01 March, 2013

Australian Defence White Paper 2013 – Submission from Stand Fast


F-35 in the clouds, very much the description we should give this unaffordable US Lockheed Martin war-plane, the Joint Strike Fighter which John Howard committed Australia to, in a process that violated routine procurement procedures. The only reason for Australia to need this level of power projection would be to enable Australia to fight global wars for dominance as a partner to the US. Do we scrap this shabby deal and manage to afford an education system or follow the USA?

See ABC TV Four Corners, 18 February 2013, REACH FOR THE SKY



Defence White Paper 2013 – Submission from Stand Fast

Stand Fast Veterans is a group of former military service-people who have committed themselves to a principled position against the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq on grounds that these wars were unjustified, in breach of international law, likely to inflict severe harm to the civilian populations of these sovereign nations and a needless risk to the lives and well-being of our fellow military brothers and sisters.

We maintain that war should not be entered into lightly. It must always be the final resort when no other course of action is left to our government. In the process of meeting these standards, all inter-state disputes should be referred to the United Nations Security Council for resolution. This is the function for which the UNSC was designed.
Only after this process is exhausted, the prospect of war can be discussed. It must be prosecuted only after rigorous scrutiny in the Parliament and in the public domain and must embody the kind of transparency and accountability that should be expected from a genuinely democratic nation. It must always be in the national interests of Australia and with the specific objective of defending the territory of Australia.

Secret wars carried out by proxy forces, mercenaries and special forces in secret and on the other side of the world do not meet this standard. If Australian resource extraction corporations require this sort of protection in order to operate in Africa or the Middle East we should examine closely their implementation of human rights, social and environmental codes of conduct, as in the Kimberley Process and the Equator Principles and the conventions of the United Nations. Resource exploitation without just recompense being given to indigenous communities generates conflict.

Ongoing issues for the Stand Fast group include the growing tendency for the Australian government to accede to the increasing list of requests for US military facilities in Australia. The US Marine base near Darwin and other bases under discussion and planning demonstrate a determination on the part of the Gillard government not to consult with the Australian people on the general direction of these developments. If this government could manage these developments without any public discussion they would.

These integrative plans demonstrate the expansion of interoperability of Australian forces with US forces that further co-opt Australian foreign policy into the web of US strategies that are designed to enhance US global dominance, not defend Australia. We are being locked into very ambitious and expensive procurements which are increasingly likely to bring us into conflict with China, our major trading partner and will undoubtedly offend regional neighbours in Asia and the Pacific.

Furthermore, fighting the USA’s wars does not ensure that Australia’s ally will come to our aid. Nor does it ensure that Australian views are listened to or acknowledged in Washington. We don’t get the much yearned for ‘seat at the table’ with rights to be consulted. There is, however, a very strong trend for Australian professional standards to descend to the level practised by the US forces. US forces’ routine Standard Operating Procedures include gross violations of Geneva Conventions; an absence of concern for the well-being of civilians; disrespect for the dead; the mistreatment of prisoners and the use of torture.

1. If this alliance with the US is regarded as an insurance policy, the premium is too high, the small print too small and the payout non-existent.

2. The procurement costs to buy the equipment required for the kind of inter-operable offensive force projection are way more expensive than what Australia would need just to defend our own continent. The argument of US special offers, spares and training are a form of entrapment and may be a false economy.

3. We should be very emphatic that the threshold on the decision to go to war must be kept at the highest level of rigour. War must be the last option, not the first. The decision must involve the Prime Minister, Cabinet and the entire Parliament, not the PM alone, and not in secret.

4. The irregular deployment of special forces (SAS) without Parliament, to locations not disclosed to the public should cease. In particular, the removal of Australian forces from Afghanistan in 2014 should be all of Australia's soldiers, with no exceptions whatsoever.

5. The use of Australian forces to fight wars and other categories of lethal interventions designated as necessary by the USA and principally commanded by the USA, and not sanctioned by the UN Security Council, must not be routinised and must not be undertaken unless these are explicitly in the national interests of Australia in the view of Parliament and in public opinion. Importantly, the intelligence assessments and military advice must be sourced independently in Australia and Australian foreign policy must be independent of the USA and not beholden to Washington's whims. 

6. The process of decision making has to be world's best practice, not the way in which the Howard government decided to go to war against the people of Iraq. Telling the public that no final decision had been made whilst all the way through preparing to go to war was totally unacceptable for a democratic society and was an abuse of power. Pushing forward with war plans with no plan to divert the energy and resources into peace-making was equally deplorable and must not be repeated.

