Been wondering why Tony Abbott appears to be enthusiastically treading the Republican Tea Party path? Well wonder no more...

He may not quite have the full hang of it yet, but the not-so-honourable Tony Abbott MHR has obviously caught sight of a Tea Party aktion cheat sheet and for months has been happily whipping up angry wingnuts wherever he can find them.

Perhaps his decision to turn political debate into a mindlessly ugly experience can be found among those U.S. diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks.

In September 2006 Liberal Party Federal Director Brian Loughnane was considered a Protected Source by the U.S. Embassy in Canberra and was busy telling with the Yanks that; “the close ties between President Bush and Howard where reflected in the similarly strong ties between the Australian Liberal and U.S. Republican parties.”

Oi, Julia! These bees are bad news. So pull yer finga out!

In December 2010 the U.S. Government banned the import of queen bees and bee packages from Australia because it said that there was a chance of bringing bee diseases (particularly from the Asian Bee) into America.
With a display of blinding stupidity in January 2011 the Gillard Government agreed with the Asian Honeybee National Management Group that it was too hard a task to eradicate this pest bee and it would no longer try - even though these flying cane toads were still confined to North Queensland and older established bee hives were no longer being found only newer ones.
The U.S. ban is still in place and the bees have had a summer season to move into native bee territory virtually unchallenged, but now the Government is supposedly having a bit of a rethink on the subject of pest bee eradication after a Senate committee failed to support the AHNMG’s craven retreat.
Bees and honey are reliable multi-million dollar export earners for Oz or were until the former Howard Government began to mismanage biosecurity.
So it’s not time for PR spin. It’s time for eradication action.
So Jools – remember that you're Australia's number one ranga and put the toe of your prime ministerial boot up the backsides of those AHNMG wimps and make them bluddy move quickly.

Save the nation’s morning honey fix!

"Sh* t happens": Did Tony Abbott just illustrate a lesson never learnt from Viet Nam?

With Tony Abbott’s relaxed and laid back “sh*t happens” reassurance to Colonel Jim Creighton (US sector commander directing military operations in which Australian troops were deployed) making the news recently, one has to wonder if the explanation he so easily accepted that fire support of Australian troops was “more than adequate” should have been explored further.

Given that the American penchant for fudging facts has apparently survived intact beyond the Viet Nam debacle (a war which blundered on from the early 1960s to 1975) and now allegedly rears its head again in Afghanistan in this decade.

The US Center for Public Integrity on 6 February 2011 stated that an investigation found that Civil Affairs reservists tasked with winning the hearts and minds of locals have died disproportionately in Afghanistan and Iraq. The statistics offer a grim picture. Though these soldiers only make up about 5 percent of the Army’s reserve forces, they account for 23 percent of the combat fatalities among reservists in Iraq and Afghanistan. We also found that generals in the field, unable to obtain sufficient Civil Affairs units, sent reservists into harm’s way without hardened vehicles, protective plates for their armored vests, and machine guns. Further, the Army inflated the number of active-duty Civil Affairs soldiers to give Congress the appearance of a fully-staffed division.

Australia-US Free Trade Agreement: Big Brother lines up the ducks

It would appear that the U.S. continues to feel hard done by because Australia is not yet the state in the Union.

Amongst other perceived barriers to trade apparently Australian state governments stubbornly continue to insist on buying local where possible and contracting for blood products procured within the country, the Federal Government still insists on subsidising medicines as part of the safety net welfare system, foreign investment rules on telecommunications are unsatisfactory and free-to-air television continues to have some home grown content.

Which perhaps gives a clue as to what may be concealed within this paragraph from the Office of the U.S. Trade Representatives’ latest spin on America’s attempt at a second bite of the free trade cherry through its Trans-Pacific Partnership initiative:

In addition, the TPP countries made solid progress in further framing the new horizontal, cross-cutting issues that will feature in the TPP Agreement. These include such issues as promoting connectivity to deepen the links of U.S. companies to the emerging production and distribution networks in the Asia-Pacific; making the regulatory systems of TPP countries more compatible so U.S. companies can operate more seamlessly in TPP markets; helping small- and medium-sized enterprises, which are a key source of innovation and job creation, participate more actively in international trade; and supporting development.

It is worth noting the difference in emphasis in what the Australian Dept. of Foreign Affairs and Trade has online for public consumption.

Which in turn is very different from how the AFTINET lobby group views these negotiations.

