Australia faces damaging consequences with global warming

Bell tolls down under on warming
Peter Wilson, Europe correspondent
October 31, 2006

AUSTRALIA has been identified by the Stern report as one of the most vulnerable countries in the developed world to the economic and social impacts of global warming.

While wealthy countries are better placed than poorer nations to cope with the massive changes to be wrought by climate change, that burden will not be spread evenly, the report warns, and Australia faces a tougher time than many northern nations.

The impacts will become more damaging from north to south, the report warns, citing more extreme weather changes, more severe bushfires, droughts and water shortages, damage to Australia's tourism industry and the potential devastation of vast areas of farming.

Big cities such as Sydney and Brisbane could also face new perils from tropical diseases which have previously been limited to less populated zones, the report says.

A rise of 4C in average temperatures could knock entire Australian farming regions out of production, with Western Australia cited as one vulnerable region.

"Australia, as the world's driest continent, is particularly vulnerable to the impact of rising sea temperatures on the major Pacific and Indian ocean currents. These determine both overall rainfall patterns and unpredictable year-to-year variations," says the report by former World Bank chief economist Nicholas Stern.

"Over the last 30 years, stronger tropical typhoons have brought higher storm damage, but increased rainfall, to a wide swath of North West Australia.

"At the same time, the east coast – home to over 70 per cent of the population and location for most major cities and crop farming – has suffered longer droughts and declining rainfall. Southerly regions have lost most rainfall as the warmer ocean and related air currents have pushed rain further south.

"The 2002 drought cut farm output by 30 per cent and shaved 1.6 per cent off GDP. Water supply to big cities will become more difficult – Melbourne's could fall by 7 to 35 per cent with only 2C of warming.

"Drier and hotter summers threaten the survival of the Queensland rain forest. Warmer winters and reduced snowfall, endanger the habitat of mountain top fauna and flora. Rising ocean temperatures threaten the future of Australia's coral reefs and the fishing and tourist industries.

"Higher inland temperatures are likely to cause more bush fires. Tropical diseases are spreading southward as the north becomes wetter. The dengue fever transmission zone could reach Brisbane and possibly Sydney with 3C of warming."

Looking at the broad economic impact of climate change, the report concluded that there could be a broad northward shift in economic activity and population in regions such as the North America or Europe, as southern regions begin to suffer disproportionate increases in risks to human health and extreme events, coupled with loss of competitiveness in agriculture and forestry, reduced water availability and rising energy costs.

"'Low levels of warming in mid to high latitudes – US, Europe, Australia, Siberia and some parts of China – may improve the conditions for crop growth by extending the growing season and/or opening up new areas for agriculture.

"Further warming will have increasingly negative impacts as damaging temperature thresholds are reached more often and water shortages limit growth in regions such as southern Europe and western US.

"At temperature rises above three degrees, large parts of the world (will) become too hot or too dry for agricultural production, such as parts of Africa and even Western Australia.

"By 4C, entire regions may be too hot and dry to grow crops, including parts of Australia. Agricultural collapse across large areas of the world is possible at even higher temperatures (5C or 6C) but clear empirical evidence is still limited.

"In many lower latitude regions, such as southern Europe, western USA, and Western Australia, increasing water shortages in regions where water is already scarce are likely to limit the carbon fertilisation effect and lead to substantial declines in crop yields.

"In Australia, winter rainfall in the southwest and southeast is likely to decrease significantly, as storm tracks shift polewards and away from the continent itself. River flows in NSW, including those supplying Sydney, have been predicted to drop by 15 per cent for a 1C to 2C rise in temperature.

"If flood management is strengthened in line with the rising risk, the costs may only increase twofold.

"The cooler climates of many developed countries mean that small increases in temperature (2C or 3C) may increase economic output through greater agricultural productivity, reduced winter heating bills and fewer winter deaths. But at the same time, many developed regions have existing water shortages that will be exacerbated by rising temperatures that increase evaporation and dry out land that is already dry (southern Europe, California, southwest Australia).

Australia's position as a major coal exporter will require sustained investment in technologies to reduce emissions from the burning of coal, which, in turn, will require predictable and far-sighted government policies, the report says.

To read the original article from The Australian, click on:
The Australian

Sally Lilienthal, Peace Activist, dies

Peace Activist Dies at 87

Monday October 30, 2006 2:46 AM

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - Sally Lilienthal, a staunch nuclear weapons opponent who founded the influential Ploughshares Fund to help shape the Cold War disarmament agenda, has died. She was 87.

Lilienthal, who was also known for her activism and ubiquitous presence in San Francisco high society, died Tuesday of a bone infection that led to pneumonia, said Naila Bolus, executive director of the fund.

Lilienthal founded the Ploughshares Fund in 1981. Since then, the organization has given away than $40 million in grants to promote peace, including the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, which won the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize.

Lilienthal was born in Portland, Ore., in 1919. She graduated from Sarah Lawrence College with a degree in English in 1940 and worked for the U.S. Office of War Information in Washington, D.C., before moving to San Francisco.

She worked as a sculptor and as an advocate for minority employment rights before finding her passion in working to quell the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

"The possibility of a nuclear war was the very worst problem in the world, I thought, and I just felt I had to do something about it," Lilienthal told the San Francisco Chronicle in 1996.

To read the original article from The Guardian, click on:
The Guardian

Imagination bringing hope

Beyond Denial and Despair
Copyright © 2006 - Eco-Justice Ministries


There is a familiar story in Matthew, Mark and Luke about a rich young ruler who came to talk with Jesus. He's a perfect example of what many of us are facing today.

This earnest young man asks, "Tell me, Jesus, what do I have to do?" The first answer from Jesus is routine: follow the law and the commandments. "Aha!" says the young man. "I've done that all my life."

Well, then, says Jesus, give all of your wealth to the poor.

The young man despairs when he hears this new and challenging instruction. He walks away, because he can't imagine -- literally cannot imagine -- living without his wealth. This rich young man was not able to conceive of himself as a poor young man. So he despaired, and walked away from the salvation he desired.


+ + + + +

An Inconvenient Truth has been shown in thousands of US congregations in the last month. In that film, Al Gore explains the science of global warming -- the truth of what is happening now, and what is likely to happen soon. He asks us to break out of ignorance and denial, and accept this frightening new reality. But all of that science is background.

The core of the movie is where Mr. Gore talks about climate change as a moral issue. He calls us to consider the choices that we must make about how to live in relation to the global community of life. He's absolutely right about the need to raise these moral questions. That is why it is so appropriate that the topic is being addressed in churches. But raising the right moral questions doesn't mean we'll do the right things.

Mr. Gore also speaks about despair. He laments that so many people, when brought face-to-face with the reality of global climate change, move quickly from denial to despair. They ignore the possibility of acting. They don't attempt personal and societal changes.

The story of the rich young man explains that jump into despair. The Bible story opens fresh understandings about what is needed if we are to address this global catastrophe.

The man in the Bible story was given a moral choice, and had clear instructions about a specific action that he could take to live out his decisions. But he still despaired. Yes, giving people a list of things to do, a set of instructions about how to act on moral choices, is important. Those practical steps, though, may not be enough.

The things that we need to do about global warming are big and difficult. Despite the upbeat list at the end of the film of steps about the steps which can be taken, making significant reductions in our carbon emissions will be a huge shock to our economy and to our culture. We have an extensive and practical list of things that will cut greenhouse gasses. For many people, though -- whether leaders of business and politics, or folk on the street and in the pew -- that depth of change is the cause for our despair.

Like the man in the Bible, many of us cannot imagine -- literally cannot imagine -- living without the comfort and wealth and privilege that we get from consuming vast quantities of fossil fuels. We find it almost inconceivable that another way of living is possible, let alone desirable.

We're not bad people. Like the rich young ruler, we want to be good and responsible. We're more than happy to do the basics -- to change some light bulbs, insulate the attic, nudge the thermostat by a couple of degrees.

But the US needs to cut its carbon emissions by 30%, or 50%, or 80%, and that's very hard. We need to structure our lives and our society in ways that won't look very much like what we know and love. To make real and significant cuts in our carbon emissions means that we have to stop being who we think we are. And because we literally cannot imagine that it is possible to live differently, many people despair of healing the climate.

This is where I think churches are important. Our moral expertise isn't needed to declare the ethical no-brainer that cooking the planet is wrong. What we can and must do is take a message to our members, our neighbors, and our leaders that it is possible for us to live in a different way. We can proclaim the good news that it really is possible to live fulfilling, satisfying, joyous lives without poisoning the earth's climate.

I've written before about the wonderful book, The Prophetic Imagination, by Walter Brueggemann. The message of the book is that the biblical prophets not only point out what is wrong in their society, they also make real the possibility that things can be different. It is not necessary, Brueggemann says, for the prophet to spell out a detailed plan for the alternative society. Rather, the prophet simply has to help people to image that different way of living is even possible.

We need to ask not whether it is realistic or practical or viable but whether it is imaginable. We need to ask if our consciousness and imagination have been so assaulted and co-opted by the royal consciousness that we have been robbed of the courage or power to think an alternative thought.
If we can imagine that another way of living is even possible, then we don't have to jump from denial to despair. If we can imagine another way of living, we can act to make that possibility real.
Brueggemann says, "Numb people do not discern or fear death. Conversely, despairing people do not anticipate or receive newness." Denial and despair. Neither one brings hope and healing. It is imagination about dramatic new possibilities which can bring hope, and the willingness to change.

