What ever could Michael Fullilove, executive director of the Lowy Institute, possibly mean by this nonsense?
"Scott Morrison has served as Prime Minister for nine months, carrying out his international duties with confidence." (A world of difference goes unnoticed, Sydney Morning Herald, 3/5/19)
This perhaps:
"Australia quietly opened a trade and defence office in West Jerusalem in March, with no official government announcement and no officials attending the meeting." (Australia opens trade and defence office in Israel, Louis Dillon, defencedirect.com, 3/5/19)
What a mensch is Morrison, eh?
Showing posts with label Lowy Institute. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lowy Institute. Show all posts
Sunday, May 12, 2019
Thursday, November 29, 2018
Make One, Two, Three, Many Guatemalas*
Sorry, but I can't rest on this subject. Even the Lowy Institute is giving the embassy shuffle the thumbs-down:
"Moving the Australian embassy when no other first world country is would dilute the unity of Western effort further and reward Israel without getting anything in return. No wonder Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was effusive in his praise of the proposal - he probably never thought he would get two Guatemalas in his time in office." (Jerusalem embassy move is down and out on three counts, Rodger Shanahan, The Australian, 22/11/18)
Two Guatemalas? And Australia is the second! Ay caramba! So let's check out the first:
"'We have had an excellent relationship with the people of Israel since the foundation of the State of Israel,' President Jimmy Morales told CBN on Wednesday. His Central American country, now the most heavily evangelical nation in Latin America, was an early supporter of Israel's independence in 1948 and the first to establish an embassy in Jerusalem in the late 1950s. (It was later one of 13 nations that withdrew their embassies from the disputed city due to a 1980 United Nations resolution.)... Citing prayer and prophesy as their motivation, Morales and Vice President Jafeth Cabrera officially recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital last year and pledged to return Guatemala's embassy there. 'People in Guatemala pray for the peace in this region, pray for Jerusalem, and they are excited,' said Sarah Angelina Solis, Guatemala's ambassador to Israel, in an interview with CBN. 'I feel this is a gift from God. I know that a lot of blessings will come after this decision. This is a promise in the Bible, in Genesis...'" (Blessed through Israel: how Guatemala's evangelicals inspired its embassy move, Kate Shellnutt, christianitytoday.com, 17/5/18)
This millenarian madness, of course, is continent-wide, but the rot appears deepest in Central America, particularly in Guatemala:
"As once Catholic-dominated nations in Central and South America see the rise of evangelicos, particularly from Pentecostal and charismatic traditions, they've also grown more supportive of Israel as a political state and a holy land, keen to the Lord's words to Abraham: 'I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.' (Gen. 12:3 NIV). Guatemala and Honduras - which have undergone the most dramatic declines in Catholic identity (down nearly 50% in 45 years, according to the Pew Research Center) - were among just a handful of countries to side with the US when the UN voted to condemn its decision to recognize Jerusalem again... Guatemala's third evangelical president, Morales has prioritized Israel since his election in 2015, making the country his first official visit outside of the Americas." (ibid)
But the Lord's 'blessings' now being showered on Jimmy Morales' Guatemala actually go back to the 70s and 80s:
"Even in the midst of the endless misery and cruelty of Central America, Guatemala stands out as a country where those in power have been fighting the powerless with an unusual degree of ruthlessness and bloodiness. Over the years, reports of the horrible realities of Guatemala have been numerous and the judgments harsh. What is unique is the extent to which those who carried out the deliberate policies of endless killings have proclaimed their indebtedness to Israel, as the source not only of their hardware, but of their inspiration. Israel became the main support of the Guatemalan military regimes, as attested to by both General Romeo Lucas Garcia and General Efrain Rios Montt in no uncertain terms. It was Rios Montt, born-again Christian and dictator of Guatemala in 1982-1983, who explained the ease with which he took over in March 1982 simply: 'Many of our soldiers were trained by Israelis' (Greve, 1984) [...] In Guatemala, Israeli advisers are not just instructors: 'Israeli advisers - some official, others private - helped Guatemalan internal security agents hunt underground rebel groups' (Cody, 1983, p 7). They have been directly engaged in counterinsurgency campaigns against the Indian communities." (Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi, The Israeli Connection: Whom Israel Arms & Why, 1988, pp 79-81)
The genocidal Indian-fighter Rios Montt, it seems, is something of a role model for Morales:
"Rios Montt died in Guatemala City on April, 2018, of a heart attack at the age of 91. The government of Guatemalan president Jimmy Morales lamented his passing." (Efrain Rios Monttt - Wikipedia)
In fact, Guatemala's love affair with Israel goes back even further, as a young British officer, stationed in Mandate Palestine at the time the Irgun and Stern gangs were strutting their stuff, noted acidly in his memoir:
"This was the day, 16 June [1947], which heralded the arrival of the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine. This travelling circus, under its self-appointed ringmaster, Jorge Garcia-Granados, a Guatemalan whose country had little to learn about oppressing indigenous peoples, passed five weeks in the Holy Land, adding not a jot to its preconceived ideas. His personal conclusion was that Palestine was a police state, because, thanks to terrorism, it had been forced to spend $2,000,000 a month on security, or P7,010,000 per year. Necessity, the need to support a subjective viewpoint, in this case became the mother of invention." (Philip Brutton, A Captain's Mandate: Palestine 1946-1948, 1996, pp 99-100)
Garcia-Granados went on to pen his own memoir, which concludes thus:
"Yes, it was true, the birth of Israel had taken place in the agony of war. I was convinced that this war need not have been... Nonetheless, bloodshed had come, and we recognized the realities of the situation. Despite this unnecessary tragedy, we, who had considered the needs and problems of Palestine and its peoples, knew that Israel would live. It must live! Its existence was the first step toward the achievement of security and peace and a new awakening in the lands of the Middle East. How far from Guatemala to Israel - and yet, how near! In a world of many peoples, the struggle was one." (Jorge Garcia-Granados, The Birth of Israel: The Drama as I Saw It, 1948, pp 290-91)
Just how well that worked out we can see today in the smoking ruin that passes for the Middle East, and just how near Guatemala is to Israel today can hardly have been imagined by the deluded author of these words.
[*With apologies to Che. I have, of course, borrowed his memorable injunction, 'Make one, two, three, many Vietnams', to describe Netanyahu's attempt to circumvent apartheid Israel's pariah status.]
"Moving the Australian embassy when no other first world country is would dilute the unity of Western effort further and reward Israel without getting anything in return. No wonder Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was effusive in his praise of the proposal - he probably never thought he would get two Guatemalas in his time in office." (Jerusalem embassy move is down and out on three counts, Rodger Shanahan, The Australian, 22/11/18)
Two Guatemalas? And Australia is the second! Ay caramba! So let's check out the first:
"'We have had an excellent relationship with the people of Israel since the foundation of the State of Israel,' President Jimmy Morales told CBN on Wednesday. His Central American country, now the most heavily evangelical nation in Latin America, was an early supporter of Israel's independence in 1948 and the first to establish an embassy in Jerusalem in the late 1950s. (It was later one of 13 nations that withdrew their embassies from the disputed city due to a 1980 United Nations resolution.)... Citing prayer and prophesy as their motivation, Morales and Vice President Jafeth Cabrera officially recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital last year and pledged to return Guatemala's embassy there. 'People in Guatemala pray for the peace in this region, pray for Jerusalem, and they are excited,' said Sarah Angelina Solis, Guatemala's ambassador to Israel, in an interview with CBN. 'I feel this is a gift from God. I know that a lot of blessings will come after this decision. This is a promise in the Bible, in Genesis...'" (Blessed through Israel: how Guatemala's evangelicals inspired its embassy move, Kate Shellnutt, christianitytoday.com, 17/5/18)
This millenarian madness, of course, is continent-wide, but the rot appears deepest in Central America, particularly in Guatemala:
"As once Catholic-dominated nations in Central and South America see the rise of evangelicos, particularly from Pentecostal and charismatic traditions, they've also grown more supportive of Israel as a political state and a holy land, keen to the Lord's words to Abraham: 'I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.' (Gen. 12:3 NIV). Guatemala and Honduras - which have undergone the most dramatic declines in Catholic identity (down nearly 50% in 45 years, according to the Pew Research Center) - were among just a handful of countries to side with the US when the UN voted to condemn its decision to recognize Jerusalem again... Guatemala's third evangelical president, Morales has prioritized Israel since his election in 2015, making the country his first official visit outside of the Americas." (ibid)
But the Lord's 'blessings' now being showered on Jimmy Morales' Guatemala actually go back to the 70s and 80s:
"Even in the midst of the endless misery and cruelty of Central America, Guatemala stands out as a country where those in power have been fighting the powerless with an unusual degree of ruthlessness and bloodiness. Over the years, reports of the horrible realities of Guatemala have been numerous and the judgments harsh. What is unique is the extent to which those who carried out the deliberate policies of endless killings have proclaimed their indebtedness to Israel, as the source not only of their hardware, but of their inspiration. Israel became the main support of the Guatemalan military regimes, as attested to by both General Romeo Lucas Garcia and General Efrain Rios Montt in no uncertain terms. It was Rios Montt, born-again Christian and dictator of Guatemala in 1982-1983, who explained the ease with which he took over in March 1982 simply: 'Many of our soldiers were trained by Israelis' (Greve, 1984) [...] In Guatemala, Israeli advisers are not just instructors: 'Israeli advisers - some official, others private - helped Guatemalan internal security agents hunt underground rebel groups' (Cody, 1983, p 7). They have been directly engaged in counterinsurgency campaigns against the Indian communities." (Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi, The Israeli Connection: Whom Israel Arms & Why, 1988, pp 79-81)
The genocidal Indian-fighter Rios Montt, it seems, is something of a role model for Morales:
"Rios Montt died in Guatemala City on April, 2018, of a heart attack at the age of 91. The government of Guatemalan president Jimmy Morales lamented his passing." (Efrain Rios Monttt - Wikipedia)
In fact, Guatemala's love affair with Israel goes back even further, as a young British officer, stationed in Mandate Palestine at the time the Irgun and Stern gangs were strutting their stuff, noted acidly in his memoir:
"This was the day, 16 June [1947], which heralded the arrival of the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine. This travelling circus, under its self-appointed ringmaster, Jorge Garcia-Granados, a Guatemalan whose country had little to learn about oppressing indigenous peoples, passed five weeks in the Holy Land, adding not a jot to its preconceived ideas. His personal conclusion was that Palestine was a police state, because, thanks to terrorism, it had been forced to spend $2,000,000 a month on security, or P7,010,000 per year. Necessity, the need to support a subjective viewpoint, in this case became the mother of invention." (Philip Brutton, A Captain's Mandate: Palestine 1946-1948, 1996, pp 99-100)
Garcia-Granados went on to pen his own memoir, which concludes thus:
"Yes, it was true, the birth of Israel had taken place in the agony of war. I was convinced that this war need not have been... Nonetheless, bloodshed had come, and we recognized the realities of the situation. Despite this unnecessary tragedy, we, who had considered the needs and problems of Palestine and its peoples, knew that Israel would live. It must live! Its existence was the first step toward the achievement of security and peace and a new awakening in the lands of the Middle East. How far from Guatemala to Israel - and yet, how near! In a world of many peoples, the struggle was one." (Jorge Garcia-Granados, The Birth of Israel: The Drama as I Saw It, 1948, pp 290-91)
Just how well that worked out we can see today in the smoking ruin that passes for the Middle East, and just how near Guatemala is to Israel today can hardly have been imagined by the deluded author of these words.
