumstances of the middle east have ever since been rejecting it like a body rejecting an ill-matched organ transplant. This natural response is treated as unnatural unprovoked hostility from the people of the invading artificial construct, which invents more narratives to justify its violent actions against the inhabitants of the region.

    The West’s cultural obsession with World War II has made everyone dumber, because now everyone we want to fight is always Hitler and we’re always the Brave Good Guys who are fighting Hitler.

    Nothing about Israel’s US-backed assault on Gaza is comparable to the Allied offensive against Nazi Germany. They’re raining military explosives onto a trapped and besieged population in a giant concentration camp with the stated goal of eliminating a small militant group who poses exactly zero existential threat to the state of Israel, in response to an attack which was 100 percent provoked by the abuses of the apartheid Israeli regime.

    Comparing the Gaza assault to the war against Hitler is like comparing a mass shooting to the war against Hitler, and saying the shooter is the Allied forces. It’s a completely foam-brained talking point that’s espoused solely by idiots and warmongers.

    It’s not too late to get involved in opposing Israel’s assault on Gaza.

    It doesn’t matter if you haven’t been talking about it until now. It doesn’t matter if you haven’t understood or paid attention to the Israel-Palestine issue before. It doesn’t matter if you’ve been supportive of Israel in the past, or if you’ve expressed opinions on this subject that you now know were misguided, or if you’ve never engaged in any kind of activism before.

    If that’s the case for you, you need to understand that millions of people are on the exact same boat as you right now. Millions. The actions of the state of Israel over the last three months have caused huge numbers of people not previously aware of its depravity to open their eyes to what’s going on, do some research, and change their position.

    There is absolutely nothing wrong with joining in with the opposition now. You can safely dismiss anything in you that feels self-conscious about not getting this until now, or feels like it would be inauthentic to join an activist cause after it has gained popularity. Changing your position and taking a stand now makes you more authentic, because it shows you are living a life guided by truth and compassion rather than sleepwalking through life guided by blind habit and partisan tribalism.

    I guarantee you the people in Gaza would much rather have you than not have you, and losing your support over self-consciousness about joining in later than others did would be a very silly and unfortunate thing to happen.

    Moreover, you would definitely not be the last to join in this cause; millions more will be joining in after you as the Israeli regime loses support around the world and everyone starts waking up to what’s happening in Gaza.

    Please disregard anything in you that has been holding back from helping to facilitate that awakening in whatever small way you can, whether that might be due to shame for not getting involved sooner or due to any kind of cringe around activism and political engagement you may have had before.

    This thing is so much more important than any of us, and it’s so much more important than any little feelings of self-consciousness we’d have about getting involved in ways we never would have imagined before. This matter is much too urgent for you to pay any attention to those misguided forces within you that are resistant to taking a stand here.

    Take your stand. It will be welcomed, and you will be glad that you did for the rest of your life.

    Caitlin Johnstone is an Australian independent journalist and poet. Her articles include The UN Torture Report On Assange Is An Indictment Of Our Entire Society. She publishes a website and Caitlin’s Newsletter. This article from her Notes From The Edge Of The Narrative Matrix is republished with permission.

    The genocidal actions of the state of Israel
    “The actions of the state of Israel over the last three months have caused huge numbers of people not previously aware of its depravity to open their eyes to what’s going on, do some research, and change their position.” Image: Caitlin’s Newsletter

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • By David Robie, editor of Asia Pacific Report

    Reporting Israel’s war on Gaza has become the greatest credibility challenge for journalists and media of our times. The latest targeted killing of an Al Jazeera photojournalist yesterday while documenting atrocities has prompted a leading analyst to appeal to global journalists to “take a stand” to protect the profession.

    The killing of Hamza Dahdoud, the 27-year-old eldest son of Al Jazeera Gaza bureau chief Wael Dahdouh, along with freelancer Mustafa Thuraya, has taken the death toll of Palestinian journalists to 109 (according to Al Jazeera sources while global media freedom watchdogs report slightly lower figures).

    Emotional responses and a wave of condemnation has thrown the spotlight on the toll faced by reporters and their families.

    Wael Dahdouh, 52, lost his wife, daughter, grandson and 15-year-old son on October 25 in an earlier Israeli air raid that hit the house they were sheltering in. After mourning for several hours, Dahdouh senior was back on the job documenting the war.

    Just under 20 months ago, Al Jazeera’s best known correspondent, Shireen Abu Akleh, was fatally shot by an Israeli sniper while reporting on the Occupied West Bank on 11 May 2022 in what Paris-based Reporters Without Borders (RSF) condemned by saying this “systematic Israeli impunity is outrageous.”

    The New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists protested about the killing of Hamza Dahdoud and Thuraya, saying it “must be independently investigated, and those behind their deaths must be held accountable”.

    Al Jazeera reports 109 Palestinian journalists have been killed in Gaza
    Al Jazeera reports 109 Palestinian journalists have been killed in Gaza . . . Israel is accused of “trying to kill messenger and silence the story”. Image: AJ screenshot APR

    But few journalists would accept that this is anything other a targeted killing, as most of the deaths of Palestinian journalists in the latest Gaza war have been – a war on Palestinian journalism in an attempt to suppress the truth.

