Australia’s mass media – rotten to the core?

Yesterday The Drum published WikiLeaks: catalyst for transparency or lockdown?

Written by Craig McMurtrie, a journalist based at the Washington bureau of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, it gave an account of the latest Wikileaks story for Australian readers. This is a story about the third major release of ‘secret’ documents by Wikileaks – the most publicized so far, which has attracted the unimaginative title ‘Cablegate’.

The Drum is the ABC’s contribution to the blogosphere. Comments from the general public are encouraged. Mostly, in my experience, comments do get published. But not always…

Below is my (unpublished) comment to McMurtrie’s summary of the latest Wikileaks data-dump.

I kept it brief:

It’s amazing how Wikileaks’ revelations are always chock-full of embarrassments for Israel.

Oh wait – they’re not!

It’s amazing how one country seems rather pleased with the latest ‘Cablegate’ revelations…

It’s all quite amazing really. Too amazing by half, IMO.

130 comments were published in total beneath McMurtrie’s article, but for reasons best known to themselves, the ABC staff decided the opinion I expressed should not be shared with the public. Perhaps they’re right?

I could have made a different comment. I suspect my focus on the Israeli / Zionist angle was the deletable offense. I’ll never know if a comment would have been published had I focused instead on rebutting MacMurtrie’s laughable assertion that (my emphasis)”

“(Assange’s) main target so far has been the pluralist though, of course, flawed US democracy. Is he so naive to hold Washington to a transparency standard unmatched anywhere else? Does that really make our world safer?”

Hello Craig?

Mate, the USA is a country that can’t even investigate the murder of its own President in cold blood with anything remotely resembling honesty. It can’t even deliver anything resembling transparency when nearly 3,000 of its own citizens are slaughtered in plain view on a sunny morning. It has the largest network of spooks in world history. It spends as much on its military as the rest of the world put together and can’t even account for trillions of missing ‘defense’ expenditure. There are so many overseas US bases an accurate count seems to be difficult… I could continue, Craig, but really… are you SURE unmatched transparency is the term you want to use?!!

Does Mr MacMurtrie really believe piffle like this? Or does he have an agenda – an agenda matched, I suspect, by a disturbing preponderence of mainstream ‘journalists’ throughout the Anglospere?

Leaving that as an open question, I’ll turn to another debate in the Australian media that’s currently running hot.

Yesterday The Drum also published an interesting article yesterday on the #twitdef furore – a topic which I wrote about a few days ago: Murdoch editor threatens to sue tweeter for defamation.

The Drum’s article – 140 characters of legal nightmare – was contributed by Media Watch presenter Jonathan Holmes who has been the presenter of the ABC’s Media Watch since 2008. Although on holiday, he was good enough to share his thoughts with us.

Holmes’ article was generally well-received, as indicated by the published comments beneath and twitter commentary using the #twitdef hashtag. Personally, I found his analysis betrayed a rather patronising attitude to the public – and delivered a somewhat oppressive take-home message. Here’s how he began:

It’s been one of those issues the Twitterati love – because it’s all about them and their beloved medium.

But the story the Twitterverse has dubbed #twitdef and #posettigate raises a host of fascinating issues – ethical, legal and practical – as the most combative of Australia’s old media outlets takes on one of the most fervent advocates of the new.

Patronizing? Just a tad, I think. But his scary take-home message is more significant. Holmes wrote: “live tweeting is such a dangerous journalistic endeavour…“That phrase was retweeted often. Admittedly, the repetition of his views wasn’t Holmes’ responsibility. But I do think his remark gave unmerited encouragement to The Australian’s editor Chris Mitchell following his surreal dummy-spit.

Of course Mr Holmes is right, in a sense. A clever barrister can construe the current defamation laws in Australia to make a case for damn near anything being defamatory. But in this instance, in my opinion at least, editor Chris Mitchell chose a most unwise target on a most unwise occasion and a court case – if he does choose to proceed with defamation action – is very likely be most embassassing for him and his newspaper. If he sues – in the opinion of many – Mitchell would make himself and The Australian a laughing stock, worldwide  – even in the unlikely event that he wins in court. If Mitchell can’t see that, surely he answers to people who can?

Consequently I’m more in sympathy with other #twitdef commentators who tended to dwell on the silliness exhibited by Mitchell and some of his staff, who wrote a succession of supporting articles but don’t seem able to maintain a consistent line. For instance, The Australian’s media writer Sally Jackson reported the view that “planned defamation action by The Australian’s editor-in-chief, Chris Mitchell over posts on Twitter is unremarkable“; on the other hand, The Australian’s media diarist Caroline Overington reported it’s the “Australia’s first high-profile Twitter defamation case“. Confused? They seem to be

Personally, I think the correct response to a tantrum by a powerful boss who has grossly over-reached is something less legalistic and less likely to play on his turf. Ridicule is a good start. Much #twitdef tweeting has been along those lines. Some comments make me uncomfortable. They’re not all brilliant. But I’d be a lot more uncomfortable if most people felt too scared to chip in at all.

