Archive - Australians All

Will They Be Heard?

2009-11-30T00:00:00Z

This is an edited extract of the introduction to a report, co-authored by Professor Nicholson, on the consultations held by the Federal government over the future of the Northern Territory Intervention. Read the full document Here

This Report has its genesis in the great work done by the group known as ‘concerned Australians’ in conjunction with the relevant Aboriginal Communities in the Northern Territory, and in the tireless enthusiasm of one of the co-authors Michele Harris. We are particularly fortunate to have the involvement of the other co-authors Larissa Behrendt and Nicole Watson, both of whom are Aboriginal and Alison Vivian, who bring their own particular knowledge and appreciation of the problems discussed.

For my part I have been an opponent of the Intervention since its inception and I am therefore pleased and proud to be associated with this Report. In a speech that I gave at Parliament House, Sydney four days after the 2007 Federal Election, I said:

The breadth of the legislation is frightening and it significantly overrides the rights of many Indigenous people in ways that would not be tolerated by the ordinary Australian community. It is discriminatory and racist and bundles all Indigenous people together as potential pornographers, child molesters and persons habitually addicted to the excessive consumption of alcohol.

In that speech I commented:

By treating the Indigenous people in this way, the then Government demonstrated a clear lack of respect for them and as such, their co-operation could hardly be expected The situation was exacerbated by the then Government’s inability or failure to give any or any sufficient explanation as to why all of these measures were necessary to protect the children.

It is to be hoped that the Rudd Labor Government will approach the implementation of this legislation in a much more sensitive manner and with real consultation with the Indigenous people. Unfortunately, its past support for the legislation may operate to restrict amendment or repeal of some of its more offensive aspects. However, it is open to it to take a much more inclusive approach to the Indigenous community and to hold proper consultations with it.

Unfortunately, the Rudd Government has found itself unable to make really necessary departures from the intervention. Its approach has been more sensitive but the spirit of the original Intervention still prevails. Worse still, it has not held proper consultations with the Aboriginal community as this Report amply demonstrates. To quote one Utopia Elder:

We feel here that the intervention offers us absolutely nothing, excepting to compound the feeling of being second class citizens. The only thing that we have gained out of the intervention is the police.

After two years the Government has finally arrived at a really important amendment to the intervention legislation, namely the restoration of the relevant provisions of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) so far as the designated areas of the Northern Territory are concerned. Normally, that would have been enough to dispose of most of the more offensive aspects of the intervention. However, as this Report reveals, the Government has embarked upon what it calls a process of consultation with the Aboriginal people in an attempt to gain support from the Aboriginal people for the preservation of particular features of the intervention that the Government thinks are good for them and to therefore designate them as ‘special measures’ that can be continued despite the reintroduction of the Act. As this Report shows, this is not consultation at all.

The initial measures were taken without consultation or discussion with the Aboriginal people and as the Report points out, are fundamentally flawed. The only real solution is to go back to the beginning and negotiate a fresh approach in partnership with the Aboriginal people.

Instead the Government is not offering any choice. It is simply telling the people what it proposes to do. The consultation is nothing more than going through the motions in order to achieve a predetermined end.

At Bagot, the Government spokesperson said:

The purpose today of coming out and speaking to people is to talk about the government’s proposed changes to the Northern Territory Emergency Response, the intervention as people know it, and the government’s plan, part of those changes is to bring back the Racial Discrimination Act back into the legislation. The government has said that it wants to keep the intervention as it sees that the measures that were brought in, this is what the government is saying, the measures that were brought in have some positive benefits and the government wants to keep on trying to build on some of those positive benefits. They want to talk with people about it and to try and work with people to try and get some of these things right.

The critical words are “The government has said that it wants to keep the intervention”. Where then is the consultation? The approach smacks of attitudes of racial superiority more appropriate to the 19th Century than this one. In this regard Dr Aron Paul of Latrobe University writing in Crikey on 11 November 2009 commented:

Today marks the 140th anniversary of the first Aboriginal Protection Act in Victoria on 11/11/1869. As such, it marks 140 years of institutionalised racial discrimination in the name of humanitarian principles.

What is now proposed is not all that different. Nowhere is this better exemplified than in the stark choice being offered on income management. This was put by the Government representative at Utopia as follows:

So, the government’s thinking, at the moment, at the moment, is that we should keep going. In its discussion paper, in a paper that it’s put out to all the communities, it says, two ways. One way is not to make any change. Keep it as it is, try and find a way to fix up the problems with basics cards. The other way is that individuals, a person, could go to Centrelink, or someone else, they could go to Centrelink and say, ‘I don’t need income management’ and they can – ultimately - the Centrelink can say, ‘Yes, you don’t need income management.’ It’s what they call, ‘being exempted.’... from income management.

This approach bears a startling similarity to earlier provisions where particular Aboriginal people were able to obtain permits from white officials to carry out some act e.g. purchasing and drinking alcohol. Here these people are being given the option of obtaining a permit to manage their own money and property. To put the question to them in this form is not to consult them but to confront them with two measures, both of which constitute an affront to their dignity as individuals. As so many of them eloquently pointed out during the consultation process, nothing could be more discriminatory.

NT Emergency Response Still Ignores Aboriginal People

2009-11-30T00:00:00Z

At a meeting of its 90 members in Tennant Creek on 25 November, the Central Land Council said that the Federal Government had squandered a valuable opportunity to reset the relationship with Aboriginal people.

CLC members said that the Federal Government’s application of the Racial Discrimination Act to the Northern Territory Emergency Response legislation still ignores Aboriginal people’s interests and its ‘special measures’ remain discriminatory.

CLC director David Ross said that he felt deeply disappointed with the Government. “To us it looks like more of the same. The Government has even ignored its own progress report which showed that the measures had failed to make a difference and continued on its path of ignoring Aboriginal people,” the director of the CLC David Ross said.

“The decision to retain the five year leases is reprehensible and amounts to compulsory acquisition for five years. We see the tangible effects that these measures have had on people on the ground – they feel demoralised, they feel disenfranchised and they feel powerless.

“The Government has used the five year leases to further its own and the Northern Territory Governments interests without any benefit to the residents of these communities.

“While we welcome the attempts to make welfare quarantining non-discriminatory, the system still punishes responsible people in areas where employment is almost non existent.

“The Australian Government should instead be working with Aboriginal people to find solutions to some very difficult, long-term problems,” Mr Ross said.

In regard to the alcohol restrictions, CLC member Valda Shannon from Tennant Creek said Aboriginal people had fought for 20 years to get alcohol restrictions in the town.

“There was never any support for us then – we were ignored. They should have built on the hard work done by the community and included us in beating grog. Instead they try and remotely control us from Canberra,” Ms Shannon said.

The Central Land Council is a Council of 90 Aboriginal people elected from communities in the southern half of the Northern Territory.

Australia Can Take a Stand on Talks with Hamas

2009-08-13T00:00:00Z

Barack Obama's election as US President was hailed around the world. He gave many people hope that the US would lead all of us to a new age of enlightenment.

Internationally, Obama has to deal with the fallout of Bush administration policies such as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He is also, more vigorously than any other president, tackling problems between Israel and the Palestinians. While the security of Israel must be inviolate, he has also made it clear that expansion of settlements on the West Bank and in East Jerusalem must stop.

Too many Israelis believe that Muslims generally will not accept the fact of Israel's existence and that their objective is to establish a fundamental Islamic domination of the entire region, and thus the destruction of Israel. Such arguments exhibit a fatal hopelessness.

Even though Israel has defence guarantees from the US, it has not relied on that commitment and has instead pursued its own substantial nuclear arsenal.

Having refused to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Israel's nuclear program is not subject to international inspection, supervision or criticism. But its actions promote proliferation and have clearly influenced Iran.

There is significant debate within Israel itself about policy regarding the Palestinians. However, attempts by others to debate issues relating to Israel and the Palestinians, and most recently Israel's attacks in Gaza, often lead to a charge of anti-Semitism.

Those who believe Israel's policies are misguided should not remain silent and governments should not be locked into uncritical support of Israel. Let me give one example.

After Hamas won a legitimate democratic election in the West Bank and Gaza, Israel and the US led the international community to isolate Hamas and diminish its ability to negotiate by requiring the organisation to forswear violence and recognise Israel's rights before any talks could begin.

Obama has suggested he might have a different approach. He believes that the US should talk to potential enemies to see if some area of agreement can be reached. This is similar to the attitude that president Eisenhower and subsequent presidents took in relation to the Soviet Union. Little by little agreements were reached.

The Baker-Hamilton report in the closing stages of the Bush administration recommended that all parties in the Middle East be involved in a search for a peaceful solution. James Baker himself defended the need to talk to all parties and gave instances from his own experience where that had led to success.

The International Crisis Group, until recently led by Gareth Evans, also believes that the isolation of Hamas should be ended, and that peace will not be advanced under current policies. There are many Americans on the board of the International Crisis Group.

More and more influential people support such views in relation to Hamas. After the election that led to their total isolation, it would have been possible to say: ''From our perspective certain of your views will have to change but you have won a legitimate election, we welcome your participation in the democratic process and therefore we will get into the room with you to see if there are areas of agreement between us.''

But Hamas was isolated, violence - predictably - resumed and the whole region paid the price.

Israel and America also made attempts to strengthen Fatah, to weaken or destroy Hamas. Such attempts have failed. Fatah's leadership was not up to that challenge and too many Palestinians thought that Fatah was self-serving and incompetent.

What happens now? Does Australia have a role? Do we wish to advance the Obama agenda?

Australian governments have paid lip service to even-handedness between Israel and the Palestinians. We have spoken against the expansion of settlements, but along with the rest of the world we have not been effective.

Obama is showing more resolution: can we help him? Should we help him? Cessation of settlement expansion is critical to progress. Can the Palestinians legitimately be expected to negotiate when more of the territory they believe to be theirs is taken month by month?

If there were agreement on the boundaries of a Palestinian state, Israel would have no problem about recognition. If the boundaries that existed before the outbreak of the Six-Day War in June 1967 were accepted, negotiations would clearly move forward. But that is not the case. Progress between Israel and Palestinians is critical to peace in the Middle East and important in combating terrorism worldwide.

Australia could urge, as others have done, that Hamas be brought in from the cold. But do we have the courage? In doing so, we would be a real partner of the US contributing to peace in the Middle East and removing an important source and inspiration for fundamentalist terrorists.

Fear of criticism from the Jewish lobby in Australia has so far prevented Australian governments taking effective action. If we want to be a real ally to the US, if we want justice and peace, we have an opportunity.

Peace is our best defence

2009-07-13T00:00:00Z

First published in The Age on 29 June 2009

Australia's defence white paper promotes methods from the past when we should be working towards a nuclear-free future.

THE recent defence white paper is a depressing document. It claims stability depends upon the continued involvement of the US in the Western Pacific, and under the umbrella of an "extended" nuclear deterrent. By implication, our role is to do enough to earn American support should we ever need it. The assumption is that if a country such as Australia can earn brownie points and sufficient goodwill, we will be secure.

This thinking is wrong, misguided and out of date. Great powers do not act as a consequence of goodwill. They act in their national interest. Where that interest coincides with ours, that's fine, but we have a separate national interest, which is almost ignored in the white paper. On major issues concerning Indonesia, the US has made it clear that Indonesian interests could take precedence over Australia's. When Sir Garfield Barwick was foreign minister and said our troops fighting in Borneo were covered by the ANZUS security treaty, the US demurred.

Unlike NATO, which involves a commitment to defend a member country under attack, ANZUS offers only a commitment to consult and to act in accordance with one's constitutional processes. This does not commit the US to come to our defence and we should look at the white paper against the background of these realities.

The white paper stresses the need for "the US to act as a stabilising force". Did US involvement in Vietnam, and ours, act as a stabilising force or did it increase human suffering and postpone events that were inevitable? Did America's continued support for the recognition of the Pol Pot regime in the UN, and ours, act as a stabilising factor? The invasion and occupation of Iraq, ostensibly because of weapons of mass destruction, has caused a continuing humanitarian catastrophe and fuelled terrorism. Certainly president George Bush's attempts to establish anti-ballistic missile sites in Poland and the Czech Republic were destabilising. US attempts to persuade both Japan and Australia to participate in such a program in the Pacific were also destabilising and could only be aimed at China. It is to be hoped that President Barack Obama is letting such initiatives fall to the ground.

China comes in for some particular mention in this paper. It refers to China's "core military modernisation (that) over the long term could affect the strategic reach in global postures of the major powers". But China is not the only country modernising its forces. Its military expenditure in 2008 was about $US85 billion. This compares with Japan ($US46 billion), Russia ($US59 billion), Britain ($US65 billion, France ($US66 billion) and the US ($US607 billion). Japan has within its capacity a missile system as technically advanced as any and a capacity with minimal delay to place warheads on those missiles that would do much to alter the strategic balance. China's nuclear arsenal is roughly on par with those of the UK and France. Many would regard it as inadequate for a first-strike capacity.

The paper suggests that "within the time frame of this white paper the US will continue to rely on its nuclear deterrent capability". This at a time when Obama aims for the abolition of nuclear weapons, when the Australian Government has established a special commission chaired by former foreign ministers of Australia and Japan to set out a road map for the abolition of nuclear weapons, and at a time when significant figures in many countries are talking about the irrelevance of nuclear weapons to the defence of any country.

These events question the underlying philosophy of this paper and its backward-looking assumptions. It projects continued reliance on extended nuclear deterrence — in practice a willingness to support possible use of nuclear weapons — at least to 2030. Yet substantial progress towards a world free of nuclear weapons, and potentially achieving it, is possible within this time frame. Thus the white paper is at odds with and undermines Australia's stated support for complete nuclear disarmament. Achieving a world free of nuclear weapons would enhance security more than anything else, and we should be doing everything possible to prepare for it.

The paper addresses the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and implies that the best defence against this includes America's extended deterrent. It does not address the fact that the non-proliferation treaty is a busted flush, and that the failure of the nuclear-armed states to disarm is a major driver for proliferation. Too many states either have or are within a few months of being able to gain nuclear weapons. The knowledge to construct and the availability of materials make it increasingly important for Russia and the US, with 96 per cent of the world's nuclear weapons, to take a lead towards disarmament.

The paper shows little understanding of issues important to China. China has North Korea to the north and Afghanistan and Pakistan to the south. This disturbing instability so close to its borders may explain China's military expansion; it makes more sense than the implication that China could become an expansionist potential enemy.

Australian security can best be promoted by resolving regional tensions and working with others to address the shared human security challenges we face globally — climate change, resource depletion, poverty and inequity, disease, disasters and human rights abuses. These should be the prime purpose of Australian foreign and defence policy.

To the extent that the US can assist in these objectives, that is enormously welcome and in some cases essential. Direct talks between the US and North Korea may contribute more to that end and we should seek to persuade the US to enter into such talks. There is no doubting the US capacity to be helpful, especially through the views and philosophy supported by President Obama. Leadership like his gives us the best hope for a peaceful and stable world.

