Dubai Economic Podcasts
August 2008 #2 - Georgia On My Mind
Public First Program Editorials
You may have heard about the little stoush being fought out in the Republic of Georgia at present. Georgia is a little country that grew out of the former Soviet Union. Bordered by the Black Sea to the west, Turkey and Armenia to the South, Azerbaijan to the east and Russia to the north, this little country could well be the flash point for a new cold war. The bloody rule of the communist leaders of the former Soviet Union, during most of last century, saw thousands killed and many more displaced. We would now describe it as ethnic cleansing. However, for the most part we weren’t interested in another patch of soil well removed from our good friend and partner, the US. Yet all the while, US and European interests were very interested in this part of the world. Not content with ‘winning’ the cold war, the masters of the universe - the financiers and their cronies - recognised the strategic value of this little place and were prepared to finance any war that would deliver to them the spoils. One can only appreciate the strategic value of this country in the current political climate when you consider oil. The pictures of the dead and dying, the focus on the high tech war machines and the grief of those who have lost everything obscure the real conflict. Forget ethnic separatists. Forget breakaway states. Focus on the money, or in this case, the oil that makes the money. The conflict is another example of the increasingly common use of revisionist history to support those for whom war is just another way of doing business. With the US and Israeli military backing Georgian militias, in an attempt to ensure the Georgian government remains prepared to do deals with their interests, it is little wonder the Russians are concerned. Whether the current conflict was sparked by Russian or Georgian aggression doesn’t really matter. The fact is they while oil flows through the pipes running over and under that dirt, there will be conflict. The pretext of “separatist” attacks or “rebel” forces has the media focus at present. The increasingly shallow and disjointed ‘reporting’ on the region does little to alert us to the involvement of the futures traders and investment houses that stand to win, or loose, billions depending on whose might prevails. With the British BP and US companies Chevron and ConocoPhillips being heavy investors in the oil pipeline running through Georgia, one has to ask, is it the right time to invest in the oil giants? Certainly they and their end customers (other oil companies) have quite a bit to loose should this regional war go pear shaped. Governed by greed and geopolitical deals, the strategic value of building the pipeline through Georgia was the easy option. It’s not Turkey, Russia or Iran. By dint of its location, this country lends itself to the whims of others not at all interested in its peoples, cultures or languages. Of course, this diversity can be used to stir up conflict when needed and that is, perhaps, the greatest strength and weakness of the whole region. Indeed, it has been the objective of all colonial powers to find the divisions, amplify them and attempt to shape them to fit their own agendas. Sometimes these agendas are revealed in the tiniest news snippets. George W. Bush said to the world that Russia should back off, that it was not kosher to invade a sovereign nation. He said that the Russians should withdraw and allow the democratically elected government find a solution, with the ‘worlds’ help, to its internal problems. What words! What a crock of male bovine excreta. To quote a segment of a famous Monty Python skit, “the inherent contradictions of the system” are showing. So long as US and European oil interests are threatened and along with them the stability of the structures that hold them up - the futures markets, investment advisors and more importantly our tax dollars - then it is inevitable under the capitalist system that wars will be fought over access to wealth producing resources. Justice and fairness do not enter these equations. The conflict is not over ideologies, cultures or religions but over who will take home the spoils. Meanwhile the people of Ossetia and Georgia will continue be played as the pawns in a much larger game of chess. A game of geopolitical chess, in which people are but bit players on a board laid according to the rules of capitalist accumulation. While diplomats and foreign advisors continue to earn their money by spruiking the interests of those who pay them, other human beings, who want very similar things to us, will continue to die. While the muscle men in the big houses squabble over the spoils, the hopes and dreams of tens of thousands will remain well outside their discussions. Our current government sees itself as being able to hold its own in the global debating club. However, as far as I can see from history, the influence of our politicians to shape the global agenda has been very small, particularly when it comes to the resource wars. As a resource rich landscape the strategic value of what lies under our soil remains high so long as we, that is we the people, don’t argue to much over who benefits from its exploitation. The conflict in Georgia is just another reminder that the real rulers of the world care little for the expectations of those they rule. Like the feudal rulers of old, so long as were tend our crops, pay them homage and taxes and bow and scrape when they pass by, the new rulers of the universe are content to let us be content with our lot. Should we, however, decide to attempt to claim back what is rightfully ours and share the spoils more equitably, then god help us all. So while in far off lands innocent people die because of the greed of others, we can remain content with our lot. Should we, as suggested, attempt to interfere then, like other ‘democracies’ that have been overrun by foreign powers, we might just find that an ‘insurgent’ or ‘breakaway’ group is suddenly identified as a global terrorism threat right here on our soil. I guess the question for us then would be, ‘whose side are we on?’ Perhaps somewhere around that point the people of Georgia, who still have homes and TV’s, might hear about a little nation at the bottom end of the earth that suddenly becomes the focus of the geopolitics of oil. For our sake, let’s hope not. read less
Latest Episodes for this Channel
August 2008 #2 - Georgia On My Mind
Fri August 15 2008
You may have heard about the little stoush being fought out in the Republic of Georgia at present. Georgia is a little country that grew out of the former Soviet Union. Bordered by the Black Sea to the west, Turkey and Armenia to the South, Azerbaijan to the east and Russia to the north, this little country could well be the flash point for a new cold war. The bloody rule of the communist leaders of the former Soviet Union, during most of last century, saw thousands killed and many more displaced. We would now describe it as ethnic cleansing. However, for the most part we weren’t interested in another patch of soil well removed from our good friend and partner, the US. Yet all the while, US and European interests were very interested in this part of the world. Not content with ‘winning’ the cold war, the masters of the universe - the financiers and their cronies - recognised the strategic value of this little place and were prepared to finance any war that would deliver to them the spoils. One can only appreciate the strategic value of this country in the current political climate when you consider oil. The pictures of the dead and dying, the focus on the high tech war machines and the grief of those who have lost everything obscure the real conflict. Forget ethnic separatists. Forget breakaway states. Focus on the money, or in this case, the oil that makes the money. The conflict is another example of the increasingly common use of revisionist history to support those for whom war is just another way of doing business. With the US and Israeli military backing Georgian militias, in an attempt to ensure the Georgian government remains prepared to do deals with their interests, it is little wonder the Russians are concerned. Whether the current conflict was sparked by Russian or Georgian aggression doesn’t really matter. The fact is they while oil flows through the pipes running over and under that dirt, there will be conflict. The pretext of “separatist” attacks or “rebel” forces has the media focus at present. The increasingly shallow and disjointed ‘reporting’ on the region does little to alert us to the involvement of the futures traders and investment houses that stand to win, or loose, billions depending on whose might prevails. With the British BP and US companies Chevron and ConocoPhillips being heavy investors in the oil pipeline running through Georgia, one has to ask, is it the right time to invest in the oil giants? Certainly they and their end customers (other oil companies) have quite a bit to loose should this regional war go pear shaped. Governed by greed and geopolitical deals, the strategic value of building the pipeline through Georgia was the easy option. It’s not Turkey, Russia or Iran. By dint of its location, this country lends itself to the whims of others not at all interested in its peoples, cultures or languages. Of course, this diversity can be used to stir up conflict when needed and that is, perhaps, the greatest strength and weakness of the whole region. Indeed, it has been the objective of all colonial powers to find the divisions, amplify them and attempt to shape them to fit their own agendas. Sometimes these agendas are revealed in the tiniest news snippets. George W. Bush said to the world that Russia should back off, that it was not kosher to invade a sovereign nation. He said that the Russians should withdraw and allow the democratically elected government find a solution, with the ‘worlds’ help, to its internal problems. What words! What a crock of male bovine excreta. To quote a segment of a famous Monty Python skit, “the inherent contradictions of the system” are showing. So long as US and European oil interests are threatened and along with them the stability of the structures that hold them up - the futures markets, investment advisors and more importantly our tax dollars - then it is inevitable under the capitalist system that wars will be fought over access to wealth producing resources. Justice and fairness do not enter these equations. The conflict is not over ideologies, cultures or religions but over who will take home the spoils. Meanwhile the people of Ossetia and Georgia will continue be played as the pawns in a much larger game of chess. A game of geopolitical chess, in which people are but bit players on a board laid according to the rules of capitalist accumulation. While diplomats and foreign advisors continue