My Daily Advertiser Op Ed column for Tuesday 27 June 2023

In Australia we need to heed Daniel Ellsberg

My topic today might have flown under the radar for many readers, as its origin was the announcement last week of the death of Daniel Ellsberg, of Pentagon Papers fame.

To understand the significance of Daneil Ellsberg’s Pentagon Papers you need to be, approximately, as old as me. In his book Ellsberg disputed the Nixon White House claims about US progress in the Vietnam war. In so doing he fuelled the anti-Vietnam war movement and led to the eventual resignation of Nixon over the Watergate affair.

Bear with me. This isn’t about the dirty linen of the United States’ military-industrial complex. Instead, it is everything about us – Australia.

Emeritus Professor Stuart Rees, who founded the Sydney Peace Foundation, last week wrote in Pearls and Irritations “Daniel Ellsberg of Pentagon Papers fame, died on June 16. Asked about his decision to dispute the Nixon White House claims about US progress in the Vietnam war, Ellsberg said he had one regret. ‘I waited too long to release those papers. The bombs were already falling.’ From his death bed he stressed the value of warning against war before it is too late.”

If our politicians, journalists, think tank researchers and the general public would heed the Ellsberg lesson, there would be massive protest against Australia being seduced into compliant alliance with US military preparations for war against China over Taiwan.

But war talk is everywhere, and advocacy for peace too easily ignored.

In a culture historically influenced by the dominating mother country UK or big brother US, citizens have been comforted by deception that such alliances provide strength and security.

Freedom from that dependency requires our culture to grow up, question dogma, and protest loudly that the US taste for war remains highly dangerous and will benefit no one.

From the 2014 Force Posture Agreement which cedes control of military operations in Australia to the US, to locating thousands of marines in Darwin, the placement of B52 bombers at RAAF base Tindal and the extension of the Pine Gap listening station in readiness for US Australia military cooperation, the means of war are taken for granted.

Even the much lauded Defence Strategic Review (DSR) looks like a US military inspired document. Deferential to their big brother, the Morrison government paid handsome fees for advice from ex US admirals on defence policies. The Foreign Policy Defence Director at the US Studies Centre at the University of Sydney was paid almost a quarter of a million dollars as the lead author of the DSR.

From those deliberations and from a media frenzy of anti-China hysteria, the AUKUS alliance was born, not to defend Australia but to support the US by deploying nuclear powered submarines to patrol the Chinese coast.

As Professor Rees wrote, “Dependency cultures thrive on secrecy. Our supposed adult leaders say, you don’t need to know, and if anyone, Danielle Ellsberg, Julian Assange, David McBride or Bernard Collaery dares to challenge the military/political hierarchy, they should be derided and punished.”

Supposedly well informed, bi-partisan leaders expect gratitude for their cunning crafting of absurdly expensive alliances in preparation for the next war, but appalling human and environmental costs will not be counted until it’s all over. Bertrand Russell will not be heeded. He tried to teach that wars never determine who is right, only who is left.

If Australia weans itself from US/UK dependence it that would increase the enthusiasm for peace and the chances of hearing about it. That enthusiasm exists but is easily ignored.

Mainstream newspapers featured that Red Alert of antagonism towards China, and opponents of AUKUS can be derided as weak appeasers. Threats of a khaki election frightened Labor leaders and have almost certainly prompted them to insist they are as strong for war preparations as their right wing, patriotism-for-ever opponent, as its oh-so prompt acceptance of egregious AUKUS clearly shows.

On television infotainment shows such as ABC’s Q+A, people who know something about peace studies or who have experience of peace negotiations are distinguished by their absence. With few exceptions, such as Phillip Adams on Radio National’s Late Night Live, peace, let alone peace with justice, is apparently not worth programming time. Better to have a rehash of the sights and sounds of old wars., so as to prepare us for the next one.

My Daily Advertiser Op Ed column for Tuesday 13 June 2023

“Lies, murder and witness intimidation”: Judge on Ben Roberts-Smith

I had originally intended to devote today’s column to an analysis of the implications of the outcome of the Ben Roberts-Smith’s defamation case, but so damning was the wording of the full judgement released last week I will instead focus on summarising its content.

Because they are the clearly stated findings of the trial there is no need for me to write ‘alleged’ in front of every reported misdemeanour. 

“Victoria Cross recipient Ben Roberts-Smith was “not an honest and reliable witness” who lied about his involvement in war crimes to gain financially from his now failed defamation action”, Paul Bongiorno reported in The New Daily.

The Saturday Paper headlined him as “War Criminal”.

In the full judgement Justice Anthony Besanko launched a scathing criticism against the former SAS corporal who had motives to lie about the events in Afghanistan.

“I find that (Mr Roberts-Smith) was not an honest and reliable witness,” the judge said in the full judgement report.

The ex-soldier sent threatening letters to witnesses who ultimately gave evidence against him at the defamation trial. In fact he hired a team of private investigators to find out their addresses.

“The sending of the letters may constitute a criminal offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice … or using a postal or similar service to menace, harass or cause offence,” Justice Besanko said.

Mr Roberts-Smith used burner phones, used encrypted apps and buried USB sticks in a lunchbox in his ex-wife’s backyard once he knew he was an important subject of an investigation by the Inspector General of the Australian Defence Force.

The activity to hide his tracks took place as the media reported truthfully on war crimes committed while Mr Roberts-Smith was deployed in Afghanistan.

During a 2009 Easter Sunday raid on a compound codenamed Whiskey 108, Mr Roberts-Smith machine-gunned an unarmed prisoner in the back, taking the man’s prosthetic leg back to Australia to use as a beer drinking vessel.

Mr Roberts-Smith stood silent as a rookie soldier was ordered to execute an elderly Afghan prisoner so he could be “blooded”.

