***
Danna Vale, the Minister for Veterans Affairs, belatedly released a report into the health of veterans from the last Gulf War that is a chilling indictment of the fate that awaits personnel currently serving in the Middle East.
The study found that Gulf War veterans were more likely to report physical symptoms and were at greater risk of developing psychological disorders, including post-traumatic stress disorder and anxiety disorders, and substance abuse.
Despite her attempts to bury the report Daft Danna joined in the general hypocrisy of the current Federal Government by claiming that "Greater emphasis is also being given to educating personnel preparing to deploy about chemical and biological weapons to improve their understanding and minimise the fear of uncertainty".
And it seems the best way to do that is to try and hide a report about the effects of Gulf War I.
We all know war is madness, but just how much that rubs off on the troops became apparent in the report: "The most striking and consistent health finding in the study was that the Gulf War veteran group had developed more psychological disorders than the comparison group in the time since the Gulf War," says the report, which recommended that there should be wide promotion of the study findings to the veteran and service communities, the Departments of Defence and Veterans' Affairs, the Repatriation Commission, ADF Medical Officers, the broader Australian community and the scientific community.
We won't be holding our breath for that to happen in the current climate.
Danna Vale, who should have a retirement home named after her, noted that the study had found no increased cancer or death risk overall among the Gulf veterans compared with their services peers.
But the reports author, Professor Sim, said it would be many more years before any increase would become apparent. "It is very early yet. This is a very young group," he said.
Danna Vale declined to be interviewed on the ABC after the report was released - the release followed pressure from aggrieved vets.
The Minister Veterans' Affairs Minister followed up this ham fisted piece of subterfuge by calling on the Labor Party to support the Government's proposal to increase penalties for defence medal fraud, including people who deface medals.
Labor MP Graham Edwards pinpointed as to why the Feds were moving to politicise the issue: "We understand the Government is embarrassed at the number of veterans who are threatening to burn their medals or return them to the Prime Minister over the war in Iraq. It is worth noting that Prime Minister Howard has called on protesters to address their protests to him, yet he refused to see two Gulf War veterans who wanted to hand their medals back to him.
"Perhaps the Minister should concentrate her efforts on the provision of medals for those National Servicemen who are endeavouring to receive them before Anzac Day. Hundreds of National Servicemen have applied for these medals but find their applications are not being processed because of a lack of resources in this area."
And the reason this ditz is left holding the fate of former service personnel? God made her do it.
According to one supporter she "happily unnerves people when she tells them that she is only in parliament because God told her to stand."
"I always have had the feeling that if the good Lord put me here, he will help - and I'm still trying to work out why he's got me here," she said.
So are we.
Lord help us all.
Nurses Union national secretary, Jill Iliffe, warned that Australians would face reduced health care or increased taxes if Commission recommendations on pattern bargaining become law.
Commissioner Terence Cole's key recommendations, released this week, read like Liberal Party IR policy and nurses will oppose any move to revisit a wish-list already rejected by the Senate.
Cole, largely acting on the evidence of shonky employers, has proposed draconian restrictions on the rights of building unions to recruit, organise, take industrial action, or defend health and safety standards. At the centre of his agenda, though, is an attack on pattern bargaining, a long-standing target of Workplace Relations Minister Tony Abbott.
"It would be a disaster for nurses and a disaster for the health system," Iliffe told Workers Online.
"The cost of negotiating separate agreements at each establishment would be prohibitive for us, and the health system as well. Our employers pattern bargain because it is practical and cost effective.
"If employers are prepared to pattern bargain then they should be allowed to. It is one of the things Government should leave to the market."
Iliffe said her union would lobby strongly to block Cole's recommendation. She predicted support from employers, the health department and community - "I am sure the general public doesn't want their taxes spent on needless negotiations rather than healthcare".
She said teachers, police and other service workers would be similarly disadvantaged by the proposal.
Unsurprisingly, given the evidence presented and the evidence withheld, Cole has recommended a string of building industry specific changes, including an Australian Building and Construction Commission empowered to investigate and prosecute breaches of the law.
Similar bodies established by this Government - the OEA and Building Industry Task Force - have both been lashed by worker representatives as politically-tainted and biased against unions.
Cole wants fines of up to $20,000 for individual workers breaking industrial laws and $100,000 for their organisations, and provision to ban individuals, found to have broken the law, from holding union office.
He has made hundreds of findings of unlawful conduct against Building Industry Unions and their members. The first three, against NSW unions, give a flavour of the level of illegality uncovered.
CFMEU organisers Dan Murphy and Lincoln Fryer are both found to have failed "to notify the occupier of the premises of his presence as soon as was reasonably practicable".
The third unlawful finding was that Phillip Smith "stopped work on the site and held discussions with employees during working hours outside of meal-time or other break times".
Cole found nothing to back claims of widespread corruption and standover tactics with which Abbott launched the $60 million exercise. The closest he came was reporting the extortion of $460,000 from a string of sub-contractors by star commission witnesses Craig Bates and Martin Warner. Their activities had been uncovered by the CFMEU who punted both men years before the Commission came into being, earning the praise of police.
Despite reporting massive tax evasion by industry employers, Cole did not make a single finding of tax evasion against any building industry employer anywhere in Australia.
He conceded the importance of health and safety in an industry claiming around 50 workers' lives a year, and recommended "attitudinal change".
Iliffe lashed the Commission for its failure to deal with health and safety, or the protection of entitlements, in its public hearings.
With the Labor Party and Greens having already rejected support for a Cole driven return to Peter Reith's second wave of industrial reforms, the Democrats are central to Abbott's hopes.
With their party in disarray they will be susceptible to pressure from Abbott that refusal to support hardline legislation could trigger an early election.
The NSW Labor Council last night endorsed a resolution moved by key left-wing unions calling on the Walk Against the War Coalition to take steps to ensure a similar event is not held.
Labor Council delegates will take the resolution to Monday's night's meeting of the Walk Against the War Coalition, where Labor Council, the Greens, community peace groups and the organisers of Wednesday's rally the National Union of Students have voting rights.