    ‘Nowhere safe in Gaza’
    Certainly, Al Jazeera’s Palestinian-Israeli political affairs analyst and Marwan Bishara, who was born in Nazareth, has no doubts.

    Speaking on the 24-hour Qatari world news channel, with at least 22,835 people killed in Gaza – 70 percent of them women and children — he said: “Nowhere is safe in Gaza and no journalists are safe . . . That tells us something.


    “Killing the messenger”: Marwan Bishara’s interview with Al Jazeera — more tampering over the message? There is nothing “sensitive” in this clip.

    “It is understood they are war journalists. But still the fact that more than 100 journalists were killed within three months is breaking yet another record in terms of killing children, and destruction of hospitals and schools, and the killing of United Nations staff.

    “And now with 109 journalists killed this definitely requires a certain stand on the part of our colleagues around the world. Not just in a higher up institution.

    “I am talking about journalists around the world – those who came to cover the World Cup in Doha for labour rights, or whatever. Those who are shedding tears in the Ukraine, those who are trying to cover Xinjiang in China [persecution of the Uyghur people], those who are claiming there are genocides happening right, left and centre – from China to Ukraine, to elsewhere.

    “The same journalists who see in plain sight what is happening in Gaza should – regardless if we disagree on Israel’s motives, or Israel’s objectives in this war – must agree that the protection of journalists and their families is indispensable for our profession. And for their profession,” Bishara said.

    “Journalists, and journalism associations and syndicates around the world – especially in those countries with influence on Israel, as in Europe, or the United States; journalists need to take a stand on what is going on in Gaza.

    ‘Cannot go unanswered’
    “This cannot continue and go on unanswered. What about them?

    “They’re going to be from various media outlets deploying journalists in war-stricken areas. They will have to call for the defence of journalists and their lives and their protection.

    “This cannot go on like this unabated in Gaza,” Bishara added, as Israeli defence officials have warned the fighting could go on for another year.

    The South African genocide case filed against Israel in the International Court of Justice seeking an interim injunction for a ceasefire and due for a hearing later this week could pose the best chance for an end to the war.

    Bishara has partially blamed Western news networks for failing to report the war on Gaza accurately and fairly, a criticism he has made in the past and his articles about Israel are insightful and damning.

    Al Jazeera analyst Marwan Bishara
    Al Jazeera analyst Marwan Bishara . . . “The same journalists who see in plain sight what is happening in Gaza . . . must agree that the protection of journalists and their families is indispensable.” Image: AJ screenshot APR

    His call for a stand by journalists has in fact been echoed in some quarters where “media bias” has been challenged, opening divisions among media groups about fairness and balance that have become the most bitter since the climate change and covid pandemic debates when media “deniers” and “bothsideism” threatened to undermine science.

    In November, more than 1500 journalists from scores of US media organisations signed an open letter calling for integrity in Western media’s coverage of “Israeli atrocities against Palestinians”.

    Israel has blocked foreign press entry, heavily restricted telecommunications and bombed press offices. Some 50 media headquarters in Gaza have been hit in the past month.

    Israeli forces explicitly warned newsrooms they “cannot guarantee” the safety of their employees from airstrikes. Taken with a decades-long pattern of lethally targeting journalists, Israel’s actions show wide scale suppression of speech.

    In the United Kingdom, eight BBC journalists wrote an open letter in late November to Al Jazeera accusing the British broadcaster of bias in its coverage of Gaza.

    A 2300-word letter claimed that the BBC had a “double standard” and was failing to tell the Israel-Palestine conflict accurately, “investing greater effort in humanising Israeli victims compared with Palestinians, and omitting key historical context in coverage”.

    In Australia, another open letter by scores of journalists and the national media union MEAA called for “integrity, transparency and rigour” in the coverage of the war and joined the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ), RSF and others condemning the Israeli attacks on journalists and journalism.

    Leading Australian newspaper editors of The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age and the Nine network hit back by banning staff who had signed the letter. According to the independent Crikey, a senior Nine staff journalist resigned and readers were angrily cancelling their newspaper subscriptions over the ban.

    Crikey later exposed many editors and journalists who had made junket trips to Israel and is currently keeping an inventory of these “influenced” media people — at least 77 have been named so far.

    Crikey's running checklist on Australian journalists
    Crikey’s running checklist on Australian journalists who have been to Israel.

    In The Daily Blog, editor Martyn Bradbury has also questioned how many New Zealand journalists have also been influenced by Israeli media massaging. Bradbury wrote:

    “If Israel has sunk that much time and resource charming Australian journalists and politicians, the question has to be asked, [has] the pro-Israel lobby sent NZ journalists and politicians on these junkets and if they have, who are they?”

    He wrote to the NZ Press Gallery, the “journalist union” and media companies requesting a list of names.

    Pacific journalists ought to be also added to the list.

    I have just returned from a two-month trip in the Mediterranean, Red Sea and Australia. After a steady diet of comprehensive and well backgrounded reporting from global news channels such as TRT World News and Al Jazeera (which contrasted sharply in quality, depth and fairness with stereotypical Western coverage such as from BBC and CNN), I was stunned by the blatant bias of much of the Australian news media, particularly News Corp titles such as The Australian and The Advertiser in Adelaide.