It is perhaps also worth noting that the U.S. biotech industry has a long wish list for changes to trade in genetically modified organisms as the TPP fifth round begins in February 2011 and, that this wish list with regard to labelling has a dot point (first below) which is remarkably similar in intent to Recommendation 29 (second below) recently included in the Blewett report on Australian food labelling .

One of course could take the position that Australians should be thankful for small mercies when faced with what looks suspiciously like a Gillard Government cave-in to the bullying free trade partner the former Howard Government invited in.

Because the Monsanto Corporation takes the line in relation to genetically modified food that information does not necessarily need to be physically present on a label. However, mandated information requirements must be easily accessible to consumers and cost-effective and insists It is clearly not a food safety issue, as these foods have undergone the most rigorous of food safety assessments, and are probably the safest foods on the market. In this context, we support the submission made by CropLife Australia, which clearly sets out the wealth of scientific evidence underpinning the safety of these foods. The Panel needs to bear this in mind when considering this issue. A precautionary approach is already clearly being applied in the case of food derived from GM production systems, by virtue of the extensive risk assessment criteria which have to be met by applicants.

Background can be found at:

ABC Radio LateNightLive audio 18 November 2010, which talks about free trade agreements being in reality investor rights agreements giving corporations superior rights to those of governments

Herald-Sun 28 January 2011, Blewett 'blew it' on GM review - Greens.

North Coast Voices, Monsanto-Mahyco GM eggplant toxicity study receives a fail from researcher - wonder what the opinion will be on Monsanto's latest SDA soybean effort?

Americans more interested in UFOs than in Wikileaks saga?

With official U.S. Government angst on public display over Wikileaks release of Cablegate material, the Dept of Justice out for blood and both American politicians and some news commentators calling for Julian Assange's head, one has to wonder whether the average person in that country is even mildly interested in this ongoing saga.

Here are some Google Trends snapshots covering all of 2010, which indicate that perhaps (in cyberspace at least) Americans have a more sustained interest in alien life forms than in who obtains and publishes copies of U.S. diplomatic cables.

Tracy McCormick and US Dept of Justice want details all Twitter accounts with connections to Wikileaks

Glen Greenwald writing in Salon on 7 January 2011:

Last night, Birgitta Jónsdóttir -- a former WikiLeaks volunteer and current member of the Icelandic Parliament -- announced (on Twitter) that she had been notified by Twitter that the DOJ had served a Subpoena demanding information "about all my tweets and more since November 1st 2009." Several news outlets, including The Guardian, wrote about Jónsdóttir's announcement.

What hasn't been reported is that the Subpoena served on Twitter -- which was ordered by a federal court -- seeks the same information for numerous other individuals currently or formerly associated with WikiLeaks, including Jacob Appelbaum, Rop Gongrijp, and Julian Assange. It also seeks the same information for Bradley Manning and for WikiLeaks' Twitter account.

The information demanded by the DOJ is sweeping in scope. It includes all mailing addresses and billing information known for the user, all connection records and session times, all IP addresses used to access Twitter, all known email accounts, as well as the "means and source of payment," including banking records and credit cards. It seeks all of that information for the period beginning November 1, 2009 through the present. A copy of the court-ordered Subpoena served on Twitter is here.

The Subpoena was court ordered, signed by a federal Magistrate Judge in the Eastern District of Virginia, Theresa Buchanan. It states that there is "reasonable ground to believe that the records or other information sought are relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation." It was issued on December 14 and ordered sealed -- i.e., kept secret from the targets of the Order. On January 5, the same judge ordered the subpoena unsealed at Twitter's request in order to inform the users of the Subpoena and give them 10 days to object; had Twitter not so requested, it could have turned over this information without the knowledge of its users. A copy of the unsealing order is here.

However, what is fascinating about the unsealing order of 5 January 2011 is that - it's not in order. Look closely.......

Wikileaks: Japan and U.S. discuss Antarctic whaling and Australia's opposition

Main body of the text of a November 2009 U.S. diplomatic cable indicating that the American Government intended to pressure the Australian Government concerning its continuing opposition to ‘scientific’ commercial whale hunting in the Antarctic, Japan admits that the Netherlands' registration of Sea Shepherd vessels means that country is primarily responsible for addressing complaints and the U.S. is seeking to revoke the not-for-profit/charity status of the Sea Shepherd organization:

¶2. (C/NF) Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and U.S. representative to the International Whaling Commission Monica Medina met with senior Fisheries Agency of Japan officials to discuss the Future of the IWC process November 4 in Tokyo. In a morning meeting with Ms. Medina, Fisheries Agency of Japan Director General Machida said that while he expects difficult negotiations ahead, he wants the Future of the IWC process to succeed. According to Machida, political level consultations on whaling are necessary following the recent change in administration in Japan. However, he cautioned the new Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) administration shares the same fundamental position on whaling as the outgoing Liberal Democratic Party, including support for the resumption of commercial whaling and continued research whaling. He added that the two sides should not rush through the negotiations, which could end up making it more difficult to reach consensus at next June's IWC annual meeting.