[*With apologies to Che. I have, of course, borrowed his memorable injunction, 'Make one, two, three, many Vietnams', to describe Netanyahu's attempt to circumvent apartheid Israel's pariah status.]
Wednesday, June 20, 2018
Where's Israel?
I just love the annual Lowy Institute Poll and its 'Feelings Thermometer', don't you?
"Please rate your feelings towards some countries, with 100 meaning a very warm, favourable feeling, zero meaning a very cold, unfavourable feeling... "
"This year for the first time," says the Poll, in its gloss, Feelings towards other countries, "we have included in the same 'thermometer' question the three nations Australians have felt most warmly towards in the past: New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and Canada. Each is very warmly regarded, and the separation between them is almost insignificant."
I just don't understand! Why isn't Israel included here?
After all, PM Harbourside Mansion (salary now almost $538,500) is on record as saying that we and Israel share the values of "ingenuity, resilience and hard work," and that "we have an unbreakable bond that is only getting stronger."
UNBREAKABLE, mate!
"Please rate your feelings towards some countries, with 100 meaning a very warm, favourable feeling, zero meaning a very cold, unfavourable feeling... "
"This year for the first time," says the Poll, in its gloss, Feelings towards other countries, "we have included in the same 'thermometer' question the three nations Australians have felt most warmly towards in the past: New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and Canada. Each is very warmly regarded, and the separation between them is almost insignificant."
I just don't understand! Why isn't Israel included here?
After all, PM Harbourside Mansion (salary now almost $538,500) is on record as saying that we and Israel share the values of "ingenuity, resilience and hard work," and that "we have an unbreakable bond that is only getting stronger."
UNBREAKABLE, mate!
Saturday, September 30, 2017
A Guest of the Lowy Institute
"There was passionate support for foreign news reports at the Lowy Institute's media awards in Sydney on Saturday night at which the New York Times columnist Bret Stephens delivered the keynote address... Stephens referred to the controversy that followed Lowy's invitation for him to speak at the media award ceremony, which was to be named after the late ABC broadcaster Mark Colvin. But Lowy removed Colvin's name after a family disagreement. 'I'm aware of the controversy that has gone with my selection as your speaker,' Stephens said." (Guthrie's content shake-up threatens ABC empires, Amanda Meade, theguardian.com, 29/9/17)
Hmm... The controversy that has gone with my selection as speaker.
It appears that Colvin's wife, in particular, objected to her husband's name being associated with that of Stephens. But why? Could it possibly have had something to do with Stephens' Zionism?
Since this was nowhere explicit in Stephens' LI speech (on dissent), presumably only the brows of the more informed in the audience would have furrowed at the ludicrousness of Natan Sharansky being mentioned in the same breath as Galileo, Nelson Mandela, and Rosa Parks, and Michael Oren, Israel's ambassador to the US, being singled out as a victim (of "organized claques of hecklers"/"junior totalitarians" no less!), we really need to look elsewhere for it.
Over at PragerU.com, for example, where Stephens lets it all hang out. Gird your loins for What's holding the Arab world back?:
"In the judo competition of the 2016 Olympics in Brazil, an Israeli heavyweight judo fighter named Or Sasson defeated his Egyptian opponent, Islam El Shehaby, in a first-round match. The Egyptian then refused to shake the Israeli's extended hand, earning boos from the crowd.*
"If you want the short answer for why the Arab world is sliding into the abyss, look no further than this little incident. It illustrates how hatred of Israel and Jews corrupts every element of Arab society.
"You won't find this explanation for the Arab world's decline among journalists and academics. They reflexively blame the usual suspects: the legacy of colonialism, unemployed youth, the Sunni-Shia sectarian divide, and every other politically correct excuse they can think of. For them, hatred of Israel is treated like sand in Arabia - just part of the landscape.
"Yet the fact remains that over the past 70 years the Arab world expelled virtually all of its Jews, some 900,000 people, while holding on to its hatred of them. Over time the result proved fatal: a combination of lost human capital, expensive wars against Israel, and an intellectual life perverted by conspiracy theories and a perpetual search for scapegoats. The Arab world's problems are a problem of the Arab mindset, and the name of that problem is anti-Semitism.
"As a historical phenomenon, this is not unique. Historian Paul Johnson has noted that wherever anti-Semitism took hold, social and political decline almost inevitably followed. Just a few examples:
"Spain expelled its Jews in 1492. The effect, Johnson noted, 'was to deprive Spain (and its colonies) of a class already notable for the astute handling of finance.'
"In czarist Russia, the adoption of numerous anti-Semitic laws ultimately weakened and corrupted the entire Russian government. These laws also led to mass Jewish emigration, resulting in a breathtaking loss of intellectual and human capital.
"Germany might well have won the race for an atomic bomb if Hitler hadn't sent Jewish scientists like Albert Einstein and Edward Teller into exile in the US.
"These patterns were replicated in the Arab world. Contrary to myth, the cause was not the creation of the state of Israel in 1948. There were bloody anti-Jewish pogroms in 1929, Iraq in 1941, and Libya in 1945.
"Nor is it accurate to blame Israel for fuelling anti-Semitism by refusing to trade land for peace.
"Among Egyptians, hatred of Israel barely abated after Prime Minister Menachem Begin returned the entire Sinai Peninsula to Egypt. And among Palestinians, anti-Semitism became markedly worse during the years of the Oslo peace process.
"Johnson calls anti-Semitism a 'highly infectious' disease capable of overwhelming intellectuals and simpletons alike. Its potency, he noted, lies in transforming a personal and instinctive irrationalism into a political and systematic one. For the Jew hater, every crime has the same culprit and every problem has the same solution. Anti-Semitism makes the world seem simple. In doing so, it condemns the anti-Semite to a permanent darkness.
"Today there is no great university in the Arab world, no serious scientific research, a stunted literary culture. In 2015, the US Patent Office reported 3,804 patents from Israel, as compared with 30 from Egypt, the largest Arab country. Hatred of Israel and Jews has also deprived the Arab world of both the resources and the example of its neighbour. Israel quietly supplies water to Jordan, helping to ease the burden of Syrian refugees, and quietly provides surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities to Egypt to fight ISIS in the Sinai. But this is largely unknown among Arabs, for whom the only permissible image of Israel is an Israeli soldier in riot gear, abusing a Palestinian. Successful nations make a point of trying to learn from their neighbours. The Arab world has been taught over generations only to hate theirs.
"This may be starting to change. Recently, the Arab world has been forced to face up to its own failings in ways it cannot easily blame on Israel. The change can be seen in the budding rapprochement between Jerusalem and Cairo, Riyadh and Abu Dhabi.
"But that's not enough. So long as an Arab athlete can't pay his Israeli opposite the courtesy of a handshake, the disease of the Arab mind and the misfortunes of its world will continue.
"For Israel, this is a pity.
"For the Arabs, it's a calamity."
See what I mean?
[*"I have no problem with Jewish people or any other religion... But for personal reasons, you can't ask me to shake the hand of anyone from this State... " (Islam El Shehaby: 'I've respected the judo rules, lespritdujudo.com)]
Hmm... The controversy that has gone with my selection as speaker.
It appears that Colvin's wife, in particular, objected to her husband's name being associated with that of Stephens. But why? Could it possibly have had something to do with Stephens' Zionism?
Since this was nowhere explicit in Stephens' LI speech (on dissent), presumably only the brows of the more informed in the audience would have furrowed at the ludicrousness of Natan Sharansky being mentioned in the same breath as Galileo, Nelson Mandela, and Rosa Parks, and Michael Oren, Israel's ambassador to the US, being singled out as a victim (of "organized claques of hecklers"/"junior totalitarians" no less!), we really need to look elsewhere for it.
Over at PragerU.com, for example, where Stephens lets it all hang out. Gird your loins for What's holding the Arab world back?:
"In the judo competition of the 2016 Olympics in Brazil, an Israeli heavyweight judo fighter named Or Sasson defeated his Egyptian opponent, Islam El Shehaby, in a first-round match. The Egyptian then refused to shake the Israeli's extended hand, earning boos from the crowd.*
"If you want the short answer for why the Arab world is sliding into the abyss, look no further than this little incident. It illustrates how hatred of Israel and Jews corrupts every element of Arab society.
"You won't find this explanation for the Arab world's decline among journalists and academics. They reflexively blame the usual suspects: the legacy of colonialism, unemployed youth, the Sunni-Shia sectarian divide, and every other politically correct excuse they can think of. For them, hatred of Israel is treated like sand in Arabia - just part of the landscape.
"Yet the fact remains that over the past 70 years the Arab world expelled virtually all of its Jews, some 900,000 people, while holding on to its hatred of them. Over time the result proved fatal: a combination of lost human capital, expensive wars against Israel, and an intellectual life perverted by conspiracy theories and a perpetual search for scapegoats. The Arab world's problems are a problem of the Arab mindset, and the name of that problem is anti-Semitism.
"As a historical phenomenon, this is not unique. Historian Paul Johnson has noted that wherever anti-Semitism took hold, social and political decline almost inevitably followed. Just a few examples:
"Spain expelled its Jews in 1492. The effect, Johnson noted, 'was to deprive Spain (and its colonies) of a class already notable for the astute handling of finance.'
"In czarist Russia, the adoption of numerous anti-Semitic laws ultimately weakened and corrupted the entire Russian government. These laws also led to mass Jewish emigration, resulting in a breathtaking loss of intellectual and human capital.
