Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
Ill gotten grains - when will Downer resign?
Richard Tonkin is a regular Webdiarist, specialising in Haliburton and corporate corruption. His last contribution was The Halliburton peanut butter files.
In the 'Hot Topics' of the Ausaid website you find Australian Humanitarian Aid to Iraq:
Australia's focus on Iraq's agricultural sector aims to improve food security and facilitate Iraq's transition to an open, market based economy. Australian advisers are helping build the capacity of Iraqi officials in the Ministry of Agriculture. Additional assistance is provided through in-Australia training and study programs for Iraqi officials from a number of Iraqi Ministeries including the Ministry of Agriculture and Ministry of Trade.
Significant Australian support has been given to the Iraqi Ministry of Planning and Development Cooperation in the form of policy advice and technical assistance to develop donor coordination mechanisms in the reconstruction process.
And now.. a word from Ausaid's sponsor:
Australia has a direct interest in seeing other countries integrate into the global economy or globalise. Not only is there a humanitarian interest in seeing enhanced economic growth and poverty alleviation in poorer countries, but globally integrated economies are more politically stable and can be a market for Australian goods.
Australia can do a number of things to spread the gains of globalisation. Assisting with governance reform and institution-building is possibly the most important.
With stronger institutions, countries are better placed to introduce the policies and reforms vital to securing the opportunities of globalisation. The strength of Australia’s own institutions means we are well placed to help others improve their institutions and their approaches to key policies.
Through our aid program we are investing in the prosperity, the health and the freedom of the poorest, particularly in our own region. With more than a third of our aid program focused on promoting good governance, we are helping create environments where creativity, enterprise and effort can reap rewards ... and where resources are allocated to productive purposes rather than squandered through corruption or mismanagement. - Alexander Downer, February 4 2006
How anybody in Downer's position could champion the integrity of his aid program in the light of the Cole inquiry almost makes me believe the man had no idea of what was occurring under the auspices of Ausaid in Iraq, To conduct yourself in a manner so contrary to such information would be a bold-faced lie enough to cost a sinner his soul.
However, when you get to the end of this speech you realise that prices may have already been paid:
The enterprise, curiosity and enthusiasm of human beings will always ensure that opportunities are sought in every corner of the globe.
So our challenge is not to prevent globalisation but to manage it in such a way as to maximise the benefits for all.
The former World Bank head, James Wolfensohn said that “for me, the argument about globalisation is a non-argument.”
I couldn’t agree with him more.
Taking this line of non-argument as one of Downer's raisons d'etre casts an interesting psychological shadow over the Government's attitude toward the AWB. The picture beginning to emerge is of a government attempting to manipulate Iraq into an acceptable "partner", an Australian trading foothold in the Globalised World Order.
It will be interesting when PM Howard reveals the details of the aid package he's planned for Iraq. If Ausaid-funded "governance education" is exemplified by such as messrs Flugge and Long, Iraq will face an Aussie-enforced "democratisation" with aid withdrawal as the Sword Of Damocles of non-compliance, especially if we helped the Iraqi Planning Minister in the same manner as his collegue in Grains.
On that note we return to last Thursday night's Lateline interview, and Mr D's lack of of reaction to the concept of his department, through Ausaid, paying Michael Long to manipulate the Regime Change to suit the AWB's business interests.
[Extract]
JONES: So...but you wasn't specifically aware that Michael Long was actually working to keep this man, Yousif Abdul Rahman, who I think was, in fact, the director general of the Iraqi Grain Board, to protect him, as it says literally in the memo, from the de-Baathification process and put him in a position in the Ministry of Trade?
DOWNER: Ah, look, there may have been information that came back to Canberra about that, I just don't have any recollection about it. But I don't know the gentleman, so I don't know anything much about him at all, except the position he held. But, I mean, my view by the way has always been that the de-Baathification process was too rigourous, that you had to leave some people in place who'd been members of the Baath Party because I mean, to get anywhere in Iraq under Saddam Hussein you had to be a member of the Baath Party. So, I mean, I don't, on the face of it, as the facts have emerged from the Cole Commission - and there probably was information available to DFAT and AusAID at the time - it's not something that causes me any particular concern.
Today's Sydney Morning Herald tells how, in obeying a request from Commissioner Cole, Brendan Nelson has handed over documents discovered during a review of AWB related documents. Mr Nelson has refused to comment on the rumour that the paperwork reveals that Defence told DFAT what the AWB was doing some time ago. Thanks to the Catch-22 that the Government has placed on the AWB Inquiry this news is unlikely to perturb Mr Downer. As Kevin Rudd so aptly described the situation yesterday, "Cole has no power to make findings against government officials, ministers or advisers."
It will be interesting when the transcripts for a day that Mr Downer spent in Washington are eventually released. On what still would have been, in Australia, April Fool's Day of 2003, Our Foreign Minister met Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rice, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff. After this briefing Downer gave this statement:
So it's been an opportunity for me at every level here to put the case that in the post-conflict environment we would like to see some UN involvement in Iraq. We've been pleasantly surprised by the very positive reception to that message that we've received from the President downwards.
I think the Administration knows only too well that there needs to be some UN involvement. That it's crucial to have UN aid agencies involved in Iraq and also to get the IMF and World Bank involved. Indeed I met with the managing director of the IMF and talked about this with him at some length..... I had lunch with the administrator of USAID, the United States aid agency, and we talked a lot about the delivery of aid to Iraq and also this issue of contracts and the like. Again, at that level I've been pleasantly surprised by the identity of views between Australia and the United States so I think things are heading in the right direction.
Downer's level of conversations with the Bush Administration, when the Invasion of Iraq was only thirteen days old, implies not only an amazing feat of meetings scheduling but also a level of co-operation that surely existed before the Coalition crossed the border. To have this situation existing at the same time as the Free Trade Agreement negotiators were calling for the dismantling of the AWB because its monopolistic existance violated US trading ethics must have been extremely galling - moreso when you've done the right thing and subcontracted Ausaid work to Halliburton.
The reason that US Wheat was calling for action over AWB's monopoly back in 2003 was because of a US Defence document... the one that Kevin Rudd was waving under Mark Vaille's nose in Parliament last week. Released in September of that year, it discusses Oil For Food overpayments and names AWB.
