Can We Please Talk About John McCain Instead?

"Remonstrance from Australia is not going to persuade the US to invest more in its security assets in Southeast Asia. It will keep being drawn into Middle East quagmires and seems to love the whiff of cordite in the valleys of Afghanistan, now America's favourite war. Donald Trump hasn't even been able to find someone to serve as assistant secretary of state for East Asian affairs, a key position." (Faulty road map in a GPS world, Bob Carr, The Australian, 24/11/17)

OK, OK, OK, Bob, Trump may be a fucking fascist drongo, but he's our fucking fascist drongo, OK?:

"Last night, Senator Wong supported the US relationship and struck a positive tone about the future of the superpower. 'Our... policy approach is to work with the US as it is now, not as it might once have been, or, as some of its naysayers claim, it's going to become,' she said. 'The US is one of the most vibrant societies on earth, as energetic and full of potential as it has ever been.' Senator Wong said the relationship was 'deep, long-standing and institutional.' She pointed to the fact the US remained Australia's top partner in terms of two-way investment and the influence of the US Constitution on Australia's legal foundations, saying they laid the groundwork for deep intelligence and security links.

"Senator Wong highlighted the personal links underpinning the alliance, with a reference to Republican senator John McCain. 'Senator John McCain, whose family relationship with Australia dates back to the visit of the Great White Fleet in 1908, captured this beautifully when he spoke in Sydney earlier this year,' she said. 'He said, 'the animating purpose of our alliance is that we are free societies, founded by immigrants and pioneers, who put our faith in the rule of law, and who believe that our destinies are inseparable from the the character of the broader world order'." (Labor backs US alliance: Wong, Primrose Riordan, The Australian, 23/11/17)

On the Record:

"Asked if he trusted Trump and Pence's judgment, Turnbull replied: 'I do. I trust the judgment, the wisdom of the American government, the president and the vice president'." (Malcolm Turnbull: I trust the 'wisdom and judgment' of Trump & Pence, Paul Karp, theguardian.com, 20/4/17)

Why Didn't Malcolm Just Ring Jared?

"Do you believe it? The Obama Administration agreed to take thousands of illegal immigrants from Australia. Why? I will study this dumb deal." (Trump tweet 2/2/17)

So Trump's effectively told Turnbull to fuck off and hung up on him. And everyone's surprised? Why?

Face it, Turnbull's the cringing, servile head of a mercenary vassal state, located halfway up the POTUS's posterior, and Trump's a bloke with a God complex. That fateful phone call could only ever have ended in tears for Turnbull.

I mean, just listen to this sycophant:

"[Turnbull] added he had enjoyed his interactions with Mr Trump, saying Australia's alliance with the US remained 'rock solid' and was based on generations of commitments, service, courage [sic] and partnerships between the people." (Donald Trump slams 'dumb' refugee deal with Australia after 'worst' phone call - Donald Trump's America, ABC News, 3/2/17)

Seriously, what was Turnbull thinking?

All the klutz had to do was cast his mind back to the American-accented words of Rabbi Wolff, delivered at Bondi Junction's Central Synagogue on December 30 last year. The UNSC had just passed Resolution 2334, slamming Israeli settlements as a "flagrant violation of international law," and Turnbull was at the synagogue, kippah on head, lapping up the following words of Rabbi Wolff:

"Earlier today I received a phone call from the Prime Minister. He said that he wanted me to know that he was thinking lots about us during this most turbulent week for Israel & the Jewish People. How truly heartwarming when Israel found itself isolated from foes and allies alike. There was one voice of morality, a voice of justice that refused to be silenced, and that voice is the voice of our country, Australia, under the stellar leadership of our Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and his Foreign Minister Julia [sic] Bishop."*

That's right, Israel & the Jewish People!

Turnbull had inexplicably forgotten that no man cometh unto the POTUS but by "Israel & the Jewish People."

Fair enough, you might argue, but how could he possibly have forgotten Trump's unambiguous tweet on the subject of Resolution 2334 (which will surely be the leitmotif of his Middle East policy: "Stay strong Israel, January 20th is fast appearing!"

Really, it's not Trump, but Jared Kushner he should've rung.

Had he done so, Jared would have cooed reassuringly: 'Don't you worry, O Voice of Morality, O Voice of Justice, O Voice of Australia. Relax, Valiant Friend of Israel & the Jewish People, I will intercede with the POTUS on your behalf, OK? It's in the bag, already! Just give me five, and I'll ring you back, OK?'

Maybe there's still time.

[*See my 30/1/16 post Turnbull 'Govt' an Ethical & Moral Black Hole.]

'Trump's Aussie Mates'

"Mark Latham, Ross Cameron and Rowan Dean, or 'Trump's Aussie Mates', have teamed up for a new panel show on Sky News called Outsiders. It'a an answer to the ABC's Insider program, the embodiment of an out-of-touch, inner-city Leftist class, according to the trio. Former Labor Party leader, Latham, former Howard government frontbencher, Cameron, and editor of The Spectator magazine, Rowan Dean, hosted a US election-day function called Trump's Aussie Mates on November 9 in Sydney. High on Donald Trump's unexpected victory, the three men joined Sky's Paul Murray Live that night to discuss and celebrate what had just transpired." (Trio trumpeting views from the outside, Jake Mitchell, The Australian, 21/11/16)

For the dirt on all three of 'Trump's Aussie Mates', just click on the labels below.

All I want to do here is ask whether this is the same Mark Latham who poured scorn on what he called Labor's 'Little Americans', or the 'Big Mac faction', in his 2005 book, The Latham Diaries, and who wrote there (p 393) that:

1) "The Americans have made us a bigger target in the War against Terror."
2) "The truth is, the Americans need us more than we need them."
3) "The Alliance is the last manifestation of the White Australia mentality."

Obama's World

From Obama's ratings for international leaders revealed (Ben Hoyle, The Australian, 30/3/16)

"One administration official told me [Jeffrey Goldberg, The Atlantic, April], 'Our allies all give us headaches, except for Australia. You can always count on Australia'."

Australia's a lapdog.

"Mr Obama said... Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was a source of frustration and a 'fountain of condescension' and is 'the world leader who consistently frustrated Obama the most'."

Israel's a right pain in the arse.