¶3. (C/NF) Ms. Medina said the USG understands there is no fundamental change in the GOJ position on whaling, but that the USG is looking for creative solutions to move the IWC forward as opposed to fundamental change. She added that the U.S. is committed to finding a solution over the next two to three months. She said she would advocate for including language on whaling in a summit statement following the meeting between the President and Prime Minister November 13. The statement would express the desire of both countries to work out remaining differences on whaling. Once negotiators have narrowed the issues, both sides could seek a political solution, she added.

¶4. (C/NF) Machida described the progress at the Support Group meeting in Santiago as a major step forward. However, he said there remain two major issues that need to be addressed. First, there is still no consensus on the proposals raised in Santiago even among the Support Group members, let alone the entire IWC. Second, the upper limit on catch quotas, especially a reduction in the limit for Japan's research whaling in the Southern Ocean, have yet to be negotiated. Regarding Japan's catch numbers, Machida said Australia's proposal to phase out research whaling is a non-starter for the GOJ. He added that the baseline for any reduction in Japan's research whaling should be the catch quota figures and not the actual number of whales caught.

TOKYO 00002588 002 OF 002

¶5. (C/NF) Ms. Medina replied that the catch quotas is the most important outstanding issue. She said the Santiago proposal calls for an overall reduction in catch numbers from all whaling nations over a ten year period, which would help in securing approval from Australia, New Zealand, and the UK. She said given the history of Japan's research whaling, and the increase in quota numbers in recent years, there is room for Japan to cut from the actual number of whales taken. A symbolic action by Japan, such as agreeing not to take fin whales this year, would be a good indicator to the rest of the IWC of Japan's commitment to reaching a solution. The USG would then work hard to make sure the EU and Australia do not block a compromise.

¶6. (C/NF) Machida said there are two factors outside the current Future of the IWC negotiations that influence Japan's negotiating position. First, a negative outcome in the vote at next year's IWC intersessional meeting on Greenland's proposal to catch ten humpback whales could derail the work of the Support Group. Greenland's proposal has the backing of the IWC's Scientific Committee and another rejection at the IWC plenary meeting could make the overall compromise being discussed impossible. Second, the violent protests by the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (SSCS) could limit the GOJ's flexibility in the negotiations. He said the Netherlands should have primary responsibly for taking action against the SSCS, but he appreciates the USG initiative to address the group's tax exempt status. He said action on the SSCS would be a major element for Japan in the success of the overall negotiations. Ms. Medina replied that she hopes to work out differences with the EU on Greenland's proposal on humpback whales prior to the March 2010 IWC intersessional meeting and include the issue in the overall agreement. Regarding the SSCS, she said she believes the USG can demonstrate the group does not deserve tax exempt status based on their aggressive and harmful actions.

¶7. (U) Ms. Medina cleared this cable subsequent to departing

Tokyo.

ROOS

WHALING DEAL IS NO DEAL - February 2010 U.S. diplomatic cable outlining Australian Environment Minister Peter Garret's response.

The last polling I'll inflict on readers this year - I rooly trooly promise!

From the folks at Essential Research on 20^th December 2010:

Click on images to make them grow

I'm off to do a bit of camping and fishing - if I can find a dry spot to pitch the tent - see you all in February 2011.

Wikileaks - when the shoe finally drops

Ian Martin over Laberal noticed the paucity of US diplomatic cables mentioning Oz Coalition pollies:

That is now changing and it’s fitting that remarks by a former Howard Government foreign minister become some of the first to see the light of day.