"Germany might well have won the race for an atomic bomb if Hitler hadn't sent Jewish scientists like Albert Einstein and Edward Teller into exile in the US.
"These patterns were replicated in the Arab world. Contrary to myth, the cause was not the creation of the state of Israel in 1948. There were bloody anti-Jewish pogroms in 1929, Iraq in 1941, and Libya in 1945.
"Nor is it accurate to blame Israel for fuelling anti-Semitism by refusing to trade land for peace.
"Among Egyptians, hatred of Israel barely abated after Prime Minister Menachem Begin returned the entire Sinai Peninsula to Egypt. And among Palestinians, anti-Semitism became markedly worse during the years of the Oslo peace process.
"Johnson calls anti-Semitism a 'highly infectious' disease capable of overwhelming intellectuals and simpletons alike. Its potency, he noted, lies in transforming a personal and instinctive irrationalism into a political and systematic one. For the Jew hater, every crime has the same culprit and every problem has the same solution. Anti-Semitism makes the world seem simple. In doing so, it condemns the anti-Semite to a permanent darkness.
"Today there is no great university in the Arab world, no serious scientific research, a stunted literary culture. In 2015, the US Patent Office reported 3,804 patents from Israel, as compared with 30 from Egypt, the largest Arab country. Hatred of Israel and Jews has also deprived the Arab world of both the resources and the example of its neighbour. Israel quietly supplies water to Jordan, helping to ease the burden of Syrian refugees, and quietly provides surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities to Egypt to fight ISIS in the Sinai. But this is largely unknown among Arabs, for whom the only permissible image of Israel is an Israeli soldier in riot gear, abusing a Palestinian. Successful nations make a point of trying to learn from their neighbours. The Arab world has been taught over generations only to hate theirs.
"This may be starting to change. Recently, the Arab world has been forced to face up to its own failings in ways it cannot easily blame on Israel. The change can be seen in the budding rapprochement between Jerusalem and Cairo, Riyadh and Abu Dhabi.
"But that's not enough. So long as an Arab athlete can't pay his Israeli opposite the courtesy of a handshake, the disease of the Arab mind and the misfortunes of its world will continue.
"For Israel, this is a pity.
"For the Arabs, it's a calamity."
See what I mean?
[*"I have no problem with Jewish people or any other religion... But for personal reasons, you can't ask me to shake the hand of anyone from this State... " (Islam El Shehaby: 'I've respected the judo rules, lespritdujudo.com)]
Sunday, February 16, 2014
Hanging Offences
I was prompted by the following 'news' item to imagine just what Australia's legal landscape would look like if it ever underwent a Murdoch makeover:
"The creator of the Australian-based pro-Hezbollah Electronic Resistance website does not support a two-state solution in the Middle East and describes the Oslo and Camp David Arab-Israeli accords as 'a lie' but denies the site incites violence and promotes terrorism... Dr Rodger Shanahan, an expert on Shia Islam, terrorism and the Middle East at the Australian National University, describes the site as 'a possible portal' for further activity. 'Hezbollah is incredibly security conscious. They tend to tap you on the shoulder, not the other way round.' Despite this Dr Shanahan said the site offered a 'one-sided and bigoted' view of events. 'It idealises death for non-state actors,' he warned." (Hezbollah site denies promoting terrorism, Christian Kerr, The Australian, 13/2/14)
The omniscient 'Justice' Rodger Shanahan of the Lowy Tribunal would be presiding over such apparently hanging offences as:
1) Creating a website without Christian Kerr's express permission
2) Supporting a one-state solution to the Palestine problem
3) Critiquing the Oslo and Camp David accords
4) Providing possible portals for further activity - whatever TF that is
5) Getting tapped on the shoulder
6) Refusing to lie down and allow Israeli troops to walk all over you
"The creator of the Australian-based pro-Hezbollah Electronic Resistance website does not support a two-state solution in the Middle East and describes the Oslo and Camp David Arab-Israeli accords as 'a lie' but denies the site incites violence and promotes terrorism... Dr Rodger Shanahan, an expert on Shia Islam, terrorism and the Middle East at the Australian National University, describes the site as 'a possible portal' for further activity. 'Hezbollah is incredibly security conscious. They tend to tap you on the shoulder, not the other way round.' Despite this Dr Shanahan said the site offered a 'one-sided and bigoted' view of events. 'It idealises death for non-state actors,' he warned." (Hezbollah site denies promoting terrorism, Christian Kerr, The Australian, 13/2/14)
The omniscient 'Justice' Rodger Shanahan of the Lowy Tribunal would be presiding over such apparently hanging offences as:
1) Creating a website without Christian Kerr's express permission
2) Supporting a one-state solution to the Palestine problem
3) Critiquing the Oslo and Camp David accords
4) Providing possible portals for further activity - whatever TF that is
5) Getting tapped on the shoulder
6) Refusing to lie down and allow Israeli troops to walk all over you
Thursday, January 2, 2014
Hypocrites Unmasked
Whatever the recent visit of Australian WikiLeaks Party representatives to Syria achieves, one thing's for sure - it's exposed the following hypocrites:
"As experts described the WikiLeaks Party visit as a 'propaganda coup' for the pariah regime, the Prime Minister labelled the Assad regime 'one of the worst in the world. It's been guilty of serial atrocities against its own people, and it (the WikiLeaks Party visit) was an extraordinary error of judgment,' Mr Abbott told The Australian yesterday." (Abbott blasts WikiLeaks Party, Jared Owen & Mark Coultan, The Australian, 2/1/14)
Every time Abbottoir votes in the UNGA for the pariah regime of Israel, whose serial atrocities against the Palestinian people stretch back to 1948, he furnishes it with a propaganda coup.
"Lowy Institute for International Policy executive director Michael Fullilove... said the mission was at odds with international criticism of the regime." (ibid)
Frank Lowy's support for apartheid Israel is wildly at odds with international criticism of same.
"Greens acting leader Richard Di Natale yesterday broke his party's silence on the topic by backing international sanctions against Syria and describing the delegation as 'naive and misguided'." (ibid)
Is this the same Richard Di Natale who said support for the Boycott, Divestment & SANCTIONS movement by the NSW Greens was a huge mistake? (See my 5/12/13 post Spot the Hypocrite.)
"As experts described the WikiLeaks Party visit as a 'propaganda coup' for the pariah regime, the Prime Minister labelled the Assad regime 'one of the worst in the world. It's been guilty of serial atrocities against its own people, and it (the WikiLeaks Party visit) was an extraordinary error of judgment,' Mr Abbott told The Australian yesterday." (Abbott blasts WikiLeaks Party, Jared Owen & Mark Coultan, The Australian, 2/1/14)
Every time Abbottoir votes in the UNGA for the pariah regime of Israel, whose serial atrocities against the Palestinian people stretch back to 1948, he furnishes it with a propaganda coup.
"Lowy Institute for International Policy executive director Michael Fullilove... said the mission was at odds with international criticism of the regime." (ibid)
Frank Lowy's support for apartheid Israel is wildly at odds with international criticism of same.
"Greens acting leader Richard Di Natale yesterday broke his party's silence on the topic by backing international sanctions against Syria and describing the delegation as 'naive and misguided'." (ibid)
Is this the same Richard Di Natale who said support for the Boycott, Divestment & SANCTIONS movement by the NSW Greens was a huge mistake? (See my 5/12/13 post Spot the Hypocrite.)
Wednesday, June 5, 2013
Overstating the Sunni-Shi'a Divide
In sounding the death knell of pan-Arabism/secularism in the Middle East, the Lowy Institute's "resident fellow" Rodger Shanahan has it down just a little too pat:
"It appears that the days of the Arab secularists are gone. There is no longer a contest of ideas in the Arab world, only a contest whom God does and doesn't favour. Today the dominant narrative is one of religion, which in turn is largely a reprisal [sic] of the centuries-old contest between the two main branches of Islam. Religion marks a rather more prosaic battle for political influence between Shia Iran and Sunni states led by Saudi Arabia." (Pan-Arabism loses ground in religious divide, The Australian, 4/5/13)
If, as he contends, "[s]ectarianism is now a more defining characteristic than ethnicity or tribal affiliation, and each of them is more powerful than nationality," then how does he explain the results of the following polls?:
"Despite the Sunni-Shi'a divide - especially in Arab states where Shi'a populations are majorities or pluralities such as Iraq, Lebanon and Bahrain - which is often matched by a division in attitude about Iran in these countries along sectarian lines, Sunni Arab populations elsewhere tend to base their views of Iran on issues that go far beyond this divide, and on some of which they are inclined to favor Iran. In polls I have conducted in six Arab countries - Egypt, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, and Lebanon - Iran consistently placed third on the list of choices provided by respondents when asked to identify the 'two most threatening states', indicating that many Arabs do see it as a threat. But what is more important in this case is that Arabs see Israel and the United States as presenting far greater threats. For example, in 2009, 88% of those polled identified Israel, 76% identified the United States, and only 12% identified Iran as one of the two greatest threats. There was some change a year after the start of the Arab uprisings in the November 2011 poll, although Iran remained far behind Israel and the United States: 71% identified Israel, 59% identified the United States, and 18% identified Iran as one of the two greatest threats." (Arab Perspectives on Iran's Role in a Changing Middle East, Shibley Telhami, Wilson Centre/USIP, February 2013)
Likewise, Shanahan's misrepresentation of Hamas and his use of Palestine's national poet, the late Mahmoud Darwish, to support his simplistic thesis, is far from scholarly. Here's his concluding paragraph:
"Nowadays, the Muslim Brotherhood that inspired Hamas's Islamist persuasion, and Iran that nurtured its religious character have fatally riven an already divided Palestine. The despair of the original Palestinian nationalists at what religion has done to Arab inclusivity was summed up by the famous Palestinian poet and activist Mahmoud Darwish near the end of his life when he famously noted of Hamas's triumph in Gaza that 'We have woken from a coma to see a mono-coloured flag (of Hamas) do away with the four-colour flag (of Palestine)'."
Hm... doesn't that first sentence rather contradict Shanahan's Sunni vs Shi'a thesis?
Now to Hamas:
First, as its full name - the Islamic Resistance Movement - suggests, Hamas is focused solely on resistance to, and liberation from, Israeli settler-colonial aggression in Palestine. National liberation, not pan-Islamism, is its raison d'etre. As such it has little in common, Zionist propaganda notwithstanding, with outfits such as Al-Qaeda.