I'll write more next week about how we can engage that imagination. For the next few days, though, listen to those who have seen An Inconvenient Truth, and listen to your own heart. Hear where a lack of imagination derails a willingness to act, and hear the creative hope which opens the door to change.

Shalom!
Rev. Peter Sawtell
Executive Director, Eco-Justice Ministries

To read a discussion guide for An Inconvenient Truth or to subscribe to Eco-Justice Ministries email, click on:Eco-justice Ministries

UN landmark resolution on controlling arms sales

UN in key step to arms treaty
Correspondents in New York
October 28, 2006

A UN General Assembly panel has overwhelmingly approved a landmark resolution aimed at controlling international arms sales.

A total of 139 countries supported the resolution, which had been endorsed by 15 Nobel Peace Prize laureates, during a vote in the UN General Assembly's first committee, which deals with disarmament.

Only the US voted against it.

The vote marks the first concrete step towards a global treaty to block the trade in conventional weapons that fuels conflicts and human rights violations and undermines development.

The treaty would aim to close loopholes in legislation on arms trade.

The passage of the resolution means work on the treaty can start early next year when the incoming UN secretary-general, South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon, sounds out UN member states on establishing the foundations of the pact.

The resolution sets up a group of governmental experts to look at the feasibility, scope and parameters of an arms trade treaty and report back to the assembly's first committee in 2008.

Countries that have indicated support for the treaty include three of the top six arms exporters - Britain, France and Germany; several emerging arms exporters such as Brazil, Bulgaria and Ukraine, as well as many nations devastated by armed violence, including Colombia, East Timor, Haiti, Liberia and Rwanda.

But other key arms exporters such as the US, Russia, China, India, Iran and Egypt are unlikely to back the treaty.

"This massive vote to develop a global arms trade treaty is a historic opportunity for governments to tackle the scourge of irresponsible and immoral arms transfers," said Kate Gilmore, Amnesty International's executive deputy secretary general.

"Any credible treaty must outlaw those transfers, which fuel the systematic murder, rape, torture and expulsion of thousands of people."

In a statement released before the resolution was debated, the Nobel Peace Prize laureates, including the Dalai Lama, South African archbishop Desmond Tutu, Costa Rican President Oscar Arias and Amnesty International, pressed governments to support the treaty.

"We Nobel Peace laureates know that the main principle behind a global arms trade treaty is simple and unstoppable: no weapons should ever be transferred if they will be used for serious violations of human rights," said Irene Khan, secretary-general of Amnesty International.

"It is crunch time at the UN: governments should take a historic step to stop irresponsible and immoral arms transfers by voting to develop a treaty that will prevent the death, rape and displacement of thousands of people."

Early this month, a report backed by Amnesty International and British charity Oxfam warned that the globalisation of the arms industry had shed light on the shortcomings of legislation to control it.

The report, also supported by the International Action Network on Small Arms - an umbrella organisation of 600 private organisations - outlines how US, European and Canadian companies bypass laws regulating weapons trade by selling arms in detached pieces or by subcontracting their activities to local businesses.

AFP

To read the original article in The Australian, click on:
The Australian

Margaret Thorp - Peace Angel

Book review: ‘Peace angel’ of World War I: Dissent of Margaret Thorp
By Harry Throssell - posted Thursday, 26 October 2006

A women’s organisation in Brisbane called a meeting at the School of Arts to support the compulsory recruitment of men into the armed forces to fight in Europe. It was 1917.

Margaret Thorp, a 25-year-old Quaker pacifist, rose to reject conscription and point out the futility of this attempt to overturn a recent national referendum that had voted against compulsory army service. She didn’t get a chance. Her comments “precipitated an uproar”, a woman tried to force her out of the room, she was set upon by others, and “the gathering resolved itself into a seething mass of struggling women”.

Thorp gamely struggled on to the platform but other women surged up and knocked her down. She was rolled on the floor, kicked, punched and scratched, finally thrown out of the hall. Undeterred, she returned with a policeman who said she had a right to address a public meeting, made two more attempts to speak but was pushed out again as the national anthem chimed in above the uproar. Once more she reappeared but was still unable to get a hearing. The resolution of the Women’s Compulsory Service Petition League was carried, conscription advocates “hurling the vilest insults at the ‘antis’”. An undaunted Thorp called for three cheers for no conscription and finally withdrew from the meeting.

This lively public episode speaks volumes about these tough, sometimes dangerous political times, the fears and strong feelings of families whose menfolk were called on to join the armed forces and face the gruesome dangers of the war in Europe, just as it recalls the courage and tenacity of conscientious objectors trying to bring about the end of war (sadly as far away now as ever).

There was almost a civil war in Australia about whether men should be forced to join up or not. “Patriotic women saw it as their duty to compel all eligible men to enlist, and were encouraged to ostracise those who failed to answer their country’s call”, Hilary Summy writes. White feathers were handed out to “shirkers” as a sign of cowardice. The controversy split churches, community organisations, even families.

This historical period also sums up Thorp’s character and her dedication to causes. When asked not to make YWCA girls disloyal to King and country, she retorted her goal was “to make them supremely loyal to the Kingdom of God!”

Margaret Thorp was born in England into a Quaker family, members of the traditionally pacifist Society of Friends. She had an early introduction to extreme poverty because the family home was adjacent to a very poor district of Liverpool where her father, a physician, worked at a medical mission and where as a teenager Margaret conducted weekly discussions. She attended The Mount Quaker girls’ school at York, and later studied peacemaking at Friends’ Woodbrooke College in Birmingham.

Early experiences led Thorp to become an ardent lifelong believer in social equality and socialism, although she condemned the violence of some revolutionary movements. In an active life she joined many organisations working for peace, social justice, women’s rights, and against racism, while retaining an interest in music and living a full life, with a number of male admirers.

She was even married for a time to Arthur Watts, who at one stage worked in Russia for the Save the Children Fund but she did not share his enthusiasm for Soviet developments and after six years or so these differences forced them apart. Summy’s lively book includes a photograph of Thorp at the age of 82 in 1974 dancing the Pride of Erin at Sydney Town Hall with the Sydney Lord Mayor when she was named New South Wales Pensioner of the Year.

The Thorp family arrived in Australia in 1911 when Margaret was 19, her parents having undertaken a two-year mission to support Friends’ anti-conscription struggle here and in New Zealand.

This was a period of great social upheaval and the young woman was soon in action on equal pay for women, trade union conflicts about control of the means of production, as well as anti-war and conscription issues. It was a rough, often brutal, time. On “Black Friday”, during the Brisbane General Strike of 1912, women led by suffrage activist and anti-war advocate Emma Miller (later a close associate of Thorp and whose statue stands in Brisbane City Square today) were attacked by mounted police brandishing batons directed by the Police Commissioner himself during a procession to Parliament House.

Then came the 1914-1918 Great War and the birth of the Women’s Peace Army in 1915, not only opposed to war but also campaigning for adult suffrage, equal pay for equal work, legal equality, improved child welfare laws, better educational standards, penal and other reforms. The English activist and her colleagues had a full agenda.

In spite of attacks on her pacifism and other concerns, Thorp never lost the religious zeal that underscored her social action. A zeal which in fact often brought her into conflict, sometimes bitter, with members of the clergy whose Christian beliefs included support for war. At one stage she decided to visit all the parsons “to stir them up”.

Being pacifist did not prevent her being very forthright in defence of her commitments and she gradually earned great respect from political opponents as well as supporters during a period of much bitterness. “Existing divisions were accentuated between Catholics and Protestants, monarchical imperialists and republican nationalists, conservatives and dissenters, as well as within these groups. It also set soldiers against civilians, women against women, and sometimes even family members against family members” Summy writes. But in 1916, when she was only 24, and had been in Queensland only one year, State Home Secretary John Huxham told Thorp he “felt proud to have such a person in Queensland”.

That same year, Thorp was in Gympie with colleagues from the WPA and Australian Peace Alliance to gain support. No-one turned up for a special women’s meeting, and the Town Council refused permission to use a licensed hall for a public meeting, so they decided on an open-air gathering.

Thorp delivered her standard speech: How can peace be made permanent? As she concluded a woman shouted “you ought to be at the wash-tub!” Summy continues “When a man came to Thorp’s defence, he was quickly set upon by the woman who bashed at his head with a bag of apples”, and later Thorp heard there’d been plans to “duck” her. It would be funny if it were not so serious. The speakers were rained off but after the shower the crowd came back and gave them a good hearing. Even so the mayor warned he would instruct the police to prohibit the holding of any meeting by this delegation in future.

This is a gripping yarn about the life of a strong and committed “Peace Angel”. It’s much more than a good read, for it tells the story of aspects of social and political life in 20th century Australia of which we hear comparatively little.

There’s an interesting historical question here. Some social activists do considerable work for the public good and receive accolades, honours, statues in their honour. Others do just as much but receive scant notice. Thorp herself wrote “Who are the real national heroes? Surely they are the men and women who do the little things of life in a big way, putting their best energies and interests into their work, and whose friendship has no boundaries”.

We should be grateful Hilary Summy wrote this story of a committed, brave, feisty woman. We should also be grateful the Centre for Peace Studies chose to publish it.

There is, however, a flaw in the editing of the book.

The natural flow of the yarn, with its incidents, emotion and at times humour, is interrupted time and again by those pesky little footnote numbers in the text forcing the reader’s eye off the ball to flick down to the reference at the bottom of the page. Not occasionally, which might make them easy to ignore, but as many as half a dozen times on a page, 494 times in the total of 124 pages. This may be necessary in presenting a doctoral thesis to prove the author has done her homework but simply isn’t necessary in a work for public consumption, especially when it has an 11-page bibliography and an index of three pages.