    Some examples of the bias and my commentaries can be seen here, here, here, here, here and here.

    A pithy indictment of much of the Western reporting — including in New Zealand — can be read in the Middle East Eye and other publications.

    Exposing much of the Israeli propaganda and fabricated claims since October 7 (and even from time of The Nakba in 1948), award-winning columnist Peter Osborne wrote:

    “I am haunted by one other consideration. It is not just that Western commentators, columnists and chat show hosts often don’t know what they are talking about. It’s not even that they pretend they do.

    “It’s the comfort of their lives. They sit in warm, pleasant studios where they earn six-figure sums for their opinions. They take no risks and convey no truths.”

    A polar opposite from the Gaza carnage and the risks that courageous Palestinian journalists face daily to bear witness. They are an inspiration to the rest of us.

    Dr David Robie is editor and publisher of Asia Pacific Report and Café Pacific.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • The Constitution of Australia, having been approved in 1901 after successful Referendums in all 6 States, has now passed its use by date. The massive distrust that voters have in the political establishment will not ever enable it to be changed piece by piece in referendums spread over many decades. We can only achieve the …

    Continue reading VOTERS ARE BETTER ABLE TO PREPARE NEW CONSTITUTION FOR AUSTRALIA THAN POLITICIANS. IT MUST TOTALLY REPLACE THE OUTDATED 1901 CONSTITUTION.

    The post VOTERS ARE BETTER ABLE TO PREPARE NEW CONSTITUTION FOR AUSTRALIA THAN POLITICIANS. IT MUST TOTALLY REPLACE THE OUTDATED 1901 CONSTITUTION. appeared first on Everald Compton.

    This post was originally published on My Articles – Everald Compton.

  • They are unlikely to be revelatory, will shatter no myths, nor disprove any assumptions.  Cabinet documents exist to merely show that a political clique – the heart of the Westminster model of government, so to speak – often contain the musings of invertebrates, spineless on most issues such as foreign policy, while operating at the behest of select interests.  Hostility to originality is essential since it is threatening to the tribe; dissent is discouraged to uphold the order of collective cabinet responsibility.

    The recent non-story arising from the cabinet documents made available as to why Australia participated in a murderous, destructive and most probably illegal war against Iraq in 2003 proves that point.  The documents available showed, for instance, that a country, without mandatory parliamentary consultation, can go to war under the stewardship of a cabal influenced by the strategic interests of a foreign government.  The Howard government, famously buried in the fatty posterior of the US imperium, was always going to commit Australian military personnel to whatever military venture Washington demanded of it.  (In some cases, even without asking.)

    It was modish to suggest during the “Global War on Terror” that governments with fictional weapons of mass destruction might pass them on to surrogate non-state actors.  It was fashionable to misread intelligence material alleging such links, and, when that intelligence did not stack up, concoct it, as Tony Blair’s government happily did, sexed-up dossiers and all, in justifying Britain’s participation in the mauling of Iraq.

    The larger story in the recent documents affair over Iraq was what documents were withheld from the provision to the Australian National Archives in 2020.  In his January 3 press conference, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese outlined the process.  Normally, cabinet documents would be released two decades after their creation.  Such documents are provided to the Archives three years in advance by the government of the day.  But on this occasion, 78 were omitted from the transfer, enabling Albanese to point the finger firmly at his predecessor, Scott Morrison. (Those documents have since been transferred to the Archives.)

    In Albanese’s view, “Australians have the right to know the basis upon which Australia went to war in Iraq.  Australians lost their lives during the conflict and we know that some of the stated reasons for going to war was not correct in terms of the weapons of mass destruction that was alleged Iraq had at the time.”  Australians, he went on to say, had “a right to know what the decision-making process was”.

    The mistake in question had to be corrected, and the Archives had to release the documentation provided to them.  A constricting caveat, however, was appended to the declaration: the release of the documents had to “account for any national security issues  […] upon the advice of the national security agencies.”

    The caveat is a good starting point to suggest that this documents saga, and the restrictions upon the disclosure of the missing 78 Cabinet records, are set to continue.  For one thing, Albanese has added to the farce of secrecy by commencing an independent review that is barely worth that title.  The review is to be chaired by the very sort of person you would expect to bury rather than find things: Dennis Richardson, former director of the Australian Secret Intelligence Organisation and former head of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT).

    Richardson’s appointment continues a practice of partisan control over a process that should be beyond the national-security fraternity.  There are fewer strings of accountability, as would apply, say, to the Commonwealth Ombudsman.  There are no terms of reference outlined.  Short of simply being a political manoeuvre that might cast a poor light on the previous government’s practices, it is unclear what Richardson’s purpose really is apart from justifying the retention of any of the said documents from public view.

    Either way, he will be on a tidy sum for the task, something which he is becoming rather used to.  As The Klaxon reports, Richardson has been well remunerated by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C) for previous work.  A $50,000-a-month contract was awarded to him last year for “strategic advice and review” between August 2 and October 31.  The department refuses to state what it was for, preferring the insufferably vague justification of some “need for independent research or assessment”.  Be on guard whenever the term “independent” is coupled with “inquiry” or “assessment” in an Australian government context.

