Syria - Putin Puts International Law Before War

[Published 13 September 2013]


Russia’s President - Vladimir Putin - has trumped America’s President - Barack Obama - in urging the American nation to put international law before war to prevent any armed attack on Syria threatened by President Obama as a result of the chemical weapons atrocity perpetrated on 21 August that killed 1429 people.

Putin’s message had already been clearly heard by President Obama when he called on the Congress to postpone a vote approving any such military offensive - choosing instead to now pursue the collection and destruction of chemical weapons in Syria with the backing of a Security Council resolution - which will undoubtedly be finalised on such terms as are acceptable to Russia.

Putin sought to reinforce this end game in spectacular fashion by publishing an op-ed - (or should it have been called a ”victory speech”?) - in the New York Times under the heading - “A Plea for Caution From Russia - What Putin Has to Say to Americans About Syria”

Putin’s concentration on stressing the importance of the UN Security Council as the sole legal authority to declare war - and conversely to help end war - was particularly revealing.

On the role of the Security Council - Putin declared:

“The United Nations’ founders understood that decisions affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus, and with America’s consent the veto by Security Council permanent members was enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the stability of international relations for decades.

No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without Security Council authorization.”

The inability of the 5 Permanent Members of the Security Council to agree on the terms of a resolution to collect and destroy all chemical weapons in Syria - certainly could signal a lack of “real leverage” - threatening the future of the Security Council.

America’s objective in preventing the future use of chemical weapons in Syria or elsewhere will now be met - perhaps not entirely to America’s complete satisfaction - by accepting the terms of any Security Council resolution proposed by Russia.

However Putin now certainly needs to explain the lack of “real leverage” demonstrated by the failure of those same 5 Permanent Members to agree on the terms of a resolution to end the 30 month civil war in Syria that has already claimed over 100000 lives, created 2 million refugees and displaced 5 million Syrians in their own country.

Russia needs to do its own soul searching as it continues to exercise its veto vote to paralyse all efforts by the majority of the other Permanent Members to obtain a Security Council Resolution to try and end this humanitarian outrage.

Russia cannot continue to be the impediment frustrating any resolutions to try and end this conflict - if Putin wants to be taken seriously.

Putin has pointedly omitted mentioning the United Nations General Assembly - and for very good reason. The voting bloc comprised by the member states of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference and third world nations ensures that the most fanciful resolutions can be passed with impunity to demonise and denigrate other member States.

The fact that resolutions of the General Assembly have no legal effect is not understood by most people - who continually quote those General Assembly resolutions to justify their own viewpoints.

The classic example is the large number of General Assembly resolutions declaring Israeli settlements in the West Bank as being illegal in international law - when there are contradictory legal opinions asserting they are legal.

Repeated mantra like - these non-binding resolutions take on a life and misleading legal status of their own - when indeed nothing could be further from the truth.

On the need to be bound by the rule of law - Putin stated:

“From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law. We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today’s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.”

Putin’s words - whilst very noble in their import - suffer from the old adage - “two lawyers - three opinions”

Regrettably the International Court of Justice remains the only tribunal within the UN framework with jurisdiction to deal with disputes between States - but only if those States agree to accept its jurisdiction.

The Court has the power to issue advisory opinions - but they are also non-binding.

Changing the present inadequate legal system is a worthwhile objective for Putin and Obama to pursue.

The Security Council can play an important role in the formation of a new Court system with teeth - possessing the ability to have its judgements respected and enforced.

Whilst the law is imperfect and often reversed on appeal - it still remains unavailable as of right when disputes between States need resolution.

Putin must now translate his words into concrete action if Americans are to believe him.

Syria - Putin To Dictate Terms Of UN Security Council Resolution

[Published 11 September 2013]


Russia’s President Putin will dictate the terms of any UN Security Council Resolution calling for the collection and destruction of chemical weapons in Syria - no matter what bluster or spin emanates from America, the United Kingdom and France.

The world has no real option but to accept and trust that Russia’s terms for collecting and destroying those chemical weapons will succeed.

This crisis - arising from the use of chemical weapons in Syria on 21 August 2013 - has already lead to the death of 1429 civilians including 426 children.

The threat of further use of chemical weapons in the 30 month old conflict - that has so far seen more than 100000 deaths, 2 million refugees and another 5 million Syrians becoming displaced citizens in their own country - must not be allowed by the international community to possibly be repeated again.