Also in the coalition are fringe Trotsky-ist groups the Democratic Socialist Party and the International Socialist Organisation, who were responsible for calling on youngsters to ignore a call from the National Union of Students to end the rally at Hyde Park.
Instead they led a rump of protestors on a rampage of the City, culminating in the stand-off outside the Prime Minister's office. They are planning to call two more such rallies in the next fortnight.
According to onlookers at the rally there was a lack of marshalls and general organization, calculated to create the sort of mayhem that has undermined the message of those genuinely supportive of peaceful solutions to conflict.
"The reality is that Wednesday's rally has put the peace movement back months - if John Howard wasn't paying these people, then he should be." Labor Council secretary John Robertson says. "We are a mainstream movement, not a group of extremists."
"Its important that the mainstream peace movement takes a stand against these fringe elements."
The next endorsed march is the Palm Sunday Peace March on April 12 to be coordinated by all the major religious denominations.
Flotilla for Peace
Meanwhile the Maritime Union of Australia has organised a floating protest on Sydney Harbour for Saturday April 5.
The MUA has organised thee ferries and a number of other crafts to float outside the Prime Minister's Kirribilli residence.
Peace supporters are invited to join the protest at 1pm, boarding the ferries at 1pm.
The ACTU is backing a variety of unionists who have taken anti-war protests into their workplaces. Victorian nurses, builders, labourers and seafarers were amongst those who added their voices to the campaign last week.
"Mr Howard has made no compelling case for the invasion of a country that poses no direct threat to Australia. Nor has he produced any evidence linking recent terrorist attacks with the regime of Saddam Hussein," ACTU secretary, Greg Combet, said.
Mr Combet said the Prime Minister had failed to address a number of key concerns troubling millions of Australians opposed to the war.
It was a theme taken up by CFMEU NSW secretary, Andrew Ferguson, when he addressed last Sunday's 50,000 strong anti-war rally in Sydney's Domain. Ferguson told the crowd there would be no lasting Middle East peace until justice was delivered to the Palestinians.
The NSW Health Department is under fire for cancelling the prison contract to supply it with sheets, linen and surgical gowns, preferring cheap foreign imports.
The Textile, Clothing and Footwear Union has condemned the decision, warning it will lead to the loss of 17 textile worker's jobs and severely impact on the rehabilitation of prisoners.
The long-term, maximum security prisoners are employed through the Correctional Services Industries (CSI), raising their self-esteem and providing them with skills that will assist their rehabilitation.
The textile workers employed by Bruck, the firm that currently provides the materials to the prisoners, have been told that their jobs will go if the deal stands..
TCFUA state secretary Barry Tubner says the third world imports were quoted at being 30 per cent cheaper than the material produced in jails.
"At this cost, there's no way in the world that any Australian manufacture could gain a government contract in the future," Tubner says. "If prisoners can't compete, there'
s got to be something wrong with the process."
A meeting of unions involved in the health industry has been called to discuss the issue.
Labor Council secretary John Robertson says the presence of a block of MPs with an understanding of modern unionism will play an important role in rejuvenating the links between the political and industrial wings of the labour movement in NSW.
|
Among the new Parliamentarians are former union officials: Tanya Barber (CEPU), Angela d'Amour (Nurses), Paul Macleay (PSA), Kaye Griffin (MEU) and Tony Burke (SDA).
"Labor Council congratulates Bob Carr for his victory and the new MPs from the labour movement in particular," Robertson says.
Robertson says the breakdown in relations over workers compensation shows what happens when the political wing loses touch with its industrial based.
"We don't want to see a repeat of those events and we need to take active steps to ensure that the MPs that we work with to get into Parliament have an understanding of where we are coming from."
Robertson says one of Labor Council's main priorities will be to hold information sessions for MPs and ministerial staff on the union movement's organising agenda.
"Unions have changed in fundamental ways in recent years and it's important those in Macquarie Street know where we are coming from," he says. "If we get the relationship working, I'm confident the individual issues that inevitably arise will be able to be dealt with."
Robertson says he's also looking forward to working with Industrial Relations Minister John Della Bosca, who retains the key portfolio, while picking up Information Technology and the new portfolio of Commerce.
"There is a fair bit of unfinished business including the regulation of labour hire, improved unfair dismissal laws and the review of the 1996 Industrial Relations Act."
Long-standing mayor, Lilliane Brady, has endorsed the protest, along with striking workers� demands to be told the truth about their futures.
"This is the last stand of a country town determined to keep jobs in its community," Australian Workers Union secretary, Russ Collison, said. "These people want to know the truth. It is the least Pasminco owes them.
"There is a lot of support for them in Cobar. We expect most of the town to attend the rally on Tuesday."
Elura is the last fully-unionised metalliferous in NSW with workers belonging to the AWU, AMWU and ETU.
It's future has been uncertain since Pasminco went into voluntary liquidation in September, 2001. Concern deepened with this week's announcement that the company would going back on its word to operate its Cockle Creek mine, near Lake Macquarrie, until at least 2006. Instead, Pasminco said, Cockle Creek would close in September.
Collison said the spectre of Consolidated Broken Hill, understood to be negotiating over Elura, further complicated the picture for the unionised workforce.
"CBH has a well-deserved reputation for being anti-worker and anti-union," Collison said.
Elura workers this week voted to extend their strike "indefinitely" after, they say, Pasminco's administrator "brushed off" requests for hard information.
In 10 written questions, they had sought clarifications on the mine's future; provisions for owed entitlements and how they would be calculated; along with assurances that existing agreements would be honoured.
"The administrators didn't see fit to answer any of these questions," Collison said. "Basically, they brushed us off and told us to get back to work on their terms. Our blokes want them to understand that attitude is unacceptable."
Blair Government legislation will, from next month, entitle women to 26 weeks paid maternity leave, as well as secure part-time employment and flexible working hours.
Taylor, director of the UK's Insitute for Public Policy Research, said the British model offered "practical examples" to other countries interested in reform.
ACTU president Sharan Burrow confirmed her organisation would seek similar rights for Australian women in a test case before the AIRC.
