A week can hardly go by lately without a new attack on
environmental justice in Australia. The latest threat comes from Andrew
Nikolic, Federal Member for the Tasmanian seat of Bass.
The Liberal MP has moved to strip charity status
from environmental groups, who he perceives as a threat to Tasmanian
prosperity i.e. the Tasmanian logging industry. The motion was
unanimously endorsed by his party at their Federal Council meeting.
Some 13 groups would be impacted by the motion, no longer eligible to
receive tax deductible donations. This includes prominent
organisations like the Wilderness Society, the Australian Conservation
Society and all state EDOs.
Nikolic has described
these environmental groups as engaging in political activism and
illegal activities, and doesn’t believe that taxpayers should be
subsidising their green agenda, which he believes is damaging to the
Tasmanian economy.
“I moved the motion because I
think the activities of these groups has been enormously damaging on
our state of Tasmania, I think we’ve seen for far too long these groups
undertaking activities like boot camps and engaging in political
activism, illegal activism.
This is the latest in a string of desperate attempts by Tasmanian
Liberal politicians to rein in the power of conservation groups in the
state.
Last week, anti-protest laws
were passed in Tasmania’s Lower House, aimed at stopping forestry
activists through large fines and jail time. And you might remember
Senator Richard Colbeck’s tried-and-failed-and-tried-again attempts to
introduce legislation banning secondary boycotts, a powerful protest measure which so successfully brought the mighty Gunns pulp mill to its knees.
The battle for the Tassie wilderness has been long fought, most
recently with Abbott’s unprecedented attempts to delist 74,000 hectares
of Tasmania’s heritage listed forests. The self-proclaimed ‘conservationist’ (don’t you mean conservative, Tony?) stated,
“We have quite enough
national parks. We have quite enough locked up forests already. In fact,
in an important respect, we have too much locked up forest.”
It took UNESCO a mere 10 minutes to reject this ludicrous proposal, calling the bid ‘feeble’.
In light of UNESCO’s recent decision, the conservative lobby is
growing increasingly concerned. And it’s not just the Tasmanian Liberal
Party who are worried.
Bentley Blockade, Image by www.acfonline.org.au
The growth of the grassroots environmental movement in Australia has
ushered in a new era of environmental protest. Online campaigning has
made large, crowd-funded legal actions possible, while social media has
engaged and mobilised people to take part in blockades and protests.
Recent victories against the destructive resources sector have resonated among Australians with the defeat of CSG at Bentley, a coal export facility at Keppel Bay and an open-cut mine in Leard State Forest. Two crowd funded legal actions against the government over their plans to industrialise the Great Barrier Reef has drawn international attention, and criticism.
In moves some have called fascist,
the government is trying to silence its critics by cutting their
funding and attempting to discredit our scientific institutions. But
gagging environmental groups serves only to galvanise the communities
who live on the front line, who see first hand the destruction caused to
their land, their water, their future.
Communities across Australia are responding to the call to action,
putting their time, money and bodies on the line – and winning.
Based on recent history, the Abbott Government's appeals for clemency for Peter Greste are unlikely to succeed, writes Alan Austin, who suggests only a change of government can help the gaoled journalist.
THE BAD NEWS for family and friends of Peter Greste is that history is against a happy outcome.
The Australian journalist employed by Al Jazeera television was sentenced on Monday to seven years gaol. The charges, laid in Egypt’s repressive regime of Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, were of defaming Egypt and having ties to the blacklisted Muslim Brotherhood.
There are stark contrasts in the way foreign affairs are conducted by
Australia’s Labor and Coalition Governments. There are dramatic
differences in outcomes for citizens in trouble abroad under the two
regimes.
It is Peter Greste’s fate to have been arrested soon after diplomatic incompetents took charge in Australia.
In 2003, during the Howard years, Holly Deane-Johns was sentenced
to 31 years prison in Thailand for possessing 136 grams of heroin. A
large spoonful. Moves for leniency following the manifestly excessive
penalty were either not made or not successful until after the Coalition
left office.
In December 2007, just days after the change of government,
Deane-Johns returned to a women’s prison in Australia. She was released
in 2012.
Stephen John Sutton was arrested
in Argentina in 2003 on narcotics charges. Despite many mitigating
factors, the first offender copped 11 years. Not only did the Howard
Government fail to secure a fair trial and outcome, Australia’s Federal
Police aided Argentinean authorities in his arrest.
Sutton was released in 2008.
David Hicks was captured
by local militia in Afghanistan in 2001 and sold to the U.S. military
who confined and tortured him in Guantanamo Bay prison for six years.
Despite a claimed special relationship between Australia’s PM John
Howard and U.S. president George W Bush, and a compelling case for
Hicks’ innocence, the Coalition failed to secure either his release or a
fair hearing.