That is why a Security Council resolution agreed to by all 5 Permanent Members of the Security Council needs to be passed without filibustering or delay.

Middle East Live reports:

“Russia is working on an “effective, concrete” plan for putting Syria’s chemical weapons under international control and is discussing the details with Damascus, according to the latest announcement from its foreign minister Sergei Lavrov.

Lavrov told reporters the plan would be presented to other nations soon and that the proposal, which he announced on Monday, was not entirely Russian but grew out of contacts with the United States, Reuters reports.”

Reuters has quoted Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Hong Lei as welcoming the Russian proposal - making it even clearer that the terms of the final Security Council resolution will be those acceptable to Russia.

Bridget Kendall - diplomatic correspondent for BBC news rightly observes:

“But any draft resolution could easily get bogged down in arguments over the terms and the language used. Already the French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius has warned that any UN Security Council Resolution would need to be backed up by tough conditions, with a short timeframe and a warning of severe consequences if it was not implemented. Would Russia agree to that? Not on recent form.”

With the greatest respect to Fabius - he has discharged a lot of hot air on this crisis so far. He is in no position to dictate the terms of any resolution - nor indeed are Obama and Cameron.

Threatening a military attack if their terms are not accepted will be met with incredulity and world wide opposition.

So what will Russia’s draft resolution presented to the Security Council look like?

Some hint was given by Russia’s Ambassador to Jordan - Alexander Kaluginon on the BBC Today programme - as reported by James Meikle

“Calling for the “international community” to send in professionals to “secure and verify” , Kalugin admitted such an operation would be difficult but “It is much better to do a difficult job than go ahead with a military option.”"

The task certainly will not be easy and will involve considerable risks to those having to firstly secure - then arrange for the collection and removal of the chemical weapons to a destination for safe storage prior to destruction.

Writing in May in the Global and Mail, Cheryl Rofer from the Los Alamos National Laboratory and analyst Aaron Stein, explained the practical steps involved:

“Syria is believed to have production facilities near Damascus, Aleppo, and Homs, as well as suspected storage sites in Latakia and Palmyra. The military would have to, in the fog of war, move in quickly to secure suspected facilities and find others…

Once the facilities are found and secured, they must be made safe. Initially, a specialized team would have to check for signs of sabotage, booby traps, deliberately released agents, or other potentially hazardous situations, including war damage. After getting the all-clear, an inspection team would begin the task of accounting for Mr. al-Assad’s chemical stockpile. Internal records and inventory lists would be an essential part of this, but a physical inventory would also be necessary.

Current amounts of precursors and agents in storage drums and munitions would be compared with the facility’s inventory lists. If a commander, for example, has failed to keep adequate records, an inspector tasked with producing an inventory of a Syrian chemical weapon facility could never state with 100 per cent confidence that none of the weapons had been stolen or used. The inventory would also serve as basis for planning the destruction of the materials.

After the stockpile has been inventoried, the weapons and stocks of agents and precursors would have to be destroyed. The inherent handling difficulties of these materials argue against shipping them to another country for destruction…

...The most difficult part of destroying the weapons is separating the explosives from the highly toxic agents.”

The operation could take years.

The draft resolution could call for an internationally supervised cease fire to be applied for a limited period of time - which would certainly bring some respite to the hell endured by Syria’s civilian population during this long conflict.

Russia’s Foreign Minister has reportedly said that after Russia and Syria work out the details of their chemical weapons offer they will then be ready to finalize the plan together with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).

Russia’s draft resolution will certainly be awaited with interest.

Time is certainly of the essence whilst those chemical weapons are not under UN control.

Syria - Obama And Kerry Converted On Road To Damascus

[Published 10 September 2013]


The swiftness with which attention is now being focused on collecting and destroying chemical weapons located in Syria has been truly breathtaking.

Last Friday 6 September - President Obama was waving a joint declaration signed by Australia, Canada, France, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States of America at the G20 Summit in St Petersburg - in which there was not one mention of the need to collect and destroy those chemical weapons.

That same day President Obama in his press conference in St Petersburg had been dismissive of a similar proposal suggested in the Congress - after it was specifically drawn to his attention by a reporter.