to earn their money by spruiking the interests of those who pay them, other human beings, who want very similar things to us, will continue to die. While the muscle men in the big houses squabble over the spoils, the hopes and dreams of tens of thousands will remain well outside their discussions. Our current government sees itself as being able to hold its own in the global debating club. However, as far as I can see from history, the influence of our politicians to shape the global agenda has been very small, particularly when it comes to the resource wars. As a resource rich landscape the strategic value of what lies under our soil remains high so long as we, that is we the people, don’t argue to much over who benefits from its exploitation. The conflict in Georgia is just another reminder that the real rulers of the world care little for the expectations of those they rule. Like the feudal rulers of old, so long as were tend our crops, pay them homage and taxes and bow and scrape when they pass by, the new rulers of the universe are content to let us be content with our lot. Should we, however, decide to attempt to claim back what is rightfully ours and share the spoils more equitably, then god help us all. So while in far off lands innocent people die because of the greed of others, we can remain content with our lot. Should we, as suggested, attempt to interfere then, like other ‘democracies’ that have been overrun by foreign powers, we might just find that an ‘insurgent’ or ‘breakaway’ group is suddenly identified as a global terrorism threat right here on our soil. I guess the question for us then would be, ‘whose side are we on?’ Perhaps somewhere around that point the people of Georgia, who still have homes and TV’s, might hear about a little nation at the bottom end of the earth that suddenly becomes the focus of the geopolitics of oil. For our sake, let’s hope not. read less
August 2008 #1 - The Royal Gosper
Wed August 06 2008
Everyone loves freebies. You know, a free hat or t-shirt to remember an event by. Even Royalty like to be in on them. The Olympic Family are royalty. Well at least that’s what they like to think of themselves as, not mere mortals who must adhere to the strictures of even mundane things like “the truth” or “moral obligation”. No, this group, who control the multibillion-dollar circus we lovingly call “The Olympics”, are not like us. They inhabit a universe to which many aspire but must remain satisfied just observing. Take for instance the 2000 Sydney games. You remember them. “Our” Cathy running in and the Big Barby groaning its way up the ramp while she stood there all wet and dripping. Boy, did we show them how it was done. Well, at least until Athens. But back to Sydney. You may recall the little ‘hiccup’ Kevan Gosper caused when he pulled rank and got the Greek-Australian girl, Yianna Souleles, kicked off the Olympic relay. He had obviously promised his little girl, Sophie, that she would be the first Australian to hold the torch when it touched down here and as a dad needed to fulfil the promise. At the time another member of the “Olympic Family” jumped to Gosper’s defence and said the whole thing was a storm in a tea cup and that the “Olympic Family” were all happy. Of course, as an International Olympic Committee Vice President and the then Vice President of the Sydney games, none of us should jump to any conclusions here. “Our” Kevan is a highly distinguished man. Fifty years ago he was part of a team that won a race. He has also been an oil man and a Director of a number of high profile companies including Richard Pratt’s Visy, Packer’s Crown and brewer Lion Nathan. He is currently in his 20th year as Chairperson of the Olympic Press Commission and is the Deputy Chair of the Beijing Organizing Committee. While Kevan is probably a really nice man who loves his family and would rather see his daughter hold up a flaming stick than allow mere agreements and protocols to get in the way, I don’t think he is man I could trust. I mean, he has come out all warm and gooey over the Beijing internet scam and taken the blame for it all. I think he’s just a good PR front man who was feeling a little ignored by the media and wanted the opportunity to get his mug on camera. Nonetheless, here’s the facts as we know them. China is a totalitarian state. The ruling class there don’t like anything causing them inconvenience. They forced poor old Rupert to drop the BBC from his satellite service and bent the arm of Google and Yahoo till they gave in and set up internet filters to keep out anything the rulers took umbrage at. However, the rulers of the Olympic Family said they had made sure international journalists would have uncensored internet access for the Games period. Guaranteed! The Chinese organizers said they would cooperate with the IOC and ensure just that. Well, as we know, someone lied. “Our” Kevan then admits he is embarrassed at the backroom deal done by someone higher up in the Family agreeing that internet censorship did not need to be lifted. Someone higher? He’s a VP. Surely the only one higher would be the President, Jacques Rogge? Well, good old Jacques came out and said no deals had been done and it would all be OK. But is it? Not really. Here’s what “our” Kevan had to say on the 7:30 Report. Early in an interview with “our” Kerry O’Brian, “our” Kevan said that there had been no deal on “increased censorship”. Do we imply from this that, according