After reading Holmes’ article, I was moved to tweet:

Reasonable free speech is not the gift of barristers, barons or bullies. It’s an inherent right for the populace to seize & use #twitdef

A little strident, perhaps. But I do believe it. Needless to say, an oddball almost immediately chimed in on the #twitdef hashtag with imputations about the sexual orientation of various contributors. I guess it helped emphasise why I expended ten precious characters on the word ‘reasonable‘.

Then I posted a comment to Holmes’ article on The Drum. I wondered if this would make it past the moderators, who as we’ve seen can be cautious souls. As it turned out, no problems. Here’s my comment, as reproduced on The Drum:

Tweeting need not be a “dangerous journalistic endeavour” and the flow of information will be much the poorer if this kind of nonsensical case – threatened by a man with an almost unique ability to ensure records are corrected and his viewpoint is not overlooked – is not laughed out of court (ideally long before it gets there).

If Mr Mitchell felt he was misrepresnted, his first recourse should have been to approach the key players to (a) a request a transcript/recording/clarification and (b) seek an explanation or apology if he thought it merited. That’s what fair-minded people do in such circumstances.

To threaten legal proceedings, before such basic process had been followed, seems to me akin to throwing a childish temper tantrum. I think that’s how most folk following this issue see it too.

Not a pretty sight.

In a contest between Twitter and The Australian, the latter is likely to be the fly, not the windscreen. A lot of people such as myself, infuriated with a ‘news’ organsiation that has systematically purveyed falsehoods to massage public opinion in favour of sectarian wars, believe The Australian long since forfeited any right to public credibility. Controversies such as #twitdef are useful aids to help convert more people to the rather obvious need to break the power of the world’s most odious ‘news corporation’.

So there we have it…

On the publicly-owned ABC blog, Australians can apparently much say pretty what they like about this nation’s largest private media empire. Fancy expressing the view that News Corp has systematically purveyed falsehoods to massage public opinion in favour of sectarian wars? No worries! Want to call for News Corp’s power to be broken? That’s OK too.

Oh, the joy of free speech!

But… to even suggest that Wikileaks might be not quite the full quid after all – and that the world’s most duplicitous and murderous intelligence agencies might have a hand in this collosal global media spectacle…

No, no, no, no no NO! That is SHOCKING and cannot be said in polite company!!! Certainly not on The Drum! A bridge too far for the delicate Australian public! How disgraceful to even murmur scepticism about Wikileaks!

Judging by comments that were published, it’s OK to say Wikileaks is very, very good. It’s fine as well to say Wikileaks is very very bad. But to imply that Wikileaks might not be 100% genuine…

That’s HERESY!

Well, excuse me. I beg to differ.

I don’t claim certainty that President Ahmadinejad is correct in claims he made yesterday that elements within the US administration had “released” the material intentionally to create mischief and bolster the pro-Zionist agenda. I’m not sure if Cablegate is truly an exercise in “psychological warfare“.

But I can see why the Iranians might view it that way – and I do consider the issue very much open for debate. There’s nothing inherently implausible about the idea that Wikileaks is essentially a black op. Stranger things have happened… There’s also the possibility that Mr Assange and his colleagues are being ‘played’, even without their knowledge. I think that’s conceivable, although unlikely. Outsiders – including self-styled ‘insiders’ such as ABC journalists – can’t really know for sure without a lot more information.

I’d like to hear more of the sceptics perspective. I’d like more informed dialogue about the whole issue of Wikileaks and what’s really going on here. I’d like sufficient open debate between contrasting views to make a more informed decision about the facts.

Apparently the Australian Broadcasting Corporation does not.

Like the Australian, the ABC has a public face and a private face, a ‘open to all views’ rhetoric and a ‘some opinions not welcome’ reality. In Australia, News Corp and the ABC are like peas in a pod really. There’s a revolving door between them, with staff moving from one to the other and invitations extended for interviews, commentaries and the rest almost daily. If the ABC ever cancelled all News Corp appearances on its panels of talking heads, it would result in measurably less publicly-sponsored waffle.

There is, however, one quite crucial difference between them.

Like the BBC on which it was modelled, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation is signficantly more credible than the widely-reviled Murdoch media – especially for the nation’s intelligensia.

In my books, that makes the ABC somewhat more dangerous.

No, this isn’t my own direct appeal to the bombastic Prime Minister of the Israeli State.

I doubt he reads this blog, although some of the Hasbara minions may keep an eye on it from time to time.

