Peace movement factionalism
I was saddened to read about the split in the Sydney Walk Against the War Coalition. Downturns in movements seem to bring out this sort of factionalism but upsurges sweep it aside, which gives me hope.
There are similar stirrings in Perth with the proposed formation of the WA Peace Network. A meeting to discuss it has been called for September 6 in Subiaco.
Unfortunately, one of the most successful suburban activist groups, the Darlington No War Alliance, has been excluded from attending the meeting by the organisers. One of the organisers, Robyn Stevens, has indicated to me the one reason is that we are not sufficiently "independent".
"Independent" of what hasn't been explained. We share the same name as the Perth No War Alliance, which operates as an open activist committee and our group isn't formally affiliated to it or any other group. We adopted the name at our formation because Perth No War was the name of the overall Perth peace movement then and we were indicating our affiliation with the movement. Robyn Stevens was active in it at the same time and for the same reason.
Delegates from Darlington No War have attended three meetings (from memory) of Perth No War, which is considerably less than the number of meetings that Robyn Stevens has attended. By his logic, that would make him less "independent" than us. Unfortunately, logic doesn't really come into it when push comes to shove and a split is in the air.
Those of us actually organising grassroots activities face different realities to those who deal in machinations at the top of the movement. One of my biggest concerns is that we could end up with two competing coalitions trying to organise the same small pool of volunteers in our area, which would destroy all our good work up until now.
Barry Healy
Darlington WA
'The punishment isn't finished'
I appreciated your article about asylum seeker Haydar al Rahal (GLW #548). I would like to introduce myself to you and your readers.
My troubles started with Saddam's regime when he received the presidency in 1979. My brother had been executed as a member of an opposition party. I was injured and my oldest son killed in the uprising in 1991.
I fled Saddam's regime in 1992 and went to the north of Iraq (Kurdistan) and then to Syria. I found nowhere to go except Australia when I was forced to leave Syria in 1999. I was 54 when I was admitted to Woomera detention centre.
Since the beginning, I realised that the treatment of the detainees is not for asylum seekers but for criminals. Since my first [refugee application] rejection I was determined to move from Australia but I found nowhere to go, so I had to fight. After the rejection of the Refugee Review Tribunal, I found myself in the ambush of the government's immigration policy against asylum seekers, then I discontinued processing my case.
While here, the second son of mine was executed in Iraq in late 2000. I have many physiological and psychological sicknesses. I applied to the immigration minister four times since May 4, 2001. No reply until now. This is my fourth year in the Australian detention centre. I am 58 now and the punishment isn't finished yet.
On the positive side, I have been introduced to many Australian people who are very kind and nice, such as Stephen Langford, who introduced me to your newspaper. I published some letters in various Australian newspapers. I am currently writing an article about the conditions that caused Iraq to be reoccupied. I am using good resources from UNSW for research.
Hassan Sabbagh
Villawood detention centre NSW
GLW scoops Age
The August 27 edition of the Melbourne Age ran a front-page headline, "The forgotten man of Manus Island". It detailed the plight of Aladdin Sisalem, the last occupant of the Manus Island detention centre which was established as part of Australia's so-called "Pacific Solution".
It was heartening to see Sisalem's case getting coverage in the establishment media, however, readers of GLW would have read about him over a week before (GLW #550) in an article by Sarah Stephen.
GLW consistently covers activist and campaign news and provides unique analysis of world events — both services are crucial now more than ever. Given GLW's shoe-string budget and limited resources, it simply amazes me when GLW writers move into the territory of investigative journalism.
They have no teams of researchers, limited time and pressures of production and distribution that establishment journalists would not believe, yet the quality of articles would often put establishment media to shame. Perhaps all GLW readers should consider donating whatever they can afford in appreciation.
My "compliments to the chefs" and particularly to Sarah Stephen for her consistent and excellent coverage of the refugee issue and campaign. Thank you!
Arun Pradhan
Melbourne
Israel's 'Berlin wall'
Israel's Separation Barrier, dubbed the "Apartheid Wall" or the "Berlin Wall" by Palestinians, has increasingly attracted international media attention, largely due to the hard-to-ignore scale of the project.