Yet on Monday 9 September - US Secretary of State John Kerry - when asked in London if there was anything Syrian President Assad could do to avert a US military strike - replied:

“Sure. He could turn over every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week. Turn it over, all of it, without delay, and allow a full and total accounting for that”

Kerry seemed to shoot down his own idea - adding immediately:

“But he isn’t about to do it, and it can’t be done, obviously.”

Kerry was made to look rather stupid when Russia’s Foreign Minister - Sergei Lavrov just hours later proposed the idea to Syria:

“We have given our proposal to Syria’s Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem and are counting on a fast and, I hope, positive response,”

Al-Moallem’s response was short and to the point:

“I carefully listened to Sergei Lavrov’s statement about it. In connection with this, I note that Syria welcomes the Russian initiative based on the Syrian leadership’s concern about the lives of our nationals and the security of our country. We also hail the wisdom of the Russian leadership which is trying to prevent an American aggression against our people.”

German Chancellor Angela Merkel and British Prime Minister David Cameron were quick to jump on the bandwagon and spoke positively of the proposal.

Merkel said:

“Today there were very interesting proposals about the chemical weapons. If this is intended to lead to action and not to just play for time, then Germany will push hard for this path to be further pursued.”

Cameron - who only three days earlier had remained supportive of US President Barack Obama and his plan to embark on military intervention in Syria despite failing to get his own motion through government - was instantly converted to this proposal:

“If that were to be the case it would be hugely welcome. If Syria were to put its chemical weapons beyond use, under international supervision, clearly that would be a big step forward and should be encouraged.”

Even UN General Secretary Ban Ki-moon - who had stood by watching the United Nations Security Council being paralysed as it struggled to get a resolution passed on the atrocity caused by the use of chemical weapons in Syria on 21 August - told reporters on Monday:

“I am considering urging the Security Council to demand the immediate transfer of Syria’s chemical weapons and chemical precursor stocks to places inside Syria where they can be safely stored and destroyed.”

It seems inconceivable that all of the above players, their advisors and Foreign Offices could have allowed the chemical weapons crisis to spiral seriously out of control to the point where a military attack on Syria was the only option being considered.

But the most amazing conversion of all was that of President Obama himself.

Asked by Diane Sawyer of ABC News if he would put plans for an attack on pause should Assad yield control of his chemical weapons - Obama answered:

“Absolutely, if in fact that happened… Let’s see if we can come up with language that avoids a strike but accomplishes our key goals to make sure that these chemical weapons are not used”

Hopefully President Obama has since been on the phone to President Putin to knot out a resolution that can go to the Security Council for approval within the next 24 hours and allow the process of collecting and destroying all chemical weapons in Syria to take place without further delay.

There will no doubt be those who will question whether all such chemical weapons can be collected from both the Assad regime and the rebels.

One needs to wait and see.

Those weapons collected and destroyed under UN supervision will show Assad and the rebels that the world means business - and that any attempt to subvert the Security Council’s resolve will be met with an immediate response.

In a shameful self serving statement - President Obama is seeking to claim the credit for his amazing conversion from advocating and planning a military assault on Syria to securing agreement with Russia on collecting and destroying all chemical weapons in Syria - telling Diane Sawyer:

“I don’t think we would have gotten to this point unless we had maintained a credible possibility for a military strike and I don’t think now is the time for us to let up on that”

Had President Obama addressed the issue of collecting and destroying those chemical weapons rather that trying to blame Assad for having fired them - the process of destruction would already have been well underway.

Obama and Kerry’s judgment has been seriously compromised.

Their conversion to sanity and reality is to be welcomed.

Syria - Obama Hell-bent On Creating Hell

[Published 8 September 2013]


President Obama has lost a golden opportunity at the G20 Summit in St Petersburg to step back from undertaking a military assault on Syria - that promises to create hell for Syria’s civilian population and to unleash consequences that can extend far beyond Syria’s borders.

At his press conference held after the Summit - President Obama warned:

“Syria’s escalating use of chemical weapons threatens its neighbors, Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, Israel. It threatens to further destabilize the Middle East. It increases the risk that these weapons will fall into the hands of terrorist groups. But more broadly, it threatens to unravel the international norm against chemical weapons embraced by 189 nations,, and those nations represent 98 percent of the world’s people.”