It's a fair guess that Commissioner Cole would be assuming that US Defence would have shared this intelligence with Australian Defence- it would be a logical reason for calling for the information that Brendan Nelson has handed over. It's getting pretty hard to even imagine that Alexander Downer had no knowledge whatsoever of the AWB scandal. For the Minister to have suggested, within days of AWB's loss of trade due to the Iraq invasion, that Ausaid buy AWB's wheat (and to have the idea rejected by the UN) suggests that Downer was very aware of the AWB at that time. Surely, when negotiating future aid arrangements days later at the White House, this situation would have been weighing heavily on his mind?
How long will it take for Mr Downer to realise that his denial of involvement in AWB activities is reaching a "point of diminishing returns" and resign? It's only Monday...
 |
|
 |
 |
| © 2005-2011, Webdiary Pty Ltd |
| Disclaimer: | This site is home to many debates, and the views expressed on this site are not necessarily those of the site editors. Contributors submit comments on their own responsibility: if you believe that a comment is incorrect or offensive in any way, please submit a comment to that effect and we will make corrections or deletions as necessary. |
Extended Cole Inquiry?
Caroline Overington makes a sharp observation in The Australian today. The Cole inquiry is now in its seventh week and there has not yet been a single witness from the Howard Government. According to the terms of reference, Mr Cole must report by March 31. So time is running out.
Mr Cole now has 23 days to study the complicated transaction between BHP-related company Tigris, the AWB and Iraq as well as examine the Howard Government's knowledge. Will he request an extension of time? An extension of time plus broader terms of reference?
Time will tell, though the next few weeks is sure to be a time to watch the inquiry and Howard's ministers’ levels of cooperation very closely.
Blowin in the wind
Today in Parliament: (from ABC Online):
Let's remember what Downer wrote in a column in The Australian on February 4th:
Two days later, when Mr Downer was asked if an bribes for business in Iraq were an assumed Status Quo, his response was that it was "..fair to say the reverse was true. I think there was an assume, an assumption throughout the system that AWB Limited was a reputable company.
He commented that: "As one of the flagship companies of Australia, it has a monopoly over our wheat exports and there was a clear assumption that this was a company, there was a clear assumption this was a company you could count on."
My, how times have changed.
Down, down and down
Richard, what can you say?
Months of denial, no knowledge here, no way mate, not us, no one knew anything.
Then, Ahhh, yes well I did read all that but it really wasn't worth doing anything was there? Perhaps Sir Humphrey put the cables at the bottom of the red box and Alex started at the top.
Accountability, not!
Caught with his hand in the cookie jar but Daddy John pats him on the head and tells Alex it's OK, those nasty Labor MP's are dumb, just ignore them son.
Puke.
This clown (Alex) really has got nowhere to hide but what will happen? I think we know, don't we.
Perhaps we will start hearing the "Well, that's over, let's move on", and "Bloody Labor, always living in the past. What about what Gough did on the 1st of April 1973?" or similar useless comments.
It's abundantly clear to all really that our current system of government is failing us, the public and needs top be rebuilt from the ground up.
First step should be the abandonment of political parties. Make MP's answerable to their electorates only. Yep, still dreaming but mostly it's a nightmare.
Hamish...
Hamish: "Jay, you're hilarious. Are you capable of being anything but a cheer-squad for the current regime? Have you heard of the courtroom idea of witness credibility?"
Well I think they're doing the job of being a good Australian government fairly well, and it seems many agree. I mean a law, if you like, has been breached and the government has set up a inquiry, seems reasonable to me.
Craig Rowley: "Of course, if the Howard Government had properly discharged its responsibility under Resolution 661 in the first place then we would have reason to be proud of it".
Well see this is the whole problem. Firstly, you have the UN, a unelected rabble, running about pronouncing what everybody else should be doing whilst ignoring everything they themselves are, or more to the point, are not doing.
As I have explained before, Australia is a democratic capitalist system. The Government does not attach commissars to watch a private business's every move outside of its own borders. In fact, I suspect when operating in a nation outside of Australia it would be fairly easy for business, especially a large one, to escape the Australian government's attention in many areas. Hence, the constant complaints about offshore tax shelters and the like.
"Jay, why does "actually doing something" have to involve dropping bombs on people? Why does it necessitate "shock and awe" and civilian "collateral damage"? Why was war the only solution in your eyes, Jay? Is it a rule in the right wing rule book"?
Why does left-wing thought have to involve doing nothing and pretending problems do not exist? Is that in the rule book somewhere?
What was the secret number of resolutions that had to be breached before something was done? 28, 52, 67, 100? Do problems in left-wing world evaporate by talking meaninglessly about them constantly ? How long should this process last? 1 year, 5 years, 10 years, 50 years?
Is it also in the left-wing rule book to ignore massive human rights abuse by a regime because the USA does not like the regime. What is wrong with some of you people? Communism and socialism was lost near 20 years ago for more reasons than the USA existing, get over it for God sake!
War was the only solution because it was apparent to any person wishing to actually look, that nothing was going to change. If the COTW did not exist Saddam would still be in power and his loathsome son would still be being groomed to take over, for any logical person, end of story. Then left-wingers are not logical or they would not be left-wingers.
What proof do I have you may ask? I call it the Volker Report, the very same one you yourself cite. The very same one that cites money being earned by companies whose own governments refused and would have refused sanctioning any military action. The reason being they were gaining money and lots of it from the Saddam regime.
"It could have been taken after the UN considered the breach and, having assessed the options available for dealing with the breach, decided on another Resolution authorising the military action - and in doing so making that action legal".
What happens when this resolution never comes? As it did not after the previous breaching of around 17 sanctions. Does it make someone a better person because they ignore their own laws so that they can claim they did not go to war? The disregard shown for the people this regime was abusing by some of these so-called anti war activists reminds me of the people in Nazi Germany locking their doors to Jews and pretending they heard nothing. Many of them also claimed not to be in favour of Nazism or war.
Many left-wingers downplayed etc - "They may well have done that. I didn't, and many other people didn't. We would have liked to see the Howard Government stop an organisation like AWB from engaging in sanction busting".