Abbott of Syria

Sit back, take it easy, crack a tinnie, and let Tone, Jules & Shero sort out Syria for YOU:

"The anticipated green light [for Abbot to approve air strikes on Syria] followed a formal request from President Barack Obama's administration, which itself had come after signalling from Canberra that such an invitation would be favourably received." (Syria air strikes loom, Mark Kenny/David Wroe, Sydney Morning Herald, 9/9/15)

Sir! Sir! Pick me, sir! Pick me! 

No one wants to be left off the team, OK?

"Tony Abbott has set realistic limits for the expansion of Australia's military action in the Middle East, saying airstrikes by the RAAF in Syria will be used to degrade and destroy the Islamic State terror group but not topple the brutal dictator Bashar al-Assad... 'Do we want Assad gone? Of course we do. Do our military operations contribute to that at this time? No, they don't,' he said yesterday, adding that the 'Assad regime is not the kind of government that we could ever support' [...] [Mr Abbott] told the ABC's 7.30 program. 'It's not easy to find moderates in that part of the world, particularly in Syria. At the moment the main forces are the gruesome Assad regime; the if anything more diabolical Daesh death cult; and then of course the people linked with al-Qa'da. So it's difficult to find effective moderates in Syria'." (Assad not in our sights: PM, Brendan Nicholson, The Australian, 10/9/15)

OK, so it's not about regime changing the brutal, the gruesome Asad then?

Errr... Hmmm:

"Australia is ramping up diplomatic efforts, with the US and Britain, to remove Syrian President Bashar al-Assad politically at the same time it bombs Islamic State in the country and takes refugees to ease the humanitarian crises. Tony Abbott is preparing a political strategy to take to US President Barack Obama and the world leaders summit at the UN in three weeks, with Foreign Minister Julie Bishop working with US Secretary of State John Kerry on a political solution aimed at removing Assad without promoting Islamic State." (Allies look to end of Assad, Dennis Shanahan, The Australian, 11/9/15)

On the other hand, the horrible dictator's not really that bad.

Certainly better than Saddam:

"Thus our military actions in Syria may well help Assad. So be it. We will be attacking Assad's chief enemy, Islamic State. That inevitably will take some pressure off Assad. Assad is a horrible dictator but in the last years of his rule before the outbreak of the Arab spring his regime was not especially bad by Arab standards. He certainly in those days bore no comparison with Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Since his regime was challenged his regime has been utterly brutal and murderous." (Abbott gets it right on Syrian refugees, Greg Sheridan, The Australian, 10/9/15)

And anyway, look what happened in Libya when we bumped off Gaddafi:

"But Western governments are undergoing an agonising reappraisal. If Assad is overthrown the new situation may be even worse, with nothing left but a civil war between Islamic State, al-Qa'ida and various warlords. Overthrowing Muammar Gaddafi in Libya produced no benefit for anybody though the Australian government of the time (and, let me hasten to say, this writer), led by then foreign minister Kevin Rudd, warmly supported it. It may be that any negotiated political future for Syria involves Assad." (ibid)

***

OK, so with these Einsteins in charge, sitting back, taking it easy, and cracking a tinnie is obviously not an option.

Well, you've got a choice:

Stay home and scream into your pillow or

Attend tomorrow's NO Australian War on Syria! rally & march.

Sydney Town Hall, 11 am.

'Kissing Foreign Backsides'

Thank God Australian journalist Alan Ramsey is back, drawing our attention to things that really matter and asking all the right questions:

"Seven months ago, at Washington's request, the Abbott cabinet sent 200 special forces troops, plus 400 military support staff and 6 Australian jet fighters, to Iraq to join a US-led multinational force to 'assist' the Iraqi government in its campaign against Islamic fanatics, whom Abbott prefers to call 'the death-cult.'

"After a 'formal request' from Washington with the 'support of the Prime Minister of Iraq', the Abbott government last month agreed to commit another 340 ground troops, in tandem with 143 New Zealand troops, who will join the Australian 'training' force at a base north of Baghdad next month.

"It was these additional Australian troops Abbott was farewelling in Brisbane this week. What he doesn't seem to realise is that his government's piecemeal decisions on military deployments to Iraq eerily mirror what the Menzies and Holt governments said and did exactly 50 years ago as they persisted with the pretence that they were reacting to appeals from South Vietnam's besieged government rather than colluding with Washington in an escalating Asian civil war that, unlike Australia, Washington's European allies wanted nothing to do with.

"Doesn't anybody in this ridiculous government of ours pay any attention to the mistakes, blunders, lies etc of their predecessors when it comes to forever knuckling under, previously, to London, and now to Washington?

"Don't we have any self-respect in what we do and how we're seen when we persist in kissing foreign backsides?

"No Australian under 50 today was alive when we went to war in Vietnam in April, 1965. Our London-born Prime Minister was just 3 when his parents migrated here in 1960 and 7 years old that April night Menzies announced we were sending ground troops to Vietnam.

"Is lack of firsthand knowledge, of having lived through those often dramatic and hugely divisive times, political and social, any excuse for repeating the folly of Australia having joined the United States in Washington's war there?

"Or are the lives of 500 dead Australians seen as acceptable in keeping favour with the White House when the United States sorely needed, for political and strategic reasons, other white faces alongside American ones in an otherwise wholly Asian war?" (Knuckling under in other people's wars ignores blunders of the past, Sydney Morning Herald, 25/4/15)

Look Who's Sponsoring James Jeffrey

"Prime Minister Tony Abbott has confirmed Washington made a 'general request' to Australia for more military help in Iraq and says the beheading of a second American journalist 'abundantly justifies' intervention... Both the the US and Australian governments have downplayed any prospect of a return of Western combat troops to Iraq. But a former US Ambassador to Iraq, James Jeffrey, said the Islamic State threat was so great that the US and its partners needed to be prepared to put 'boots on the ground' if that was needed." (US 'general request' for more military aid, David Wroe, Sydney Morning Herald, 4/9/14)

I see... the US and its partners...

Hm... so who is James Jeffrey?

Well, for a start, he's a "fellow" at the pro-Israel think tank - think Martin Indyk and Dennis Ross, for example - the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP).

He's on record calling for American military intervention in Syria:

"Shrinking from that responsibility could, in fact, bolster our detractors' self-confidence and embolden them: If Assad somehow survives, the rise in Iranian prestige and loss of ours could even prompt Moscow and Beijing, smelling blood, to up the ante against Washington." (Jeffrey: Should the United States intervene in Syria?, newsday.com, 25/4/13)

And he's a hawk on Iran:

"Nowhere else in the world is America more likely to deploy forces than in the Persian Gulf in opposition to Iran, and nowhere else is it of utmost importance that any potential confrontation be won decisively in the next 5 years than with the Islamic Republic." (Year of decision: US policy toward Iran in 2013, washingtoninstitute.org, 12/2/13)

So what sabre is he rattling over here?