Australia, however, should not be focusing on a Cold War-style American involvement in the Western Pacific or cowering under a nuclear umbrella, but must promote stable and peaceful relationships with our Pacific and Asian neighbours through co-operative efforts to improve shared regional and global security for all. Therein lies our ultimate security.

UK Law Lords Say Secret Evidence on Terror Suspects is Illegal

2009-06-23T00:00:00Z

The future of the control order regime for terror suspects was thrown into doubt after a "historic" law lords ruling that it was unlawful to use "secret evidence" to place people under a regime that includes a 16-hour curfew.

The unanimous ruling by a panel of nine judges said it was a fundamental principle that everyone was entitled to the disclosure of sufficient material to enable them to answer effectively the case made against them.

The ruling, led by the senior law lord Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, is expected to lead to the control order regime being allowed to "wither on the vine" as the 20 terror suspects under the regime launch fresh legal challenges in response to the ruling.

It is expected that the security services will decide not to disclose the nature of the secret case against many of the suspects and instead simply allow the control orders to lapse.

The law lords said that unless a suspect was given "sufficient information about the allegations against him to enable him to give effective instructions to the special advocate" – the vetted lawyer supposed to represent their interests at closed hearings – their right to a fair trial under article six of the European convention on human rights would be breached.

As Lord Hope of Craighead put it: "The slow creep of complacency must be resisted. If the rule of law is to mean anything, it is in cases such as these that the case must stand by principle. It must insist that the person affected be told what is alleged against him."

Civil liberties campaigners described the ruling as historic and called on parliament to end the use of secret evidence once and for all rather than letting the control order system limp on.

But the new home secretary, Alan Johnson, called it "an extremely disappointing judgment" and said it would make it much harder to protect the public. The government would consider carefully its next step. "All control orders will remain in force for the time being and we will continue to seek to uphold them in the courts," he said.

The security services have long argued that it is not possible for them to disclose "secret evidence", which includes covert surveillance, reports from agents and information from foreign security services, as well as intercept evidence, without compromising their sources.

"The government relies on sensitive intelligence material to support the imposition of a control order, which the courts have accepted would damage the public interest to disclose in open court," said Johnson.

The law lords upheld the appeal brought on behalf of three men under control orders, who cannot be named for legal reasons, but did not quash the actual orders. Instead they ordered the high court to rehear each case on the basis of their ruling.

It is expected that the other 17 people under control orders will issue fresh legal challenges demanding to know the basis of the secret evidence against them.

The law lords, however, were careful not to order the release of sensitive intelligence material. Instead their judgment talks of the "core irreducible minimum" of the case being disclosed, which is likely to be interpreted to mean that the gist of the allegations must be made public.

Even so, it is expected that the security services will refuse to do even this in a significant number of the 20 cases and instead allow the control order to lapse.

The three individuals involved in the appeal are known only by their initials, AE, AF and AN. One has dual British/Libyan nationality, one is British and was born in Derby in 1981 and moved to Syria with his family in 2005 before being deported back to Britain, while the third is an Iraqi.

Mohamed Ayub, lawyer for AE, said: "It is now absolutely clear that evidence that is not disclosed to the accused cannot be relied on."

Eric Metcalf of Justice, an all-party law reform group which was party to the case, said the judgment marked a turning point: "The government can decide to limp on with the use of secret evidence for the sake of ever diminishing returns or parliament can act to end its use once and for all."

Amnesty International said: "The law lords have rightfully found that the control order regime in which the accused cannot see, challenge or effectively defend themselves against the evidence is unfair and a violation of human rights. The home secretary should pay close attention to this decision and scrap the control orders regime."

Where is the Tom Paine for Our Time?

2009-06-23T00:00:00Z

In the build-up to the 1832 Reform Bill, radical critics of sinecures and rotten boroughs condemned old corruption by tapping political inspiration from figures such as John Milton, the radical Puritans, John Locke and John Wilkes. Faced with our own deepening political recession, a new corruption fuelled by public disaffection with party politics, parliamentary fiddles and rudderless government, where can we turn for inspiration?

Considering what he contributed to visionary democratic ideals, it makes sense to remember Tom Paine, who died in New York City 200 years ago this week. A literary lion who penned the three best-selling books of the 18th and early 19th centuries, Paine was a citizen extraordinary, perhaps the greatest English champion of clean, open, humble government. Truly remarkable was the way he managed to survive the revolutionary upheavals of his time. It has often been said that his lifelong devotion to the cause of liberty for all, his brave and unshrinking advocacy of truth in politics, his deep-seated dislike of kingship and priestly tyranny, even his willingness to attack the hubris of the American and French revolutionaries, all guaranteed that he would be forever remembered. That understates his scandalous treatment, especially by political and religious bigots who either tried to nail him to the cross of public opinion or dreamed of dangling him from a gibbet.

The rough injustice he suffered hammers home the point that legends are made, not born. Tradition never just happens; memory is far from automatic. The dead cannot speak for themselves – they always need help from their latterday friends. Paine's foes, a motley bunch of supporters of mentally ill King George III, Jacobin terroristes, boorish Christian sectarians, knew this well. That is why they tried to damn and disappear him; to accuse him of seditious libel, to condemn him as a "filthy little atheist" (Teddy Roosevelt's infamous words), even to accuse him of bad grammar and confabulation (George Chalmers, his first biographer, howled that he had added an e to his surname to disguise his Norfolk background).

The aim in every case was to push Paine into a rat's alley, where not even his bones would survive. His bones were indeed lost. But even though Paine found no final resting place, memories of his brilliant achievements survived, beginning with the first glimpse we have of him, a daunting epitaph for a pet crow. "Here lies the body of John Crow," he wrote, "Who once was high but now is low/Ye brother Crows take warning all/For as you rise, so must you fall."

As you rise, so must you fall: with these words, written when he was just eight, Paine signalled his lifelong contempt for hubris and dislike of grovelling; in an age of corrupting government oiled by sinecures, he was brave enough to call George III "king or Madjesty", even to conclude a letter to the home secretary: "I am, Mr Dundas, Not your obedient humble servant." In snorting style, Paine satirised corruption caused by unaccountable power. He hurled his quill at the indignity of poverty, the pity of war, unrestrained markets and greedy banks. He did everything he could to prevent the abuse of citizens' rights by governments. He disliked parochialism ("where liberty is not, there is my country", he reportedly told Benjamin Franklin); and he drew from the principle that the earth is common property the conclusion that the most vulnerable in society – especially the young and the old – ought to be guaranteed as of right their fair share of its wealth.

Most compelling of all was Paine's burning desire to meet the arguments of his foes, not with gunpowder or the sword, or haughty bitterness, but with words from Isaiah: "Let us reason the matter together." Both that command and its egalitarian sentiments are badly needed in a Britain bruised by new corruption. The public debate about parliamentary reform must continue and intensify, informed by the understanding that history matters, that these are times when the living must speak freely of the dead, so granting them voices and votes. The connection between memory and politics should be made clear to all. Fond memories of Tom Paine must be kept green in our souls, according to the principle he so powerfully helped to fashion: democracy among the living demands democracy among the dead.

It’s Time to Get Practical in the Northern Territory

2009-04-22T00:00:00Z

The endorsement of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People on 3 April 2009 is, along with the national apology to the stolen generation, a clear symbolic difference between the Kevin Rudd’s government and John Howard’s on Indigenous policy.

While the endorsement of an international instrument on standards of protection for Indigenous rights is the antithesis of Howard’s attitude, there are still striking similarities between the practical approaches of the former government and the present. Nowhere is that clearer than the continuation of certain mechanisms first introduced as part of the Northern Territory intervention, particularly the suspension of the Racial Discrimination Act, the suspension of the right to appeal to the social security appeals tribunal and the suspension of the right to seek redress under the Northern Territory. Embracing the welfare reform measures that link welfare payments to school attendance was another central policy approach adopted from John Howard’s platform.

The suspension of rights of redress and complaint are human rights breaches that have not only left people subject to welfare quarantining no avenues of complaint or remedies if they feel unfairly treated, there are more reasons to be concerned about the continuation of the intervention by governments without reflection on what is working and what is not. While the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Jenny Macklin, has said she is relying on conversations with some people about the need to continue without reviewing the policy, the evidence on the ground suggests it is time for Rudd’s government to seriously rethink the mechanisms it is using in the Northern Territory, especially around welfare quarantining.

The Sunrise Health Service has been at the frontline in dealing with the health components of the intervention. It operates in the region east of Katherine and covers an area of some 112 000 square kilometres and all but one community in that area are “prescribed areas” and so subject to the intervention including welfare quarantining.

Sunrise has been collecting data since before the intervention and has been able to compare that with data collected now. Anaemia is an iron deficiency that generally leads to poor growth and development and is a key performance indicator for the general health of children. Anaemia rates in the Sunrise Health Service region have jumped significantly since the intervention. From a low in the six months to December 2006 of 20 per cent, the figure had increased to 36 per cent by December 2007. By June 2008 it had reached 55 per cent, a level that was maintained in the six months to December 2008. This means that over half of the children in the area face substantial threats to their physical and mental development. In two years, 18 months of which was under the intervention, the anaemia rate nearly trebled. There is also a worrying rise in low birth weight amongst babies. In the six months leading up to the intervention, 9 per cent of children had low birth rates. This rose to 12 per cent in December 2007. In the next six months it rose to 18 per cent. By the end of December 2008 it was 19 per cent, double the figure at the beginning of the intervention. Other health concerns have been raised in the region related to the compulsory income management of welfare payments. Since this was rolled out in the region in late 2007, there have been documented instances in which the roll out affected people’s capacity to purchase food. This included diabetics, with no local store access, unable to access food for weeks at a time. Their response to this situation was to sleep until food became available. This regime of income management has not reduced alcohol or drug consumption, indeed alcohol restrictions on prescribed communities has merely shifted the problems to larger towns or bush camps. And it has not stopped “humbug” or the conversion of Basic Card purchases into cash for grog. There is also no evidence that it has increased the consumption of fresh food amongst Aboriginal families, which is vital to fighting anaemia. There was strong concurrence about the need to protect women and children from violence and to improve the socio-economic position of Aboriginal families between those who designed and welcomed the intervention and those who questioned its methods. The key criticism from those of us asking questions was why all the evidence of what is known to work to make communities safer and to improve educational and health outcomes was ignored in favour of expensive, untried top-down, heavy-handed policy approaches.

There are two significant challenges for the Rudd government in relation to its implementation of Indigenous policy. The first is to make it compliant with the standards it has just supported in the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. The second is to make real its promise that it will be led by the evidence of what works rather than ideologies that don’t. Both challenges will lead to more positive steps to addressing the socio-economic disparity experienced by Aboriginal communities and the issues of protecting women and children that has been the justification of the intervention.

At the Crossroads for Nuclear Disarmament

2009-04-16T00:00:00Z

There has never been a better time to achieve total nuclear disarmament; this is necessary, urgent and feasible. We are at the crossroads of a nuclear crisis. On the one hand, we are at an alarming tipping point on proliferation of nuclear weapons, with a growing risk of nuclear terrorism and use of still massively bloated arsenals of the worst weapons of terror. On the other, we have perhaps the best opportunity to abolish nuclear weapons.

For the first time, a US president has been elected with a commitment to nuclear weapons abolition, and President Barack Obama has outlined a substantive program to deliver on this, and shown early evidence that he is serious. He needs all the support and encouragement in the world. We do not know how long this opportunity will last. Unlike the last one, at the end of the Cold War, it must not be squandered. An increasingly resource- and climate-stressed world is an ever more dangerous place for nuclear weapons. We must not fail.

Like preventing rampant climate change, abolishing nuclear weapons is a paramount challenge for people and leaders the world over - a pre-condition for survival, sustainability and health for our planet and future generations. Both in the scale of the indiscriminate devastation they cause, and in their uniquely persistent, spreading, genetically damaging radioactive fallout, nuclear weapons are unlike any other weapons. They cannot be used for any legitimate military purpose. Any use, or threat of use, violates international humanitarian law. The notion that nuclear weapons can ensure anyone’s security is fundamentally flawed. Nuclear weapons most threaten those nations that possess them, or like Australia, those that claim protection from them, because they become the preferred targets for others’ nuclear weapons. Accepting that nuclear weapons can have a legitimate place, even if solely for “deterrence”, means being willing to accept the incineration of tens of millions of fellow humans and radioactive devastation of large areas, and is basically immoral.

As noted by the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission headed by Dr Hans Blix: “So long as any state has nuclear weapons, others will want them. So long as any such weapons remain, there is a risk that they will one day be used, by design or accident. And any such use would be catastrophic.” The only sustainable approach is one standard - zero nuclear weapons - for all.

Recent scientific evidence from state-of-the-art climate models puts the case for urgent nuclear weapons abolition beyond dispute. Even a limited regional nuclear war involving 100 Hiroshima-sized bombs - just 0.03 per cent of the explosive power of the world’s current nuclear arsenal - would not only kill tens of millions from blast, fires and radiation, but would cause severe climatic consequences persisting for a decade or more. Cooling and darkening, with killing frosts and shortened growing seasons, rainfall decline, monsoon failure, and substantial increases in ultraviolet radiation, would combine to slash global food production. Globally, 1 billion people could starve. More would succumb from the disease epidemics and social and economic mayhem that would inevitably follow. Such a war could occur with the arsenals of India and Pakistan, or Israel. Preventing any use of nuclear weapons and urgently getting to zero are imperative for the security of every inhabitant of our planet.

The most effective, expeditious and practical way to achieve and sustain the abolition of nuclear weapons is to negotiate a comprehensive, irreversible, binding, verifiable treaty - a Nuclear Weapons Convention (NWC) - bringing together all the necessary aspects of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. Such a treaty approach has been the basis for all successes to date in eliminating whole classes of weapons, from dum-dum bullets to chemical and biological weapons, landmines and, most recently, cluster munitions.

Negotiations should begin without delay, and progress in good faith and without interruption until a successful conclusion is reached. It will be a long and complex process, and the sooner it can begin the better. We agree with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon that the model NWC developed by an international collaboration of lawyers, physicians and scientists is “a good point of departure” for achieving total nuclear disarmament.

Incremental steps can support a comprehensive treaty approach. They can achieve important ends, demonstrate good faith and generate political momentum. Important disarmament next steps have been repeatedly identified and are widely agreed. They remain valid but unfulfilled over the many years that disarmament has been stalled. The 13 practical steps agreed at the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review conference in 2000 should be upheld and implemented. They include all nuclear weapons states committing to the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals; entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty; negotiations on a treaty to end production of fissile material; taking weapons off extremely hazardous high alert “launch on warning” status; and negotiating deep weapons reductions. But at the same time a comprehensive road map is needed - a vision of what the final jigsaw puzzle looks like, and a path to get there. Not only to fit the pieces together and fill the gaps, but to make unequivocal that abolition is the goal. Without the intellectual, moral and political weight of abolition as the credible and clear goal of the nuclear weapon states, and real movement on disarmament, the NPT is at risk of unravelling after next year’s five-yearly review conference of the treaty, and a cascade of actual and incipient nuclear weapons proliferation can be expected to follow.