Second, since the Oslo 'peace press', Hamas embodies more of the traditional Palestinian national program than its secular Palestinian rival, Fatah.
In short, Hamas is as much a nationalist organization as it is an Islamic one.
As for Mahmoud Darwish, he was not condemning Hamas alone, or suggesting it had dropped Palestine for Islam, the impression Shanahan gives, but reacting specifically to the democratically elected Hamas government's preemptive coup against the forces of the notorious CIA-backed Palestinian Fatah stooge Muhammad Dahlan in July 2007.*
That his words were directed at both camps is apparent in his following (ironic) words: "We have triumphed. Gaza won its independence from the West Bank. One people now have two states, two prisons who don't greet each other. We are victims dressed in executioner's clothing."**
[*See my 6/3/08 post Mainsewer Media Clueless in Gaza;**See Failing Darwish's legacy, Sumia Ibrahim, The Electronic Intifada, 19/8/08.]
"It appears that the days of the Arab secularists are gone. There is no longer a contest of ideas in the Arab world, only a contest whom God does and doesn't favour. Today the dominant narrative is one of religion, which in turn is largely a reprisal [sic] of the centuries-old contest between the two main branches of Islam. Religion marks a rather more prosaic battle for political influence between Shia Iran and Sunni states led by Saudi Arabia." (Pan-Arabism loses ground in religious divide, The Australian, 4/5/13)
If, as he contends, "[s]ectarianism is now a more defining characteristic than ethnicity or tribal affiliation, and each of them is more powerful than nationality," then how does he explain the results of the following polls?:
"Despite the Sunni-Shi'a divide - especially in Arab states where Shi'a populations are majorities or pluralities such as Iraq, Lebanon and Bahrain - which is often matched by a division in attitude about Iran in these countries along sectarian lines, Sunni Arab populations elsewhere tend to base their views of Iran on issues that go far beyond this divide, and on some of which they are inclined to favor Iran. In polls I have conducted in six Arab countries - Egypt, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, and Lebanon - Iran consistently placed third on the list of choices provided by respondents when asked to identify the 'two most threatening states', indicating that many Arabs do see it as a threat. But what is more important in this case is that Arabs see Israel and the United States as presenting far greater threats. For example, in 2009, 88% of those polled identified Israel, 76% identified the United States, and only 12% identified Iran as one of the two greatest threats. There was some change a year after the start of the Arab uprisings in the November 2011 poll, although Iran remained far behind Israel and the United States: 71% identified Israel, 59% identified the United States, and 18% identified Iran as one of the two greatest threats." (Arab Perspectives on Iran's Role in a Changing Middle East, Shibley Telhami, Wilson Centre/USIP, February 2013)
Likewise, Shanahan's misrepresentation of Hamas and his use of Palestine's national poet, the late Mahmoud Darwish, to support his simplistic thesis, is far from scholarly. Here's his concluding paragraph:
"Nowadays, the Muslim Brotherhood that inspired Hamas's Islamist persuasion, and Iran that nurtured its religious character have fatally riven an already divided Palestine. The despair of the original Palestinian nationalists at what religion has done to Arab inclusivity was summed up by the famous Palestinian poet and activist Mahmoud Darwish near the end of his life when he famously noted of Hamas's triumph in Gaza that 'We have woken from a coma to see a mono-coloured flag (of Hamas) do away with the four-colour flag (of Palestine)'."
Hm... doesn't that first sentence rather contradict Shanahan's Sunni vs Shi'a thesis?
Now to Hamas:
First, as its full name - the Islamic Resistance Movement - suggests, Hamas is focused solely on resistance to, and liberation from, Israeli settler-colonial aggression in Palestine. National liberation, not pan-Islamism, is its raison d'etre. As such it has little in common, Zionist propaganda notwithstanding, with outfits such as Al-Qaeda.
Second, since the Oslo 'peace press', Hamas embodies more of the traditional Palestinian national program than its secular Palestinian rival, Fatah.
In short, Hamas is as much a nationalist organization as it is an Islamic one.
As for Mahmoud Darwish, he was not condemning Hamas alone, or suggesting it had dropped Palestine for Islam, the impression Shanahan gives, but reacting specifically to the democratically elected Hamas government's preemptive coup against the forces of the notorious CIA-backed Palestinian Fatah stooge Muhammad Dahlan in July 2007.*
That his words were directed at both camps is apparent in his following (ironic) words: "We have triumphed. Gaza won its independence from the West Bank. One people now have two states, two prisons who don't greet each other. We are victims dressed in executioner's clothing."**
[*See my 6/3/08 post Mainsewer Media Clueless in Gaza;**See Failing Darwish's legacy, Sumia Ibrahim, The Electronic Intifada, 19/8/08.]
Saturday, August 20, 2011
Fort Lowy
There are those among us who cannot bear the idea of Australia missing out on a slice of the imperial action de jour in the Middle East. Apparently, Iraq was just an appetizer. But while there might be more than enough murder and mayhem in Afghanistan to satisfy them for the present, what are we going to do when - perish the thought! - it's time to cut and run? Just sit around and twiddle our thumbs down here in the south Pacific?
Not to worry, over at the Lowy Institute, they're working on it:
"As part of this approach [formulating a government strategy paper on Australia's relationship with the Middle East to articulate our strategic interests in the region and to allow for the development of a policy framework] the government should send a signal to the region regarding our long-term interest. This could be done by transforming Australia's present military commitment in the UAE in support of our troops in Afghanistan to a much smaller military presence following the withdrawal of combat troops from Afghanistan in 2014. Such a commitment could be tailored to meet Gulf and Australian training or perhaps maritime surveillance needs. Its practical and symbolic benefits in advancing the national interest would outweigh the small resource commitment. It would reinforce the impression among Gulf rulers that Australia is a committed middle power, with potential flow-on benefits in other areas of our bilateral relationship. For Australia, it would provide a small regional base with access to civilian aviation and maritime hubs that could be used in a range of future military contingencies, from Pakistan to North Africa."* (Troops should be kept in the Middle East: A small regional base makes a lot of sense, Rodger Shanahan, The Australian, 18/8/11)
Bet you can't wait to put it up the Pakistanis or mix it with the Moroccans, eh?
But, despite the Lowy Institute's breezy assurance that it'd only cost peanuts for the pleasure, mowing down brown people these days always seems to have a nasty habit of running into the trillions. So wouldn't you think Frank and the lads would at least put their money where their mouth is (over at the Lowy Institute). But no, judging by Shanahan's piece, the understanding seems to be that the cost of Australia's future imperial adventures in the Middle East will be borne almost exclusively by those who manage to pay their taxes without the tax office looking over their shoulder and who probably don't automatically think of Israel when the word charity crops up. Speaking of which, here's the latest:
"The US tax office's long-running investigation into the Lowy family's financial affairs has extended to Bermuda in a bid to unmask who owned and controlled a Liechtenstein-based foundation that US authorities believe was used for tax evasion. The US Internal Revenue Service in April 2009 asked the Bermuda government for help in determining the ownership and control of two companies, Adelphi Ltd and Clareville Ltd, which the IRS suspects are controlled by the Lowy family. The IRS is investigating Westfield Group's Los Angeles-based managing director, Peter Lowy, and his wife Janine, over their tax returns for the year to December 2005. It is also scrutinising the 2004-05 tax return of Beverly Park Corporation, a Delaware-registered company ultimately owned by the Frank Lowy Family Trust, and certain aspects of Beverly Park's returns for the 10 years from 1997 to 2007...
"It is noted that the Liechtenstein-based Luperla Foundation was set up in 1997 'for the benefit of all the members of the Frank Lowy family...' and that it received a loan repayment from Adelphi. In its request, the IRS contended that Adelphi's ownership and control in the 10 years to 2007 was relevant to the ownership and control of Luperla, and that understanding Luperla's ownership would help resolve whether the Lowys should have filed information about the Liechtenstein foundation with US tax authorities... Details of the Bermuda inquiries have emerged in a California court where Peter Lowy is suing the IRS, under the Freedom of Information Act. Mr Lowy wants the US District Court to force the IRS to hand over thousands of pages of documents related to his US tax investigation. The IRS has repeatedly baulked at releasing at least 5402 pages, saying they had to remain confidential because they were the product of exchanges between US tax authorities and the Australian Taxation Office. But Mr Lowy's lawyers now claim that while some material from Bermuda about the Lowys was handed to US authorities, the IRS has 'not identified the existence of such records or identified any grounds for withholding such records'. According to memos stolen from LGT Bank, published by a US Senate committee in 2008, Luperla received $US53 million as founding monies from Adelphi in 1997 by way of a 'credit repayment'. In 2001, LGT Bank was instructed to disperse Luperla's proceeds of $US68 million. The Lowys have said publicly that they never benefited from the Luperla structure, that all its proceeds went to Israeli charities and they met all tax obligations in Australia and the US." (US tax authorities followed Lowy's trail to Bermuda, Leonie Wood, The Age, 18/8/11)
[*Presumably, if Shanahan's proposal - Fort Lowy? - were implemented by an Australian government, our existing base in Dubai (See my 12/11/09 post Billabong Flats) would become permanent.]
Not to worry, over at the Lowy Institute, they're working on it:
"As part of this approach [formulating a government strategy paper on Australia's relationship with the Middle East to articulate our strategic interests in the region and to allow for the development of a policy framework] the government should send a signal to the region regarding our long-term interest. This could be done by transforming Australia's present military commitment in the UAE in support of our troops in Afghanistan to a much smaller military presence following the withdrawal of combat troops from Afghanistan in 2014. Such a commitment could be tailored to meet Gulf and Australian training or perhaps maritime surveillance needs. Its practical and symbolic benefits in advancing the national interest would outweigh the small resource commitment. It would reinforce the impression among Gulf rulers that Australia is a committed middle power, with potential flow-on benefits in other areas of our bilateral relationship. For Australia, it would provide a small regional base with access to civilian aviation and maritime hubs that could be used in a range of future military contingencies, from Pakistan to North Africa."* (Troops should be kept in the Middle East: A small regional base makes a lot of sense, Rodger Shanahan, The Australian, 18/8/11)
Bet you can't wait to put it up the Pakistanis or mix it with the Moroccans, eh?