7. Contemporary wars have been managed as PR exercises in which news and analysis has been manipulated into propaganda. Real news about how the war is proceeding has been surrounded with deceit and secrecy. Furthermore, soldiers lives have been needlessly lost in pursuit of aims from the counterinsurgency warfare doctrine, a colonialist project of military occupation against the wishes of host populations, one in which Australia should not participate. It has nothing to do with defending Australia. In particular, the ADF must cease pretending to be aid workers. Australia's aid budget must be decoupled from military expenditure and security objectives. Furthermore, ADF personnel must not act in concert with private contractors. If they work together with allied forces they must remain under Australian command.

8. Governments have sought to erect smoke screens of feigned concern for the lost lives of soldiers in wars of aggression on behalf of the USA and have sought to milk the grief of military families in order to exploit this for PR which diverts the public from a genuine analysis of why the troops are deployed where they are.

9. Egregious weapons must not be used by, ordered into use, stockpiled or otherwise deployed by ADF personnel or ADF personnel acting in conjunction with allies. These include cluster munitions (banned by a treaty that Australia has signed and ratified - after a fashion), nuclear weapons, DIME, thermobaric weapons, anti-personnel mines, napalm, white phosphorus and depleted uranium weapons.

10. The US is deploying drones to Australian Cocos Islands. The RAAF is already using them, so some strict guidelines need to be drawn up.

Stand Fast
US forces in Australia: 2012

The “Joint Facilities” revisited – Desmond Ball, democratic debate on security, and the human interest, Richard Tanter
We can refer to the work of MAPW, mention Major General John Cantwell, Malcolm Fraser and Paul Keating

Lodgement of Public Submissions to the Defence White Paper 2013
Interested parties are invited to make submissions to the 2013 Defence White Paper in accordance with the Media Statement from the Minister for Defence Stephen Smith on 13 December, and available at: http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/2012/12/13/minister-for-defence-consultation-process-for-the-general-public-for-the-2013-defence-white-paper/ 

Submissions can be lodged until close of business on 28 February 2013.

You may lodge one or more submissions (1) by completing the form and clicking the 'submit' button or (2) by posting your submission to:

Defence White Paper 2013
R1-1-A065
Russell Offices
Department of Defence
PO Box 7901
CANBERRA BC ACT 2610

Please ring 1800 643 938 if you experience a technical difficulty in lodging your submission. We will respond to your inquiry no later than the next working day. 
Go to top of page
Submissions should not be longer than 1,500 words.
To assist individuals and organisations to lodge submissions, the following categories are provided as a guide:
1.Australia's Strategic Outlook, including the ongoing strategic shift to our region, the Asia Pacific and the Indian Ocean Rim, particularly the shift of economic weight to our region.
2.The US re-balance to the Asia Pacific and Australia’s enhanced practical cooperation with the US pursuant to our 60 year old Alliance relationship.
3.The ADF’s operational drawdown from Afghanistan, East Timor and the Solomon Islands.
4.Australia's Strategic Policy Approach: (a) Strategic Interests; (b) ADF's Principal Tasks; (c) Australia’s Military Strategy.
5.ADF Force Posture.
6.Policy and Posture in Our Neighbourhood.
7.Force Structure and Preparedness.
8.Defence Budget and Finances, including in the context of the ongoing adverse effects of the Global Financial Crisis, which have continued to have a significant impact on the global economy.
9.Defence Organisational Reform and Culture.
10.  Personnel.
11.  Science and Technology.
12.  Industry Policy and the Defence Materiel Organisation.
13.  Strategic Planning and White Paper Implementation.
Go to top of page
Submissions for which the individual lodging the submission has indicated permission to publish will be made available online.

Submissions will not be published if they promote a product or a service, contain offensive language, or the sentiments expressed are liable to offend or vilify sections of the Australian community.

Submissions that exceed the 1,500 word limit will also be excluded.

The Department of Defence reserves the right not to publish submissions deemed inappropriate for reasons other than those outlined above.


See submissions:

15 November, 2012

Julia Gillard's empathy deficit disorder





Dear Prime Minister

In the strongest terms I would like to speak out against your selective concerns for humanity, which should offend every decent person in this country and is designed to offend both Palestinians and people from the entire Muslim world (including Indonesia - remember the Asian Century?). Is this the way an exemplary nation that just earned a temporary seat on the UN Security Council behaves?

