Australia's Saviour Malcolm

Someone should kindly inform Saviour Malcolm that he was elected to his latest post by the national Liberal caucus, not the Australian people. The rhetoric of the last week, that has (hopefully) peaked this morning, has him strongly urging the prime-minister to work in a bipartisan way. It seems that the problems in Australia have become so severe that Saviour Malcolm has made himself available to work with the government to solve the crisis. Thanks Saviour Malcolm!

Did you know, he says, that the Republicans and Democrats in the United States have pulled together to save their country…hmmm…really? Firstly the Bill that poses to be America’s saviour failed to pass the congressional House of Representatives. Yep, those guys in the US are really pulling together…especially the House Republicans and Republican president Bush. Secondly, all the bill would do is make the downward financial and economic trend longer and flatter, rather than shorter and steeper.

Both major parties in the US are working together on this one for two reasons. Firstly, with the vast majority of the population against the bill, neither party wants to be labelled as the party that supported it. Secondly, so it seems, the majority of the elected legislature is against it; so the bill needs bipartisan support in order for its passing.

Saviour Malcolm is standing so high up on his pedestal that he cannot see the significant difference between the US and Australian financial system. Please for the sake of the nation come together as one and save the populous from the devastation that is consuming us all (says our newly born Saviour Malcolm). The US financial crisis is serious, and all the talk about saving Main Street misses the point that the troubles on Main Street were the starting point for revealing the high-rolling stupidity of Wall Street. However this is no excuse for Saviour Malcolm to give up his post as opposition leader and form a coalition of the unified transcendent.

Admittedly the overall economies have notable similarities – burgeoning levels of household debt and a deep trade connection with China for example – that indicate both economies will track similarly over the next few years. However as far as a great rescue from Saviour Malcolm, no thanks. In this interconnected world, perhaps Saviour Malcolm can pull a few strings for them folks over in the States?

Please do not misunderstand me here and think that I am railing against the Liberal party, and am hence demonstrating partisanship. To illustrate that I, like Saviour Malcolm, am being bipartisan, I have a prime-ministers forecast. History will show that the PM will not become known as Kevin 07; nor will he become known as 747 Kevin; our bungling, cliché prone, foggy sighted, ‘in-action man’ PM will become known as Rudd the Dudd!

McCain Aint Stupid

Before beginning to explain the title I should clarify that and say that either he or whoever is whispering in his ear aint stupid.

The long wind of the presidential race had a predictable path. George Bush was (and is) so out of favour with the general population that whichever Democrat wins the primary is a sure bet for the big job.

Along the way something of importance did tempt fate to change its course: the surge worked. Now some critics, including Obama, say that there were other important factors that contributed the improved conditions in Iraq - in particular the Awakening Council of Sunni muslim groups that turned against the violent insurgent movement. However even on this point it should be noted that the increased pressure being applied by the American military is arguably a significant reason for the forming of the Awakening Council.

A little side note here about Barack Obama’s world tour. After emerging from meetings with the leadership in Iraq, the president to-be made a great raucous about him and the big chiefs in Iraq converging on a pull-out timetable. However he probably didn’t make such a drama about the fact that he never discussed the issue with the big cheeses. Also, at any point during the (so far) years long Iraq war his position has been to pull-out ‘soon’. Hence when with the drastically improved situation leading the Iraq government to feel strong enough to consider this as an option, big boy Barack says him and the big cheeses are on the same wavelength. However while they may be on the same wavelength, they are on different planets. Barack Obama’s policy was to winning or losing pull-out. This is a far cry from pulling out after winning.

So back to the main theme. Though George Bush had a significant win in Iraq – that probably surprised him as much as all the critics – he has had a significant loss on the home front. The economy is being battered by more than the occasional hurricane. All the talk is about propping up the high-rollers on Wall Street so as not to have the problem spread to Main Street. However to the many people doing it rough, including all those that couldn’t make their mortgage repayments and hence started the Wall Street crisis, things on Main Street are already pretty much trashed.

All that the Democrats had to do was ride the wave of public sentiment against the Republican establishment. Part of that wave was for Barack Obama to appoint Hilary Clinton as his running mate. Not doing this move allowed McCain to pull a swifty. By appointing any women that is at least able to give a better public speech then him he rides the wave of disenchantment that Obama created. This was Obama’s first wrong move, and this was McCain’s first big move.

When George Bush announces a rescue package to rescue the world-wide Wall Street high-rollers from their collective drunken stupor, Obama throws his support behind the move. Admittedly in some way the Congress will likely pass some form of the bill, with Republicans and Democrats both voting either way. However McCain has taken the opposing position. So we have the Republican incumbent and Democrat nominee versus the Republican nominee. Even if Congress passes the bill, it will be in largely unpopular. Barack and George become friends and McCain wins out.