To be fair I mentioned this point to two other former academics and a current university student and all agreed it is an irritating and unnecessary interruption. At least the footnotes could have been collected together at the end of the book but even so only a tiny proportion of readers are likely to follow them up.

And another thing. More a question. This story is about a woman committed to social equality, particularly the problems of people out there in the general community. She belonged to the Society of Friends who do not use titles, not even Mr and Mrs, and who have no clergy, no hierarchy. Their “church” is a simple, non-consecrated room with seating in a square.

Yet the launch of the book was in the hallowed halls of The Mayne Centre at Queensland University, amid the titles and icons of privilege. I suspect Margaret Thorp would not have been comfortable. Even though it might be pushing it to suggest the launch should have been in City Square round Emma Miller’s statue, would it not have been more appropriate in the Friends Meeting House, a community hall, a trade union headquarters, a welfare organisation? That is in Margaret Thorp’s workplace?

‘Peace angel’ of World War I. Dissent of Margaret Thorp by Hilary N. Summy. Published by Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, University of Queensland, 2006.

To read the original from Online Opinion, click on:
Online Opinion

Australian Citizenship Testing

AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE YOUR VIEWPOINT TO GOVERNMENT ON PROPOSED AUSTRALIAN CITIZENSHIP TESTING

Australian Citizenship: Much more than a ceremony – the discussion paper on consideration of the merits of introducing a formal test for Australian Citizenship.

As part of its consultation process, the federal government is seeking the Australian community’s views on the merits of introducing a formal citizenship test, including seeking a commitment to Australian values. Comments are particularly sought on the following questions:

1. Should Australia introduce a formal citizenship test?
2. How important is knowledge of Australia for Australian citizenship?
3. What level of English is required to participate as an Australian citizen?
4. How important is demonstrated commitment to Australia’s way of life and values for those intending to settle permanently in Australia or spend a significant period of time in Australia?

The discussion paper includes background to our current citizenship arrangements and policies, including English language tuition for new migrants and settlement services. It also discusses the key issues and examines possible parameters of testing, should it be introduced. There is also useful comparative information about the citizenship test in the UK, Canada, the Netherlands, and the USA.

Submissions close on 17 November 2006. Individuals and community groups are encouraged to provide their viewpoints.

The discussion paper can be obtained from the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs at www.citizenship.gov.au/news or by ringing 131 880 to receive a mailed copy.

Call to End the Arms Trade

Published on Tuesday, October 24, 2006 by Agence France Presse

Nobel Laureates Urge UN Arms Trade Treaty


"It is time for all wavering governments to join the moral majority and vote to set up a process to establish a global Arms Trade Treaty. The world can no longer leave civilians to the mercy of gunrunners, arms brokers and exporters who are profiting by their misery."

IANSA director Rebecca Peters


Fifteen Nobel Peace Prize laureates urged UN member states to back a draft resolution aimed at controlling international arms sales.

The draft, co-sponsored by Argentina, Australia, Britain, Costa Rica, Finland, Japan and Kenya, comes to a vote Wednesday in the UN General Assembly's First Committee, which deals with disarmament.

The Nobel laureates, including the Dalai Lama, South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Costa Rican President Oscar Arias and Amnesty International, pressed governments to support the treaty in order to stop irresponsible arms exports "which are causing the peoples of the world so much pain and destruction," said the letter released here Tuesday.

If adopted, the draft would set up a group of governmental experts to look at the feasibility, scope and parameters of an arms-trade treaty and report back to the assembly's first committee in 2008.

Most UN member states have indicated that they are prepared to back the text.

They include three of the top six arms exporters: Britain, France and Germany; several emerging arms exporters such as Brazil, Bulgaria and Ukraine as well as many countries that have been devastated by armed violence including Colombia, East Timor, Haiti, Liberia and Rwanda.

But other key arms exporters such as the United States, Russia, China, India, Iran and Egypt are unlikely to vote in favor.

If adopted, the text would mark the first concrete step toward a global treaty to close current loopholes in regulations that allow conventional weapons to fuel conflict, grave human rights violations and undermine development.

"We Nobel Peace Laureates know that the main principle behind a global Arms Trade Treaty is simple and unstoppable: no weapons should ever be transferred if they will be used for serious violations of human rights," said Irene Khan, Secretary General of Amnesty International.

"It is crunch time at the UN: governments should take a historic step to stop irresponsible and immoral arms transfers by voting to develop a treaty that will prevent the death, rape and displacement of thousands of people," she added.

Early this month, a report backed by Amnesty International and Oxfam warned that the globalization of the arms industry has shed light on the shortcomings of existing legislation to control it.

The report, also supported by the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) -- an umbrella organization of 600 NGOs -- outlines how US, European and Canadian companies bypass laws regulating weapons trade by selling arms in detached pieces or by subcontracting their activities to local businesses.

"It is time for all wavering governments to join the moral majority and vote to set up a process to establish a global Arms Trade Treaty," said IANSA director Rebecca Peters.

"The world can no longer leave civilians to the mercy of gunrunners, arms brokers and exporters who are profiting by their misery."

© Copyright 2006 AFP

To read the original article from Agence France Presse, reprinted by Common Dreams, click on:
Common Dreams

Howard Zinn on War

To be published in the November 2006 issue of The Progressive

Why War Fails
by Howard Zinn

I suggest there is something important to be learned from the recent experience of the United States and Israel in the Middle East: that massive military attacks are not only morally reprehensible but useless in achieving the stated aims of those who carry them out.

In the three years of the Iraq War, which began with shock-and-awe bombardment and goes on with day-to-day violence and chaos, the United States has failed utterly in its claimed objective of bringing democracy and stability to Iraq. American soldiers and civilians, fearful of going into the neighborhoods of Baghdad, are huddled inside the Green Zone, where the largest embassy in the world is being built, covering 104 acres and closed off from the world outside its walls.

I remember John Hersey's novel The War Lover, in which a macho American pilot, who loves to drop bombs on people, and also to boast about his sexual conquests, turns out to be impotent. George Bush, strutting in his flight jacket on an aircraft carrier, and announcing victory in Iraq, has turned out to be an embodiment of the Hersey character, his words equally boastful, his military machine equally impotent.

The Israeli invasion and bombing of Lebanon has not brought security to Israel. Indeed, it has increased the number of its enemies, whether in Hezbollah or Hamas, or among Arabs who belong to neither of those groups.

That failure of massive force goes so deep into history that Israeli leaders must have been extraordinarily obtuse, or blindly fanatic, to miss it. The memory is not lost to Professor Ze'ev Maoz at Tel Aviv University, writing recently in the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz about a previous Israeli invasion of Lebanon: "Approximately 14,000 civilians were killed between June and September of 1982, according to a conservative estimate." The result, aside from the physical and human devastation, was the rise of Hezbollah, whose rockets provoked another desperate exercise of massive force.

The history of wars fought since the end of World War II reveals the futility of large-scale violence. The United States and the Soviet Union, despite their enormous firepower, were unable to defeat resistance movements in small, weak nations. Even though the United States dropped more bombs in the Vietnam War than in all of World War II, it was still forced to withdraw. The Soviet Union, trying for a decade to conquer Afghanistan, in a war that caused a million deaths, became bogged down and also finally withdrew.

Even the supposed triumphs of great military powers turn out to be elusive. After attacking and invading Afghanistan, President Bush boasted that the Taliban were defeated. But five years later, Afghanistan is rife with violence, and the Taliban are active in much of the country. Last May, there were riots in Kabul, after a runaway American military truck killed five Afghans. When U.S. soldiers fired into the crowd, four more people were killed.

After the brief, apparently victorious war against Iraq in 1991, George Bush Sr. declared (in a moment of rare eloquence): "The specter of Vietnam has been buried forever in the desert sands of the Arabian peninsula." Those sands are bloody once more.

The same George Bush presided over the military attack on Panama in 1989, which killed thousands and destroyed entire neighborhoods, justified by the "war on drugs." Another victory, but in a few years, the drug trade in Panama was thriving as before.

The nations of Eastern Europe, despite Soviet occupation, developed resistance movements that eventually compelled the Soviet military to leave. The United States, which had its way in Latin America for a hundred years, has been unable, despite a long history of military interventions, to control events in Cuba, or Venezuela, or Brazil, or Bolivia.

Overwhelming Israeli military power, while occupying the West Bank and Gaza, has not been able to stop the resistance movement of Palestinians. Israel has not made itself more secure by its continued use of massive force. The United States, despite two successive wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan, is not more secure.

More important than the futility of armed force, and ultimately more important, is the fact that war in our time always results in the indiscriminate killing of large numbers of people. To put it more bluntly, war is terrorism. That is why a "war on terrorism" is a contradiction in terms.

The repeated excuse for war, and its toll on civilians-and this has been uttered by Pentagon spokespersons as well as by Israeli officials-is that terrorists hide among civilians. Therefore the killing of innocent people (in Iraq, in Lebanon) is "accidental" whereas the deaths caused by terrorists (9/11, Hezbollah rockets) are deliberate.

This is a false distinction. If a bomb is deliberately dropped on a house or a vehicle on the ground that a "suspected terrorist" is inside (note the frequent use of the word "suspected" as evidence of the uncertainty surrounding targets), it is argued that the resulting deaths of women and children is not intended, therefore "accidental." The deaths of innocent people in bombing may not be intentional. Neither are they accidental. The proper description is "inevitable."