"The British example of 26 weeks paid maternity leave, garanteed by government, shows how far Australia lags behind the rest of the world when two-thirds of our working women have no access to paid leave at all," Burrow said.
"Our work and family test case will build on the British Government experience by developing new rights to part time work and flexible hours."
Key elements of the ACTU case include:
- extension of unpaid maternity leave to 24 months
- right of fulltime employees returning from maternity leave to a part time option
- the right to "buy" up to six weeks a year of extra annual leave through averaged salary adjustments for family requirements. Eg school holidays
- reasonable unpaid "emergency" leave for family responsibilities
- flexible start and finish times to accommodate family responsibilities
The case has received a leg-up from Sydney University research that comprehensively refutes Senator Nick Minchin's contention that paid maternity leave would be "middle class welfare".
On the contrary, the survey of over 1000 employees, found managers and professionals earning more than $40,000 a year, were most likely to benefit from existing maternity leave provisions.
Senior lecturer, Marian Baird, said the survey results showed that women earning less than $30,000 and working in hospitality, business services or farming had the most to gain from a national paid maternity leave scheme.
Stevedoring Services of America (SSA) has never worked in a military war zone but is an old hand at battling workers.
America's largest marine terminal operator was considered the key corporate player in last year's bitter lockout of waterfront workers.
Speaking last September, ILWU officials fingered SSA as the moving force behind the lockout.
"While most employers want to work with us to implement new technologies, SSA undermines negotiations because their primary interest is breaking the union," spokesman Steve Stallone told the San Francisco Chronicle. "It's ideological with these people. They are idologically anti-union and anti-ILWU."
Last month, the company was one of four cited by Washington State for forcing watersiders to remain on the jobs for up to 17 consecutive hours without rest breaks.
SSA is the focus of a major protest campaign in Chittagong, Bangladesh, where union members have engaged in stoppages, hunger strikes and demonstrations against plans for a $500 million terminal that would cost many their jobs.
The Bush administration has handed out a string of multi-million contracts for the rebuilding of Iraq to US corporations without any competitive tendering process. Kellog Brown Root, a subsidiary of vice president Dick Cheney's Halliburton, was contracted to put out oil well fires before the conflict even started.
New York Times columnist, Maureen Dowd, put it like this: "Halliburton and other big construction companies that give to the Republicans now stand to make millions in contracts for reconstructing Iraq and reviving its oil industry."
The US Agency for International Development justified excluding all but American firms from the first round of Iraqi tendering on the basis that "there are classified documents they have to see".
Australian Defence Minister Robert Hill has backed highly-unusual trade restriction.
Solomons Unwilling
The Solomon Islands have asked to be removed from the US's increasingly-flexible coalition of the willing.
When US president George Bush first used the term, he indicated it would cover a broad coalition of nations willing to wage war on Iraq outside UN auspices. However, when only three - the US, UK and Australia - signed up for that proposition it was apparently extended to anyone who had ever given him a nudge or a wink.
Even that level of commitment was too much for the Solomon Islands when they learned, this week, that US officials had their name on its list.
"The Government is completely unaware of such statements being made, therefor wishes to disassociate itself from the report," The New Zealand Herald quoted Prime Minister, Allan Kemakeza, as saying.
However, the tiny Pacific state of Palau has confirmed its place on the list, offering ports and airfields to units taking part in the Iraq offensive.
Other states pledged to the fight for democracy, according to the US, include Kuwait, Azerbaijan, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Colombia, El Salvador, Honduras, Panama, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Rwanda, Uganda, Iceland, Mongolia, the Marshall Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia.
The Labor Council is offering $4,000 in prize money, with $2,000 to the winner and $1,000 to the two runners up.
Entries close on April 25, with winning designs to be announced at the annual May Day Toast on May 1.
Labor Council secretary John Robertson said the winning designs would be turned into posters that would be distributed to workplaces across the state.
"Visual art forms, whether they be old-style trade union banners or modern culture jams, are a potent method for getting political messages across.
"The union movement wants to draw on some of the creativity of our artistic community to spread a contemporary message on issues that effect all workers."
Designs can be based on, but are not limited to, the following themes:
- excessive executive pay
- your right to join a union
- freeloaders (ie - people who are not members benefiting from union work)
- protection of workers entilements
Entries can be sent to 10/377 Sussex Street, Sydney 2000 or electronically to [email protected] - mark entries, May Day Poster Comp
The changes to the Department's Acceptable Use of the Internet and Computer Network policy restrict the forms of surveillance that management may undertake and introduces protocols on handling and destruction of information about staff use of these resources.
Union delegate Paul Petersen says that unions must stop employers using surveillance as a tool of control.
Employers often argue for unfettered rights to monitor Internet usage to prevent harassment and fraud but Petersen says that "surveillance is no substitute for good supervision and proper auditing. Our members are entitled to privacy.
"We've seen it all before in call centres. The employers use monitoring as a substitute for proper staffing to drive down their labour costs. The result is high volumes and low morale. "
The policy:
- Requires Premier's Department to respect employees' privacy
- Clearly sets out what forms of monitoring will take place (it will not include the content of emails)
- Allows and defines "reasonable personal use"
- Restricts the circumstances under which a person's use of the Internet and computer network may be investigated
- Requires that any changes to monitoring or surveillance must be negotiated with the union
- Prevents summary changes to a person's access being used as a punishment/discipline
- Requires that any investigation of an individual is conducted in a fair manner (ie principles of natural justice apply).
- Requires the Department's Directors to destroy their monthly 'volume of Web usage' reports after four months to prevent them digging up old 'evidence' to frame an employee (they may keep the current month's report plus the 3 previous reports).
"Most people don't think privacy is an issue because they aren't looking at porn or committing fraud," Petersen says.
"But how would you feel if people started treating you differently because they had made assumptions about your marital problems, pregnancy or HIV status? How would you feel if your confidential exchanges with a union delegate were being monitored by management?
RTBU Bus and Tram Division president, Peter Jenkins, is putting the acid on State Transit to come to the child care party if it wants to retain experienced drivers.