"'We're in one of those defining moments in the Middle East - it's like after 9/11. These things have to work,' he said. 'And in the end, the United States, with or without Barack Obama, will put enough juice into it, including ultimately, potentially boots on the ground, to defeat ISIS'." (ibid)

And whose ears has he been in?

Those of Foreign Minister Julie Bishop, and her opposite number, Tanya Plibersek.

So who - and this is where it really starts to get interesting - is behind Jeffrey's visit?

"The former diplomat, who is visiting Australia as a guest of the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies and the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, said the militants were trying to draw the major powers in the Middle East into a Sunni-Shia sectarian war, and needed to be stopped." (ibid)

So why exactly are our humble Jewish community organisations, one billing itself as the "voice of the Jewish community of NSW," and the other as the "voice of the Australian Jewish Community," sponsoring a gent who's telling us that we'd better get ready to wade into Iraq... yet again?

Abbott's Anglosphere

Tony - ah - Abbott here. Everywhere you look - ah - our precious Anglosphere is - ah - not only under threat, from without, by - ah - baddies, but worse, from within, by - ah - goodies. I mean - ah - what was New Zealand thinking here?

"The federal government led secret diplomatic efforts to frustrate a New Zealand-led push for nuclear disarmament, according to documents released under FOI laws... because 'we rely on US nuclear forces to deter nuclear attack on Australia'. In October last year, following the election of the Coalition government, Australia refused a NZ request to endorse a 125-nation joint statement at the UN highlighting the humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons. Australia objected to a sentence declaring that it is in the interest of humanity that nuclear weapons are never used again, 'under any circumstances'." (Government pushed against NZ on nukes, Philip Dorling, Sydney Morning Herald, 10/3/14)

Just as well we put the kibosh on that one! The - ah - bottom line here, to quote that great American Suppository of all Wisdom, Sarah Palin, is - ah - this:

"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a nuke is a good guy with a nuke." (How to stop a bad guy with a nuke, AFP/SMH, 10/3/14)

Then there's Britain! As - ah - my own dear Suppository of all Wisdom, Monsignor Sheridan JP, has written only this weekend past:

"A few years ago I wrote a book about the US/Australia alliance and everywhere I went in research for that book I was surprised to find Britain as a third partner. Most people in both Australia and Britain don't realise how close the operational, political, intelligence, military, diplomatic and economic partnership really is. At AUKMIN [Australia United Kingdom Ministerial meeting] next Tuesday the two governments will sign a joint statement on enhanced diplomatic network co-operation." (Old ties that secure our future, Greg Sheridan, The Australian, 8/3/14)

Sadly, however, even - ah - the British these days are deviating from one of their - ah - core historical responsibilities, screwing the Palestinians. Maybe they're getting a little - ah - tired of this after almost 100 years? Whatever - ah - Foreign Minister Palin - sorry, Bishop - is resolved to - ah - show wee willie Hague the way here:

"Bishop, who admires Hague, who has indeed become a globally important foreign minister, disagrees with her British counterpart in his insistence that all Israeli settlements beyond the 1967 borders are illegal under international law. Hague got Bishop's predecessor, Bob Carr, to sign up to that language the last time an AUKMIN was held in Sydney. This was a departure for Australian policy and Bishop has reverted to the far more sensible formulation that these settlements... are part of negotiations now under way." (ibid)

We'll - ah - show them.

Syria in a Nutshell

From James Petras' latest essay, The Obama Regime's Military Metaphysics Rejects Diplomatic Opportunities, 23/8/13:

"For years Bashar Assad worked closely with the US in (1) curbing Al Qaeda terrorists; (2) preventing cross border attacks in Israel; (3) denying sanctuary for insurgents fighting against the US occupation of Iraq; (4) complying with US policy by withdrawing troops from Lebanon.

"Syria was a 'co-operative adversary', maintaining regional stability and a tolerant multi-ethno-religious state in a region riven by Islamist and Zionist sectarian violence. But Washington under Obama magnified their differences and prioritized the policy of establishing a submissive client state. Instead of continuing a policy of diplomatic pressure and tactical collaboration, Obama joined an unholy alliance of Persian Gulf Islamic autocracies, ex-colonial European powers (especially France and England), Israel's secret service (Mossad), and Turkey's Islamist President Erdogan in arming, training, financing, and providing sanctuary to Islamist mercenaries led by Al Qaeda brigades.

"As a result, Syria is now riven by conflict, its economy has been destroyed, security is non-existant, and millions of Syrians have fled to Iraq, Jordan, Turkey and beyond. Thousands of jihadists have journeyed from afar to Syria's neighbors to receive arms, training and paychecks in pursuit of a Taliban-style regime in Syria as a springboard to destabilise pro-US client states in the region. Turkey's and Egypt's (under Morsi) intervention on behalf of the Islamist uprising helped provoke internal mass popular protests, weakening these US collaborator regimes.

"Obama's 'all-or-nothing' attempt to establish a client regime in Syria through [Islamist] violence has produced a no-win situation: either Assad retains power as a less cooperative adversary or the Islamist terrorists establish a regime that serves as a springboard for two, three, many caliphates." (petras.lahaine.org)

Meanwhile, back at the quarry, a certain US client state receives its orders:

"The bipartisan position [of send in the UN inspectors] emerged after briefings on Syria over the weekend from the US ambassador to Australia, Jeffrey Bleich, and top officials." (Bipartisan response to Syrian chemical attack, David Crowe, The Australian, 26/8/13)

[PS - 30/8: "After initially insisting that Syria give UN investigators unimpeded access to the site of an alleged nerve gas attack, the administration of President Barack Obama reversed its position on Sunday and tried unsuccessfully to get the UN to call off its investigation." (In rush to strike Syria, US tries to derail UN probe, Gareth Porter, ipsnews.net, 27/8/13)] 

Conscription, Anyone?

My God, the revelations about Tony Abbott just keep on coming!

'Twas only on Saturday that we learned that Tone had once traversed the length and breadth of the Dark Continent in search of Cecil Rhodes. (See my 17/8/13 post Tony Abbott Carrying On Up the Khyber.)