Achieving a world free of nuclear weapons will require not only existing arsenals to be progressively taken off alert, dismantled and destroyed, but will require production of the fissile materials from which nuclear weapons can be built - separated plutonium and highly enriched uranium - to cease, and existing stocks to be eliminated or placed under secure international control.

The International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament announced by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd in Kyoto last June and led with Japan is a welcome initiative with real potential. It could most usefully direct its efforts to building political momentum and coalitions to get disarmament moving, and promote a comprehensive framework for nuclear weapons abolition.

Australia should prepare for a world free of nuclear weapons by “walking the talk”. We should reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our own security policies, as we call on nuclear weapon states to do. To ensure that we are part of the solution and not the problem also means that the international safeguards on which we depend to ensure that our uranium does not now or in the future contribute to proliferation, need substantial strengthening and universal application. Our reliance on the “extended nuclear deterrence” provided by the US should be reviewed so that Australian facilities and personnel could not contribute to possible use of nuclear weapons, and we anticipate and promote by our actions a world freed from nuclear weapons. Canada championed the treaty banning landmines, or Ottawa Treaty; Norway led the way on the cluster munitions with the Oslo Convention. Why should the Nuclear Weapons Convention the world needs and deserves not be championed and led by Australia and become known as the Canberra (or Sydney or Melbourne or Brisbane) Convention?

Signed: Malcolm Fraser (former prime minister), Sir Gustav Nossal (research scientist), Dr Barry Jones (former Labor government minister), General Peter Gration (former Defence Force chief), Lieutenant-General John Sanderson (former chief of the army and former governor of Western Australia) and Associate Professor Tilman Ruff (national president of the Medical Association for Prevention of War Australia).

Remarks by President Barack Obama

2009-04-14T00:00:00Z

Thank you so much. Thank you for this wonderful welcome. Thank you to the people of Prague. Thank you to the people of the Czech Republic. (Applause.) Today, I’m proud to stand here with you in the middle of this great city, in the center of Europe. (Applause.) And, to paraphrase one of my predecessors, I am also proud to be the man who brought Michelle Obama to Prague. (Applause.)

To Mr. President, Mr. Prime Minister, to all the dignitaries who are here, thank you for your extraordinary hospitality. And to the people of the Czech Republic, thank you for your friendship to the United States. (Applause.)

I’ve learned over many years to appreciate the good company and the good humor of the Czech people in my hometown of Chicago. (Applause.) Behind me is a statue of a hero of the Czech people –- Tomas Masaryk. (Applause.) In 1918, after America had pledged its support for Czech independence, Masaryk spoke to a crowd in Chicago that was estimated to be over 100,000. I don’t think I can match his record — (laughter) — but I am honored to follow his footsteps from Chicago to Prague. (Applause.)

For over a thousand years, Prague has set itself apart from any other city in any other place. You’ve known war and peace. You’ve seen empires rise and fall. You’ve led revolutions in the arts and science, in politics and in poetry. Through it all, the people of Prague have insisted on pursuing their own path, and defining their own destiny. And this city –- this Golden City which is both ancient and youthful -– stands as a living monument to your unconquerable spirit.

When I was born, the world was divided, and our nations were faced with very different circumstances. Few people would have predicted that someone like me would one day become the President of the United States. (Applause.) Few people would have predicted that an American President would one day be permitted to speak to an audience like this in Prague. (Applause.) Few would have imagined that the Czech Republic would become a free nation, a member of NATO, a leader of a united Europe. Those ideas would have been dismissed as dreams.

We are here today because enough people ignored the voices who told them that the world could not change.

We’re here today because of the courage of those who stood up and took risks to say that freedom is a right for all people, no matter what side of a wall they live on, and no matter what they look like.

We are here today because of the Prague Spring –- because the simple and principled pursuit of liberty and opportunity shamed those who relied on the power of tanks and arms to put down the will of a people.

We are here today because 20 years ago, the people of this city took to the streets to claim the promise of a new day, and the fundamental human rights that had been denied them for far too long. Sametová Revoluce — (applause) — the Velvet Revolution taught us many things. It showed us that peaceful protest could shake the foundations of an empire, and expose the emptiness of an ideology. It showed us that small countries can play a pivotal role in world events, and that young people can lead the way in overcoming old conflicts. (Applause.) And it proved that moral leadership is more powerful than any weapon.

That’s why I’m speaking to you in the center of a Europe that is peaceful, united and free -– because ordinary people believed that divisions could be bridged, even when their leaders did not. They believed that walls could come down; that peace could prevail.

We are here today because Americans and Czechs believed against all odds that today could be possible. (Applause.)

Now, we share this common history. But now this generation -– our generation -– cannot stand still. We, too, have a choice to make. As the world has become less divided, it has become more interconnected. And we’ve seen events move faster than our ability to control them -– a global economy in crisis, a changing climate, the persistent dangers of old conflicts, new threats and the spread of catastrophic weapons.

None of these challenges can be solved quickly or easily. But all of them demand that we listen to one another and work together; that we focus on our common interests, not on occasional differences; and that we reaffirm our shared values, which are stronger than any force that could drive us apart. That is the work that we must carry on. That is the work that I have come to Europe to begin. (Applause.)

To renew our prosperity, we need action coordinated across borders. That means investments to create new jobs. That means resisting the walls of protectionism that stand in the way of growth. That means a change in our financial system, with new rules to prevent abuse and future crisis. (Applause.)

And we have an obligation to our common prosperity and our common humanity to extend a hand to those emerging markets and impoverished people who are suffering the most, even though they may have had very little to do with financial crises, which is why we set aside over a trillion dollars for the International Monetary Fund earlier this week, to make sure that everybody — everybody — receives some assistance. (Applause.)

Now, to protect our planet, now is the time to change the way that we use energy. (Applause.) Together, we must confront climate change by ending the world’s dependence on fossil fuels, by tapping the power of new sources of energy like the wind and sun, and calling upon all nations to do their part. And I pledge to you that in this global effort, the United States is now ready to lead. (Applause.)

To provide for our common security, we must strengthen our alliance. NATO was founded 60 years ago, after Communism took over Czechoslovakia. That was when the free world learned too late that it could not afford division. So we came together to forge the strongest alliance that the world has ever known. And we should — stood shoulder to shoulder — year after year, decade after decade –- until an Iron Curtain was lifted, and freedom spread like flowing water.

This marks the 10th year of NATO membership for the Czech Republic. And I know that many times in the 20th century, decisions were made without you at the table. Great powers let you down, or determined your destiny without your voice being heard. I am here to say that the United States will never turn its back on the people of this nation. (Applause.) We are bound by shared values, shared history — (applause.) We are bound by shared values and shared history and the enduring promise of our alliance. NATO’s Article V states it clearly: An attack on one is an attack on all. That is a promise for our time, and for all time.

The people of the Czech Republic kept that promise after America was attacked; thousands were killed on our soil, and NATO responded. NATO’s mission in Afghanistan is fundamental to the safety of people on both sides of the Atlantic. We are targeting the same al Qaeda terrorists who have struck from New York to London, and helping the Afghan people take responsibility for their future. We are demonstrating that free nations can make common cause on behalf of our common security. And I want you to know that we honor the sacrifices of the Czech people in this endeavor, and mourn the loss of those you’ve lost.

But no alliance can afford to stand still. We must work together as NATO members so that we have contingency plans in place to deal with new threats, wherever they may come from. We must strengthen our cooperation with one another, and with other nations and institutions around the world, to confront dangers that recognize no borders. And we must pursue constructive relations with Russia on issues of common concern.

Now, one of those issues that I’ll focus on today is fundamental to the security of our nations and to the peace of the world -– that’s the future of nuclear weapons in the 21st century.

The existence of thousands of nuclear weapons is the most dangerous legacy of the Cold War. No nuclear war was fought between the United States and the Soviet Union, but generations lived with the knowledge that their world could be erased in a single flash of light. Cities like Prague that existed for centuries, that embodied the beauty and the talent of so much of humanity, would have ceased to exist.

Today, the Cold War has disappeared but thousands of those weapons have not. In a strange turn of history, the threat of global nuclear war has gone down, but the risk of a nuclear attack has gone up. More nations have acquired these weapons. Testing has continued. Black market trade in nuclear secrets and nuclear materials abound. The technology to build a bomb has spread. Terrorists are determined to buy, build or steal one. Our efforts to contain these dangers are centered on a global non-proliferation regime, but as more people and nations break the rules, we could reach the point where the center cannot hold.

Now, understand, this matters to people everywhere. One nuclear weapon exploded in one city -– be it New York or Moscow, Islamabad or Mumbai, Tokyo or Tel Aviv, Paris or Prague –- could kill hundreds of thousands of people. And no matter where it happens, there is no end to what the consequences might be -– for our global safety, our security, our society, our economy, to our ultimate survival.

Some argue that the spread of these weapons cannot be stopped, cannot be checked -– that we are destined to live in a world where more nations and more people possess the ultimate tools of destruction. Such fatalism is a deadly adversary, for if we believe that the spread of nuclear weapons is inevitable, then in some way we are admitting to ourselves that the use of nuclear weapons is inevitable.

Just as we stood for freedom in the 20th century, we must stand together for the right of people everywhere to live free from fear in the 21st century. (Applause.) And as nuclear power –- as a nuclear power, as the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon, the United States has a moral responsibility to act. We cannot succeed in this endeavor alone, but we can lead it, we can start it.

So today, I state clearly and with conviction America’s commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons. (Applause.) I’m not naive. This goal will not be reached quickly –- perhaps not in my lifetime. It will take patience and persistence. But now we, too, must ignore the voices who tell us that the world cannot change. We have to insist, “Yes, we can.” (Applause.)

Now, let me describe to you the trajectory we need to be on. First, the United States will take concrete steps towards a world without nuclear weapons. To put an end to Cold War thinking, we will reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy, and urge others to do the same. Make no mistake: As long as these weapons exist, the United States will maintain a safe, secure and effective arsenal to deter any adversary, and guarantee that defense to our allies –- including the Czech Republic. But we will begin the work of reducing our arsenal.

To reduce our warheads and stockpiles, we will negotiate a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with the Russians this year. (Applause.) President Medvedev and I began this process in London, and will seek a new agreement by the end of this year that is legally binding and sufficiently bold. And this will set the stage for further cuts, and we will seek to include all nuclear weapons states in this endeavor.

To achieve a global ban on nuclear testing, my administration will immediately and aggressively pursue U.S. ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. (Applause.) After more than five decades of talks, it is time for the testing of nuclear weapons to finally be banned.

And to cut off the building blocks needed for a bomb, the United States will seek a new treaty that verifiably ends the production of fissile materials intended for use in state nuclear weapons. If we are serious about stopping the spread of these weapons, then we should put an end to the dedicated production of weapons-grade materials that create them. That’s the first step.

Second, together we will strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as a basis for cooperation.

The basic bargain is sound: Countries with nuclear weapons will move towards disarmament, countries without nuclear weapons will not acquire them, and all countries can access peaceful nuclear energy. To strengthen the treaty, we should embrace several principles. We need more resources and authority to strengthen international inspections. We need real and immediate consequences for countries caught breaking the rules or trying to leave the treaty without cause.

And we should build a new framework for civil nuclear cooperation, including an international fuel bank, so that countries can access peaceful power without increasing the risks of proliferation. That must be the right of every nation that renounces nuclear weapons, especially developing countries embarking on peaceful programs. And no approach will succeed if it’s based on the denial of rights to nations that play by the rules. We must harness the power of nuclear energy on behalf of our efforts to combat climate change, and to advance peace opportunity for all people.

But we go forward with no illusions. Some countries will break the rules. That’s why we need a structure in place that ensures when any nation does, they will face consequences.

Just this morning, we were reminded again of why we need a new and more rigorous approach to address this threat. North Korea broke the rules once again by testing a rocket that could be used for long range missiles. This provocation underscores the need for action –- not just this afternoon at the U.N. Security Council, but in our determination to prevent the spread of these weapons.

Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something. The world must stand together to prevent the spread of these weapons. Now is the time for a strong international response — (applause) — now is the time for a strong international response, and North Korea must know that the path to security and respect will never come through threats and illegal weapons. All nations must come together to build a stronger, global regime. And that’s why we must stand shoulder to shoulder to pressure the North Koreans to change course.

Iran has yet to build a nuclear weapon. My administration will seek engagement with Iran based on mutual interests and mutual respect. We believe in dialogue. (Applause.) But in that dialogue we will present a clear choice. We want Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations, politically and economically. We will support Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear energy with rigorous inspections. That’s a path that the Islamic Republic can take. Or the government can choose increased isolation, international pressure, and a potential nuclear arms race in the region that will increase insecurity for all.

So let me be clear: Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile activity poses a real threat, not just to the United States, but to Iran’s neighbors and our allies. The Czech Republic and Poland have been courageous in agreeing to host a defense against these missiles. As long as the threat from Iran persists, we will go forward with a missile defense system that is cost-effective and proven. (Applause.) If the Iranian threat is eliminated, we will have a stronger basis for security, and the driving force for missile defense construction in Europe will be removed. (Applause.)

So, finally, we must ensure that terrorists never acquire a nuclear weapon. This is the most immediate and extreme threat to global security. One terrorist with one nuclear weapon could unleash massive destruction. Al Qaeda has said it seeks a bomb and that it would have no problem with using it. And we know that there is unsecured nuclear material across the globe. To protect our people, we must act with a sense of purpose without delay.

So today I am announcing a new international effort to secure all vulnerable nuclear material around the world within four years. We will set new standards, expand our cooperation with Russia, pursue new partnerships to lock down these sensitive materials.

We must also build on our efforts to break up black markets, detect and intercept materials in transit, and use financial tools to disrupt this dangerous trade. Because this threat will be lasting, we should come together to turn efforts such as the Proliferation Security Initiative and the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism into durable international institutions. And we should start by having a Global Summit on Nuclear Security that the United States will host within the next year. (Applause.)

Now, I know that there are some who will question whether we can act on such a broad agenda. There are those who doubt whether true international cooperation is possible, given inevitable differences among nations. And there are those who hear talk of a world without nuclear weapons and doubt whether it’s worth setting a goal that seems impossible to achieve.

But make no mistake: We know where that road leads. When nations and peoples allow themselves to be defined by their differences, the gulf between them widens. When we fail to pursue peace, then it stays forever beyond our grasp. We know the path when we choose fear over hope. To denounce or shrug off a call for cooperation is an easy but also a cowardly thing to do. That’s how wars begin. That’s where human progress ends.