The Age on 22^nd December 2010:
“THE former Howard government urged the US to force the collapse of the North Korean regime by denying it aid, despite advice the country had a growing nuclear arsenal and could unleash an artillery barrage on South Korea's capital at a moment's notice
''Let the whole place go to shit, that's the best thing that could happen,'' former foreign minister Alexander Downer told the commander of United States and United Nations forces in South Korea at a meeting in Canberra in February 2005.
A leaked US embassy cable reports that Mr Downer told General Leon LaPorte that the international community should sharply increase pressure on North Korea, suggesting that "aid that could prop up [North Korea's] failing infrastructure should be withheld in order to bring an end to the regime's tyranny''.
And, according to the cable obtained by WikiLeaks and made available exclusively to The Age, Mr Downer's ''off the top of his head'' remarks also derided the approach of New Zealand to the Korean problem.
If US officials wanted to hear the ''bleeding hearts'' view of ''peace and love'' with respect to North Korea, Mr Downer joked, they only had to visit his colleagues in New Zealand.”

Wikileaks cables: Crikey the only MSM not treating readers like mewling infants

While much of the rest of the world's media published transcripts of diplomatic cables (released to the media by Wikileaks) which were the subject of newspaper articles, Australian editors remained reluctant to publish full texts of material released to them until Crikey broke the mould.

Whether these editors thought this would increase acceptance of the journalists perspective on information contained in these cables or because they were hesitant on other grounds, as one can see from the two examples below these cables contain very little which has not been reported on in some shape or form previously and in one instance only exposes how erroneous political predictions from outsiders can be.