    A media release from the PM&C further notes that no department official or Minister has a direct role in the release or otherwise of the documents in question; the Archives will have the final say on whether those documents will be released or otherwise, whatever Albanese says.  Researchers, transparency activists and those keen on open government, are almost guaranteed disappointment, given the habitual secrecy and dysfunction that characterises the operation of that body.

    If there is a true lesson in this untidy business for the Albanese government, it must surely lie in the need to debate, discuss and dissent from matters that concern the entanglement of Australia, not merely in foreign wars but in alliances that cause them.  That, sadly, is a lesson that is nowhere being observed.  Howard’s crawling disposition has found its successor in Albanese’s obsequiousness, in so far as foreign conflicts are concerned.  Wherever the US war machine is deployed, Australia will hop to its aid with gleeful obedience.

    And as for anything to do with revealing the Australian decision-making process about the decision to invade, despoil and ruin yet another Middle Eastern state in 2003, one is better off consulting records from the White House and the US State Department.

    The post Circle of Secrecy: The Iraq War’s Missing Cabinet Documents first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • AUKUS, the trilateral pact between the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia, was a steal for all except one of the partners.  Australia, given the illusion of protection even as its aggressive stance (acquiring nuclear-powered submarines, becoming a forward base for the US military) aggravated other countries; the feeling of superiority, even as it was surrendering itself to a foreign power as never before, was the loser in the bargain.

    Last month, Australians woke up to the sad reminder that their government’s capitulation to Washington has been so total as to render any further talk about independence an embarrassment.  Their Defence Minister, Richard Marles, along with his deputy, the Minister for Defence Industry Pat Conroy, preferred a different story.  Canberra had gotten what it wanted: approval by the US Congress through its 2024 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) authorising the transfer of three Virginia class nuclear-powered submarines to the Royal Australian Navy, with one off the production line, and two in-service boats.  Australia may also seek congressional approval for two further Virginia class boats.

    The measures also authorised Australian contractors to train in US shipyards to aid the development of Australia’s own non-existent nuclear-submarine base, and exemptions from US export control licensing requirements permitting the “transfer of controlled goods and technology between Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States without the need for an export license.”

    For the simpleminded Marles, Congress had “provided unprecedented support to Australia in passing the National Defense Authorization Act which will see the transfer of submarines and streamlined export control provisions, symbolising the strength of our Alliance, and our shared commitment to the AUKUS partnership.”

    Either through ignorance or wilful blindness, the Australian defence minister chose to avoid elaborating on the less impressive aspects of the authorising statute.  The exemption under the US export licensing requirements, for instance, vests Washington with control and authority over Australian goods and technology while controlling the sharing of any US equivalent with Australia.  The exemption is nothing less than appropriation, even as it preserves the role of Washington as the drip feeder of nuclear technology.

    An individual with more than a passing acquaintance with this is Bill Greenwalt, one of the drafters of the US export control regime.  As he told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation last November, “After years of US State Department prodding, it appears that Australia signed up to the principles and specifics of the failed US export control system.”  In cooperating with the US on this point, Australia would “surrender any sovereign capability it develops to the United States control and bureaucracy.”

    The gem in this whole venture, at least from the perspective of the US military industrial complex, is the roping in of the Australian taxpayer as funder of its own nuclear weapons program.  Whatever its non-proliferation credentials, Canberra finds itself a funder of the US naval arm in an exercise of modernised nuclear proliferation.  Even the Marles-Conroy media release admits that the NDAA helped “establish a mechanism for the US to accept funds from Australia to lift the capacity of the submarine industrial base.”  Airily, the release goes on to mention that this “investment” (would “gift” not be a better word?) to the US Navy would also “complement Australia’s significant investment in our domestic submarine industrial base.”

    A few days after the farcical spectacle of surrender by Australian officials, the Congressional Research Service provided another one of its invaluable reports that shed further light on Australia’s contribution to the US nuclear submarine program.  Australian media outlets, as is their form on covering AUKUS, remained silent about it.  One forum, Michael West Media, showed that its contributors – Rex Patrick and Philip Dorling – were wide awake.

    The report is specific to the Navy Columbia (SSBN-826) Class Ballistic Missile Submarine Program, one that involves designing and building 12 new SSBNs to replace the current, aging fleet of 14 Ohio-class SSBNs.  The cost of the program, in terms of 2024 budget submission estimates for the 2024 financial year, is US$112.7 billion.  As is customary in these reports, the risks are neatly summarised.  They include the usual delays in designing and building the lead boat, thereby threatening readiness for timely deployment; burgeoning costs; the risks posed by funding the Columbia-class program to other Navy programs; and “potential industrial-base challenges of building both Columbia-class boats and Virginia-class attack submarines (SSNs) at the same time.”

    Australian funding becomes important in the last concern.  Because of AUKUS, the US Navy “has testified” that it would require, not only an increase in the production rate of the Virginia-class to 2.33 boats per year, but “a combined Columbia-plus-Virginia procurement rate” of 1+2.33.  Australian mandarins and lawmakers, accomplished in their ignorance, have mentioned little about this addition.  But US lawmakers and military planners are more than aware that this increased procurement rate “will require investing several billion dollars for capital plant expansion and improvements and workforce development at both the two submarine-construction shipyards (GD/EB [General Dynamics’ Electric boat in Groton, Connecticut] and HII/NSS [Huntington Ingalls Industries’ Newport News Shipbuilding]) and submarine supplier firms.”

