US mining firm pays Papuan army

Native unrest giving you trouble? Need to keep those pesky darkies and spear chuckers away from your mining operation? Why not rent an army? Story here.

Polluter pays catches on in Britain

"Britain took the first step on the road to taxing air travel for its contribution to global warming yesterday when the Treasury published a document discussing the idea.

Although such a tax, which would mean a big rise in ticket prices and would hit low-cost airlines severely, is a long way off, the Government's decision to begin talking about it is significant" (story here).

This is something that is an obvious and long overdue solution. As an example - according to this site a return trip from Christchurch to Sydney emits 0.53 tonnes of carbon dioxide - thats about as much carbon as a single oak tree would take up over the first 100 years of its life....if I'm reading this data correctly, so it is not an insignificant amount.

New Fisk!

The forgotten power of the General Assembly.

Washington's other little lap dog

This week Australian Prime Minister John Howard gave a speech outlining his reasons for supporting a war with Iraq and declaring his intention to fight even without UN approval. The man's willingness to toady up to America in the hope of getting a free trade deal, and to do his best to make Australia a target for terrorists is simply astonishing.

Today the lap dog barked. Howard joined his British and American allies in launching a stinging attack on the French accusing them of being "international spoilers destroying the last hopes for peaceful disarmament of Iraq and scoring cheap shots off the US." This seems a little bit obvious but if Howard paid a bit more attention to what his masters in Washington are saying he may notice that they have absolutely no desire to disarm Iraq peacefully...zip...zero...zilch. They want war and they want it now.

They want war so much that they are prepared to launch pre-emptitive strikes against Iraq. They think that Saddam might do them first once he knows that a strike by America is iminent.

According to this ABC news report Saddam has moved artillery units that could potentially fire shells filled with poison gas close to the border with Kuwait and the 135,000 American troops stationed there. Inaddition, American intelligence thinks that Iraq has scud launchers hidden in the Western Desert able to strike Israel and they are also worried that many of Iraq's oil wells have been wired with explosive able to be triggered from a central command. There are a lot of "coulds", "maybes" and "probablys" in all this. ABC quoted unidentified officials (naturally) as saying that American pre-emptitive strikes "may" start a war...may? that makes it sound like it is a completely unintentional accident...there's no "may" about it. Pre-emptitive strikes "will" start a war and it "will" make America the aggressor...no weasel words blithely quoted by the tame American media will change that.

That said, does America now have legitimate reasons for going to war? Can they go to war on the basis that there "may" be scuds hidden out there "possibly" endangering Israel (as opposed to endangering America)? Well no.They haven't actually said anything like "we've found hidden scuds in the Western Desert which are targetted at Israel"...they just suspect they are there.

Can they go to war because Iraq might want to blow up its own (as opposed to any other country's) oil? I don't think so

What about the threat to the troops in Kuwait? They don't actually have any proof that Saddam still has poison gas...and we don't even know if the artillery pieces are even in range to hit the American troops...they are very vague on that point. Even if they are in range - I don't think the deliberate deployment of your own troops to a place where they are in danger is a legitimate reason to go to war. This is basically an attempt by America to avoid being thought of as the aggressor in this conflict...sorry guys its just not going to work.

In any case all of this implies that the two states aren't already at war...which is nonsense. America and Britain have been bombing Iraq for years and just yesterday America sent B1 bombers to take out an Iraqi radar site (story here). Getting back to John Howard. Australians have been given a wonderful insight into just how much of a slimy toad Howard is. Cast your mind back to August 2001 and Howard's treatment of the victims of Saddam Hussein and of the former Taleban regime in Afghanistan in the sea off Christmas Island...cast your mind back to how Howard used these poor people as electoral cannon fodder. unfortunately for Howard, the story refuses to lie down and die. Hopefully in the future, under another Government, the people responsible for this will be called to account for their actions.

I think the flag burning prosecution also raises fundamental questions about why we have laws. Laws should really be restricted to

1. Protecting people's life and wellbeing.
2. Protecting people's property.
3. Protecting people who through their age or whatever other reason don't have the ability to make informed decisions for themselves.
4. Protecting the poor and disadvantaged from exploitation.