Hicks was relocated to a prison in Australia in April 2007 on
condition he plead guilty to trumped-up charges without a trial. He was
released in December 2007, immediately after Howard left office.
Mamdouh Habib was arrested in 2001 and sent by extraordinary rendition
from Pakistan to Egypt in violation of international law. He was
imprisoned and tortured as an enemy combatant at Guantanamo Bay for more
than three years by the U.S. military and the CIA. He was eventually
released in 2005 without a single charge being laid.
Van Tuong Nguyen was convicted of drug trafficking in Singapore in 2004. He was hanged in 2005 for this, his first offence, aged 25.
Si Yi Chen and Tan Duc Thanh Nguyen,
then aged 20 and 21, were arrested in 2005 in Indonesia in possession
of 11.8 ounces of heroin. In 2006 they were condemned to death.
After the 2007 change of government, their sentences were commuted in 2008 to life imprisonment.
Teenaged drug mule Scott Rush was sentenced
to life imprisonment in Indonesia in February 2006 and then, on appeal,
to death in September. His capital sentence was eventually commuted in
2011.
Hundreds of people were killed in attacks against Australians in Indonesia and elsewhere during the Howard years.
Australia’s embassy in Jakarta was bombed in 2004, killing 11 and injuring hundreds. Australians were specifically targeted in nightclub bombings in Indonesia in 2002 that killed 202 people and injured 240. Again, in 2005, another 20 nightclubbers were killed and more than 100 injured.
These attacks ceased or were thwarted after the Coalition left office.
Did the number of Aussies getting into strife with legitimate or
illegitimate activities abroad suddenly drop during the Labor years? Of
course not.
Did the Labor Government have a 100% success rate in securing freedom
or a fair trial for all Australians accused abroad? Not at all.
Did the success rate of behind the scenes negotiations increase substantially during the Labor years? Clearly so.
Critical to the success of diplomatic efforts on behalf of Aussies in
strife overseas is having good relations with other countries.
As shown here and here,
the Abbott government in its first eight months alienated governments
across the globe, including all Muslim nations, on more than 25
different issues.
These include the appalling treatment of innocent Muslim refugees
arriving from war-torn countries. There have been several deaths in
refugee detention centres, including at least one murder which Australia seems to have no interest in investigating.
'Australia’s treatment of asylum seekers has soured its relations
with Indonesia, while also drawing Malaysia and Cambodia into the fray.
Furthermore, Australia’s new coalition government has announced
spending cuts for aid, foreign affairs and the Australia Network which
could affect its long-term presence in the region.'
Just two weeks ago, Abbott offended the entire Middle Eastern
community with his bizarre decision to change the terminology of
‘Occupied’ East Jerusalem to ‘Disputed’. Eighteen nations, including
Egypt, immediately objected and threatened reprisals.
In Britain, respected chairman of the Conservative government's climate advisory committee John Gummer (AKA Baron Deben), said earlier this month:
"I think the Australian Government must be one of the most
ignorant governments I've ever seen in the sense, right across the
board, on immigration or about anything else, they're totally unwilling
to listen to science or logic."
Here in France on Tuesday, the national media reported further international disgrace for Australia – humiliation diplomatique mondiale – when a UNESCO hearing rejected Abbott’s request to declassify parts of Tasmania’s protected rare World Heritage forests.
Tragically for Peter Greste and other Aussies in need of just
treatment abroad, the USA cannot be called upon as readily as was the
case under Labor.
Abbott made clear to the world his disdain for President Obama
earlier this month when stupidly, openly – and ultimately ineffectually –
he called for a coalition of right wing nutjob governments to thwart Obama’s global climate change efforts.
John Kerry’s intervention on Monday on behalf of Peter Greste and his co-accused was heartening. The U.S. Secretary of State contacted Egypt's foreign minister to register his “serious displeasure” at the “chilling, draconian sentences”.
Beyond that, however, why would the USA spend its political capital with Egypt in support of such a foolish ally?
Australia is now isolated. And can expect to be ignored.
Abbott’s made the following appeal to Egypt’s president:
“But I did make the point that Peter Greste was an
Australian journalist and I assured him [President et-Sisi], as a former
journalist myself, that Peter Greste would have been reporting the
Muslim Brotherhood, not supporting the Muslim Brotherhood because that's
what Australian journalists do.”
It was indeed immediately rejected by Egypt’s el-Sisi, who responded:
“We must respect judicial rulings and not criticise them even if others do not understand this.”
If the Australian Government eventually succeeds with its plea for leniency for Greste, then it will deserve commendation.
Given recent history, however, chances will be higher with a change
of foreign minister, even greater with a change of prime minister and
greater still with a complete change of government.