    The report acknowledges that funding towards the 1+2.33 goal is being drawn from a number of allocations over a few financial years, but expressly mentions Australian funding “under the AUKUS proposed Pillar 1 pathway,” which entails the transfer component of nuclear-powered submarines to Canberra.

    The report helpfully reproduces the October 25, 2023 testimony from the Navy before the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee of the House of Armed Services Committee.  Officials are positively salivating at the prospect of nourishing the domestic industrial base through, for instance “joining with an Australian company to mature and scale metallic additive manufacturing across the SIB [Submarine Industrial Base].”  The testimony goes on to note that, “Australia’s investment into the US SIB builds upon on-going efforts to improve industrial base capability and capacity, create jobs, and utilize new technologies,” and was a “necessary” contribution to “augment VACL [Virginia Class] production from 2.0 to 2.33 submarines per year to support both US Navy and AUKUS requirements.”

    The implications from the perspective of the Australian taxpayer are significant.  Patrick and Dorling state one of them: that “Australian AUKUS funding will support construction of a key delivery component of the US nuclear strike force, keeping that program on track while overall submarine production accelerates.”

    The funding also aids the advancement of another country’s nuclear weapons capabilities, a breach, one would have thought, of Australia’s obligations under the Treaty of Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.  Defence spokesman for the Australian Greens, Senator David Shoebridge, makes that very point to Patrick and Dorling.  “Australia has clear international legal obligations to not support the nuclear weapons industry, yet this is precisely what these billions of dollars of AUKUS funding will do.”

    The senator also asks “When will the Albanese government start telling the whole truth about AUKUS and how Australians will be paying to help build the next class of US ballistic missile submarines?”

    For an appropriate answer, Shoebridge would do well to consult the masterful, deathless British series Yes Minister, authored by Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn.  In one episode, the relevant minister, Jim Hacker, offers this response to a query by the ever-suspicious civil service overlord Sir Humphrey Appleby on when he might receive a draft proposal: “At the appropriate juncture,” Hacker parries.  “In the fullness of time.  When the moment is ripe.  When the necessary procedures have been completed.  Nothing precipitate, of course.”  In one word: never.

    The post Funding the Imperium: Australia Subsidises US Nuclear Submarines first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • The killing of an Australian-Lebanese national Ibrahim Bazzi, his Lebanese wife Shorouq Hammoud, and his brother Ali Bazzi by the Israeli Defence Forces in a missile strike in southern Lebanon, has been an object exercise in selective outrage, selective ethical concern, and, generally speaking, selective morality.

    The strike took place on a home in the neighbourhood of Al-Dawra in the town of Bint Jbeil, said to belong to the Bazzi family.  On paper, the case demands investigation, explanation, even reparation.  But the Australian government has pounced on an opportunity to ignore the killing of Ibrahim and his wife – both civilians and intending to head back to Sydney – and focus on the background of Ali Bazzi instead.

    In his December 28, 2023 press conference, the Australian Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus noted “the announcement made by Hizballah claiming links to one of the Australians killed.  We are seeking to establish facts.”  The context to essentially excuse the killings is then sketched: “Hizballah is a listed terrorist organisation under Australian law”; there was “daily military activity in southern Lebanon, including rocket and missile fire, as well as airstrikes”; Australians in Lebanon should leave “while commercial options remain available.”

    On Ali’s connections, Dreyfus could make much of a terrorist link that, were it to be confirmed, would make the killings, more generally, less egregious.  “It’s an offence [for] any Australian to cooperate with, to support, let alone to fight with, a listed terrorist organisation like Hizballah.”  But – and here Dreyfus was not drawn – it is not an offence for Australians to serve in the armed forces of a foreign country under Part 5.5 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth).

    Naturally, this would depend on the country in question, and the amoral calculus used when deciding that nonsense called the “national interest”.  Australians serving with the IDF is entirely permissible, despite that army’s obliteration of Palestinian civilians in a most cavalier interpretation of international law; Australians serving with their opposite numbers are criminals, buccaneering agents who deserve what they get.

    Reserves Captain Lior Sivan, an Australian who served as an IDF tank commander, was killed on December 19 in a Hamas ambush.  When news was made public of this fact, his love of Israel and personal attributes splashed the media outlets.  Here was a noble human beaming with noble courage, to be garlanded and celebrated.  The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) sent its “condolences to his family during this difficult time and stand ready to provide consular assistance.”

    When news came of the slain trio in Bint Jbeil, two civilians were forgotten in favour of the supposedly blighting attributes of the alleged Hezbollah fighter.  “Of course,” stated Dreyfus, “there are examples in the past of Australians having had links with Hizballah.  One of the reasons why the Australian Government has listed Hizballah, in both its arms, as a terrorist organisation, is because of the potential links to Australia and Australians.”

    And what of the destruction of civilian life in this conflict, with thousands of instances of it in Gaza, and a rising toll in Lebanon?  The Australian government, Dreyfus insisted, had “consistently called for civilian lives to be protected and we have consistently raised our concerns about the risk of this conflict spreading.”