I refer you to this article in the Sydney Morning Herald:

Gillard condemns attacks on Israel
Date
November 16, 2012 - 12:25PM


Quoting your words, Prime Minister:

''Australia supports Israel's right to defend itself against these indiscriminate attacks. Such attacks on Israel's civilian population are utterly unacceptable.''

It doesn't get more selective than this when it comes to faking concern for fellow human beings. We are all aware that Israel is one of the world's most powerful military nations and that the people of Gaza are living in a very confined area under an IDF siege. They have the right to resist the brutality of the occupation and have suffered much humiliation and the loss of their lands.

Now that Israel is bringing tanks into the area in preparation for a ground assault you can readily see that this whole operation was planned over a long period and timed to coincide with US President Obama's re-election.

I hope you will reconsider the statements you have made and place this country on the list of honourable nations that help work for peace, as you claimed at the time of the UNSC seat application. Isn't it time for Australia to stand for what is right, not just what the US wants?

Regards
Willy Bach

02 June, 2012

Obama's Nuclear War-Fighting Plans Pervert Australian Democracy



Thanks to Jaraparilla for alerting us to this travesty. It is indeed interesting to see what the now-vanquished, post-coup weasel-word Kev is up to these days. I too have a collection of his stilted, anonymous letters of evasion. See the story here on Jaraparilla’s blog:
SATURDAY, JUNE 2, 2012
The letter below from the office of former Australian PM Kevin Rudd confirms that the Australian Labour Party are seriously planning to build a US Naval Base for nuclear-powered submarines in Brisbane, Australia's 3rd largest city.

Yet again he has betrayed his electorate and the people of Brisbane and Queensland in the most disgraceful way. This time he has really done it in a fashion that should be career-terminating.

Who can forget the Kevin Rudd who seemed to care about the distressing level of aircraft noise in his Griffith electorate and particularly in the suburb of Morningside. Kevin Rudd built his career on sham community consultation campaigns on aircraft noise, promising to get Brisbane Airport to comply with curfews, at least.

This is the same Kevin Rudd who flirted with the politics of the US Evangelical Right, parading his ´spirituality´ on Rachael Kohn´s ABC Radio programme in the hope of recruiting the ´Christian´ vote.  Remember the ‘Social Gospel’ http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/spiritofthings/kevin-rudds-social-gospel/3292768

Yet he has now colluded with his colleagues and the US Embassy in re-creating his own electorate as the site for a future nuclear accident or perhaps as a future nuclear target. Brisbane will now become the US Empire´s war-making capital of Australia – very spiritual Kevin!

The proposal to install a naval submarine base with US nuclear-powered and nuclear-armed ships has been foisted upon us without any consultation and precious little discussion in Parliament. The base has also been overlaid onto already-existing town plans and ordinary peoples' decisions to locate their family homes and raise children close to where the base will be built. The decision to build this US base was an unseen elephant-in-the-room when road-widening proposals from the Fishermans’ Island to the financially-disastrous Clem 7 tunnel were being undertaken. We could say that whole communities have been taken for a ride. Importantly, there have been many decisions to carry out infill developments which have increased the population density of suburbs like Lytton, Balmoral, Bulimba and Hawthorne, which will now be in the path of the blast-wave of any nuclear incident.  

Kevin Rudd joined with his long-time friend Gareth Evans in an attempt to convince the world’s public that they favoured a nuclear-free Pacific and a progressive reduction in nuclear weapons. Of course, it was a cruel joke. Barack Obama was never sincerely interested in nuclear disarmament, as the US base in Brisbane clearly demonstrates. Now Kevin Rudd is working for US President Obama’s efforts to modernise and increase nuclear weapons and bring them to a place just 3 km from Rudd’s electorate office. This is not what democracy looks like. This is what the militarisation of a client state looks like. See: http://willybachpoeticthoughts.blogspot.com/2012/04/gareth-evans-mixed-bag-of-goodies-and.html

Many ALP Lord Mayors worked for a nuclear-free Brisbane.  Putting up signs did not do anything to stop loads of nuclear waste being transported through Brisbane or Japanese ships loaded with plutonium steaming past Brisbane on their way to Japan. But it was a symbolic start to reducing the nuclear threat – a hope which has now slipped out of sight. Kevin Rudd’s nuclear betrayal is the betrayal of all betrayals. Yet all this collaboration was still not enough for the Obama regime that still went ahead with their plan to replace Kevin Rudd with Julia Gillard. That is just one more price to pay for the one-sided relationship Australia has with the US.
Australia: WikiLeaks Cables Reveal Secret Ties Between Rudd Coup Plotters and US Embassy

by Patrick O’Connor


Global Research, December 9, 2010


I was the Greens candidate for Griffith in 2007 and exposed many of Kevin Rudd’s shortcomings, but I didn’t know about this one.