If Mr Netanyahu is listening, I’m happy appeal to him directly. Here goes: Do NOT try to murder the Iranian President!

Do not try it this week, Mr Netanyahu, while President Ahmedinejad is visiting The Lebanon on a two-day State visit.

Don’t try to do it at all.

Murder is against the law. Murdering the Head of State of another nation is utterly unacceptable.

Israel make consider it OK, because agents of the Israeli State have such a long track record of murdering Israel’s perceived enemies.

Usually these assassinations have been covert operations. The most spectacular in the genre was the slaughter of US President John F Kennedy in cold blood, back in November 1963.

Sometimes assassinations of its perceived enemies has been easily attributable to Israel – as in the case of the recent slaying of senior Hamas official Mahmoud al-Mabhouhin in Dubai last January. On other occasions – such as the murders of two  Kennedy brothers in the 1960s – quite remarkably sophisticated deception was practised, over decades, to cover Israel’s tracks.

What makes me especially nervous this week is that the odious Debkafiile website – a notorious front for Israeli spookdom – has been reporting that a previously unknown Lebanese group is threatening to kill President Ahmedinejad during his visit. The group is allegedly affiliated with ‘Al Qaeda’. Reports such as this clearly help prepare the ground for yet another false flag operation carried in the name of the Mossad’s preferred mythical assassins.

Israel’s ultra-arrogant leadership may feel it doesn’t even need to pretend it isn’t responsible for murdering Ahmedinejad. It may believe it has sufficicient control of the western media and the global political elite to ensure continuing support in the UN Security Council and western media – even if it murders the visiting President in the most blatant manner, using a cruise missile or some other lethal remote device most likely donated by the American taxpayer.

They may think that. But Israel is coming close to killing its own golden goose. Previous generations of Zionist leaders were more cunning and operated largely by stealth.

If – God forbid – such an assasination does take place, the world economy would likely plunge into catastrophe as oil prices surge to unprecedented level. The people of the world – as a whole – will know clearly and from the outset who to blame. We shaln’t only be looking to bring the Zionist State to justice. We’ll be looking to bring Zionist-stooge governments to account also, for their role in allowing this disaster to happen.

For that reason, if not out of basic human decency, I hope Netanyahu gets some calls before the Iranian President’s visit begins later today.

Calls should come from President Obama, Prime Minister Cameron, President Sarkosy, President Medvedev… the more the better. Even a tinkle from Australia’s Julia Gillard wouldn’t go astray.

The phonecalls need only be brief. They simply need to say to Mr Netanyahu: DO NOT EVEN THINK OF MURDERING President Ahmedinejad during his visit to the Lebanon. Callers might add that in such an event, the consequences for Israel may not be controllable.

It’s been widely rumoured that Israel is, indeed, looking to start a new war in its region. The possiblility it will soon attack Lebanon has been widely discussed in that country. The Israeli regime has long been looking for a pretext to start a shooting war with Iran.

In these ambitions, Israel’s interests diverge 100% with the interests of the major nations that to date have served as Zionism’s key supporters and allies.

To hasten Israel’s own demise, Netanyahu could press the button and try to murder Ahmedinejad this week. The Iranian President, a very brave man, is doubtless aware of the risk. He simply refuses to allow Israeli intimidation to dictate his nation’e diplomacy. He aims to see the Hizbollah leader during his stay – another courageous leader who lives under a constant Israeli death threat.

Clearly Ahmedinejad is willing to risk his own death to stand up to Zionist bullying. That’s heroic.

If Netanyahu is half as cunning as Israel’s founding PM Ben Gurion, he won’t think with his biceps. To murder President Ahmedinejad on this occasion would not only be criminal. It would be extremely foolish too.

Accusations of ‘murderer’ probably cut little ice in the Zionist leadership cabal. Indeed, they may take such accusations as compliments.

Consequentloy, Obama might ask Netanyahu really wants to go down in history as a sucker who precipitated the collapse of the Zionist dream.

Here’s the official English translation of President Ahmadinejad’s speech yesterday to the United Nations General Assembly. That version isn’t copyable, so I hope this version is an accurate transcript. It’s reproduced below, with my emphases.

Numerous western diplomats walked out at the first mention by Dr Ahmadinejad of 9-11 – including Australia’s representative. I subsequently watched a talking head on Fox News (or was it CNN?) explaining such walk-outs are arranged beforehand by the use of agreed triggers, such as the ‘key words’ 9-11.

All of which confirms my view, expressed only yesterday, that it’s Iran – not the USA – that at this time in history shows itself a more faithful custodian of the western heritage of free and open debate than the parasitised USA and its hapless tag-alongs.