There is violence and injustice in our world that must be confronted. We must confront it not by splitting apart but by standing together as free nations, as free people. (Applause.) I know that a call to arms can stir the souls of men and women more than a call to lay them down. But that is why the voices for peace and progress must be raised together. (Applause.)

Those are the voices that still echo through the streets of Prague. Those are the ghosts of 1968. Those were the joyful sounds of the Velvet Revolution. Those were the Czechs who helped bring down a nuclear-armed empire without firing a shot.

Human destiny will be what we make of it. And here in Prague, let us honor our past by reaching for a better future. Let us bridge our divisions, build upon our hopes, accept our responsibility to leave this world more prosperous and more peaceful than we found it. (Applause.) Together we can do it.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Prague. (Applause.)

Hope for a new way forward with the Muslim world

2009-01-30T00:00:00Z

It was a sentence of astonishing density: "To the Muslim world: we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect."

This is the only remark in Barack Obama's inaugural speech directed by name to a specific part of the world, other than America. It expresses an urgency in seeking to mend these most damaged of America's international relationships.

And it does so with a rare diplomatic touch: instantly rejecting the approach of the Bush era — "a new way forward" — and conveying a deep understanding of why the global Muslim view of America has soured so terribly in recent years.

That is the genius of Mr Obama's newly articulated formula, "mutual interest and mutual respect".

Scarcely could there be a more succinct summary of everything George Bush's approach was not.

"Respect" especially is an immaculate choice of words.

Gallup polling of 35 Muslim majority countries published last year showed that their most pervasive gripe towards the West was a general feeling of being humiliated and treated as inferior.

What they craved more than anything was for the West to reverse its perceived "disrespect for Islam".

Mr Obama has either studied well or is receiving good advice.

That, of course, does not imply any radical policy shifts beyond the less militant tone.

America's stance on Israel, for instance, seems unlikely to shift significantly: both Mr Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, and his soon-to-be Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, are as pro-Israeli as anyone in Washington.

If any (unlikely) seismic shift awaits, it may be discerned in Mr Obama's message to autocratic regimes: "We will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist." Except, at least in the Muslim world, many of those clenched fists belong to US allies.

Is Mr Obama really prepared to apply pressure to them where Mr Bush was not? It would be a bold move, not least because democracy risks bringing anti-American forces to power in the short term.

But should he make it, Mr Obama might just win the Muslim hearts he apparently seeks. And as a "way forward", that's about as "new" as you can get.

Waleed Aly was in Washington for the inauguration.

Talking to Hamas is the only way to lasting peace

2009-01-30T00:00:00Z

Both sides have already breached their separate ceasefires declared this month to end Israel's offensive in Gaza. Negotiations continue through Egyptian mediators on a longer-term truce.

Israel claims it is fighting for and on behalf of the free world, that the destruction of Hamas will enable Fatah to reassert its dominance over the Palestinian territories so that peace negotiations can resume.

Israel's public announcements claim that it is acting on a basis of principle that benefits all of us.

There is of course a contrary view. The death toll is estimated at more than 1,000, a significant proportion of them children. This military action by Israel would have been condemned worldwide if it had been undertaken by any other country.

The approach is a totally disproportionate response to Hamas missiles. They too need to be condemned, but they are for a large part ineffective and inaccurate, and have done comparatively little damage. Their impact is more psychological than real. It is the kind of weapon used by those who have been pushed too far and basically have no resources.

How can this happen if we claim to live in a world of concern and of humanity? Israel's actions have been condemned by the International Committee of the Red Cross, a rare action for the ICRC. The Security Council resolution was also clearly motivated by a deep concern about the consequences of Israel's actions.

Far from destroying Hamas, Israel may well find that its actions strengthen resistance and earn it increased hatred and an increase in anti-Semitic activities around the world. It will make it even harder for a genuine peace process to be undertaken.

There are few political leaders in the West prepared to speak against Israel or to criticise Israeli policies. While debate often rages in Israel itself, criticism of Israel from other countries or by non-Jews is often condemned as anti-Semitic, a title nobody wants to wear.

Partly as a consequence of this concern, Israel has had a lock on the policies of the US and a great influence over the policies of Britain and of Australia. I used to regard Israel as a light on the hill. Somewhere along the line in the years after the 1967 war, principle has been put aside and the search for a peaceful future seems to have been forgotten.

Of course Israel must have secure and defensible borders. And today there are few who would not also say that Palestinians must have their own viable state. That means statehood in its full context, without limitations or restraints imposed by external powers, unless they be restraints placed on us all who wish to live in a community of nations.

The most grievous mistakes have been made by Israel and the US. When democratic elections were held in the Palestinian territories, Hamas won. That is not surprising. Aid workers from those territories knew that Fatah was regarded as corrupt and self-serving. If people needed somebody to turn to for help, they would turn to the local Hamas personnel. Victorious Hamas was immediately isolated and rejected. It was demanded that it change its policies forthwith as a condition of being allowed in the room.

There will be no peace and no settlement, no progress until Israel and the US are prepared to talk to Hamas. It would have been easy after the Hamas election to say that from our point of view your policies in relation to Israel must change, but we welcome your participation in the democratic process and we will therefore sit down and talk with you and seek areas of agreement. Progress would not have been easy, but if you wish to end enmity to create a peace in which everyone can benefit you must talk to your enemy.

The relationship between the US and the Soviet Union in the 1950s and '60s demonstrates the importance of keeping the door open or undertaking discussion without condition. The Soviet Union was openly committed to the destruction of democracy and of America in particular, but that was not used to create isolation, to prevent diplomacy.

While few would agree with Hamas' policies, to assume that Hamas really believes in the obliteration of Israel and that that objective will one day be achieved is to make an assumption without hope, without a future.

If one wants to end enmity, it is necessary to put oneself or to try to put oneself in the position of the opponent, or, if you like, the enemy, and ask, in their environment with their history, what can they do? What can they concede?

When Israeli settlements continue to expand in the West Bank, diminishing the prospect of a viable Palestinian state, the prospect of peace is remote. Such policies have been routinely condemned by the US, by European states, by many others, yet Israel ignores that condemnation and expansion continues. Is it surprising then, that when one is talking of two states, Israel and Palestine, Hamas will not recognise the future of Israel when it has little or no idea of the boundaries of a future Palestine?

And will Barack Obama even tentatively start to open a door to dialogue, to discussions with Hamas? Will he be prepared, as few American presidents have, to exercise the undoubted influence that the US could have on Middle Eastern politics and on Israel to begin a genuine search for peace?

It is indeed true that what Israel is now doing affects us all, because if we accept it we will all become increasingly at risk from those who hold extremist views.

When Israeli settlements continue to expand in the West Bank, diminishing the prospect of a viable Palestinian state, the prospect of peace is remote.

Negotiating with terrorists is impossible

2009-01-30T00:00:00Z

Malcolm Fraser's views on the Israel-Palestinian conflict are ill-conceived, contradictory and counter-productive to advancing genuine peace. Fraser should know that anti-Semites cause anti-Semitism. If one disagrees with something an action by either Jews or Israel, fine, criticise them — but to say that Israeli actions "cause" anti-Semitism is to place the onus for preventing anti-Semitism on Jews themselves. No country should allow terrorists to hold its policy hostage. Terrorists cause terrorism, not policies that terrorists dislike.

Fraser castigates Israel for what he calls its "disproportionate" response to Hamas rockets. He seems to mistakenly think that the concept of proportionality in warfare has something to do with how many die on each side. In fact, it's about whether an attack is proportionate to its military objective.

Israel's military objective in Gaza is the valid one of stopping Hamas launching rockets on Israel's towns now and in the future. Hamas purposefully does all it can to bring about the death of both Palestinian and Israeli innocents, by using Palestinian civilians as shields and deliberately targeting Israeli civilians. Fraser seemingly is arguing that Israel must wait for Hamas' thousands of rockets to flatten a kindergarten or hospital before it is entitled to respond.

Fraser bizarrely dismisses the Hamas attacks as "more psychological than real" in impact, even as the incessant rocket and mortar attacks gain range and are increasingly lethal. He should recognise how intolerable are eight years of suffering, trauma and economic paralysis in southern Israel — now extending to a million Israelis, a major port, the power station supplying Israel and Gaza, and approaching the Dimona nuclear facility. He surely would if the target was Australia.

Fraser claims these attacks are simply those "used by those who have been pushed too far and basically have no resources". Yet the rocket barrages began long before the internationally backed blockade on the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip in 2007, following the brutal coup against Fatah. And when Israel left every inch of Gaza to its own devices in August 2005, the rockets increased dramatically.

Centrally, Fraser demands that Israel and the international community engage with Hamas, as the US did with the USSR. But of course, the USSR wasn't firing its weapons at the US daily. Meanwhile, Israel and the same international community have repeatedly stated a willingness to trade and negotiate with Hamas as soon as it recognises Israel's right to exist, renounces terrorism and agrees to abide by past Israeli-Palestinian agreements.

According to new US secretary of state Hillary Clinton, the incoming Obama administration supports these conditions. When he was prime minister, Fraser fully supported a comparable Western policy opposing direct engagement with the Palestine Liberation Organisation until it met similar minimum conditions.

Today he refuses to confront reality and dismisses Hamas' goal of destroying the Jewish state as simply too hopeless to take seriously.

Since Hamas' inception in 1987, its leaders have said, without wavering, that they want to destroy Israel and that they are not interested in peace. Hamas' charter reads: "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavours."

Hamas leaders have repeatedly said they will not change their goals or overall violent strategy, which they see as religious imperatives.

Let's dispose of the oft-repeated but fundamentally silly arguments about Hamas being democratically elected. Yes, Hamas won a plurality of votes in January 2006 parliamentary elections. They subsequently staged a violent coup against the forces of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, who won a large majority of the vote in 2005, and will not let him stage new presidential elections. Is anyone seriously arguing that if a democratically elected government makes its fundamental policy a genocidal war to the death against a neighbouring state, the international community must nod and say, "OK, let's talk about it"?

If a Western government meets an unchanged, unreconstructed Hamas, the chances of peace will decrease because Hamas has done all it can to undermine the peace process, not advance it. Its campaign of suicide terrorism escalated after the 1993 Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement.

Meeting Hamas will undermine Abbas, whose Fatah party had to renounce terrorism and recognise Israel to begin negotiations. As a result of this decision, life in the West Bank has improved dramatically in the past year.

Furthermore, legitimising Hamas will strengthen the hand of its patron, Iran, in the current battle for the hearts and minds of the Middle East. This battle pits the extremist agenda of Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas, with al-Qaeda in the background, against most of the other Arab countries, including Egypt and Jordan, who are all alarmed at Iran's growing power and nuclear ambitions, and appalled by Hamas' behaviour.

Contrary to Fraser's myopic and naive view, to ensure this Israeli-Palestinian conflict can move towards resolution it is necessary to do everything possible to marginalise Hamas.

This is the only way to further enhance the efforts of the more conciliatory Palestinian leaders in their negotiations with an Israel that in recent years has been more than ready for a genuine two-state outcome.

Torture at Guantánamo Bay: Corruption and Cover Up

2008-12-18T00:00:00Z

I have been asked to talk about Torture Team: Deception, Cruelty and the Compromise of Law by Philippe Sands (Allen Lane, 2008) but I want to go beyond that. The rise of the neo-conservatives in the 1990s, their “Statement of Principles” (published by The Project for a New American Century in 1997), the election of George Bush and the terrible events of September 11 all created an atmosphere of fear and, for the neo-conservatives, an opportunity which they seized avidly.

The Project for a New American Century has produced some formative neo-conservative statements, including the remarkably influential and prescient document “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”. It was an ideological climate that offers some explanation as to why the events described in Torture Team unfolded as they did.

I want to draw attention to two key series of events and then look at their wider implications.

The first concerns the 2004 Schlesinger Report, which reviewed United States Department of Defense detention operations. In a sense this report tells us as much as Sands’s book because it is silent on so many matters and inadequate on others. It is these silences and omissions that are revealing.

The second series of events concerns those described and exposed in Philippe Sands’s book and implicate, in particular, the President’s most senior legal advisers, his Attorney General and the Department of Justice. It begins not much later, in February of the same year, when Donald Rumsfeld, US Secretary of Defense, hand-picked Major General Michael Dunlavey for Guantánamo Bay. These strands were largely separate, meeting at the centre in the persons of Rumsfeld and his Chief Counsel, William J Haynes.

THE COVER UP: THE ADMINISTRATION’S ATTEMPT TO PASS THE BUCK

The Schlesinger Report

In the public sense, this story begins in April 2004. At this time, photographs of torture at Abu Ghraib were published around the world. America’s reputation was immediately threatened. The Abu Ghraib photographs raised serious questions and the Bush Administration seemed to have no clear response to them.

Was the torture officially sanctioned? Were the same practices operating in Afghanistan, in Guantánamo Bay? Was it an aberration by unsupervised, low-level military officers or by ill-trained reservists? Or was it something deeper, more fundamental, going to the very heart of the Administration?

In May 2004 an independent panel was appointed by Donald Rumsfeld to investigate these matters. The panel was chaired by James R. Schlesinger, former Secretary of Defense under Presidents Nixon and Ford.

Schlesinger reported in August 2004, suggesting that the abuse was the fault of army personnel of all ranks, and also of the army as an organisation. The Report was silent on the role of the Department of Defense and the role of the Department of Justice. It reported decisions that had been made, often without comment. It accepted the Presidential Decision of February 2002 — which established that the Geneva Conventions were not to apply to the US in terms of their actions with al Qaeda detainees, while simultaneously providing that detainees were to be treated humanely — without exploring the basis of that decision.

The Report never questioned the President’s power or the legal advice on which the Decision was based. It accepted that the request for aggressive interrogation techniques came from interrogators at Guantánamo Bay, without questioning how this had occurred.

It was an inadequate report but it served the political interests of the Administration admirably. By blaming the army, the report really said that the centre of power, Washington, was not involved. And yet, despite the findings of the Schlesinger Report, the questions surrounding the Administration’s involvement in the abuse of detainees were not put to rest.

The Cracks Begin to Appear

As events transpired, the extent of the Administration’s involvement had already begun to emerge. Before the Panel reported, John Ashcroft, Attorney General, and Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense, both appeared before Senate Committees, their ineffective performances highlighting rather than allaying concern.

In addition, on 22 June 2004, well before the Schlesinger panel was due to report, Alberto Gonzales, Chief Counsel to the President, and William Haynes, Chief Counsel to Rumsfeld, supported by other staff, held an extraordinary press conference in the White House. At this conference, documents were released purportedly showing the care, concern and consideration that had been given to issues of detention and interrogation by the Administration. This was done to demonstrate accountability and transparency, but in many ways exposed the true depth of the problem.

One document was a Haynes memo to Rumsfeld, recommending the use of 18 additional interrogation techniques. Rumsfeld signed that recommendation on 2 December 2002.