President Obama revealed there had been the following unanimity among all G20 members:

“It was unanimous that chemical weapons were used, a unanimous conclusion that chemical weapons were used in Syria. There was a unanimous view that the norm against using chemical weapons has to be maintained. That these weapons were banned for a reason and that the international community has to take those norms seriously.”

Given such unanimity - why were the G20 participants not able to agree on an international response to ending the use of chemical weapons in Syria with the authority of a United Nations Security Council Resolution to provide the international legitimacy for any such proposed action?

Their failure to do so was apparently due to President Obama and President Putin of Russia continuing to lock horns on their different views as to who was responsible for using such chemical weapons in Syria - rather than seeking constructive ways to get chemical weapons out of Syria to prevent their future use in the ongoing 30 months conflict that has so far defied international attempts at resolution.

President Obama made this diplomatic deadlock very clear when referring to his “candid and constructive conversation” with President Putin held on the sidelines of the plenary session:

“And on Syria, I said, listen, I don’t expect us to agree on this issue of chemical weapons use. Although it is possible that after the U.N. inspectors’ report, it may be more difficult for Mr. Putin to maintain his current position about the evidence.” (That the chemical weapons were used by the rebels - not by the Assad regime - editor)

President Obama sought to assure the world that his military response would be limited:

“And our response, based on my discussions with our military, is that we can have a response that is limited, that is proportional, that when I say limited, it’s both in time and in scope, but that is meaningful and that degrades Assad’s capacity to deliver chemical weapons, not just this time, but also in the future, and serves as a strong deterrent.”

With respect - no one could possibly predict the attainment of these objectives with any degree of confidence or accuracy - as the President himself confessed:

“Now, is it possible that Assad doubles down in the face of our action and uses chemical weapons more widely? I suppose anything’s possible, but it wouldn’t be wise. I think, at that point, mobilizing the international community would be easier, not harder. I think it would be pretty hard for the U.N. Security Council at that point to continue to resist the requirement for action, and we would gladly join with an international coalition to make sure that it stops.”

Only concerted international action under United Nations Mandate to enforce the removal of such chemical weapons from Syria can guarantee against their future use by either the Assad regime or the rebel forces.

Such an option was put to President Obama at his press conference:

“I wonder if you leave here and return to Washington, seeing the skepticism there, hearing it here, with any different ideas that might delay military action. For example, some in Congress have suggested giving the Syrian regime 45 days to sign the Chemical Weapons Convention, get rid of its chemical stockpiles, do something that would enhance the international sense of accountability for Syria, but delay military action.

Are you, Mr. President, looking at any of these ideas? Or are we on a fast track to military action as soon as Congress renders its judgment one way or the other?”

It was at this point that the opening available to President Obama to possibly step back from his planned military action - and instead initiate international action at the UN to collect and destroy these chemical weapons - was not grabbed with open arms.

His response was dismissive:

“So far at least, I have not seen ideas presented that, as a practical matter, I think would do the job”

Hopefully Congress will push President Obama to pursue its option especially as the President stated:

“My goal is to maintain the international norm on banning chemical weapons. I want that enforcement to be real. I want it to be serious. I want people to understand that gassing innocent people, you know, delivering chemical weapons against children, is not something we do.

...I’m listening to Congress. I’m not just doing the talking. And if there are good ideas that are worth pursuing, then I’m going to be open to them.”

Collecting and destroying chemical weapons in Syria still remains the most noble humanitarian objective worth pursuing.

Creating possible hell on earth by another American military adventure without UN authorisation will be disastrous

Syria - Obama Left Red-Faced Over Red Line

[Published 1 September 2013]


President Obama has tripped over his own red line - leaving the prestige and authority of his Office and America’s reputation in tatters.

The President’s statement last year on the possible use of chemical weapons - supposedly then awash in Syria whilst a civil war had been raging for eighteen months between the Assad regime and a rebel group comprising Syrian civilians, deserting Syrian soldiers and foreign insurgents - was spot on:

“A red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized.”

No mention was made by President Obama of the need to identify who was utilizing such weapons.

“Utilized” was the operative word - not “utilizer”

That red line appears to have been definitely crossed on 21 August 2013 with a claimed chemical warfare attack using sarin causing more than 1429 confirmed deaths - including 426 children.

USA Today reported on 23 August:

“Syria’s chemical weapons program stretches back decades, allowing the country to amass a supply of nerve and blister agents capable of being mounted on long-range missiles that could reach neighboring countries, according to government and independent analysts.