1074 6/10/2009 22:19 09CANBERRA545 Embassy Canberra CONFIDENTIAL//NOFORN VZCZCXRO5793OO RUEHBC RUEHDBU RUEHDE RUEHDH RUEHDT RUEHIHL RUEHKUK RUEHPB RUEHPWDE RUEHBY #0524/01 1550727ZNY CCCCC ZZHO 040727Z JUN 09FM AMEMBASSY CANBERRATO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 1573INFO RUCNAFG/AFGHANISTAN COLLECTIVE IMMEDIATERUCNARF/ASEAN REGIONAL FORUM COLLECTIVE IMMEDIATERUCNRAQ/IRAQ COLLECTIVE IMMEDIATERUEHBN/AMCONSUL MELBOURNE IMMEDIATE 6392RUEHPT/AMCONSUL PERTH IMMEDIATE 4656RUEHDN/AMCONSUL SYDNEY IMMEDIATE 4617RUEHIN/AIT TAIPEI IMMEDIATE 1211RHHMUNA/CDR USPACOM HONOLULU HI IMMEDIATERUEAIIA/CIA WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATERUEKJCS/CJCS WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATERUEKDIA/DIA WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATERHMFISS/HQ USCENTCOM MACDILL AFB FL IMMEDIATERUEKJCS/JOINT STAFF WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATERHEHNSC/NSC WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATERUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATERHEHAAA/THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATERUEHNO/USMISSION USNATO IMMEDIATE 0868RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK IMMEDIATE 0811 C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 CANBERRA 000545 NOFORN SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 05/31/2019 TAGS: PGOV, ELAB, AS SUBJECT: GILLARD: ON TRACK TO BECOME AUSTRALIA'S NEXT PRIME MINISTER REF: A) 08 CANBERRA 609 B) CANBERRA 167 C) CANBERRA 305 Classified By: CDA Daniel A. Clune for reasons 1.4 (b) and (d). 1. (C/NF) SUMMARY: Described by her many supporters as "smart, tough, loyal, and the best parliamentary performer in the Australian Labor Party (ALP)," Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard - who visits Washington later this month - has positioned herself as the heir apparent to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd as ALP leader (ref A). Part of Rudd's inner circle, she has handled a combined workplace relations and education portfolio with confidence and ability. Gillard has had a good year. She successfully shepherded through Parliament the Government's key workplace relations reform bill in March and she is overseeing the Government's investment in every school in Australia. Gillard, a product of the ALP Left in the state of Victoria, has shifted towards the political center since Rudd became ALP leader and is now a strong supporter of the Australia-US Alliance and Israel. Although she is still seen as a leftist by key right-wing union powerbrokers, that is not likely to stop her from succeeding Rudd as the next leader of the ALP. END SUMMARY THE GANG OF FOUR 2. (C/NF) With Treasurer Wayne Swan and Finance Minister Lindsay Tanner, Gillard is part of Rudd's inner circle, a group collectively known as "the gang of four." She is a member of the National Security Committee of Cabinet and when Rudd is out of the country, or on leave, Gillard is Acting Prime Minister. Labor insiders speak admiringly of her ability to understand issues quickly and of her negotiating toughness. Unlike Rudd, however, whose brittle temperament and micromanagement have come under fire, Gillard is seen by most we've spoken with as a good manager. She oversees one of the better-managed offices in the Government and her staff seem very loyal. Conservative columnist Janet Albrechtson - no friend of the ALP - says of Gillard: "most people I've spoken to are of a firm view that Gillard is far more engaging and impressive than the dour Prime Minister." A GOOD LISTENER WITH AN EVEN DISPOSITION 3. (C/NF) Gillard listens carefully to advice. Kim Beazley, the former Defence Minister and Leader of the Labor Party, told Charge that Gillard listened intently when she met with him to learn his views on national security policy and the alliance with the U.S. The next day, Beazley recounted, he was startled to hear her in a radio interview repeating many of the things he had told her the day before. Unlike the Prime Minister and many other members of the Government, who have been criticized for occasional emotional outbursts, Gillard's demeanor is always controlled. A member of her protective detail told Charge that he was with her constantly for several months and never saw her mistreat staff or even raise her voice, rare behavior for ministers, he commented. A STAR AT QUESTION TIME 4. (C/NF) Gillard is almost unanimously viewed as the Government's best parliamentary performer. She is a superior debater to Rudd, who gets bogged down in bureaucratic jargon and tends to speak for too long. In Parliamentary Question Time, it is evident that ALP MPs enjoy hearing Gillard more than Rudd. She enjoys taunting the Opposition but, as one Qthan Rudd. She enjoys taunting the Opposition but, as one journalist noted, "the only problem is getting her off the corpse." Late last year, in a widely publicized exchange, Gillard pummeled Deputy Opposition Leader Julie Bishop (who was under pressure in a Treasury portfolio she has since relinquished). Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull later described Gillard as "very nasty" and "vicious." A visiting U.S. political scientist noted after watching Question Time that the Opposition normally heckled Government speakers but in stark contrast, they were completely silent when Gillard was on her feet. A LEFT-WINGER NOW A PRAGMATIST 5. (C/NF) Many believe that Rudd, after he became ALP leader in December 2006, did not give Gillard the Treasury portfolio (the normal portfolio for a deputy leader) because she was from the Victorian Socialist Left faction - traditionally the most radical faction in the ALP. Gillard recognizes that to become Prime Minister, she must move to the Center, and show her support for the Alliance with the United States. Albrechtson, who attended the June 2008 Australian-American Leadership Dialogue in Washington with Gillard, wrote that Gillard's speech "could have been given by the Howard Government." Last week, in a speech to the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) national conference, Gillard defended the Government's workplace relations reforms and splashed cold water on union demands for further changes. Although she was heckled by some of the attendees and publicly chided by union leaders, two former leaders of the ACTU defended Gillard's in the press and her public stance against "union radicalism" is likely to be popular with the Australian public. 