    Peter Cronau, a veteran ABC producer and investigative journalist, makes the point about the relevant processes that need to take place: an investigation followed by the laying of charges; the collection of forensic evidence by the Australian Federal Police and Australian Defence personnel from the Australian embassy in Lebanon; the gathering of evidence “regarding who issued the orders, selected the targeting, and who fired the weapon, using all the intelligence and resources available to Australian officers working at Pine Gap base.”

    The role of Pine Gap, a primarily US-run satellite surveillance base located to the southwest of Alice Springs in the Northern Territory, is potentially critical, given its role in furnishing geolocation data to Washington and, in some cases, its allies regarding distant military operations.  Targeting data for drone strikes, for instance, has been something of a favourite.

    Cronau’s suggestions are credible, and invoking links with Hezbollah by Dreyfus are expedient forms of dismissal.  Similar steps of investigation and inquiry were, after all, taken in attempting to identify who and what was used in the shooting down of the Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 over Ukraine in July 2014.  The downing of the flight resulted in the loss of 298 lives, including 38 Australians.  Much ink and time was expended on identifying the allegedly relevant military personnel involved, the supply chain of the Buk-TELAR missile system, not to mention the repeated insistence on the part of the Australian government that action be taken against the Russian separatists and the Kremlin for their misdeeds.

    Canberra proceeded to impose targeted financial sanctions and travel bans on four of the personnel.  “These sanctions,” Foreign Minister Penny Wong stated in a media release, “demonstrate the Australian Government’s ongoing commitment to hold to account those responsible for the downing of Flight MH17.”

    For all this, Australian nationality is a soupy, thin concept.  Its protections are limited, unreliable and arbitrary.  When brandished with a certain political preference and bias, it is cherished, a convertible currency in the international stock exchange of diplomacy.  We think of the Iranian-detained Australian-British national Kylie Moore-Gilbert who was, for reasons never fully explained, exchanged for a number of Iranian operatives jailed in Thailand over a miscellany of bungled assassination attempts against Israeli officials and targets.  Rarely has an Australian Prime Minister, a Foreign Affairs minister, or DFAT, been so busy over the fate of one of their citizens.

    We contrast such extravagant efforts with the treatment offered individuals as David Hicks or Mamdouh Habib, seen by the Australian political class as Islamic refuse (converted or born), and therefore deserving of torture and punishment by other powers.  To that can be added death by missile strike, as well.

    The post Killing Australians in Lebanon: Selected Targets; Selective Morality first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • australia alternative protein
    7 Mins Read

    Australia has become a global leader in alternative proteins, says Food Frontier’s Simon Easson, with the country witnessing a surge in innovation, government support, and market strategies. From shifting policies to groundbreaking technologies, the Australian smart protein sector is booming.

    Whilst nobody has been immune to the challenges arising from geopolitical and financial issues of the past two years, Australia has fared better than most, with alternative proteins beginning to gain traction at the federal and state level: more than 26 government-authored or funded papers now feature alternative proteins in their discussions – a topic that was largely absent from government policy before 2018. Foodservice, especially, has bucked the trend with Food Industry Foresight’s Sissel Rosengren reporting sector growth at Food Frontier’s AltProteins23 conference.

    Food Frontier’s 2020 State of the Industry report projected that plant-based meats alone could generate nearly AU$3 billion in Australian sales and provide 6,000 full-time jobs by 2030. The Australian government’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) further projected that the broader plant protein sector, including dairy milk alternatives, bakery ingredients, and protein products used in sports nutrition, could deliver an additional AU$3 billion (totalling AU$6 billion) and that precision fermentation presents an AU$1.45 billion domestic opportunity by 2030. While there is no Australia-specific projection at this stage, McKinsey & Company estimate the global cultivated meat market to be worth US$25 billion by 2030.

    A green and yellow chart

Description automatically generated
    Source: Alternative Protein Global

    According to Alternative Proteins Global data (see graphic above), Australia ranks eighth globally for total alternative protein investment from 2022 to the end of June 2023. Moreover, it is the fourth top market globally for cellular agriculture based on deal count and the fifth for direct cellular agriculture investment with US$176 million raised. The number of alternative protein companies in Australia has risen from fewer than five in 2017 to more than 30 in 2023 and, of the 300 products now available on our supermarket shelves, 56 per cent are made by Australian plant-based meat manufacturers.

    A screenshot of a map

Description automatically generated

    Recognising the scale of the broader plant protein opportunity, the number of plant protein ingredient manufacturers in Australia has increased to at least six and is growing. Made from Australian-grown grains and pulses, these value-added products are now being used by domestic and international companies across more than 23 different food and beverage categories to deliver increased protein and fibre content. Start-up innovators, such as Eighth Day Foods and Whole Green Foods, have achieved significant technology breakthroughs with strong interest shown by multi-national food manufacturers: Eighth Day with its ‘Rapid Solid-State Fermentation’ process re-defining the game in affordable and sustainable plant-based protein production and Whole’s ‘Whole Ingredient Nutrient Extraction’ (WINX) utilising ultra-high pressure to efficiently ‘explode’ the cells of the input ingredient, significantly enhancing the nutritional value and making it more bioavailable.