Justice Besanko called the former SAS corporal’s denials of these incidents “highly improbable” after hearing from independent witnesses with no reason to be dishonest.

“The applicant has motives to lie, being a financial motive to support his claim for damages in these proceedings, a motive to restore his reputation which he contends has been destroyed by the publication of the articles and significantly, a motive to resist findings against him which may affect whether further action is taken against him.”

Justice Besanko found one of the newspapers’ central claims — that Mr Roberts-Smith had kicked an unarmed and handcuffed man, Ali Jan, off a cliff and then ensured he was shot — was true.

As evidence of his guilt, Mr Roberts-Smith attempted to cover up the unlawful killing at Darwan in September of 2012 by removing Mr Jan’s handcuffs and planting a radio alongside his lifeless body before he was photographed.

Mr Roberts-Smith then told fellow SAS soldiers who witnessed the incident to stick to an approved story that Mr Jan was a spotter they killed legitimately.

In accepting the newspapers’ claims, Justice Besanko rejected Mr Roberts-Smith’s account of the incident, which was riddled with a number of improbabilities.

In October, 2012 in the Chinartu district, Mr Roberts-Smith ordered another soldier to execute an unarmed Afghan prisoner being interrogated after his troop discovered a fake wall cavity filled with weapons, including rocket propelled grenades and warheads.

“Person 12 then gave instructions to an NDS-Wakunish soldier who then shot the Afghan male in circumstances amounting to murder,” Justice Besanko said.

“(Mr Roberts-Smith) was complicit in and responsible for murder.”
Reports Mr Roberts-Smith bullied soldiers and assaulted prisoners were also true.

This included an attack on a prisoner in Deh Rafshan in March 2010 where, after soldiers detained an Afghan male who posed no threat, the war veteran entered the room and launched three to four “quick-fire punches” to the man’s head.

So damning are the facts of this report it may lessen the chances of a successful appeal. Justice Besanko also suggested that the evidence was so strong a criminal case against Roberts-Smith was likely to succeed.

My Daily Advertiser Op Ed column for today

Albanese wrong to heap praise on Modi

It was worrying to see our Prime Minister sycophantly refer to Indian PM Narendra Modi as “The Boss” during the recent rally at Sydney’s Qudos Arena, as the crowds cheered and cheered at what has been described as a ‘rock star’ welcome.

No doubt this analogy spurred Albanese’s reference to Bruce Springsteen, but “Whether Modi is a Bruce Springsteen fan or not, light-heartedly or otherwise, it is impossible to imagine him ever calling an Australian prime minister his boss”, wrote columnist Malcolm Knox in the Sydney Morning Herald.

My concern here isn’t that Albanese debased himself by kowtowing so blatantly to Modi, though that is bad enough, but rather that he was complicit in supporting an obviously Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) event.

It’s not just that Modi’s party is socially conservative, economically neoliberal, stridently nationalist political movement, as we have feted leaders from other countries that are equally conservative.

The problem is that Modi’s government persecutes India’s ethnic minorities, and it imprisons human rights activists. There are also the problems of the likely jailing of the leader of its largest opposition party, its global leadership in internet shutdowns and its targeted political censorship, amid a long list of anti-democratic activities listed by Human Rights Watch and other organisations, not to mention its neutrality on Putin’s war in Ukraine.

The imagery of the event was an eye-opener that added insult to injury. The two leaders entered and, to euphoric roars, raised their hands together like political running mates. Albanese introduced Modi, using the Springsteen comparison, like an MC performing the curtain-raiser for the main event.

Modi delivered most of his speech in Hindi, driving home what was already obvious: this was a political event for an Indian audience. Within a year, Modi will be standing for re-election. Our PM had walked straight into it. Unfortunately, he was loving it.

The imbalance was plain – the event was as surreal as Albanese going to Mumbai in an election year and holding an ALP rally.

Following protocol, Australia’s disposition was traditionally bipartisan. At the rally, one row back from Albanese was Peter Dutton. Albanese’s discussions with Modi aimed at improving trade and migration agreements while steering clear of the faux pas of questioning the BJP party’s record on human rights or India’s implicit support of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Australia’s ever-so eager-to-please behaviour highlighted the asymmetry of the relationship. Australia was not setting the terms. Modi, meanwhile, was unafraid to make suggestions on internal Australian affairs, gaining Albanese’s consent to take “strict actions” against anyone attacking Hindu temples in Australia. This referred to separatist and anti-Modi graffiti written on temples in Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane this year.

Yet we have condemned these attacks. Nonetheless The Times of India reported Modi urging Albanese to make “the safety of the Indian community a special priority for him”. Modi’s message was for domestic Indian consumption, emphasising Modi’s ability to have Albanese – who does not run state police and had never shown any sign of tolerance of these acts – say what Modi wants him to say.

It was hard not to stand back and appreciate the contrast. On the one hand, Australia is silent on India’s many human rights failings as listed above yet on the other hand, ‘The Boss’ can raise the graffiti-ing of temples and receive warm reassurances that we will do better.

Questioned the next morning Albanese said there were “1.4 billion reasons” for Australia to strengthen ties with India. Though to a degree he may be right, at a politicised event, his actions took sides against the 63 per cent of Indian voters who did not support Modi in the 2019 elections. By being used, while trying so hard to be non-partisan, Albanese unwittingly puts hundreds of millions of anti-Modi Indians offside.

India is now the world’s biggest country by population, and in a generation it will be an economic superpower, possibly eclipsing China. It is not merely Australia’s useful ally in an alliance to counterbalance China’s influence. India is fast becoming the main player in our region. It knows this, hence ‘The Boss’ setting the rules and the embarrassingly obsequious host blatantly giving him everything he wants. Such, apparently and very regrettably, is the way of contemporary geopolitics.