to him, a little bit of censorship is OK? Using pornography and subversive websites as examples, “our” Kevan told “our” Kerry that all countries have some degree of censorship and that this “grey” area was where things tipped over. According to Kevan “what we have now is very reasonable in terms of what the broadcasters and the press need to report on the Games.” He then slipped up big time. In the next sentence he let it slip that all along the IOC and its rulers allowed China to impose as much restriction on internet access as it could. Note his words. “Overall I believe you will find the reporting for an audience of 4.1 or 4.2 billion people will be absolutely consistently, almost consistent, I've changed my word, but certainly satisfactory to the viewers as it had been in past Games”. Notice the qualifications. From “absolutely” consistent to “almost consistent”, all the way down to “satisfactory”. By employing the best propaganda techniques he is saying, in effect, ‘we wont allow anything that might upset the Chinese get through and we are happy to collaborate with them in reaching that goal’. “Our” Kevan went on to say that the Chinese government wanted to show off the Chinese “way of life”. A rather strange comment given that they won’t brook any protests, bussed the vagrants out of the city, won’t allow any view that diverges from the Party’s and are doing all they can to stamp out “differences” over the Tibet “problem”. I guess the only thing we can draw from Kevan’s comment is that the Chinese government only wants us to see what they want us to see. A bit like the Howard government in 2000 not wanting the international media to report on his regime’s appalling treatment of our Indigenous people. The only ‘authorised’ Aboriginality allowed in the lead up to and during the Sydney Olympics was that which conformed to the patronising and colonialist perspective of the first Australians as ‘noble savages’. But Kevan was not satisfied with the inherent contradictions in his defence of the Olympic Family and the way it does its business. When asked what his thoughts were regarding athlete’s right to protest, he said they should not worry about that and focus on their events. Kevan said “There are any number of NGOs, non-government organizations, out there, through to Amnesty International, pro-Tibetan groups; you name it, that's their role to work with Governments.” I had to think about that for a nanosecond. Then I remembered. They were the ones the Great Chinese Firewall blocked. Now, I’m not the brightest spark in the fire, but surely Kevan doesn’t want us to take him seriously, does he? The Olympic Family is just another multinational corporation that has, in modern times, been used as a vehicle for nationalism, geopolitics, the promotion of the most unhealthy foods and beverages you can think of, feeds off a ‘winner takes all’ mentality, plays up the culture of celebrity and privilege and allows government repression of those who it believes might stand in the way of, as Kevan says, the “harmony” of the games. The Olympic Family are, nonetheless, royalty. They are no different from the other despotic and fascist ruling clans that precede them. They are a law unto themselves, given to whims and fancies that turn the dreams of mere mortals to dust. They lie, cheat, and stab each other in the back if things don’t go their way. They believe that they are more important than the heads of the states their games are played in. They make demands which weak and grovelling governments give into. They demand absolute league and their pound of flesh. They are corrupt and like all Royalty and they don’t give a toss about the poverty that exists on their door step. Nor do they care about the mess they leave behind. The only harmony they want is that which allows them to get a free ride, the best hotels and seats in the house and a free souvenir t-shirt. read less
July 2008 #3 - Obama-Danger to the Middle East
Wed July 30 2008
Any of us who have attempted to speak ‘off the cuff’ in a public setting know just how dangerous it can be. We can muddle our words, prattle on incoherently and ‘mis-speak’ important facts. So when it comes to politicians delivering speeches we can rest assured that the words we hear were carefully planned and scripted. Not only do the words have to make some kind of sense, they have to fit the established narrative they are creating based on the historic record that precedes them. Of course some people are better in delivering their words (think Rudd or Howard) than others (think Bush II). In the last couple of weeks US Presidential candidate, Barak Obama, toured the European and Middle Eastern region spruiking himself as the candidate who would deliver a new United States to them. Outside his public appearances he met with many ‘movers and shakers’ in order to deliver to them his personal guarantees on what he would deliver should he win office. While we, the ordinary people, may never find out what he said in these closed meetings we do have records of many of his public utterances. It is these and those utterances on the Israeli / Palestinian conflict that I want to examine. I want to begin with a speech he made prior to leaving for his jaunt through the East. On July 4th he gave an address to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. This organisation is the loudest, most cashed up and most connected pro-Israel lobby group in the US. They are the eyes and ears