The most obvious historical parallel to the barrier is the Berlin Wall, which was 155 kilometres long. Israel's barrier, still under construction, is expected to reach at least 650 kilometres. The average height of the Berlin Wall was 3.6 metres, compared with the maximum current height of Israel's Wall of 8 metres.
Israel's barrier is therefore planned to be four times as long and in places twice as high as the Berlin Wall.
Is this meant to be the "road to peace", Mr Sharon? A road block? This can only breed more anger and hatred within the hearts of the Palestinian people. The South African government would be more than willing to provide you with further information on this subject.
James Kyriazis
Melbourne
Pauline Hanson I
Calling for the defence of Pauline Hanson and One Nation (Green Left Weekly editorial #551) is a little over generous towards Hanson and David Ettridge's actions in defrauding the electoral registration process and reaping the financial benefits under false pretences.
Yes, it's true that the current federal and state electoral laws are harsh and undemocratic. Socialist Alliance has exposed this reality and argued against the severe constraints imposed upon smaller parties in an effort to develop a progressive alternative to the bourgeois parties. Hanson and One Nation, however, have been anything but campaigners for electoral reform.
Hanson was initially elected to parliament under the Liberal Party platform, even though she was kicked out. Since then, Hanson and One Nation have blatantly abused the growing support for her expressed racist policies by distorting the definition of party membership for her own political ends.
Of course, Hanson and Ettridge are not alone, which is why most people I work with feel no sympathy for Hanson and suggest that there are other politicians abusing the system who should join her.
There is gross abuse of power and privilege by many elected politicians. Howard himself is at the forefront of abusing his own Code of Conduct, let alone displaying a lack of respect for democracy by not allowing serious debate around many significant issues.
In a genuine democracy, politicians would be called to account by the community that elected them when they fail to deliver on policy and principles.
Rather than leap to Hanson's defence, papers like GLW and progressive activists, like those in Socialist Alliance, could more usefully advocate and campaign for greater accountability and transparency from all elected politicians — that is the real point.
Melanie Sjoberg
Kensington NSW
Pauline Hanson II
The trial and imprisonment of Hanson and Ettridge are not isolated matters. The process is one aspect of an increasing grab for police and thought control over ordinary Australians. Laws on the detention of terrorism suspects or persons with "information" about terrorism, laws to confiscate firearms, (proposed) laws to refuse persons of "national security concern" access to telephones and the internet, "vilification" laws and other restrictive legislation, all make Australia a frightening and dangerous place.
There is no end of petty dictators and thugs in security agencies, the legal system and state bureaucracies, who are prepared to enforce what will soon become a state terrorism, exercised not in the defence of Australians from a foreign enemy, but employed against Australians for the preservation of the power and privileges of wealthy and well-positioned elites.
The current situation of Hanson and Ettridge is a grim reminder to Australians to stand up now. Let this case be a watershed in a roll-back of the state power grab!
In a time when politicians are imprisoned for sex offences, stealing, perjury and other improprieties (yet are still allowed to enjoy their pensions!), the political class has decided to pretend in public two different things: that the imprisonment of Hanson and Ettridge is just the normal working of criminal justice (Queensland Premier Beattie), and in the alternate — that the sentence might be a little harsh (Prime Minister Howard).
The game disguises that Beattie is gloating and Howard is covering up the role his minister, Tony Abbott, played in the whole affair. Words from politicians on this injustice should be not taken at face value!
Scott Morrow
Perth
[Abridged.]
Minor parties
Political ideas are not the sole domain of political parties represented in parliament, political science professors, regular newspaper commentators or letter writers. They also live in small, active political organizations that bother to register with the Australian Electoral Commission and run candidates at election time, often at considerable expense, without financial assistance provided by the state or strong financial interest groups to back them.
In relation to the major parties they are already at a serious disadvantage. Their chances of election are much reduced on account of the single-district electoral system. However, in addition, they tend to be systematically ignored by the mainstream media.