At the press conference a clear lie was told to the world. The Administration had tried to argue that the move to torture had come from the army, from the bottom up. The complete account tells another story, which I now turn to address.

A TALE OF TWO STRANDS: THE UNRAVELLING OF THE ADMINISTRATION’S ACCOUNT

The Presidential Decision

The first strand of the Administration’s account involves the President’s Decision of February 2002, denying application of the Geneva Conventions. On 22 January 2002, a memorandum was sent to Gonzales and to Haynes by Jay Bybee, Assistant Attorney General. That advice concluded that neither the War Crimes Act nor the Geneva Conventions would apply to the detention conditions of al Qaeda or Taliban prisoners.

Even though the Secretary of State Colin Powell, supported by his chief legal advisor William Taft, sought to argue to the contrary, Gonzales wrote a strong brief opinion that the Department of Justice advice from Bybee should stand. A few days later, on 1 February 2002, Attorney General John Ashcroft joined the argument. He wished to foreclose any possibility of judicial review and recommended that a determination that the Geneva Conventions did not apply would provide the Administration with the highest level of legal certainty under US law. Powell and Taft’s opposition was hardly noticed.

And so the President made his determination on 7 February 2002, putting aside the Geneva Conventions. The Decision reaffirmed that prisoners should be treated humanely, although no definition of that term was given. The Decision also declared that the US would comply with the Geneva Conventions in practice “to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity”, thus watering down even the “in principle” application of the Geneva Conventions.

President Bush’s Decision established an environment of disregard for international law, and influenced events throughout the rest of the year. It could not be questioned by military officers. The Commander-in-Chief had spoken.

It wasn’t long before these same legal counsel, who had assisted the President in placing prisoners outside legal protection, began redefining legal restraints on interrogation and redefining torture. As early as 26 February 2002, a memorandum for General Counsel Haynes, concerning “potential legal constraints applicable to interrogation of persons captured by US armed forces in Afghanistan” was signed by Jay Bybee.

This was the Bybee whose famous opinion of 1 August 2002 concludes in this way: “torture as defined … and prescribed … covers only extreme acts. Severe pain is generally of the kind difficult for the victim to endure. Where the pain is physical, it must be of an intensity akin to that which accompanies serious physical injury such as death or organ failure. Severe mental pain requires suffering not just at the moment of infliction but it also requires lasting psychological harm …”.

Further to this legal advice, in August 2002, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, John Yoo, responded to a request Gonzales, “concerning the legality, under international law, of interrogation methods to be used during the current war on terrorism”.

All of this indicates without a doubt that at the highest level of the White House and the Department of Justice, prisoners were not only placed outside the law, but the legality of interrogation methods and techniques was under intense scrutiny — despite the conclusions of the Schlesinger Report.

Sidelining the Military Lawyers

This brings me to the second strand of the Administration’s account, so ably exposed by Philippe Sands, concerning the role of the military legal system.

In February, Rumsfeld appointed Major General Michael Dunlavey of the Army's Intelligence and Security Command to establish tough interrogation techniques at Guantánamo Bay. Dunlavey wanted legal cover and so required his Staff Judge Advocate, Lieutenant Colonel Diane Beaver, to prepare an opinion on expanded interrogation techniques. Beaver did so, but was uneasy and isolated from her colleagues and other sources of advice. She had no access to an adequate international law library. Attempts to contact other senior lawyers within the system met with no response.

Beaver was aware that the Geneva Conventions did not apply because of the Presidential Decision of February 2002. In the end, she did as she had been ordered and provided an opinion. She knew she was not an expert in this subject and, while the opinion found that the additional interrogation techniques that had been put together were legal, her recommendation, sent to Dunlavey on 11 October 2002, concludes in this way: “Since the law requires examination of all facts under a totality of circumstances test, I further recommend that all proposed interrogations involving Category 2 and 3 methods, must undergo a legal, medical, behavioural science and intelligence review prior to their commencement.

Clearly Beaver had considerable reservations. Dunlavey ignored the reservations expressed by Beaver and included them with the list of 18 proposed techniques — provided by Lieutenant Colonel James Phifer of the US Army — to General James Hill, commander of the Southern Command and Dunlavey’s superior. Hill’s response on the 25 October went to General Richard Meyers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in Washington. Hill was clearly uneasy with Dunlavey’s recommendation. The important element in Hill’s note involved these words: “However I desire to have as many options as possible at my disposal and therefore request the Department of Defense and Department of Justice lawyers to review the third category of techniques.”

Hill made no recommendation to accept any of them. From that point, Hill heard nothing until he saw the Rumsfeld order promulgated on 2 December. His advice had been ignored.

General Meyers had a discussion with Haynes, who had seen the recommendations from Dunlavey, and assured Meyers that the appropriate people had been consulted but there was nothing in writing. On 27 November 2002, Haynes wrote to the Secretary of Defense with his own recommendation to accept the additional techniques. Rumsfeld signed the request on 2 December.

It is significant that the Beaver request for further legal examination, and the request by the much more senior Hill, for further and better advice from the Department of Defense and the Department of Justice, were totally ignored. Indeed, the military legal system, with the exception of Haynes and those political appointees immediately around him, was ignored. It was suspected that they would oppose the recommendations for intensified interrogation techniques from Guantánamo Bay. The Judge Advocates General and General Meyer’s own legal counsel were not involved.

Once the order to accept additional interrogation techniques was promulgated on 2 December 2002, there was a very significant reaction, much of which was led by Alberto Mora, General Counsel to the Navy. It says a good deal for the system that he was able to get the decision rescinded as early as 15 January 2003.

THE IMPLICATIONS

In my mind, there can be no doubt at all about the Bush Administration’s guilt and the complicity of senior lawyers and politicians. If I were describing their actions in an Australian context, I would call it corrupt.

The US is a rules-based system — it has a Bill of Rights and a strong Supreme Court. However, the events that have transpired present serious questions. How can such a system be so damaged? How can legality be so destroyed? How can due process be so appallingly ignored? One lesson is that even the best constitution and strongest institutions in the world are no ultimate protection if those in power, and their influential allies, are determined to proceed with a particular course of action.

The likelihood is that the people involved will not pay any penalty, although, as Sands has said, some of those involved may need to watch which countries they travel to outside the US.

The remarkable thing about the Schlesinger Report is, despite the severity of his condemnation of the army, the consequences seemed relatively light. In its own way, that is further supporting evidence, if any were needed, of the complicity of the highest political authorities.

While there are many protections built into the American system, for too long they failed. It is possible to argue that, in the end, the protections worked because the Rumsfeld orders were rescinded but the Presidential order was not. In this respect it is worth recalling the Supreme Court’s decisions in Rasul v Bush (establishing that US courts had the authority to decide whether foreign nationals held in Guantanamo Bay were wrongfully imprisoned), Hamdan v Rumsfeld (finding that military commissions set up by the Bush administration to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay violated both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Third Geneva Convention) and Boumediene v Bush (a writ of habeas corpus in a US civilian court on behalf of a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina, held in military detention at Guantanamo Bay). These decisions represent a struggle to preserve constitutional guarantees.

The US Supreme Court is in a stronger position to determine the law than the High Court of Australia, where the common law, which might otherwise prevail, can be overturned by the legislation of government. It is, therefore, essential to consider how such breach of process can be prevented in the future. It is possible to suggest some significant steps to strengthen the current system.

The Senate should exercise even more vigorous oversight of Presidential appointees and of executive actions. Officials breaching their oaths of office should be prosecuted and suffer heavy penalties. There could be more ruthless exposure of a person’s true beliefs, positions and attitudes. Arguably, even before his appointment in February 2005, Gonzales had already signed a document giving implicit support to torture, although this was not widely known by the public.

Finally, the oversight committees which survey intelligence and security could be made much more effective. Failure to disclose methods and operations to such committees should become a significant criminal offence.

For the wider international community, we should ask ourselves what we can do to re-engage the best of America, the America which has done so much to support, to lead the move to a rules-based international system in the years since the Second World War. We should not forget this. The America of Woodrow Wilson, of the Roosevelts, of Harry Truman even, was instrumental in building the post-war humanitarian and political order.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the later-negotiated human rights Conventions (which sought to give legal force to the Declaration’s high principle) and the Marshall Plan never would have happened without American leadership and drive. Even the Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court, subsequently repudiated by Bush, was originally signed by the US.

The US has momentarily forgotten this America — and so has the world at large.

Yet neither is Australia immune to threats and incursions into the rule of law and civil liberties. For instance, we have no federal bill of rights and the Australian Constitution provides few explicit protections of individual rights. Further, the sovereignty of Parliament is entrenched through its ability to overturn the common law by legislation. In a sense, we are at the whim of government.

For example, the High Court by a majority of four to three in Al-Kateb v Godwin decided that a failed asylum seeker could, if certain conditions prevailed, be jailed for life. This provoked Professor James Crawford to label parts of this decision ‘disreputable’ in a speech delivered in Canberra earlier this year.

Furthermore, the treatment of David Hicks also represents complete governmental disregard for the application of the rule of law and due process, as is meant to apply both here and in America. This was confirmed by the English Court of Appeal in R (On the Application of Abbasi) v Secretary of State, involving a UK detainee held in Guantánamo Bay.

Finally, our new national security laws allow for Australians, known to be innocent of any evil thought or deed, to be secretly detained for interrogation under new security laws, demonstrating yet again the tenuous situation of human rights under Australian law. Despite our democratic institutions, we legislate for secret detention of the innocent.

We need a properly-based federal bill of rights to influence the behaviour of governments and bureaucracies. I see no other way of effectively limiting abuses of power.

There are ethical issues concerning the behaviour of politicians and of senior bureaucrats, especially since they are now political appointees. The governmental statements published by Prime Ministers are clearly insufficient safeguards, and are too often ignored without consequence. Perhaps we should learn from the US by more vigorously implementing what rules we have. For example, the senior Senator for Alaska, Senator Stevens, has recently been charged with hiding gifts by the Department of Justice. We need to establish and enforce the strictest codes of ethical behaviour, which should be independently administered, rather than by the mere will of the Prime Minister.

There are also particular issues for lawyers themselves which have been so ably but moderately exposed by Sands. The Torture Papers: The Road to Abu Ghraib (edited by Karen Greenberg and Joshua Dratel, 2005) and Torture Team, show that it is not just lawyers but also governments and government bureaucracies that need a stronger ethical base that may circumscribe their actions.

There should be much greater accountability for damaging or ignoring the basic rights of individuals, with the possibility of significant penalties for the breach of such standards. Stronger freedom of information legislation, which is hopefully forthcoming, as foreshadowed by Senator John Faulkner for the Federal Government earlier this year, should lead to fuller exposure of bureaucratic decisions and methods. We also need more effective appeal mechanisms against administrative decisions to strengthen Australians against large and sometimes frightening bureaucracies.

What is the nature of a lawyer’s duty? I was once appalled to have a senior Head of Department ask me what the public service should do when ordered to do something illegal. Lawyers really do have obligations to the law, not just to their clients or their political masters. Their duty should be to justice within the law. Similarly, the duty of a lawyer to a President or Prime Minister is not to find a way of justifying or constructing a legal argument to allow that President or Prime Minister do what they want. It is also to keep that President or Prime Minister within the law.

Arguably a number of US lawyers have, in recent years, breached their oath of office to uphold the US Constitution and the laws of the US. Arguably, it was such a situation that propelled the UK into the Iraq War. More generally, legal rules must be strengthened through enforcement of significant penalties, whether involving lawyers, bureaucrats or politicians. This builds upon the precedent of the US itself, which, in the Trials of War Criminals before the Nuernberg Military Tribunals in the 1940s held German jurists responsible for implementing and furthering the Nazi “racial purity” program. More recently in the UK, decisions in the extradition proceedings against General Augusto Pinochet have provided new precedents that should give some warning to heads of state or government.

We know that our systems can be corroded, that evil actions can be undertaken which would indeed do credit to any tyranny. We know that the most powerful people can plot and lie to achieve their ideological objectives. Democratic values cannot be assumed to apply; they can be subverted and overthrown. We do not like to recognise it or to speak it, but unless we do we will continue to make serious mistakes like the ones described in Torture Team.

We have put aside the 1946 injunction from the influential US Cold War expert George Kennan that we must not fall into the ways of those with whom we are seeking to deal.

There is one final point. Much of Torture Team demonstrates that the Bush Administration was prepared to ignore or evade international agreements and treaties. This erosion may provide a more credible explanation of why the Administration has not ratified the Rome Statute. Its excuse, that the treaty would have allowed capricious prosecutions against US citizens, never had much credibility. It is more likely that such a treaty would have provided an unwanted restraint on their powers and threatened the impunity with which they acted in regards to the events described in this book.

Privatisation risks conflict without limits

2008-12-18T00:00:00Z

Perhaps you've never heard of Nisoor Square. It's not as infamous as Abu Ghraib or even Haditha. But this nondescript junction deserves to be spared our collective amnesia, because it has delivered us one of the more troubling and instructive events of the Iraq war. Troubling because it involves the allegedly unprovoked massacre of at least 17 innocent and unarmed Iraqis, and the injury of dozens more. Instructive because it does not involve terrorists or the military of any country, but private contractors hired by the US Government.

This week, the US Justice Department indicted five security guards from Blackwater Worldwide, laying charges against them that included 14 counts each of voluntary manslaughter. The charges could see them imprisoned for 30 years.

The US Government will allege in court that the accused sprayed hundreds of machine-gun rounds into the crowded square, and threw a grenade into a nearby girls' school.

"None of the victims of this shooting was armed; none of them was an insurgent," said Government lawyer Jeffrey Taylor. According to the prosecution, people were gunned down as they attempted to flee. One man was shot in the chest while he was standing in the street with his hands up.

In a way, it's a good look for the US Government, pursuing those allegedly responsible with such candid vigour. The families of the Iraqi victims want the accused to be punished severely, and the US is clearly positioning itself to be able to say it has done so. But let us not be so swiftly seduced. This whole episode raises a series of questions that cannot so easily be silenced by a prosecution.

So let us begin by asking the most fundamental of them: why were these private security guards there in the first place? They were not, after all, performing mundane security functions. They were doing the work of soldiers. In fact, to call them "security guards", while technically correct, is more than a little misleading. All five of the accused are military veterans.

This, frankly, should not surprise us. But it does bring us to the heart of this sordid matter: that of the many lamentable contributions this war has made, perhaps the most radical has been the use of private corporations to do what has forever been the most quintessential function of the state: defence. These are little short of corporate armies. They are often engaged in intense battlefield work. This is, put simply, the privatisation of war.

It's not an entirely new concept. Presidents George Bush Snr and Bill Clinton used them during their respective terms. What is new, however, is the sheer scale of this practice under George W. Bush. An investigation carried out by The Guardian in 2003, found that private corporations together comprised the second biggest army in the invading coalition after the US, and ahead of Britain. This can scarcely be seen as an accident. The Bush Administration defended this outsourcing, and the British Government supported it. Little else could so powerfully demonstrate just how pervasive market rationality has become in contemporary politics.

