I wrote this article during the recent Queensland election campaign, intending it for publication on a local blog that covers local issues more fully. Then I decided not to run it at the time. The election camapign was acrimonious enough. To throw one more hot potato into the pot seemed excessive. I also dislike criticising members of my local community – especially people like Bryan Law with whom, in the past, I’ve had some engagement.

But the Pine Gap issue is a matter of more general public concern – especially at this time when the US military is seeking to expand its activities within Australia.

So here’s the article about Bryan Law & Pine Gap that I wrote in late February:

It’s election time, and Bryan Law is once again touting his political opinions to anyone who’ll listen in FNQ. Once again, this “alternative type” is advocating for the right-wing of politics.

Bryan Law, "peace activist"

In recent elections, he’s consistently supported the LNP and attacked Labor and The Greens. Back in 2004, he ran as a Mayoral candidate. He didn’t get much support, but helped split the progressive vote. The beneficiary was the reactionary Kevin Bryne, who was returned to office.

So Bryan’s support – sometimes indirect – for right-wing politics goes back a fair way. I’m not his biographer and I won’t try to delve further back into history. But it’s no flash in the pan.

Of course, Bryan is entitled to his opinions. Lots of people in FNQ support the LNP. Lots don’t. Who cares what any one person thinks – except those who think the commentator has something worthwhile to say?

Bryan’s main claim to fame is his status as a “peace activist”. I’ve never paid much attention to what he actually does in this area of his life and its political consequences. I find his self-promotion a turn-off and haven’t wanted to look too closely. Also, as someone deeply interested in peace myself, I didn’t want to be negative about what as I thought was Bryan’s main redeeming feature.

But yesterday I was browsing the Greens website and came across a few articles and media releases written by Greens Senator Scott Ludlam on the subject of Pine Gap. They’ve made me look again at Bryan’s peace antics in a new light. I’ve long been sceptical about what he actually achieves by his “non-violent”, theatrical protests at places like Pine Gap. Now I’m more than sceptical. I’m concerned.

As far as I can see, the one demonstrable consequence of the 2005 Pine Gap protest of which Bryan is so proud (leaving aside the addition to his “peace activism” résumé) was the eventual enactment of the Defence Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act (2009), under which the Rudd Government strengthened provisions defining Pine Gap as a “prohibited area” required for the defence of Australia. Since this new legislation was passed, unauthorised visitors who enter or photograph the site face imprisonment for up to seven years.

This is how a concerned Senator Ludlam explained the sequence of events:

Under the Defence Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill, the Government has strengthened provisions defining Pine Pine Gap as a “prohibited area” required for the defence of Australia. Those who enter or photograph the site face imprisonment for up to seven years.

“The Howard Government tried unsuccessfully to prosecute Christian pacifists for entering Pine Gap. Now it seems Kevin Rudd is following his predecessor’s lead, finishing what Howard started by amending the law to further crack down on peaceful protest,” said Greens Senator Scott Ludlam.

“This is a grossly disproportionate response to peaceful citizen protest. The idea that someone could be thrown in jail for almost a decade, simply for demonstrating against the military role of this CIA-operated facility is appallingly anti-democratic.”

“It’s further evidence of the kind of clandestine approach to Pine Gap we’ve seen from both Liberal and Labor governments. We still don’t know who the facility spies on, or who is targeted. This facility was probably used to coordinate bombing raids during the illegal war on Iraq. The government is now threatening to lock up innocent civilians who seek to peacefully protest at the site.”

There are indeed MANY reasons that Australians should be concerned about Pine Gap. Foremost among these reasons – as Senator Ludlam explains, is that the US-Australia Pine Gap Agreement is completely SECRET. Not only is the public denied access to its content – even Parliamentarians can’t view it! This is what Ludlam has to say in a must-read article he wrote in 2009 entitled Pine Gap, Democracy Gap (emphasis added):

“It most would certainly be good to take a look at this [Pine Gap] agreement, but citizens or parliamentarians are not allowed to see it. In 1999 the government refused to provide information about Pine Gap to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties – information that is made freely available to members of the US Congress. Nothing has changed since then. Although US Congress officials have visited Pine Gap and received classified briefings about its functions, elected representatives and Senators are entrusted with less information than can be found in a public library.”

Did Bryan go to any effort to publicise that OUTRAGEOUS aspect of the Pine Gap phenomenon? Maybe he did, but I didn’t notice it. Did anyone else?