For more than a year the Federal Government has been negotiating
one of the largest free trade deals in history, yet most Australians
have no idea that it will impact their most basic healthcare needs.
The Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) will cover twelve
Pacific Rim countries including Australia, Canada, Japan and the United
States. Negotiations are being conducted in secret - what little is
known about the deal has been gleaned from draft chapters published by
Wikileaks in late 2013.
The leaked healthcare chapter suggests that the United States is
playing hardball with Australian health subsidies. International
pharmaceutical companies have long objected to the Australian
Government’s stance on subsidized medicine and the availability of
cheaper generic medicines in the Australian market. The Pharmaceutical
Research and Manufacturers of America in particular, is lobbying the
United States Government to ensure that company profits are prioritized
in national health policy decisions.
The TPPA could impact medicine affordability through several
different routes: by delaying the availability of cheaper generic
medicines; by altering the operation of the PBS making it more difficult
to keep costs down; or by enabling pharmaceutical companies to sue the
government over its pharmaceutical companies. These changes would
increase the cost of the PBS for the government and taxpayers.
While the Australian Government has given some assurances about
maintaining PBS subsidies, its desire to push through aspects of the
deal favorable to Australian exporters mean that bargaining is
inevitable. Indeed, there have already been indications that the
government will allow state investor dispute settlement mechanisms that
would give foreign companies, including pharmaceutical manufacturers,
the right to sue the government for creating unfavorable market
conditions through policies and subsidies.
Any changes to PBS costs incurred as a result of reduced subsidies
and availability of generic medicines are likely to be passed on to the
consumer. Out-of-pocket expenses are one of the most significant
barriers to prescription use; in 2005, 22% of Australians reported
skipping a dose or not filling a prescription due to cost. If proposals
under the TPPA are accepted, these costs could soar, with families on
low incomes struggling to pay for medicines that are sorely needed.
One such family told of changes to the PBS that would radically affect their standard of living.
“As the mother of two children with chronic illnesses, any change to
the PBS, no matter how minor, will deeply and unfairly impact us and
many families who are struggling to stretch their budget to pay for
essential medicines,” said the Melbourne mother, who did not wish to be
named.
“PBS benefits assist in keeping the costs of essential medications
manageable, although it still stretches the family budget, even with a
carers allowance,” she said.
“One of my children is currently required to take ten different
medications. A number of drugs are simply a matter of trial and error -
if one doesn't work, it will need to be changed very quickly, which
again adds to the cost.”
“There are already so many costs associated with having a sick child.
We can’t afford to pay more just because a multinational wants to
increase its profits.”
The threat to the PBS is so real that Michael Moore CEO of the Public
Health Association of Australia has said “It will cost Australian lives
if we accept rules in the TPPA that prevent us from introducing
innovative public health policies in the future.”
Dr Margaret Chan, Director of the World Health Organisation, has also
expressed concern over the scale of TPPA healthcare proposals, recently
telling the sixty-seventh World Health Assembly in Geneva that foreign
investment agreements “handcuff governments and restrict their policy
space.”
She went on to say, “Some Member States have expressed concern that
trade agreements currently under negotiation could significantly reduce
access to affordable generic medicines. If these agreements open trade
yet close access to affordable medicines, we have to ask: Is this really
progress at all, especially with the costs of care soaring everywhere?”
The only way the Australian Government can truly reassure the public
and health professionals that they are not ceding control of Australian
healthcare policy is to be more transparent about the substance of TPPA
negotiations.
Control of Australian health policy and the future of the PBS should
not be traded away in a quest to increase exports and economic
development. Australian health should be put ahead of healthy profits.
Labor has its biggest two-party-preferred lead since 2008: Opposition leader Daniel Andrews and Premier Denis Napthine. Photo: Wayne Taylor
Labor has extended a crushing lead over the Napthine
government as fallout from the federal budget, ongoing chaos in the
Parliament and internal Liberal Party ructions continue to erode the
Coalition’s re-election hopes.
Five months from the November 29 state election, an
Age/Nielsen poll reveals the state government failed to gain political
traction from the May budget, despite a $27 billion major projects
agenda.
The poll of 1000 Victorians reveals the Coalition is now
deeply mired, trailing Labor 41 per cent to 59 per cent in two-party
preferred terms based on voters' intended preference allocations.
If an election where held now the Coalition would lose,
becoming Victoria’s first single-term government since 1955, with the
loss of up to 16 seats under new electoral boundaries, assuming a
uniform 11 per cent swing since the November 2010 election.
Advertisement
Even using a more conservative two-party-preferred measure
based on preference flows at the 2010 election, the Coalition is in
strife, according to the poll – trailing Labor 44 per cent to 56 per
cent.