Given that the voters are extremely cheesed off with the major parties and the political system as a whole one would think that new blood and ideas are badly needed in Australia. The look-alike major parties could well be described as a two-party tyranny solidly in the pockets of corporate Australia. Where is the real Opposition that is, supposedly, a positive feature of the Westminster system?
It is our view that the media in a democracy have a responsibility to air the views of such bonafide, registered small parties. We have waited for that, in vain, for six years now.
Klaas Woldring
Progressive Labour Party
Pearl Beach NSW
B-movie actor?
You recently (GLW #551) referred to Arnold [Schwarzenegger] as a B-movie actor: "The B-movie actor is playing on his macho image to pump up his support, spending millions of dollars on TV ads that portray him as a 'can-do guy' who will fix up California's mess — somehow."
You may be interested to know the cost of making Terminator 3 was US$170,000,000... B-movie actor indeed.
Ben Robertson
Sioux City South Dakota, USA
Shocked
I am sorry to contradict you, friends. I have written a well-balanced tribute to Sergio Vieira de Mello; he was a man of peace who — mind you — wanted to start to investigate all human rights violations in Iraq, including those of the Coalition.
If you are careful enough to read his last interviews and articles, you will begin to understand that this man made himself powerful enemies in precisely those capitals, whose governments you oppose.
I am horrified at the tone of your article — I would appreciate your registering this one voice of dissent, written by in my capacity as a private person.
With your article you have done a terrible disservice to the United Nations, whose brilliant and fearless representative Dom Sergio was.
Arno Tausch
Austria
Washington's Deadly game in Iraq
The occupation of Iraq by the US-led coalition forces has inevitably had some drastic effects on the Bush administration's position, both inside and outside the United States.
At first sight, the coalition forces in general, and the USA in particular, might seem quite victorious and prosperous vis-a-vis the other European countries, such as France and Germany, but a deeper look into the matter would reveal a grimmer and completely different image.
On the whole, the impact of Iraq's occupation on the Bush administration can be discussed from two different perspectives; international politics and domestic affairs.
In the international arena, the US occupying policy has obviously produced the following results:
- A widening of the gap between American and European policies in different fields;
- America's more involvement in militarism and adventurism;
- Loosening of the links between the US and its regional allies; and
- Appearance of unprecedented worldwide opposition against the US militarism and expansionism.
Similarly, in the field of domestic affairs the following results are clearly recognisable:
- The rapid growth of the US military budget;
- Failure of Bush's economic policies in easing pressure on low and middle classes;
- Widening of opposition and protest against the America's occupation of Iraq due to growing casualties after the end of the war announced by president Bush a few months ago; and
- Disclosure of the US intelligence service's misconduct in exaggerating the danger of Iraq's controversial mass destruction weapons.
No need to say the foregoing items is just a few of many consequences the war as well as the occupation of Iraq has so far brought out.
True, the US has now all Iraqi resources, including its rich oil wells, under control, but the fact is that the ongoing horrible events in Iraq cast serious doubts on America's ability to preserve its dominance in this war-torn country for a long time.
Perhaps, nothing would be more illuminating than a brief look at each of the above items, because in this way we would have a clear image of America's gains and losses in Iraq game. Then we can assess the whole situation to guess the final winner and loser of the US-initiated game.
First, the political and military separation of America and Europe, which had actually begun after the Soviet Union's collapse in 1991, was considerably accelerated by the recent US-led war on Iraq. This was exactly something the Soviet's foreign policy-makers were always seeking for throughout the cold war period.
Second, nothing is more dangerous for a superpower than to get involved in a blind militarism and reckless adventurism in a transitional unipolar world. These policies would undoubtedly lead to the weakening of the superpower itself and gradual appearance of a multi-polar system in the world.
Third, the US absolute unilateralism and expansionism have naturally resulted in loosening of the close ties between the US and its important regional allies. This might lead in turn to destabilisation and shaking of these traditional countries in the future.
Fourth, the invasion and occupation of Iraq by the US-led coalition forces have obviously ended in the unification of all progressive and peace-loving forces across the globe against the US war-mongering policies.