He cited the Waverley depot, where drivers work around a 22-hour clock, as an example where parents face major difficulties in fitting family commitments around ever-changing rosters.
"Most childcare available in this area closes its doors at 6pm," Jenkins said. "Where does that leave someone who starts at 11am and doesn't finish to 9pm? That person could easily be rostered 4pm until midnight the following day.
"Our people work broken shifts and it is not unusual to have three roster changes in a five-day period. That paints a lot of parents, men and women, out of the picture."
Jenkins said the union has been trying to address childcare problems with STA for the past two years. It has been a consistent theme of an organisation representing femaile bus drivers.
Retention, rather than recruitment, is a problem for the STA.
"State Transit emphasises the importance of attracting more women to the workforce. Childcare would be a good, practical first step," Jenkins said.
Labor Council is asking affiliates to provide information on their best childcare arrangements, formal and informal, as the RTBU works towards advancing a specific claim.
Unions are calling for an extension of the sanctions, which call on all member nations to review trade with Burma, claiming forced labour is still being imposed by the regime.
Maung Maung, General Secretary of the FTUB (Federation of Trade Unions-Burma), an underground Burmese union with close links to the ICFTU, says international pressure over the past two years has had an impact.
Maung says that while the military junta had curtailed the use of forced labour when ILO inspectors were in Burma, it is now on the increase.
"The ILO needs an enforcement action," he says. "We would like the ILO to ask international financial organisations to stop funding the "Programme for the Greater Mekong sub-region"."
This programme funded by the Asian Development Bank involves six countries which the river passes through, including Burma.
"The bank is not pouring money into the coffers of the regime, however the junta is benefiting indirectly from the Programme, both through increased trade across its borders and through the studies its experts can undertake.
Re-election of ILO Director General Somavia
Meanwhile, ICFTU has welcomed the re-election of Juan Somavia as Director General of the UN's International Labour Organisation.
The further five-year further mandate for Somavia was decided in a 53 to zero vote at the ILO's Governing Body which is currently meeting in Geneva.
In a message of congratulations to Somavia, the ICFTU affirmed its readiness to continue and strengthen its cooperation with the ILO under his leadership.
Trade union history is rich with the campaigns that have been fought and won to improve working people's lives, and many have been waged with workplace posters, banners and badges,
A selection of these will be on display when the Labor Council of NSW and TAFE - Sydney Institute of Technology will be hold a joint exhibition - WHEN WORKERS UNITE - at the MUSE Gallery on the Ultimo College of TAFE campus from the 31 March to 12 April 2003.
Labor Council of NSW secretary John Robertson said that "the exhibition presents a unique opportunity for Labor Council and TAFE to highlight the contribution unions have made to gaining and maintaining decent conditions of employment and training standards in Australia."
He said it was appropriate that the exhibition should be on the grounds of what was Sydney Technical College because it was there that courses on industrial relations began in NSW.
Over 100 posters, a great selection of union badges and banners will be on display. Most of the banners will be modern ones but a small number of historic banners will be displayed from the Trades Hall collection and from affiliates. Images of the restored banners from the Trades Hall collection will be projected. Affiliates are contributing with material from their own collections of memorabilia.
The posters are from the large collection of Alban Gillezeau, a part time teacher at TAFE. They will be organised into themes such as OHS, conditions of employment, May Day and Labour Day, union amalgamations, celebrations (films, theatre), union organising and recruiting, international union actions and support from Australian unions for international actions.
The last major exhibitions of this sort were Working Art at the NSW Art Gallery in 1988, Badges of Labor and Banners of Pride at the Powerhouse Museum in 1987. At the 1993 ACTU Congress a poster exhibition was held showing both Australian and international posters. We hope that the exhibition will be able to tour around NSW.
John will open the exhibition at 6.00pm on 31st March
ACT
Teach-in 5 April, 10am Manning Clark Centre, ANU, entry free. Palm Sunday rally, 13 April, 1.30pm at the Lodge, Adelaide Avenue, Anti-War rally followed by march to Parliament to meet march of church groups.
Queensland
Palm Sunday rally 13 April 2003.
NSW
Palm Sunday rally, 13 April 2003, 1pm leaving from Belmore Park to the Domain. "Unions Work for Peace" badges, posters and leaflets have been produced, PDF of leaflet can be downloaded from website, go to www.labor.net.au. For more information contact Amanda Tattersall, 0409 321 133.
Victoria
Rally on Saturday 29 March at State Library at 1pm.
For more info see the VTHC's website - http://www.vthc.org.au.
VTHC have produced Say No to War badges, for more information contact Cathy Beadnell on 0425 701 793.
South Australia
On 13 April there will be the Palm Sunday rally.
****************
This Sunday 30th March the Walk against the War Coalition is hosting a Peace Conference. This Conference provides the first opportunity for peace activists, organisers and movement participants to come together to discuss where the movement is at and where to from here.
Details are:
DATE: Sunday 30th March
TIME: Begins 9:45 for first session at 10am
WHERE: University of Technology Sydney (Markets Campus - corner for Quay and Hay Streets Haymarket, opposite Market City). The first plenary is in Room B111 - the area will be clearly marked. Closest train station is Central Station.
This conference is open to all and is designed to increase people's involvement in setting the agenda for the movement. The day will be broken up into plenary sessions and workshop sessions.
The first plenary is on "The Shift to War and how to stop it," and goes from 10 till 11:30. Speakers include Stuart Rees from the Centre for Peace and Conflict studies and Ahmad Shboul from Sydney University.
Then we have two workshop sessions. From 11:45-1 there will be workshops on Political Issues (such as the link between the war and oil, Palestine, War and Refugees, the Anti-Bases Campaign, the movement against the Vietnam war, who is next?).
From 1:45-3pm we will have workshops on organising skills and forms of action including how to establish local groups and organise in our neighbourhoods, how to organise for peace at work, how to campaign for peace on campus and at school, how to build a movement for peace in an ethnic community, how to support a cultural movement for peace.
The final session from 3:15 to 4:30 will be discussing ideas for future action in our local areas, in our sectors and together as a movement.