Address by  H.E. Dr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to the U.N. General Assembly

Islamic Republic of Iran
Permanent Mission to the United Nations

Address by H.E. Dr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of the Islamic Republic of Iran

Before the 65th Session of the United Nations General Assembly
New York
23 September 2010

622 Third Ave, New York, NY 10017 Tel: (212) 687-2020 Fax: (212) 867-7086 email: iran@un.inl

***********************************************************

Mr. President,

Excellencies,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I am grateful to the Almighty God who granted me the opportunity to appear before this world assembly once again. I wish to begin by commemorating those who lost their lives in the horrible flood in Pakistan and express my heartfelt sympathy with the families who lost their loved ones as well as with the people and the government of Pakistan. I urge everyone to assist their fellow men and women as a humane duty.

Let me thank H.E. Mr. Ali Abdussalam Treki, the President of the he sixtyfourth session of the United Nations General Assembly, for all his efforts during his tenure. I also would like to congratulate H.E. Mr. Joseph Deiss, the President of the sixty-fifth session of the United Nations General Assembly and wish him all success.

In the past years, I spoke to you about some of the hopes and concerns, including family crises, security, human dignity, world economy, climate change as well as the aspiration for justice and lasting peace.

After about one hundred years of domination, the system of Capitalism and the existing world order has proved to be unable to provide appropriate solution to the problems of societies, thus coming to an end. I shall try to examine the two main causes of this failure and picture some features of the ideal future order.

A) Attitudes and Beliefs

As you are well aware, the divine prophets had the mission to call everyone to monotheism, love and justice and show mankind the path to prosperity. They invite men to contemplation and knowledge in order to better appreciate the truth and to avoid atheism and egoism. The very nature of the message of all prophets is one and the same. Every messenger endorsed the messenger before him and gave glad tidings about the prophet to come, and presented a more complete version of the religion in accordance with the capacity of the man at the time. This continued up to the last messenger of God who presented the perfect and all inclusive religion.

In opposition to that, the egotist and the greedy stood up against this clear call, revolting against the message. Nimrod countered Hazrat Abraham, Pharaoh countered Hazrat Moses and the greedy countered Hazrat Jesus Christ and Hazrat Mohammad (Peace be upon them all). In the recent centuries, the human ethics and values have been rejected as a cause for backwardness. They were even portrayed as opposing wisdom and science because of the earlier infliction on man by the proclaimers of religion in the dark ages of the West

Man’s disconnection from Heaven detached him from his true self. Man with his potentials for understanding the secrets of the universe, his instinct for seeking truth, his aspirations for justice and perfection, his quest for beauty and purity and his capacity to represent God on earth was reduced to a creature limited to the materialistic world with a mission to maximize individualistic pleasures. Human instinct, then, replaced true human nature.

Human beings and nations were considered rivals and the happiness of an individual or a nation was defined in collision with, and elimination or suppression of others. Constructive evolutionary cooperation was replaced with a destructive struggle for survival.

The lust for capital and domination replaced monotheism which is the gate to love and unity. This widespread clash of the egoist with the divine values gave way to slavery and colonialism. A large portion of the world came under the domination of a few western States. Tens of millions of people were taken to slavery and tens of millions of families were shattered as a result. All the resources, the rights and the cultures of the colonized nations were plundered. Lands were occupied and the indigenous people were humiliated and mass- murdered.

Yet, nations rose up, colonialism was alienated and the independence of the nations was recognized. Thus, the hope for respect, prosperity and security was revived amongst nations. In the beginning of the past century nice talks about freedom, human rights and democracy created hopes for healing the deep wounds of the past.

Today, however, not only those dreams are not realized, but memories, even at times worse than before, have been recorded.

As a result of the two World Wars, the occupation of Palestine, the Korean and the Vietnam’s Wars, the Iraqi war against Iran, the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq as well as many wars in Africa, hundreds of millions of people were killed, wounded or displaced.

Terrorism, illicit drugs, poverty and the social gaps increased. The dictatorial and coup d’etat governments in Latin America committed unprecedented crimes with the support of the West.

Instead of disarmament, the proliferation and stockpiling of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons expanded, putting the world under a bigger threat. As a result, the very same old goals of colonialists and the slave masters were, this time round, pursued with a new facade.

B) The Global Management and Ruling Structures

The League of Nations and, then, the United Nations were established with the promise to bring about peace, security and the realization of human rights, which in fact meant a global management.

One can analyze the current governance of the world by examining three events:

First, the event of the II September 2001 which has affected the whole world for almost a decade.

All of a sudden, the news of the attack on the twin towers was broadcast using numerous footages of the incident. Almost all governments and known figures strongly condemned this incident.

But then a propaganda machine came into full force; it was implied that the whole world was exposed to a huge danger, namely terrorism, and that the only way to save the world would be to deploy forces into Afghanistan. Eventually Afghanistan, and shortly thereafter Iraq were occupied.