Now we learn from an impeccable source that he's practically an old Middle East hand as well:

"He has travelled a bit in the Middle East and knows quite a lot about it, and remains a straightforward supporter of Israel, even opposing, as an overreaction, the government's decision to expel an Israeli diplomat accused of misusing an Australian passport." (A contest between constructed and unreconstructed man, Greg Sheridan, The Australian, 17/8/13)

(If I may be so bold as to correct the old suppository here, it wasn't the Israeli diplomat himself but his Mossad mates who misused not one but several Australian passports.)

Is there no end to Tone's accomplishments? Apparently not. Just take a look at the level of sophistication underpinning his support for the war in Iraq:

"Although a safer world is in everyone's long-term interest, there's little immediate reward in being its policeman. The invasion of Iraq, for instance, certainly didn't give America or its allies access to cheap oil [or] strategic bases... It was to liberate other people, to advance everyone's interests and to uphold universal values that the 'coalition of the willing' went to war in Iraq. If it's possible to engage in an altruistic war, this was it." (Battlelines, 2009, p 158)

No, it doesn't get much more sophisticated or nuanced than that.

And don't think that under an Abbott dispensation, we'll be leaving all the heavy lifting to the US. Oh no:

"Former general Jim Molan has observed that Australia hasn't really pulled its weight either in Iraq or Afghanistan... It's wrong to expect America to be the world's policeman with only token assistance from allies. If Australia is to matter in the wider world, Australians should expect more, not less, future involvement in international security issues." (ibid, p 159)

Conscription, anyone?

Stand By Your Man

OK, so John Howard read federal parliament's report - Intelligence on Iraq's WMD - which showed that a sanctions-weakened Iraq was about as much of a threat to world peace as Monaco, and simply ignored its findings. So why then did he take us to war against Iraq in 2003?

Apart from all the bull in Howard's Lowy Institute speech about everybody, but everybody, at the time having a near gospel belief that Saddam was such a mean and ornery fella he just had to have a stash of WMDs under his bed (and the more so for saying he didn't) and you're left with the odd statement or two that tells us why we really went in. Here they are in chronological order:

"[C]entral to a proper understanding of why the US acted as she did over Iraq, and the implications that had for a close ally such as Australia, is to recognise [her] vulnerability [to more terrorist attacks]."

"Australia's decision to join the coalition in Iraq was a product both of our belief at the time that Iraq had WMD, and the nature of our relationship and alliance with the US."

"Although the legal justification for the action taken against Iraq was based on her cumulative non-compliance with UNSC resolutions, and a properly grounded belief that Saddam possessed WMDs, a powerful element in our decision to join the Americans was, of course, the depth and character of our relationship with the US. Australia had invoked ANZUS in the days following 9/11. We had readily joined the coalition in Afghanistan; Australia had suffered the brutality of Islamic terrorism in Bali. There was a sense then that a common way of life was under threat. At that time, and in those circumstances, and given our shared history and values, I judged that, ultimately, it was in our national interest to stand beside the Americans."

Got the picture? When you're in love, you stand by your man, OK? It's really that simple(-minded). End of story.

Now, having definitively solved that little mystery, there are other revealing threads in his speech worth following up.

For example, in addition to all the ducking and weaving on WMDs, Howard gleefully invokes the spectre of Osama bin Laden and the Islamo-fascist hordes in blithe disregard for bin Laden having long ago written Saddam off as a "socialist infidel."*

As much as he protests, "I never believed that Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks nor did president Bush or, to my knowledge, Tony Blair. Such a claim never formed part of the public case put by the Howard government for our Iraqi involvement," Howard flogs the 9/11 attacks for all they're worth:

"Americans thought that their country would be attacked by terrorists again, and soon. To many in the US why wouldn't a rogue state like Iraq supply dangerous weapons to terrorist groups?"

Bringing it closer to home, he invokes the bomb in our own backyard - Bali - and the prospect of "home-grown threats to our peaceful society," conjuring nightmare visions of flinty-eyed, bearded men in flowing white robes bearing nuclear/chemical/biological suitcase bombs, personally packed by a certain "loathsome dictator" who rules over an "outlaw regime/rogue state," and who will go to any lengths to kick down our white picket fences and trample all over our carefully manicured lawns. And who, of course, has more WMDs - gospel! - than you can shake a stick at.

But what the bugger doesn't let on is that Americans didn't automaticaly think of Iraq after 9/11. They had to be 'taught' to think about it. They had to be 'educated'. Enter the neocons:

"The 'Get Iraq' campaign... started within days of the September bombings... It emerged first and particularly from pro-Israel hard-liners in the Pentagon such as Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and adviser Richard Perle, but also from hard-line neoconservatives, and some journalists and congressmen. Soon it became clear that many, although not all, were in the group that is commonly called in diplomatic and political circles the 'Israel-firsters', meaning that they would always put Israeli policy, or even their perception of it, above anything else." (Pro-Israeli, anti-Arab campaigns could isolate America, Georgie Anne Geyer, uexpress.com, 25/10/01)

Of course, don't expect Howard to go there.

Finally, some other gems... very John Howard:

"The claims of some that life in Iraq was better under Saddam than it has been since, defy belief."

The claims of some? Iraqis perhaps? But then again, what would they know?

"To have tried, albeit unsuccessfully, for a new [UN] resolution added weight to the moral and political case being built for a military operation."

LOL, even if the UN won't give you the green light you need, you're still ahead merely for trying!

"It was inevitable that after Saddam had been toppled a degree of revenge would be exacted, but a stronger security presence would have constrained this."

Inevitable, eh? You mean Rumsfeld didn't really have to send in the likes of Colonel James Steele, "a US veteran of of the 'dirty wars' in Central America to oversee sectarian police commando units in Iraq that set up detention and torture centres... [conducting] some of the worst acts of torture during the US occupation and [accelerating] the country's descent into full-scale civil war"?**

"[T]he removal of Saddam's regime provided the Iraqi people with opportunities for freedom not otherwise in prospect."

What is it with these born-to-rule bastards? Remember Abbott's campaign slogan - 'Hope, Reward, Opportunity'? As the experience of Iraq should tell us, when a guy in a suit starts banging on about opportunities it's time to batten down the hatches.