08 April, 2012

Gareth Evans, a mixed bag of goodies and deceit



Former Australian Foreign Minister, Gareth Evans may seem at first glance to have a superb record as a champion of peace, but the picture is far more complicated:

1. The positive record: This is the distinguished intellectual Gareth Evans in 2010 addressing Yale University, USA:

How To Get Rid of Nuclear Weapons, Gareth Evans tells YaleGlobal

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGCneFG9Fxo

Uploaded by YaleUniversity on May 6, 2010

As signatories of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty gather to review its forty years performance, the danger posed by nuclear weapons remains undiminished. Gareth Evans, Co-Chairman of an International Commission on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament, interviewed by Nayan Chanda, Editor of YaleGlobal Online on the threat and urgent tasks ahead for the international community.

Interview with Gareth Evans, co-chair of the International Nuclear Non-Proliferation Disarmament Commission

http://www.armscontrol.org/interviews/20090212_Evans

But US President, Barack Obama has been increasing his country’s expenditure on nuclear weapons under the cover of Gareth Evans’ reassurances:

Reality Check: Nuclear Weapons Spending and New START

http://www.armscontrol.org/issuebriefs/Reality-Check-Nuclear-Weapons-Spending-and-New-START

2. The other side of Gareth Evans you need to know:


2011 MANNING CLARK LECTURE

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/bigideas/2011-manning-clark-lecture/2991356

Even the most adventurous of us, and the most passionately committed to human rights and universal values and norms, know that in the real world good ideas and values sometimes carry the day but often they don't; realities constantly intrude, and compromises constantly have to be made.

The 12th annual Manning Clark lecture Enlargers, Straiteners and the Making of Australian Foreign Policy with Gareth Evans was recorded at the National Library in Canberra.

willy bach :

15 Apr 2011 1:25:57am

I agree with Gareth Evans' disdain for theorists of political science and international relations, but was he as good a practitioner as he claims? He would like to think he was. I disagree. Evans is an academic now, so he can be challenged. He still talks as though he is an ALP politician who is taking on the ‘straighteners’ of the Liberal Party.


He is articulate with an elegant turn of phrase and says things that cosmopolitans and peace scholars want to hear. But the Australian public has been brought up on parochial xenophobia and Evans did less to change that than he admits. Non proliferation is a noble cause as long as you are not pandering to great powers and not supplying uranium on the world market, as Australia still does in 2011. On Evans’ watch we had French nuclear tests and Japan’s now notorious plutonium shipments. He remains silent on these inconvenient blots on his record.


The question of East Timor made Evans nervous and he omitted crucial facts. Australia joined the US and UK in rejoicing the mass killings in Indonesia in 1965 and gave the green light to Suharto's invasion in 1975 (with US direction). Evans chummed up with Suharto throughout the Hawke-Keating period, wilfully ignoring the slaughter. The secret agreement to carve up East Timor's oil excluded benefit to East Timor.


Being an 'enlarger' of good in the world as members of the UN should include adherence to UN treaties and conventions, but Evans' record is a mixed one. He also sent helicopter gunships to Bougainville and the Hawke government's decision to fight Gulf War I. He remains silent on the Highway of Death that happened at the end of that war. He is silent on the mandatory detention of asylum seekers, commenced and continued under Labor in defiance of UN Conventions.

Why One of the World's Leading Peace Advocates Threatened to Punch Me in the Face

Gareth Evans, a former attorney-general and foreign minister in Australia, threatened me because I raised the issue of his support for the Suharto dictatorship in Indonesia.

April 5, 2012 |

http://www.alternet.org/world/154807/why_one_of_the_world%27s_leading_peace_advocates_threatened_to_punch_me_in_the_face?page=entire

willybach2011

Stephen Zunes' description of his interaction with Gareth Evans is readily recognisable to me, as I have similar experiences with other public figures who desperately defend their positions, not with reasonable discussion of evidence, but with anger and expletives.