Please take note:

It was said that some three thousands people were killed on the II September for which we are all very saddened. Yet, up until now, in Afghanistan and Iraq hundreds of thousands of people have been killed, millions wounded and displaced and the conflict is still going on and expanding.

In identifying those responsible for the attack, there were three viewpoints.

1 – That a very powerful and complex terrorist group, able to successfully cross all layers of the American intelligence and security, carried out the attack.

This is the main viewpoint advocated by American statesmen.

2- That some segments within the U.S. government orchestrated the attack to reverse the declining American economy and its grips on the Middle East in order also to save the Zionist regime.

The majority of the American people as well as other nations and politicians agree with this view.

3- It was carried out by a terrorist group but the American government supported and took advantage of the situation. Apparently, this viewpoint has fewer proponents.

The main evidence linking the incident was a few passports found in the huge volume of rubble and a video of an individual whose place of domicile was unknown but it was announced that he had been involved in oil deals with some American officials. It was also covered up and said that due to the explosion and fire no trace of the suicide attackers was found.

There remain, however, a few questions 10 be answered:

1- Would it not have been sensible that first a thorough investigation should have been conducted by independent groups to conclusively identify the elements involved in the attack and then map out a rational plan to take measures against them?

2- Assuming the viewpoint of the American government, is it rational to launch a classic war through widespread deployment of troops that led to the death of hundreds of thousands of people to counter a terrorist group?

3- Was it not possible to act the way Iran countered the Riggi terrorist group who killed and wounded 400 innocent people in Iran. In the Iranian operation no innocent person was hurt.

It is proposed that the United Nations set up an independent fact-finding group for the event of the II September so that in the future expressing views about it is not forbidden.I wish to announce here that next year the Islamic Republic of Iran will host a conference to study terrorism and the means to confront it. I invite officials, scholars, thinkers, researchers and research institutes of all countries to attend this conference.

Second, is the occupation of the Palestinian territories

The oppressed people of Palestine have lived under the rule of an occupying regime for 60 years, been deprived of freedom, security and the right to selfdetermination, while the occupiers are given recognition. On a daily basis, the houses are being destroyed over the heads of innocent women and children. People are deprived of water, food and medicine in their own homeland.

The Zionists have imposed five all-out wars on the neighboring countries and on the Palestinian people.

The Zionists committed the most horrible crimes against the defenseless people in the wars against Lebanon and Gaza.

The Zionist regime attacked a humanitarian flotilla in a blatant defiance of all international norms and kills the civilians.

This regime which enjoys the absolute support of some western countries regularly threatens the countries in the region and continues publicly announced assassination of Palestinian figures and others, while Palestinian defenders and those opposing this regime are pressured, labeled as terrorists and anti Semites. All values, even the freedom of expression, in Europe and in the United States are being sacrificed at the altar of Zionism.

Solutions are doomed to fail because the right of the Palestinian people is not taken into account.

Would we have witnessed such horrendous crimes if instead of recognizing the occupation, the sovereign right of the Palestinian people had been recognized?

Our unambiguous proposition is the return of the Palestinian refugees to their home land and the reference to the vote of the people of Palestine to exercise their sovereignty and decide on the type of governance.

Third, is nuclear energy

Nuclear energy is clean and cheap and a heavenly gift which is amongst the most suitable alternatives to cut the pollutions emanating from fossil fuels.

The Non- Proliferation Treaty (NPT) allows all member States to use nuclear energy without limits and the International Atomic Energy Agency is mandated to provide member States with technical and legal support.

The nuclear bomb is the worst inhumane weapon and which must totally be eliminated. The NPT prohibits its development and stockpiling and calls for nuclear disarmament. Nonetheless, note what some of the permanent members of the Security Council and nuclear bomb holders have done:

They have equated nuclear energy with the nuclear bomb, and have distanced this energy from the reach of most of nations by establishing monopolies and pressuring the IAEA. While at the same time, they have continued to maintain, expand and upgrade their own nuclear arsenals.

This has entailed the following:

Not only the nuclear disarmament has not been realized but also nuclear bombs have been proliferated in some regions, including by the occupying and intimidating Zionist regime.

I would like here to propose that the year 2011 be proclaimed the year of nuclear disarmament and “Nuclear Energy for all, Nuclear Weapons for None”.

In all these cases the United Nations has been unable to take any effective course of action. Unfortunately, in the decade proclaimed as the “International Decade for the Culture of Peace” hundreds of thousands were killed and injured as a result of war, aggression and occupation, and hostilities and antagonism increased.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Very recently the world witnessed the ugly and inhumane act of burning the Holy Quran.

The Holy Quran is the Divine Book and the eternal miracle of the Prophet oflslam.