The result comes amid a growing sense of panic within
government ranks after months of controversy – the latest involving a
leaked recording of former premier Ted Baillieu criticising colleagues.
Party sources are now warning that right-wing Liberal
“jihadists” are seeking to undermine the government in an attempt to
seize control of the party and its agenda following the November 29
election.
Premier Denis Napthine on Wednesday insisted the government
was united and focused on delivering results for the people of Victoria,
saying he “totally disagreed” with claims the party was in danger of
being hijacked.
“This is of interest to the media, but the general public …
want us to get on with governing for the people of Victoria,” Dr
Napthine said.
The Coalition’s primary vote has fallen from 41 per cent to
37 per cent, with Labor on 42 per cent and the Greens on 14 per cent.
The poll confirmed the deep cuts inflicted by the Abbott
government’s first budget and Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s unpopularity
in Victoria have significantly damaged the state government’s
re-election chances.
Almost four in 10 voters, 39 per cent, said they were less
likely to vote for the Coalition at the state election because of the
federal budget, with only 5 per cent stating they were more likely.
And despite the state government’s big-spending
infrastructure agenda – which now includes both sections of the East
West Link, a new train tunnel to boost capacity on the rail network, an
airport rail link and level crossing upgrades – the state budget appears
to have had little positive impact.
Only 4 per cent of voters said they were more likely to vote
for the Coalition because of the state budget, with 29 per cent saying
they were less likely and 65 per cent stating it would make no
difference.
Although Dr Napthine remains relatively popular, the
Premier’s approval rating fell 3 percentage points to 48 per cent, while
his disapproval rating leapt 5 percentage points to 37 per cent.
Opposition Leader Daniel Andrews' approval rating remained
steady at 41 per cent, with his disapproval rating down slightly to 36
per cent.
But the poll revealed Mr Andrews is now closing the gap as
preferred premier, with Dr Napthine leading by 41 per cent to 40 per
cent.
Nielsen pollster John Stirton said it was Labor’s biggest two-party preferred lead in Victoria since February 2008.
Labor encourages a debate over welfare, but let's keep it factual
The
Liberal party, which opposes means testing when Labor introduces it,
now complains that Australia's welfare system is unsustainable. Nobody's
buying their bare assertions
'Whatever the treasurer's assertions, our welfare system is well targeted.' Photograph: Stefan Postles/Getty Images
Stung by the near-universal verdict that his budget fails the fundamental tests of fairness and decency, Joe Hockey took to the lectern at the Sydney Institute earlier this month to wax lyrical about the need to end the so-called age of entitlement.
In
his speech, Hockey complained that attacks on his budget amounted to
1970s class warfare. Apparently anyone who points out the obvious
inequity of the government’s changes to pensions, family payments and
Newstart is a class warrior. In that case, groups and individuals as
diverse as Labor, the Business Council of Australia, Acoss and former
Liberal leader John Hewson have donned their khakis to battle on behalf
of the working class.
To justify his claim that his budget is
fair, the treasurer has made some bare assertions, including that the
"welfare system is unsustainable in its current form and it is not well
targeted to those who really need our assistance”. This is the basis for
the Coalition's cuts and attrition.
He goes on to argue that
“payments are too broadly available to too many people. As a result,
less is available for those most in need”.
Hockey doesn’t
appear to appreciate the irony of declaring an end to the age of
entitlement for low- and middle-income earners while introducing the
biggest entitlement scheme for high-income earners in our history – a
non-means tested scheme which sees cheques of up to $50,000 written to
women, regardless of income or assets, to have a baby.
Whatever
the treasurer's assertions, our welfare system is well targeted.
Australia has the most means tested social welfare system in the world.
This is a good thing. It means that we can achieve good, targeted
poverty reduction at a lower cost than most other countries, while
keeping a low tax environment and a high level of economic freedom. In
fact, we spend less on welfare than all countries in the OECD with the
exception of Iceland.
Hockey seemed surprised that we spend more
on welfare than on education, health or defence. I’m not sure why; it
has long been the case in Australia. As Greg Jericho points out,
even the United States, with its parsimonious welfare system and huge
defence infrastructure, spends more on social welfare than it does on
defence capabilities. The logical conclusion seems to be that our social
welfare system should be reduced to a level that would facilitate
greater inequity in our society than is currently the case in the US.
Australia’s
welfare system can be regarded as among the most efficient in the
world. This is largely due to efforts by successive Labor governments
to make sure that taxpayers’ money is spent in the most effective way
possible to alleviate poverty. Labor means tested the age-pension under
Bob Hawke, against howls of opposition from Andrew Peacock’s Liberal
party, who defended the right of millionaires to draw on the taxpayer in
their retirement.
