Binning Reports: The UN and the Emergency Response

The reaction by members of the Rudd Government in Australia to the statement of Professor James Anaya, UN Special Rapporteur on Indigenous Human Rights, and his critique of the Northern Territory Emergency Response resemble those of their predecessors. The outside world, it would seem, has little to offer the Ruddites on indigenous affairs, who otherwise style themselves as 'internationalists.'

More on this in my piece in Eureka Street, September 3, 2009.

How to take the UN Indigenous Report Card

By Binoy Kampmark

When the statement of the UN Special Rapporteur on Indigenous Human Rights on the situation in the Northern Territory was released last week, there was a howl of protest. Professor James Anaya's 11-day tour of Aboriginal communities did not leave him with a positive impression. He found a compelling 'need to develop new initiatives and reform existing ones — to conform with international standards requiring genuine respect for cultural integrity and self-determination'.

The dyke of discontent duly opened. Warren Mundine, former Labor Party President and prominent Aboriginal activist has suggested binning the report, much like 'other' reports from that same office.

Jenny Macklin, in her role as Indigenous Affairs Minister, was more than a bit put out by the statement. She told ABC News: 'For me, when it comes to human rights, the most important human right that I feel as a Minister I have to confront, is the need to protect the rights of the most vulnerable particularly children and for them to have a safe and happy life and a safe and happy family to grow up in.'

Shredding or, in this case, binning a report from an international organisation is irresistible for hardnosed policy makers in the frontline of combating Aboriginal misery in the Northern Territory. Anaya is not himself being dogmatic. His statement is a sober, obvious reflection that programs are not duplicated, and that such matters as the Closing the Gap campaign, the Emergency Response and other government initiatives be achieved in partnership with local indigenous institutions.

He pays, as he should, respect to international human rights norms that place the Indigenous community in a prominent decision making role. Words like 'autonomy' and 'self-determination' should not be a species of rhetorical flotsam. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island peoples, he argues, should directly participate in the 'design of programs and polices at the national level, within a forum that is genuinely representative of the rights and interests of Indigenous peoples'.
He urges a 'holistic' approach in dealing with the problems of Australia's Indigenous peoples. None of these suggestions should upset the Rudd Government.

Anaya also encourages the deed more than the word. Reconciliation is not merely gnosis but praxis — action must be taken to pursue its objective. He is mindful of this in the context of the intervention. He cannot quite understand how the Emergency Response could be 'proportionate' in infringing rights. Rights may be violated in certain policy contexts that can be justified in the name of the 'public good', but one should always be wary of such assertions.

He recommends reinstating the protections offered by the Racial Discrimination Act. Ignoring Anaya's well-reasoned statement will not be disastrous for Australia. The judgments of international organisations are often blithely ignored. But refusing to at least pay respectful lip service to Anaya's statement continues a long tendency, instituted by the Howard Government, of ignoring international advice, convention and protocol.

That position comes close to that of such anti-treaty figures as John Bolton, former US Ambassador to the UN and staunch anti-internationalist. Such a rigid strategy of reducing treaties and recommendations to scraps of paper can trash pronouncements that might have some merit.

Wisdom does not always begin at home. There are times when it helps to have an international body condemn an obnoxious law or practice. Objective distance, and one attained from sources outside the problem, can also shed light on local conundrums. Too often, the Indigenous communities of Australia have had no other forum than an international one to air their grievances and express their grief.

The Intervention is discriminatory, insofar as it targets a specific social and historical problem associated with a particular people. It is a distasteful response to a distasteful problem. That would seem to be stating the obvious.

The onus is, as it always has been, on the government authorities to demonstrate the effectiveness of the Intervention and how it will benefit the Indigenous population. Some within the Indigenous community have agreed with it. Some haven't. The jury is out and circling. We still await the verdict.

The Hypothetical Terrorist

Anti-terror measures are always tinged, some might argue tainted, by hypothetical scenarios ('What would happen if that bomb had gone off?'). Exaggerations are often made by authorities keen to show a frightened public that their tax dollars are not going into a policy vacuum. I discuss some of these issues in a recent piece in Counterpunch, August 12, 2009.

Terror Australis: The Triumph of Hypothetical Attacks

Australia, the earth's largest island continent has had those customary fears associated with the nation still believing in notions of virgo intacta. Immigrations regulations are strict; intruders by leaky boats and unreliable rafts are treated with suspicion. Terrorist attacks are few and far between in a country that urbanized so rapidly it stifled the urge to revolt. Apart from the Hilton bombings in 1978, Australia has proven fairly immune from the phenomenon of political terrorism.

In the previous years, that sense of security has been disturbed. A plot to blow up spectators at sporting events in Australia was foiled and seven men imprisoned after final hearings were held last year. The case was, however, marred by inconsistencies and a questionable performance by the prosecution. The desperation at getting a conviction was palpable.