Its program stretches back to the 1970s or ‘80s — experts disagree on the precise time — as a means of developing a deterrent against Israel’s presumed nuclear capabilities, according to analysts and a Congressional Research Service report.

... Syria has stocks of sarin and VX, which attacks the nervous system, and mustard gas, which burns the skin, according to the Defense Intelligence Agency.

... Syria has generally denied having any chemical weapons, but a spokesman for the Syrian Foreign Ministry, Jihad Maqdisi, said last year that Syria would never use chemical weapons and they were secured.

... Syria is one of a handful of nations that the United States says is pursuing an active chemical weapons program, along with Iran and North Korea.

... Syria has not signed the Chemical Weapons Convention, which was ratified by the United States in 1997. It is an international agreement banning the production of chemical weapons and calling for the destruction of stockpiles.”

Syria’s stockpile of any such suspected chemicals cache could have been accessed by the rebel forces during the long running conflict or additional supplies procured by them from other sources.

But did it matter who used chemicals on 21 August? Wasn’t there real urgency now to ensure they could never be used again in this conflict?

Wasn’t the Obama red line crossed because such weapons had in fact been used in Syria on Syrian civilians - no matter which side had launched such attack?

Instead of focusing on the actual use of such chemical weapons - Obama and his Western allies chose to waste valuable time by accusing the Assad regime as the user of those chemical weapons.

UK Prime Minister David Cameron announced that a resolution would be tabled with the UN Security Council.

Cameron said the resolution would condemn “the chemical weapons attack by Assad” and authorize “necessary measures to protect civilian lives.” He also stressed that any intervention in Syria would have to be “legal, proportionate” and aimed at minimizing further loss of life.

Russia and China indicated they would veto such resolution.

The UN has since been sidelined as the UK and USA have threatened action without any UN Security Council Resolution as legal backing to justify any action they and their Allies might undertake.

Such action has so far proved illusory as both Cameron and Obama hesitated to initiate any action without the consent of their Legislatures. Indeed the British Parliament has already voted against intervening and any Congress decision will be at least seven days away.

Any vote by Congress for unilateral action would be fraught with difficulty and possibly invite retaliation on a massive scale.

Surely consideration should now be given to urgently securing Security Council approval to a resolution that:

1. Deplores the use of chemical weapons against the Syrian civilian population on 21 August 2013
2. Calls on Syria and the rebel forces to surrender control and custody over any chemical weapons in their possession within 72 hours to the United Nations
3. Reserves the right to take such further action as it considers fit in the event of non- compliance with the Security Council resolution.

There is evidence Russia and China would not veto such a Resolution

On 18 June 2013 - The Group of 8 (G8) — consisting of the United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Canada, Japan, and Russia — issued a statement in which they:

“condemn in the strongest terms any use of chemical weapons and all human rights violations in Syria.”

The document pointedly refrained from the need to assign blame for their use.

Australia - now occupying the Presidency of the Security Council - could be a driving force in resurrecting this G8 resolution as the basis for the necessary first step in disarming both sides of chemical weapons.

Precious time is being lost as the conflicting parties in Syria continue their war with increasing death and suffering to its hapless civilian population - with the threat of further chemical warfare now being a distinct possibility instead of a theoretical probability.

The UN Security Council must find common ground on this issue between its 5 permanent members - or be condemned for being totally unable to deal with this humanitarian outrage.

Like its predecessor - the League of Nations - the UN could be writing its own death certificate if it fails to rise to this challenge.

Palestine - Rudd Carr And Labor Sink In Silence

[Published 1 September 2013]


Australia’s Prime Minister - Kevin Rudd and Foreign Minister - Senator Bob Carr - remain hell bent on consigning the Labor Party to Opposition and the political wilderness in this week’s elections.

This view has been confirmed by Dan Goldberg in an article in Haaretz on 27 August titled “Jewish support swinging towards Liberal Party in Australian election”

” The latest polls predict the Liberal Party will win the September 7 election by 53 percent to Labor’s 47 percent. Voting is mandatory and Orthodox Jews have started to pre-poll because all Australian elections are held on Saturdays.

If the polls are accurate, it would spell the end of a bitter battle between Foreign Minister Bob Carr and Jewish leaders, who were infuriated in January when he joined British Foreign Secretary William Hague in stating that all Israeli settlements are “illegal under international law.”