The Howard government made Australia’s
finances dangerously unsustainable by winding back means testing and
failing to introduce it in new programs like the private health
insurance rebate, the baby bonus and first homeowner grants. The Rudd
and Gillard governments needed to move to make the budget more
sustainable by reigning in these payments. The Liberal party, which
protested against means testing then, complains about an unsustainable
budget now.
Making matters worse, the treasury’s last
inter-generational report tells a very different story to Hockey's spin.
In 2010, all social welfare payments to individuals were the
equivalent of 6.9% of our economy. The cost of our welfare system is
expected to remain stable at that level out to 2050.
Why does
welfare spending remain stable over time, despite the population getting
older? The answer is simple: because Labor governments introduced
myriad reforms, including means testing the age pension and universal
superannuation. Superannuation could play even more of a role in
reducing the cost of the age pension, but the Abbott-Hockey Coalition
government stands stubbornly committed to reversing reforms which make
it easier for low income earners to save for their retirement.
There
is nothing wrong with a debate over Australia’s welfare system. We have
a strong and sustainable safety net, but Labor believes it is time to
take stock and ensure that our system, which has served Australians for a
generation, can serve Australians for another one. This is why Jenny
Macklin is conducting a thorough and comprehensive series of consultations about how we renew our social policies to meet the needs of people in our modern economy.
But this debate, like any other, should be built on facts. The
treasurer must do more than reply with dodgy assertions and the lazy
demonisation of recipients of government payments as “leaners”. He can
rely on his stale philosophy about an “age of entitlement” if he
chooses, but if wants to be taken seriously he will need to provide a
better analysis of the challenges to our support for the vulnerable than
he has up to now.
Former PM John Howard
took Australia to war based on a lie and aparently "knew nothing" about
the AWB kickbacks to Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime. In a joint press conference with Kevin Rudd in Canberra
in 2009, now embattled Iraqi PM Nouri al-Maliki allegedly condemned the
Howard Government over the AWB oil for wheat scandal, however an unnamed
interpreter chose to change his words. Contributing editor-at-large Tess Lawrence reports.
AUSTRALIA'S MORAL COWARDICE has long impaled us between Iraq and a harder place.
Like it or no, we are inextricably linked to the current crisis and heinous slaughter that has turned Iraq into an abattoir for humans.
As we are to the circumstances that have led up to it, including President Barack Obama's announcement yesterday to send in the marines and deploy precisely 275 troops to help quell the bad guys.
Just who the good guys are is anyone's guess. We all bleed.
We have some of that blood on our hands and surely on our conscience
for the flyblown dismembered corpses of massacred Iraqis and the
spillage onto the pages of yet another ill-writ chapter of our fumbling
military strategies in the Middle East.
To indecently paraphrase: First we invaded. Then we abandoned. Then
we went into denial. Three strikes and we were out of there. We can't
keep blaming America for things we do. Or don't do.
Even if we habitually acquiesce to US commands.
The world has long been aware of Iraq's corrupt and Shia-dominated
government and the weary inevitability of a mighty insurgent schism. For
the greater part, we shamelessly averted our eyes.
Barack Obama to send 300 military advisers to Iraq
NOURI MEETS KEVIN — NOT LOVE AT SECOND SITE
On March 11, 2009 the much loathed Iraqi prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, lobbed into Australia.
The next day, he was formally welcomed to the serenade of a 19 gun
salute, as befitting his status as a stooge for the West; this time, the
guns weren't aimed at him, as well might be the case in his homeland.
At the tightly corseted press conference in Canberra, the body
language between then PM Kevin Rudd and his Iraqi counterpart, who had
replaced Iraq's Transitional Government,
conveyed an uneasy coldness – even an intense dislike between the two –
that not even the media orchestration could masquerade.
The two looked like a divorced couple who despised one another and
who'd had a blistering argument behind the scenes, but were now forced
to put on a united front for the sake of their child's wedding.
A Barney Rubble
lookalike, only not as benign, Maliki just wasn't into Rudd. And vice
versa. Nor had they clicked when Rudd visited Iraq, months earlier.
Answering questions through an interpreter, Maliki clearly couldn't contain his distaste.
Secret negotiations with Australia had reached an impasse and he was
annoyed at the loss-of-face implications of being publicly humiliated
with such stage-management.
His answer defiantly broke with diplomatic protocol and, in Arabic, he slagged off at the previous Howard Government.
No sooner had he lashed out than it was immediately covered up by the
official translator. The trashing should have hit the headlines. Maliki
was biting the very grasping hands that wanted to feed him more wheat.
For a price.
CEREAL CORPORATE FRAUDSTERS
There were several hushed-up backstage disagreements between Maliki and Rudd.