[*Messages to the World: The Statements of Osama Bin Laden, ed by Bruce Lawrence, 2005, p 184; ** Iraq - searching for Steele, Foreign Correspondent, 2/4/13]

Rats in the Ranks

No surprises here:

"Bob Carr may have been Foreign Minister for only 12 months, but he started talking to American diplomats about internal Labor politics nearly 40 years ago. Previously secret US embassy and consulate reports incorporated into a new searchable database unveiled by WikiLeaks on Monday reveal that Senator Carr was a source for US diplomats seeking information on the Whitlam government and the broader Labor movement in the mid-1970s... A former Australian Young Labor president and then education officer with the NSW Labor Council, Senator Carr later 'expressed deep concern to [the US] consul-general over [the] impact of Labor disputes on the prospects of [the] Labor government'. The once confidential cables also suggest US envoys turned to him as a source of background information on Labor figures. For example, Senator Carr explained that a speaker at a pro-Palestinian protest in 1975 - left-wing Labor parliamentarian George Petersen - was 'a NSW equivalent of Victoria's [Bill] Hartley', another prominent Labor Left figure who developed close ties with Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq.* Senator Carr has long been a strong supporter of Australia's alliance with the US. He was a prominent participant in the Australian American Leadership Dialogue while serving as NSW premier." (Hawke & Carr were US sources on Whitlam turmoil, Philip Dorling, Sydney Morning Herald, 9/4/13)

The late, great George Petersen had Carr figured out decades ago:

"Paul Landa was succeeded as [NSW] Attorney-General by Terry Sheahan. The Cabinet vacancy was filled by Bob Carr, who is an unabashed admirer of United States capitalism, and who became Minister for Environment & Planning. He has been Premier since 1995. Together with the Treasurer, Michael Egan, he represents a total commitment to the ideology of economic rationalism." (George Petersen Remembers: The Contradictions, Problems & Betrayals of Labor in Government in New South Wales, 1998, p 356)

No surprises here either:

"Then ACTU president Bob Hawke was the US embassy's most valued Labor contact, conferring regularly with embassy officers and the consulate in Melbourne... Mr Hawke was especially critical of what he called Mr Whitlam's 'immoral, unethical and ungrateful attitude' towards Israel. He told the US consulate he felt unable to approach the Jewish community for campaign funds because of 'Whitlam's 'unprintable' even-handed 'unprintable' Arab policy'." (ibid)

George Petersen also had Hawke's number, describing him as a "reliable servant of the Australian capitalist class and United States imperialism." (George Petersen Remembers, p 185)

[*This is misleading. Saddam Hussein did not become Secretary of the Iraqi Ba'ath Party until 1979.]

Australia Needs to Talk About Iraq

Below I've posted an important and eloquent appeal by Dr. Sue Wareham, secretary of the Campaign for an Iraq War Inquiry. It was published in The Age of February 14, 2013 under the title: For democracy's sake, let's talk about our war in Iraq:

"The largest anti-war demonstration in Australian history began 10 years ago today - February 14, 2003. Millions of people protested worldwide, in about 800 cities - including in Australia, Britain, Italy, Spain, Germany, Switzerland, Ireland, the United States, Canada, South Africa, Syria, India, Russia, South Korea, Japan, and even McMurdo Station in Antarctica.

"In Melbourne more than 100,000 people protested. They clogged Swanston Street for more than three hours, stretching all the way from the State Library down to Federation Square, demanding Australia not follow US President George Bush into war, and that we must allow UN weapons inspectors to do their work.

"Even though globally millions marched, their collective will was ignored, and a tragedy of monstrous proportions unfolded in Iraq. As predicted by many people at the time, the invasion of Iraq was a humanitarian, legal, political and strategic disaster. It left a trail of death and destruction and millions of refugees. It undermined the role of international law and strengthened terrorism. Australia's role in the war raised serious questions of government honesty and accountability. If we do not learn lessons from this episode, we are at risk of engaging in equally ill-founded wars in the future.

"And now, ten years later, we need to ask ourselves how the Australian government was able to ignore the public expression of outrage about its intentions. The key lesson we must learn is to ensure that Australian governments can never again commit our forces on the decision of a leader in the face of opposition from millions of Australian citizens, without even our Parliament being consulted. Democracy shouldn't work like that.

"The tenth anniversary of the largest outpouring of anti-war protest this country has ever seen is a fitting occasion for an inquiry into the Iraq War.

"The former secretary of the Department of Defence, Paul Barrett, along with former PM Malcolm Fraser, former chief of the Australian Defence Force, General Peter Gration and many other distinguished Australians have recently formed a campaign for an Iraq War inquiry to facilitate a national conversation about the big questions of how and why the Howard government committed Australian military personnel to invade Iraq in 2003. Their efforts are supported by senior Australian of the Year, Professor Ian Maddox.

"Britain and the Netherlands have both conducted such inquiries, revealing much that was hidden in those countries' Iraq War decision-making. Of course, the government and opposition will resist, counting on the resignation many felt for the past decade to shield them from public pressure. But the demand for an inquiry into what happened ten years ago can sow the seeds for a democratic capacity to ensure it never happens again.

"Instead of simply looking back in horror at how Australia became embroiled in such an ill-conceived and catastrophic conflict, the inquiry would seek to identify the steps that led to Australia participating in the invasion of Iraq in order to understand the lessons to be learnt and how to ensure we follow better procedures in the future.

"The inclusion of our parliament in any decision that puts our troops, and millions of civilians, in harm's way would be a good start. Going to war is one of the biggest steps any country can take and yet John Howard has never been properly called to account for his decision in 2003. Those who, with him, thought it was the right decision at the time, should welcome and support an inquiry. As the war has been severely criticised, its proponents should have the opportunity to defend their actions and views.

"In these days of political disengagement, an inquiry into Australia's involvement in Iraq would provide a powerful route to begin overcoming the sense of powerlessness so many people felt in the face of the travesty of democratic decision-making a decade ago. It is an episode from which we must learn, lest we repeat the mistakes."

[See my 28/7/10 post 'A Mature Democracy'?]

While You Weren't Looking 2

Further to my post on December 1, While You Weren't Looking, new details have emerged in the extraordinary story of how the Australian Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, was effectively dragged, kicking and screaming, from the clutches of the Israel lobby by leading members of her own party and forced to see reason, or at least some measure of same, on the Palestinian bid for observer status in the UN.