6. (C/NF) The ALP Right in Gillard's home state of Victoria are not convinced that she is a transformed moderate. Some Victorian right faction members tell us they are looking for a Gillard alternative - although they admit there is no one at present. Beyond Victoria, Gillard has earned the high regard of the powerful right faction within the New South Wales ALP. ALP state secretary Matt Thistlethwaite, a key right faction powerbroker, told us June 3 that Gillard's remarkable message discipline and shrewd management of key portfolios has earned her the respect of virtually all NSW ALP members. We heard a similar message from NSW labor union contacts, who told ConGen Sydney over lunch May 20 that Gillard appears to be Rudd's heir apparent. Thistlethwaite said the NSW right faction would probably challenge Gillard if they had someone of her "caliber," but he admitted they did not. Ambitious young MPs and former Union leaders Bill Shorten and Greg Combet are routinely mentioned as possible future prime ministers, but Thistlethwaite said that neither one is in any real position to challenge Gillard. More focused on the next election, party powerbrokers have not had any serious conversations about a Rudd successor, according to Thistlethwaite. PRO-ISRAEL 7. (C/NF) Gillard has thrown off the baggage of being from what one analyst called the "notoriously anti-Israel faction" of the ALP. As Acting Prime Minister in late December 2008, Gillard was responsible for negotiating the Government's position on Israel's incursion into Gaza. Left-wing ALP MPs, a group to which Gillard used to belong, wanted her to take a harder line against Israel. Instead, she said Hamas had broken the ceasefire first by attacking Israel - a stance welcomed by Israel's supporters in Australia. MP Michael Danby, one of two Jewish members of Parliament and a strong supporter of Israel, told us that after the Gaza statement he had a new appreciation of Gillard's leadership within the ALP (ref B). Israeli Ambassador Yuval Rotem told us that Gillard has gone out of her way to build a relationship with Israel and that she asked him to arrange an early opportunity to visit. He will accompany Gillard and a delegation of Australian officials (including newly-appointed Minister Mark Arbib and Liberal Party heavyweights former Treasurer Peter Costello and Chris Pyne, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) to a meeting of the Australia-Israel Leadership Forum later this month. LABOR REFORM PASSES 8. (C/NF) On March 20, the ALP's reform of Australia's Q8. (C/NF) On March 20, the ALP's reform of Australia's workplace relations laws passed (ref C). Gillard consulted broadly with business and the unions in drafting the legislation so that when the new law was finally introduced in Parliament, there was little left for either side to criticize. When independent senators in Parliament tried to soften a pro-labor provision in the legislation, Gillard stood her ground, and forced them to back down. Her tenacity in defense of workers' rights did not go unnoticed. Right-wing ALP MP Richard Marles, a former official with the ACTU, told us recently that Gillard "hasn't put a foot wrong" since becoming Deputy Prime Minister. 9. (C/NF) Gillard also managed to win the admiration of big business in the workplace relations consultation process. Katie Lahey, CEO of the Business Council of Australia (an umbrella organization representing Australia's 100 largest firms) told Charge in March that Gillard was well respected by executives thanks to remarkable outreach and a "genuine" willingness to listen. While making her rounds with executives in the lead-up to the workplace relations law, Lahey said Gillard made you feel "as if there were nobody else in the room." Executives unsurprisingly found items in the law with which they disagreed, but broadly say that they were adequately consulted. THE EDUCATION REVOLUTION 10. (SBU) In his election campaign, Rudd promised an "education revolution," to improve education and boost productivity and international competitiveness. Despite the opposition of the teachers' unions and elements within the ALP Left, Gillard has supported a voucher system for vocational education and performance pay for teachers. She has also invited New York Education Chancellor Joel Klein to Australia. The Rudd Government's second big economic stimulus package, passed in February, provided money for infrastructure upgrades for every school, public and private, in Australia. While this funding may improve educational outcomes, the political benefit for ALP politicians will be immediate: in the next twelve months, each school will have a ceremony celebrating the investment, presided over by the local ALP politician. THE FRONT RUNNER 11. (C/NF) COMMENT: All the ALP MPs we have spoken to have enormous respect for Gillard. However, as one ALP Right MP told us, choosing a leader from the Left would be a massive cultural change for the ALP. Don Farrell, the right-wing union powerbroker from South Australia told us Gillard is "campaigning for the leadership" and at this point is the front-runner to succeed Rudd, conceding that the Right did not yet have an alternative. Agriculture Minister Tony Burke, one of the early NSW Right backers of the Rudd-Gillard team, confided that Gillard is the clear front runner to succeed Rudd and in the end, the ALP caucus will follow the opinion polls if she is the one the public wants. Two keenly anticipated books on Gillard are expected to be released within the next 12 months (one of them authored by the wife of Beazley's former Chief of Staff). At present, the question of a successor to Rudd is probably two elections away. Several Rudd confidantes have told us that Rudd appreciates Gillard and sees her as a possible PM, but that he wants to avoid anointing her to head off a possible leadership challenge when his poll numbers inevitably sag. The PM's brother Greg told us in April that Rudd wants to ensure that there are viable alternatives to Gillard within the Labor Party to forestall a challenge. Mark Arbib once told us a similar story, though he stressed that Rudd appreciates Gillard's strengths. However, another Rudd advisor told us that while the PM respects Gillard, his reluctance to share power will eventually lead to a falling out, while Gillard will not want to acquiesce in creating potential rivals. In the meantime, Gillard has proven her value to the Prime Minister and we expect her to remain the most important member of the Rudd Government, after the Prime Minister himself. CLUNE