In fact, the US-led war on Iraq has actually turned into a political axis around which all the progressive forces such as leftists, environmentalists and human rights activists are strongly uniting. The recent anti-war demonstrations on an unprecedented worldwide scale are clear evidence of this unity.
As for the impact of the war on America's internal affairs, there are some significant points, which deserve to be discussed here.
First, the rapid growth of the US military budget as a result of the war on Iraq has necessarily caused many problems in other economic sectors, which would doubtlessly increase pressure on the low and middle classes in the country.
Second, as many impartial experts as well as American democrats point out there is little or no evidence of improvement in American people's daily life due to president Bush's economic reforms including his tax cut and job creating policies. This is of course one of the displeasure sources among many Americans.
Third, most of people in the USA are extremely shocked and worried about the growing casualties caused by ceaseless deadly attacks on the coalition forces in Iraq. This is rightly considered as a real nightmare for the Bush administration and some people even believe that President Bush's war on terror has escalated terrorism instead of curbing it.
It should be added that the Taliban's and al Qaeda's recent activities in Afghanistan and other parts of the world support this belief to a great extent.
Fourth, no one can ignore how the disclosure of the US intelligence services' misconduct in exaggerating the danger of Iraq's imaginary WMD to justify the war has damaged the Bush administration's reputation whether inside or outside the United States.
Now, there is no doubt it would be quite possible for everyone to weigh the gains and losses of the US in Iraq's occupation and decide who is really the winner or loser of the Washington's deadly game!
Nasser Frounchi
Iran
Israel facts twisted
James Kyriazis (Write on GLW #551 web version) has taken some unremarkable facts and twisted them to make Israel seem uniquely evil. This is not to say that Israel is utopia; it's a plea for balance in a debate.
1) Non-Jewish Israelis cannot buy or lease land in Israel.
That's only half the story. Jewish Israelis usually can't buy land either. Jewish and non-Jewish people equally hold the limited land available for sale <http://www.meforum.org/article/370>.
The Palestinian Authority has set the death penalty for selling land to Jews.
2) Cars owned by Palestinians are colour-coded to distinguish Jews from non- Jews.
Wrong. Palestinian number plates differ in colour from Israeli number plates; just like NSW plates differ in colour from Victorian ones. This doesn't indicate anything bad.
3) Palestinians are not allowed to move from one city, say Gaza to Bethlehem, to another without first getting a "visa" from Israel.
That trip involves travelling from Palestinian territory through Israel. You usually need a visa to travel through any country. Try visiting Syria or Lebanon as an agnostic Australian citizen with an Israeli border stamp in your passport — you're refused entry. Israel's policy is not that ominous.
3) Israel allots 85% of water resources for Jews and the remaining 15% is divided among all Palestinians...
That statistic refers only to the water output of one mountain aquifier in the West Bank <http://www.waterobservatory.org/News/News.cfm?news_ID=600>. While Israel must certainly do more regarding water in the Palestinian territories, James' statistic is misleading.
4) Israel routinely confiscates Palestinian bank accounts, businesses and land and refuses to pay compensation to those who suffer confiscation.
Most governments confiscate accounts etc when they've been used for criminal activities.
5) It was not until 1988 that Israelis were barred from running "Jews Only" job ads.
In Australia, you can still run "Aboriginals-only" job ads.
6) Between 1967 and early 2002, Israel expropriated some 79% of the West Bank and Gaza.
Between 1947 and 1967, the West Bank was illegally occupied by Jordan, and Gaza by Egypt, denying statehood, citizenship, and rights to Palestinians. Israel isn't the sole offender.
As for Sharon, James omitted Sharon's refusal to pursue and kill or capture Egyptian forces in 1956, instead allowing them to return home. Many leaders in the world have been associated with terrible events (eg Arafat commanding the PLO when they murdered Olympic athletes in 1972) — it's incongruous to single out the Israelis.
I'll never say that Israel is a perfect state, free of any wrongdoing; I will always say that any story needs perspective.
Dan Meijer
Sydney
From Green Left Weekly, September 3, 2003.
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.