People are invited to submit proposals for workshops or ideas for future action to be discussed at the conference. If you wish to present a workshop please send a 300 word description of your idea to
[email protected] by Thursday afternoon (27th March).
If you have a proposal for future action please submit it in writing to [email protected] by Thursday afternoon (27th March).
Please forward this notice to your friends, local peace groups. For this movement to be successful it needs the creative ideas of all of its participants. Come to the conference.
************
When the war in Iraqi is over - and for the sake of the Iraqi people we must all hope that is soon - new political and policy challenges will be thrown up for Labor.
Consistent with Labor's traditions of nation building, peacekeeping and humanitarian assistance we must commit the party to supporting the Iraqi people. Just as Australia, regardless of our reservations, will have participated in their liberation we must be willingly involved in the hard job of reconstruction.
There are a number of major issues that have emerged in the lead up to the coalition of the willing's war on Iraq that over time must be considered by Labor such as the UN's impotence in tackling major human rights abuses and the nature of the Australian/US alliance.
However, there are three immediate considerations that, in our judgment must inform Australia's reaction to the war. First, an unambiguous commitment to the peace - and a constructive diplomatic and practical role in securing it; secondly, a foreign policy for Australia which gives primacy to human rights in the context of our national interests; and thirdly, a renewed effort to develop international legal rules which are underpinned by an irreducible commitment to the protection of human rights.
Having made the commitment to the war, Australia cannot be indifferent to the peace. Because of its attitude to the war, especially, nor can Labor.
In his final pitch on the war, Howard has tried to swing attention to the humanitarian arguments, which we have argued all along, remain the most compelling justification for intervention. Likewise, humanitarian concerns were the most credible of the reasons advanced against intervention.
The defeat of Bush Snr in 1992 despite the successful prosecution of the1991 Gulf war is a reminder of the manner in which even dramatic history making events are soon eclipsed. Labor's chances to defeat Howard in 2004 may, in all probability, depend upon issues which have yet to emerge, but the need to develop a thoughtful and principled response to the peace in Iraq will nevertheless be an important marker of Labor's credibility.
Humanitarian concerns make it imperative that Australia makes an unambiguous commitment to peace in Iraq. That is a commitment which Labor should be proud to champion. So far, Howard has committed a nominal amount of $47 million - even Australia's access to Iraq's wheat markets would more than justify that - and Howard has ruled out a peacekeeping role in Iraq.
Labor should insist on a significant peacekeeping commitment, but one tied to tangible results.
There is a ready and obvious way in which Australia can make this contribution. Australia's special forces have won the admiration of the world's professional soldiers but that is not the limit of our international regard. Australia, as well, has a justifiable reputation as a peacemaker and as a supplier of expert peacekeepers.
Cyprus, Cambodia, East Timor are three powerful examples of Australia's commitment to peace and reconstruction. Australia's energies must be devoted to making all available diplomatic and practical efforts to see that the peace is won - from the Iraqi peoples' perspective.
Progressive, secular democratic elements in the Iraq opposition can be assisted in this cause. Labor can promote the cause of reconstruction and democracy with conviction. The threat - tentatively made by France - that the Iraqi people might now become the victims of international ostracism because the coalition's intervention should be strongly resisted.
Prime Minister Blair has been insistent that this intervention in Iraq cannot be viewed in isolation. It must mark a step - undeniably important in itself - but a step on the way to an enduring Middle East settlement.
Tony Blair has made the obvious but nonetheless correct point that the reversal, since September 2000, in the apparent progress towards a settlement of the Arab/Israeli conflict, continuing injustice, terrorism and violence, cast a huge shadow across the world. He reminds us that this is "a shadow which all of us in power have a duty to remove". Labor must demand that Australia throw its diplomatic efforts behind Blair's support for a comprehensive settlement by 2005 of the Israeli/Arab conflict, including a permanent two state solution, the end to illegal settlements on the West Bank and Arab attempts to deligitimise and destroy Israel.
In the past, too many efforts such as Former Israeli Prime Minister Barak's plan for a just Middle East peace has been shoved into a bottom drawer after the disappointment of rejection. Labor should be ready to throw its weight behind renewed initiatives like this and through our links with Blair and UK Labour must lend strong support to see it through.
Australia's foreign policy must be re-defined to place human rights in the foreground. We do not agree that there is a clean separation between human rights and the national interest. The support of freedom and liberal humanitarianism everywhere is in our national interest. The concept of 'linkage' of human rights to full participation in the international community - long disparaged by Kissingerite 'realists' - must be re-asserted in the context of gross abuse of human rights.
Genocide within a State's borders is not 'ok', so long as it doesn't cross that country's borders. Respect for basic human rights must be the irreducible minimum for recognition by, and full participation in, the world community.
We argue that the failure of the UN to deal with Iraq and act seriously on the terms of resolution 1441 is a symptom of a wider malaise in international diplomacy. The Security Council long ago failed to deal in a credible manner with Iraq and the aftermath of the 1991 Gulf war. It did nothing in the face of the extraordinary human rights abuses in Iraq - most notably the Iraqi genocide of the Kurds and Marsh Arabs.
This should come as no surprise notwithstanding the view, which emerged that the international community could achieve more in the post cold war era. Yet the Security Council failed to address two other major significant human rights crises since the end of the cold war - Kosovo and Rwanda. A full debate has yet to take place, which fully appreciates the extent to which the human rights dimension should inform, international relations.
Again, Blair's powerful idea of having an 'ethical dimension' to foreign policy should not be cynically dismissed, but remain the standard by which foreign policy is to be measured. It is no clich� to re-assert that the national interest of democracies is promoted, not hindered, by a commitment to human rights and that democratically accountable governments will be more reliable partners for peace.
While this may be a new 'dimension' in foreign policy, there are worthwhile precedents for its operation. For example, the European Union has made some headway in securing concessions as a condition of EU membership and foreign aid is often tied to human rights.
We contend that the necessity for a new debate on Human Rights and strategies for securing them has been underlined by the tragic case of the sanctions imposed on Iraq since 1991. Iraq, Burma and more recently, Zimbabwe, demonstrate that sanctions often mean little to unaccountable, despotic, governments.