80743 10/5/2006 7:28 06CANBERRA1574 Embassy Canberra CONFIDENTIAL//NOFORN VZCZCXRO0361PP RUEHPBDE RUEHBY #1574/01 2780728ZNY CCCCC ZZHP 050728Z OCT 06FM AMEMBASSY CANBERRATO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 5872INFO RUEHPB/AMEMBASSY PORT MORESBY PRIORITY 1652RUEHWL/AMEMBASSY WELLINGTON PRIORITY 4760RUEHBN/AMCONSUL MELBOURNE PRIORITY 3191RUEHBAD/AMCONSUL PERTH PRIORITY 1742RUEHDN/AMCONSUL SYDNEY PRIORITY 1166RHEHNSC/NSC WASHINGTON DC PRIORITYRHHMUNA/CDR USPACOM HONOLULU HI PRIORITY C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 CANBERRA 001574 SIPDIS NOFORN SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 10/04/2016 TAGS: PGOV, ELAB, ECON, AS SUBJECT: INTEREST RATES MORE IMPORTANT POLITICALLY THAN LABOR LAW CHANGES Classified By: Political Counselor James F. Cole, REASONS 1.4 (b) and ( d). SUMMARY 1. (C/NF) Interest rates will be a key political issue for the 2007 federal elections, according to a number of observers Embassy poloffs met with during a visit to Sydney. The consensus was that changes to the industrial relations laws will be at most a contributing factor. So far, the impact of the labor law changes on workers has been minimal given the strong economy and low unemployment. According to these observers, most Australian voters, thinking about their finances when they vote next year, will likely support the Coalition but they will not want the Government to continue controlling the Senate, as it does now. New South Wales (NSW) Labor Party Secretary Mark Arbib (Protect) noted that left-of-center parties have stressed a "national vision" for the future but security concerns have helped right-wing governments since 9/11. INTEREST RATES BIGGER ELECTION ISSUE THAN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS REFORM 2. (C/NF) During a trip to Sydney September 28-29, Embassy poloffs met with Garry Brack (Protect), Chief Executive of Employers First, Mark Lennon (Protect), Assistant Secretary of the Labor Council of New South Wales, Dr. John Buchanan (Protect), Director of the Australian Centre for Industrial Relations Research and Training at the University of Sydney, and Mark Arbib (Protect), General Secretary of the New South Wales Labor Party. 3. (C/NF) Mark Lennon, deputy director for the labor-union umbrella organization in NSW, said that while the changes to the industrial relations laws were a key issue for organized labor, the voters would be focused on the pocketbook when they voted next year — and the key issue for them was interest rates. Given the large mortgages needed to buy the expensive real estate in Sydney, and the fact that most loans had adjustable interest rates, a rise in rates affected most voters' disposable income. Many voters were chary of Coalition Senate control, Lennon also maintained. With a healthy economy and stable interest rates they would keep the Government in power in the House but were less likely to vote for Coalition senators. POST-9/11 SECURITY CONCERNS HAVE HELPED RIGHT WING PARTIES 4. (C/NF) Arbib echoed Lennon's sentiments on interest rates, noting that during the 2004 election campaign, PM Howard's standing in the polls always increased when he focused on interest rates, and conversely, decreased when he changed the subject. Not only does the strong economy help the Coalition, Arbib said, but post-9/11 security concerns were another factor. Left-of-center governments need to articulate a vision for the future, and unless Australia invests in its future it will only be a "quarry for the Chinese and a tourist destination for the Japanese." However, Arbib continued, the immediate issues for every voter are the economy and security, and the Howard Government currently holds the advantage on both. It will be a tough struggle for the Labor Party (ALP) to win the federal elections in 2007, Arbib admitted, but the ALP has a stronger team of young leaders coming up through the political system and he was confident for the future. 5. (C/NF) Arbib said Kim Beazley, because he was the opposite of the volatile Mark Latham, was the right man to lead the ALP at the present time. Arbib noted that the March 2007 state elections in NSW would be tough for the ALP. They had been in power for 12 years and were having some problems but the Opposition leader was inexperienced and not yet ready to challenge for the leadership. Coalition control of the Federal Government and ALP control of the states and territories was accentuated by the fact that the best Coalition political operatives gravitated toward Canberra, where they could get better jobs working at the national level. The best jobs for the good ALP politicians and staffers were in the state governments, which the ALP run. 6. (BIO NOTE: Young, dynamic and friendly, Arbib is reputed to be the leader of the right wing of the ALP (traditionally centered in NSW) and the one who chose Beazley to be the ALP CANBERRA 00001574 002 OF 002 leader after Latham. He also told us that he, unlike Beazley, supported Iraq as well as the war on terrorism in general.) WITH A STRONG ECONOMY, WAGES INCREASE DESPITE NEW LABOR LAWS 7. (C/NF) Employer representative Brack explained that under the old awards system of industrial relations, an "award" issued by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission in response to a labor dispute increased compensation and benefits for a particular industry. That award would then provide the benchmark that would increase wages and benefits in other industries throughout the economy. This made it impossible for businesses to control labor costs and compete internationally, Brack said. 8. (C/NF) While the reforms instituted by the Howard Government in 1996 and amended in 2005 have provided more job-market flexibility and ended the steady increases in wages and benefits, the reforms have had little impact, Brack pointed out. With a growing economy and essentially full employment, the tight job market is continuing to push salaries higher. Employers are most concerned with keeping their skilled employees. In addition, Brack noted, many employees are covered by awards or state compensation laws that pre-dated the 2005 workplace law and have not yet expired. 9. (C/NF) Dr. Buchanan, whose research institute has done a number of studies on the new workplace relations laws, said that strikes were much harder to mount under the new laws and the unions had lost bargaining power. Skilled employees would be less affected by the changes than the 20 percent of workers at the bottom, who would lose many of their protections. Under the old awards system, this 20 percent was paid relatively well, forcing employers to use fewer workers more efficiently. Buchanan noted that New Zealand and the states of Victoria and Western Australia had undertaken similar reforms that dismantled industry-wide guarantees in favor of individual agreements and a few statutory minimum conditions. The result has been the growth of low-paying jobs and greater wage inequality, especially for women, young people and low-skilled employees. 10. (C/NF) The new industrial relations laws — designed to give employers the ability to hire a more flexible workforce to compete internationally — may be partially responsible for the fact that unemployment is at the lowest level in 30 years (4.9 percent). As Buchanan noted, under the old system employers had to pay their less-skilled workers relatively well, so they hired fewer. His fear — and perhaps a fear of many Australians — is that employers may now be able to create a class of so-called Walmart employees in Australia. COMMENT 11. (C/NF) The economy and security appear to remain the issues over which the elections will be fought next year. The observers we spoke with stressed that PM Howard is a master politician who will lay claim to the country's current prosperity and keep interest rates lower than a Labor government would be able to do. He will also be a formidable campaigner in the fight to convince the electorate which party can best deliver on national security. OWENS