Eddy is right in expressing exactly what I would want to say as an Australian who was around for this unforgettably immoral period of our history. Evans was indeed the architect of Australian foreign policy and relished a fun game of golf and a jolly chinking of tall glasses of champagne with the murderous, kleptocratic dictator, General Suharto and his Foreign Minister.

The Australian media followed the example of Rupert Murdoch's Greg Sheridan and acted as the uncritical and tame messengers of government policy. But they did catch Evans sending RAAF helicopters with their RAAF pilots, navigators and door-gunners to the nasty little war in Bougainville, which Evans tried to hide from the public, and where many innocent villagers were slain on Evans' orders. The guy has form.

It was exceptionally difficult for activists to get any other narrative in the Australian media, but Evans' weasel-words and dissembling after the cemetery massacre was particularly galling and turned public opinion in Australia more firmly onto the East Timorese side. It seems that today, in spite of any good Gareth Evans may have done along the way, he is still unable to defend his actions with rational argument, citing evidence as a public intellectual and scholar would do. Back then, as Foreign Minister, he used bluster and insults to fend off critics, and now as an academic at the distinguished ANU, he is disgracing his profession with more of the same.

Yes, bullying is part of the Australian Labor Party's modus operandi and a difficult habit to shed. Gareth Evans' efforts for peace and disarmament seem to be for appearance-sake, they give him the unwarranted fame he seeks. His 'deal' to reduce nuclear weapons relied on the word of Barack Obama, who has massively increased the US nuclear weapons expenditure. There is silence from Evans on this. His efforts lose all credibility next to his actual persona as a thug, more readily seen in his support for Suharto. Don't even get me started on the sham humanitarian intervention in Libya. Stephen Zunes mentioned the propaganda opportunity that offered to Qaddafi's apologists. Yes, and silence from Evans on the continued mayhem in Libya after Qaddafi's public murder and other atrocities.

For John Pilger´s account of this incident with Stephen Zunes being threatened with violence by Gareth Evans:

5 APRIL 2012

East Timor: why the poorest threaten the powerful

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3933544.html

26 March, 2012

Albert Speer's Nuremberg defence will not work for Bill Shorten when he is charged with collaboration in crimes against humanity


There is no such thing as values-free business, especially when it can readily be shown that harm and extreme violations of international and human rights law are direct results of your business activity. If a Minister in an elected government chooses to do business with Apartheid Israel they may find that one day there will be law suits as the victims come after them for their knowing and intentional acts. Bill Shorten, MP, Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation; Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, a former trade union leader, is on notice that Albert Speer's Nuremberg defence will not work for Bill Shorten when he is charged with collaboration in crimes against humanity.

Bill Shorten MP Trade Mission to Israel

The Australia-Israel Chamber of Commerce and the Embassy of Israel are delighted to advise that Minister Bill Shorten MP, Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation; Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations will lead a Trade Mission to Israel from Sunday 29 April - Saturday 5 May, 2012. The trade mission will attempt to understand how is it that Israel-a country of 7.2 million people, a third of the size of Tasmania, sixty per cent desert, only sixty three years old, with limited natural resources-produces more start-ups than large, peaceful and stable nations like Japan, India, Korea, Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia.

Here is the letter written by Dr Vacy Vlazna

Dear Minister Shorten

With regard to your upcoming Trade Mission to Israel, as Israeli businesses linked to maintaining the occupation of Palestine (illegal under international law) have subsidiaries in Australia such as Elbit Australia, Rafael Australia, Strauss Group, etc as well as US arms subsidiaries in Israel eg Raytheon Australia and Thales Australia: you could use instead that time spent meeting them in Israel to-

*spend a day in Gaza while it is being bombarded by contributions by the aforementioned businesses and experience first hand their product success.