Ordinary people are first the victims of their despotic rulers only to have their predicament cruelly compounded by the actions of a well intentioned international community. Renewed efforts must be directed to the development of international legal rules which incorporate a commitment to the protection of human rights and have real traction.
The ultimate test of Australia's strength of commitment to the new human rights agenda in Iraq will surely come if the 'coalition of the willing' falters in its stated commitment to Iraqi democracy. Importantly, Labor should be vigilant in its insistence that the America's feet (and our own) are held to the fire on the promise of both Iraqi freedom and reconstruction as well as a just settlement of the Israel - Palestinian conflict.
This was a solemn commitment given repeatedly by Tony Blair which we believe was given with conviction. It deserves Labor's strong support.
Australian Labor should promote a new debate on these vital topics of human rights, the international legal order and in so doing address the real and urgent issues which will need to be addressed after the immediate drama of the Iraq intervention recedes.
We put these views forward to our colleagues in the party knowing that they may be controversial and likely to spark a debate - especially about what might happen next. If so, we can be proud that the party we love will be engaged in debate at the heart and soul of what it means to be Labor. In international affairs, as everywhere else, the principles of liberal humanitarianism, of practical social justice, are a light to the world.
We four are all long-standing members of the party. Consistent with the last national Conference of the party to encourage debate and greater attention to policy development, we offer these thoughts to our colleagues on the implications of the present debate.
* Michael Costello, former secretary of Department of Foreign Affairs
* Michael Easson, former secretary, Labor Council of NSW
* Bob Hogg, former secretary Australian Labor Party
* Jim Nolan, former NSW Ombudsman
Dear Comrades,
As usual, Tom Collins' righteous indignation (Workers Online #171) leads him to almost exactly the wrong conclusions. He waxes eloquent about the evils of terrorism & tyranny, but then assumes that he has made a case for the US conquest of Iraq. He has, however, failed to consider the real (as distinct from the proclaimed) motives of the US govt and the real (as distinct from the proclaimed) consequences of the war for the people of Iraq. First, the motives of the US govt:
* Tom's passionate denunciation of terrorism was, unfortunately, far too abstract to be of practical use. If we are to apply his admirable opposition to terrorism to concrete examples on a consistent basis, we would have to include the Ku Klux Klan & the Christian fundamentalists who bomb US abortion clinics.
On the level of State-sponsored terrorism, we have the Israeli govt's decades-long campaign of assassination of their opponents (&, more recently, anyone who's in the same building as those proclaimed opponents) and the US govt's mining of ports in Nicaragua during the 1980s. Also worthy of mention is the US support of and assistance to many of the most horrendous massacres of the post-WWII period, including Indonesia in 1965, Chile in 1973 & the current ongoing slaughter in the death squad "democracy" of Colombia. And finally, no list of State-supported terrorism would be complete without mention of Afghanistan, where the US supported the same people it opposes today, because they were fighting a Soviet-backed goverment. Osama bin Laden, it has been pointed out, learnt his bloody trade in a CIA-financed terrorism school.
If war & conquest are the appropriate responses to the crimes of the Iraqi govt in terrorising its people & its alleged potential crimes in assisting Islamic fundamentalist terrorists, which force is Tom suggesting should wage war against the US & its clients?
* Tom's equally passionate denunciation of tyranny was also far too abstract to be of practical use. Once again, we have to be consistent & concrete. How about if he turns his attention to such US clients as Saudi Arabia (an absolute monarchy where women aren't even allowed to drive, let alone vote), Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Morocco, and a whole swag of Middle East sheikhdoms sitting on fair-to-middling sized oil fields?
In reality, the fact that there is not a single Arab country which has a passably functioning democracy can be put down to the consistent US govt opposition to such a phenomenon for over 50 years. And don't get me going on the consistent US govt support for terror-and-torture regimes in Latin America from the 60s to the 80s. If, apart from Colombia, they're gone now, it's no thanks to Uncle Sam!
Once again, if war & conquest are the appropriate responses to Saddam's tyranny, which force is Tom suggesting should wage war against the US & its clients?
Next, the consequences:
* Saddam's regime, detestable as it is, had no motive to engage in terrorism before the US govt launched its invasion. For all the hype about his potential to arm terrorists & his alleged links to Islamic fundamentalists, Saddam has been running the most resolutely secular government in the Arab world and the fundamentalists are his bitter opponents. As many have, no doubt, previously pointed out, perhaps the most effective way of turning a mainstream Iraqi Moslem lad into a fundamentalist terrorist would be to bomb his country back into the Stone Age, conquer it and run it as a US colony, flogging off oil at bargain basement prices to gut OPEC & keep US sales of SUVs breaking records annually.
More importantly, the US govt's own policy of State terrorism would only be strengthened by the conquest of Iraq. Stand by for the world's sole superpower engaging in the 21st Century version of gunboat diplomacy. "Do as we say, or we'll flatten your country & replace you with a government which will" fits any reasonable definition of terrorism that I can find.
* A US victory in Iraq will merely result in the exchange of one military dictator for another. The difference is that the dictator to come will be a US general, not an Iraqi one. After playing around with the Iraqi opposition in exile (itself a motley crew of cut-throats & spivs) for years, the US has settled for keeping Saddam's regime as intact as possible, but without Saddam. They'll get rid of Saddam, his family, his cabinet & the top two people in every department, but apart from that nothing will change - except, perhaps, for the worse.
Saddam's secret police, about which the US govt is telling us all such gruesome stories, will stay on; Saddam's dungeons will be kept in business; Saddam's Republican Guard will be kept intact; and so on. They'll need these things, since they won't be running the country in the interests of the people of Iraq - no way. They don't even run the US in the interests of the North American people, for Christ's sake! Rather, the people of Iraq will be acutely aware that their country is being bled for the benefit of others and Uncle Sam will need Saddam's full apparatus of repression in order to stop the Iraqi peoples from doing something about it.