It calls for worshipping the One God, justice, compassion toward people, development and progress, reflection and thinking, defending the oppressed and resisting against the oppressors; and it names with respect the previous Messengers of God, like Noah, Abraham, Isaaq, Joseph, Moses and Jesus Christ (Peace be Upon them all) and endorses them.. They burned Quran to bum all these truths and good judgments. However, the truth could not be burned. Quran is eternal because God and truth are everlasting. This act and any other act which widens the gap and distances between nations is evil. We should wisely avoid playing into the hands of Satan. On behalf of the Iranian nation I pay respect to all Divine Books and their followers. This is the Quran and this is the Bible. I pay respect to both of them.

Esteemed Friends,

For years the inefficiency of the capitalism and the existing world management and structures has been exposed and the majority of States and nations have been on a quest for fundamental changes and for the prevalence ofjustice in global relations.

The cause of the United Nation’s ineptitude is in its unjust structure. Major power is monopolized in the Security Council due to the veto privilege, and the main pillar of the Organization, namely the General Assembly, is marginalized.

In the past several decades, at least one of the permanent members of the Security Council has always been a party to the disputes.

The veto advantage grants impunity to aggression and occupation; How could, therefore, one expect competence while both the judge and the prosecutor are a party to the dispute?

Had Iran enjoyed veto privilege, would the Security Council and the IAEA Director General have taken the same position in the nuclear issue?

Dear Friends,

The United Nations is the key center for coordinating the common global management. Its structure needs to be reformed in a manner that all independent States and nations be able to participate in the global governance actively and constructively.

The veto privilege should be revoked and the General Assembly should be the highest body and the Secretary-General should be the most independent official and all his positions and activities should be taken with the approval of the General Assembly and should be directed towards promoting justice and eliminating discrimination.

The Secretary-General should not come under pressure from powers and/or the country hosting the Organization for his stating the truth and administration ofjustice.

It is suggested that the General Assembly should, within one year and in the framework of an extraordinary session, finalize the reformation of the Organization’s structure

The Islamic Republic of Iran has clear suggestions in this regard and stands ready to participate actively and constructively in the process.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I announce clearly that the occupation of other countries under the pretext of freedom and democracy is an unforgivable crime.

The world needs the logic of compassion and justice and inclusive participation instead of logic of force, domination, unilateralism, war and intimidation.

The world needs to be governed by virtuous people like the Divine Prophets.

The two vast geographical spheres, namely Africa and Latin America, have gone through historic developments during the past decades. The new approaches in these two continents, which are based on increasing level of integration and unity as well as on localizing the growth and development models, have born considerable fruits to the peoples of those regions. The awareness and wisdom of the leaders of these two continents has overcome the regional problems and crises without the domineering interference of non-regional powers.

The Islamic Republic of Iran has expanded its relations with the Latin America and Africa in all aspects in recent years.

And about the glorious Iran,

The Tehran Declaration was a hugely constructive step in confidence building efforts which was made possible through the admirable good will by the governments of Brazil and Turkey along with the sincere cooperation of the Iranian government.

Although the Declaration received inappropriate reaction by some and was followed by an unlawful resolution, it is still valid.

We have observed the regulations of the IAEA more than our commitments, yet, we have never submitted to illegally imposed pressures nor will we ever do so.

It has been said that they want to pressure Iran into a dialogue. Well, firstly, Iran has always been ready for a dialogue based on respect and justice. Secondly, methods based on disrespecting nations have long become ineffective. Those who have used intimidation and sanctions in response to the clear logic of the Iranian nation are in real terms destroying the remaining credibility of the Security Council and the trust of nations for this body, proving once and again how unjust is the function of the Council.

When they threaten a great nation such as Iran which is known throughout history for its scientists, poets, artists and philosophers and whose culture and civilization is synonymous to purity, submission to God and seeking justice, how can they ever expect that other nations grow confidence on them?

It goes without saying that domineering methods in managing the world has failed.

Not only has the era of slavery and colonialism and dominating the world passed, the path to the reviving old Empires are blocked, too.

We have announced that we stand ready for a serious and free debate with the American Statesmen to express our transparent views on issues of importance to the world in this very venue.

It is proposed here that in order to have a constructive dialogue, an annual free debate be organized within the General Assembly.

In conclusion, Friends and Colleagues,

The Iranian nation and the majority of the world’s nations and governments are against the current discriminatory management of the world.

The inhumane nature of this management has put it at a dead-end and requires a major overhaul.

Reforming the world’s affairs and bringing about tranquility and prosperity requires the participation of all, pure thoughts and the divine and humane management.

We are all ofthe idea that:

Justice is the basic element for peace, durable security and the spread of love among peoples and nations. It is in the justice that mankind seeks the realization of his aspirations, rights and dignity, since he is wary of oppression, humiliation and ill treatment.