Well plenty of them damn well did, including a few members of the UN. I would have liked the UN to actually have put a stop to this corrupt fiasco years ago when they were being told about it. Turning a blind eye to corruption only makes for more of it. Why would anyone be surprised this has become the case? Short answer, most are not, if reading the latest poll is anything to go by.
The AWB sold wheat, at least it did feed somebody "sanction busting" or not, which I still don't think it was.
"In fact, as I was still a Liberal supporter before 2001, I expected the Howard Government I'd voted for would do just that Jay. It didn't and now that's another reason why I'm unhappy with John".
That's great pal. Seeing as though you seem to think private business should have government officals attached to their shoulders following them around the world whilst undertaking business I don't think the Liberal Party needs you. The last time I remember something like that taking place was in the Soviet Union.
You should be happy then to see government involvement in Australia getting back some of those wheat contracts, no?
He still doesn't get it
Jay White: "The Government does not attach commissars to watch a private business's every move outside of its own borders."
We all know this, Jay. The Howard Government (or any other for that matter) didn't need to attach commissars to properly discharge the responsibilities that come with UN Security Council Resolution 661.
You still don't get it, do you? All the Howard Government had to do at maximum was periodically audit the transactions of a very small number of Australian companies (three I think) that signed up to do business through the Oil-for-Food program. All it had to do at a minimum was ask questions and obtain proper declarations that the answers were true and correct after it received numerous indications that something was 'irregular'.
Reminder: Saddam has been deposed!
Craig Rowley: "I expected the Howard Government I'd voted for would do just that..."
As penance, Craig, you must affix a bumper sticker to your car reading, "I'm sorry. I voted Liberal."
Seriously, though, this conception of "not bombing people to Kingdom Come" = "doing nothing" does have such wide currency. Sadly, there was very little to counter this put into the mainstream, since an alternative to massive lethal force was never seriously contemplated by a leadership that already had made its decision as early as 2001. However, to Craig's reference to Robin Cook's resignation speech, one could add this from Francis Fukuyama:
Pursuing strategies such as those sketched by Fukuyama likely would not have delivered an ideal outcome. But has the war option? Sure, Saddam is deposed, but at what cost? We had almost to destroy the country to "save" it.
Apart from the 100K+ Iraqi citizens who are now beyond liberation, and apart from the childhood malnutrition that has doubled since the invasion, and apart from the destruction of infrastructure that has made preventable disease a major killer of infants... oh, and the shattering of civil society that is unfortunately the inevitable consequence of reducing an entire advanced society to cannon fodder, with the consequence of violent disorder that we've seen in spades since the "liberation", and the spectre of civil war, destabilisation of the region, etc. Well, apart from all that, it's possible to argue that it was a job well done. After all, Saddam has been deposed.
Did we mention Saddam has been deposed? Oh, by the way, the great thing to come out of this is that Saddam has been deposed? Can we just say, one more time, that a truly monumental outcome of this catastrophic war is that Saddam has been deposed. They've got him under lock and key (while 100K+ of his citizens are under 6ft of earth, at least those they could find). Just in case that wasn't clear, let it be known that Saddam has been deposed.
But to get back to the topic, Jay White is correct in one respect. The fact is that there are no United Nations, there is preeminently a gaggle of whorehouse nations each concerned solely with their own national interests, and who can't even organise a viable sanctions regime between them. It's just that I would have hoped this once great nation of ours would distinguish herself by showing the world just a little about how it's done.
(Has it been mentioned recently that everything's okay, because Saddam was deposed?)
Forgive me, Father, for I have sinned
I know the subject title may seem out of place on this thread, but I really must say to Jacob - Forgive me, Father, for I have sinned; it has been 18 years since my last confession ...
Actually, on second thoughts let's no go there, after all Saddam was deposed!
Three beers and all is cool
Craig, consider yourself forgiven, my child. Three nice cold ones and may you sin again. I would recommend you come to me and confess whenever you feel the need (or thirst).
Jay, I would recommend sincerely that you never take up law. The Church maybe a better option for it would appear you have an abundance of faith....in something.
Is that a wrap for the Australian Government?
Craig Rowley "No Jay. I've yet to see their equivalent of the Cole inquiry".
Is that a wrap for the Australian government setting it up? A world leader, you could say. Should we all be proud?
Hamish: Jay, you're hilarious. Are you capable of being anything but a cheer-squad for the current regime? Have you heard of the courtroom idea of witness credibility?
No reason for pride
"Is that a wrap for the Australian government setting it up? A world leader, you could say. Should we all be proud?"
It is a good thing that John Howard couldn't dodge the need to establish the Cole inquiry. I'll give him due thanks if he expands the terms of reference (should Mr Cole make a request for that).
Of course, if the Howard Government had properly discharged its responsibility under Resolution 661 in the first place then we would have reason to be proud of it.
That it set up the inquiry is only sufficient to stimulate feelings of relief that there is now some chance of getting to the truth.
Pointless resolutions
Craig Rowley: "First, the preceding words do not logically 'give rise' to these questions, but I'll answer them anyway - No and No".
Of course they do not in a left-wing world because that may mean actually doing something.
"No, breach of the sanctions under 661 would not necessarily be reason enough for military action."
Why? If there is not a worry of punishment why have a resolution?
"...though I can imagine some "pre-emptive" neo-cons in control of the White House thinking it a better reason than false claims of WMD if only it didn't expose their own businesses)."
Would have been pointless. Many left-wingers downplayed the fact that these things were even happening. In fact I remember more than one calling the claims American lies and propaganda. Good to see a sudden interest in a very corrupt Saddam regime.
"No, as we know the COTW did not act on behalf of the UN and in your hypothetical if the COTW had attacked on the basis of a breach of 661 (rather than on the basis of false WMD intelligence) and had done so like they did in reality (gone ahead without seeking a UN Resolution authorising that military action) then they would still not be acting on behalf of the UN."
In other words, in left-wing speak breaking sanctions did not matter and the resolution in effect should have been ignored? Well, that is exactly what the AWB did as did Russian, French, German etc companies and, of course, Iraq. A resolution that results in no punishment only in the world of the UN!
Jay White: "Perhaps US companies have not committed any crimes?"
"Read the lists in the Volker Report, Jay".