But, despite the Lowy Institute's breezy assurance that it'd only cost peanuts for the pleasure, mowing down brown people these days always seems to have a nasty habit of running into the trillions. So wouldn't you think Frank and the lads would at least put their money where their mouth is (over at the Lowy Institute). But no, judging by Shanahan's piece, the understanding seems to be that the cost of Australia's future imperial adventures in the Middle East will be borne almost exclusively by those who manage to pay their taxes without the tax office looking over their shoulder and who probably don't automatically think of Israel when the word charity crops up. Speaking of which, here's the latest:
"The US tax office's long-running investigation into the Lowy family's financial affairs has extended to Bermuda in a bid to unmask who owned and controlled a Liechtenstein-based foundation that US authorities believe was used for tax evasion. The US Internal Revenue Service in April 2009 asked the Bermuda government for help in determining the ownership and control of two companies, Adelphi Ltd and Clareville Ltd, which the IRS suspects are controlled by the Lowy family. The IRS is investigating Westfield Group's Los Angeles-based managing director, Peter Lowy, and his wife Janine, over their tax returns for the year to December 2005. It is also scrutinising the 2004-05 tax return of Beverly Park Corporation, a Delaware-registered company ultimately owned by the Frank Lowy Family Trust, and certain aspects of Beverly Park's returns for the 10 years from 1997 to 2007...
"It is noted that the Liechtenstein-based Luperla Foundation was set up in 1997 'for the benefit of all the members of the Frank Lowy family...' and that it received a loan repayment from Adelphi. In its request, the IRS contended that Adelphi's ownership and control in the 10 years to 2007 was relevant to the ownership and control of Luperla, and that understanding Luperla's ownership would help resolve whether the Lowys should have filed information about the Liechtenstein foundation with US tax authorities... Details of the Bermuda inquiries have emerged in a California court where Peter Lowy is suing the IRS, under the Freedom of Information Act. Mr Lowy wants the US District Court to force the IRS to hand over thousands of pages of documents related to his US tax investigation. The IRS has repeatedly baulked at releasing at least 5402 pages, saying they had to remain confidential because they were the product of exchanges between US tax authorities and the Australian Taxation Office. But Mr Lowy's lawyers now claim that while some material from Bermuda about the Lowys was handed to US authorities, the IRS has 'not identified the existence of such records or identified any grounds for withholding such records'. According to memos stolen from LGT Bank, published by a US Senate committee in 2008, Luperla received $US53 million as founding monies from Adelphi in 1997 by way of a 'credit repayment'. In 2001, LGT Bank was instructed to disperse Luperla's proceeds of $US68 million. The Lowys have said publicly that they never benefited from the Luperla structure, that all its proceeds went to Israeli charities and they met all tax obligations in Australia and the US." (US tax authorities followed Lowy's trail to Bermuda, Leonie Wood, The Age, 18/8/11)
[*Presumably, if Shanahan's proposal - Fort Lowy? - were implemented by an Australian government, our existing base in Dubai (See my 12/11/09 post Billabong Flats) would become permanent.]
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
The Ins & Outs of Democracy Promotion
The following (abridged) exchange took place on the ABC's Q & A last night between Lydia Khalil (described simply as a Middle East politics and security analyst) and John Pilger, prominent Australian journalist, filmmaker and author:
Lydia Khalil: You know, I think people in the Middle East have been completely frustrated with these 30- year dictatorships and the repression and stagnation that they've faced. They're not thinking about the United States. They're thinking about their own conditions. When you watched the coverage of those protesters, they didn't mention the United States once. They talked about themselves and their own conditions. Now, to say that the Unites States didn't support democracy promotion in Egypt is false. There was actually a number of...
John Pilger: What? Oh, come on... They held up tear gas canisters... saying made in the USA. I mean the... regime in Egypt. It's very important [to recognise] this was kept in place by over almost $2 billion, most of it military aid from the United States... year after year.
LK: No, but there's another... side to the story. There were hundreds of millions of dollars that were put forward by the United States that helped these nascent movements go forward. Now the US has two different needs, so to speak, in the region. They need stability and yet at the same time they're trying to promote democracies that can be long-lasting allies for them and sometimes those two conflicting needs can be confused. But to say that wholesale the US did not support democracy in the region, I think is false...
JP: Where in the Arab world has the US ever supported democracy? Where in the Arab world?... Saudi Arabia, it's a major client state, right through to Jordan, Egypt - all of these are dictatorships, most of them created by the British and shored up by the Americans.
Pilger, of course, as a principled and independent observer of US intervention in the Arab world, an intervention that has only escalated since the CIA coup against the democratically-elected Mossadegh government in Tehran in 1953, is talking about the big picture, the fundamentally anti-democratic, anti-people nature of US empire-building in the area. Khalil, however, is speaking as a faithful servant of the US empire, and her reference to something called democracy promotion reflects that - a subject I'll return to later in this post. For Khalil to truly understand what Pilger is talking about would require nothing less than a complete mental and moral makeover. A quick scan of her CV shows why:
"LK has worked at home and abroad for the US government, international organizations, private companies and think tanks on a variety of international political and security issues. She specializes in Middle East politics and international terrorism. Lydia was recently appointed as an international affairs fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. She is also a lecturer at Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia, for the Centre on Policing, Intelligence & Counterterrorism. She is also a non-resident fellow at the Lowy Institute as part of the West Asia Program focusing on the Middle East. Prior to her appointments in Sydney, Lydia was a counterterrorism analyst for the NYPD focusing on international terrorism trends and terrorism cases in the Middle East, Africa and europe. Previously, Lydia worked in Iraq as a policy advisor for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad where she worked closely with Iraqi politicians on political negotiations and constitutional drafting. Prior to her assignment in Iraq, she was appointed to the White House Office of Homeland Security as a graduate fellow. She is also a senior policy associate to the Project on Middle East Democracy (POMED) which examines and advocates the development of genuine democracies in the Middle East. Ms Khalil holds a BA in International Relations from Boston College and a Masters in International Security from Georgetown University. She has published extensively on issues relating to Middle East politics, terrorism and insurgency. Her current research involves extracting lessons learned for fighting insurgencies in Afghanistan and Iraq. And she is also working on a book examining the challenges facing this current generation of Middle East youth and how the solutions they come up with transform the region. She was born in Cairo and is a native Arabic speaker." (huffingtonpost.com/lydia-khalil)
Now, to see what US-style democracy promotion is really all about, check out this hugely entertaining extract from the US State Department's Daily Press Briefing of 14/2/11. My comments, joining the dots, etc are in square brackets:
Question: The State Department started sending direct messages to Iranians in Farsi yesterday. Can you talk about that, and is this a new social media initiative from the State Department?
[Assistant Secretary] PJ Crowley:... It's a key element of our plan to - and our strategy to engage people-to-people around the world. As the Secretary has made clear, we do engage governments, but we also want to engage people directly. And as we use social media, we're also employing - using languages in key parts of the world. So last week we began Tweeting in Arabic, and this week we began Tweeting in Farsi.
Q: Are these the only two foreign languages?
PJC: Well, not necessarily. I think also embassies around the world have their own Twitter accounts. So I won't - we do employ a number of languages. But obviously, this is a little more targeted. [Hm... from around the world to a little more targeted.]
Q: So you're trying to create...
Q: There's your own language.
PJC: My own language [?]
Q: Are you trying to create a revolution then in Iran?
PJC: Well, that [is your inference] - what has guided us throughout the last 3 months and guides us in terms of how we focus on Iran is the core principles - the Secretary mentioned them again today - of restraint from violence, respect for universal rights and political and social reform.* There is a - it is hypocrisy [the pot totally calls the kettle black here] that Iran says one thing in the context of Egypt but refuses to put its own words into action in its own country.
Q: How about other [pro-American] countries - Bahrain, Yemen, or Algeria or Jordan? Why are you not talking about those countries but condemning what is happening in Iran?
PJC: Well, actually, in the other countries there is a greater respect for the rights of the citizens [Yeah, just like there was in Egypt, right?]. I mean, we are watching developments in other countries, including Yemen, including Algeria, including Bahrain. And our advice is the same. As the Secretary made clear in her Doha speech, there's a significant need for political, social and economic reform across the region, and we encourage governments to respect their citizen's right to protest peacefully, respect their right to freedom of expression and assembly, and hope that their will be an ongoing engagement, a dialogue between people in governments and they can work together on the necessary [re]forms. Now those reforms will not be identical. They'll be different country to country. But clearly, the people in the region, emboldened by what's happened in Tunisia and Egypt and well connected through social media, are gathering together, standing up, and demanding more of their governments. [Hm... so it's active intervention in Iran, but only watching, advice, encouragement, yadda yadda yadda elsewhere.]
Q: Can I have just two follow-ups on that? One, are you, in sending these Twitter messages to Iranians, are you also sending a message to the Government of Iran?
PJC: Well, we always give Iran our best advice (Laughter) They seldom follow it.
Q: In Egypt -
Q: Are Egyptians also - have you Tweeted directly with the Egyptians as well?
PJC: Well, that's [another matter entirely] - last week we expanded our use of social media, including Twitter, to communicate in Arabic. And obviously - I don't have the numbers in front of me, but they're growing very significantly in both the Arabic Twitter and the Farsi Twitter.
On the likes of Lydia, yo might like to read the James Petras' quote in my 23/11/10 post Behind the ASIO Assessment]
[* "WikiLeaks cables... released today by the Daily Telegraph, detail the Bush and Obama Administrations were providing training to Egypt's secret police, the SSIS, which cables and human rights NGOs have repeatedly cited for routine torture of detainees." (Made in America: Mubarak's most brutal thugs trained with FBI, Jason Ditz, antiwar.com, 9/2/11)]
PS (17/2/11): The dirt on democracy promotion in Egypt: "The US has given Egypt a lot of money over the years. How much? More than you probably think. Since 1979, US assistance to Egypt has averaged about $2 billion a year, according to a new Congessional Research Service (CRS) report on US-Egyptian relations. That adds up to a whopping $64 billion. In that period, Egypt has been the second-largest foreign recipient of US cash. (Israel is No. 1, in case you're interested.) In part, that's a legacy of the Camp David Accords. The United States promised generous aid packages to both Egypt and Israel in return for their making concessions to each other in a peace pact... Here's another distinguishing thing about US aid to Egypt. The vast majority of it is earmarked for the military. In recent years Egypt has received about $1.3 billion in military aid annually. Of that, about one-third goes to weapons maintenance, one-third to weapons upgrades, and one-third to weapons purchases, according to CRS... What about aid to Egypt intended to promote democracy? Oh yeah, that. It's been cut in recent years, and since 2009 has sat at about $20 million annually. Most of that has gone to Egyptian-approved goverment-to-government projects. The bottom line here is that the impact of US democracy efforts in Egypt 'has been limited', in the words of a recent State Department Inspector General report." (US aid to Egypt: What does it buy? Peter Grier, csmonitor.com, 15/2/11)
Lydia Khalil: You know, I think people in the Middle East have been completely frustrated with these 30- year dictatorships and the repression and stagnation that they've faced. They're not thinking about the United States. They're thinking about their own conditions. When you watched the coverage of those protesters, they didn't mention the United States once. They talked about themselves and their own conditions. Now, to say that the Unites States didn't support democracy promotion in Egypt is false. There was actually a number of...
