Missed opportunity
Alexander Downer's reference to the anti-war movement as a bunch of Saddam supporters is as amusing as John Howard's reference to the February 14-16 protesters as a "mob". No amount of name-calling by the Howard government will change the fact that those who opposed the invasion of Iraq (the majority of the world) were correct.
We saw through the lies about why Australia should help invade Iraq and we can just as easily see through the paltry justification for why Australia should be part of the occupation of Iraq. The global mobilisation in February 2003 put warmongering politicians on notice that we would hold them accountable.
The next global day of action on March 20, the anniversary of the invasion, is another opportunity to show we will not let our "leaders" forget they have the blood of innocents on their hands.
It is in this context that I am disappointed that the Sydney Peace and Justice Coalition (SPJC) has refused, despite several invitations from the Stop the War Coalition (SWC), to sponsor the March 20 global day of action.
Of course every coalition has the right to decide on what it will and won't support. But I'd have hoped that the SPJC would have followed the lead set by the US anti-war movement where, despite differences, ANSWER and United for Peace and Justice are collaborating to make the March 20 protest massive. SPJC's decision is a missed opportunity to magnify the pressure on an already defensive PM.
Anna Samson
Co-convenor
Stop the War Coalition
Sydney
Apology
Mark Latham's statement that, if he became PM, he would apologise to some Aborigines has led to claims that this would cost taxpayers billions in compensation. It wouldn't. And even if it did, would this be wrong?
If a person can prove mistreatment in court they can try to obtain compensation now. But Aborigines removed from their families are not currently getting compensation. A general apology by government for at least some child removals would not establish any individual's legal case.
Objections to contemporary compensation are often based on the view that people harmed by wrongful acts should only be paid compensation by the perpetrators of these acts. But if the wrongdoers are not available to make restitution, the broader community should contribute. The alternative is leaving aggrieved parties to bear the full cost of the wrongdoing by themselves — which is hardly fair.
By a similar argument, a government might say sorry for the policies of previous governments if this is the only way victims of these policies can be comforted by a governmental apology.
An apology won't cure Aboriginal problems. But it will make some Aborigines (and non-Aborigines) feel better.
Brent Howard
Rydalmere NSW
Nader
Ralph Nader has again heroically thrown his hat into the ring and decided to run as an independent for the US presidency. This veteran anti-establishment anti-corporate America candidate ran at the last election and as always demonstrated a pre-eminent ability to raise the important issues.
Nader gave voters a real choice in 2000. Hopefully he will do the same this time round. The Democrats have condemned him as a spoiler — somebody who will take votes away from them and help George W. Bush get re-elected. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Nader represents a part of American society that has become totally disillusioned with the pathetic two party system which offers little real choice on issues. If the Democrats won't provide clear alternatives then voters have every right to choose another candidate who will. Nader fits the bill perfectly.
A humble suggestion Ralph. Talk, plead, beg Noam Chomsky to run alongside you. This combination may not win the election, but by God it would provide an incredible intellectually stimulating campaign. Ignore your critics, and run Ralph run!
Adam Bonner
Meroo Meadow NSW
Mainstream press
It is with growing disgust that I read the Sydney Morning Herald and the Australian. These are papers that will not think of tackling the real abuses of power — the refugees on Nauru can stay there till hell freezes over, the lone refugee on Manus Island can stay there forever, the razor-wire camps with refugees locked up for years can go unreported until the next "incident".
As I grew up, I sometimes wondered how the German newspapers in the Third Reich reported the concentration camps, or if they reported them at all. At least in that time, the excuse of living under a brutal regime could at least be used.
German papers then probably read something like the SMH now. No mention of the 280 people abandoned on Nauru. No mention that John Howard is a war criminal. No discussion of international law or that terribly passe subject, human rights. Next to no discussion of Mamdouh Habib and David Hicks as they go crazy in Guantanamo Bay, subject to no rule of law, held hostage by the US, uncharged, with full Australian government complicity, plus that of the Latham Opposition-lite.
You won't find one of our greatest and bravest journalists, John Pilger, in the Sydney Morning Herald. Shame on the "mainstream" papers for these and countless other derelictions.
The upshot of this? We have to avoid actually buying the mainstream papers, and everything to support the papers that try and get to the truth. I do not mean only Green Left Weekly. There are others, such as the Guardian (the CPA paper). Not that we should not read the mainstream papers... but in the same way that we would read Pravda in the Soviet Union. But the papers we should support are those exposing the abuses of government and corporate power. Keep it up!
Stephen Langford From Green Left Weekly, March 10, 2004.
Paddington NSW
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.