View previous stories
	A Betrayal of Trust and Liberty by Malcolm Fraser Australia   October 20, 2005   (Malcolm Fraser was Prime Minister of Australia from 1975 to 1983).   The Australian Government and Opposition assume we cannot fight terrorism while adhering to principles of democracy and justice. Their folly is a grave threat to our freedom, writes Malcolm Fraser.   Today"s world is preoccupied with terrorism. How we in democracies respond is critical to the maintenance of our own values and to the ideals of liberty. There is a danger that Islam, which is essentially a peaceful religion, will be blamed for the actions of terrorists and that we will be increasingly divided by religion and race.   We need to understand that terrorism is as old as the human race. The Crusaders from Britain who fought against Islam in the Middle Ages; the Spanish Inquisition; the IRA and the Protestant militias in Ireland all practised terrorism; all were fundamentalist in their beliefs. The Chechens wanting independence are terrorists. People in some parts of the Philippines who want independence, were once called communists, then freedom fighters and now terrorists. The Basques in Spain; the Belgians in the Congo; the Portuguese and Spaniards in Central and South America; the Red Army and the Red Brigades in Germany and Italy in the late 70s and early 80s were all terrorists.   Many believe the war in Iraq has provided a new motivation for terrorists, to end the occupation of an Islamic country by an infidel army. To understand that there are different causes of terrorism is not to condone but is essential if we wish to overcome and end terrorism.   Because civilisation as we know it was so nearly destroyed during the Second World War, leaders of all major states believed they must strive and work to achieve a better world. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was agreed in 1948. In the years since, protocols and conventions established under it were designed to build a law-based world. The International Criminal Court finally came into force on July 1, 2002. It is more than unfortunate that our response to terrorism has reversed much of that progress and leaders in too many countries do not seem to understand that that is happening.   These are powers whose breadth and arbitrary nature, with lack of judicial oversight, should not exist in any democratic country.   The ASIO legislation of 2002 underlines Australia"s official indifference to "due process" and to what until recently would have been regarded as universally accepted Rule of Law. We are the only democratic nation, I am advised, to legislate for the detention of people whom the authorities do not suspect of any wrongdoing or even wrong thought.   In Australia, any of us can be detained merely because authorities believe we might know something that we do not even know we know. The authorities do not have to believe we are guilty of any crime, or are planning any crime, or have consorted with any suspicious persons. How could such a law be drafted by the Government and supported by the Labor opposition?   You can be detained for one week but then on a new warrant, another and another and another week. Unless it is approved in the original warrant - and why would ASIO do that? - you are not allowed to contact your wife, your husband, your child, your mother, your father and, of course, not a lawyer.   If you do not answer ASIO"s questions satisfactorily, you can be charged and subject to five years in jail. But the law is reasonable, it goes on to say that if you do not know anything, then it is not an offence not to tell ASIO anything. But you have to prove you did not know anything and so the "onus of proof" is reversed.   You can be asked to produce a paper and if you do not, you also go to jail on prosecution for five years but the law goes on to say, being fair-minded again, if you do not have such a paper, it is not an offence not to produce it but you have to prove that you did not have it. How do you prove you do not have something that you do not even know exists. Again, "onus of proof" is reversed.   If a journalist heard that you had been detained and sought to report it, he would go to jail for five years. If a detained person were released and talked to anyone about his or her experiences, subject to prosecution, five years in jail.   This seems to be a law for secret behaviour by authorities, for making somebody disappear. It is a law that one would expect in tyrannical countries and not in Australia. Do we do nothing about it because we believe it will not apply to ourselves? Do we believe it is only going to apply to people of a different religion who look a bit different?   United States authorities and others have, time and again, denigrated those in Guantanamo Bay. We have been told they are the worst of the worst, that they are terrible people, that they do not deserve the normal protection of the law.   People who make such comments clearly do not understand or believe in the Rule of Law as it has evolved through the ages. They have taken such views because they believe those in Guantanamo Bay and others are not "people" like ourselves. In a different day and a different time, but within the memories of many, we have heard those words before.   The presumption of innocence until proven guilty, the presumption that all people should have access to "due process" in a properly constituted legal system is no longer valid in Australia. It is not reasonable just to blame the Government alone for such laws. The Labor Party approved such laws. As a consequence of the Government and the Opposition basically agreeing, Australian law already provides for the abolition of "due process", of habeas corpus and the presumption of innocence. All this is already law.   Australian law, or lack of it, has already failed many individuals and groups. Among these we can include: Aborigines; people held in the Department of Immigration detention centres; an Australian citizen deported; Australian citizens wrongly held in detention centres without medical attention; a US citizen deported without "due process" and an Australian citizen being tried before a military tribunal. By the detention of the innocent, by the questioning of people known to be innocent by the authorities, by the right confirmed by the High Court with a majority of four to three, to keep a failed asylum seeker in jail for the term of his natural life, if he could not be returned to his land of origin.   