    There are now nine domestic cellular agriculture companies, and Australia is on the verge of having its first cell-cultivated ‘meat’ product approved for domestic sale: Vow Foods’ novel foods application for cell-cultured Japanese quail as a food ingredient is currently before Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ). Food Frontier anticipates that Eden Brew will be submitting its application to FSANZ in 2024 for precision fermented dairy products, and is looking to release its dairy-free ice cream into retail outlets before the end of the year.

    Against this backdrop, it is clear that several trends and growth strategies are emerging that will drive increasing adoption of alternative proteins across the food sector. Many of these can be seen across the globe but Australia is at the forefront of their development, as many ecosystem players and insiders shared during Food Frontier’s October 2023 conference.

    1. Producers, manufacturers, and service providers are beginning to take an ‘outside-in’, rather than an ‘inside-out’ approach.

      To begin with, investments and advancements have been driven by the innovators developing a ‘good idea’ with limited reflection on consumer demand and market requirements. Promising signs show that providers are modifying their packaging, messaging and marketing. For example, menus in quick service restaurants are providing more plant-based options with descriptions focusing on ingredients and taste rather than labelling as vegan. Manufacturers are emphasising nutritional credentials rather than focusing exclusively on meat-free and animal-friendly credentials.
    2. Foodservice is increasingly being seen as the lead environment for consumers’ first experience of plant-based meats, according to Mark Field of Prof Consulting Group.

      That experience needs to be both a good one and repeatable, encouraging consumers to seek out future experiences, as well as identify the products they’re consuming for their own purchase and home cooking. Attracting first-time trialists via retail has been limited to those already consciously consuming for environmental or health reasons with few ‘curious’ consumers being converted.

      Some restaurants, such as Brother Bon in Melbourne’s suburbs, base the entirety of their extensive menu on alternative proteins and focus on the Asian food styles on offer that can be enjoyed by an entire group of diners, meat eaters or otherwise. Promoting this approach, Harvest B, an Australian B2B alternative protein food technology business, has invested in chef training to facilitate the adoption of plant-based meats into institutional catering for hospitals, schools, prisons, armed forces establishments, and aged care facilities. FoodBuy, the sole sourcing partner of major foodservice player, Compass Group Australia, has seen business grow 800% in 2023.
    3. These two aforementioned points have demonstrated the need to meet consumers “where they are”. One indisputable fact is that the vast majority of consumers are solely interested in tasty, affordable food with little motivation to compromise on those factors. A small percentage of consumers are interested in novel foods for their own sake.



      The impact of this factor is most apparent in the utility foods sector, with the market bombarded in its early years with multiple manufacturers of burgers, sausages, meatballs, nuggets and other finished products. The market has inevitably corrected itself and fewer players now dominate retail shelves in Australia. v2food, a partnership between Jack Cowin’s Competitive Foods Australia and CSIRO’s Main Sequence, enjoys a near monopoly in the major food supermarkets for chicken-style products (such as schnitzels, dippers, and nuggets) and its burgers and sausages. v2food’s burger has enjoyed growing sales as the plant-based meat offering at Australia’s fast-food equivalent of Burger King: Hungry Jacks. Cale Drouin’s manufacturing operation, Cale & Daughters, has moved towards making products under license to supplement its growing range of deli meats and dairy products sold under different brand labels. Diem Fuggersberger’s food business, Coco & Lucas, makes ready meals using its own ingredients as well as those of other manufacturers, such as Quorn.

      Further partnerships forthcoming in 2024 reflect the increasing recognition for collaboration and inputs from ‘world’s best’ suppliers, rather than manufacturers attempting everything from end to end. The net result will be fewer, but better quality, choices for consumers such as a “planet burger” using 10-15% cultured meat with precision fermented fats, new algae-derived binders replacing methylcellulose, and a plant-based protein (such as mycelium) providing the increased umami flavour and texture. Several companies in Australia are actively forming these partnerships.
    4. By far the biggest single growth impact for the alternative proteins sector will come from the ‘normalisation’ of these foods. The best example of progress to date comes from the precision fermentation of casein dairy protein for the manufacture of cheese and the advancements made by Dave Bucca’s Change Foods and the start of large-scale production of mozzarella in import-dependent countries such as the United Arab Emirates.

      Global cheese production exceeds 20 million tonnes, trebling over the last 50 years, and driven largely by the obsession with pizza (Americans consume more than 3 billion pizzas per year). Precision-fermented mozzarella will soon become more readily available and cheaper than dairy-farmed mozzarella. As the cheese topping on pizza, this alternative protein (identical in taste and texture) will simply be ‘cheese’ with no need for customers to make choices based on environmental or animal welfare concerns. Likewise, the use of precision fermented eggs for scrambled eggs, omelettes, sauces, and in baking will also become normalised.

    Australia has navigated global challenges adeptly, witnessing a remarkable surge in alternative protein adoption. Government support, a thriving foodservice sector, and a burgeoning industry indicate a promising trajectory.  We stand at the forefront of shaping a sustainable and diverse future for the alternative protein sector. Food Frontier looks forward to releasing its State of the Industry report in mid-2024 which will demonstrate the current position and outlook for the next 10 years. 