A few weeks ago, Australians were treated to boasts of Terror Foiled. It was claimed that suicide bombers associated with the Somali group Al-Shabaab had not succeeded in consummating their plans to storm the Holsworthy Army Barracks, a base in Sydney’s southwest, with the intent of killing numerous soldiers with assault weapons. With a certain condescending note, Time wrote about how, on August 4, Australians ‘quickly began to learn the pronunciation of the Somali terrorist group’s name.’ Four hundred police in a joint federal and state operation had moved across Melbourne, raiding nineteen properties. Four men were arrested that day, followed by another four the next. The men are of Lebanese and Somali background.

An unhealthy, psychic state has been unearthed in these revelations: a desire, almost a wish, that Australian sites would prove worthy as genuine terrorist targets. There is a hierarchy in the west on the worthy and unworthy in the terrorist game. A condition of terror envy has taken root. ‘There is,’ a grave Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd argued, ‘an enduring threat of terrorism at home here in Australia as well as overseas.’ For the ill-directed and confused figures beavering away at Canberra’s Australian Strategic Policy Institute, Australia remained, to quote one of its supposed experts Carl Ungerer, ‘a gold medal target for Al Qaeda’ begging the question as to when it attained that prestigious award.

In short, the terror ‘threat’ is everywhere, the unseen creature that strikes the unsuspecting. While it would demand a minimal economy of effort to strike at Holsworthy base, exaggeration is very much the norm in the lingua franca of anti-terrorism. A Somali-based terrorist organization intent on imposing Shari’a rule in Somalia proper does not look like a particularly strong, yet alone credible enemy for a country on the other side of the earth. Throw in an Al Qaeda link though, and you seem to rise in the ladder of terror envy.

Even Somali voices have weighed into the debate. A Somali leader, the Islamic scholar Dr. Herse Hilole, claims he made murmurings about the likelihood of an attack a few years ago. ‘My suspicion was that young Somali Muslims could be or may be used in the future to carry [out] some terrorist activities in Australia’ (ABC News, Aug 4). The Eritrean chairman of the Melbourne-based African Think Tank, Berhan Ahmed, has been toying with the idea Australia’s failed assimilation program would pose threats to its local security. 16,000 Somalis have found refuge in Australia, fleeing the ravages of civil war. But teething problems with integration remain. Housing complexes and tenements have become breeding grounds for disaffection. Un-employment is chronic. The options are stark: the embrace of charismatic religious figures or ruinous drugs.

We are left with the recurring hypothetical event, an occurrence unrealised, all the more potent for that fact. In the ‘age of terror’, the hypothetical terrorist event has become the premier showcase, the determining issue on policy. ‘Potentially this would have been, if it had been able to be carried out, the most serious terrorist attack on Australian soil,’ claims Federal Police Assistant Commissioner Tony Negus. An entire anti-terror system is based on invoking terror, measured by ‘states’ of emergency, alarm and concern. An entire apparatus in coping with terrorists employs methods of fear and surveillancewhile offering the disclaimer: we are doing it to protect you while watching you.

Links and evidence remain sketchy in these revelations. What was in the news as carnival fanfare has now died down, leaving the shadowy business to interrogators and trial lawyers. In a society that is currently functioning on the idea of a permanent war in times of permanent peace, we are left less clear than ever what role the Somali organization truly has in Australia. It is not a situation the authorities are necessarily keen to dispel. Public confusion, not to mention ignorance, persists in remaining the handiest of state assets.

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

BlackRock - Money-Management King

More consolidation is taking place in the global economy. A hungry BlackRock is acquiring Barclays Global Investors, making it the largest money manager in the world. Its assets will be staggering, surpassing that of the US Federal Reserve. Such a heavy concentration of assets should be worrying, though few are registering concerns as yet.

A piece by Karen Weise, from ProPublica (Jun 12, 2009) documents the move:

BlackRock is forking out $13.5 billion to buy Barclays Global Investors, forming the largest money manager in the world, reports Bloomberg News. The acquisition means BlackRock will manage $2.7 trillion in assets—more than the Federal Reserve.

BlackRock has drawn scrutiny for the scope of its reach throughout federal bailout programs; it helps manage many of the Treasury Department’s big investments, like AIG, the New York Times reported last month. In addition, Blackrock announced in March that it would participate in the government’s toxic-asset program as a private investor. (A BlackRock managing director told the Times that the company is very sensitive to potential conflicts of interest.)

Iran goes to the polls

Presidential elections in Iran beckon this Friday. A few discussions abound. Foreign Policy (Jun 10, 2009) looks at the American reaction (or non-reaction):

A Mousavi win would not mean smooth sailing for Washington's efforts to engage Iran, analysts caution. It could deepen fissures in the Iranian leadership or even prompt a hard-line backlash or crackdown that could further paralyze U.S. efforts to engage Iran, they say. But the voting out of incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would undoubtedly be seen in Washington and the West as a welcome sign that the Iranian public supports greater liberalization and a less hostile attitude toward the West.