*as well as visit the mother of Ayoub Asalya who is still picking up fragments of her 12 year old son's body after he was hit by an Israeli surgical precision missile on 18-3-12

*and while there visit a Gazan hospital that is desperately trying to tend patients, including premature babies and dialysis patients, with little electricity and medicines

*and in your role as Minister for Employment meet with the hundreds of thousands of desperate unemployed Gazans (50% of Gaza) struggling to survive under Israel's illegal blockade

*spend a day in Silwan, East Jerusalem with a Palestinian family while it is being illegally evicted for the glorious judaisation of Jerusalem funded by the said businesses and Zionist Australians

*go to Hebron to see how Israeli economic policy works in Shuhada Street that is closed and empty of Palestinian businesses owned by now impoverished families

*while in Hebron accompany Palestinian children as they run the daily gamut to school of colonist verbal and stonethrowing harassment as well as ducking faeces and urine thrown by illegal colonists who are the pride of Israel and supported financially by Australian Zionist Jews

*pass through Israeli checkpoints from Bethlehem to Jerusalem alongside Palestinians and experience the humiliation and delays in the heat of the day

*visit a Palestinian school and watch as the heroic Israeli military burst in and kidnap 11 year old kids who won't see their parents for a month under administrative detention

*and why not take your delegates to visit 30 year old Hana Shalabi who is dying for her principled hunger-strike stand for freedom and justice after she was released and rearrested after the honorable Shalit prisoner deal still with no charge or trial. Hana wants to study nursing.

*perhaps a tour of Palestinian farms that have had their orchards uprooted for the illegal Annexation Wall and illegal colonies that spread like cancer across stolen Palestinian lands and lost livelihoods.

Israel, the only democratic, peace-loving, dovish and non-nuclear country in the Middle East, has so much reality to enlighten you and your delegation.

When on your return, it is business as usual with Israel then we will know that your political ambition trumps international law, justice and compassion.

Sincerely

Dr Vacy Vlazna

08 March, 2012




Joseph Kony and the ‘Visible Children’

http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/its_time_to_catch_joseph_kony_20120307/

which is part of:

Obama Mines for Voters With High-Tech Tools

Daniel Borris for The New York Times

Inside a Chicago office complex, Obama aides sift through reams of data about supporters.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/08/us/politics/obama-campaigns-vast-effort-to-re-enlist-08-supporters.html?_r=3&hp

By JIM RUTENBERG and JEFF ZELENY

Published: March 8, 2012

First, let me say that Joseph Kony and the Lord's Resistance Army is burnt into my heart. I do care about this issue and don't like to see it trivialised or cynically harnessed to a campaign for the re-election of a war-making US Commander-in-Chief.

I spent 2 years, from 2002 till 2004 in Uganda as a human rights volunteer. I went to the north of Uganda to the war zone and saw schools that had been closed because the children who were student had been abducted by the LRA. I interviewed children who had escaped the LRA and worked with young adults who had previously been those abducted children.

I have been to parts of the north where it wasn't safe to land a plane and I could have been shot down. I have seen some of the hundreds of thousands of displaced people and slept with them in their huts. I have been within a few kilometres of where Kony and his main force were, and all of the 50 soldiers who were protecting me were killed two weeks later, including the Ugandan soldier who was 11 years old and the one I held in my arms while he had an epileptic fit.

Please watch this video, and appreciate that it was made by one of the USA's most expensive PR firms and remember:

1. The video promotes the ICC, the International Criminal Court - which the US government refuses to recognise. The US also has plenty of war criminals, not just Africans and Bush and Obama are among them.

2. The US was funding and arming the SPLA which fought for South Sudan's independence from Sudan to enable the USA to get their hands on South Sudan's oil. The abundance of weapons in that region enabled Joseph Kony to continue fighting, as the video says, for 20 years, when "no one cared".

3. For part of the time the war against Kony was being fought, part of the Ugandan army was diverted into an illegal invasion of the DRC and the plundering of resources. That was also a time when three African nations were receiving huge military aid. They were Zimbabwe, Rwanda and Uganda.

4. The Ugandan army is part of Yoweri Kaguta Museveni's military dictatorship which tortures political opponents while collecting huge aid donations. I have also met children who had been abducted to fight in Museveni's army. He says that white people think all Africans look young and cannot tell their age. He is a liar and a murderer. He is also now Obama's ally.

5. Don't even get me started on the cynical US aid given to Uganda, especially the aid to HIV NGOs who were not permitted to give out condoms because US pharmaceutical corporations were going to profit from an outbreak of AIDS. George W Bush even visited to clinch the deal.

I'll save the rest, but this will give some idea why I say watch this video but be careful what you believe. Obama is desperate to get re-elected so he can go on making wars, mostly in secret. US special forces are said to be in 19 African countries.