Authorities in Australia already have the capacity for the exercise of extreme and arbitrary power without adequate judicial safeguards. Much of this involves the gravest failure of administrative and ministerial responsibilities. As shown in the Palmer and Comrie reports, the Department of Immigration has been at the centre of much of it. Two ministers have been in charge, neither minister is responsible. As far as one can tell, nobody has been held accountable. The people involved appear not to have mattered to the administration or to the Government.   Australia now has new proposals in front of it providing even greater power to the police and to the Government. Attention should, in particular, be turned to those provisions that allow for "preventive detention" and the use of "control orders" to arrest and to limit and monitor the activities of individuals. No cogent case has been made for the expansion of these powers, except a general one that it is necessary to fight terrorism. It would be reasonable to ask why, it would be reasonable to expect a considered answer. Do we really believe these powers will be effective in the fight against terrorism, or do we believe that the powers themselves are likely to lead to a sense of grievance and of alienation? These are powers whose breadth and arbitrary nature, with lack of judicial oversight, should not exist in any democratic country. If one says that they will not be abused, I do not agree. If arbitrary power exists it will be abused.   All this has happened in a country which has not experienced a significant terrorist incident for many years. What would be our Government"s reaction if this great city were tied up and disorganised by terrorist attacks similar to those which recently occurred in London?   The Government is really saying on these issues, trust us, but no part of the history of the Coalition"s invasion and occupation of Iraq gives any member of that coalition the right to say on these issues: "Trust us." We were told there were weapons of mass destruction. There weren"t.   More recently published British cabinet papers have made it clear that President George Bush had made the decision to go to war seven or eight months before the American people were told.   More particularly, after the Tampa, after the children overboard, the experience and treatment of asylum seekers, the abandonment of Guantanamo prisoner David Hicks, all suggest that any right to trust has been long destroyed. Concerning the Tampa and children overboard, the Government knew they were playing to the more fearful and conservative elements in the Australian community and with great success. The Government also knows in relation to terrorism that the public is concerned, even fearful and can be made more fearful.   It may be brilliant politics but will such laws make Australia secure? By its actions, the Government has long abandoned and lost the middle ground. The rule of law and "due process" has been set aside.   These new proposals should be opposed. No strong case has been made that they will be effective in the fight against terrorism. There are no real safeguards. There is no adequate judicial review.   The laws should be opposed because the process itself is seriously flawed. Instead of wide-ranging discussion the Government has sought to nobble the field in secret and to prevent debate.   The Government and the Labor Party have both assumed that we cannot fight terrorism and adhere to the basic principles of justice and democracy. They have assumed that certain people are outside the law and do not deserve justice. They are saying "Trust us" when they have given us every reason not to trust them on peace and war and on security for our people.   If we stand silent in the face of discrimination and in violation of the basic principles of humanity, then we betray our own principles and our way of life. I regret that many believe they must throw basic rights overboard to defend those same rights. Such views are wrong and will make it harder to overcome terrorism.   (This article was first published by The Age).
	International institutions need to get better at delivering aid & post-disaster reconstruction by IHT / UN News   Nov 2005   UN General Assembly calls for further strengthening United Nations humanitarian capacity to assist millions of disaster victims worldwide.   Deeply alarmed over the critical condition of millions desperately awaiting immediate response in Pakistan’s high altitude valleys following the 7.6 earthquake that rocked South Asia early on 8 October, the General Assembly requested United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan to further strengthen the rapid response capacities for immediate humanitarian relief efforts in the devastated region, building on existing arrangements and ongoing initiatives, in one of four resolutions adopted today.   Spotlighting the plight of millions of people worldwide in 2005 who needed help to pull through crises ranging from large-scale conflict and abiding food insecurity to catastrophic earthquakes and their aftermath, Assembly President Jan Eliasson (Sweden) opened today’s meeting by stressing the significance of strengthening United Nations emergency relief assistance and boosting its coordination with the wider humanitarian aid community to help mitigate disasters, speed up the deployment of resources and stimulate post-disaster development.   He said that the complexity of today’s crises and the growing magnitude of disasters required that humanitarian assistance remain one of the Organization’s highest priorities. The draft resolutions under consideration concerned the recent South Asian earthquake, the devastating Indian Ocean tsunami and the Chernobyl nuclear accident. Hundreds of thousands of human beings in grave need and mortal danger were at the heart of the Assembly’s discussions, he said, adding “Our solidarity with them must be unwavering.”   By further terms of the text on the South Asian earthquake, the Assembly asked Mr. Annan to appoint a special envoy to, among other things, sustain the international community’s political will to support the medium- and long-term rehabilitation, reconstruction and risk reduction efforts.   Maintaining worldwide focus on the need to strengthen emergency relief, reconstruction and prevention after last December’s Indian Ocean tsunami disaster, which killed nearly 250,000 people and left an arc of devastation across 12 countries, the Assembly adopted another resolution encouraging continued effective coordination among the Governments of affected countries, relevant United Nations bodies, donors, regional and global financial institutions, civil society and the private sector, to ensure adequate response to remaining humanitarian needs.   Another provision of that text reaffirmed that all regional efforts should serve the purpose of strengthening international cooperation aimed at the creation of a global multi-hazard early warning system, including the newly established Indian Ocean Warning and Mitigation System.   