So if an action will inevitably kill innocent people, it is as immoral as a "deliberate" attack on civilians. And when you consider that the number of people dying inevitably in "accidental" events has been far greater than all the deaths of innocent people deliberately caused by terrorists, one must reconsider the morality of war, any war in our time.

It is a supreme irony that the "war on terrorism" has brought a higher death toll among innocent civilians than the hijackings of 9/11, which killed up to 3,000 people. The United States reacted to 9/11 by invading and bombing Afghanistan. In that operation, at least 3,000 civilians were killed, and hundreds of thousands were forced to flee their homes and villages, terrorized by what was supposed to be a war on terror. Bush's Iraq War, which he keeps linking to the "war on terror," has killed between 40,000 and 140,000 civilians.

More than a million civilians in Vietnam were killed by U.S. bombs, presumably by "accident." Add up all the terrorist attacks throughout the world in the twentieth century and they do not equal that awful toll.

If reacting to terrorist attacks by war is inevitably immoral, then we must look for ways other than war to end terrorism.

And if military retaliation for terrorism is not only immoral but futile, then political leaders, however cold-blooded their calculations, must reconsider their policies. When such practical considerations are joined to a rising popular revulsion against war, perhaps the long era of mass murder may be brought to an end.

Howard Zinn is the co-author, with Anthony Arnove, of "Voices of a People's History of the United States."

To read the original article on Common Dreams, click on:
Common Dreams

Centre for Dialogue International Conference

The Politics of Empire and the Culture of Dialogue – Intellectual and Organisational Signposts for the Future

La Trobe University Centre for Dialogue, Bundoora Campus will host an international conference on Tuesday – Wednesday 12 – 13 December 2006. Speakers will include: Prof Ashis Nandy, Dr Chandra Muzaffar, Prof Majid Tehranian, Prof Wayne Hudson, Prof Gary D. Bouma, Dr Philip Darby, Dr Fabio Petito, Prof Desmond Cahill, Prof Manfred Steger, Prof Toh Swee-Hin, Dr Richard Shapcott, Prof Joseph Camilleri, Prof Zhang Longxi, Prof Jon Goldberg-Hiller and Dr Michael T. Seigel. For more information email: dialogue@latrobe.edu.au or phone (03) 9479 1893

Environmental Refugees

Climate refugees here by 2016
Steve Lewis, Nadi, Fiji
October 24, 2006

AUSTRALIA has been warned it may face a flood of environmental refugees within a decade as the Pacific's smallest island states face submersion under rising seas.
The alarmist message was issued by Kiribati's leader, Anote Tong, as fellow leaders of endangered nations gathered in Fiji to discuss their worsening plight.

His comments brought a human perspective to the debate over climate change on the eve of the start today of the two-day Pacific Islands Forum, being held in the Fiji gateway of Nadi.

Concerns have been raised that nations such as Kiribati, Tuvalu, Niue and the Marshall Islands face an uncertain future due to rising sea levels caused by global warming.

Sceptics argue that such claims are far-fetched, but Mr Tong yesterday warned that regional powers such as Australia and New Zealand may have to prepare for an exodus from these tiny nations within 10 years.

"If we are talking about island states sinking in 10 years time, we simply have to find somewhere to go," Mr Tong said.

"If we become refugees, then so be it. I think the international community has to get used to it."

Referring to Australia's worst ever drought, Mr Tong said the Howard Government understood the effects of climate change, although the arid conditions across Australia were in stark contrast to the challenges facing Pacific nations.

"I have no doubt that Australia also understands these problems but they have their own problems," he said. The smaller island states are expected to raise the threat of rising seas when the forum formally begins.

The issue of rising seas and their effect on the smaller Pacific states has been an almost perennial issue on the forum agenda over the past two decades.

Labor prime minister Bob Hawke offered a sympathetic ear to their plight when the issue was raised in 1989. The more vocal debate over climate change and the prospects of some islands being submerged within the next few decades have livened up the debate in recent years.

With a population of less than 100,000, Kiribati is typical of tiny island states in the Pacific, an archipelago of low-lying coral atolls surrounded by reefs.

The islands lie halfway between Australia and Hawaii.

To read the original article from The Australian, click on:
The Australian

Witnessing against war

Soldiers of Conscience
Staughton Lynd

Historian, attorney and peace activist Staughton Lynd delivered the first annual David Dellinger Lecture in New York October 19, sponsored by the War Resisters League. This edited version of his remarks appears as part of the Moral Compass series, focusing on the spoken word.

I recall two plays from the time I was a boy growing up here in New York City. One was Waiting for Lefty, by Clifford Odets. Some students at my high school put it on and I played the part of Fats, the crooked union boss. The other play was by a man named Irwin Shaw and was called Bury The Dead. I never saw it. I think I read it: In my mind's eye I can see a page of the text. But all I can remember from the play is one line: "Someday they'll have a war and nobody will come."

I presume that this is the thought that brings us all here tonight. I am immensely honored to have been asked to initiate this series of annual lectures, but I am only one of many in the room--some of whom I know, and some of whom I do not know--who have created the tradition and culture that we are gathered to honor.

Let's honor George Houser. He was one of the Union Theological Seminary Eight who, David Dellinger included, not only refused to fight but refused to register for the draft. David says in his autobiography that at Danbury Prison, George Houser was also one of three war resisters who were the best Ping Pong players in the joint. When the Union Eight were released from prison, Union offered them readmission on condition that they would avoid any course of action that would publicize their draft resistance. Mr. Houser was one of five who refused and went instead to Chicago Theological Seminary.

Let's honor David Mitchell. David pioneered in the 1960s the position that is also the position of Lieutenant Ehren Watada, which I wish to explicate tonight. David then, like Lt. Watada today, said that he was not a pacifist. He refused to participate in the Selective Service process because he believed that the actions of the United States in Vietnam were war crimes, as war crimes had been defined at Nuremburg after World War II. He spent two years in prison.

David's wife Ellen Mitchell is also here tonight, despite the fact that it is her birthday. David recently sent me a speech that Ellen made in support of her imprisoned husband at the April 1968 antiwar demonstration in New York City. Let's honor Ellen.

Finally, Elizabeth Peterson made the trip from Vermont to be here with us, along with a younger Dellinger. While David was doing his second prison term for war resistance, Betty was pregnant. David tells in From Yale to Jail how when he was on hunger strike at Lewisburg the warden came to his cell and said: "She's dying. She has sent a message telling you to go off the strike so she can die in peace." David said, "Take me to her." The warden refused and David concluded, correctly, that the warden was lying. The prisoners won one of the major goals of their hunger strike, concerning the censorship of mail. David was given a pile of letters from Betty telling him that she was well and supported the strike. The Dellingers' oldest child, Patchen, was born soon after. Betty, your presence does us honor.

In the company of these heroes and heroines we turn to the message of another hero, Ehren Watada. In the military system of justice--the system that Congress recently turned its back on in setting up military commissions--there is a proceeding similar to the convening of a grand jury. It is called an Article 23 hearing. The hearing officer decides whether there is sufficient evidence to justify a court martial. This past August 17, at Fort Lewis, Washington, there was an Article 23 hearing for Lt. Watada. Early in the hearing the prosecution played video clips from his recent speeches. In one of these speeches, to the national convention of Veterans for Peace, Lt. Watada said: "Today, I speak with you about a radical idea...The idea is this; that to stop an illegal and unjust war, the soldiers...can choose to stop fighting it."

Of course in itself this was not a new idea. It was another way of saying, Someday they'll have a war and nobody will come.

To read the full article from The Nation, click on:
The Nation

West Papua and the Jakarta Lobby

Foreign Policy: Born Again Jakarta Lobby
By: Damien Kingsbury
Wednesday 18 October 2006

The relationship between Australia and Indonesia is the most testing of Australia’s foreign relations, and one which has consistently been mishandled. Responding to bilateral fallout over the issue of Papua, Rodd McGibbon’s recently published Lowy Institute paper ‘Pitfalls of Papua’ proposes that good relations, narrowly conceived, between Australia and Indonesia are above all other considerations.

A similar policy of ‘good bilateral relations above all else,’ with the previous Suharto regime, was promoted by what was known as the ‘Jakarta Lobby.’ Yet that policy failed to produce stable diplomatic relations.

McGibbon’s paper represents the Jakarta Lobby reborn. The paper largely restates what is already known about Papua, condescends towards concerns over human rights abuses, caricatures both the West Papua resistance movement and its external supporters, and proposes policy recommendations that warm up Suharto-era leftovers.

‘Pitfalls of Papua’ is beset with internal contradictions. The larger contradiction is that McGibbon promotes ‘realism.’ McGibbon says that Australian critics of the current policy propose that Australia ‘impose itself in a “peace-making” role [which] demonstrates a troubling lack of realism.’ The key tenet of this ‘realism’ is that the internal affairs of States are irrelevant to their international relations, and that international relations are conducted in an environment in which the only rules are those which are able to be imposed or agreed between individual States.

In keeping with this ‘realism,’ McGibbon proposes that Australia ‘boost security cooperation on border security with Indonesia’ and work with Indonesia to ‘manage the Australian-Indonesian border, including discussion of managing the cross-border impact of Papua.’ The problem, it seems, is not that Papuans have reason to flee their home, but how they can be stopped from doing so.

McGibbon then makes the error of discussing the situation in Papua, which he acknowledges is deeply problematic. By acknowledging Papua’s problems, McGibbon undoes the logic of ‘realist’ bilateral relations: he cannot acknowledge human rights abuses in Papua and at the same time ignore them.