to the words and deeds in high places. Obama began his address by saying that the Zionist lobby in the US “shared values and shared stories” that bound them together and that as “President [he] will work with [them] to ensure that this bond [is] strengthened”. He waxed lyrical on how the bible stories of Israel had created within him a desire to find his “homeland”. He told of his horror at the Holocaust stories and that he subscribed to the “never again” philosophy. He then turned the history of the little town now known as Sderot (Stay-Rote) on its head. This little town is one of the ones we read about as being under attack from Palestinian rockets. What we don’t hear is how this town came to be in Israel’s possession. Like many of the occupied towns, Sderot was stolen from its inhabitants who were forced, at gun point, to vacate their houses and land for the Zionist dream. When you read the Zionist history it says that Sderot was “first inhabited in 1951”. The farmers and their families who lived there prior to then were forced out and their farms destroyed. The Zionist history that Obama’s speech writers obviously used fails to acknowledge the ethnic cleansing of this town. Indeed the Zionist history shows that there is “no significant Arab population” in the town. How could there be? The Israeli army keeps them away. Obama went on to say how bad it was for the settlers and soldiers who now live on that stolen land. Further into his speech Obama said he would strengthen the US / Israel alliance and that, as President, he would provide up to $US30 billion dollars in military aid so that Israel could maintain its “military advantage” in the region. He also said that, as President, he would ensure the steady flow of weapons to Israel would continue and he would campaign for Israel’s right to “defend itself”. Just after uttering this he proclaimed that the “Palestinian people must understand” that “Israel’s security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable”. In other words, Arabs can go jump if they challenge Israel’s crushing power. While he says pressure must be put on the Arab nations to back off, he went on to say that, “we must never force Israel to the negotiating table.” Towards the end of his address he said, “I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel.” Obama is a great orator and commands respect when he speaks. He doesn’t mince his words and on the campaign trail he has rarely stumbled in his rhetoric or the narrative he is creating. However, like so many who crave power he is a fully paid up member of the “memory hole” club. A club whose members refuse to acknowledge anything that might undermine their thin veneer of respectability, credibility and sincerity. Any inconvenient truth that stands in the way must be flushed down the “memory hole” immediately. After his Zionist sponsored free dinner he flew off to tour the Middle East and Europe. While he briefly met with Palestinian leaders in the West Bank his rhetoric and promise to defend Israel never waivered. He did not once get ‘off script’. When he held his most spectacular media event at the ethnically cleansed village of Sderot he made no reference to its pre-occupation history which, I suppose, would have revealed an inconvenient truth to the rapturous media pack. While he took time to dress up as a Jew and ‘worship’ at the Wailing Wall, he did make sure his Christian commitment did not surface and decry the injustice meted out by the Israeli government and his own on the Palestinians. Like a true statesman he did not have to negotiate the so called ‘security fence’ that renders his hope for a “contiguous Palestinian territory” impossible. In fact by the time he made it to Germany he had totally forgotten the 10 metre high cement fortress that encases many Palestinians and separates them from their livelihoods. When he got up to speak in Berlin a few days later Barak Obama had conveniently ignored the facts on the ground pertaining to the real plight of Palestinians and launched into a speech that contained so much irony I can only deduce it was written by someone like comedian John Stewart of “The Daily Show” rather than a seasoned, steeped in history speech writer. His call to solidarity and shared suffering must have warmed the hearts of some of the crowd there. Of course he didn’t mention the bombing of Dresden by the US ally, Britain. Nor did he mention the US role in supplying engineering expertise and machinery that assisted in Hitler’s rise. Nor did he mention the way the US prevaricated in the final days of the push into Berlin and how it allowed the Russian forces to occupy West Berlin. But I suppose that would have been inconvenient given his audience. A few days prior to this speech he had again declared that when it comes to Israel / Palestinian relations a two state solution is the only way out. However when it came to the “brave” Berliners he said, “People of the world - look at Berlin, where a wall came down, a continent came together, and history proved that there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one.” He went on to say, “the German people, tore down that wall - a wall that divided East and West; freedom and tyranny; fear and hope - walls came tumbling down around the world. From Kiev to Cape Town, prison camps were closed, and the doors of democracy were opened”. The greatest irony in his speech was uttered when he declared, with a straight face and no sense