Well, why say this: "Wonder why I have not yet thanked the US? Well, Jay, when the US Government completes the task of uncovering of its own corruption in Iraq I will thank them doubly. How's that for a deal?"
Gee, given the Volker report was at the behest of the US on behalf of the UN thanks to the COTW for actually uncovering the files, you are a hard taskmaster.
"Sorry Jay, you're not going to find a post-factum legitimisation for the illegal invasion".
I am not looking to do so. I am not aware anyone has been charged with any offence relating to the invasion of Iraq. Is this left-wing world again? No charges laid or even likely to be laid; however, an offence was committed. An inquiry still has not finished sitting, yet people should resign. A resolution by the UN results in no punishment when broken but is expected to be adhered to and on and on it goes.
Wow, if people actually took the left-wing word as truth or even slightly seriously they might one day have a government.
"... because that may
"... because that may mean actually doing something."
Jay, why does "actually doing something" have to involve dropping bombs on people? Why does it necessitate "shock and awe" and civilian "collateral damage"? Why was war the only solution in your eyes, Jay? Is it a rule in the right wing rule book?
"Why? If there is not a worry of punishment why have a resolution?"
As I said earlier, breach of the sanctions under 661 would not necessarily be reason enough for military action. That doesn't mean that military action by the COTW couldn't be taken at all. It could have been taken after the UN considered the breach and, having assessed the options available for dealing with the breach, decided on another Resolution authorising the military action - and in doing so making that action legal.
"Many left-wingers downplayed etc"
They may well have done that. I didn't, and many other people didn't. We would have liked to see the Howard Government stop an organisation like AWB from engaging in sanction busting.
In fact, as I was still a Liberal supporter before 2001, I expected the Howard Government I'd voted for would do just that, Jay. It didn't and now that's another reason why I'm unhappy with John.
Why say this then
'Read the lists in the Volker Report, Jay'".
Well, why would you say this then: "Wonder why I have not yet thanked the US? Well, Jay, when the US Government completes the task of uncovering of its own corruption in Iraq I with thank them doubly. How's that for a deal?"
Given this investigation was undertaken by an American on behalf of the UN at the behest of the USA and thanks to the COTW, perhaps you do already owe them a thank you note, no?
No
No, Jay. I've yet to see their equivalent of the Cole inquiry.
Not me calling it an illegal invasion
Craig Rowley, so okay, if it was "sanction busting" this must mean Iraq went around sanctions thus broke the UN resolution? Does this mean by breaking said sanctions military action by the COTW was in order? If not, how come? And if ever would it have been in order?
Remember it is not me calling the Iraq war a illegal invasion.
Answered that earlier
Jay, I answered these silly questions earlier here.
Of course, if it was the case that the trigger for war could've been simply the breach of these sanctions by AWB then the Howard Government should've done its job of watching that AWB and other Australian companies didn't break the sanctions all the more.
Jay, please come up with something better than this illogical stuff.
Three in a row
Three pieces from Jay crapping on in a row. Please spare us from his truthiness and give someone else a go.
Hamish: who's not getting a go?
Truthiness
Bob Wall...
Bob Wall: "interesting that there is talk of tax cuts at a time like this. Cynics might find it more than coincidental".
Talk of tax cuts is always good talk coincidental or not. I wish the NSW idiot government would wake up to this fact.
"I have to agree with him. Sending someone to Iraq with such poor hearing and an apparently dodgy memory does make for a potentially dangerous situation. What if he did not hear the shout to "Duck!" or could not remember what it meant?"
I am sure he would not have to worry about that if he had the protection of the excellent Australian soldiers now serving there. The soldiers that should be getting a huge welcoming home parade for a job very well done. Hope you are out waving the flag on their return and showing the spirit of Anzac.
Kickbacks
Craig Rowley "is that voters overwhelmingly think the federal government knew AWB was paying kickbacks to the Iraqi regime".
Which part of "kickbacks" did you miss in the question? Not a sanction busting anywhere.
"The poll also shows 40 per cent of respondents saying the inquiry made them feel less favourable towards the federal government, 55 per cent thought it made no difference, and 2 per cent thought it improved their opinion of the government. (Jay White must be in the 2 per cent).
No I am not in the 2 per cent.
Must have missed it
Craig Rowley: “I've not missed any part of "based in Jordan". Have you missed the part (reported some time ago) about Alia being run by an Iraqi family based in Jordan?”
Well, you must have missed it because you said "The kickback paid to Alia was sanction busting. The money was paid to a company based in Jordan and owned by the Iraqi Government". What part of Iraqi family and Iraqi government did you get confused with? Should we be watching closely all businesses outside Iraq being run by people of Iraqi heritage? Should a government clearance be sought before dealing with any of these businesses?
“I've noticed you've read into Resolution 661 something about only companies majority owned by Iraqi, which it does not say in fact”.
I said no such thing; you brought it up as you can see by your statement above. 49% is neither outright ownership nor a controlling interest.
“So yes Jay I'm saying anybody (from a UN country) dealing in specified ways (selling weapons, providing funds, buying oil, etc as prohibited under Resolution 661) with a company owned or partly owned by the Iraqi Government outside Iraq during this time was sanction busting”.
Funds were given to a company operating in Jordon and a Pakistani businessman for favourable treatment in supplying a wheat (which no sanctions were on) contract. Bribery yes, sanction busting no. A prime example of a sanction buster would be this person whom Bill Clinton later pardoned.
“Wonder why I have not yet thanked the US? Well Jay when the US Government completes the task of uncovering of its own corruption in Iraq I with thank them doubly, how’s that for a deal?”
You might be waiting a while. I think they might still be going through the files about UN officials along with French and Russian companies. I think they will have their work cut out, my opinion of course. Perhaps US companies have not committed any crimes?
“It'll be fun playing "Who thinks it was sanction busting?" while we watch the Cole inquiry this week”.
If it gets any airtime it will be. Remember this is a week of celebration due to ten years in office for the Prime Minister. The second longest serving Prime Minister ever, if you did not already know. Seems also by reading the latest many wish him to stay on a little longer. Wonder if these people think the Government was involved in sanction busting? Most likely they know the difference between sanction busting and a private company bribe.
The most interesting thing here is that you seem to be saying that, because the government did not uncover and stop a criminal action, in another nation people should stand down even if they knew nothing of it. If the world operated this way no nation would have a police force given every unsolved crime.