Interestingly, although Australia’s security interests are promoted as paramount, nowhere in his paper does McGibbon say what they are. He emphatically insists on that which remains unstated.

A particular flaw in ‘Pitfalls of Papua’ refers to the prospect of a negotiated resolution to the Papua conflict. McGibbon notes the success in securing a resolution to the conflict in Aceh. However, he suggests there would be little political will for such a settlement in Papua. He also says that a modified version of such an agreement is the best hope of resolving the Papua conflict, and that attempts have been made by Indonesia’s Vice-President Jusuf Kalla to initiate just such a dialogue, as well as saying it is ‘a key priority for the [Australian] Government.’

McGibbon claims, however, that there is no united Papuan leadership with which to negotiate. Papuan activists note that most of their leaders have been killed, exiled or otherwise silenced, and the Indonesian Government has employed a policy of divide and rule. McGibbon seems unaware that there is now movement in Papuan political society towards a common position: to be able to negotiate with Jakarta.

This change is illustrated by the Free West Papua Movement, or OPM, declaring an end to their armed struggle — news of which McGibbon regards as ‘isolated reports.’ Indeed, OPM leaders were interviewed on ABC television saying this, and issued a media statement to this effect.

From this point, McGibbon’s assessment slips into ridicule. He refers to activists’ comments about their first-hand experiences on the PNG-Papua border, describing a report by activist Nick Chesterfield as a ‘bizarre account … replete with cloak and dagger anecdotes.’

Chesterfield is well known as a spokesman for the Free West Papua Campaign and is one of very few outsiders to have worked with West Papuan refugees along the PNG border, where he has received corroborated first-hand accounts of cross-border raids by the Indonesian military (TNI), as well as reports of Indonesian military intelligence activities. Chesterfield’s field reports are not so much ‘bizarre’ as is McGibbon’s denial of documented TNI activity against West Papuan refugees. By comparison, McGibbon has not visited this region or spoken to refugees there, even though, as a pro-Jakarta researcher, he has had surprisingly easy access to a province cut off to other researchers and journalists.

Of personal concern to this critic is McGibbon’s serious misrepresentation of an article by me, ‘The Trouble with the Territory’s Future,’ published in The Weekend Australian, 15-16 April 2006. The article outlined a possible negotiated political settlement as a means of resolving Papua’s conflict that, if achieved, might be monitored by European Union or US aid agencies. McGibbon claims the article advocated Australia lead ‘international efforts to formulate and enforce a peace agreement,’ even though the article explicitly rejected Australia’s involvement. McGibbon ridicules the idea that Australia could play such a role in Papua because it would alienate the Indonesian Government, yet, as previously mentioned, he also suggests Australia do just this.

A key belief of the old Jakarta Lobby was that widespread public opposition to a policy of appeasement over East Timor — an opposition that sat consistently around 75 per cent according to public opinion polls — reflected a lack of knowledge by ordinary Australians. McGibbon repeats this view about a lack of public knowledge, regarding a poll earlier this year at the time of the Papuan boat people crisis that showed 76 per cent of Australians supported independence for West Papua. McGibbon’s suggestion is that the Government counter such views with a ‘public information campaign,’ which might also be viewed as propaganda.

The Australian population was ultimately correct about the iniquities of East Timor and the Australian Government eventually bowed to popular pressure in 1999. Contrary popular opinion might be uncomfortable for self-assured elites, but the Australian people are often able to see that which is obvious, even if it does not suit elite agendas.

If there is value in McGibbon’s paper, it is that he confirms that the Jakarta Lobby remains alive and well. In his new position, moving from the ANU to the Office of National Assessments, McGibbon looks ready to repeat the Jakarta Lobby’s past policy mistakes.

To read the original article from The New Matilda, click on:
New Matilda

Aboriginal History

Koori Tours of Melbourne
Sunday October 29th. Midday to 3pm.
Hosted by Larry Walsh.
Cost is $10.

Aboriginal Storyteller and Historian, Larry Walsh, has invited us to take part in Koori Tours of Inner Melbourne. Larry will provide unique insights
into the history of Melbourne from an Aboriginal perspective.

The tours will be by tram and foot and will be focussed on locations such as The Old Melbourne Gaol, Flagstaff Gardens, The Vic Market, Trades Hall, Exhibition Gardens and the Yarra River.

The tour is limited to 25 people only and a donation of $10 will be expected.

Bookings and Information

Sunday October 29th - contact Indira Narayan on 0409 257 354 or indiranarayan1@yahoo.com.au

Further tours of a similar nature will be organised to other parts of Melbourne so even if you can't make these dates please let us know you're interested.

For more information contact: FoE Melbourne
312 Smith Street Collingwood. Victoria
tel: 03 9419 8700 Fax: 03 9416 2081

Iraq War Deaths

The Iraq deaths study was valid and correct
October 21, 2006

LAST week, the medical journal The Lancet published the findings of an important study of deaths in Iraq. President George Bush and Prime Minister Howard were quick to dismiss its methods as discredited and its findings as not credible or believable. We beg to differ: the study was undertaken by respected researchers assisted by one of the world's foremost biostatisticians. Its methodology is sound and its conclusions should be taken seriously.

Professor Gilbert Burnham and colleagues from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore and Al Mustansiriya University School of Medicine in Baghdad measured deaths in Iraq between January 2002 and July 2006. They surveyed 12,801 individuals in 1849 households in 47 representative clusters across the country.

Their study is important in providing the only up-to-date, independent, and comprehensive scientific study of mortality after the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq. The study found that mortality had risen alarmingly since March 2003 and continues to rise. The number of conflict-related excess deaths, above and beyond those that would normally occur, was estimated at 655,000. While precision about such figures is difficult, we can be confident that the excess deaths were above 390,000, and may in fact be as high as 940,000. The vast majority (92 per cent) of the excess deaths were due to direct violence.

The cross-sectional household cluster sample survey method used is a standard, robust, well-established method for gathering health data. A copy of a death certificate was available for a high proportion (92 per cent) of deaths. Conservative assumptions were made about deaths of uncertain cause and about the small areas not sampled.

Except in situations of highly reliable, well-maintained, comprehensive vital statistics collection — clearly not the case in Iraq at present — such surveys have been repeatedly demonstrated to be the best method for establishing population rates for key health indicators such as deaths, disability and immunisation coverage. Where passive information collection (such as death counts in morgues or hospitals) are incomplete, as is the case in Iraq today, population-based survey methods can be expected to find higher rates — often considerably higher — but that more accurately reflect the true situation.

Conducting such a rigorous study within the constraints of the security situation in Iraq is dangerous and difficult, and deserves commendation. We have not heard any legitimate reason to dismiss its findings. It is noteworthy that the same methodology has been used in recent mortality surveys in Darfur and Democratic Republic of Congo, but there has been no criticism of these surveys.

The study by Burnham and his colleagues provides the best estimate of mortality to date in Iraq that we have, or indeed are ever likely to have.

We urge open and constructive debate, rather than ill-informed criticism of the methods or results of sound science. All of us should consider the implications of the dire and deteriorating health situation in Iraq.

THE SIGNATORIES

Professor James A Angus, dean, faculty of medicine, dentistry and health sciences, University of Melbourne

Professor Bruce Armstrong AM, director of research, Sydney Cancer Centre; professor of public health and medical foundation fellow, University of Sydney

Dr Jim Black, head of epidemiology, Victorian Infectious Diseases Service

Professor Peter Brooks, executive dean, faculty of health sciences, University of Queensland

Professor Jonathan Carapetis, director, Menzies School of Health Research, Darwin

Dr Ben Coghlan, medical epidemiologist, Centre for International Health, Burnet Institute

Professor Mike Daube, professor of health policy, Curtin University

Associate Professor Peter Deutschmann, executive director, Australian International Health Institute, University of Melbourne

Associate Professor Trevor Duke, Centre for International Child Health, department of pediatrics, University of Melbourne

Professor Adele Green AC, deputy director, Queensland Institute of Medical Research

Associate Professor Heath Kelly, head, epidemiology unit, Victorian Infectious Diseases Reference Laboratory

Professor Stephen Leeder AO, co-director, Menzies Centre for Health Policy; professor of public health and community medicine, University of Sydney; chairman, Policy and Advocacy Group, Australasian Faculty of Public Health Medicine

Professor Alan Lopez, head, School of Population Health; professor of medical statistics and population health, University of Queensland

Professor John Mathews AM, professorial fellow, School of Population Health, University of Melbourne

Professor A. J. McMichael, director, National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, ANU

Dr Cathy Mead PSM, president, Public Health Association of Australia, Canberra

Professor Rob Moodie, chief executive, Victorian Health Promotion Foundation

Professor Kim Mulholland, infectious disease epidemiology unit, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, UK

Professor Terry Nolan, head, School of Population Health, Melbourne University

Associate Professor Tilman Ruff, Nossal Institute for Global Health, University of Melbourne; president, Medical Association for Prevention of War

Associate Professor Peter Sainsbury, school of public health, University of Sydney

Dr Tony Stewart, medical epidemiologist, Centre for International Health, Burnet Institute

Professor Richard Taylor, professor of international health; head, division of international and indigenous health, School of Population Health, University of Queensland; director, Australian Centre for International and Tropical Health and Nutrition

Associate Professor Mike Toole, head, Centre for International Health, Burnet Institute

Associate Professor Paul J. Torzillo AM, University of Sydney; senior respiratory physician, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney; clinical director, respiratory and critical care services, Central Sydney Area Health Service

Dr Sue Wareham OAM, immediate past president, Medical Association for Prevention of War, Canberra

Professor Anthony Zwi, School of Public Health and Community Medicine, associate dean (international), faculty of medicine, NSW University

To read the original article in The Age, click on:
The Age

Press release from Solidarity for Peace and Reunification of Korea (SPARK), a Pax Christi Partner Organisation

Concerning the UN Security Council resolution to impose sanctions on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
18 October 2006

1. Solidarity for Peace and Reunification of Korea (SPARK) is a non-governmental organization founded in 1994 which works for friendly and cooperative relations between Korea and the United States, and the establishment of peace on the Korean peninsula.