John Pilger: What? Oh, come on... They held up tear gas canisters... saying made in the USA. I mean the... regime in Egypt. It's very important [to recognise] this was kept in place by over almost $2 billion, most of it military aid from the United States... year after year.
LK: No, but there's another... side to the story. There were hundreds of millions of dollars that were put forward by the United States that helped these nascent movements go forward. Now the US has two different needs, so to speak, in the region. They need stability and yet at the same time they're trying to promote democracies that can be long-lasting allies for them and sometimes those two conflicting needs can be confused. But to say that wholesale the US did not support democracy in the region, I think is false...
JP: Where in the Arab world has the US ever supported democracy? Where in the Arab world?... Saudi Arabia, it's a major client state, right through to Jordan, Egypt - all of these are dictatorships, most of them created by the British and shored up by the Americans.
Pilger, of course, as a principled and independent observer of US intervention in the Arab world, an intervention that has only escalated since the CIA coup against the democratically-elected Mossadegh government in Tehran in 1953, is talking about the big picture, the fundamentally anti-democratic, anti-people nature of US empire-building in the area. Khalil, however, is speaking as a faithful servant of the US empire, and her reference to something called democracy promotion reflects that - a subject I'll return to later in this post. For Khalil to truly understand what Pilger is talking about would require nothing less than a complete mental and moral makeover. A quick scan of her CV shows why:
"LK has worked at home and abroad for the US government, international organizations, private companies and think tanks on a variety of international political and security issues. She specializes in Middle East politics and international terrorism. Lydia was recently appointed as an international affairs fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. She is also a lecturer at Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia, for the Centre on Policing, Intelligence & Counterterrorism. She is also a non-resident fellow at the Lowy Institute as part of the West Asia Program focusing on the Middle East. Prior to her appointments in Sydney, Lydia was a counterterrorism analyst for the NYPD focusing on international terrorism trends and terrorism cases in the Middle East, Africa and europe. Previously, Lydia worked in Iraq as a policy advisor for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad where she worked closely with Iraqi politicians on political negotiations and constitutional drafting. Prior to her assignment in Iraq, she was appointed to the White House Office of Homeland Security as a graduate fellow. She is also a senior policy associate to the Project on Middle East Democracy (POMED) which examines and advocates the development of genuine democracies in the Middle East. Ms Khalil holds a BA in International Relations from Boston College and a Masters in International Security from Georgetown University. She has published extensively on issues relating to Middle East politics, terrorism and insurgency. Her current research involves extracting lessons learned for fighting insurgencies in Afghanistan and Iraq. And she is also working on a book examining the challenges facing this current generation of Middle East youth and how the solutions they come up with transform the region. She was born in Cairo and is a native Arabic speaker." (huffingtonpost.com/lydia-khalil)
Now, to see what US-style democracy promotion is really all about, check out this hugely entertaining extract from the US State Department's Daily Press Briefing of 14/2/11. My comments, joining the dots, etc are in square brackets:
Question: The State Department started sending direct messages to Iranians in Farsi yesterday. Can you talk about that, and is this a new social media initiative from the State Department?
[Assistant Secretary] PJ Crowley:... It's a key element of our plan to - and our strategy to engage people-to-people around the world. As the Secretary has made clear, we do engage governments, but we also want to engage people directly. And as we use social media, we're also employing - using languages in key parts of the world. So last week we began Tweeting in Arabic, and this week we began Tweeting in Farsi.
Q: Are these the only two foreign languages?
PJC: Well, not necessarily. I think also embassies around the world have their own Twitter accounts. So I won't - we do employ a number of languages. But obviously, this is a little more targeted. [Hm... from around the world to a little more targeted.]
Q: So you're trying to create...
Q: There's your own language.
PJC: My own language [?]
Q: Are you trying to create a revolution then in Iran?
PJC: Well, that [is your inference] - what has guided us throughout the last 3 months and guides us in terms of how we focus on Iran is the core principles - the Secretary mentioned them again today - of restraint from violence, respect for universal rights and political and social reform.* There is a - it is hypocrisy [the pot totally calls the kettle black here] that Iran says one thing in the context of Egypt but refuses to put its own words into action in its own country.
Q: How about other [pro-American] countries - Bahrain, Yemen, or Algeria or Jordan? Why are you not talking about those countries but condemning what is happening in Iran?
PJC: Well, actually, in the other countries there is a greater respect for the rights of the citizens [Yeah, just like there was in Egypt, right?]. I mean, we are watching developments in other countries, including Yemen, including Algeria, including Bahrain. And our advice is the same. As the Secretary made clear in her Doha speech, there's a significant need for political, social and economic reform across the region, and we encourage governments to respect their citizen's right to protest peacefully, respect their right to freedom of expression and assembly, and hope that their will be an ongoing engagement, a dialogue between people in governments and they can work together on the necessary [re]forms. Now those reforms will not be identical. They'll be different country to country. But clearly, the people in the region, emboldened by what's happened in Tunisia and Egypt and well connected through social media, are gathering together, standing up, and demanding more of their governments. [Hm... so it's active intervention in Iran, but only watching, advice, encouragement, yadda yadda yadda elsewhere.]
Q: Can I have just two follow-ups on that? One, are you, in sending these Twitter messages to Iranians, are you also sending a message to the Government of Iran?
PJC: Well, we always give Iran our best advice (Laughter) They seldom follow it.
Q: In Egypt -
Q: Are Egyptians also - have you Tweeted directly with the Egyptians as well?
PJC: Well, that's [another matter entirely] - last week we expanded our use of social media, including Twitter, to communicate in Arabic. And obviously - I don't have the numbers in front of me, but they're growing very significantly in both the Arabic Twitter and the Farsi Twitter.
On the likes of Lydia, yo might like to read the James Petras' quote in my 23/11/10 post Behind the ASIO Assessment]
[* "WikiLeaks cables... released today by the Daily Telegraph, detail the Bush and Obama Administrations were providing training to Egypt's secret police, the SSIS, which cables and human rights NGOs have repeatedly cited for routine torture of detainees." (Made in America: Mubarak's most brutal thugs trained with FBI, Jason Ditz, antiwar.com, 9/2/11)]
PS (17/2/11): The dirt on democracy promotion in Egypt: "The US has given Egypt a lot of money over the years. How much? More than you probably think. Since 1979, US assistance to Egypt has averaged about $2 billion a year, according to a new Congessional Research Service (CRS) report on US-Egyptian relations. That adds up to a whopping $64 billion. In that period, Egypt has been the second-largest foreign recipient of US cash. (Israel is No. 1, in case you're interested.) In part, that's a legacy of the Camp David Accords. The United States promised generous aid packages to both Egypt and Israel in return for their making concessions to each other in a peace pact... Here's another distinguishing thing about US aid to Egypt. The vast majority of it is earmarked for the military. In recent years Egypt has received about $1.3 billion in military aid annually. Of that, about one-third goes to weapons maintenance, one-third to weapons upgrades, and one-third to weapons purchases, according to CRS... What about aid to Egypt intended to promote democracy? Oh yeah, that. It's been cut in recent years, and since 2009 has sat at about $20 million annually. Most of that has gone to Egyptian-approved goverment-to-government projects. The bottom line here is that the impact of US democracy efforts in Egypt 'has been limited', in the words of a recent State Department Inspector General report." (US aid to Egypt: What does it buy? Peter Grier, csmonitor.com, 15/2/11)
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
The Kevin Rudd Road Show 4
Bits & pieces from the KRRS not previously covered, but worthy of attention to any serious student of the rambamming phenomenon:
Merely fortuitous? 'Great minds' thinking alike?
Exhibit 1:
"One Israeli official said yesterday: 'This [Rudd's Cairo (but not Jerusalem) call for IAEA inspections of Israel's nukes] comes, as the Americans would say, completely out of left field...'" (Nuclear inspections call 'curious', John Lyons, The Australian, 15/12/10)
"[The Lowy Institute's Hugh] White says this position [on IAEA inspection of Israeli nukes] is 'diplomacy coming from left field, without follow-through'."
Exhibit 2:
"The comment shocked Israeli officials, who could not recall an Australian minister suggesting that their facility at Dimona should be subject to inspection." (Israel rejects Rudd's call for nuclear inspections, John Lyons, The Australian, 16/12/10)
"No Australian foreign minister in history has previously called for Israel's nuclear facility to be open to IAEA inspection." (That's no way to treat a precious friend, Mr Rudd, Greg Sheridan, The Australian, 16/12/10)
Exhibit 3:
"[T]he de facto equating of Israel and Iran is bizarre." (That's no way to treat a precious friend, Mr Rudd, Greg Sheridan, The Australian, 16/12/10)
"His suggestion that Israel sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty was bizarre." (Editorial: Mid-East peace: a time to speak, Sydney Morning Herald, 21/12/10)
'Great minds' thinking 50% alike:
"I accept that they [Begin's Irgun] were not the equivalent of modern terrorists. But people died in that incident. I don't think such a joke was in good taste, although many in the audience appreciated it." (That's no way to treat a precious friend, Mr Rudd, Greg Sheridan, The Australian, 16/12/10)
"Rudd made a distasteful joke about Menachem Begin carrying out 'some interior redesign' of Jerusalem's King David Hotel - referring to a terrorist bombing in 1946 that killed 91 people." (Editorial: Mid-East peace: a time to speak, Sydney Morning Herald, 21/12/10)
Another of the rambammed - Peter Van Onselen, contributing editor, The Australian - outs himself:
"In Israel last week with a delegation, I received a briefing from the head of Israel's National Economic Council, Professor Eugene Kandel. The centrepiece of his message was pride in Israel's economic peformance over the past 10 years. He glowingly highlighted that its national debt was only 72% of GDP, down from more than 100% at the turn of the century. Only? In Australia he would be laughed out of the room. Incidentally, much of the reduction came from balancing the budget, not paying back debt, and letting economic growth do the rest. The figure of Israel's net public debt as a percentage of GDP that Professor Kandel referred to should cause most Australians to pause and consider the overblown fears our opposition tries to evoke when complaining about the Labor government's so-called build-up of public debt. By all means whinge about waste when it is apparent, but the size of net debt in Australia is minimal, less than 6% of GDP, according to the IMF." (We can keep borrowing if growth continues, 15/12/10)
The Sydney Morning Herald's verdict on the KRRS (my comments in square brackets):
"From his public remarks, [Rudd] has not thrown Australia's diplomatic weight, for what it is worth, at the critical pressure points in the jammed machinery of the peace process. [Er, maybe that's not what the AILF is all about.] Maybe he was more forceful in private discussions... The key blockage, for Israel's Western friends, is its own politics... The debate in Washington is now about how tough to be with Israel [Oh, really? What planet does this editorialist live on?], to try to force the mainstream into a consensus decision. A bit of tough support from a key ally might have helped the Americans. It might have helped the Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, face down his right-wing fringe supporters. [Oh, yes, dear old Bibi wants peace but his hands are tied. What planet... etc] Instead, Rudd's public appearances were a feel-good profession of Australian support for Israel. His one comment about West Bank settlements - that they undermine peace prospects - was drawn out of him in Cairo by the Egyptian foreign minister. [No it wasn't. It came in response to a journalist's question at their joint press conference on 11 December (foreignminister.gov.au).]" (Editorial: Mid-East peace: a time to speak, Sydney Morning Herald, 21/12/10)
This is typical of the Herald's hypocrisy - telling Rudd he should've talked tough with the Israelis, but publishing Lenore Taylor's beyond uncritical recycling of Israeli talking points.