These are contained in the following report by Dennis Shanahan & Joe Kelly, Fears PM isolated on UN vote, in the December 1 issue of the Australian. The highlightings (and interleaved commentary) are, of course, my own :

"After Julia Gillard announced on Tuesday afternoon that Australia would abstain from a UNGA vote on state observer status for the Palestinians, two things happened. Our most important ally, the US, decided to make its 'disappointment' clear to the Australian ambassador in Washington, Kim Beazley, and the Prime Minister's 'special emissary to the Jewish community', Bruce Wolpe, was fingered as having an inordinate influence on Ms Gillard, who had intended to vote against the UN motion."

Yes, you heard correctly: the PM's special emissary to the Jewish community...

"During the previous 48 hours Gillard had been defied by her cabinet, rolled by caucus, abandoned by key supporters in the NSW ALP Right, put her leadership on the line and was accused of giving too much access and influence to Melbourne Jewish business leaders through Wolpe, a Jew, a former Fairfax executive and US Democrat adviser, and her special business and Jewish affairs adviser. It was no small matter for Gillard to defy advice from the Department of Foreign Affairs & Trade, the strongly held view of Foreign Minister Bob Carr, previous policy positions, lobbying from Bob Hawke and his foreign minister Gareth Evans, most of her backbench colleagues and the 'demographically challenged' NSW Right, including her staunchest cabinet supporter from that faction, Water Minister Tony Burke. As one cabinet source told The Weekend Ausralian last night: 'The Prime Minister turned this into a leadership issue herself by demanding cabinet follow her and a failure of process and consultation beforehand'. The opposition to Gillard cut across factional boundaries and went beyond supporters of former prime minister Kevin Rudd. The success of the party in rolling the Prime minister will have reverberations into the election year and has diminished her authority.

"While it should have been apparent for months - indeed it was a year since Rudd, then foreign minister, wrote suggesting an abstention on the Palestine issue, that now Labor overwhelmingly favoured a less dogmatic approach to Israel - Gillard insisted Australia oppose the move for Palestinian observer status, which was carried at the UN yesterday. On Monday evening, cabinet convened for what was to become an exceptional meeting and an eventual decision that may set various benchmarks in Australian political history. It changed a basic tenet of Australian foreign policy, it broke longstanding bipartisanship on Israel, it ditched a tradition as old as 'Doc' Evatt, disappointed the US, Israel and the local Jewish community and may yet prove to be a more potent leadership issue for Gillard than the Australian Workers Union affair."

Shanahan and Kelly could well be correct here, although the idea that uncritical bipartisan support for Israel and all its works has been a tenet of Australian foreign policy since the days of Evatt completely overlooks the era of Australia's 'even-handed' approach to the Middle East conflict. As former Labor Prime Minister Gough Whitlam said in 1973: "Australia has a bi-partisan policy, a policy of neutrality in the Middle East. The ALP policy is substantially the policy which governments have pursued for the last quarter of a century in Australia." (Quoted in Bob Hawke: A Portrait, Robert Pullan, 1980, p 159)

"Before Monday's meeting DFAT and Prime Minister and Cabinet prepared an options paper - not a cabinet submission - which set out the pros and cons of the 3 UN vote choices for Australia; a vote against with the US, Israel and half a dozen small states, abstain on the basis of a principled position to get Israel to negotiate, or vote for Palestinian state observer status. Carr's position, spelt out to the Prime Minister, was to abstain at least, as was the majority position in cabinet, the outer ministry and the Labor backbench. Carr committed to Gillard before the meeting that he would not speak because it would be obvious the Prime Minister and Foreign Minister were at odds. After the cabinet meeting began and Gillard made it clear she intended to go for the minority position all hell broke loose in the windowless room opposite her office suite in parliament. Minister after minister lined up to tell her - some forcibly - her position was wrong on policy and political grounds. The opposition included Burke and fellow NSW Right minister Chris Bowen, with Burke's contribution particularly significant as the last of the NSW faction's cabinet ministers supporting Gillard's leadership. Even Trade Minister Craig Emerson, derided for his public loyalty to Gillard, was opposed. Only Victorian Right Communications Minister Stephen Conroy, later backed by fellow Victorian right-winger Bill Shorten, spoke up for Gillard's position. Carr couldn't contain himself after 10 ministers had spoken in his portfolio area and made it clear he was at odds with his leader.

"Carr's opposition was significant not only because he was Foreign Minister but also because he had been hand-picked by the NSW Right to replace Rudd in the ministry and will always be seen as a safe fallback as leader should Gillard fail. What's more, Carr, who founded the NSW Labor Friends of Israel, has assiduously worked with Palestinian groups for 17 years and is aware of the plight of Christian groups throughout the Middle East who want peace. After Gillard insisted the cabinet had to agree to her minority position and demanded 'cabinet solidarity', there was a bemused and sullen response, with Carr ringing backbenchers to foment rebellion and government whip Joel Fitzgibbon defying the Prime Minister's request to lock in the Right behind her. Fitzgibbon yesterday said that if Australia had adopted the Prime minister's initial position it would have looked like Australia was acting as a puppet of the US.

"Carr informed Gillard minutes before Tuesday's Labor caucus meeting that she needed to change her position or face a humiliating defeat that would undermine her authority. Gillard conceded and backed a compromise of abstention. In the face of Gillard's initial demand for support, cabinet ministers began to complain there was no real explanation for the position, arguing the US was not overly exercised, many Labor seats were affected by Middle Eastern populations, Christian and Muslim, and there was a policy argument for sending Israel a message 'as a friend'.

"Ministers believed Wolpe was providing 'inordinate access' to the hardline pro-Israeli elements of the Melbourne Jewish community who were having an undue influence on Gillard."

IOW, they felt that Australia's foreign policy stance on the Middle East conflict had effectively been contracted out to a bunch of apologists (as much by omission as commission) for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whose real goal, a Greater Israel covering the entirety of historic Palestine 'from the river to the sea', runs counter to the 'two-states for two peoples' solution espoused by Labor.

"As a hard left-winger in her younger days..."

A truer picture of Gillard the student politician may be found in my 25/7/10 post Me, A Zionist? How Very Dare You!

" ... Gillard was not seen as a natural supporter of Israel or the US, but has worked hard at links with both, and her partner, Tim Mathieson, worked for Jewish Melbourne developer and Labor benefactor Albert Dadon. As deputy prime minister, Gillard visited Israel and was feted by the Israeli leadership. In Perth last week, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had indicated to Gillard that the US would prefer a vote against the Palestinian UN motion. It is understood Gillard's decision was determined from her own views and that Wolpe hadn't arranged a prime ministerial meeting with the Melbourne Jewish community for some time. Labor MP Michael Danby, who in Melbourne Ports represents the biggest Jewish community in Australia, said yesterday: 'I hope I am wrong and the UN resolution turns out to give the Palestinian Authority the confidence to begin direct talks with their neighbours, the best outcome that may result.'"