    The post When It Comes To Alternative Proteins, Australia is Punching Above Its Weight, Argues Food Frontier’s Simon Eassom appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • In 1992, formerly incarcerated women created Sisters Inside to advocate for the rights of women and girls behind bars in Queensland, Australia. While other grassroots groups and ad hoc campaigns had formed to work with incarcerated women, Sisters Inside remains the country’s first organization founded and run by formerly incarcerated women. Over the last 31 years, the organization has provided…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • When war criminals can daub canvasses in blithe safety, rake in millions of dollars in after dinner speeches and bore governments to death with their shoddy words of wisdom, the world is not so much as it should be, but merely as it is.  Former US President George W. Bush, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and tag along bore, former Australian Prime Minister John Howard, remain at large, despite their respective countries wagging fingers of disapproval at authoritarian regimes for defying the rules-based international order.  Never a more fitting trio in terms of abusing international law could you find.

    In 2003, this culpable troika sneered, ignored and soiled such international institutions as the United Nations, the rule of law, the legacy of the Nuremberg trials, and a number of conventions, by invading Iraq.  The country, weakened and crippled by years of sanctions, leaving its hospital system crushed with bulky lists of dead children (all worthwhile, according to the late former Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright), was apparently a mortal threat to Western civilisation.

    The Baathist regime, led by Saddam Hussein, was purportedly armed to the teeth with a doomsday inventory of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) that he was bound to use at any given moment against freedom loving types in Washington, London and Canberra.  (It is true he had previously had such weapons, much of it supplied by Western arms corporations with the blessing of intelligence agencies such as the CIA.)  He had, apparently, refused to disarm, obdurate in the face of United Nations weapons inspectors.  And he had flirted with those evil representatives of cataclysmic eschatology, al-Qaida, despite being hostile to such millenarian groups.  The report card, spottier than ever in the shadow of the attacks of September 11, 2001 on the United States, suggested that he had to go.  The results: lusty sectarian violence, a catastrophically devastating, often imbecilic occupation by US-led forces, the seeds of emboldened fundamentalism, the offshoot movements such as Islamic State, and multigenerational trauma.

    With another new year beckoning, the Australian National Archives have released approximately 240 cabinet papers from 2003 on the decision-making process behind a number of policy decisions.  A few snippets are offered regarding road to war.  Cabinet’s National Security Committee had kept an eye on developments in Iraq, though the released materials do little to reveal what, precisely, took place in conversations between Howard and Bush.

    In September 2002, one document notes how “cabinet noted an oral report by the prime minister on his discussion with the president of the United States on the American position in relation to efforts by Iraq to secure and maintain weapons of mass destruction.”  A fortnight later, the then-foreign minister Alexander Downer, is noted as furnishing cabinet with an “oral report” regarding “developments” regarding the proposed UN Security Council resolution on the Saddam regime’s “possession of, and attempts to secure or maintain, weapons of mass destruction, and on the prospects for passage of the resolution”.  That such oral revelations were not accompanied by thick, detailed submissions, is telling about the obedient, inevitable train of thinking afflicting the Howard government.  A war, started by Washington, would come, and Canberra would be along for the ride.

    By March 2003, Howard was demanding action.  He informed members of his cabinet that Bush had issued Saddam with an ultimatum of thuggish import.  “Saddam Hussein and his sons,” the US president stated, “must leave Iraq within 48 hours.  Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict commenced at a time of our choosing.”

    Howard was drunk with intelligence assessments from the United States, including such claims that Iraq had put out feelers for yellowcake in Niger.  Couple this with such stretched confections as non-state terrorist actors, hankering for WMD spoils from sponsor states, and the prime minister was swooning.  In 2013, his cringeworthy apologia given to the Lowy Institute reflected on the fictitious Niger angle as “unmistakable” in its “strength”.  Had it been accurate – a sly way of escaping the prosecutor’s legal brief – and Saddam “left in place, only to provide WMDs to a terrorist group, for use against the US, the Administration would have failed in its most basic responsibility to protect the nation.”  When crooks of state are found out, they tend to cite public duty as appropriate justification.

    As far as legality for any military intervention outside the formal channels of authorisation of a UN Security Council, Howard was armed with a memorandum signed by a first assistant secretary from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and his equivalent from the Attorney-General’s Department.  Fantastically and irresponsibly, the cod ordinary advice suggested that Australian involvement in an invasion would be entirely legal, given the Saddam regime’s recalcitrance in not allegedly complying with previous Security Council resolutions.  It seems that the public servants in question, instead of offering a panoramic view about the pitfalls of a dangerous adventure in the Middle East, were merely keen to satisfy the bloodletting urges of their political paymasters.

    The cabinet minute from March 18, 2003 showed agreement from the Attorney-General with the spurious reasoning of the first assistant secretaries.  It also noted that the Australian Governor-General, Peter Hollingworth, holder of that old office of the British empire as the monarch’s representative, had been consulted.  Approval from him, however, was not mandatory.

    Cabinet, won over with no evident demurral, and previously buttered up by oral reports, approved the measure to commit Australia to another failed military mission of murderous, bungling incompetence.  The United States would receive no resistance in getting its pound of Australian flesh for an illegal enterprise, and the Australian public, many of whom had participated in some of the largest anti-war demonstrations the country had ever seen, would be ignored.

    The post Criminal Assumptions: The Howard Cabinet and Invading Iraq first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.