2. The fundamental cause of the North Korean nuclear problem is the US’s hostile policy toward Pyeongyang. SPARK firmly believes that sanctions and pressure cannot make the North abandon its nuclear program.

Only a cessation of the hostile policy toward North Korea and the signing of a Korean peninsula peace treaty can persuade the Pyeongyang government to discontinue its nuclear program.

3. Accordingly, the UN Security Council resolution which imposes sanctions against North Korea, and the US-led Proliferation Security Initiative cannot solve the North Korean nuclear problem, and will only damage peace and stability on the Korean peninsula and in Northeast Asia.

4. Also, the agenda of the Security Consultative Meeting, to be held October 20-21, which includes the stationing of nuclear weapons around the Korean peninsula, South Korea’s participation in the missile defense system, and the strengthening of the Republic of Korea-US alliance, can only increase the danger of war on the Korean peninsula and the Northeast Asian region.

5. Consequently, a SPARK delegation is visiting Washington DC and New York, where they plan to hold meetings and demonstrations in order to bring the Korean people’s concerns to the attention of the American people and government.

The Korean people are opposed to sanctions against North Korea and urge the US to abandon its hostile policy toward Pyeongyang. They aim to de-nuclearize the Korean peninsula and create a nuclear-free zone in Northeast Asia. Koreans are against the strengthening of the ROK-US alliance and demand the return of wartime military operational control authority, as well as a halt to the expansion of the Pyeongtaek US base.

SPARK (Solidarity for Peace and Reunification of Korea), Seoul, Korea
(Tel): 82-2-711-7292, 82-2-712-8443 (Fax) 82-2-712-8445, www.spark946.org

FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Yu Young Jae, Secretary-General (016-297-0568)
Park Seok Boon, Director, Peace and Disarmament Team (016-429-4311)

Report on the fate of rejected asylum seekers

What happens to Australia's rejected asylum seekers?

Has the Australian Government or its agencies sent asylum seekers to unsafe places?

Has the Australian Government or its agencies actually increased the dangers for rejected people by sending reports about them to overseas authorities?

In managing removals, has the Australian Government or its agencies encouraged asylum seekers to obtain false papers or become associated with bribery and corruption?

Is the manner of conducting asylum seeker removals consistent with Australia's legal obligations?

Is the manner of conducting asylum seeker removals consistent with Australia's traditional values?

The Edmund Rice Centre has an ongoing project monitoring the fate of asylum seekers deported from our country. The project has released two reports, Deported to Danger and Deported to Danger II (the full report is 1.6MB, you can also download the executive summary which is under 200KB).

Deported to Danger II was released in October 2006 and details the cases of 41 asylum seekers who have been interviewed as part of the project. The report gives a full account of findings released in August 2006 to Lateline , which revealed that a number of those deported to Afghanistan had since been killed or had members of their families killed.

The findings generated significant media and government interest. The initial findings are given here. The Centre's response to the emerging debate is given in the following items:

o Those Who Fled from the Taliban, Never Were the Taliban
o Edmund Rice Centre Sends More Information to DIMA
o Decision to Return to Afghanistan No ‘Choice’
o Director responds to claims by Minister
o Immigration amendments rejection a win for human rights
o Edmund Rice Centre Report Confirms a Further 39 people Deported to Danger

To read the report from the Edmund Rice Centre, click on:
Edmund Rice Centre

Fifth anniversary of drowning of asylum seekers

A reminder of how we treat people who come to us for help
October 19, 2006

Five years ago 353 people died in the ocean trying to reach Australia, writes Arnold Zable.

TODAY marks the fifth anniversary of the largest maritime disaster off Australian waters since World War II. At 3.10 on the afternoon of October 19, 2001, a 19.5-metre fishing boat carrying 398 refugees sank en route to Australia. A total of 353 Iraqi and Afghan asylum seekers drowned, including 146 children and 142 women desperate to join fathers and husbands living in Australia on temporary protection visas.

There were 45 survivors. On the morning of the fourth anniversary, I met one of seven Australian-based survivors, Amal Basry, at Melbourne Airport. We were to fly to Canberra to take part in an event marking the fourth anniversary of the tragedy. I had first met Basry in mid-2002 soon after her arrival in Australia. She saved her life by clinging to a corpse for hours.

As we waited to board the plane, Basry recounted an anecdote I had not heard before. She could not sleep the previous night because she was haunted by the memory of the sinking. When her son Amjed arrived home after midnight, they tried to remember what they were doing four years ago at that hour.

Basry recalled that in the early hours of October 19 the winds began to rise. The boat rose and fell in deepening troughs. Many passengers panicked. "God, save us. The ocean is angry," some cried. The cries of frightened children filled the air. Amal noticed a group of women on the crowded deck writing on a piece of paper. They were composing a letter to the angel of the ocean, they told her. "Angel of the ocean please protect us," they had written. "Angel of the ocean look after our children. Angel of the ocean, do not abandon us." They folded the letter and threw it into the water. That afternoon they were no longer alive.

This is one of many stories I have heard from survivors over the past five years. Each one records moments that sear the imagination. Survivor Faris Kadhem remains tormented by the memory of his seven-year-old daughter, Zahra, and wife, Leyla, slipping from his sight into the ocean.

To read the full article from The Age, click on:
The Age

Child Soldiers

Adolescent boys wearing civilian clothes walk away from the weapons they once carried as child soldiers, during a demobilization ceremony in southern Sudan.© UNICEF/HQ01-0093/STEVIE MANN


"I would like to give you a message. Please do your best to tell the world what is happening to us, the children. So that other children don't have to pass through this violence."
A 15-year-old girl who escaped from the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda

With new weapons that are lightweight and easy to fire, children are more easily armed, with less training than ever before. Worldwide, more than half a million children under-18 have been recruited into government armed forces, paramilitaries, civil militia and a wide variety of non-state armed groups in more than 85 countries. At any one time, more than 300,000 of these children are actively fighting as soldiers with government armed forces or armed political groups.

Often recruited or abducted to join armies, many of these children - some younger than 10 years old - have witnessed or taken part in acts of unbelievable violence, often against their own families or communities. Such children are exposed to the worst dangers and the most horrible suffering, both psychological and physical. What is more, they are easily manipulated and encouraged to commit grievous acts, which they are often unable to comprehend. Many girl soldiers are expected to provide sexual services as well as to fight.

To go to the original article from Amnesty International, click on:
Amnesty International

Tasmania says "sorry"

Payout deal for 'stolen' children
By Matthew Denholm
October 18, 2006

THE debate on the "stolen generations" will be reignited today by the unveiling of the nation's first compensation package for Aborigines taken from their parents under assimilation policies.

Tasmania will today announce a government apology and a $4 million compensation scheme for members of the stolen generations.

The Australian understands the scheme will involve the appointment of an independent assessor, who will judge individual cases against set criteria.

The assessor will consider individuals' testimonies and examine government records to test claims of wrongful removal by welfare agencies, mostly from the 1930s to the 1950s.

A compensation funding pool - to be capped at about $4 million - will then be distributed among those found to have genuine cases.

While the number of potential applicants is unknown, the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre has already identified 40 individuals with "solid claims" for compensation.

The scheme - hailed by Aboriginal leaders yesterday as a model for other states to follow - will be advertised nationally to invite applications from those who may have left the state.

Premier Paul Lennon will sell the package as lifting a key barrier to reconciliation between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Tasmanians. Yesterday, Aboriginal leaders praised Mr Lennon's "leadership" and "courage" and expressed hope it would rekindle national debate on the issue.

To read the full article in The Australian, click on:
The Australian

Malcolm Fraser on the Iraq War

A war that has run out of control
By Malcolm Fraser
October 17, 2006

The "coalition of the willing", America, Britain and Australia, went to war on the basis of what is now known to be a lie. As a consequence of that decision, we are plunged into a dangerous and escalating situation.

The new chief of the general staff in Britain, General Sir Richard Dannatt, made it plain that British forces should not be in Iraq, that they were unwelcome, that they were making the situation worse and that they were increasing Britain's security problems worldwide.

Across the Atlantic, former secretary of state James Baker and former congressman Lee Hamilton are chairing the Iraq Study Group, appointed by Congress some months ago. Its purpose is to examine options and alternatives to present Iraq policy. It is clear that very senior people in the United States believe the present course cannot be sustained.

United States Intelligence agencies, in saying that the war in Iraq has fed terrorism, are only confirming what many people have been saying for months, even for years.

Perhaps the greatest failure was the naive belief that a benign democracy would emerge from the ashes of American bombs. Why should it? The institutions did not exist, the country was not used to the practice of democracy. There were at least three strongly divided groups within Iraq, the Kurds, the Sunnis and the Shiites. The likelihood of those three disparate groups co-operating to form a working democracy was always remote.