Which gives rise to the question that if Iraq did breach sanctions and that has been shown by people such as yourself they clearly did, would that not be reason enough for military action? Would not the COTW be acting on behalf of the UN by taking action for breaches of those sanctions?
“Having got Jay White to shift from misstatements on facts to actually reading UN Security Council Resolution 661 (and calling me sir!), let's see if we can have him reading the Cole inquiry transcripts too”.
Just out of interest, what “misstatements” have you got me to shift from?
Misstatements like these
Jay White: "Just out of interest, what “misstatements” have you got me to shift from?"
Misstatements like presenting opinions like these as fact Jay.
Silly questions
Jay White: "Which gives rise to the question that if Iraq did breach sanctions and that has been shown by people such as yourself they clearly did, would that not be reason enough for military action? Would not the COTW be acting on behalf of the UN by taking action for breaches of those sanctions?"
First, the preceding words do not logically "give rise" to these questions, but I'll answer them anyway - No and No.
No, breach of the sanctions under 661 would not necessarily be reason enough for military action (though I can imagine some "pre-emptive" neo-cons in control of the White House thinking it a better reason than false claims of WMD if only it didn't expose their own businesses).
No, as we know the COTW did not act on behalf of the UN and in your hypothetical if the COTW had attacked on the basis of a breach of 661 (rather than on the basis of false WMD intelligence) and had done so like they did in reality (gone ahead without seeking a UN Resolution authorising that military action) then they would still not be acting on behalf of the UN.
Sorry Jay, you're not going to find a post-factum legitimisation for the illegal invasion.
US companies committed crimes
Jay White: "Perhaps US companies have not committed any crimes?"
Read the lists in the Volker Report, Jay.
Jay, you still appear confused
Jay White, you still appear confused about the Alia ownership/control issue.
You introduced the point about majority ownership here and yes, 49% is neither outright ownership nor necessarily a controlling interest (of course at 49% you can have control of a large enough portion of voting stock in a company such that no other stock holder can oppose you especially when you're a brutal dictator), but the point is Jay that UN Resolution 661 is silent on how small or large the stake held by the Iraqi Government needs to be. You know why? Because it doesn't matter.
Read the words of Resolution 661 again - All States .... shall prevent their national and any persons within their territories from removing from their territories or otherwise making available to the Government [of Iraq] any such funds or resources ...
Anyone providing funds to Alia when it was the bagman for the brutes of Baghdad was making those funds available to the Government of Iraq. That's called making bribes aka kickbacks that also happen to be sanction busting.
Govt knew of Iraqi kickbacks: voters
News from The Age today is that voters overwhelmingly think the federal government knew AWB was paying kickbacks to the Iraqi regime.
The latest ACNielsen poll, taken from February 23-26 for Fairfax newspapers, found 70 per cent of people who knew of the Cole inquiry into the Iraqi wheat sale scandal think the government knew about the kickbacks compared to only 15 per cent who thought the government did not know of them. Fourteen per cent did not offer an opinion.
The poll also shows 40 per cent of respondents saying the inquiry made them feel less favourable towards the federal government, 55 per cent thought it made no difference, and 2 per cent thought it improved their opinion of the government. (Jay White must be in the 2 per cent).
Difficult Assignment.
Craig, interesting that there is talk of tax cuts at a time like this. Cynics might find it more than coincidental.
Howard has been defending the appointment of Trevor Flugge.
'"Although it is a lot of money, it was a challenging assignment and a potentially dangerous environment," he said.'
I have to agree with him. Sending someone to Iraq with such poor hearing and an apparently dodgy memory does make for a potentially dangerous situation. What if he did not hear the shout to "Duck!" or could not remember what it meant?
But then why would you send someone on such an assignment who would not hear or remember what was said and done? And why isn't such a person in the Cabinet?
Call me a cynic then
Hey Bob, it truly is disgusting what governments will sink to in an attempt to divert the public and media from issues that hurt them.
Clearly Costello already knows what the answers to his "enquiry" will be as Sir Humphrey would have arranged it if he could have. By the way, which Australian public servant is Sir Humphrey? Any suggestions?
As you point out, Mr Flugge is the ideal candidate for any Howard mission as he remembers nothing and hears nothing. Is he the fourth wise monkey, with two attributes?
A Fellow Cynic.
Ross, depths indeed. Costello also seems to have been playing his "leadership" game as well. Whenever Howard is in trouble up pops Costello trying to enhance his credentials. The Sharia comments I consider part of this. There was his opposite vote to Howard and Abbott on RU486 as well. This process has been remarked on WD on previous occasions. The usual wash up is that The Teflon Man survives and Costello goes quiet until the next time he sees an opening.
All very predictable. And disappointing.
And where has the frank and fearless advice from the PS gone? A matter much discussed here. These days I think it must mean Harry Frank and Joe Fearless, two middle ranking departmental officers who can be relied on to provide just what the government wants to hear.
Blow back
"Today's Herald confirms the extraordinary fact that most voters can disbelieve the Government on a prominent issue and yet maintain their levels of support for the Government and the Prime Minister."
I wonder had the left of politics spent less time belittling the Volcker Inquiry and other investigations into the UN Food for Oil scandal as a "right wing beat up", would they be better able to capitalise on the AWB kick back revelations?
Or are they so far gone that nothing could help them?
Who thinks it was sanction busting?
Having got Jay White to shift from misstatements on facts to actually reading UN Security Council Resolution 661 (and calling me sir!), let's see if we can have him reading the Cole inquiry transcripts too.
Let's play a game of "Who thinks it was sanction busting?"
From today's transcript:
Mr Condon: Am I right in thinking, Mr Watson, that the effect of your evidence today is you knew very well that the effect of the arrangements for the payment of transportation fees involved a direct contravention of United Nations sanctions?
Mr Watson: You are correct.
sanction busting and bribery
Craig Rowley:"So on your prior reading where was the list you mentioned in your earlier comment Jay? Caught in a lie?"
I am caught in no such thing.
You sir are confused, confused with the difference between "sanction busting" and bribery. Or most likely purposely confused because of course the term "sanction busting" implies Australian Government involvement which of course has not been proven given that all officials have denied involvement and the inquiry has not even handed down a finding.