Radio Free Europe (Jun 11, 2009) is adamant that the vote will be far from free or fair, noting the exclusion of up to 475 potential candidates:

Their choice is limited to present or former members of the Iranian establishment. Women are excluded, as are secular candidates and those considered unfaithful to Islamic and revolutionary values.

KFC Un-thought

Problems with free meals and the logistics of passing them over to a hungry public surfaced last week. Some of this can be found in my discussion in the May 12, 2009 issue of Scoop:

The Deal Un-Thought: KFC and Free Meals

By Binoy Kampmark

The idea of a free meal, whatever the quality, always has force. In a society where jobs are being lost more quickly than they are being replaced; in a world where food prices are volatile and often rising, an advertisement for a free feed is worth its weight of gold. Even if it emanates from Kentucky Fried Chicken.

It should be little surprise that a corporate giant like KFC decided to opt for the notion of bread, with perhaps more than its fair share of a circus. Panem et circenses, as the saying goes from the Roman satirist Juvenal, with its sense of forfeiting responsibility and sound policy. The corporate sector has lost a huge fan club, with complicit government officials happy to abdicate social responsibility in favour of market gains. Nothing like gratis chicken meals (‘healthy’ ones at that) to stay the rot and resurrect corporate goodwill for the public.

Enter the KFC coupon, available from a website aptly named ‘UnthinkKFC.com’. ‘Free 2 pc Kentucky Grilled Chicken meal.’ The recipient is promised two pieces of grilled chicken, at the discretion of the manager, two individual sides and a biscuit. The offer’s validity, according to the coupon available for printing, is from May 5 to May 19, but exclusive of Mother’s Day. (Mothers, it seems, don’t need free KFC meals.) It also had to be printed by a certain time: 10 the evening of Wednesday.

The company in time was wishing that it had ‘un-thought’ its offer. The high priestess of promotions, Oprah Winfrey, who creates social phenomena in the United States my merely uttering a few words, endorsed the offer on her program. The offer was also featured prominently on her website. The masses, with bellies eager for a free meal on download, rushed and queued, overwhelming various outlets in the country. Within 24 hours of the announcement, almost 11 million coupons had been printed.

By Thursday, the generosity of the food giant had well and truly evaporated. Having advertised the offer with fanfare, officials were now turning customers back, refusing to accept the coupon. Chicken supplies were apparently running thin. The next day, KFC President Roger Eaton was eating his words before Oprah, betraying a certain dottiness in what he termed the ‘chicken caper’. The company had ‘had a very big projection of numbers on this, but not in our wildest imagination could we believe the response we’ve gotten.’

Eaton is evidently not brimming with much imagination on this score. In this climate, people will eat food resembling worn leather and cardboard in numbers as long as they believe it is ‘free’. ‘Health’ has very little to do with it, even if an assortment of experts have suggested Oprah’s personal battle against an expanding waistline and her endorsement of a ‘healthier’ product made a difference. This is hardly a time for gourmandizing and nutritional squeamishness.

Having found itself in an uncomfortable position, the company has instructed all those at locations to pass out forms promising a free meal at some later date, accompanied by gratis soft drink. That’s put pay to the healthy aspect of it, in any case.

In the end, KFC found that it could barely provide the bread, but certainly the thronging circus. As one disappointed customer, Shannon Edwards, put it to a CNN affiliate station, ‘I have to go to McDonald’s now.’

Swine Flu Politics

Much in the world about swine flu at the moment, and while we should take it seriously, past mistakes ought to be noted. Remember 1976 and the swine flu that was said to be lethal enough as to potentially take the lives of one million Americans? The cure can at times be worse than the disease, and the immunization program the Ford Administration encouraged backfired dramatically.

Patrick Di Justo has a good piece in Salon.com, April 28, 2009. Hamilton Nolan at Gawker is less charitable to those keen on keeping us on our toes (and behind masks): Quickly, don your paper masks! Stay indoors! The dirty Mexican pig influenza is here, to sicken you! Wocka wocka.

My own contribution is available in 'Swine at the Trough: The Business of Pandemics,' at Counterpunch, April 30, 2009.

Law and John Demjanjuk

The legal rounds and the issue of war crimes committed during World War II continue in the Demjanjuk affair. It's a long one, stretching from Demjanjuk's battles in the Israeli justice system, to the legal limbo he finds himself in the US. German prosecutors are the latest to seek his extradition and trial.

The logistics of this are discussed in my piece 'Legal Purgatory and John Demjanjuk: A Drawn-Out Affair' in Counterpunch on April 21, 2009.