Terrible as Saddam Hussein was, the West did not have the capacity to replace him. It did have the capacity to cause chaos, the reality of civil war, increasing disaster and increasing hardship for most Iraqis. It is hard to get any one of the three of the leaders of the coalition of the willing to speak truthfully about the reality of Iraq. Prime Minister Tony Blair says that Britain is fighting for the survival of Britain's way of life. That is plainly untrue.

It is clear that the coalition does not know what to do now.

To read the full article, click on:
The Age

Danger of Declining Empires

Beware Empires in Decline
Michael T. Klare | October 13, 2006
Foreign Policy In Focus

The common wisdom circulating in Washington these days is that the United States is too bogged down in Iraq to consider risky military action against Iran or—God forbid—North Korea. Policy analysts describe the U.S. military as “over-burdened” Michael T. Klare

or “stretched to the limit.” The presumption is that the Pentagon is telling President Bush that it can't really undertake another major military contingency.

Added to these pessimistic assessments of U.S. military capacity is the widespread claim that a “new realism” has taken over in the administration's upper reaches, that cautious “realists” like Condoleezza Rice have gained the upper hand over fire-breathing neoconservatives. Ergo: No military strike against Iran or North Korea.

But I'm not buying any of this.

Just as an empire on the rise, like the United States on the eve of the invasion of Iraq, is often inclined to take rash and ill-considered actions, so an empire on the decline, like the British and French empires after World War II, will engage in senseless, self-destructive acts. And I fear the same can happen to the United States today, as we, too, slip into decline.

The decline of an empire can be a hard and painful thing for the affected imperial elites. Those who are used to commanding subservience and respect from their subjects and from lesser powers are often ill-prepared to deal with their indifference and contempt. Even harder is overcoming the long-inbred assumption that one's vassals are inferior—mentally, morally, and otherwise. The first malady makes the declining elites extraordinarily sensitive to perceived slights or insults from their former subjects; the second often leads elites to overestimate their own capabilities and to underestimate those of their former subjects—an often fatal error. The two misjudgments often combine to produce an extreme readiness to strike back when a perceived insult coincides with a (possibly deceptive) military superiority.

To read the full article from Foreign Policy in Focus, click on:
fpif

Nuclear Power in Australia

Nuclear power plants in a decade
Matthew Warren
October 17, 2006

AUSTRALIA has been put on a path towards nuclear power after the Howard Government said construction on new plants could start within a decade.
John Howard said yesterday Australia had to consider the nuclear power option, given the nation had the largest uranium deposits in the world, and it had to be debated as part of the response to global warming.

The Coalition's strongest endorsement of nuclear power yet establishes a clear divide on climate change policy, with the Labor Party yesterday moving quickly to oppose nuclear and back solar energy as an alternative source of low greenhouse-emissions energy. Solar energy is currently 10 times the cost of conventional sources of power.

The Coalition is also facing a grassroots backlash, with Labor already running a marginal seat campaign with the theme that the Government wants to build a power station in voters' neighbourhoods.

But the Prime Minister said nuclear power had to be examined.

"I believe very strongly that nuclear power is part of the response to global warming, it is clean green, it is something in relation to which many rabid environmentalists have changed their views over recent years," he said.

Industry and Resources Minister Ian Macfarlane, who has largely stayed out of the power debate until now, yesterday claimed Australia could start construction on a nuclear power plant within 10 years.

Mr Macfarlane said the mood towards nuclear energy in Australia was likely to change when the community understood its ability to supply affordable electricity while cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

To read the full article from The Australian, click on:
The Australian

How to put nuclear disarmament back on the political agenda

Gone Nuclear: How the World Lost Its Way
Richard Falk, Mary Kaldor, Randall Caroline Forsberg & George Perkovich

EDITOR'S NOTE: The Reykjavik Summit in October 1986 will long be remembered because the leaders of the world's two superpowers, Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan, seriously entertained for one brief moment the goal of a non-nuclear world. The end of the cold war reduced the fear of a nuclear exchange, but it did not bring us closer to a world free of nuclear weapons. Indeed, with the subsequent proliferation of nuclear weapons to India, Pakistan and North Korea, and with concerns growing about Iran's nuclear program, the idea of a non-nuclear world seems more distant than ever. As the report of the International Commission on Weapons of Mass Destruction issued earlier this year makes clear, even the limited goals of nuclear arms control and nonproliferation have been set back by the lack of leadership on the part of the United States and by the proliferation of new weapons states. And as worrying, the goal of nuclear disarmament no longer seems to animate the progressive community or the peace movement, let alone figure into today's discussion of American national security policy.

To mark the twentieth anniversary of the Reykjavik Summit, The Nation invited Richard Falk, Mary Kaldor, Randall Caroline Forsberg and George Perkovich, all leading figures of the nuclear disarmament movement at the time of Reykjavik, to reflect on what went wrong and to consider how to put nuclear disarmament back on the political agenda.

To read this article from The Nation, click on:
The Nation

The cost of new fighter aircraft for Australia

'Sky's the limit' on jet fighter bill


Tom Hyland
October 15, 2006



The cost of the fighter aircraft the government wants to buy cannot be calculated.
Photo: AFP




THE cost of the new fighter aircraft Australia wants to buy cannot be calculated, and the whole project is marked by uncertainty and financial risk, an auditor's report says.

With the Federal Government about to commit to the production phase of the Joint Strike Fighter project, a report by the Dutch audit office warns development costs could go higher and the eventual bill for the aircraft cannot be determined.

Australia plans to buy 100 of the new fighters in a deal notionally worth $A16 billion — the nation's largest defence purchase.

To read the full article from The Age, click on:
The Age

Australia Government tries to boost military recruitment

Nelson defends gap year army plan
October 15, 2006 - 3:10PM

A scheme encouraging school leavers to spend a year in the army is not a step towards conscription, Defence Minister Brendan Nelson says.

Dr Nelson has unveiled plans to persuade high school graduates considering a gap year to join the defence force instead of going backpacking or volunteering abroad.

The minister said the government would offer up to 1000 places in the army under the so-called "try before you buy" program.

The package will also contain initiatives to encourage those who take up the offer to return to the military within five years, but Dr Nelson would not detail those incentives today.

He said the move was not a shift back toward conscription or national service.

"The Government has absolutely no intention at all of reintroducing national service or conscription," he told reporters.

"It would be extremely divisive in Australia, there would be a great fault line through Australian society.

"The only circumstance under which any Government would seriously entertain national service or conscription is if there was a direct, immediate and credible military threat to Australia."

Dr Nelson said the gap year program was another way of boosting recruitment, which he acknowledged was "constipated".

The ADF was currently recruiting 7500 people each year but needed about 8500, he said.

No recruiting 'quick fix'

The Government's gap year national service proposal will not solve the problems of recruitment and "overstretching" within the Australian Army, Opposition Leader Kim Beazley said today.

Mr Beazley said he was not opposed in principle to the Government's plan to encourage school leavers to join the defence forces for a year, which was similar to the Labor Party's old ready reserve program.

But he warned people to be wary it doesn't lead to the introduction of "full-scale national service".

"I'd watch it very carefully to see that it's something that actually is the first stage of introducing the Labor Party's old scheme, as opposed to the first stage of introducing John Howard's old scheme when he came into politics with conscription," Mr Beazley told journalists outside the ALP State Conference in Adelaide.

Mr Beazley said the proposal was a "reflection of how overstretched the army has become - and it's not a simple fix for that".

HECS incentive

Defence lobby group, the Australia Defence Association, wants the government to consider waiving HECS fees if the program is eventually expanded.

Dr Nelson said he would not rule that out, as there were already HECS waivers for ADF recruits studying at university.

"Everything is on the table except national service or conscription," he said.

"One of the many options we can look at is giving financial incentives for further study and HECS is obviously one of those variables."

Dr Nelson said the gap program would "complete the loop".

"We have defence cadets, we have a gap year program for people to complete one year in the Australian defence force, our regular service and of course our reservists," he said.

"This is something that has got to be great for young people, good for defence, and that means it's good for Australia."

The minister will release a full package of measures to boost recruitment and retention in the ADF in the next few months.

- AAP

To read the original source from The Age, click on:
The Age

Japan plans to abandon pacifist consititution

Wednesday September 27, 06:53 PM
Japan's new PM determined to rewrite pacifist constitution

TOKYO (AFP) - Japan's new Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has put rewriting the US-imposed pacifist constitution at the top of his agenda, a move that could lead to a more active military role overseas but alarm neighboring countries.

Abe, who took office Tuesday as Japan's first prime minister born after World War II, has been vague on much of his platform but has passionately vowed to revise the constitution, saying he wanted to "write it with my own hand."

"I belong to the post-World War II generation. The era dominated by the preconceived idea that the constitution should never be changed is over," Abe said during the campaign.

But experts said the process of rewriting the constitution would likely be slow and methodical as Abe seeks to win over skeptics both at home and abroad.

Abe himself turned more cautious as it became certain he would succeed Junichiro Koizumi as prime minister.

Asian neighbours reacted to the election of Abe, South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-Moon said Seoul will resume summits with Japan if the new administration "squarely addresses" that country's historical legacy.

In the transcript of an interview released Wednesday by Seoul's foreign ministry, he made it clear the key to better relations was how Japan treated its 20th century militaristic past.

"We sincerely hope that Prime Minister Abe will learn lessons from what has transpired from Prime Minister (Junichiro) Koizumi's administration," he said.

"That means he should squarely address the past history legacy issue, and then we are prepared to have all sorts of high level exchanges and meetings including summit meetings," he told Japan's Kyodo news.