31 May, 2011

The Use of Coercive Force

The Use of Coercive Force – Willy Bach 31 May 2011

The threshold for resorting to the use of coercive force, formerly called ‘going to war’ is being systematically lowered. We have seen the US War Powers Act and measures designed to enable the President of the USA to use military or covert paramilitary force, including the use of secret arms supplies and the use of private military contractors, without the consent of the US Congress. This followed closely on the heels of US President Barack Obama’s announcement that he had assumed the power to order the assassination of any person(s) including US citizens, anywhere in the world, by whatever means he deemed appropriate, including drone attacks, Special Forces assassination teams or other non-specified means.

Now the Pentagon proposes that a cyber attack on their computer systems or on any essential infrastructure in the USA and elsewhere (there is a long list revealed by WikiLeaks), including power grids and corporations that are suppliers to the US government, such as Lockheed Martin, should be described as acts of war and should be responded to in kind with a ‘proportionate’ response. Since many attempts to hack into the US Defense Department and similar targets have been carried out by non-state actors, including school students and individuals, this new lowering of the threshold suggests that governments are going to be held accountable to the USA for activities within the borders of their sovereign nations and will be faced with demands to reign-in such groups or individuals or face the prospect of military action and possibly the destruction of their entire nation.

This is likely to result in major curtailment, already underway, of civil liberties, free expression, dissenting views, media and artistic creation. Filtering and blocking of the internet (already proposed by Australia’s major parties), data harvesting, monitoring and the introduction of ‘sock-puppets’ to social networking sites and search engines and the absurdities of Edgar Hoover-like excesses of surveillance and persecution of environment and peace groups, the securitisation of the state and the dismantling of democratic institutions (already underway). US President Obama has also stiffened his government’s resistance to whistle-blowers and has attempted to silence and/or imprison some courageous North American people, who saw or discovered wrongdoing that offended their consciences and acted in the public interest. Nations that proclaim their democratic governance will no longer have anything to boast. The nations of the world where this will be most severely experienced will be those that have not yet developed strong democratic institutions and traditions. People who are only now learning how to effectively raise their voices following decades of emergency rule by dictators, in Eastern Europe, in Latin America, in Africa and in the Arab world will see their hopes snuffed out even before the flame is fully lit.

Furthermore, allies are being drawn more tightly into the orbit of US control by the requirement to replicate this doctrine in their own legal structure. This will require member states of NATO and by extension all allies including Australia will be more inextricably and inescapably co-opted and recruited into the service of promoting and protecting US interests (rather than their own interests) and will be fighting yet more wars on behalf of the USA, even with a token force and token tasks. Australia will be embroiled in more wars, enmeshed in US security concerns and will forego the right to object, shed more blood and experience the inevitable flow of displaced people seeking protection. Fighting more wars will see Australia increasingly unwilling and unable to address the issue of refugees. Australia and its people need to make their own choices about what is in their interest, which may not always be identical to those of the USA. Just think of the risk of a US President Sarah Palin and ask this question. Yes, thankfully Donald Trump is out of the race. In making law nothing can be left to serendipitous chance.

This scenario will impact very dramatically on the willingness of the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Liberal Party, both of whom are directly instructed by the US Embassy on these matters, when Greens Senator, Scott Ludlam proposes his Private Member’s Bill to limit the powers of the Australian Prime Minister to take the country to war without consulting Parliament. Australian Prime Ministers are going to argue that there was no time for discussion, that the military response required immediate action. I suggest that the Bill will require further strengthening to protect the interests of the Australian people. We should all study closely the timelines and decisions of the British government under Tony Blair’s Prime Minister-ship, in the way the decision to go to war both in Afghanistan and Iraq were predetermined to mesh seamlessly with the agenda of the then US President, George W Bush. There is little time to prepare for the counter arguments to be made explicitly or implicitly with stubborn silence and negative votes.

A sample of web sites for further reading:

Cyber Combat: Act of War

Pentagon Sets Stage for U.S. to Respond to Computer Sabotage With Military Force


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304563104576355623135782718.html#ixzz1NxP9GBQT

Congress Reauthorizes Overbroad Patriot Act Provisions

http://www.aclu.org/national-security-technology-and-liberty/congress-reauthorizes-overbroad-patriot-act-provisions

Oppose New Worldwide War Authority

https://secure.aclu.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=3195&s_subsrc=110511_AUMF

Going to War - Who Should Decide?

http://scott-ludlam.greensmps.org.au/content/speech/going-war-who-should-decide

Background Note Parliamentary involvement in declaring war and deploying forces overseas Online only 22 March 2010

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bn/pol/ParliamentaryInvolvement.htm