In brief, they included, but are not confined to, argument about the
bribes and kickbacks of the Australian Wheat Board who notoriously
collaborated with Saddam Hussein and his boys in direct contravention of
the Oil for Food program.
But despite such intense international competition, AWB had the dubious honour of being the worst culprit of bribes/kickbacks.
Some of its number were cowboys in attitude and conduct.
Fairfax published a memorable photo of a bare-chested former chairman of the AWB, Trevor Flugge, flaunting his slab rather than a six-pack, toting a gun and pointing it at the camera.
Former AWB chairman Trevor
Flugge, in Iraq 2003 doing deals with the Saddam Hussein regime as PM
Howard's senior agricultural advisor. (Image via smh.com.au)
Howard and Maliki share a mutual contempt for one another. And the
Iraqis thought Downer was not to be trusted, and that he was a
self-serving dork and an 'abeet' (an idiot), who was up himself. Some of
these opinions are shared by his fellow Australians.
As well as the AWB affair, Maliki and Rudd also haggled over the
forgiving of Iraq's debt to Australia, as well as the treatment and
visa/residency status of Iraqi refugees and asylum seekers.
Maliki ominously wanted personal data on the latter and also about
those who claimed to be political asylum seekers fleeing from his
Shia-dominated government.
There was also tense argument about credit for the rescue of Australian hostage Douglas Wood,
and even tenser discussion between Maliki and Rudd about whom should
snatch undeserved credit for my campaign to secure sanctuary for the
Iraqi soldiers involved. (It was a people driven campaign and succeeded
despite the thwarting of both governments who, time and again, tried to
sabotage it).
However, in a brazen act of outrageous censorship, the still
unidentified and mysterious interpreter chose to ignore Maliki's
disparaging statement and instead instantly manipulated it, to make it
sound as if Maliki was referring to the previous Iraqi regime — and not
the previous Australian regime.
INTERPRETER DELIBERATELY 'LOST' IN TRANSLATION?
It so happened that I watched broadcasts of the strained press
conference in the company of Iraqis and Arabic-speaking Australians.
They categorically believed Maliki was referring to John Howard's government.
They felt that the translator appeared to deliberately mask what Maliki said, or was 'protecting' Maliki from his own words.
It may be that Maliki was under instruction by the U.S. to keep his head down, or was under political strictures from his own Dawa colleagues and other government and tenuous sectarian factions.
The Iraqi Government is a lucrative cash camel for those who have
bought their membership fees and who are entitled to write their own
rules.
Of course, I asked if the arabic used by Maliki was ambiguous and was
told that the phraseology used by Maliki was unambiguous and that it
was clear he was referring to the government/regime before the Rudd
Government — that is, John Howard's Government. And he was making his
displeasure with the Howard Government public — with good reason, as it
transpires.
A professional accredited interpreter also confirmed Maliki's
interpreter did not correctly translate the words. She too confirmed
that Maliki was referring to the Howard Government, not the previous
Iraqi regime.
Presuming that media attending/monitoring the televised press
conference would have an Arabic-speaking person checking the
translation, I cross-checked with other media, including the ABC,
Fairfax and News Ltd, the Canberra Press Gallery, SBS and other ethnic
media.
Most were unaware of any anomaly or dispute about the translation.
AWB: What the Middle Man Knew - Australia
MEDIA DIDN'T WANT TO ROCK THE BOAT
Astoundingly, others said they knew the translator was incorrect but
didn't want the hassle of getting into a stoush with the Federal
Government and its media unit, and/or 'rock the boat' regarding the
Iraqi-Australian relationship, or have their families put on an
immigration department visa 'black list' or any intimidating 'watch
list.'
It happens. Yes. In god's own country.
Others, including ethnic media representatives, confided that it was
just too dangerous and asking for personal trouble to visit them and
their relatives, because of the divisiveness it would provoke within the
Iraqi and wider Middle-Eastern community in Australia, including
hotheads among the Sunni and Shia communities.
Given my own horrible and continuing personal experiences, including
being physically attacked and my property being shot into, resulting
from funding and mounting the campaign to rescue the
Iraqi soldiers and their families from being systematically
assassinated by al-Qaeda, I understand those fears only too well.
Here is a breakdown of responses to questions I directed at the time,
to various government and other departments, including government media
representatives.
Who was the interpreter, anyway? No-one professed to know.
Who was paying him? No one knew.
Who had engaged him? No-one knew.
Was he part of Nouri al-Maliki's contingent? No-one knew.
Or was he 'supplied' by the Australian Government? The Government,
strangely, refused to answer this seemingly innocuous question.
Was he a DFAT employee? Wouldn't say.
Was the interpreter a minder? Was he a U.S. intelligence officer?