"The kickback paid to Alia was sanction busting. The money was paid to a company based in Jordan and owned by the Iraqi Government".
What part of Jordan based have you missed? Also Alia is 49% owned by the Iraqi government, what part of majority ownership have you missed? Are you saying anybody dealing in any way with a company owned or partly owned by the Iraq government outside Iraq during this time was sanction busting?
"Hence AWB was paying "kickbacks" and "sanction busting".
Kickbacks is correct.
After all this time you still are yet to thank the US government for uncovering this corruption. I wonder why?
Not missing a beat (nor a fact)
I'm clear on the distinction between bribery and sanction busting, Jay (bribes aka kickbacks being sanction busting when sanctions are in place, of course). It'll be fun playing "Who thinks it was sanction busting?" while we watch the Cole inquiry this week.
I've not missed any part of "based in Jordan". Have you missed the part (reported some time ago) about Alia being run by an Iraqi family based in Jordan?
I've noticed you've read into Resolution 661 something about only companies majority owned by the Iraqi Government, which it does not say in fact. So yes, Jay, I'm saying anybody (from a UN country) dealing in specified ways (selling weapons, providing funds, buying oil, etc as prohibited under Resolution 661) with a company owned or partly owned by the Iraqi Government inside or outside Iraq during this time was sanction busting. I'm saying it because the UN Security Council said it plainly in Resolution 661.
Wonder why I have not yet thanked the US? Well, Jay, when the US Government completes the task of uncovering of its own corruption in Iraq I with thank them doubly. How's that for a deal?
Craig Rowley...
Craig Rowley:
After being warned and all I will paste the section for your benefit
4. Decides that all States shall not make available to the Government of Iraq or to any commercial, industrial or public utility undertaking in Iraq or Kuwait, any funds or any other financial or economic resources and shall prevent their nationals and any persons within their territories from removing from their territories or otherwise making available to that Government or to any such undertaking any such funds or resources and from remitting any other funds to persons or bodies within Iraq or Kuwait, except payments exclusively for strictly medical or humanitarian purposes and, in humanitarian circumstances, foodstuffs;
Still a business bribe and not sanction busting. The money was paid to a Jordanian company not a Iraqi one. Hence "bribery" and not "sanction busting". I am not aware the AWB sold anything to Iraq excepting wheat, a "foodstuff".
Caught in a lie
So on your prior reading where was the list you mentioned in your earlier comment Jay? Caught in a lie?
And still not comprehending?
"... shall not make available to the Government of Iraq ... any funds or any other financial or economic resources ..."
The kickback paid to Alia was sanction busting. The money was paid to a company based in Jordan and owned by the Iraqi Government. It was ostentisbly a payment for inland trucking services. Alia had no trucks. The wheat was moved by Iraqi Transport Ministry trucks and the money was funnelled to the Iraqi Government. Hence AWB was paying "kickbacks" and "sanction busting".
There is also evidence presented to the Cole inquiry that AWB paid bribes to a Pakistani official.
Yay for Vaile for he's the horses....
Hey all, whew, Mark Vaile has saved the day. How he managed to get to Iraq that quickly and convince the Iraqis to.... Hold on a second.
What was it that he achieved? Let's think about that. From my memory the Iraqis last week stated they would still buy Australian wheat but only if the AWB was excluded for obvious reasons. Yes, that's what they said.
So Mark Vaile achieved.... bugger all. Except expose himself for the suck hole he is.
What sort of person would fly to Iraq, pose for a few photos, have a grateful Iraqi stand next to him and announce he has saved the day for our wheat farmers when everyone knows what he supposedly achieved was announced a week ago?
I just cannot imagine how he and Howard think this has fooled anyone. But the news services are announcing it in that manner so many will believe this shit. And that's what it is.
Could I ask he repay the cost of his visit and suggest he could have done the same with a cardboard cutout in a studio in Canberra. Perhaps he did in which case I ask for him to pay back the costs of such a photo shoot.
I mean, really!
Craig Rowley "I thought
Craig Rowley: "'I thought sanction busting would be avoiding sanctions? Therefore the AWB must not have been allowed to sell wheat to Iraq, is this a fact? Or just an opinion?' It's evidence suggesting you are confused, Jay.”
What it suggests to me is that you do not know or choose not to find out the difference between sanction busting and bribery. For example if an Australian company was selling weapons to Iraq that would be considered "sanction busting". As I have said I was not aware wheat was on the list of banned products.
"You don't appear to understand the nature of the sanctions. My guess then, Jay, is that you haven't read UN Security Council Resolution 661 yet? Would you please confirm that as a fact, or demonstrate that you have read the resolution".
I have read it. Perhaps that is why I understand the difference between sanction busting and business bribery. Something it appears you do not.
BS Jay You've not read it
Jay White: "I have read it. Perhaps that is why I understand the difference between sanction busting and business bribery."
Is that a fact? What does point 4 say, Jay? If you've read it you would know what is considered sanction busting under point 4 and you would not have made the factual errors in your most recent comment. C'mon mate, show us you've really read it. Tell us what point 4 says.
Be warned Jay - don't try to fudge - I have provided the link three times and I have the text ready to paste.
Craig Rowley "So
Craig Rowley: "So alternate path No.1 was for the US to forego unilateral action for a time and work harder to get international agreement on a multilateral action. That makes the availability of alternate paths a fact. As to the prospects of success for that alternate path, well, why would an invasion force backed by a larger proportion of the world community be any less successful than the one that did invade? The possibility of success by a force with broader backing would at least be the same, if not better, wouldn't it?”
Well, I don’t think there would have ever been a larger invading force because this – the UN agreeing as a whole – was never going to happen. As to the reasons why, I guess we all have our own opinions on that.
My personal opinion is that a number of nations were indeed doing quite well out of Saddam and had little interest in seeing him go. My other opinion is that those constantly pointing to the UN as somehow a higher being of problem solving are moral cowards. The UN is used by them as a device to deflect from having to be honest in admitting to oneself that A. they are against for war, therefore Saddam remains in power. B. they are for the COTW therefore Saddam is removed. Just an opinion, mind you. I wonder how many others share it?
By the way, are you going to thank the US for getting these documents showing corruption and releasing them to the world? Being that your so for open and transparent government and all.