Surely this is a manifestly horrific idea. To begin with, there are the obvious conflicting interests: companies exist to make profits for themselves; the military is meant to act in the national interest. There is also the issue of how this practice might express itself politically. Since private contractors are not soldiers, they don't count among the war's dead if they are killed. Thus is the true cost of the war hidden from the public, and the Government's accountability for that cost artificially minimised.

But the greatest problems are ethical and legal. The state military is constrained by codes of behaviour and military justice systems, however imperfectly. Corporate militaries have no such limitations. They are more likely to succumb to ill-discipline, and are harder to hold accountable when they do. Even the forthcoming Blackwater prosecution is legally awkward. Precisely on what basis can the charges be brought? The shootings did not take place on American soil, so they can only be tried under laws governing military behaviour.

But there are real doubts that these laws apply to private contractors who are not US soldiers.

To make matters worse, the State Department granted immunities to the accused men to obtain their co-operation during its own investigations. There is a very real chance that these prosecutions could fail before any of the facts are even tried. There's the rub: private armies acting abroad seem to operate in a legal abyss. Only Iraqi courts could prosecute them unproblematically, but then, courts in war zones are seldom in any condition to embark on such legal excursions.

Consider, then, what we have: a host of highly skilled people with powerful weaponry, who enjoy warfare enough to do it commercially, who are unbounded by any enforceable military code of conduct, and who are quite probably operating beyond the law's reach.

Seen in that light, the alleged massacre at Nisoor Square is an inevitable consequence of using mercenaries to fight proxy wars.

At the deepest level, this is not simply a failure of the accused. It is a catastrophic failure of policy.

The prosecution of the Blackwater contractors only serves to mask this fact. It makes a show of holding them accountable, but in truth it removes accountability from those who most deserve it.

Now, for the real America

2008-10-20T00:00:00Z

After the end of the Cold War and as we moved to the beginning of this century, there were many who believed it would be a century of hope and of advancement in which some real problems could be resolved. The world was at America's feet.

After the bombing of the Twin Towers there was worldwide sympathy for the US. The opportunity to build a coalition of nations to work for the future, to strengthen international institutions and the rule of law was within America's grasp.

What a short time ago it was and how quickly that dream has vanished.

The neo-conservatives, those most closely supporting President George Bush, had issued their statement of principles in 1997 concerning America's duty to itself and to the world. It was a statement of American exceptionalism, of American responsibility and duty, to fashion the world in its image. Only then would America be secure. The reality is far different.

We have seen the limits of American military power both in Iraq but, more particularly, in Afghanistan. The Afghan war is not illegal, it was sanctioned by the United Nations, but, as we are now being told by many senior people, it cannot be won on American terms. It will end with diplomacy and negotiation.

Despite being technologically the most advanced military power, the US has learnt most painfully that without adequate diplomacy, without any capacity to establish relationships between nations, military power cannot secure peace.

We have also seen that trying to divide the world into those who are with America and those who are against, is counterproductive. In the current presidential race, John McCain would be a repeat of President Bush. He wouldn't talk to people he regards as an enemy. Senator Obama is in the mould of postwar American presidents, especially from Eisenhower onwards, who realised that sitting down, getting to know, to understand your opponent or, if you like, your enemy, was critical to establishing a better world. As a consequence, little by little, agreements were reached, nuclear war was avoided and, in the end, the Soviet system collapsed. Certainly it was accompanied by a militarily and economically strong America but it was the negotiation that was the key.

In recent times and on another front, we have also seen America's future power and influence diminished, perhaps even more than by the failures in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Nobody can tell where the current economic crises will end, but American handling and mismanagement of its own internal problems has been laid bare. The adopted plans have not settled markets nor averted fear of recession or even depression. The markets, with typical lack of coherence, bounce upwards and people hope for a brief moment that a dream of economic stability can be restored. They only have to wait a day to find that they fall almost as much, in some cases more. Perhaps it is an exercise of judgement that does not believe the disparate efforts to re-establish economic cohesion are going to work, that the economic problem is too deep. Again, America is the biggest offender.

As a result of the Bush regime a massive balance of payments deficit has been made much worse and the domestic deficit approaches 6% of GNP. Figures that are both disgraceful at the end of a long period of world economic growth. Over many years now the value of the US dollar has trended down. Creditors know that if they hold American debt they will be repaid in depreciated dollars. This might not matter so much if there were not an alternative to the dollar. I am advised that the Australian Reserve Bank was one of the very first to start holding some of its reserves in euros. Now there is an alternative as a reserve currency and the US dollar is consequently much weakened.

So militarily, diplomatically and economically the Bush years have been years of disaster. The American century is not going to happen. Whatever emerges from the current economic discord, it will be a much weakened America with economic strength moving, especially to Asia. There is no doubt that when historians start to look at this time, they will write that George Bush had a great opportunity but instead his presidency began America's decline.

Despite all of this, in many ways I believe America remains the world's best hope for a decent and more civilised world.

I believe Senator Obama, if elected, can relight the idealism and sense of purpose that the US had when the UN was formed, when the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was signed, and when the US supported efforts to build a better and a fairer international system.

We all need a diplomatic America using the skills that ultimately ended the Cold War. Without American support, indeed leadership, today's problems of the economy, of the environment and of political stability around the world will not be resolved.

The great advances made since World War II would not have happened without strong and effective US support. The moves to the establishment of a law-based system that governs relations between states could not have happened without America.

The Bush years have undermined much of the good America achieved in those years. But we should not allow his years to fool us into believing that that is the real America. The authentic voice of America comes from other people who believe in the idealism of the American dream.

In watching the debates and the conduct of the current campaign, Obama gives me hope that America may be reborn.

The limits of tolerance – diversity, identity and cohesion

2008-10-17T00:00:00Z

Since the European settlement of Australia in 1788, political leaders and people in the community at large have contended with issues relating to ethnic, cultural, racial and religious diversity.

How much diversity can be tolerated without jeopardising social cohesion?

Who belongs in the identity we wish for ourselves and who does not?

How should diversity be managed? What differences should be encouraged or tolerated and what should be discouraged or prohibited?

Tonight I propose to examine the public policy responses to these issues historically and prospectively.

In Australia, there are three key arenas in which the limits of racial, cultural, ethnic and religious diversity are tested. The first is in the relationship between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians. The second is at our borders as defined by our immigration policies. The third is in the policies directed at managing cultural and ethnic diversity in Australia.

It is a deficiency of my presentation that it does not focus on the first of these arenas – the relationship between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians. Of all the components of our history, this is the one where a black armband is warranted. Unfortunately, constraints of time, talent and knowledge prevent me from doing this subject justice this evening.

The position I will be advancing is in broad terms as follows.

Governmental responses have at times been determined by an aversion to diversity and the perception that diversity threatens the welfare of the community.

At other times, diversity has been seen to be a circumstance that could be reasonably accommodated and tolerated, and even beyond that, welcomed and respected.

Over the period, Australian policy makers and the general community have clearly moved in the direction of being both less fearful and more accepting of diversity.

But the movement has been neither linear nor orderly.

The plain fact is that there is no law of inevitable progress.

In the last decade, at the national political level, we regressed.

The relationship between politicians and the community is a complex one.

Our leaders make choices dictated by their personal and political values and also by their perceptions of social and political realities.

Their statements and their actions are both influenced by and have an influence on the sentiments of people in the community.

I believe that we are now in a hiatus – a gap between the immediate past and the immediate future.

There is uncertainty about which direction we should take.

This is my case for where we should head.

But in order to orient ourselves, we first need to understand where we have been.

I will start with an historical overview of how government and community responded to issues of diversity, identity and cohesion in the context of immigration and domestic policies.

I will then offer some views of key issues we are faced with and how we should address them.

IMMIGRATION

Apart from policies towards indigenous Australians, immigration policies have historically seen the most significant measures dealing with the issue of diversity.

Through much of the history of European settlement, national and racial favouritism determined who was excluded and who was sought.

The White Australia Policy was the most notorious of the exclusionary policies.

Racially based immigration restriction was the subject of the first law passed by the federal Parliament in 1901.

In the words of our first Prime Minister, Edmund Barton: ‘The fear of Chinese immigration which the Australian democracy cherishes…is, in fact, the instinct of self-preservation, quickened by experience…We are guarding the last part of the world in which the higher races can live and increase freely for the higher civilisation.’

In the first part of the twentieth century, the migration of other groups was also periodically restricted.

Pacific Islanders were excluded in the very early days of Federation with those already settled here expelled.

In 1924, a quota was imposed on Albanians, Greeks and Yugoslavs.

It was only following the Second World War, fearing that Australia had to ‘populate or perish’, that the government extended immigration to people from European countries other than Britain.

Even in the face of the perceived threat to national survival, the government was committed to minimising the diversification of the population.

In 1946, the Labor Minister for Immigration told the Parliament that: ‘It is my hope that for every foreign migrant there will be ten people from the United Kingdom … aliens are and will continue to be admitted only in such numbers and of such classes that they can readily be assimilated.’

The use of race and nationality as criteria of suitability for immigration began to be dismantled by the Menzies government.

The White Australia Policy was ended by Gough Whitlam in 1973 and was buried by Malcolm Fraser with the acceptance of Indochinese refugees.

The progressive dismantling of the discriminatory barriers was an achievement of political leadership - dare I say statesmanship - not electoral necessity.

Public opinion was divided.

But those who believed the Australian community would generally accept the reforms appeared to be vindicated.

By the end of 1970s, I thought the status of the non-discriminatory immigration policy was well assured.

I was wrong.

Non-discriminatory immigration, in particular from Asia, continued to be assailed within political circles and by prominent intellectuals, such as leading historian Geoffrey Blainey.

And this was not just a sideshow.

The possibility of reversion became apparent in 1988 when then Opposition leader John Howard publicly canvassed the question of whether Asian immigration should be reduced. He said: ‘I do believe that if it is – in the eyes of some in the community – that it's too great, it would be in our immediate-term interest and supporting of social cohesion if it were slowed down a little, so the capacity of the community to absorb it was greater.’

Prime Minister Bob Hawke responded by introducing a parliamentary motion stating that no Australian government would use race or ethnic origin as a criterion for immigration.

Four members of the Liberal Party crossed the floor to vote with the government.

Seven years later, John Howard said he regretted his statement, maintaining this position for the remainder of his Prime Ministership.

The election of Pauline Hanson in 1996 reignited the debate.

In her maiden speech she said: ‘I believe we are in danger of being swamped by Asians. Between 1984 and 1995, 40 per cent of all migrants coming into this country were of Asian origin. They have their own culture and religion, form ghettos and do not assimilate.’

The Hanson phenomenon had a major impact. Whatever criticism that can be made of the major political parties in their response to Pauline Hanson, it is to their ultimate credit that they maintained their commitment to the principle of non-discriminatory immigration.

In October 1996, John Howard, by then Prime Minister, moved a statement on racial tolerance in the House of Representatives which read, in part: ‘That this House…reaffirms its commitment to maintaining an immigration policy wholly non-discriminatory on grounds of race, colour, creed or origin.’

The motion was carried in both houses of Parliament.

The pressure for discrimination built up again following the 2001 terrorist attacks in the US and later in Bali, Madrid and London. Pauline Hanson and others called for restrictions on Muslim immigration.

Heightened national security fears have always placed great strain on our commitment to principle.

That no major political party contemplated a return to a discriminatory immigration policy which in a climate of fear could have been exploited with effect, demonstrated how much we had changed.

I was greatly relieved.

It was a very significant demonstration of how far we had come as a society.

In my youth, it was controversial to suggest that race and nationality should not be factors in our immigration policy.

In my early adulthood, we changed with remarkable ease from rejecting people from coming to Australia because of their colour, to accepting them.

I think that I am in unison with most Australians and certainly with my children in believing that we are a better society for this.

The weight of opinion has shifted decidedly. That is a remarkable development.

But as my brief overview has shown, our achievement was not pre-destined nor is it invulnerable to challenge.

We have got there. But it has been by fits and starts. Maintenance of non-discrimination at our borders needs to be reinforced constantly. Vigilance is required and particularly if prosperity ebbs.

And the fact remains that our commitment to non-discriminatory policy has been matched by a period of regression in our treatment of refugees.

We have, over the past few years and with some success, tried to remedy this. But the prospect of slipping back is constant.

I believe that we have learned that the policy of mandatory detention hurts vulnerable men, women and children. I also believe that it damages our own humanity.

DOMESTIC

As in immigration policy, the overall movement has been towards greater acceptance of diversity but not without resistance and regression.

I have talked on many occasions about multiculturalism as the most sensible policy framework for a society which sought to address how to properly and justly treat the many diverse people who migrated here after World War Two.

In dealing with this diversity, religious differences were not the central issue.

Today however, religious diversity has emerged as a new focus of contention.

It needs to be re-emphasised that history shows us that conflict and the resolution of conflict based on religious difference is not new to Australia.

We should acknowledge this when we are dealing with what appear to be novel issues regarding the place of religion in our society. We should recognise that Australia’s historic responses to religious conflict have endowed us with a legacy that is relevant today, and that lessons from the past can inform current policy directions.

In the colonial era, among the newly arrived settlers, a pre-eminent difference was between those of Irish Catholic origins and those of English Protestant background.

A heady combination of ethnicity, nationality and religion gave rise to distinct identities which found expression in outbreaks of violence, in economic and social discrimination, and in disagreements about public policy.

This is exemplified by the armed rebellion of Irish convicts at Vinegar Hill in 1804. Catholic priests were blamed for contributing to the spirit of the rebellion, and were punished by having their permission to minister withdrawn.

By the mid-1800s, however, sectarian tensions had diminished. On St Patrick’s Day in 1859, Catholics and Protestants in the community of Yass came together at a civic function where community leaders of both faiths praised the local residents for being, in the words of one, able to “appreciate the sterling good qualities of each other without reference to race or creed”.

But over the next two decades, this harmony again began to wilt.

The attempted assassination of British Prince Alfred by Irishman Henry James in 1868 led to a strong anti-Catholic reaction.

Henry Parkes, who coined the phrase “we are one people, with one destiny”, and is often described as the Father of Federation, had some problems with “one people”. Parkes saw the Irish as “jabbering baboons and disruptive trouble makers”.

One consequence was the withdrawal of state funding to all faith-based schools. The promotion of secular education for all was seen as a measure to address the divisiveness of religious diversity.

During the First World War, Catholics and non-Catholics were divided by the issue of conscription. Many Catholics, particularly those of Irish origins, did not want to fight for Britain.

But later in the twentieth century, the intensity and sweep of the sectarian rift again abated.

By the 1960s, Catholic and Protestant groups were campaigning together on the issue of state aid for religious schools. The Menzies government reintroduced government funding for denominational schools and this became a bipartisan policy.