When it comes down to it, this man is going to be tried for a crime that has no victim...lots of people may be offended by his gesture but no one is actually being hurt in any way. On the other hand, we all lose if we tolerate this attack on freedom of expression. Even more worrying is the fact that the police tried to get a court order preventing the man from associating with one of his fellow protesters...what exactly were they trying to do here? I am happy to be offended occasionally if that is the trade off for living in a free country. This law has to be scrapped...it is the thin end of the jackboot.

Lese majeste: An offence against the "dignity of the sovereign". Like painting a moustache on their statue, calling them a poopy-head, or criticising their performance as a ruler. Strangely, it was the last one which tended to be the most vigorously prosecuted.

Citizens of modern liberal democracies find the idea of their rulers having some special dignity which renders them immune from criticism to be laughable. We no longer believe that our politicians are somehow better than us and automatically deserving of respect (the obvious exception being the Americans, but their Presidency was designed from the outset to be a sort of elected monarchy, so its hardly surprising). And so over the years, the "dignity of the sovereign" has been transferred to the State, and thence to the flag.

However, one of the underlying axioms of those democracies is that nothing is sacred. Everything is up for grabs, to be questioned, criticised, and (if necessary) burned in effigy. So why the hell, after all these years, are we still protecting the "honour" of the flag? Doesn't it seem too much like protecting the "dignity" of Helen Clark from people who would deface her official portraits?

Flag-burning and freedom of expression

A man who burned the New Zealand flag at an anti-Howard protest last week has been charged with dishonouring the flag under the Flags, Emblems, and Names Protection Act 1981.

Now, I know that the NZ flag Means Something to some people (usually war veterans and rabidly anti-immigrant nationalist wankers), and that burning one in public upsets them. And I'd argue that that's precisely why we shouldn't have stupid laws banning it. Freedom of expression is about upsetting people - about goring their sacred cows, questioning their most basic assumptions, and burning their idols in public. That's what a "robust debate" in society means.

Regardless of that, flag-burning is against the law here, and this guy could be facing a fine of up to $5000 for doing it. I'd urge him to mount a vigorous defence on the grounds of freedom of expression, in the hope of getting the law struck down for violating the principles of the Bill of Rights Act; I'd urge the judge to discharge without conviction rather than enforce a law which violates such a fundamental principle of human rights; and I'd urge any jury involved to do likewise. I'd also urge our politicians to repeal this atrocity ASAP. No modern liberal democracy should have laws which are frankly a throwback to eighteenth century ideas of lese majeste.

Oh, and while we're looking at this story, this comment takes the cake for disingenuous bullshit:

Wellington area controller Inspector Marty Grenfell said the use of fire in crowded situations was dangerous.

Obviously. That's why you're arresting people for "dishonouring the flag" rather than "playing silly buggers with matches".

New Fisk

Invasion will spur terrorism on, Arab opinion poll says. Actually pretty boring - I think I prefer him when he wants to vent his spleen a little.

How Kofi Annan Can Stop the War

According to recent reports, the United States may be about to warn the U.N. inspectors and reporters to leave Iraq within three days. The purpose of this warning will be to protect the inspectors and reporters from harm when U.S. forces attack Iraq, perhaps late next week.

The situation provides an interesting opportunity for U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan. If the U.S. issues the expected warning, he can and should announce that the U.S. has no authority to evict the inspectors, who are United Nations employees. Furthermore, Annan can say that he will not withdraw the inspectors from Iraq unless he is ordered to do so by the U.N. Security Council or the inspectors report that they are not being allowed to do their job.

How will this help? Firstly, it'll make it difficult for Bush to start bombing. Sure, he could invade anyway, but it would be a public relations nightmare. And secondly, it will seriously up the pressure on Saddam, becuse the moment the inspectors feel they're being obstructed, they'll leave, and the Americans will have a free hand. Reinforcing the authority of the UN and sticking it to the US are just bonuses.

Of course, it's a bit risky for the inspectors themselves, which is why Kofi won't do it. [sigh]

The US wants to go to war over a model aeroplane?

This speaks for itself, really. It turns out that the "smoking gun" the warbloggers have been braying about for the past week is made of balsa wood and duct tape, and powered by lawnmower engines.

Oh, those cunning Iraqis. They're so evil they can turn even an innocent microlite into a Weapon of Mass Destruction.

A competition!