All I recall from his articles was the heroics of the action. and the convoluted legal victory which resulted in acquittal at the protestors’ subsequent court case. These days we ALSO hear more and more via Bryan about Gavin King‘s attendance – as though it’s a sign of Mr King’s commitment to peace to cover a demonstration as part of his (former) job as a journalist!

Whether intentionally or not, it seems to me the Bryan Law / Gavin King 2005 Pine Gap spectacular actually helped PUT BACK the cause of opening the issue of Pine Gap to greater public scrutiny. The court case led directly to a rather predictable Parliamentary reaction and provided a pretext for “tightening up security” (read secrecy) surrounding Pine Gap. It’s exactly what I’d expect from the likes of Gavin King. But from Bryan Law I’d hope for a positive outcome that advances the cause of greater transparency. Instead, it appears we’ve had the reverse.

In my opinion, Bryan Law’s “peace activism” is at best the work of a naive “useful idiot”.

At worst? Who knows? But the question should be asked.

____________________________________

Watch the video below to see Bryan in action at Rockhamption last year.

Hero? I used to think so…

CairnsBlog is a courageous one-person blog that provides occasionally brilliant independent coverage of local issues in this region of Australia.

This morning it ran a strongly-worded anti-war article by Werner Schmidlin, a local peace activist, with the self-explanatory title: The futile and costly Afghan war.

The Michael Moore of Cairns isn't a Hollywood-promoted left-gatekeeper

It’s a fine article, not exactly what I’d have written myself, but thank heavens for diversity in the peace movement. Thank heavens that there is a peace movement in this country! You’d never guess it from the mainstream media.

The (latest) war against Afghan resistance fighters has now been going on for nearly twice as long as World War One. It’s a war going nowhere fast – unwinnable, futile and utterly destructive for Afghans and invaders alike.

The way forward is clearly to negotiate peace. The ‘west’ has a duty to offer reparations for an illegal invasion based on lies, followed by nearly a decade of bloody occupation. If we really want to help ‘womens rights’ in Afghanistan – or other equally noble objectives – our Governments could negotiate the terms of payments to the next Afghan Government and apply pressure that way, with carrots and not sticks.

Western troops in Afghanistan: opium production has soared since their arrival

After all, before the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, the Government in Kabul had come close to eradicating opium production, a quite remarkable achievement, soon reversed after the US invasion. In return for curtailing opium output Afghanistan received modest payments from the UN and US State Department. There are also precedents for promoting human rights in this much more benign way – if that’s what we really wish to achieve.

In reply to Mr Schmidlin’s article, I submitted a comment. Although controversial, it was published in full within minutes. That’s the blogosphere! Fast and fearless!

Afghan opium production, 1994-2008

This is the debate Australians should be having via our mainstream media. We should be hearing this debate in our Parliament. But most of the mass media – like most of our professional politicians – can’t or don’t foster such debate. That’s true in Australia, Britain, Canada and the USA.

It seems the entire English-speaking world is in the grip of war mongers. They are a tiny minority of the population – yet they’ve come close to controlling our national discourse.

As it has potential relevance beyond this region of the world, I’ll re-post my initial comment on the CairnsBlog article here:

Yesterday morning I was listening to the local ABC Far North radio. Australian National University  ‘political scientist’ Professor John Warhurst came on with his weekly half hour slot.

I was so incensed by the combination of softball questions from presenter Fiona Sewell and regurgitated, conformist war-mongering spin from Warhurst that I rang the station to complain.

I asked for:

1. More balance in the ‘experts’ they select to discuss such issue – and in particular more adequate representation for the 50%+ of Australians who, according to successive recent opinion polls, oppose Australian troops being in Afghanistan (in spite of incessant war-promoting hype from the Australian mass media)
2. More opportunity for feedback, comment and criticism from the community. If Warhurst is to foist his views on FNQ for half an hour per week, why can’t we the public at least engage in dialogue with him about his views, which currently go unchallenged in Fiona’s sycophantic, crooning interviews?

My complaint got a fair hearing from the Station Manager. It remains to be seen if anything will change. Perhaps if more people call along similar lines it might?

The most outrageous Afghanistan-related lie – perpetrated by the western mass media including ‘Your’ ABC – is the lie that there was any need or rational basis for launching the initial invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. Only people in a deliberate state of denial still believe that. Nanothermitic high explosives were not implanted in three NYC skyscrapers by ‘Islamic fundamentalists’ based in Afghanistan. This is cutting edge high technology. Likewise, the cover-up of such a massive crime was clearly not orchestrated from the Hindu Kush.