By the time I became Director of the Institute of Multicultural Affairs in 1980, it was common to hear the majority of Australians being described as Anglo-Celtic in origin.

Given the history, it was a confected identity and the term was by no means universally accepted.

But the very fact that it was coined and widely used reflects the erosion of a long-standing and powerful division which previous generations might well have regarded as insurmountable.

Migrants from non-traditional source countries apparently had something to do with overcoming this division.

Author Thomas Keneally, for example has written of his own childhood experience: ‘By the late 1940s, we found ourselves combined in mistrust of the Balts, southern Europeans and other “reffos.” …. [T]he streets of our suburbs…were full of men and women who believed [these] arrivals would never become an effective part of Australian society. Their strangeness disqualified them.’

Well, reffos like me are always pleased to have a positive effect, no matter how unintended, but the bottom line is that when my family arrived in Australia in the 1950s, we were expected to assimilate as soon as possible.

But, we were never sure what we should assimilate to.

What this meant was not specified in laws and regulations or even images.

What we were sure of was that we had to discard valued aspects of our original culture and heritage.

Manifestly, the expression and celebration of languages and cultures of so-called New Australians were tolerated rather than respected.

We could do what we wanted in our private spaces, but public recognition and support were not forthcoming.

As the number and diversity of migrants increased, it became apparent that assimilation was not a necessary or equitable policy, and that people were not ready to abandon valued identities.

The fact was that migrants overwhelmingly did commit to Australia, its democratic values and institutions and to English as the national language.

At the same time they created schools, religious institutions and voluntary associations to preserve and develop cherished elements of their cultures.

They worked assiduously to change the attitudes of politicians, of the media and of the public at large.

Assimilation gave way briefly to integration but the opportunity was there for a more inspired policy response: a multicultural policy for a multicultural nation.

Gough Whitlam made the first significant move in this area and Malcolm Fraser made the commitment to multiculturalism in policy and institutional terms.

The strong imprimatur of the head of government was essential and Prime Minister Fraser provided that, in public and in private.

As he explained in a keynote speech in 1981, the decision to respond to ethnic diversity with multicultural policies was based on both realism and idealism.

He believed that the attempt to enforce conformity is demonstrably costly for both the individuals and for society.

It denies people their identity and self esteem. It risks their alienation and social division.

Explaining the meaning of multiculturalism, Mr Fraser said that: ‘Multiculturalism is concerned with far more than the passive toleration of diversity. It sees diversity as a quality to be actively embraced, a source of social worth and dynamism. It encourages groups to be open and to interact, so that all Australians may learn and benefit from each other’s heritages. Multiculturalism is about diversity not division – it is about interaction not isolation. It is about cultural and ethnic differences set with a framework of shared fundamental values which enables them to co-exist on a complementary rather than a competitive basis. It involves respect for the law and for our democratic institutions and processes. Insisting upon a core area of common values is no threat to multiculturalism but its guarantee, for it provides the minimal conditions on which the well being of all is secured.’

The last part of this passage is particularly important. It authoritatively refutes the misrepresentation that the policy of multiculturalism does not insist on a core of shared values pertinent to all, and which promotes or is indifferent to separatism.

In the case of multiculturalism, this is the limit of tolerance.

Over the following decades, multicultural policy evolved. Bob Hawke initially vacillated and then acknowledged its importance. Paul Keating was a strong supporter of the policy.

The Howard government was, at best, ambivalent.

John Howard himself came to the policy reluctantly.

In 1991, he commented that: ‘Australia made an error in abandoning the former policy of encouraging assimilation and integration in favour of multiculturalism.’

John Howard had reservations about multiculturalism because he believed that it denigrated our national identity and undermined our social cohesion. It tolerated too much.

At the beginning of the Howard government, some of the public manifestations of multiculturalism were stripped. The Office of Multicultural Affairs and the Bureau of Immigration, Multicultural and Population Research were both abolished.

Nevertheless, in 1999, John Howard signed off on a manifesto on multiculturalism. A New Agenda for Multicultural Australia was released as government policy, in response to a report conducted by the National Multicultural Advisory Council.

Multiculturalism had public support and the Prime Minister’s endorsement.

The terrorist attacks on Western targets, compounded by the extremist Islamist attack in London where the perpetrators were mostly born and bred in the UK, generated powerful new challenges.

Strong concerns were voiced that multiculturalism permitted and facilitated the propagation of radical or fundamentalist Islamic ideas.

Religion – and Islam in particular - replaced ethnicity as the key aspect of the policy debate which multiculturalism was seen to encompass.

In the atmosphere of concerns about social cohesion, so-called ‘mad’ multiculturalism and Islamic extremism, the government, in early 2006, introduced the idea of new testing arrangements for citizenship.

Then Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Andrew Robb, initially asserted that a new test was needed because: ‘The twin challenges of global terrorism and the ageing population require us…to become even more skilled at integrating an increasingly diverse population.’

The notion of the new test as a counter-terrorism measure was obviously unsustainable and was soon abandoned.

Instead, the idea that the test would promote social cohesion generally became the central justification.

In November 2006, Andrew Robb linked his advocacy for the citizenship test to concerns about multiculturalism.

Mr Robb said that multiculturalism was vague and meant different things to different people.

Some – he said – interpreted multiculturalism as a philosophy which rejected the idea of an overriding Australian culture. Andrew Robb went on to say: ‘Advocating the equality of cultures, or a community of separate cultures, fosters a rights mentality, rather than a responsibilities mentality. It is divisive.’

His comments foreshadowed the demise of the term multiculturalism from official language.

A couple of months later the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs was renamed the Department of Immigration and Citizenship.

In October 2007 the new citizenship test was imposed.

I strongly oppose the test and have argued that its introduction signifies a regression in our policy, harms aspiring citizens, diminishes us as a nation and seeks to impose a template of citizenship and national identity.

It is not the role of government to impose a top-down model of national identity for the rest of us. Government should not be manufacturing identities.

Its role should be to foster a society that allows Australian people the security, freedom and opportunity to define what they believe it means to be Australian.

In Opposition, Labor supported the legislation, but in government appointed a committee to review the test.

It is unclear what the government’s attitude towards the content of the test is, although Prime Minister Rudd did give an indication earlier this year when he said that: ‘The concept and direction is right…..we just want to make sure all the details are right for the future. I think the Don is safe.’

The citizenship test review committee reported to the Government in August, but its report has not been published and the government has not indicated its likely response.

There is once again a Parliamentary Secretary for Multicultural Affairs.

But if you look at the Department of Immigration and Citizenship’s website the page headed ‘the current policy’ says: ‘This section of the website is currently being updated.’

And has done so since the government came into office.

The reality is that the Rudd Government’s approach to multiculturalism remains opaque.

WHERE TO NOW?

The reality of our diversity is as inescapable now as it has ever been.

Racist violence does occur but it is not indicative of the state of relations between Australians of different backgrounds.

The events in Cronulla in 2005 were exceptional, a product of specific circumstances of time and place.

The Human Rights Commission and other bodies have documented religious and racial prejudice and discrimination which adversely affect the wellbeing of the individuals and groups who are targeted.

Arab and Muslim Australians have been particularly affected over the last decade.

Racial and religious intolerance is a blight we must address as we do other social problems but we have to put its incidence into perspective.

The evidence suggests that there is much interaction between people of different backgrounds and that these interactions are by and large harmonious.

The overall integration of people from different nationalities, into the wider Australian community is evidence of the success of a multicultural policy that was about greater choice rather than coercion.

Migrants and their children have not been trapped in ghettoes, cut off socially and economically from the mainstream.

They have been influenced by - and have themselves influenced - the society at large. Implications for government and legislators

What governmental and broader political action is needed to regain lost ground and continue along the path that was so productive?

(1) Renewed political imprimatur

It’s time for a reaffirmation by our political leaders of a commitment to non-discrimination in immigration and multiculturalism domestically.

This is of primary importance symbolically. There needs to be a commitment to promote a standard of accountability for the delivery of policies that ensure and promote the values of multiculturalism.

Other jurisdictions in Australia and overseas have various forms of political affirmation that might be considered. These include legislative instruments, such as Canada’s Multiculturalism Act enacted in 1988; and Victorian legislation enacted in 2004.

(2) Ensure people of all backgrounds have effective and equitable access to key programs and services

Equality of opportunity was affirmed by Mr Fraser as a central tenet of Australian multiculturalism.

Successive governments have committed to the principle and funded assorted measures to assist migrants – in particular the most vulnerable such as refugees and non-English speakers.

Equality of opportunity is a principle we have far from achieved and whose realisation will always require ongoing efforts.

The Rudd Government has a social inclusion agenda and has established a Social Inclusion Board. The terms of reference of the Board are extremely vague and make no mention of multiculturalism, or disadvantage experienced by migrants and refugees.

I believe that the Government should establish an independent statutory body that addresses issues of multiculturalism and migrants and refugees, and that has a strong mandate to rigorous research, monitoring, reporting and advising.

Almost forty years of experience with departments has persuaded me that the body should report to the Prime Minister.

(3) Media – Ensuring the media is responsive to our multicultural society

SBS - the Special Broadcasting Service - was established 30 years ago because the ABC and commercial services largely ignored the particular needs and interests of many Australians.

Its aims were not only to address the major gaps in provision for people of non-English speaking backgrounds but also to promote understanding of cultural, linguistic and ethnic diversity.

I think SBS has done some terrific projects, relating to Australians of all backgrounds, indigenous and non-indigenous.

The manner in which we have made multiculturalism part of the character of our national broadcasting is a uniquely Australian achievement.

But I am mindful that many who should be among its staunchest supporters feel concerned at how its $180 million annual budget is spent.

I share these reservations.

I don’t begrudge the pleasure many viewers get from shows like Top Gear and South Park.

But where, for example, is the investment in programming to encourage and facilitate the learning of English?

The purposes for which the Service was established remain relevant to our evolving multicultural society.

I believe that we need an independent and comprehensive review of how successfully SBS is meeting its intended purposes of the furtherance of English and language learning, the facilitation of settlement, the right to maintain a cultural identity and the promotion of mutual understanding between diverse communities.

It needs to report on how those purposes can be pursued most effectively in a dramatically new digital media environment, where entertainment and information are transmitted over the internet, MP3 players and DVDs as well as TV and radio.

(4) Religious diversity

Finally, we need to address our concerns about accommodating religious diversity by drawing on the lessons of how we dealt with this issue in the past.

One concern is the perceived conflict between obedience to laws enacted by parliament and the dictates of religion.

A colleague, Senator Brett Mason, recently described a suggestion by some of Muslim faith that Australian law be amended to permit polygamy as: ‘the thin end of the wedge in the creeping campaign to introduce Islamic jurisprudence into our legal system.’

Senator Mason warned: ‘A nation with two legal systems, reflecting conflicting social and political philosophies, is a house divided and, as history shows, it cannot stand.’

In his view, it was an instance of “mushy multiculturalism” which could weaken traditional national values to the point of collapse.

Let me make it clear, respect for the rule of law enacted by parliament has always been a non-negotiable and central tenet of the policy of multiculturalism.

For the most part, the laws or ethical systems of Islam and of other faiths dictate behavioural standards that sit quite readily within or alongside the framework of civil law.

As one Muslim commentator has observed: ‘for some 300,000 Australian Muslims, Sharia represents little more than ethics (including honesty and enterprise) and liturgy (how to perform prayers, weddings and funerals.)’

But even were Muslim Australians to ask the parliament to consider elements of their faith in framing laws, this would not represent an unprecedented challenge to our law and our society.

On occasion, Australian legislators have dealt with such situations by making provision within the law for conduct in accordance with religious dictates.

A number of long-standing federal laws contain provisions which accommodate conscientiously-held views, whether specifically faith based or secular as well.

For instance: exemptions from liability for military service in time of war and exemptions from compliance with sex discrimination legislation – no female priests or rabbis or imams imposed by law

I emphasise on occasion.

Victoria and other jurisdictions long ago legislated that parents who believe blood transfusions infringe their faith do not have right to deny this treatment for their children in life-threatening situations.

The Victorian Parliament is considering a law requiring doctors who have a conscientious objection to abortion to refer women to other providers; strong requests to drop this provision have come from people of Catholic faith.

The second concern is with regard to faith-based schools, which some commentators argue represent a threat to secular, liberal democracy and promotes separatism.

Former Age editor Michael Gawenda has recently suggested that it was ironic that John Howard was determined to roll back multiculturalism but was inadvertently its great champion through the government’s strong financial support for faith-based schools.

It’s not always clear whether those concerned about this policy are suggesting that faith-based schools should not receive public funding or that they should be prohibited.

Either measure is highly problematic from a number of perspectives.

We’ve gone down the path of no state aid to private schools.

It resulted in a three-tier education system – the wealthy independent sector, some of which was strongly faith-based; the secular state system; and poor mainly Catholic schools. It was highly inequitable.

Reverting to that policy strikes me as a recipe for greater division.

In Australia, schools of all types, governmental and private, faith-based and secular, are required to comply with certain rules.

In Victoria, for instance, schools must support and promote the principles and practice of Australian democracy, including a commitment to—

(a) elected Government;

(b) the rule of law;

(c) equal rights for all before the law;

(d) freedom of religion;

(e) freedom of speech and association; and

(f) the values of openness and tolerance.

I think the policy framework is right, and we need to focus our efforts on ensuring all schools – public, faith-based and independent – effectively support the principles and practice of our democracy.

Jesuit priest and author, Father Frank Brennan said religious citizens are at liberty to agitate for law and policy inspired by their faith but that public officials should: ‘Reject those claims which, if implemented, would result in an interference of the basic rights and liberties of citizens who do not share the religious viewpoint. They should also reject those claims if their implementation would run counter to the contemporary social values of equality, tolerance, compassion and dignity for all people at all stages of the life cycle.’

I think he is right.

In a democracy, people have the right to advocate their view of what public policy should be, whether their views about the right course of action are based on religious or secular ethical foundations.

The politician’s job is to consider and assess those views on their merits, including the impact on all members of the community.

The challenge is in the implementation

CONCLUSION

Almost 30 years ago, when I was director of the Institute of Multicultural Affairs, people asked me whether I had a vision of a multicultural Australia in 2000.

I said that I hoped it would be a society where, within a framework of key shared values, people had the opportunity to choose who they wanted to be.

If they wanted to maintain elements of the culture of their origins that do not violate Australian laws, they should be able to do so.

If they wanted to speak and read the language of their origin, as well as learning English, they should be able to do so.

And if they wanted to adopt everything iconically Aussie, and forget about everything else, that was fine too.

This is the logic of the policy of multiculturalism.

For government, the key premise was that confecting or promoting a specific national identity was beyond the state’s proper duties and competence.

Rather, its role was to foster the development of an environment in which people have a reasonable opportunity to define who they are and wish to be.

With regard to the community, the foundation of multiculturalism was confidence that the capacity of Australian society to accommodate diversity was far greater than many believed.