of shame, “That is why the greatest danger of all is to allow new walls to divide us from one another. … The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down.” Barak Obama is no friend of the Palestinian people. Zionists here and in the US do have reservations about him and his commitment to their cause. Yet, as far as his public utterances go and I have only quoted a few, it seems that he will carry their banner high when developing US foreign policy. Like Blair after Thatcher and Major, like Rudd after Howard, Obama after Bush will pretty much be “more of the same”. Nothing will change. There will be tinkering around the edges and some cosmetic changes. There will be new forms of rhetoric but in essence, nothing will change. Palestinians, during this occupation, will continue to die at a rate of 3 or 5 to 1 compared to Israelis. Should he become President, during Obama’s reign, the wall will not be pulled down and Israel will not be forced to adhere to the numerous UN Resolutions calling for it to desist and return to the 1948 borders. So long as US foreign policy is not geared towards undoing the terrible wrongs of Israel and its bloody occupation, the underlying causes of the mess in the Middle East will not be resolved. Perhaps even more disturbing, Obama might just be the President who increases the power of the military industrial complex rather than rein it in as many hope. Obama doesn’t have the luxury of being able to speak ‘off the cuff’. As the potential next President of the USA, he has to ensure that all his words are carefully crafted and delivered. He has to surround himself with people who will not challenge the narrative he is creating nor raise the history he is ignoring. If Barak Obama is not able to speak ‘off the cuff’ then we can only presume his public utterances are the considered and approved versions of how he views the world. We can also presume that he repeats the words of his speech writers verbatim because they are the words and thoughts he agrees with. If this is the case then Barak Obama might just be an even more dangerous President that George Bush ever was. read less
July 2008 #2 - The Real Danger Within
Wed July 23 2008
We live in troubled times. Perhaps the words of George Orwell in 1984 were prophetic in some small way. Who knows, maybe he did have an alien implant that gave him foresight? But perhaps that is my paranoia speaking. Whatever the situation, it seems that as time passes I can’t help but think that things just keep getting curiouser and curiouser. Before I go on, I think its important to acknowledge that for many communities within our society life is rough, tough and often brutal. There are many groups who face discrimination, exclusion and vilification. Skin colour, religious affiliation, cultural background and language are the outward markers each of us carry and which mark us out as coming from somewhere and belonging to one ‘tribe’ or another. But when it comes to money and power, many of these things disappear and are replaced by political expediency or rank opportunism. Just before the men and women in the Big House in Canberra departed for their winter break (and many for a taxpayer funded overseas junket), they passed an amendment to the Tax Act that seems to me to be very strange. The tax scheme in Australia is meant to be a redistribution regime in which those who can pay taxes, whether on money earned directly or via taxes on goods and services purchased, pay into a common fund from which goods and services are provided for the benefit of all. Obviously, under such a scheme, some will benefit more and theoretically, these are the poorest or most disadvantaged. However, under our tax scheme there are many lurks in which those who have to pay tax can legally minimise their ‘tax burden’. There are other lurks hidden in the Tax Act that allow those who have the most to find ways to squirrel away dollars so they can’t be redistributed. There are other lurks that allow industries or individuals to actually be subsidised by the taxpayer and thus reduce their need to ‘take care of themselves’. I find it interesting, that while on the one hand these industries or individuals are very active in lobbying governments to increase or introduce new ways for them to have their accounts swelled via the public purse, they shout the loudest when it come to opposing real welfare measures for the most disadvantaged. We live in a time when both sides of the house are screaming at us that we need to have “choice” when it comes to education and that parents should not be constrained when it comes to choosing the school they send their children to. We hear identical rhetoric from the benches on the right and left of the Speaker of the House that say, in effect, the tax payer should fund private and public schools equally and that, indeed, “underperforming” public schools and teachers should be defunded. But when it comes to funding private schools we find some very interesting ‘forgetting’ of these demands. Just before the so called ‘winter recess’ from Parliament our politicians made a change to the Tax Act that now allows tax deductibility for donations to the Council for Jewish Community Security, back dated to 9 August 2007. This change was pursued through the Parliament by Michael Danby, Labor member for Melbourne Ports. Michael Danby said in parliament that the Tax Act needs to be changed to include tax deductibility for donations made to