The entire ‘War on Terror’ is a bogus sham. It was intended from the outset, by the Ziocons who plotted it, to suck the western world into endless conflict with the Islamic world.

Global prospects for peace and prosperity are being sacrificed for a shitty little Apartheid State (the perpetual war State of Israel). The Military Industrial Complex does well out of the racket too. For the rest of us, it’s a disaster…

That message, needless to say, is vigorously excluded from the mainstream media. If regular Aussies ever figured out what 9-11 was really about, 50%+ opposition to the war would rise to 95%+ – leaving only a rump of hard-core Zionists and their many stooges in the media and Parliament to defend the indefensible.

Many may disagree with the views I express above – but even if you do, don’t you think it would be better if they were tested openly in public debate – so the strengths and weaknesses of such a view can be properly explored?

The Australian Broadcasting Corportaion – a public broadcaster – does not exist to manage its listeners’ opinions. It should adequately reflect the diversity of views in the Australian community and provide opportunities for debate between opposing views.

As I said to the Station Manager, I’ve gone from a strong supporter of the ABC 10 years ago to someone who would prefer the organization be abolished if’t is to continue to promote pro-war propaganda and brush aside legitimate concerns and dissenting opinions about crucially important issues

Why should taxpayers pay for a sophisticated exercise in war-promoting mass deception?

Andrew Bolt: an Australian Zionist shill

I rarely bother to chase up op-eds written by professional opinion-manipulators these days. I see many of them anyway on TV or hear them on the radio. Their pro-war spin is generally predictable and easy to grasp.

Nevertheless, today I stumbled across Andrew Bolt’s odious article Don’t cry in which he lazily links (with barely any comment) to an article in The Independent. It milks the letters of a simple-minded (now deceased) British soldier in Afghanistan to his parents for all they’re worth in stirring up war-empathy.

I submitted a short comment of my own. Several hours later at the time of writing, it’s unpublished:

For your tireless service to the Military Industrial Complex and the Zionist cause, Andrew Bolt, I nominate you Australia’s Shill of the Year (there’s a lot of competition for this award, so the dishonour is notable).

The entire Afghan invasion, followed by an eight year invasion (now nearly twice as long as World War One!), was based on lies from the outset. Professional liars were needed to sell the narrative. You are one of the most persistent war-promoting liars in Australia, Andrew.

Fortunately, I don’t have to look at you in the mirror each morning. That is your pitiable reward.

A beetle needs to own six boots
Or go barefoot instead
Some beetles gnaw away at roots
While others munch on bread.

Lophostemon grandifloris: a local beneficial beetle (Source: Ken Walker, Museum Victoria)

Though beetles ride on lizards’ backs
If given half the chance
They do resent surprise attacks
Preferring sweet romance.

In many ways, you’ll find your life
Is like the life of beetle
So if you ever take a wife
Don’t lose her in the treacle.

Perhaps I’m getting too grumpy?

If so, it’s not without provocation.

This morning I switched on the local Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio channel (ABC Far North) to catch up on regional news. Presenter Fiona Sewell was on deck. All fine.

Clive Williams: at least he didn't have the gall to mention Bin Laden!

Then I learnt she was to interview Clive Williams of the Australian National University after 9am, on the topic of Afghanistan.

Afghanistan is not in Far North Queensland, but I decided to listen anyhow.

The softball, reventential tone of her interview raised my hackles from the outset. Williams was introduced as an ‘expert’; the ABC up to its usual tricks…

This is Cairns, for God’s sake.  We’re not even close to Canberra, let alone Kabul. If the local ABC is going to cover Afghani affairs, how about balance? And how long will this publicly-funded institution continue to churn out war propaganda while lying by omission on subjects such as 9-11? It really is beyond a joke.

Hence my letter, which is self explanatory. I’ll publish any reply received. Watch this space…

Attention Fiona Sewell
ABC Far North,
Cairns, Queensland,
Australia

Dear Fiona

I refer to your interview this morning with Clive Williams, Visiting Fellow, Strategic and Defence Studies Centre at the Australian National University.