"I could go further with other alternates, but this is not the thread for it and the key point is already made – Jay, you present as fact things which are not fact and then you evade requests for evidence supporting your assertion of opinion as fact."
What? A bit like your use of the term "sanction busting"? I thought sanction busting would be avoiding sanctions? Therefore the AWB must not have been allowed to sell wheat to Iraq, is this a fact? Or just an opinion?
Evidence of confusion
"I thought sanction busting would be avoiding sanctions? Therefore the AWB must not have been allowed to sell wheat to Iraq, is this a fact? Or just an opinion?"
It's evidence suggesting you are confused, Jay.
You don't appear to understand the nature of the sanctions. My guess then, Jay, is that you haven't read UN Security Council Resolution 661 yet? Would you please confirm that as a fact, or demonstrate that you have read the resolution.
Craig Rowley...
Craig Rowley: "It is not a fact that Saddam was "not going any other way than the way he went". It was possible that a UN backed invasion could have been initiated. It was possible that such a path could have been more successful. It is a fact there were alternate paths to achieving the ends".
"From here on in, Jay, when you state something as fact it is only fair to readers that you provide."
Well, would you like to get the ball rolling by showing us all how exactly your plans of an "alternate path" would have been achieved? Keeping in mind the UN was running the very system that has now been found to be corrupt.
It also might be "fair" that you start providing "evidence" for your "facts". Apart from blaming everything and everybody you appear to disagree with, I see little in the way of supporting evidence for your "alternate path" world views.
Alternate paths a fact
Jay, here is the full text of Robin Cook's resignation speech in the House of Commons. Notice his view on available alternate paths (from a British perspective):
"Our interests are best protected not by unilateral action but by multilateral agreement and a world order governed by rules. Yet tonight the international partnerships most important to us are weakened: the European Union is divided; the Security Council is in stalemate. Those are heavy casualties of a war in which a shot has yet to be fired."
So alternate path No.1 was for the US to forgo unilateral action for a time and work harder to get international agreement on a multilateral action. That makes the availability of alternate paths a fact.
As to the prospects of success for that alternate path, well, why would an invasion force backed by a larger proportion of the world community (and with a clear legal basis for their action) be any less successful than the one that did invade? The possibility of success by a force with broader and legal backing would at least be the same, if not better, wouldn't it?
I could go further with other alternates, but this is not the thread for it and the key point is already made - Jay, you present as fact things which are not fact and then you evade requests for evidence supporting your assertion of opinion as fact.
Craig Rowley "The fact is
Craig Rowley: "The fact is that many people who did not support invasion of Iraq by the US-led Coalition nevertheless supported the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and his regime. The point of difference in views over the war can be an issue of means and timing. For example, I supported the overthrow of a corrupt Saddam through legal means that had the backing of the United Nations, including military means (despite my dislike of war), whilst others supported the overthrow of Saddam through legal means not including military means".
Well, here is a fact for you. Sadaam was not going any other way than the way he went. Welcome to the real world. Fact is if you and "others" had their way Saddam would still be.
Unpleasant thought, no?
Still haven't got your facts on fact right
Jay, you are showing yourself to be incapable of distinguishing between fact and opinion.
It is not a fact that Saddam was "not going any other way than the way he went". It was possible that a UN backed invasion could have been initiated. It was possible that such a path could have been more successful. It is a fact there were alternate paths to achieving the ends.
From here on in, Jay, when you state something as fact it is only fair to readers that you provide supporting evidence.
The Anatine Principle
With regard to making judgements on the actions and motives of officialdom and so-called authority, it seems all too often that not enough weight is accorded to what may be called the Anatine Principle.
This Principle, with authoritative roots in folk and colloquial wisdom, states that:
While it’s true that the Anatine Principle is not a completely reliable guide, it has the virtue that the vast majority of people tend to put great store in its efficacy in the conduct of their everyday lives. There are, of course, well documented instances where over-reliance on such an epistemological method has resulted in sub-optimal, and very occasionally catastrophic, outcomes. It ought to be recognized, however, that the average human being would not survive for one single day without applying this Principle.
In the context of a contemporary “issue” such as the present AWB scandal over wheat sales and kickbacks to Saddam’s Iraq, the corollary that follows from applying the Anatine Principle seems pretty clear.
A private company with intimate links to a junior but crucial partner in a ruling coalition (quack!) has been found to have broken the law and compromised international efforts to contain a supposed potential threat to world peace and security (waddle).
A national government with the duty of oversight for transactions in the Oil for Food program, and with the legislated means to carry it out, has been found to have failed to identify risks and to act upon information, and to be generally negligent in the exercise of its responsibility. (Quack!, quack!, waddle, quack!, waddle...)
The principle extends to any “controversial issue” one might care to consider, whether it be the question of complicity by a pre-eminent western power in the installation of a murderous regime such as that of Augusto Pinochet in Chile, or of connivance and deceit in the multifarious and murderous debacle that was and is the invasion and occupation of Iraq, or the “children (not) overboard” scandal, or indeed any other sub-cutaneous lesion in our body politic.
In summary, there is much merit in calling something for what it looks like. True, there’s the possibility of “getting it wrong”, but even worse may be the consequences of being cute about it and failing to act, for instance, just because it doesn’t happen to fit a preferred script.
My facts
Craig Rowley: "You've tied into this very question another of your opinions, which is undermined by fact. It is not a fact that no other nation bothered about the UN's rules. The fact is, other nations did bother about the UN rules - Canada for example".
Interesting you keep on about my facts really only being personal opinions. I was not aware the Cole inquiry had handed down its report as of yet. Given you already have government ministers found guilty. Would that be a fact or opinion?
Here is a plain fact for you. I supported the overthrow of a corrupt Saddam and those that did not support war did not.
"By the way, I was impressed by the opinion you shared in conclusion - that this should come up as an issue at the next Federal Election. You can say that again!
I hope it does and hope that Labor runs some of your "facts" as their policy. The electorate will get time to decide who is right and who is wrong on this issue soon enough.
It's opinion
"I was not aware the Cole inquiry had handed down its report as of yet. Given you already have government ministers found guilty. Would that be a fact or opinion?"
It's an opinion.