schools, Jewish schools to be precise, because and I quote from Hansard, “The problem of having to pay security costs constitutes an unfair impost, on top of school fees, to pay for security costs per student simply because the students, owing to an accident of birth, are deemed at risk. In my view, and the government’s view, this is grossly unfair.” He said this, not when in opposition but on May 14 2008 as part of his address to persuade the house to adopt the changes to the Tax Act. He went on to say, “… the schools face a national security risk that is equivalent to the risks faced by some embassies.” I wonder what he means by that? As far as I can tell the greatest threat to students attending Jewish schools in Australia comes from within their own communities. In fact, at the same time as Michael Danby was spruiking for his masters in the house, a grave terror had been revealed as coming from within the Jewish community and perpetrated by one of their own on their own. Malka Leifer was the Principal of the strict Orthodox Adass Israel Girls School in the Melbourne suburb of Elsternwick. Exclusive, close knit and usually tight-lipped, the school community was ‘rocked’ when the allegations of sexual misconduct and abuse levelled at the Principle found their way into the media. The Jewish Coalition Against Sexual Abuse/Assault in Baltimore in the USA, has described Malka Leifer as being “a danger to young women anywhere she resides.” They also provide the name of the Israeli town she currently lives in and encourages victims to come forward. Leifer left Australia under a cloud and the evidence seems to support claims her exit was funded by the Jewish community in order to prevent a police inquiry into the claims. Such an investigation would have revealed the inner working of the secretive and exclusive community and I would have thought ‘aiding and abetting’ was also a criminal act. Be that as it may, the question I have is, ‘if the Jewish schools need tax payer subsidised private security forces, how do tax payers know if the fund are being used for just that purpose?’ Well, of course, we don’t. The biggest threat to Jewish students is not wide eyed, bearded psychopaths who will blow them up, but more than likely sick minded individuals who are protected by their own communities behind walls of silence and fear. When a Jewish community funds the departure of a potential criminal from our legal jurisdictions, one has to ask why we would want to subsidise them at all. My quick internet search turned up the current location of someone who has been accused of a terrible crime against children and yet our police, politicians and mainstream news services have allowed the case of Malka Leifer to fall down the memory hole and be replaced by hand wringing and utterances of disgust over a few art works. I would posit that more people were affected by the alleged acts of Malka Leifer than would probably have ever viewed the art works in question. While the leaders of the Jewish Community and those who stand to benefit most from the latest changes to Tax Act are celebrating and no doubt finding ways of expropriating the subsidies for themselves, the rest of us are left to wonder if tax payer subsidised security services should also be offered to those who are the most at risk from public acts of violence. Many of these people are also from the Semitic races but it seems are not worth the effort. Or perhaps that’s just my paranoia speaking. read less
July 2008 # 1 - East Timor, Oil and the Euro
Thu July 03 2008
Times are tough for “dictators”, “rogue states” and “failing nations”. It seems like it is not a good thing to be the head of a country that happens to sit on top of huge oil or gas reserves. Saddam was just the first to go. We find, if we believe the mainstream media, that Iran is threatening everyone with “nuclear” weapons, that Venezuela is being led by “communists” and that Bolivia is being ruled by “Soviet sympathisers” while little East Timor is about due for a “regime change”. So what is it that links all these comparatively small and in many ways insignificant nations together? Other than their shared history of imperial colonialism and the pillaging of their wealth by foreigners ably abetted by foreign trained, domestic elites, it seems these countries share a certain attraction to the Euro and the socialist goals of equality and equity. The roll back began in mid 2000 when Saddam transferred payments for the “oil for food” program to Euros from US dollars. William Clark, from the Global Research Centre in California, in a 2003 essay, wrote that the reason the US was going to war with Iraq was the “administration's goal of preventing further [OPEC] momentum towards the Euro as an oil transaction currency standard.” Clare Foss, in her online Journal, noted that the Iraqi switch to the Euro had “potentially perilous consequences for the US. … If OPEC were to decide to accept Euros only for its oil, then American economic dominance would be over.” Saddam was not hated by the US administration for what he was doing to his own people. God knows, they had ignored that for years. What really got up their noses was that he changed the way his nation traded and seemed intent on hitching his caboose to the European currency. Indeed one of the first things the new US supported administration in Iraq did was enshrine the US dollar as the trading currency for all Iraqi foreign exchange