The election dominated China's state-run press with dailies cautioning that Japan's war past remained a political obstacle to better bilateral ties.

"Even though Abe is expressing that he wants to improve Asian diplomacy ... it must be said that the obstacles to Sino-Japanese political relations have not been cleared up," the leading People's Daily said in an editorial.

"The concerns and worries over the direction of Japan's relations with its Asian neighbors continue to leave many people unsettled."

China and South Korea, which suffered under Japanese imperialism, had refused to meet Abe's predecessor, Junichiro Koizumi, due to his visits to the Yasukuni war shrine that is associated with Japan's militarist past.

To read the full article from 7 News, click on:
7 News

Yunus awarded Nobel Peace Prize

Photograph: Shafiq Alam/AFP/Getty Images.







Pioneering economist wins Nobel prize

Mark Tran
Friday October 13, 2006
Guardian Unlimited

Professor Muhammad Yunus, winner of the Nobel peace prize and founder of the Grameen Bank, which offers loans to poor people without any financial security.
Muhammad Yunus and the Grameen Bank today emerged as the surprise winners of the prestigious Nobel peace prize for their pioneering work in lending to the poor.
Mr Yunus, 66, from Bangladesh, started the Grameen Bank over 30 years ago, to provide small loans - micro-credit - for the poor. In announcing the award, the Norwegian Nobel committee said the prize - worth 10m Swedish kronor (£728,971) - was going jointly to Mr Yunus and Grameen Bank for "their efforts to create economic and social development from below".

"This is a fantastic news for all of us, for Grameen Bank, Bangladesh, and all the poor countries and all the poor people all around the world," Mr Yunus told Norwegian television.
He said the Nobel peace prize was the pinnacle of recognition after winning several prizes for his work lending to the poor, mainly women. "This is the last prize. That's what's so special about it ... it's the sky," he said.

The committee said: "Muhammad Yunus has shown himself to be a leader who has managed to translate visions into practical action for the benefit of millions of people, not only in Bangladesh, but also in many other countries.

"Loans to poor people without any financial security had appeared to be an impossible idea." The Grameen Bank provides credit to "the poorest of the poor" in rural Bangladesh, without any collateral, according to its web site.

From modest beginnings, the Nobel committee said, Mr Yunus and the bank have "developed micro-credit into an ever more important instrument in the struggle against poverty. Grameen Bank has been a source of ideas and models for the many institutions in the field of micro-credit that have sprung up around the world."

Mr Yunus and the Grameen Bank beat much better known names to the award.
The favourite, in the eyes of many commentators, was the former Finnish president Martti Ahtisaari, who helped broker peace between the Indonesian government and rebels from the Gam movement in the province of Aceh last year.

"Every single individual on earth has both the potential and the right to live a decent life," the Nobel committee said.

"Across cultures and civilisations, Yunus and Grameen Bank have shown that even the poorest of the poor can work to bring about their own development."

To read the original article in The Guardian, click on:
The Guardian

Friday October 13, 2006
Guardian Unlimited

The egalitarian economist

Angered by the plight of the rural poor in his native Bangladesh, Muhammad Yunus combined financial acumen with the pursuit of equality, says Mark Tran
Professor Muhammad Yunus, 66, pioneered the idea of micro-finance - lending small amounts of money to the poorest people in Bangladesh without collateral.

Mr Yunus, the founder and managing director of the Grameen Bank, thought that if financial resources can be made available to the poor people on terms and conditions that were appropriate and reasonable, "millions of small people with their millions of small pursuits can add up to create the biggest development wonder".

The Grameen Bank, like any capitalist enterprise, saw a market that had been neglected and went after it. But Mr Yunus was not just a capitalist, he was also interested in development. With Grameen, he created a vehicle that combined capitalism and social responsibility.

As the bank says on its website: "Credit is a cost-effective weapon to fight poverty and it serves as a catalyst in the overall development of socio-economic conditions of the poor who have been kept outside the banking orbit on the ground that they are poor and hence not bankable."

To read the full article from The Guardian, click on:
The Guardian

Pax Christi National Conference and Biennial Meeting

Date: 13 - 15 October 2006

Joe Camilleri

Venue: "Kildara" Rear
39 Stanhope Street
Malvern, Victoria 3144
(Melways 59 C8)

Program:

Friday 13 October

5 pm: Gathering
6 pm: Dinner
7.30 pm: Session 1
- Introductions
- Sharing, Reports & Hopes from branches (Vic, NSW, Qld, Tas, Aotearoa/New Zealand)
- Report from Asia Pacific Regional Consultation
9.30 pm: Close

Richard Chauvel

Saturday 14 October

9.30 am: Session 2
- Global Overview: Empire - A political perspective: Joe Camilleri
- Theological reflection: Cyril Hally
10.45 am: Morning tea
11.15 am: Session 3
- Overview of Indonesia, current developments with particular reference to West Papua & East Timor: Richard Chauvel
12.30 pm: Lunch

1.45 pm: Session 4
- Defending Human Rights, anti-terror & anti-subversion legislation and how we can resist: Brian Walters from Liberty Victoria & John Rutherford

Brian Walters

3.15 pm: Afternoon tea

3.45 pm: Session 5
- The Middle East, what are the real issues? Discussion with a Jewish, Christian and Muslim Panel
5.00 pm: Break
6.00 pm: BBQ & Social time

Sunday 15 October

9.00 am: Session 6
- Pax Christi National and International

• What do we want to do/say as a national movement?
• How do we keep in touch, develop interstate relationships and care for each other?
• How to we relate to/participate in the Asia Pacific region?
• National structures: National Council? Interstate meetings? Phone hook ups? Email? "Disarming Times"? Or what? Or nothing?
• Who will be responsible for convening this or "making it happen"?

10.15 am: Morning tea

10.45 am: Session 6 continued

12.00 pm: Liturgy

1.00 pm: Lunch and depart

Costs: $80 for whole conference (covers everything); $25 for Friday (covers registration & dinner); $55 for Saturday (covers registration. lunch and BBQ); $15 for Sunday (covers registration and lunch).

Please come for the whole conference including Sunday if you possibly can.

To register: Send the appropriate fee to Rita Camilleri, PO Box 31, Carlton South, VIC 3053 along with your name, address, phone number, and email address.

Withdrawal from Iraq

Army chief: British troops must pull out of Iraq 'soon'

Presence of forces risks serious consequences for security in UK and Iraq

Richard Norton-Taylor and Tania Branigan
Friday October 13, 2006
The Guardian

General Sir Richard Dannatt, the head of the army, dropped a political bombshell last night by saying that Britain must withdraw from Iraq "soon" or risk serious consequences for Iraqi and British society.

In a blistering attack on Tony Blair's foreign policy, Gen Dannatt said the continuing military presence in Iraq was jeopardising British security and interests around the world.

"I don't say that the difficulties we are experiencing round the world are caused by our presence in Iraq, but undoubtedly our presence in Iraq exacerbates them," he said in comments that met with admiration from anti-war campaigners and disbelief in certain parts of Westminster.

In an interview with the Daily Mail, Gen Dannatt, who became chief of the general staff in August, said we should "get ourselves out sometime soon because our presence exacerbates the security problems".

He added: "We are in a Muslim country and Muslims' views of foreigners in their country are quite clear.

"As a foreigner, you can be welcomed by being invited in a country, but we weren't invited ... by those in Iraq at the time. The military campaign we fought in 2003 effectively kicked the door in.

"Whatever consent we may have had in the first place, may have turned to tolerance and has largely turned to intolerance." He added that planning for the postwar phase was "poor" and said the aim of imposing a liberal democracy in Iraq had been over-ambitious.

Such an outspoken intervention by an army chief is extremely rare and is bound to increase pressure on the government to continue making its Iraq case against a backdrop of growing mayhem on the ground.

Mr Blair denied last month that Iraq would be safer if British troops withdrew. But last night Sir Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrat leader, said: "Brick by brick government policy on Iraq is collapsing. Senior military figures who were always doubtful about action in Iraq and its aftermath are becoming increasingly anxious about ... the risks involved."

John McDonnell, leader of the socialist Campaign Group of Labour MPs and a leadership challenger, told the BBC: "It is the overwhelming opinion of the British people that British troops should withdraw and this has now been confirmed by the professional judgment of Britain's most senior military leader.

"In the name of reason and humanity the government must now act and bring forward an exit strategy."

There was widespread surprise at Gen Dannatt's frankness, with some backbenchers privately questioning whether he could carry on in his role after his comments. Doug Henderson, a former defence minister and close ally of Gordon Brown, questioned why the general had made his thoughts public.

"One can only assume that Sir Richard has made his views known privately and that they've been ignored," he told BBC2's Newsnight programme. He said that soldiers expected to have the support of the chief of the general staff, adding: "The soldiers on the frontline must be wondering why they are there now."

Kevan Jones MP, a Labour member of the defence select committee, added: "There was always going to come a tipping point in Iraq, where we were no longer a solution but a problem. If General Dannatt is saying that time has been reached, that's very concerning. An interview like this, though, is not the way to say that."

In his first interview since taking the chief of staff job, Sir Richard told the Guardian last month that the army could only just cope with what the government was demanding of it, and made it clear that he believed that ministers were taking British soldiers for granted. In today's interview he goes further, criticising the defence secretary, Des Browne, for the "unacceptable" treatment of injured troops and warning that the government was in danger of breaking the "covenant" between a country and its army.

A devout Christian, he said a moral and spiritual vacuum opening up in British society was allowing militant Islamists to flourish.

To go to the original article from The Guardian, click on:
The Guardian