Here's a fact though, Jay - the Cole inquiry does not have the scope within its current terms of reference to find government ministers guilty of the things they are, in my opinion, likely to be guilty of.
Once again, not a fact
"Here is a plain fact for you. I supported the overthrow of a corrupt Sadaam and those that did not support war did not."
Jay, the first part stating that you support the overthrow of a corrupt Saddam may be a fact, but the second part of your statement is not a fact.
The fact is that many people who did not support invasion of Iraq by the US-led Coalition nevertheless supported the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and his regime. The point of difference in views over the war can be an issue of means and timing. For example, I supported the overthrow of a corrupt Saddam through legal means that had the backing of the United Nations, including military means (despite my dislike of war), whilst others supported the overthrow of Saddam through legal means not including military means.
I think you need to look up what a fact is Jay.
My opinion
Craig Rowley: “You've stated only opinion and much of it based on flawed assumptions - starting with a flawed assumption about the Howard Government's responsibilities under 661“.
Well, my opinion is what you asked me for!
In truth I really do not know what you want me to say. More to the point, what would you like to see come about because of the AWB scandal?
What really would you like see happen? Ministers from the Prime Minister down falling on their swords sobbing they did not uphold the UN rules that no other nation and the UN bothered about? Would you like to see the Australian farmers that gained from the deal hand back all money for the benefit of US wheat? If you wished to see the end to the AWB and the single wheat desk, this is now happening. Perhaps you wish for all Australian companies to come clean about dealings and give every competitor a distinct advantage over them? Perhaps we could all go back to isolationism and trading on coconuts, honey and sea shells between ourselves? Perhaps maybe you are just happy watching a bunch of overpaid lawyers staying in a life they have become accustomed to?
The AWB scandal and people’s feelings on it will be worked out soon enough. That will be called the next general election. That is also actually the way democracy works!
Response to Jay
"In truth, I really do not know what you want me to say?"
You could never know what I want you to say because I don't want you to say any particular thing. I support your freedom to say whatever you like about the AWB scandal, Jay. And when you seek to say something through Webdiary I support it as long as it is in line with our ethics and guidelines, which are designed to make this a place characterised by worthwhile conversations and debates. There are other outlets for the oafish and infantile. That said, I think it is entirely fair that when you state something as fact that is not fact then it will be pointed out.
By the way, I was impressed by the opinion you shared in conclusion - that this should come up as an issue at the next Federal Election. You can say that again!
"More to the point, what would you like to see come about because of the AWB scandal? What really would you like see happen?"
To answer this I'll first respond to your suggestions/questions.
"Ministers from the Prime Minister down falling on their swords sobbing they did not uphold the UN rules that no other nation and the UN bothered about?"
You've tied into this very question another of your opinions, which is undermined by fact. It is not a fact that no other nation bothered about the UN's rules. The fact is, other nations did bother about the UN rules - Canada for example.
Putting aside your mistatement of fact my answer is yes, I would like to see Downer and Vaile resign as an acknowledgement that they failed in their ministerial responsibilities. Downer for failing to meet the responsibilities taken on under UN Security Council Resolution 661 (have you read it yet Jay?), and Vaile for not ensuring Australian trade is fair trade generally and not sanctions busting trade specifically. If they choose to sob then I'll not be shedding a tear in sympathy. I'd not be disappointed by a lack of sobbing - the resignations will be sufficient.
Having said that is what I'd like to see, I very much doubt we'll see it. I'll take some comfort in seeing Howard, Downer and Vaile in discomfort as their actions, inaction, dissembling, dodging, twisting, implausible denial, distracting dog whistling and so on (not to mention the rorting, pork-barrelling, mean and tricky high tax taking) are exposed day after day.
"Would you like to see the Australian farmers that gained from the deal hand back all money for the benefit of US wheat?"
Another opinion loaded in this question that is at odds with the facts. If the kickback money were handed back to the UN escrow account then it would not benefit US wheat.
That aside, on the more general question of repayment of the monies then I think that those funds that were successfully funnelled to Saddam's Ba'athists should be recovered from them. Those funds still in the hands of AWB should be recovered from them. Growers shouldn't lose a cent on the wheat sold into the pool, though unfortunately grower-shareholders and all other AWB Ltd shareholders may lose money in that investment as a result of the dishonest dealings by AWB Ltd's management. They have recourse to take civil action against the management of AWB Ltd, other parties involved and AWB's auditors, advisors, insurers, etc.
"Perhaps you wish for all Australian companies to come clean about dealings and give every competitor a distinct advantage over them?"
Yes, I certainly wish all Australian companies would ensure they don't become sanctions busters. Yes, I wish for all Australian companies to be as accountable and transparent about their dealings as the law requires and beyond that to a level generally accepted ethical standards dictate. And it is debatable whether that gives every competitor a distinct advantage over Australian companies behaving ethically and in accordance with the laws governing Australian companies. Good ethics is good business.
"Perhaps we could all go back to isolationism and trading on coconuts, honey and sea shells between ourselves?"
I find this question difficult to interpret and understand. What do you mean, Jay? Why would a position seeking ethical business practices in international trade equate to seeking isolationism?
"Perhaps maybe you are just happy watching a bunch of overpaid lawyers staying in a life they have become accustomed too?"
If I could buy shares in law firms then maybe. No, seriously now, I wish the process of getting to the truth weren't so expensive. It would help if the parties involved co-operated, handed over all the documents, told the truth on the stand, etc. Sadly, it'll cost a bomb to get the truth out about the wheat for weapons scandal, and I'm not happy about that, especially when if Howard's Government had done its job and fulfilled their responsibilities under Security Council Resolution 661 there wouldn't be the need for it.
OK, so now with your questions out of the way I'll say that what I really want to see most is something like the wheat for weapons scandal never repeated. I think it is good that there has been a focus on this sustained for several weeks because the underlying message should become something to live in the memory of budding business people and politicians - bad business will come back to bite you.
You can barrack for bad business if you want to, Jay. I'll keep backing better accountability measures, vote for politicians who've demonstrated their accountability better than others and I'll continue make my investments, quite profitably, in ethical businesses.
By the way, I was impressed by the opinion you shared in conclusion - that this should come up as an issue at the next Federal Election. You can say that again!