Carr, a founder of the New South Wales Parliamentary Friends of Israel group in the 1970s, reignited Jewish angst last month in a speech outside Australia’s largest mosque:

“All settlements on Palestinian land are illegal under international law and should cease,” he said. “That is the position of Kevin Rudd, the position of the federal Labor government, and we don’t make apologies for it.”

When the inevitable post mortems are written after the elections - Carr’s Lakemba Mosque Declaration tying Rudd and the Labor Party to Carr’s own previously expressed viewpoint will be seen as emblematic of the failure of Rudd and the Labor Party to be honest and upfront with the Australian voters on a range of issues during the elections.

The Lakemba Mosque Declaration came as a complete surprise to the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, the Australia Israel Jewish Affairs Council and the Zionist Federation of Australia - who were quick to voice their disapproval of what was in effect anti-Jewish-policy made on the run on the steps of the Mosque - not by the Prime Minister - but by his Foreign Minister.

Attempts to have Rudd confirm or deny that the views attributed to him and the Labor Party by Carr were in fact their views - have been studiously ignored and still remain unanswered by Rudd.

Instead Carr’s spokesman weighed in with the following mealy-mouthed statement:

“Words are very important and it’s important they are not misrepresented. Yes, we have expressed “concern”, we have expressed “grave concern” and we have expressed “disappointment” in relation to the settlements.This does not amount to a condemnation of Israel or anything like it.”

Who the “we” is and when those words were used was left up in the air.

What was clearly said at the Mosque were the words:

“illegal in international law”, “cease”, ” the position of Kevin Rudd “, the position of the Labor Federal Government” ” and “we don’t make apologies”

Labor Federal MP for Melbourne Ports Michael Danby however was more forthright when telling JWire about Carr’s comments on Israeli settlements:

“Bob Carr’s emphasis on Israeli settlements is ill timed, given the peace negotiations that are currently taking place in Washington. These talks commenced, and are supported by Australia, on the basis that they are undertaken without preconditions.

One of the issues, and it is only one, of the issues being negotiated in Washington is settlements and land swaps. Obviously therefore Australia should not pre-empt negotiations freely entered into by the parties involved.”

Rudd and Carr have failed to respond to allegations that the Lakemba Mosque Declaration was made to attract Moslem voters back to the Labor Party after another disastrous piece of policy on the run - denying future Moslem asylum seekers coming to Australia by boat any right to resettlement in Australia.

Moslem votes are considered to be crucial to Labor retaining a number of narrowly held marginal seats - especially in western Sydney and in Victoria - but the Herald Sun reported on 23 August - confirmed again this week:

“LABOR is facing a wipeout in must-win seats along the eastern seaboard as the federal election campaign enters its final fortnight.

An exclusive Galaxy Poll for the Herald Sun reveals the marginal Victorian seats of Corangamite and La Trobe are set to fall to the Coalition on September 7.

Five critical Labor-held seats in western Sydney are also likely to tumble, including heartland seats such as Gough Whitlam’s former electorate of Werriwa.”

Rudd’s continuing refusal to confirm in a one sentence press release that the Lakemba Mosque declaration is Labor Party policy has apparently convinced Moslem voters that Carr’s declaration was only hot air and political grandstanding.

Trying to play the ethnic card has only had the effect of upsetting both Jewish and Moslem voters - as well as other ethnic groups - during this election campaign.

Now facing possible defeat in his own electorate - a desperate Rudd could still be considering breaking his silence to assure Moslem voters that it is his view - and indeed Labor party policy - that Jews have no right to live in the West Bank.

It will be too little and too late - and would anyone now believe him - after refusing for three weeks to clear up the confusion created by his own Foreign Minister.

Trusting your politicians to say what they mean and mean what they say still ranks very highly in securing many peoples’ votes on Election Day.

Rudd and Carr’s sordid saga of deception and confusion in this and many other issues has only succeeded in turning voters away in droves.

Palestine - Rudd And Carr Tight Lipped On Anti-Jewish Policy

[Published 25 August 2013]


Australia’s Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and Foreign Affairs Minister Senator Bob Carr have gone underground since Carr announced on 8 August at the Lakemba Mosque in Sydney that Rudd personally as well as the Labor Party had adopted as policy that Jews had no right to legally live in the West Bank.