Such is the surreal level of misrepresentation of the true nature of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians by Zionist apologists such as Danby that he can get away with spinning a dispossessing colonial power, engaged in a decades-old process of screwing a dispossessed and colonised people, as a neighbour with whom the dispossessed and colonised need only to sit and have a chat with for a satisfactory solution to their 'differences' to emerge.

Just as you cannot, so the adage goes, fool all of the people all of the time, could it be that the reality of Israel's relentless colonisation drive in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem (indeed, a new round of settlement construction has just been announced in retaliation for the Palestinians' upgraded status in the UN) is beginning at last to dawn on Labor politicians? Hard to believe, I know, but I'd like to think that the cabinet/caucus revolt against Gillard, described here and in the Australian's earlier report, reflects, at least in part, a more realistic understanding by the ALP of what is actually taking place on the ground in occupied Palestine.

A Deserving Country

So the Prime Minister of the USraeli client state of Australia, Julia Gillard, in her address to the UN General Assembly on 26 September reckons we "deserve"* a seat on the UN Security Council.

This is the client state:

a) whose Foreign Minister H.V. Evatt played an instrumental role in the UNGA's decision to recommend the partition of Palestine over the heads of its people in 1947.

b) that supported the Israeli/British/French aggression against Egypt in 1956.

c) that tailed the US into Vietnam in 1962.

d) that tailed the US into the Persian Gulf in 1991.

e) that tailed the US into Afghanistan in 2001.

f) that tailed the US into Iraq in 2003.

g) that called for NATO intervention in Libya in 2011.

h) that calls for the West to "muscle up to the Syrian regime."

i) that talks of the need for "robust actions" against Iran.

j) that routinely votes with USrael and a motley crew of Pacific Island states against any resolution critical of Israeli human rights abuses and war crimes.

k) that acts as an errand boy for Israeli interests in UN fora and beyond.

l) that has never had an independent foreign policy thought in its entire life.

We deserve a seat on the SC? What the f... ! You're kidding me?!

[*UN must muscle up to Syria & Iran, says Gillard, Phillip Coorey, Sydney Morning Herald, 27/9/12]

Other Palestines

Another inglorious chapter in Australia's one-sided and undignified love affair with the United States has begun. It involves the transformation of the remote Australian Indian Ocean territory known as the Cocos (Keeling) Islands into a base for US military hardware, including giant drones, aircraft carriers and nuclear-powered submarines. There's only one problem: the people who actually live there would most certainly never have opted to become part of Australia if they'd known it would one day, in a moment of steamy passion, hand their island home over to the US military as a token of its crazy love*:

"Signa Knight - a descendant of one of the original Malay slaves of the Cocos Islands - was one of the majority on the remote Indian Ocean outpost who voted in a UN referendum in 1984 to integrate with Australia... But the 63-year-old now fears that the government he looked to for protection and a good future for his children has struck a deal with the US to turn his quiet island home, 2,750km northwest of Perth, into a busy military base. 'I am worried about Americans coming', he told The Australian. 'They go to war a lot. I think if they come here, they will do what they like'. Mr Knight, who was born and bred on Cocos's Home Island, believes his people will eventually be told about plans to increase the US military presence on the isolated chain of atolls - but never asked... One resident told The Australian locals sometimes felt like they were still not really wanted - although strategically significant." (Drones just another hazard for islanders, Paige Taylor, 2/4/12)

Just as the now dispossessed people of Palestine were never at any stage asked by the British if they wanted their homeland transformed into a Jewish state.

And just as the now dispossessed people of another Indian Ocean island, Diego Garcia, were never asked by the British if they wanted their island handed over to the US military:

"Forty years ago, on Dec. 30, 1966, at the US Embassy in London, representatives of the US and British governments met, as one participant later put it, 'under the cover of darkness', to sign an 'exchange of notes' giving the United States the right to create what was to become a major military base on Diego Garcia, an obscure British Island in the middle of the Indian Ocean. In doing so they made provision for 'those administrative measures' necessary to forcibly deport the entire native population of the island and the surrounding Chagos Archipelago. While Diego Garcia has gained some attention as a key launch pad for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, few know about the expulsion of nearly 2,000 people, called Chagossians, that was eventually carried out between 1968 and 1973 to create the base.

"Despite the anonymity, the facts are not in doubt: Beginning in 1960, US officials initiated secret conversations with the British government and eventually secured British agreement to provide 'exclusive control' of the island 'without local inhabitants'. The governments finalized the deal with their December 30 exchange of notes, in effect creating a treaty but circumventing congressional and parliamentary oversight. A separate secret agreement provided for $14 million in undisclosed US payments to deport the Chagossians and turn Diego Garcia into a military colony. With the financial and diplomatic details ensured, beginning in 1968, islanders leaving Chagos for vacations or medical treatment on the island of Mauritius were barred by the British from returning and thus marooned 1,200 miles from their homes. The British soon began restricting supplies for the islands, and by the turn of the decade, more Chagossians were leaving as food and medicines dwindled. In 1971 the US Navy began construction on Diego Garcia and ordered the British to complete the removals. First British agents and US soldiers on Diego Garcia herded the Chagossians' pet dogs into sealed sheds and gassed and burned them in front of their traumatized owners awaiting deportation. Then, between 1971 and 1973, British agents forced the islanders to board overcrowded cargo ships and left them on the docks in Mauritius and the Seychelles." (Island of Injustice: The US has a moral duty to the people of Diego Garcia, David Vine, washingtonpost.com, 2/1/07)

Is this what's being cooked up for our fellow Australians on Cocos?

[*Unable to admit what a cheap little tart she is, this floosy is telling herself stories like this: "'The sea-air gap to our north is at the strategic centre of our primary operational environment', the government policy paper says. 'It affords us an opportunity to detect and respond to potentially hostile military incursions at sufficiently long ranges to enable an effective response before an adversary could reach Australian mainland territory and, in particular, key population centres and majore infrastructure'." (Drones just another...)]