Had you provided any of the following background about Mr Williams, which his own ANU webpage presents as his ‘Career Highlights’, your listeners might have been better able to evaluate his comments in context. Instead, as I recall, you introduced him with words such as ‘academic’ and ‘expert’. It’s true, as far as it goes, but they are rather bland terms in the circumstances:

Career Highlights
Defence Intelligence Organisation (DIO) Attaché in Washington 1990-1993; Head of Imagery Exploitation Centre 1993-1994; Director Major Powers Section, DIO 1994-1998; Director of Security Intelligence 1998-2002.

Yes, Clive Williams is an expert. He’s expert in rationalizing open-ended military occupations based on a bogus initial pretext.

I’d be grateful if you could take two minutes to watch the video featured on a recent post on my blog. It was produced by The Guardian.

THAT is the war that Clive Williams wants us to keep fighting for AT LEAST another TEN years. Another DECADE, for heavens sake!

I believe most Far North Queensland locals do not want our local ABC station serving as a part-time propaganda wing of the military-security establishment. (I’m aware that the national ABC performs this role more or less as a matter of course, but surely there are limits!)

However, as ABC Far North has now chosen to enter the minefield of Afgani/Pakistani affairs -presumably to help better inform local listeners on these weighty matters – I trust you will follow up soon with an interview about the Afghanistan war in which an informed advocate of an anti-occupation, pro-reconciliation approach to resolving conflict in that region is granted at least an equal amount of airtime as Clive Williams.

Otherwise, the local public in this part of the world have a right to ask why ABC Far North chooses to help push a minority view held by those Australians who support our continuing involvment in this war.

Please now give at least least equal voice to the substantial MAJORITY of Australians (70%+ according to statistics cited by Williams himself) who seek a rapid end to Australia’s involvement in the occupation of Afghanistan.

It's obvious 'Al Qaida' didn't cause this building to collapse, so ABC reporters don't talk about it. Why should the Australian public pay the wages of fake journalists?

Please ALSO give voice to those of us able to present compelling evidence that the 2001 assault on Afghanistan was a war launched on false premises – evidence which the ABC, to its shame, never deigns to report fairly in its current affairs coverage.

I understand that the rest of the mainstream Australian media insists on treating the public like idiots. But ABC Far North need not do the same. So, if you want to raise the issue of Afghanistan, why not also interview a prominent 9-11 sceptic on the topic? Perhaps Professor David Ray Griffin would be amenable to the opportunity? I have other suggestions if he isn’t available.

A declining number of well-informed people believe any longer that fanatical Muslims, led by ‘Al Qaida’ based in Afghanistan, managed to effect the free-fall collapse of THREE steel-framed Manhatten skyscrapers into dust and molten steel on 9-11. After all, such a phenomenon has never been observed before or since in history, absent pre-planned controlled demolition… Recall also that the Taliban Government of the day offered to extradite Mr Bin Laden if it could be presented with evidence of his guilt; that perfectly normal and reasonable request – a request any sovereign nation makes in the event of an extradition request – was dismissively treated as a casus belli by the Bush Administration.

‘NATO’s’ war in Afghanistan is being waged a long way from the North Atlantic. Afghanistan is a long way from Australia too. Even Clive Williams admitted the conflict poses no direct ‘threat’ to Australia. This war, launched on the basis of demonstrable lies, is being waged against an increasingly popular resistance movement. The chief beneficiaries of the post-2001 conflict have been drug barons, arms merchants and profiteering military contractors. Ordinary Afghanis have been and remain the principal victims.

Australians are right to reject this foul war. It’s a war based on outrageous deceptions that our own publicly-owned mass media is too conformist and cowardly (and/or complicit?) to investigate. How shameful is that!

If you must interview warmongering academics with ‘Defense Intelligence’ (double misnomer?) connections, please at least question them critically and balance their pro-war spin with opposing views.

With regards to you and all at ABC Far North, on this fine sunny day in relative paradise.

Syd Walker
Kuranda
cc. Bruce Woolley (Manager); CairnsBlog (local independent media)

Gandhi and King: most folk I know respect peace warriors, not war peddlers. Will the ABC catch up?

PS. As I have little remaining confidence that the mainstream media in Australia provides an opportunity for meaningful discussion of topics such as those raised above, I intend to publish this letter on my blog. I will, of course, publish any replies received from yourself and/or Mr Woolley.

Ventiliation of these issues in the public domain, in my opinion, is very much in the public interest – within this region and everywhere else.

It’s past time.