As I said at the start of this letter, Tom has reached almost exactly the wrong conclusions. I was careful, however, to include the word "almost", for he agrees with us Lefties on one thing, even if he doesn't know it. We've been opponents of Saddam's bloody regime for decades, from long before Uncle Sam turned against him. In fact, most people on the Left who knew about the Middle East opposed Saddam since the day he came to power in a CIA-organised coup in the 1960s.
And, contrary to what Howard & co would like everyone to believe, most of us on the Left still oppose Saddam. Since we don't want the people of Iraq to go from the frying pan into the fire, however, we insist that the right to depose a dictator resides with his subjects, not with a self-appointed globocop reminding us all that imperialism is still with us.
It is the working peoples of Iraq - from the Kurdish north, the Shiite south and the central Mesopotamian region, who hold the key to their own liberation. When they rise up, the workers of Australia, North America & all industrialised countries must be beside them, for as surely as the sun rises in the East, Uncle Sam will be against them.
Greg Platt
Recently, the shameless right-wing extremists did their best to pump up the myth that anti-war protesters were "pro-Saddam," etc. Their opinions were widely published and enjoyed the support of the contemptible members of the Howard government and some of the talk-back pond life.
Now the loony right has shifted tack. Anti-war protesters, they shriek, are traitors disloyal to Australian servicemen and are making them and their families tearful.
No wonder they show such contempt for servicemen returned from their wars after the big commercial spoils have been divvied up and the bodies buried.
No wonder they were always comfortable for their corrupt state political police to bundle WWII veterans, including Changi POWs, into paddy wagons for taking part in peaceful protest in Australian streets.
And meanwhile a bogus and offensive "anti-war protester," with "Young Liberal"(Hitler Jugend filth) written all over him, recently got his arse kicked by Defence personnel opposed to the war outside Russell Offices, Australia's Pentagon.
Can't these Nazi scum join the dots?
Kindest regards
Peter Ian (Jack) Ridout Woodforde
And so the barbarians have begun their permanent war against the rest of the world.
The consequences of this mad adventurism are unknowable, although it is clear to me Iraq is just the first target. Iran, Syria, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Libya and Cuba are some of those on the invasion list. Iran I think will be next, if North Korea can be bought off for a while.
Working people around the world have a great responsibility to stop this permanent war. We are strongest in our workplaces where we make profits for the bosses.
Now more than ever we need to stop work to stop permanent war.
There has been an upsurge in support for war among the people in the three invading nations.
When the first world war broke out many workers in capitals around Europe celebrated the coming slaughter.
They celebrated an alternative to the humdrum of their lives under capitalism. The war was excitement; the war was difference.
The reality of war - the slaughter - was very different. A few years after war broke out these same workers led revolutions in Russia and Germany that ended the war and challenged the rule of the warmongers.
Some may say that the first world war is not the same as the situation today. That is partly true. Then there were competing imperialisms resolving their economic competition militarily.
Today it is the one super imperialist power defending its declining economic position militarily.
The war in Iraq is part of the attempt by US imperialism to prevent Europe and China strengthening their economic positions. But that is producing a response - some sections of European capital and possibly China may now form their own imperialist bloc against the US.
There are other similarities with the situation during the first world war. People under capitalism even today still lead alienated lives - alientated from ourselves and from others. In addition, nationalism in the three invading countries has not seriously been challenged by the working class movement. Indeed nationalism infects the movement.
This combination of our alienation and the influence of nationalism meant that when the Iraqi war broke out support for it went up in Australia (and the UK and USA).
However, a couple of things also need to be emphasised. First, there is still a sizeable group in Australia and the UK which opposes the war on Iraq - perhaps a majority.
Second we need to look at the situation internationally. Massive demonstrations against the war have been going on in the Middle East, possibly threatening the regimes in Egypt, Bahrain, Jordan and elsehwere. It is not possible to say more since the censorship prevents us finding out the real situation in these countries.
Finally, even if the invasion of Iraq is over quickly, the war will go on. Like the first world war, the reality of this permanent imperialist war - an attack on Iran for example - will produce a reaction against its horrors. It is possible this could produce a large majority in Australia and around the world against war.
A better world - a world without war - will then be possible.
Leonie Bronstein
Hi,
I'm not sure more than a handful of workers would relate to the purple passages in your editorial.
Chris Clarke
Regional Secretary
CPSU
Vic
*************
This is another plee for legal action on the war against Iraq. I noticed such a plee previously written to your web site, and I would like to add my voice to that of Michael Dunne. Australian involvement in the war is illegal under Australian law, and does not require recourse to any international court. The Federal and High courts here have jurisdiction. I would like to see your organisation put some of its resources into trying to stop the war through the courts. Surely a coalition of similar minded organisations could mount such a case.
Andrew Luscombe
**************
It time!
Howard and Bush have ignored our vivid demonstration of national and international democratic majority opposition to war.
Unions now have their usual, historical role to play.
Our bosses war effort can be halted when we halt - stopping the refuelling of Quantas, BA and United would do the job.
I work as a teacher and will be seeking a ban on all ADF recruiting materials in schools and TAFEs as well as a ban on TAFE courses as well as industrial action in solidarity with the inspirational strikes by our students.
Lets regain democracy.
John Morris
****************
Letter sent to Australian Prime Minister John Howard.
Dr Mr Howard,
If you want my family to believe you wish to liberate the Iraqians why dont you release and liberate all the Iraqians, Afghanistanis, Iranians,Sri Lankans from YOUR detention centres and any other heros trying to escape murderous hellholes and torturous regimes led by Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and Mugabe etc.Why does your government suck up to the Chinese whilst dismissing the legitimate claims of the Dalai Lama.
What is Human rights to you Mr Howard?
Where do AUSTRALIAN ABORIGINES human rights fit into your tough schedule.
Mr Hypocryte,
I believe you are full of shit and i do believe the way you are acting is UNAUSTRALIAN. You will disagree of course but history wont change who is right between what you believe and what i believe.