It is argued that McCain will likely switch his position at some stage. Even if he does, he still has created a division that he stands to gain much on.

So against all odds I would argue that someone in the McCain camp is pretty smart on strategy – that is not necessarily referring to McCain – and someone in the Obama camp should take some surfing lessons.

Pakistan and US

Friends or Foes?

How to make sense of the issue of the growing Afghanistan insurgency base in north-west Pakistan? Following the rhetoric leads to utter confusion.

The first thing that has crystallized is that Pakistan has seen that a growing insurgency base aims itself at Pakistan, not just Afghanistan. There are two consequences of this realization. Firstly the Pakistan government cannot remain complacent and let the problem blow away – or blow into Afghanistan. The second consequence is that if the United States were to escalate its operations into the Pakistan frontier regions than this would have less resistance on the Pakistan side: because Pakistan has sorted out that they have a problem on their own turf and is tacitly thankful for the help.

The Pakistan government tells their people that they think the US is not really very nice, and surreptitiously tells the US, thanks for the help.

The US has been inclined to increase its cross-border operations in large part also because the Pakistan people are becoming more ambivalent due to the pervasive incursion of militancy and terrorism into their society.

Notes to NATO

In recent days Georgia has forwarded recorded mobile telephone taps of border guards at the Russia to South Ossetia checkpoint. In the last week this information has been passed to government officials, including those of the United States. Intelligence officials in the United States, and no doubt other countries and organisations, are conducting an analysis into the essential question of “who fired the first shot?” in the Georgia versus Russia war.

The Georgian president is now passing around the telephone taps that supposedly show that the Georgian assault on the South Ossetian capital was a response to a Russian invasion. It is quite remarkable that Saakashvili (the Georgian president) did not make mention of this earlier. It is even more amazing that this crucial information - that was within hours of being received (by the intelligence community) passed on to senior members of the Georgian government, and upon which a decision was to go to war in response to an invasion – happened to be lost for several weeks in a pile of old intelligence reports.

The final icing on the cake of this amazing saga is that Georgia’s official position until recently was that the idiotic attempt to take back South Ossetia by force was a pre-emptive strike in response to the inevitable Russian invasion. Quite profoundly, the inevitable had actually already happened. It is just the Saakashvili and is intelligent friends lost the record of invasion, and then forgot that the invasion actually happened.

Ground Zero Pollution

September 11: Anniversary of what else?

In his speech for the Republican national convention, George W Bush reminded the United States of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack. While giving full acknowledgement to the horrific attack on the World Trade Centre, there is a subsequent set of circumstances that perhaps forgot to mention: the controversy over the pollution from the disaster.

Immediately following the disaster, draft EPA press releases - which were cautionary and inconclusive in nature - required approval by the National Security Council (NSC) - via the Council for Environmental Quality (CEQ). The approved EPA press releases were reassuring in nature: the air was (in general) safe to breathe; it was safe (in general) for people to return to work. However, the fact of the matter is that the cloud of pollution radiating from the collapsed World Trade Centre towers was extremely hazardous.

This is how the story unfolds as I see it from following the media commentary. Approximately one month after the disaster a New York daily newspaper caught a whiff of something through the issuance of requests via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Congressman Jerry Nadler launched his own investigations, and in 2002 released a report: the “white paper”.

Also in 2002, the EPA ombudsman was writing a report that he says would have had similar conclusions to a report written approximately one year later by the Inspector General of the EPA - the ombudsman’s office was closed by the EPA administrator. The Inspector Generals report is said to have emerged due to the “white paper”. The EPA Inspector General’s report indicates that the EPA, and the then EPA administrator (Whitman), gave reassuring sentiments on an ongoing basis regarding the state of water and air pollution in relation to Ground Zero. However, contrary to evidence – including evidence from proposed press releases prior to being vetted by the National Security Council – the collapsing of the World Trade Towers released an extremely hazardous cloud of toxins.

The EPA Inspector Generals report – released in August 2003 – set off a huge public outcry. This lead to the filing of a number of class action lawsuits against the EPA and one or more people in the EPA – including the administrator (Whitman). Regarding one of the class actions, in February 2006 District Federal Court Judge Batts released a damning pre-trial opinion report, thus allowing the trial to continue. Except in situations that ‘shock the conscience’, individual public officials are granted personal immunity. The judge refused to grant the then administrator (Whitman) personal immunity. Also, Whitman was frequently criticised at a US House of Representatives ‘Ground Zero illnesses’ committee hearing in September 2006.