With Flying Colours

I wasn't worried. I always knew that when push came to shove Bob would pass his Australia/America 101 exam with flying colours:

"Bob Carr has had his first meeting as Foreign Affairs Minister with a senior official of the Obama administration, reassuring Washington he is 'a great friend of the US', the official said. Some of Mr Carr's earlier writings raised eyebrows in Washington over his commitment to the US in the face of China's competing claim for attention. But after 2 hours of talks in Sydney yesterday, the US official Kurt Campbell said there had been 'no points of disagreement'. 'He listened carefully, he took a lot of advice, I felt very good about it', Dr Campbell told the Herald." (Carr assures US official of friendly intentions, Peter Hartcher, Sydney Morning Herald, 24/3/12)

In Whose Interest?

Pure coincidence, but it's interesting how the following news should come on the heels of my last post:

"A secret squadron of Australian SAS soldiers has been operating at large in Africa, performing work normally done by spies, in an unannounced and possibly dangerous expansion of Australia's foreign military engagement... The Herald has confirmed that troopers from the [SAS 4] squadron have mounted dozens of secret operations during the past year in various African nations, including Zimbabwe, Nigeria and Kenya. They have been out of uniform and not accompanied by Australian Secret Intelligence Service [ASIS] officers with whom undercover SAS forces are conventionally deployed. It is believed the missions have involved gathering intelligence on terrorism and scoping rescue strategies for Australian civilians trapped by kidnapping or civil war. But the operations have raised serious concerns within the Australian military and intelligence community because they involve countries where Australia is not at war... Despite the dangers, the then foreign affairs minister Kevin Rudd last year asked for troopers from 4 Squadron to be used in Libya during the conflict. His plan was thwarted by opposition from the Defence Minister, Stephen Smith, and the Chief of the Australian Defence Force, General David Hurley." (Secret SAS teams hunt for terrorists, Rafael Epstein & Dylan Welch, Sydney Morning Herald, 13/3/12)

But really this should come as no surprise:

"Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has phoned Prime Minister John Howard to thank him for the role played by Australian special forces sent deep into Iraq to destroy missile sites aimed at Israel. While little detail has emerged about the activities of the SAS in the second Gulf War, indications are that its soldiers went in to knock out missiles aimed at Israel and at Arab countries helping the coalition cause. A major concern of coalition planners was that the hawkish Israeli Government would launch its own attacks on Iraq if Iraqi missiles landed on its territory - particularly if they were loaded with chemical or biological weapons... The US is understood to have assured Israel that it would be in a position to deal with any such threat before hostilities started.

"Israel's ambassador to Australia, Gabi Levy, told The Sunday Age that Mr Sharon rang Mr Howard a week ago to convey his appreciation for the part Australia played. That followed a March 25 call from Israel's foreign minister, Silvan Shalom, to his Australian counterpart, Alexander Downer, in which he passed on the appreciation and gratitude of Israelis for the job the SAS soldiers did in western Iraq. Mr Levy said Mr Downer briefed Mr Shalom on the coalition forces' activities in western Iraq and said that their aim was to prevent Scud missile attacks on Israel. Mr Downer said a high priority was given to that goal. It seems likely that the SAS moved into Iraq at least 2 days before the 'official' war started on March 20 with a cruise missile bombardment of Baghdad intended to kill the Iraqi leadership... Mr Levy said he knew nothing of speculation from the US that Australian and Israeli special forces operated together in western Iraq. On March 29, New York's Daily News reported that Israel was engaged behind the scenes providing satellite intelligence to supplement that of the US. It said Israeli agents in Baghdad had provided sensitive information to the US and its Sayeret Matkal commandos were operating in the desert in western Iraq with American and Australian special forces." (Sharon thanks PM for help, Brendan Nicholson, The Age, 13/4/03)

The question arises: Are we off on a frolic all our own, or are we just gormlessly tagging along with our USraeli mates again?

After all, the Israelis recently concluded a deal with Kenya, declaring that "Kenya's enemies are Israel's enemies" (Israel increase in support for Kenya's al-Shabaab battle draws fresh threats, Mike Pflanz, telegraph.co.uk, 15/11/11).

Ditto for Nigeria. In the words of Israel's ambassador to that country: "Our hands are always open to our friends and partners. Nigeria is one of them. Efforts are on the way over this, we cannot say more than that now. It falls under a bi-lateral arrangement and relationship" (Israel joins Nigeria to fight Boko Haram, Konye Obaji Ori, theafricareport.com, 8/3/12).

Further, hadn't Haaretz' security expert, Yossi Melman, declared on our own Radio National in 2010:

"A third role [of Mossad] was to maintain secret, clandestine but very vital and useful contacts with its counterparts, whether it's... ASIO or... the CIA or... MI6. And they have developed over the years, very, very intimate relations, sharing information and... assessments and even, nowadays, going into the field, enjoying the operations in the war against global terrorism"* (The Mossad, Rear Vision, 24/3/10).

Watch this space.

[*See my 29/5/10 post All the Way with Mossad.]

The Carr Doctrine? What Carr Doctrine?

What did Mark Latham say about Bob Carr in 2004? That he could play a "vital role" in "put[ting the Americans] back in their box. But he won't. When push comes to shove, he's like the rest of the Labor conservatives: scared of Murdoch... scared of the Americans, our great and powerful friends." (See my previous post.)

And so it has come to pass. The Carr Doctrine So Far, the subject of my last 3 posts, is now just a matter of "private views," to be replaced by a new, "official view," with script and to-do list provided by the likes of Hague, Kissinger and Clinton:

"On a raft of contentious foreign policy issues he has blogged about in recent years, Mr Carr sidestepped neatly - saying the views he held as a 'freewheeling private citizen' should be set aside for the 'more precise' views he will now express on behalf of the nation. 'We all have private views. If you are a foreign minister, you have to have one view and that's the official view of the government. The views I now have will be formed by discussions with professional diplomats and my own judgment'. In the past, Mr Carr had criticised America's 'chronic insecurities' over the rise of China and the 'worse' insecurities' of the Chinese about the US, and condemned any permanent US troop presence in Australia. Yesterday he talked up both strategic relationships for Australia: the security treaty with the US was a 'bedrock' that was 'in Australia's serious long-term interest' and which 'confers on Australia much more importance than we would otherwise have in the world'... He spoke with British Foreign Minister William Hague on Friday, and expects to speak with Henry Kissinger and US Secreary of State Hilary Clinton." (Carr winds back personal views, Misha Schubert, Sydney Morning Herald, 4/3/12)

What a phony!