Was he there to ensure that Maliki did not drop a verbal incendiary
device in a vain attempt to gain cred on the arab street that he is his
own man? Maybe.
I asked the Prime Minister's department to provide me with a transcript of the Press Conference. They wouldn't.
I asked the Prime Minister's department to provide me with a copy of the televised Press Conference. They wouldn't.
I asked the Parliamentary Library to give me a copy of the televised Press Conference. They said they would get back to me.
They didn't. So I again contacted them for a copy of the televised
Press Conference. They said they couldn't give me a copy. They had been
instructed not to.
I asked who gave such an extraordinary instruction? They said they were not allowed to say.
I note there is now a DFAT (Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade) media release that
purports to be a transcript of the 12 March 2009 Joint Press Conference
with Prime Minister al-Maliki, who is also secretary-general of the
Islamic Dawa Party.
There is also a second copy of a transcript on their website.
I am not prepared to say it/they correctly represent the dialogue in any way.
It is worth noting that despite using the words 'wheat sales' in the
transcript, there is no mention of wheat in the subject's headlines.
This is such ridiculous neglect, it has to be deliberate. Any mention
of 'wheat' in relation to Iraq and an Iraqi Prime Minister is a dead
set attention-grabber.
MALIKI FIRST IRAQI PM TO VISIT — NO QUESTIONS ASKED
Given that this was the first time an Iraqi Prime Minister had
visited Australia, why were so few questions allowed from the media?
And, to say the least, why no questions about the bleeding obvious,
ergo, the AWB scandal, the Douglas Wood rescue, Iraqi soldiers campaign,
et cetera?
I eventually got a copy of the televised press conference from Sky News.
However, the National Australia Bank, McKean Park Lawyers illegally possess this, as they illegally do
all my business equipment and investigative/journalism files and
property and personal belongings, including investigations and
statements of financial holdings in the National Australia Bank by Libyan tyrant and former frenemy to the West, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, and his family and cohorts.
There are also documents and confidential investigative files,
illegally taken by the National Australia Bank and McKean Park Lawyers,
including but not confined to, matters pertaining to the National
Australia Bank and matters relating to the Australian Wheat Board and
persons and organisations associated with the selling of wheat and other
business matters associated with Iraq, and matters dealing with
investigations relating to Douglas Wood, the Iraqi soldiers campaign,
'Mohammed Comes to the Mountain', as well as the secretion of funds in
Australia, including into banks, by corrupt regimes, terrorists and drug
cartels.
Here is part of the DFAT transcript that might contain a few clues as to the 'lost in translation' aspect [IA emphasis].
Subjects: Australia-Iraq Relationship; United Nations Sanctions; Security; Overseas Aid; Labour Force Figures; Liberal Party
PM RUDD: Australia's security relationship with Iraq will
continue to remain important.We still have a small number of Australian
embedded forces in Iraq. We still have Australian forces defending our
embassy in Baghdad. Of course we still have our naval frigate in the
Gulf. These are important, continuing contributions to the security
relationship...
But this is simply the beginning in what we intend to build as a
very big, broad and strong relationship in agriculture. Both on the
research side and on the commercial side.
.... I'm pleased to note the statement made just before
by the Iraqi Trade Minister that Iraq has also agreed on new wheat sales
from Australia to Iraq.
Prime Minister, you should know that in Australia you are
seriously among friends; genuine friends. There are many Iraqi
Australians and more broadly Arab Australians who make a huge
contribution to our life in this country.
PM AL-MALIKI (translation).... I bring my gratitude and the Iraqi
Government's gratitude for the contribution by the Australian forces in
Iraq in helping rebuild Iraq, particularly in the security sector.
I also would like to...thank Australia for forgiving
Iraq's debts, which were accumulated due to the policies of the previous
regime due to its ill-conceived adventures and wars.
...The Prime Minister has outlined the areas for the
Memorandum of Understanding. In this Memorandum the agricultural sector
is the most important. Unfortunately it has deteriorated so badly in
Iraq due to the policies of the previous regime.
In response to a question about killings in two mass attacks, and the
ability of the Iraqi security forces to protect the country once the US
forces withdraw, Maliki says...
PM AL-MALIKI (TRANSLATED)...The Iraqi police and the security
authorities in the country are trying to do their best to bring the
perpetrators to justice...notwithstanding the gruesome operations that
took place and the large number of victims, Al Qaeda extremists and
terrorists in Iraq have lost their capabilities of confronting and
challenging the security forces in Iraq...what happened
...appears to be an attempt by them to prove that they still exist in
Iraq but we are intent on doing our best to secure the situation in the
country...The situation keeps... getting better day after day
and that is through the close cooperations between the people and the
security forces in Iraq.