Yesterday's Christchurch Press article about a protester throwing eggs and tomatoes at Richard Prebble at Canterbury has got me thinking: people should really do this sort of thing more often. We don't do nearly enough to express our contempt for our politicians. Sure, we sneer at them, make them the butt of our jokes, call Rodney Hide "the face of irritable bowel disease" and what have you, but they don't seem to get the message. Maybe throwing shit at them will work?

So, a competition. The winner is whoever can get the best hit on an MP with a nonlethal missile (water bomb, rotten fruit, excrement). Bonus points for getting on TV, revealing that someone wears a toupe, or being arrested by the diplomatic protection squad. The grand prize is a sense of satisfaction at a job well done. Any takers?

BTW, apparantly the photos accompanying the hardcopy of the story were cool - maybe Mike will scan and post them?

NZ statement on Iraq to the UN Security Council

Same as the last one, really. Again, it seems to be pretty much in line with mainstream NZ political opinion - though no doubt our own local warbloggers and newsfroupies will be appalled by limp-wristed liberal commie peacenik sentiments like the one below:

The New Zealand Government therefore urges the Security Council to continue to support the inspection and disarmament process it has in place while it is getting results.

That bit is the key - down here, we see missiles being destroyed and the fact that no "smoking gun" has been found as evidence that inspections are working, rather than evidence that they're not. This is probably because we're not paranoid loons desperate for any pretext to start a fight.

'Dirty bomb' suspect to get lawyer

A Judge has ruled that Jose Padilla, the US citizen accused of plotting to build and detonate a "dirty bomb", will finally be allowed to see a lawyer. The US government had designated him an "enemy combatant", denied him access to counsel or the courts, and imprisoned him in a military prison. If this isn't appealed, then it represents some return to sanity in the US - an acknowledgement that September 11th did not erase those parts of the Constitution dealing with the right to a fair trial (at least for US citizens).

Unfortunately, the US government can still listen in on Padilla's discussions with his lawyer. And if they think that his representative is too effective, they can always charge them with aiding and abetting a terrorist. There's still a long way to go before things will be "back to normal" over there.

Update: Unfortunately the news isn't so good for the detainees at Guantanamo - a court has ruled that they cannot access US courts and are not protected by the US Constitution. Whatever happened to "we hold these truths to be self-evident... that all men are created equal"?

This article by New Zealand First MP - Ron Mark appeared in Saturday's Christchurch Press. It really illustrates how opposition to a war with Iraq is not restricted to the usual suspects of the anti American left. Ron Mark is usually a hawk when it comes to defence and NZ First is ideologically quite far removed from the Greens and even Labour. It also shows how adept NZ First are at keeping their finger on the pulse of the NZ voter.

Meanwhile, the situation in Iraq grows more complex.The Kurds are mobilising to fight the Turks should they enter Northern Iraq. As if the Turks didn't have enough on their mind. Talks on the future of Cyprus have broken down and it now appears certain that the Greek southern half of Cyprus will join the EU without the northern Turkish half. In the past Turkey has threatened to annex northern Cyprus should this happen....more recently they have tried to gain favour with Europe by urging the Turkish Cypriots to make a deal with the Greeks...these efforts appear to have failed. Where does this leave Turkey? One to watch I think.

Old Fisk

History: For centuries, we've been 'liberating' the Middle East. Why do we never learn? This was published on the 6th; guess it shows how slack we are.

More things that make you sick

Apparantly I have a knack for sending Mike links that make him sick. The first was a New York Times article on a pipe foundry in Texas, whose emphesis on profits over worker safety resulted in the worst accident rate of any American workplace (containing some rather graphic descriptions of people having their arms sanded off by conveyer belts). So, in the interests of reguritation, we have the town of Ciudad Juarez on the Mexican border. Salon did an article about this place several months ago, reporting that "more than 325 women have been murdered in the free-trade boomtown of Ciudad Juarez in the past decade", and following up with a disturbing story of government indifference to (if not active collusion in) what seems like the activities of several serial killers. The Observer has now done a two part series on this hellhole, and its even worse.

There is a new word spoken in Ciudad Juarez: 'Feminocidio' - feminocide, the mass slaughter of women. There is no other word to describe what is happening: some 340 young women found murdered since 1992 in much the same manner as Sagrario, and a further 180 or so missing.

'They are dumped in public places, not even like animals, more like trash,' says Marisela Ortiz, from one of the groups campaigning to bring the killers to justice. The victims, she says, fit a pattern: 'They are poor, young, mainly migrants to the city looking to improve their lives in the factories. And when they are found, they have been tortured, mutilated, bruised, fractured or strangled and in every case violated - gang-raped.'