Steven Presley
Morwell Victoria
******************
so my frend in this weeks letters to the editor misses unions?.
no need mate we are still around some hide behind containers to jion up for fear not of the bosses but that other union on site they do not like your mob they wisper.
yes solidarity still gets a call often in wispers as its feared they might hear us.
division and war in union ranks is just made for Howard and he must love it .
but do not ever discount the riseing swell of dicontent from the working class at control of working class policys from the new middle class.
its from these Howard gets his election day victorys those who once had control of the union movement.
and today my frend its going to be far less than 70% against the war far far less.
however casuals need the union farmore than most yes it takes nerve to be the first but not to stand up is to be a coward.
Belly
*************
Dear Sir,
With the recent election victory actually gaining one seat for the ALP, the back slapping between the Premiers office and the Sussex Street Apparatchiks might as a consequence add to the already lengthy hospital waiting lists for endoscopic spinal surgery.
This could be accompanied by the sounds of trumpet blowing and revisionist history being the order of the day. Not being one to retract from a bit of re-invention or revision , so with acknowledgement to the writings of real Cardinal and his puppet Louis XIII , I could in my minds eye visualize the 'Cardinal E. Richelieu' of Sussex sending this communication to Premier Carr.
24 March 1624
From the Desk of the Cardinal
Palace de Sussex
Dear Bobby,
At the time when you resolved to admit me both to your council and to an important place in your confidence for the direction of your affairs, I may say that the left faction shared the government with you; that the power brokers conducted themselves as if they were not your subordinates, and the most powerful ministers of the state as if they were sovereign in their offices.
I may say that the bad example of all of these was so injurious to this state that even the best regulated parliaments were affected by it, and endeavored, in certain cases, to diminish your parliamentary authority as far as they were able in order to stretch their own powers beyond the limits of reason.
I may say that every one measured his own merit by his audacity; that in place of estimating the benefits which they received from your government at their proper worth, all valued them only in so far as they satisfied the extravagant demands of their imagination; that the most arrogant were held to be the wisest, and found themselves the most prosperous.
I may also say that the federal alliances were unfortunate, individual interests being preferred to those of the public; in a word, the dignity of the Premier and Party was so disparaged, and so different from what it should be, owing to the malfeasance of those who conducted your affairs, that it was almost impossible to perceive its existence.
It was impossible, without losing all, to tolerate longer the conduct of those to whom you had entrusted the affairs of state; and, on the other hand, everything could not be changed at once without violating the laws of prudence, which do not permit the abrupt passing from one extreme to another.
The sad state of your affairs seemed to force you to hasty decisions, without permitting a choice of time or of means; and yet it was necessary to make a choice of both, in order to profit by the change which necessity demanded from your prudence.
Thoughtful observers did not think that it would be possible to escape all the rocks in so tempestuous a period; the party was full of people who censured the temerity of those who wished to undertake a reform; all well knew that faction leaders are quick to impute to those who are near them the bad outcome of the undertakings upon which they have been well advised; few people consequently expected good results from the change which it was announced that I wished to make, and many believed my fall assured even before I had been elevated.
Notwithstanding these difficulties which I represented to you, knowing how much Premiers may do when they make good use of their power, I ventured to promise you, with confidence, that you would soon get control of your state, and that in a short time your prudence, your courage, and the benediction of your Gods would give a new aspect to the realm.
I promised you to employ all my industry and all the authority which it should please you to give me to ruin the Liberal party, to abase the pride of the ministers, to bring back all your subordinates to their duty, and to elevate your name among the States of Commonwealth to the point where it belongs.
Cardinal E. R.
Now we wait with anticipation for the antics of the Three Mouseketeers?
If you give me six lines written
by the most honest man, I will find
something in them to hang him.
--Cardinal Richelieu
Tom Collins
There was a time when the Law was an absolute; in jurisprudence they called it Natural Law. The equation was simple: The law reflected what was right, therefore the law was in and of itself a good.
This principle reached its zenith in the years leading up to World War II before the horrors of Hitler and the Nuremburg Principle broke the link between law and justice for all time.
Since then, the use of civil disobedience in struggles as diverse as India and the Southern States of the US further blurred the lines, with just causes given extra weight by their supporters' preparedness to break the law in their name.
Meanwhile, an international legal consensus had developed over last 100 years, attempting to erect a universal framework to overlaying the sovereignty of individual nation states.
Nations had the right to opt into international agreements on security, health, the environment and labour relations and when a critical mass did so, they had a moral force of something approaching law.
Now something different is happening to the Law.
At an international level, the United States has rendered this network of global laws impotent by defying the UN Security Council to declare war on Iraq. It follows on hot the heels of Bush's refusal to ratify the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gases.
Ironically, as the US acts with the sole authority of the force of its Coalition of the Willing, it is still happy to cite the Geneva Convention to complain about the totally unjustified treatment of its invading forces.
Through its actions, and the selective appeal of international conventions the US is writing a new legal doctrine of convenience - the Law as Rhetoric.
Alongside strategies like embedding journalists, continuous polling and selected release of information, the Rule of Law has become just another tool in the battle for the hearts and minds of the people.
This approach takes legal relativism to a new level, with the authority of Law directly linked to one's power to ignore it or invoke it as one sees fit.
And what does this have to do with this week's Cole Royal Commission? Well, behind the headlines of widespread illegality by building unions lie two underlying truths.
First, the overwhelming bulk of illegal acts were breaches of the Howard Government's industrial laws, specifically designed to prevent industry wide bargaining. The illegality Abbott flays at the CFMEU is illegality entirely of his own making.
Second, the findings are a direct product of a process that set out to catch union officials, discount evidence against employers and sideline the genuine concerns with safety and employer rorts. Sixty million dollars to fulfil a specific, political brief.
My point? There is nothing absolute about the findings against the CFMEU; rather they are the expected outcome of a process based not on law, but on raw political power.
And the outcome is yet another law-enforcement agency, protecting the Monk's political friends and harassing his enemies.
The righteousness of Bush and of Abbott have a common flavour, it is the certainty of the powerful. Any notion of 'The Law' is an ass in their hands. Maybe the Anarchists have won after all ...
Peter Lewis
Editor
Search All Issues | Latest Issue | Previous Issues | Print Latest Issue |
© 1999-2002 Workers Online |
|