Congressman Nadler repeatedly raised concerns of White House involvement, and urged both Congress and the Department of Justice to investigate the matter. The matter is that the cautionary and inconclusive draft EPA press releases were replaced or amended by allegedly ‘conscience shocking’ NSC approved (via the CEQ) press releases.

The chairperson of the NSC is the President of the United States। At the time, and currently, that person is George W Bush. So it begs the question, as the litigation continues in relation to the allegedly ‘conscience shocking’ actions of the EPA and administrator Whitman, what then of the White House and President Bush; and by the way, who else sits on the National Security Council?

It now being September 2008, progress towards truth and justice on this issue has slowly made ground in the judiciary. One wonders what difference a Democrat in the White House might make?

A Russian Bias?

In relation to Kosovo, it took the West almost a decade of diplomacy and negotiation to bring about the change from autonomy too widespread acknowledgement of independence. The intervention by NATO in 1999 to prevent further ethnic cleansing in Kosovo by Serbian forces, the likes of which occurred in Bosnia, has been historically vindicated. However the Russian claim of genocide and several thousand South Ossetians deaths failed under post-violence scrutiny. The death toll is put between one to several hundred. Though this be tragic in itself it is important to put this in the context of a build-up in tensions and ongoing military conflict between South Ossetian militia and the Georgian military. The culmination of this fighting led to Georgia’s failed attempt to take the South Ossetian capital by force.

It took Russia not more than a few weeks to declare South Ossetia’s independence. The grounds were given that the invasion by Georgia annulled its legal claim over the region. The Russian President Medvedev argued that this precedence did not occur in relation to Serbia and Kosovo. However it is clearly evident that ethnic cleansing and genocide can be attributed to Kosovo and the Balkans in general. The same cannot be said to be so in the South Ossetian situation.

The argument seems to have some authority that if an ethnically homogonous region within a sovereign state is targeted in a way that constitutes genocide, ethnic cleansing, or crimes against humanity, than that state forgoes its sovereign claim over that region. It is an argument that follows from the United Nations platform of “responsibility to protect”. The argument here is that humanity as a whole as the right, and perhaps the obligation, to intervene in the case of atrocities. The invasion of Tibet happened and went unanswered by major powers. The genocide in Rwanda happened, but was more closely watched. The atrocities committed by the Serbs in Bosnia finally motivated some major powers to intervene in the case of Serbian atrocities in Kosovo.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, it might be argued that the mutual crimes committed by the warring South Ossetians and Georgians is sufficient grounds to make the case for eventual independence – as is the case made by some major powers in relation to Kosovo. However Georgia did use major military force to try and bring South Ossetia back into its fold. This further gives grounds to South Ossetian independence, and does justify a military response – in this case from Russia. However especially considering the falsified claims of genocide and ethnic cleansing, Russia’s eventual response has the very clear character of being excessive. The destabilising effect on Georgia was to leave a power vacuum that enabled South Ossetian militia to commit atrocities.

It is within the collective of humanity to transcend all borders; however it is within the abuse of individual power to consume all borders. In order to transcend boundaries humanity must first learn to respect them.

A Western Bias?

That Georgia launched a major military offensive against its own autonomous region is the key issue that did not receive significant attention in Western political and media circles in the initial days of confrontation with Russia. One might assume that Georgia, being a key Western ally, would not be criticized too openly by its friends.

On the eve of the Georgian assault, the United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stood beside the Georgian president Mikhael Saakashvili, and emphasised that diplomacy and not military means was the key to this problems resolution. That night Georgia attacked its own autonomous region of South Ossetia. It is clear from the United States diplomatic response in the coming days – inspite of the Georgian president’s efforts to encourage NATO and the United States to intervene militarily – that Dr Rice was true to her word on the eve of the assault.

In making the attempt to retake control of the autonomous region of South Ossetia, did Mikhael Saakashvili think he would succeed. One key question obviously would be first of all would Russia respond militarily. It would be difficult to find any sane person who is informed of the historical situation to conclude that Russia would not respond in force militarily. Hence, the next question is would the Georgian military defeat the Russian military. On this question I think even most insane and uninformed people would consider this to be an absurd question to even ask. So, quite obviously Russia would intervene and defeat the Georgian military. Hence the question is why would Saakashvili even bother?

Saakashvili attempted to justify his actions by saying that Russia was going to try and take over Georgia anyway, so it was better to lose fighting rather than just lose. This is a very courageous motive. However to carry out a pre-emptive attack on South Ossetia because Russia was any how going to invade Georgia proper is not backed up by any clear evidence.