'The killers,' adds Marisela's colleague Rosario Acosta, 'take no trouble to cover up evidence, like most murders. With these, the evidence is brazen, right there, every time. Whoever is doing this knows they are immune from the law.'

There's more - victim's parents being taunted by the clothing of their dead children being returned to them in the dead of night, police cover-ups, frame-ups and executions of those who question them. It's your worst nightmare of callous corrupt third world society crossed with a serial killer movie. And all I could think was "there's gotta be a Vampire game in this".

Terry Jones Strikes Again!

Mr Bush goes for the kill:

Mr. Bush is right, Saddam Hussein is a nasty man and nobody I know has the least objection to Mr. Bush killing him. It's just the way he proposes doing it that worries me. Dropping 3000 bombs in 48 hours on Baghdad is going to kill a lot of other people who, as far as I am aware, are not nasty at all.

That's the bit of the 'moral' argument I don't follow. It's a bit like the police saying they know a murderer comes from the south of England so they are going to execute everybody in Epsom.

And that about sums it up, really. The Americans' preferred tactics are wanton, indiscriminate overkill. How many innocent bystanders is it acceptable to kill to get rid of one Bad Man? Ten thousand? Twenty? What about one hundred thousand or half a million?

If we're going to even ask such Utilitarian questions, we need to pay some attention to the Principle of Equality and value Iraqi lives as highly as American ones. And its quite clear that those in favour of what Bush is proposing simply aren't doing this.

Bush's Noble Intentions

This Washington Post article (President paints 'Big Picture' - Bush reveals democratic vision for Middle East) appeared in the Christchurch Press last Friday (February 28th). Clearly the Christchurch Press backs a war with Iraq and has no qualms about recycling American propaganda...in any case it makes the journalist's job so much easier. To be honest I'm not actually convinced that the Christchurch Press still employs anyone that could be called a journalist.

The article just about made me spit out my morning coffee, especially the line about President Bush "presenting a neo-Wilsonian view of the imperitive to spready liberty and democracy in the world." I mean if President Bush really was painting a big picture of the Middle East he'd probably be doing it with crayons. I have some other problem's with Bush's speech - he correctly identifies the Middle East as a "troubled region" - the point he is missing is that America is one of the major reasons why it is a troubled region. He also mentions Saddam Hussein's payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers and its training and support of mysteriously un-named terrorists. At least one of these claims is true but this does not give America (as opposed to Israel) a legitimate cassus belli. I meant to post the article here earlier but I couldn't find it on the internet, instead I've had to ignore the niceties of copyright law and type it out myself...bring on the evil attack lawyers.

New Fisk

US War Plans Are Not Helped By Blix.

Crimes against language

Mark Kleiman has awarded the first Winston Smith Memorial Medal for Dishonest Language in the Service of Unspeakable Actions to the New York Times for the headline Questioning of Accused Expected to Be Humane, Legal and Aggressive. Examples of the tactics the NYT considers "humane" include sleep deprivation, long periods of restraint in "stress positions", and "teasing" wounded prisoners with occasional painkillers. Meanwhile, this article from the Wall Street Journal gives more details on US methods, which can include "a little bit of smacky-face" for "extra encouragement".

All of this is of course contrary to the United Nations’ Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and to the Geneva Convention as well, but the US doesn't seem to be paying attention to its international agreements at the moment. Unfortunately for the Bush Gang though, they may have a few little problems with US law. According to the NYT:

When the United States ratified the antitorture treaty in 1994, Congress also passed a law making torture committed in the United States or by an American anywhere a felony punishable by 20 years in prison. Torture resulting in death can give bring the death penalty.

In 5 or 10 years time, when Bush is out of office and the US has come to its senses, I'd like to see prosecutions. I'd like to see those responsible for running the interrogation rooms at Bagram and Guantanamo put on trial for their crimes, and sentanced to long prison terms. But most likely they'll never be charged, or let off the hook like Lt. Calley was for Mai Lai. Hell, maybe John Ashcroft will repeal those troublesome anti-torture provisions in PATRIOT III or IV.

And on a completely different topic, Kleiman also has some thoughts on a recent lecture by Jared Diamond. I suspect I'm going to have to get that upcoming book...