transactions. Following hot on the heels of the great American Imperial push to secure a revenue stream from the Iraqi’s, Iran took the first steps, in 2004, to set up its own oil trading exchange (a bourse) based on the Euro. Dr. Elias Akleh, writing for the Arabic Media Internet Network, observed that, “Iran does not pose a threat to the United State because of its nuclear projects, its WMD, or its support to "terrorists organizations" as the American administration is claiming, but in its attempt to re-shape the global economical (sic) system by converting it from a petrodollar to a petroeuro system. Such conversion is looked upon as a flagrant declaration of economical (sic) war against the US that would flatten the revenues of the American corporations and eventually might cause an economic collapse.” The strident rhetoric we have been hearing from the top US brass over the last two to three years about Iran’s threat is not, therefore, really based on any alleged “threats” posed by non existent WMD’s or that nation’s plans to develop a domestic nuclear power industry. Rather it has been Iran’s audacity in proceeding with its plans to establish a new trading regime that would, effectively, lock the US out and thus prevent US multinationals from skimming the cream off Iran’s international oil trade. After four years of planning, set backs and political road blocks, the Iranian Euro bourse opened on the 17th February 2008. Writing in Petroleum World magazine, Gwynne Dyer notes ominously, “The US government knows, and is deeply alarmed by the danger, that the dollar may be losing its status as the world's only reserve currency. Given the huge deficits that plague the US economy, the US dollar's value would collapse if other countries began to see it as just another currency, so the Euro must be prevented from emerging as an alternative reserve currency. In practice, that means the Iranian experiment with a Euro-denominated oil bourse must be stopped - and the only way to do that is to attack Iran.” While it is obvious that Iraq and Iran got into strife for not towing the US line, what about the rest of the region? Well, in a little reported retaliation for the US Senate’s blocking of a Dubai based company’s bid to buy into US ports in 2006, the United Arab Emirates told the US to go jump and that they would switch 10% of their $US23 billion reserves to Euros thus putting a huge dent in the US money markets. While all this is unfolding, south of the border, down Mexico way, some South American governments are also thinking of jumping the good ship US dollar. Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and Evo Morales in Bolivia have both made it clear that they want the OPEC nations to stop trading in dollars and convert to the Euro. They are also intent on reshaping their nations internal economies by renationalising foreign owned resource companies and not paying any compensation. Speaking at the Euro Summit in May 2006, Moralez told reporters that, “For more than 500 years our natural resources have been pillaged and our primary goods exported. This has to be ended now.” And we wonder why the US is calling him and Chavez “communists” and a “danger” to the world. “Whose world?” is a question well worth asking. Finally, we come to East Timor. As the poorest nation on earth with an average income of just over $1 a day, what threat could they pose and to whom? Quite simply, they have looked beyond Australia and the US because neither our country nor the US will assist them or support their development agenda. Rather, our governments are intent on bleeding them dry. The East Timorese government and its top leaders, all well known to us, made an interesting decision when they penned their independence charter back in 1998 and established the National Council of Timorese Resistance. This political arm of the resistance movement contained all the current players in the so called “crisis” they and their people are now experiencing. What I have never heard reported was their stated aim to convert to the Euro as their trading currency in the sure knowledge that it would make investment in their nation more attractive to their Asian neighbours. What was little reported here in Australia was Mari Alkatiri’s international tour, in September 2005, to drum up Asian investment interest. Little was reported on the visits he made to 20 or more nations who have shown an interest in investing in East Timor’s on and off shore oil and gas fields. What is even worse in the eyes of the multinationals, who are screwing our government, is the East Timorese intention to use the wealth of their resources to “alleviate poverty, create jobs and improve education” rather than reinvest it in their money making but wealth extracting schemes. Since then, we have seen some very interesting developments in Timor Lesté… but more on this another time. Regime change for our impoverished northern neighbour will probably come but at the cost of more innocent lives. Like Iraq, Iran, Venezuela and Bolivia, East Timor will only become a failed state if we stand idly by and watch those who would rather it fail succeed in their quest. Do we have the same courage the East Timorese have to dream of a better, more just and equitable society or do we only care about those things that supposedly keep us safe from “dictators”, “rogue states” and “failed nations”? The first option is a possibility; the second only perpetuates the lies. read less