Finally, speaking of Rudd on Israeli settlements, this is what he said at that Cairo press conference: "The position of Australia is that new settlements do not contribute but in fact undermine the prospects of a lasting peace settlement in the Middle East. That continues to be our position today. And when I go to Israel in the days ahead I'll be reflecting that position as well." Seems like when he got to Israel, instead of reflecting that position, he actually reflected on it and decided to keep his mouth shut.
Merely fortuitous? 'Great minds' thinking alike?
Exhibit 1:
"One Israeli official said yesterday: 'This [Rudd's Cairo (but not Jerusalem) call for IAEA inspections of Israel's nukes] comes, as the Americans would say, completely out of left field...'" (Nuclear inspections call 'curious', John Lyons, The Australian, 15/12/10)
"[The Lowy Institute's Hugh] White says this position [on IAEA inspection of Israeli nukes] is 'diplomacy coming from left field, without follow-through'."
Exhibit 2:
"The comment shocked Israeli officials, who could not recall an Australian minister suggesting that their facility at Dimona should be subject to inspection." (Israel rejects Rudd's call for nuclear inspections, John Lyons, The Australian, 16/12/10)
"No Australian foreign minister in history has previously called for Israel's nuclear facility to be open to IAEA inspection." (That's no way to treat a precious friend, Mr Rudd, Greg Sheridan, The Australian, 16/12/10)
Exhibit 3:
"[T]he de facto equating of Israel and Iran is bizarre." (That's no way to treat a precious friend, Mr Rudd, Greg Sheridan, The Australian, 16/12/10)
"His suggestion that Israel sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty was bizarre." (Editorial: Mid-East peace: a time to speak, Sydney Morning Herald, 21/12/10)
'Great minds' thinking 50% alike:
"I accept that they [Begin's Irgun] were not the equivalent of modern terrorists. But people died in that incident. I don't think such a joke was in good taste, although many in the audience appreciated it." (That's no way to treat a precious friend, Mr Rudd, Greg Sheridan, The Australian, 16/12/10)
"Rudd made a distasteful joke about Menachem Begin carrying out 'some interior redesign' of Jerusalem's King David Hotel - referring to a terrorist bombing in 1946 that killed 91 people." (Editorial: Mid-East peace: a time to speak, Sydney Morning Herald, 21/12/10)
Another of the rambammed - Peter Van Onselen, contributing editor, The Australian - outs himself:
"In Israel last week with a delegation, I received a briefing from the head of Israel's National Economic Council, Professor Eugene Kandel. The centrepiece of his message was pride in Israel's economic peformance over the past 10 years. He glowingly highlighted that its national debt was only 72% of GDP, down from more than 100% at the turn of the century. Only? In Australia he would be laughed out of the room. Incidentally, much of the reduction came from balancing the budget, not paying back debt, and letting economic growth do the rest. The figure of Israel's net public debt as a percentage of GDP that Professor Kandel referred to should cause most Australians to pause and consider the overblown fears our opposition tries to evoke when complaining about the Labor government's so-called build-up of public debt. By all means whinge about waste when it is apparent, but the size of net debt in Australia is minimal, less than 6% of GDP, according to the IMF." (We can keep borrowing if growth continues, 15/12/10)
The Sydney Morning Herald's verdict on the KRRS (my comments in square brackets):
"From his public remarks, [Rudd] has not thrown Australia's diplomatic weight, for what it is worth, at the critical pressure points in the jammed machinery of the peace process. [Er, maybe that's not what the AILF is all about.] Maybe he was more forceful in private discussions... The key blockage, for Israel's Western friends, is its own politics... The debate in Washington is now about how tough to be with Israel [Oh, really? What planet does this editorialist live on?], to try to force the mainstream into a consensus decision. A bit of tough support from a key ally might have helped the Americans. It might have helped the Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, face down his right-wing fringe supporters. [Oh, yes, dear old Bibi wants peace but his hands are tied. What planet... etc] Instead, Rudd's public appearances were a feel-good profession of Australian support for Israel. His one comment about West Bank settlements - that they undermine peace prospects - was drawn out of him in Cairo by the Egyptian foreign minister. [No it wasn't. It came in response to a journalist's question at their joint press conference on 11 December (foreignminister.gov.au).]" (Editorial: Mid-East peace: a time to speak, Sydney Morning Herald, 21/12/10)
This is typical of the Herald's hypocrisy - telling Rudd he should've talked tough with the Israelis, but publishing Lenore Taylor's beyond uncritical recycling of Israeli talking points.
Finally, speaking of Rudd on Israeli settlements, this is what he said at that Cairo press conference: "The position of Australia is that new settlements do not contribute but in fact undermine the prospects of a lasting peace settlement in the Middle East. That continues to be our position today. And when I go to Israel in the days ahead I'll be reflecting that position as well." Seems like when he got to Israel, instead of reflecting that position, he actually reflected on it and decided to keep his mouth shut.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
LowyLeaks
Forget WikiLeaks. Too raw. Too unfiltered. Bad for your health, actually. If you really want to know what's going on, try LowyLeaks, aka The Lowy Institute, and allow their (always) senior policy analysts to tell you what only they think you need to know:
"Foreign policy expert Rory Medcalf has called for a considered debate on the impact of the ongoing publishing of classified diplomatic cables by WikiLeaks. Mr Medcalf, a senior policy analyst at the Lowy Institute, argues the release of the cables would hurt western diplomacies more than authoritarian nations such as Russia or China. The website is bad for diplomacy and encourages voyeurism, Mr Medcalf said. 'My focus is very much on the consequences', Mr Medcalf told AAP on Tuesday... In an earlier blog posting, he attacked the media for focusing so heavily on the continued publishing of cables, suggesting newspapers were doing it for commercial reasons... If the public really needs to know, then there's... no reason we should not see the original documents." (Consequences of leaks will be bad: expert, Peter Veness, AAP, 14/12/10)
Sorry to be such a voyeur, Rory old chap, but I'm a member of the great unwashed who really, really needs to know - original documents only, of course - what Frank Lowy's "Israeli charities" are, OK?
As in, "The Lowys deny wrongdoing and avoiding tax. They say the funds in the Liechtenstein account were distributed to Israeli charities in 2001 and not to any Lowy family member." (Lowy blasts US tax authorities, Leonie Wood, Sydney Morning Herald, 29/11/10)
"Foreign policy expert Rory Medcalf has called for a considered debate on the impact of the ongoing publishing of classified diplomatic cables by WikiLeaks. Mr Medcalf, a senior policy analyst at the Lowy Institute, argues the release of the cables would hurt western diplomacies more than authoritarian nations such as Russia or China. The website is bad for diplomacy and encourages voyeurism, Mr Medcalf said. 'My focus is very much on the consequences', Mr Medcalf told AAP on Tuesday... In an earlier blog posting, he attacked the media for focusing so heavily on the continued publishing of cables, suggesting newspapers were doing it for commercial reasons... If the public really needs to know, then there's... no reason we should not see the original documents." (Consequences of leaks will be bad: expert, Peter Veness, AAP, 14/12/10)
Sorry to be such a voyeur, Rory old chap, but I'm a member of the great unwashed who really, really needs to know - original documents only, of course - what Frank Lowy's "Israeli charities" are, OK?
As in, "The Lowys deny wrongdoing and avoiding tax. They say the funds in the Liechtenstein account were distributed to Israeli charities in 2001 and not to any Lowy family member." (Lowy blasts US tax authorities, Leonie Wood, Sydney Morning Herald, 29/11/10)
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Lowy's Elephantine Agenda
"[Frank Lowy] is a man who has deliberately sought to be under the radar here [in Israel]... It may not bear his name, but the Israeli version of Sydney's Lowy Institute for International Policy - the Institute for National Security Studies, attached to the University of Tel Aviv - is equally his creation." (The quiet benefactor: Lowy's close ties with Israel, Jason Koutsoukis, SMH, 29/9/08)
"It was my birthday this week (yes, another year older) and how did I spend my day? Well I had lunch with Frank Lowy, for starters! Yes I was sitting just 2 seats from Frank Lowy at The Lowy Institute's Wednesday lunch. The Lowy Institute is an independent international policy think tank based in Sydney - but apart from the Wednesday lunches on site, everyone can access a huge array of podcasts, research papers and an extensive video library of its presentations via the website. The objective of The Lowy Institute is to generate new ideas and dialogue on international developments and Australia's role in the world. Its mandate is broad. It ranges across all the dimensions of international policy debate in Australia - economic, political and strategic - and it is not limited to a particular geographic region. Most of the events at The Lowy Institute are free to attend but they book out fast so my friend Sue Jackson at Westpac Women's Markets suggested we join The Lowy Institute's Wednesday lunch club - to get advance notification of the free lunchtime lectures every week. So along I went to hear about Post-Election Iran from a visiting Israeli Professor and sure enough - at my very first turnout - I met Frank Lowy!" (Lunch with Frank Lowy & tap into the resources of the Lowy Institute, Jen Dalitz, The SheEO Blog, sphinxx.com.au, 21/8/09)
Hmm... Sounds like The Lowy Institute's running a bit of an agenda here. But just how much of an agenda? Well, if its Australia & The World: Public Opinion & Foreign Policy polls from 2007 to 2009 are anything to go by, its agenda could be described as positively elephantine.