Conscious of the long-term nature of the consequences of the 1986 disaster at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, the Assembly also adopted a resolution requesting the United Nations Coordinator of International Cooperation on Chernobyl to organize, in collaboration with the affected countries of Belarus, Ukraine and the Russian Federation, a further study of health, environmental and socio-economic consequences of the accident, consistent with the recommendations of the Chernobyl Forum.   When the floor was opened for discussion, delegations noted the serious challenges faced by the United Nations humanitarian response mechanisms during the past year. Agreeing on the need to strengthen the Organization’s coordination and disaster relief capacity, speakers said that addressing the world body’s funding capacity was one of the most critical steps to achieving that objective. Many delegations, particularly those in disaster-prone and small island regions, also highlighted the need to improve global disaster response and reduction mechanisms.   Noting the increasing demands on the Central Emergency Revolving Fund, delegations supported the Secretary-General’s recommendation to modernize that mechanism by expanding its target of $500 million to include a grant element alongside its existing loan element. The modernized Fund would be used to ensure resources were immediately available for rapid response to humanitarian crises and address critical humanitarian needs in under-funded emergencies. One speaker noted that making the modernized Fund a success required a flexible advisory group structure and clear criteria for the allocation of resources, as well as accurate needs assessments and appropriate accounting and reporting mechanisms.   October, 2005   International institutions need to get better at delivering aid & post-disaster reconstruction", says Gordon Brown & Hilary Benn. (International Herald Tribune)   This year"s catalog of natural disasters, while engendering a compassionate public response, has shown beyond all doubt that the world needs to get better at delivering humanitarian aid and carrying out reconstruction. Charities and national governments are far better coordinated than ever before. But international institutions need to improve their preparedness, speed of action and coordination of response.   For some years, the International Monetary Fund has had an emergency assistance facility to deal with the balance-of-payments problems that follow disasters, but because it is limited in scope and size, it pays out little even when the need is great.   The World Bank provides a range of services, but the fact is that while it and the regional development banks can redeploy financing, they have limited dedicated funding for responding to natural disasters.   There is a UN Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs and an existing UN fund for emergency response. But the fund is only $50 million and can be used only to loan money to UN agencies that already have pledges from donors. So it only addresses the time gap between donors pledging to a project and actually handing over the money.   This is not good enough. A world that in just a year has seen a chain of disasters ravage communities and continents needs an international response that is more proactive in its ambitions and more coordinated in its reach - and quite simply gets more money support more quickly to where it is needed.   We believe there is a way forward. First, afflicted countries should be able to call immediately upon a new shocks facility at the IMF. Money should be frontloaded, fast disbursing and readily accessible. And potential borrowers should include all poor countries, not only those suffering from natural disasters but those affected by the oil-price rise or sharp falls in prices for their main exports. And donors must help these countries meet their total financing needs as estimated by the IMF.   With both loan capital and help for subsidies needed, Britain and France have agreed to finance the first stages of the facility. Oil-producing countries should contribute when the managing director, Rodrigo Rato, visits the Gulf states this week. The new facility should be set up immediately when the IMF board meets on Oct. 31.   The World Bank has always played a bigger role, not least in the financing of social and economic reconstruction after disasters.   The bank should now come forward with proposals for increasing its support for countries in distress, through additional financing to their poverty-reduction plans for disaster recovery and contingency planning and preparedness.   For reconstruction to work, emergency assistance must also work, a fact recognized within Europe by the creation of the European Solidarity Fund in 2002. So it is clear there is a need for a new humanitarian world fund into which donors pay and from which humanitarian coordinators can immediately draw funds when a crisis threatens.   Our priority, then, must be to reform the UN"s Central Emergency Revolving Fund, and the UN Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs will indeed later this month make detailed proposals for this reformed fund. At present, six donors have pledged around $150 million (of which Britain"s contribution is $70 million), but we would like to see it grow. When the General Assembly meets on Nov. 14, it should agree to a fund that would start immediately, at the latest by January of next year.   And there is yet another vast area for global cooperation that we ignore at our peril. Millions are not vaccinated against even the most basic of diseases. We should invite more countries to contribute to the new International Finance Facility for Immunization. By frontloading $4 billion of additional expenditure, the fund will be able to save five million lives between now and 2015. With support from additional countries, it could do even more.   Out of the ruins of a year of catastrophe, we have seen helping hands reach across ancient conflicts, from Indonesia to Sri Lanka to the subcontinent. Now as the IMF, the World Bank, the European Union and the United Nations look at how they can do better, we have a unique chance to be better prepared, swifter in response and fully coordinated to cope both with disasters and post-disaster reconstruction.   A year that began by reminding us of the extraordinary power of nature to destroy can end by revealing the extraordinary power of humanity to build anew.   (Gordon Brown is Britain"s chancellor of the Exchequer, and Hilary Benn is secretary of state for international development.)
	View more stories