The true nature of mankind is manifested in the love for other fellow humans and love for all the good in the world. Love is the best foundation for establishing relation amongst people and amongst nations.

As Vahshi Bafqi, the great Iranian poet, says:

“From the fountain of youth, drink thousand sips
You’ll still die if you don’t have love’s grip”

In making a world full of purity, safety and prosperity people are not rivals but companions.

Those who see their happiness but in the sorrow of others and their welfare and safety but in others’ insecurity, those who see themselves superior to others, are out of the path of humanity and are in evil’s course.

Economy and materialistic means are only some tools to serve others, to create friendship and strengthen human connections for spiritual perfection. They are not tools for show-off or means of dominating others.

Men and women complements each other and family unit with pure, loving and long-lasting relation of the spouses in its center is the guarantee for the continuity and the bringing up generations, for true pleasures, for spreading love and for reforming of the societies.

Woman is a reflection of God’s beauty and is the source of love and caring. She is the guardian ofpurity and exquisiteness of the society.

The tendency to toughen the souls and behaviors of women deprives them from their very basic right of being a loving mother and a caring wife. It would result in a more violent society with irreversible defects.

Freedom is a divine right that should serve peace and human perfection.

Pure thoughts and the will of the righteous are keys to the gates of a pure life full of hope, liveliness and beauty.

This is the promise of God that the earth will be inherited by the pure and the righteous. And the people free from selfishness will take up the management of the world. Then, there will be no trace of sorrow, discrimination, poverty, insecurity and aggression. The time for true happiness and for the blossoming of the true nature of humankind, the way God has intended, will arrive.

All those seeking for justice and all the free spirits have been waiting for this moment and have promised such glorious time.

The complete human, the true servant of God and the true friend of the mankind whose father was from the generation of the beloved Prophet of Islam and whose mother was from the true believers of the Jesus Christ, shall wait along with Jesus the son of Mary and the other righteous to appear on those brilliant times and assist the humanity.

In welcoming them we should join ranks and seek justice.

Praise to Love and worship, praise to justice and freedom, praise to the true humanity, the complete human, the true companion of the humankind and peace be upon you and all the righteous and the pure.

Thank you.

With a persistance that does him credit, veteran investigative journalist and founder of Consortium News Robert Parry has been nibbling away at the 1980 ‘October Surprise’ story for a long time.

Each time he revisits the saga, Parry bites another chunk off the cookie.

His latest article – The CIA/Likud Sinking of Jimmy Carter – draws more confident and far-reaching  conclusions than before.

Parry makes a solid case that Jimmy Carter’s Administration was brought down by a conspiracy involving elements of the CIA and the far-right Israeli Government of the day. The former were ultimately answerable to George Bush senior, Vice Presidential candidate for the Republicans in the 1980 election. The latter were presumably under the control of Israel’s Prime Minister Menachim Begin, a former Irgun terrorist.

The Israeli connection helps explain how this story has taken so long to break. Parry relates (emphasis added):

As the Official Story of the 1980 October Surprise case crumbles – with new revelations that key evidence was hidden from investigators of a congressional task force and that internal doubts were suppressed – history must finally confront the troubling impression that remains: that disgruntled elements of the CIA and Israel’s Likud hardliners teamed up to remove a U.S. president from office.

Indeed, it is this disturbing conclusion – perhaps even more than the idea of a Republican dirty trick – that may explain the longstanding and determined cover-up of this political scandal.

Too many powerful interests do not want the American people to accept even the possibility that U.S. intelligence operatives and a longtime ally could intervene to oust a president who had impinged on what those two groups considered their vital interests.

To accept that scenario would mean that two of the great fears of American democracy had come true – George Washington’s warning against the dangers of “entangling alliances” and Harry Truman’s concern that the clandestine operations of the CIA had the makings of an “American Gestapo.”

It is far easier to assure the American people that no such thing could occur, that Israel’s Likud – whatever its differences with Washington over Middle East peace policies – would never seek to subvert a U.S. president, and that CIA dissidents – no matter how frustrated by political constraints – would never sabotage their own government.

I’ll add a personal note to this story.

I was a visitor in the USA for several months in the Autumn of 1979. I found the experience surreal. Major TV networks ran two separate current affairs programs each evening: The Iran Hostage Crisis and The News. Both were of roughly equal length.

Each day, the public was reminded how many days the crisis had lasted. For example, the opening screen image might read: “Iran Hostage Crisis: Day 25″. I left the States to return to Europe at the end of 1979, but presumably that imagery continued throughout the year of 1980. Everyone knew – although it was rarely emphasised – that Day 365 was November 4th 1980: the date of the 1980 US election.

It was as though the entire circus was custom-designed for TV, which I suspect it was.