Let's deal first with The Lowy Institute's elephant-in-the-room - Israel. In its 2007 poll, just over 1,000 Australians were asked to rank 15 foreign countries on the basis of their feelings towards them. The higher the %, the more favorably those polled felt towards these countries. Of the three Middle Eastern nations included, Israel scored 50%, while Iraq and Iran scored 36% and 34% respectively. Perhaps the 50% rating for Israel came as something of a blow to Frank, and so may explain Israel's omission in the 2008 and 2009 polls. Such a pity. It would have been most interesting to see Israel's post-Gaza approval rating in the just-released 2009 poll, but alas we're afforded no such opportunity. Out of sight, out of mind.
Given, then, that the institute's elephant-in-the-room is Israel, its current agenda could only be... Iran:
In the 2007 poll, we find the following thoroughly loaded and decidedly Israel-centric question: "Iran has recently announced that it has successfully enriched uranium. Do you think that Iran is producing enriched uranium strictly to fuel its energy needs or do you think it is trying to develop nuclear weapons?" While 62% of respondents plumped for the latter, and 19% guessed the former, only 19% had the humility to say they simply didn't know. In the same poll, we find the following question (without, it should be noted, being told whether only the above 62% were asked): "You said you think that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons. In your opinion what is the best response?" It seems that 62% opted for a combo of economic and diplomatic efforts, 22% for diplomatic efforts, and just 9% for military force. (Total:93%)
In the 2008 poll, by contrast, Iran (and Iraq - but not, as I've already indicated, Israel) cropped up only in the 'rate your feelings towards the following (17) countries' section, scoring 38%, a 4% improvement on the 2007 poll's rating.
The 2009 poll, however, gave Iran a prominent place, chiming in with the wider USraeli-Murdoch media war on that country as a diversion from the fallout of Israel's rampage in Gaza and a softening-up of public opinion for a similar Israeli rampage in Iran. Iran again featured in the 'rate your feelings' section, gaining another 38% rating. It also cropped up when those polled were asked to 'rate your trust in other countries to act responsibly', coming in with the largest negative rating at 75% (in contrast to the US's positive rating of 83%!). As well, Iran even got its own heading with the following commentary: "Iran's nuclear program has attracted considerable media attention since our last poll. To test Australia's preferred way of approaching Iran's continued obstructionism [Note the spin and the assumption that we have to do something], we asked people whether they would be in favour of or against the use of military means, economic sanctions, and diplomatic negotiations to deal with Iran developing nuclear weapons. [Note the assumption that this is what Iran is actually doing] The most favoured response was 'diplomatic negotiations', with 85% of respondents supporting these. A large majority (69%) also supported 'economic sanctions', while just a third (32%) were in favour of 'military means'." That 23% increase over the 9% warmonger finding of the 2007 poll must have been gratifying!
Now here's a question I'd like to see in a Lowy Institute poll: While Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program has attracted considerable media attention, Israel's actual possession of 200+ nuclear weapons has not. Is this because a) Australia's mainstream media is biased in favour of Israel; b) Israel is harping on Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program to divert attention from its own nuclear weapons stockpile; c) Israel is more than ever in need of a diversion following the exposure of its war crimes in Gaza; d) Israel needs to deflect attention away from its colonization of the West Bank and East Jerusalem; e) Israel is always in need of an external threat, whether real or not, to justify its aggression towards its neighbours; f) All of the above?
"It was my birthday this week (yes, another year older) and how did I spend my day? Well I had lunch with Frank Lowy, for starters! Yes I was sitting just 2 seats from Frank Lowy at The Lowy Institute's Wednesday lunch. The Lowy Institute is an independent international policy think tank based in Sydney - but apart from the Wednesday lunches on site, everyone can access a huge array of podcasts, research papers and an extensive video library of its presentations via the website. The objective of The Lowy Institute is to generate new ideas and dialogue on international developments and Australia's role in the world. Its mandate is broad. It ranges across all the dimensions of international policy debate in Australia - economic, political and strategic - and it is not limited to a particular geographic region. Most of the events at The Lowy Institute are free to attend but they book out fast so my friend Sue Jackson at Westpac Women's Markets suggested we join The Lowy Institute's Wednesday lunch club - to get advance notification of the free lunchtime lectures every week. So along I went to hear about Post-Election Iran from a visiting Israeli Professor and sure enough - at my very first turnout - I met Frank Lowy!" (Lunch with Frank Lowy & tap into the resources of the Lowy Institute, Jen Dalitz, The SheEO Blog, sphinxx.com.au, 21/8/09)
Hmm... Sounds like The Lowy Institute's running a bit of an agenda here. But just how much of an agenda? Well, if its Australia & The World: Public Opinion & Foreign Policy polls from 2007 to 2009 are anything to go by, its agenda could be described as positively elephantine.
Let's deal first with The Lowy Institute's elephant-in-the-room - Israel. In its 2007 poll, just over 1,000 Australians were asked to rank 15 foreign countries on the basis of their feelings towards them. The higher the %, the more favorably those polled felt towards these countries. Of the three Middle Eastern nations included, Israel scored 50%, while Iraq and Iran scored 36% and 34% respectively. Perhaps the 50% rating for Israel came as something of a blow to Frank, and so may explain Israel's omission in the 2008 and 2009 polls. Such a pity. It would have been most interesting to see Israel's post-Gaza approval rating in the just-released 2009 poll, but alas we're afforded no such opportunity. Out of sight, out of mind.
Given, then, that the institute's elephant-in-the-room is Israel, its current agenda could only be... Iran:
In the 2007 poll, we find the following thoroughly loaded and decidedly Israel-centric question: "Iran has recently announced that it has successfully enriched uranium. Do you think that Iran is producing enriched uranium strictly to fuel its energy needs or do you think it is trying to develop nuclear weapons?" While 62% of respondents plumped for the latter, and 19% guessed the former, only 19% had the humility to say they simply didn't know. In the same poll, we find the following question (without, it should be noted, being told whether only the above 62% were asked): "You said you think that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons. In your opinion what is the best response?" It seems that 62% opted for a combo of economic and diplomatic efforts, 22% for diplomatic efforts, and just 9% for military force. (Total:93%)
In the 2008 poll, by contrast, Iran (and Iraq - but not, as I've already indicated, Israel) cropped up only in the 'rate your feelings towards the following (17) countries' section, scoring 38%, a 4% improvement on the 2007 poll's rating.
The 2009 poll, however, gave Iran a prominent place, chiming in with the wider USraeli-Murdoch media war on that country as a diversion from the fallout of Israel's rampage in Gaza and a softening-up of public opinion for a similar Israeli rampage in Iran. Iran again featured in the 'rate your feelings' section, gaining another 38% rating. It also cropped up when those polled were asked to 'rate your trust in other countries to act responsibly', coming in with the largest negative rating at 75% (in contrast to the US's positive rating of 83%!). As well, Iran even got its own heading with the following commentary: "Iran's nuclear program has attracted considerable media attention since our last poll. To test Australia's preferred way of approaching Iran's continued obstructionism [Note the spin and the assumption that we have to do something], we asked people whether they would be in favour of or against the use of military means, economic sanctions, and diplomatic negotiations to deal with Iran developing nuclear weapons. [Note the assumption that this is what Iran is actually doing] The most favoured response was 'diplomatic negotiations', with 85% of respondents supporting these. A large majority (69%) also supported 'economic sanctions', while just a third (32%) were in favour of 'military means'." That 23% increase over the 9% warmonger finding of the 2007 poll must have been gratifying!
Now here's a question I'd like to see in a Lowy Institute poll: While Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program has attracted considerable media attention, Israel's actual possession of 200+ nuclear weapons has not. Is this because a) Australia's mainstream media is biased in favour of Israel; b) Israel is harping on Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program to divert attention from its own nuclear weapons stockpile; c) Israel is more than ever in need of a diversion following the exposure of its war crimes in Gaza; d) Israel needs to deflect attention away from its colonization of the West Bank and East Jerusalem; e) Israel is always in need of an external threat, whether real or not, to justify its aggression towards its neighbours; f) All of the above?
Monday, April 20, 2009
What They're Reading at the Lowy Institute
"His [Thomas P.M. Barnett, 'a consultant to the Pentagon and private corporations'] main argument... is that states fall into 2 groups: those that are integrating into the world economy (the 'Functioning Core') and those that are not (the 'Non-Integrated Gap'). At the core of the Core is the US, 'the source code for today's globalisation'. To achieve security and prosperity, he argues, the US should 'go slow on the politics (multiparty democracy) while getting our way on the economics (expanding world middle-class)'. This may involve further interventions, which would require the US military to beef up what Barnett calls its 'SysAdmin' capabilities (for post-conflict stabilisation and reconstruction, counterinsurgency and the like) rather than its 'Leviathan' force (war-fighting capacity)... He remains a supporter of the decision to invade Iraq, stating that 'George W Bush was right to lay a Big Bang on the Middle East's calcified political landscape'. His reasoning is that the invasion locked the US 'into real, long-term ownership of strategic security in the Gulf' and transformed Washington's interest in obtaining Middle Eastern oil into a broader 'commitment to bodyguard globalisation's ongoing transformation of those traditional societies'. But the exact opposite is more likely true: the war has had a chilling effect on the US's use of force and ruined the public's appetite for foreign interventions." (Great Powers: America & The World After Bush, reviewed by Michael Fullilove, director of the global issues program at the Lowy Institute for International Policy, Sydney Morning Herald, 18/4/09)
Two points:
Don't you just love this warmonger's way with words? Make Love not Leviathan Force! Pretty catchy, eh?
When the Lowy Institute's DoGIP argues, contra Barnett, that the Iraq war has had a "chilling effect on the US's use of force" and has "ruined the public's appetite for foreign interventions," I can't help but get the feeling that he views these developments as a negative.
Two points:
Don't you just love this warmonger's way with words? Make Love not Leviathan Force! Pretty catchy, eh?
When the Lowy Institute's DoGIP argues, contra Barnett, that the Iraq war has had a "chilling effect on the US's use of force" and has "ruined the public's appetite for foreign interventions," I can't help but get the feeling that he views these developments as a negative.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)