“I’ve been to Ramallah, I’ve spoken to the Palestinian leadership, and we support their aspirations to have a Palestinian state in the context of a Middle East of peace. And that means respect for the right of Israel to exist. But we want that Palestinian state to exist, in the context of a peace in the Middle East, and that’s why we say, unequivocally, all settlements on Palestinian land are illegal under international law and should cease. That is the position, of Kevin Rudd, the position of the Federal Labor Government, and we don’t make apologies for it.”

Attempts to elicit whether Rudd personally and the Labor Party had adopted this policy prior to Carr’s announcement have ended in total confusion.

Labor’s candidate for the seat of Stirling - Dan Caddy - received no answers from Carr when he asked those pertinent questions.

An embarrassed Caddy wrote to the constituent seeking such information:

“I have received advice from our (Foreign) Minister’s office which I have included below. I appreciate that it does not specifically address the questions you have posed, but I hope it clearly articulates what the position is.”

Caddy’s response was however seriously undermined when sitting Labor Member for Melbourne Ports - Michael Danby - spoke out a few days later:

“There’s a narrow view in the Department of Foreign Affairs, in their legal section, that the settlements are illegal. It’s not the view of the government as I understand it.

“He [Carr] has accepted their [the legal department’s] view. The Prime Minister hasn’t accepted that view as far as I understand it.

“I disagree with the Foreign Minister’s interpretation of this. I was disappointed; of course I was disappointed.”

Rudd could clear up this apparent confusion very easily by issuing a one sentence press release affirming or denying that the Lakemba Mosque Declaration represents his personal view and Labor Party policy.

However Rudd has remained silent in the face of angry protests lodged by peak Jewish organisations and the Opposition spokesperson on Foreign Affairs - Julie Bishop.

One can only conclude in the face of such Prime Ministerial silence that Carr’s Lakemba Mosque Declaration was shoddy policy made on the run without the knowledge and acquiescence of the Prime Minister in an attempt to secure the votes of the Moslem community in the elections to be held on 7 September.

The Moslem vote for the Labor Party is by no means assured following another hastily cobbled together policy announced by Rudd in July regarding asylum seekers - making it clear newcomers would no longer be re-settled in Australia under any circumstances - but would be transferred to Papua New Guinea for processing and re-settlement.

This heartless policy would be anathema to all Moslems already in Australia - especially families of potential asylum seekers dreaming of one day being re-united with other family members.

Predictably one could reasonably expect a backlash in the voting intentions of all ethnic and religious groupings in Australia impacted by this policy reversal.

$3 million dollars had reportedly been spent on an advertising blitz in the Australian media explaining the new refugee plan for six days before any similar ads were placed in the countries-of-origin of asylum seekers.

The advertising campaign is going to cost a staggering $30 million - and will now controversially run at taxpayer cost during the election period.

A Department of Immigration spokesman has confirmed the intention of the advertising.

“The advertisements are aimed to speak to ethnic communities in Australia which are the main boat people source. They include Afghans, Iranians, Sri Lankans, Iraqis and more recently Vietnamese people though there are of course other communities.”

He said the aim was to spread the message through “word of mouth” from Australia back to those communities.

The Labor Party holds a number of seats by very small margins where Moslems and different ethnic groups comprise a significant proportion of the voters.

It is becoming increasingly evident that a bizarre balancing act was performed by Carr at the Lakemba Mosque - announcing unequivocally and without apology as Labor Party policy that Jews are not legally entitled to live in the West Bank - thereby hoping to placate and ameliorate Moslem concerns with another Labor Party policy denying Moslem asylum seekers any legal entitlement to live in Australia.

To further impress Moslem voters - Carr added an assurance that this anti-Jewish policy concerning the West Bank was personally embraced by Prime Minister Rudd and so would remain unchanged if the Labor Party is returned to power.

His assurances seem to have fallen on deaf Moslem ears - if the results of recently published polls in those tightly held Labor marginal seats are any guidance.

Carr - and Rudd - have amazingly managed to alienate Jews, Moslems and other ethnic groups - who will consider as immoral and inhumane - and be motivated to vote against - Labor policies that deny Jews the right to settle in the West Bank or asylum seekers the right to settle in Australia.

Hastily conceived policies drawn up in the heat of an election campaign appear set to hit the Labor Party with devastating effect.