That fears that the nation would divide did not come to fruition is a testament to our ability to embrace diversity.

We regressed over the last decade but not because the vision was flawed or outdated.

Our society has changed greatly in the decades succeeding the initial implementation of multicultural policies and non-discriminatory immigration policies, but the principles mapped then endure.

It’s a message that those who walk the corridors of power in Canberra need to be reminded of – loudly and persistently.

I hope you will join me in doing that.

Clare Martin condemns NT intervention

2008-10-17T00:00:00Z

Last year's federal intervention in the Northern Territory was a blatant political exercise that shocked Territorians and wrongly painted all Aborigines as dysfunctional, former chief minister Clare Martin said yesterday.

In her strongest comments since she stepped down last year, Ms Martin said the intervention was confronting, done without consultation, ignored territory Government views, and cost a third of its budget while duplicating work it was already doing.

In a public conversation with Melbourne Anglican Archbishop Philip Freier and Aboriginal academic Marcia Langton at Federation Square yesterday, Ms Martin said: "Although the issues were important, the way the intervention was done was blatantly political. Alexander Downer (a senior Coalition minister) admitted shamelessly the day after the election that it was an attempt to lift the polls that failed. He was absolutely brutal about it."

She said after the intervention failed to bring a lift in the polls, the Coalition tried hospitals in Tasmania, then Queensland ports. Labour premiers used to discuss who would be next.

"One of the things that drove me crazy about the intervention is that it's painted one picture of dysfunctional communities. One leader said to me, it looks as though we are all drunk, all beat our kids, are all hopeless. That is not the case."

Professor Langton, chair of indigenous studies at Melbourne University, said the wider Australian community, in trying to avoid racism, in fact perpetrated it with a reluctance to criticise Aboriginal behaviour that would not be tolerated elsewhere.

"Most people have such low expectations of Aborigines, it is really soft bigotry. They are inured to the Aboriginal condition. They think it is normal for them to be sick, drunk and unemployed," she said.

She also attacked Australian governments as "recalcitrant" in tackling alcohol abuse in Aboriginal communities. They would not restrict alcohol because too many people were making too much money supplying it and because the tourism sector and white community would not accept restrictions, she said.

"I don't believe the intervention was entirely a cynical political exercise," she said. "What Aboriginal communities deserve more than anything is law and order, a decent night's sleep, peace and safety for the children."

Before the intervention, Ms Martin said she felt she had a constructive relationship with then prime minister John Howard. They had discussed Aboriginal disadvantage, and he had congratulated her publicly.

She said the automatic quarantining of welfare payments should stop because it caused great hardship. If people were not spending welfare money properly, the quarantine should apply as much in suburban Melbourne as in remote Aboriginal communities.

Each health check on Aborigines under 16 cost $600, only to discover that the main problems were hearing difficulties and dental health, which the territory Government already knew, she said.

'They didn't want to talk to us about the information we had. We had nurses in the bush and hundreds of files."

Ms Martin said the intervention health funding was only for a year, "but you can't come in, stabilise, normalise and exit. Children with hearing problems will need attention from specialists for a long time. It's hard to get that in rural Australia, in remote Australia it's even tougher."

The Rudd Government has ordered a review of the intervention, headed by Aboriginal leader Peter Yu, which is due to report this month.

Legally correct but morally reprehensible

2008-10-17T00:00:00Z

Five years ago I began my term as the President of the Australian Human Rights Commission, confident in the ability of the common law and a robust democracy to protect human rights. I leave convinced we need a major legal and cultural overhaul in order to deal with the human rights challenges of the 21st century.

I have spent almost a half a century in the legal profession and over a decade on the bench of the Federal Court.

It is no secret that the mandatory detention regime caused deep discomfort in parts of the federal court judiciary. In 2003, I held that the detention of Mr Al Kateb - a stateless Palestinian man locked in immigration detention - was lawful despite evidence that there with no foreseeable end to his detention. Ultimately, the High Court confirmed that nothing in the Migration Act or the Constitution prevented indefinite detention.

As a judge, I was not asked to understand the emotional trauma of the detainees that appeared before the court. I did not know the conditions in which asylum seekers were detained - nor did I ask. Although international law prohibits inhumane and arbitrary detention, Australian law does not.

The results are troubling. As a judge, I felt the decision at which I arrived was both legally correct and morally reprehensible.

As President of the Commission, I was repeatedly confronted with the sorts of human rights problems I did not see sitting in a Court building. I stood in the Management Security Unit at Villawood Immigration Detention Centre - a small, bleak space where long idle hours corrode the mental health of detainees. At Baxter I saw children - the same age as my own - and witnessed in their disturbed manner the profound damage wrought by long-term detention.

It is sometimes said that the best human rights protection is the fair-mindedness of the Australian people. Without doubting the capacity of Australians for compassion, the absence of legal remedies means that human rights abuses are not always made public. Many minds had already disintegrated in long-term detention before the story of Cornelia Rau hit the front page.

I suspect the reality is that members of the judiciary, like people on the street, have little occasion to engage face to face with the human rights problems faced by their fellow Australians.

When I was a judge, although I sometimes had doubts about the laws I was required to apply, I did what many people do and placed my faith in Parliament to correct the harshness of the law.

At the Commission I soon realised my faith in current parliamentary processes to protect basic rights was naïve. We frequently scrutinised the human rights compatibility of new bills. As the President, I saw major legislation - including counter-terrorisms bills and the package of bills to enable the Northern Territory intervention - rushed through Parliament with grossly inadequate consideration of the impact of these laws on basic rights.

In 2005, I warned new counter-terrorism laws were in danger of reflecting a police state where sweeping police powers were immune from effective challenge. While there was a need to introduce new laws to deal with the threat of terrorism, some new offences and powers were so broad in scope, they almost invited abuse. The potential of these laws to be misapplied in ways that ruin reputations and trample on basic rights was confirmed last year by the arrest and detention of Dr Haneef.

Now, after five years at the Commission, I can no longer in good conscience support the familiar refrain that rights are best protected by the common law and parliament.

What I would like to see is a new approach to making law and policy that doesn’t ignore the human rights picture. I would like to see the legislature focus on solving existing human rights problems and preventing human rights problems from happening in the future.

The federal Government has proposed to hold a public consultation about how best to protect human rights and freedoms in Australia. I believe it should be welcomed for one simple reason. In a country where every night more than 100,000 people are homeless, and Indigenous Australians still die 17 years earlier than their non-Indigenous counterparts, we can and should do better.

I am now convinced that the best way to ensure that all three arms of government - the executive, the legislature and the judiciary - take care when they make decisions that impact on basic human rights is to introduce a statutory charter of rights. As a Federal Court judge, I did not see the need.

The old argument that the current system is working well just does not stand up.

Opponents of a charter should spend less time glossing over the inadequacies of our current arrangements and more time formulating positive proposals to better protect people for whom the enjoyment of basic rights are still out of reach.

We should not forget the children taken away and the laws that punish the kids of same-sex families. And we should not forget the damage to Australia’s international reputation that occurs when we fail to practice what we preach.

A statutory charter should not allow Courts to strike down laws that are incompatible with human rights. However, if we are serious about implementing our international obligations, we should give Courts the power to provide meaningful remedies to individuals who are victims of human rights violations.

The suggestion that these kinds of arrangements will encourage judicial activism is simply scaremongering. The interpretation of human rights by the judiciary will occur in accordance with the predictable traditions of legal reasoning.

I believe - perhaps optimistically - that the main obstacle to improving human rights protection in Australia is not a lack of care, but a lack of understanding.

If this proposed Inquiry into human rights protection can engage ordinary Australians with the kind of human rights issues that came across my desk in the last five years, the case for change might just succeed.

I wonder what happened to the ethical Israel I used to know

2008-05-19T00:00:00Z

I am glad Mark Leibler, spokesman for the Jewish Lobby, has responded to my article concerning Israel and Palestine. The arguments he brings forward are shallow and stale. His reference to Hitler, as was President Bush’s yesterday, was totally absurd. When the Lobby runs out of arguments, they attack the person. That is precisely what has happened on this occasion. Overall it demonstrates a total lack of belief in a future peace and an unwillingness to search for that peace.

He makes no mention of the boundaries of a Palestinian state. If it were the ´67 boundaries there would be no argument, but that cannot be because of Jewish settlements which continue to expand. Leibler brushes aside my reference to those settlements as trivial but, in recent times, Condoleeza Rice, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, European Union’s Foreign Policy Chief Xavier Solana, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Germany have all expressed concern at Jewish actions. Ban Ki-Moon said that Jewish actions were “contrary to Israel’s obligations”. Sarkozy “deplored”; Germany “condemned”. I am in good company in being concerned. It is a major obstacle to peace which Leibler refuses to recognise.

His reference to Gaza is inaccurate. It was a unilateral action which had much more to do with demography than it did to finding a solution to the problem. It was a necessary act for Israel to preserve a Jewish majority in Israel itself.

He brushes aside the arguments about the IRA as “inappropriate”. He does not mention the discussions between the United States and the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was committed to the destruction of democracy and to the death of America, but America would sit down and negotiate with that same power to see if there could be areas of agreement. There were and, little by little, the world became safer.

That example by all previous American Presidents, with courage to talk with one’s enemy, remains an essential pre-requisite in the current situation. That was recognised in the Baker-Hamilton Report on Iraq last year.

Leibler shows no concern for the great number of Palestinians killed. Israel’s answer has indeed been disproportionate and heavy handed. He justifies Israeli action by saying that it must be examined in “context”. This is why many people’s attitude to Israel has changed. It has abandoned the ethical approach so evident in earlier days.

The attitudes depicted in this response will result in continued conflict, continued warfare, continued terrorism. It is time Israel and America learnt that if a country has confidence in itself, in the justice of its objectives, talking with people involves no risk. It does not mean that you agree to something contrary to your principles or to your own fundamental security but it is an essential tool in the search for peace. Failure to talk represents lack of confidence, lack of conviction and a weakness that can have tragic consequences.

I know there are members of the Jewish community in Australia who do not agree with the views vehemently expressed by the Lobby but they are deterred, by one means of another from entering the debate. It would be an important advance if they were able to find a voice and debate these issues. They are too important to allow the usual spokesman free rein.

Hard-nosed leader goes soft on Hamas

2008-05-19T00:00:00Z

Malcolm Fraser's opinion piece in last Saturday's Age was marred by contradictions, factual errors and a naivete about world events inconsistent with the hard-nosed, realistic prime minister I knew in the 1970s and '80s.

Mr Fraser implied that the problem in the Middle East is principally Israeli settlement building, and the main solution is direct Israeli talks with Hamas.

Yet Israel is not building any new West Bank settlements, and has not for many years. The current controversy involves a few hundred apartments within a few existing settlements, taking no additional land. It is absurd to see these few homes as the principal roadblock. After all, Israel withdrew all settlements from Gaza in 2005 and has been rewarded with rocket attacks.

Meanwhile, Fraser argues, negotiating with Hamas would provide them with "an alternative to violence". However, an alternative offering a seat at the diplomatic table has long been available, but rejected by Hamas leaders.

Fraser implies that because Hamas won a plurality in the 2006 election, it must be treated as a negotiating partner. However, Hamas' democratic credentials were hardly boosted by its violent Gaza coup last year — the result of long-standing internal Palestinian rivalries, not, as Fraser claims, something that Israel and the US somehow forced Hamas into.

More importantly, the diplomatic boycott imposed by the vast majority of the international community — including the UN and EU, not just America and Israel — was not against Hamas per se, but against its policies. Hamas insists on acting as a terrorist organisation eternally at war with Israel. Thus it is treated as one. Hitler also took power democratically. Should we therefore have let him invade Poland and murder Europe's Jews?

Israel and the international community have made it clear they are prepared to engage with Hamas if it renounces terrorism and recognises Israel's right to exist and previous Israeli-Palestinian peace agreements.

In government, Fraser fully supported a comparable Western policy opposing direct engagement with the Palestine Liberation Organisation until it met similar minimum conditions.

Parallels with Northern Ireland are nonsensical because the IRA never sought to destroy Britain, as Hamas explicitly does Israel, and forswore terrorism for a place in negotiations.

Fraser accuses Israel's supporters of not believing Hamas. On the contrary, we do believe its charter and its ongoing statements regarding its genocidal plans for Israel — backed materially by an Iran that also wants to "wipe Israel off the map". Its violent actions prove they are not mere rhetoric.

Indeed, Hamas rejects direct negotiation with Israel. It only says it might support an agreement with Israel negotiated by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas if approved by a referendum involving Palestinians worldwide. Further, Hamas leaders add that such arrangements must only be "transitional" (presumably, pending Israel's destruction) and do not necessarily promise to abide by the agreement. How is this helpful?

Hamas' proposed "ceasefire" is widely recognised, based on the statements of Hamas leaders, as a ploy to gain time to consolidate its Islamic dictatorship and military power in Gaza. Why would Israel agree to such a ceasefire if its terms simply allow Hamas to position itself for more effective and "efficient" terrorism later?

Mr Fraser implies that Israel has lost the moral high ground because more Palestinians than Israelis have died in the conflict in recent years.

But this numerical difference is entirely a matter of capability. Hamas is trying to kill as many Israeli civilians as possible — children, women, the elderly — limited only by Israel's largely successful countermeasures.

Israel only targets those waging war on Israeli civilians and soldiers. It isn't easy because Palestinian terrorists illegally shelter among the Palestinian populace, leading to occasional regrettable civilian casualties.

This calculus whereby one simply counts the dead without context implies that when Hamas fires rockets into Israel's civilian towns, destroys people's homes, makes normal daily life impossible and causes injuries — but doesn't actually kill anyone — Israel should not shoot back at the rocket teams. It might unbalance the "score"! Under this ridiculous approach, why would Hamas ever stop firing rockets at Israel?

The way forward, of course, is to persuade Palestinian extremists that violence, suicide terror and rocket attacks are counter-productive, and to support a two-state solution. The Howard government recognised this, the Rudd Government recognises this, and the bipartisan parliamentary motion saluting Israel's 60th anniversary in March explicitly called for this outcome. But they also recognise something else which should not be obscured in the name of "even-handedness" — Israel offered a two-state solution in 1948, at Oslo in 1993, at Camp David in 2000 and at Annapolis last year. Moreover, polls consistently show that Israeli public opinion overwhelmingly supports this goal. Right now, the Olmert Government and the democratically elected Mahmoud Abbas are negotiating a "framework agreement" outlining such a resolution.

There is no indication that this goal will be achieved by engaging with or appeasing Hamas before it meets the sensible conditions set by the international community. Worse, every attempt to engage and legitimise Hamas makes it more difficult for Abbas to make the compromises needed for a genuine peace.

To move forward, Hamas must adopt the conditions set by the international community, or else be marginalised in Palestinian society. Achieving either will require enormous patience, toughness and realism, qualities the Malcolm Fraser I used to know always exhibited. I wonder what happened to him.