By the end of the year-long saga of Jimmy Carter’s helpless inability to bring the American hostages home, support for his presidency had collapsed. The Reagan-Bush ticket  swept to power at the November 1980 election.

Few had expected that outcome in the late 1970s. On my travels around the USA, I found the Carter Presidency was generally popular. Despite an economically troubled 1970s, Americans seemed to be feeling better about themselves after the traumas of the 1960s and the Nixon era. The Vietnam war was over. Carter was even reforming the intelligence agencies and attempting – with some success – to inject a note of morality into American foreign policy.

One can be critical of Carter’s record; many progressives were critical at the time. He didn’t go far enough or fast enough for many. On the other hand, his Presidency was during the Cold War era and suffered from the constraints accompanying that distorting global fission.

Overall, there was a general sense that Jimmy Carter was moving America in a more caring and progressive direction. Most people liked it. He’d used his power to push for peace with a modicum of justice in the middle east, resuming earlier attempts by earlier Presidents, including his most recent predecessor Gerald Ford, but with notably greater success.

Two things eventually turned Jimmy Carter’s decency-first approach to foreign polity into damaged goods. The resulting disillusionment was sufficient for a large numbers of Americans in the ‘center’ of politics to desert Carter in droves and opt for the hard-line, bombastic, pro-military agenda of Reagan and Bush.

Both were foreign affairs issues. The media amplified and put an anti-Carter spin on them, making his Administration seem weak and incompetent. One of the issues were Afghanistan, ‘invaded’ by Soviet troops in late 1979. The other issue, arguably more he Iran hostage crisis.

We now know, from subsequent disclosures by then National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, that the Afghanistan debacle was tantamount to a deliberate act of entrapment on the part of the USA. Whether Carter was party to that is less clear. I suspect he wasn’t. The ensuing frosty relationship with the Soviet Union, which continued on to the Olympic Games held in Moscow the next year, was not favourable to Carter’s image domestically. Instead of a ‘peace president’, he was made to look like a mug.

The Iran hostage crisis was even bigger news – and the story ran right up to election day. In fact, it was to reach a conclusion only on President Reagan’s inauguration day in January 1981, when the US hostages were finally released, signifying the beginning of a new political era.

When I visited the USA in late 1979, I asked a few Americans if they thought it likely Reagan would be elected. They generally laughed. The former California Governor was regarded as figure of fun. Bush caused more concern to Democrats, but he was clearly associated with the CIA. The general sentiment was that Carter would win again in 1980.

But in the event, the once-popular President was decisively defeated in November 1980. His well intentioned foreign policy – a policy that gave a new primacy to human rights – had been made to seem little more than naive weakness. After all, the Russians had ‘taken advantage’ in Afghanistan and the Iranian revolutionaries were laughing at Carter in Tehran. By election day in November 1980, Jimmy Carter was political dead meat

The shift to a Reagan/Bush Administration made a huge difference on numerous policy fronts, from military expenditure to energy policy. The military spend was ramped up to an unprecedented extent. Pressure to reform was relaxed for the intelligence agencies. Solar panels were ripped off the White House roof. Big oil was back in DC – in style.

I recall having suspicious at the time about the snapshot of history I was observing. It all seemed too neat; just a few too many co-incidences. Yet the idea that the US Republicans were able to pull off a coup d’etat on their own was too hard to believe. I hadn’t reckoned on the significance of the Bush-intel connection. Above all, I’d missed the role of the Israelis.

Thirty years on, knowing what I know now about Zionist media dominance in the the USA and having waded through a number of Robert Parry’s well-written and well-sourced articles, it’s clear to me now what happened. Anyone with the time, interest and intellectual open-mindedness can check the documentation for themselves. The early 1980′s October Surprise /Iran Contra saga is a most definitely a ripping yarn – an educational political thriller with plenty of villains, some of whose names may be surprisingly familiar!

In 1979/80 – not for the first time and not for the last – the Zionist leadership changed the course of American history. It exchanged a Democratic Administration for a Republican Administration. The electorate was systematically manipulated to achieve this objective. George Bush senior, a man later to become Vice-President and President (1988-92) in his own right, committed acts of treason against the US Administration of the day to gain unfair political advantage.

It’s true that Israel had friends – and some sceptics – in both the Carter and Reagan Administrations. The 1980 election did not bring about a shift in America’s middle east policy anything like as decisive as the bloody coup of November 1963. Yet overall, the demise of the Carter Administration served Israeli interests – at least it served the interests of hard-line, right-wing Israelis and their allies in the Jewish community worldwide.

Those are the interests who would go on the collaborate with criminals in the US Government in the unconstitutional crimes of ‘Iran-Contra’. Two decades after that, re-branded  as  ‘neocons’, they were to orchestrate the 9-11 atrocities and the illegal invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.