When it comes to the withdrawal of the American forces, I believe
that Iraqis will be able of taking the whole situation in their hands.
Maliki is also asked by the same journalist:
'And when will the Australian security attachment be required to leave your country?'
According to the transcript, Maliki, a former newspaper editor, does
not answer. Nor does Commander Rudd give his two bob's worth.
Spoken in 2009, Maliki's words, along with those spoken by Rudd, ring as hollow in 2014 as they did then.
Is Maliki behind Iraq's sectarian divide?
INDEPENDENT AUSTRALIA REQUESTS VIDEO OF AL-MALIKI
This afternoon we wrote to Peta Credlin, requesting a copy of the al-Maliki press conference.
Here is the text of the email:
June 12, 2014 Ms Peta Credlin Office of the Prime Minister
Dear Ms Credlin,
I hope this email finds you well in bod and spirit.
On March 12, 2009, there was a televised Press Conference with
the visiting Prime Minister of Iraq, Mr Nouri al-Maliki and the then
Prime Minister, Mr Kevin Rudd.
My information is that the unidentified interpreter for Prime
Minister al-Maliki failed to properly translate the entire of Mr
al-Maliki's responses and that during his responses, Mr al-Maliki was
disparaging of the Government preceding the Rudd Government - that is,
the Howard Government.
For some inexplicable reason, the Rudd Government refused to give
me a copy of the televised press conference and apparently instructed
the Parliamentary Library to also deny me access to the televised press
conference.
I am writing an article on this subject and would appreciate you
sending me by return email a copy of the press conference, or arrange
for a copy to be sent urgently to me via email for publication.
I am assuming that given the current atrocities in Iraq and
dealings/negotiations/aid monies sent to the al-Maliki regime, that the
Abbott Government, intelligence agencies and various advisers, including
the Foreign Minister Ms Julie Bishop, will have revisited Mr
al-Maliki's words and have had the video close at hand for scrutiny and
assessment.
Kind Regards
Tess Lawrence Contributing editor-at-large, Independent Australia
AUSTRALIA: MOST SERVILE IN THE COALITION OF THE WILLING
As the most servile of the 31 servants of the notorious U.S.-led 'Coalition of the Willing'
that invaded Iraq in 2003, we have indisputably contributed to the
emergence of extremist jihadist guerrillas like ISIS/ISIL – the Islamic
State of Iraq and the Levant – and its celebrated bad-ass leader Awwad
Ibrahim al-Badri al-Samarri, better known as Abu Bakr, whose bloodlust and thrill kills make al-Qaeda look like amateur wannabees.
Liberal and Labor, along with their politically effete affiliates,
must share in the culpability of an already ruptured nation now reduced
emotionally and physically to a pulverised failed state and systemically
corrupt puppet leadership.
Post Saddam Hussein, the land that some deem the site of the Garden
of Eden, continues to boil in a bloody quagmire of industrial strength
rape and murder, soul-destroying massacres, atrocities and violence,
profiteering war and whore mongering,
Corruption is endemic and politically sanctioned; as is wholesale fraud, vicious insurgent and religious in-fighting.
Contemptuous government militia and private armies alike, daily
trespass on the discarded genteel Conventions of Geneva and common
decency. The rule of law is as feral as the rule of lore. We helped to
make it so.
As ever, war weary poor ordinary people are the ones who most suffer; human sandbags for swords, bullets and bombs.
Today's fomenting Sunni-Shia animosity and atrocities were tragically predictable.
Everywhere. Anywhere. Think Catholic versus Protestants. Think IRA and ' the troubles ' in Northern Ireland. Think Omagh bombing.
Waging war on Iraq because of the lie that Saddam Hussein had weapons
of mass destruction will forever relegate the United States, Britain
and Australia and their leaders, George W Bush, Tony Blair and John
Howard to the realm of war criminals in pin-stripe suits – and justly so
– regardless of their revisionist collective and individual bleatings
to the contrary, including Blair's controversial essay on his website.
US Bush Lies about WMD Weapons of Mass Destruction CNN
Draw straight lines from 20 March 2003 to 17 June 2014 from the
starting points of Washington, London and Canberra to Baghdad. We all
know where the bodies are buried; the Christian populated Mosul
included.
Prime Minister Tony Abbott will be only two aware of Maliki's disdain
for Howard's government; even if it was the government that dislodged
Saddam Hussein from his Sunni-dominated murderous regime. But no doubt
Abbott will keep his balance holding onto Obama's elegant coat-tail.
What the Coalition of the Willing has succeeded in doing is to lay
the foundation stone to fuel those locked out of the decision-making
process to take by force what they believe is theirs by forming their
own Coalition of the Killing.