The Russian response was likened to the 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia by the Soviet Union. However this comparison was incorrect because Czechoslovakia did not launch an initial military assault.

It is clear from the first days of conflict what Saakashvili’s real position was. It was to achieve his goal of retaking control of the break-away regions by encouraging NATO and the United States to confront Russia militarily. However no analyst or political player outside of Georgia considered this even a remote possibility. The Georgian president’s judgement in launching the assault is seriously called into question.

The Georgian’s approach was to play the victim and show Russia as displaying excess use of force. The United States, the European Union, and NATO backed this position diplomatically. Admittedly it filtered out slowly through Western media outlets that an important point was that Georgia started it. However the key point of concern in all of this is that the position of Russia being excessively aggressive was adopted before Russia moved outside of the conflict zone in South Ossetia. This point was almost missed and was eventually pointed out by Mikhael Gorbachev in an International Herald Tribune opinion piece (20 August 2008).

It became clear when the conflict spread to Abkhazia, and Russian troops moved significantly outside the conflict zone, that accusations of aggression may have merit. However Russia was already being accused of aggression prior to this. The grounds for aggression were not evidenced in Russia’s initial response. So the question is why the premature accusations of aggression? Perhaps the West predicted that Russia would take the opportunity to expand its interests and so the West was adopting an early position to reflect this. Even if this is the case this was not stated, and I do not see any reason not to disclose this. In other words a reasonable Western position at the outset would be that Russia stopped Georgia from violently retaking a breakaway region, and please don’t punish Georgia too much for their stupidity. Hence it looks like the West was biased in its initial calling of the situation. If this is the case it would help the West in dealing with Russia, to look at this bias.

Broadening the picture, in the recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia’s independence by the Russian parliament and government, it is worth considering the parallels with Kosovo’s recent independence from Serbia. Russia considers it to be a similar situation. However President Medvedev makes the point that the only key difference, and hence why Russia did not support Kosovo’s independence bid, is that Serbia did not try and crush Kosovo with military force. It would be interesting to know what the West’s position is on this comparison.

Also, in making a premature call on Russian aggression, it would be interesting to compare Russia’s initial response with Israel’s 2006 war against Lebanon. Lebanon abducted two soldiers, and Israel demolished one country. The United States used their veto on an otherwise uniform view at the United Nations Security Council that Israel’s response was disproportionate and excessive.

This article is not aimed at taking sides. It is aimed at the truth. The author is of the opinion that there are some biases taken by key Western players on some major international issues, and that by acknowledging and exploring these, a better understand can lead to a better and more harmonious global outcome.

Beware of the Wave

When suicide bombers were rampant in Iraq people initially were giving thanks that Afghanistan was not similarly afflicted. Then questions started getting raised about why this was the case. In the time that intellectuals on one side of the divide noted and queried the situation, suicide bombers gathered conviction and explosives.

Pakistan became the next significant victim to become deeply ensnarled in a gripping wave of bombings. Opposition to the government realignment with the United States was the impetus. The Red Mosque siege was the tipping point. A newly elected government pledging sovereignty and vowing internal diplomacy provided an interesting experiment. With the US influence waning and intra-national elements negotiating, would the US be proven to be interfering and divisive?

Over the last year the north-west of Pakistan has produced increasing waves of violence. The violence spread west into neighbouring Afghanistan, and east into areas like suburban Peshawar. This gradual encroachment deeper into Pakistan has prompted the newly elected and independent Pakistan government to in recent weeks adopt the former military use-of-force strategy. The Pakistan government’s first major military push against the Taliban demonstrated a considerable underestimation of the Taliban’s growing military might. As well as being overpowered military, the government also not surprisingly was at the receiving end of the threat of a wave of suicide bombings.

As suicide bombings, and bombings in general, have spread from Iraq to Afghanistan, north-west Pakistan, and Pakistan in general, it is notable to consider Pakistan’s easterly neighbour. India has in recent years seen a wave of bombings targeting numerous major cities.

It is fortunate that the violence in Iraq, which it should be noted is most significantly civil in nature, has been considerably reduced. The same cannot be said for Afghanistan. Also, the vastly improved situation in Iraq is considered by many as extremely fragile. The recent Pakistan experiment in diplomacy appears to be short-lived. However the confrontational alternative has known consequences: the spread of violence throughout the country.

If the Pakistan government again makes any serious military effort against the Taliban, the country may be engulfed in violence. The government’s recent moves to confront both the Taliban and the president make for challenging times.