Memo to Gillard and Obama: So what is the precise difference?

Try and pick the “anti-American” “terrorist” ”traitor” who should be prosecuted and deserves to die from the reputable newspaper which is reporting on foreign affairs.
Yes, it’s the Australian citizen and Wikileaks editor who should be assassinated.

Where is the logic when both editors have published identical material on the same day from the same original source?

Well, there is no logic being applied by Prime Minister Gillard and President Obama as heads of their respective governments.
Nor is logic something being practiced by sections of the international media, as evidenced from the U.S. Fox News excerpt above where it is very evident that none of the speakers have actually read any of the cables they mention.

It is becoming increasingly hard to believe that current Swedish legal moves against the Wikileaks editor are not now perverted by design so as to eventually see him extradited to the United States.

Something which will eventually involve the reputation of British Prime Minister David Cameron and his government:

Informal discussions have already taken place between US and Swedish officials over the possibility of the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange being delivered into American custody, according to diplomatic sources.
Mr Assange is in a British jail awaiting extradition proceedings to Sweden after being refused bail at Westminster Magistrates’ Court despite a number of prominent public figures offering to stand as surety.
His arrest in north London yesterday was described by the US Defence Secretary Robert Gates as “good news”, and may pave the way for extradition to America and a possible lengthy jail sentence.

Examples of the published cables:

The New York Times published online, Executive editor W. Keller, 2 December 2010:

Date 2009-08-06 05:28:00 Source Embassy Kabul Classification SECRET S E C R E T KABUL 002246 SIPDIS DEPARTMENT FOR SRAP, SCA/A, INL, EUR/PRM, INR, OSD FOR
FLOURNOY, CENTCOM FOR CG CJTF-82, POLAD, JICENT KABUL FOR
COS USFOR-AE.O. 12958: DECL: 08/01/2019
TAGS: PREL, PGOV, MARR, AF
SUBJECT: COMPLAINTS TO GIROA ON PRE-TRIAL RELEASES AND
PARDONS OF NARCO-TRAFFICKERSREF: REFTEL KABUL 02245 Classified By: DEPUTY AMBASSADOR FRANCIS J. RICCIAR DONE FOR REASONS 1.4
(B) AND (D)1.

(S) SUMMARY: On numerous occasions we have emphasized with
Attorney General Aloko the need to end interventions by him
and President Karzai, who both authorize the release of
detainees pre-trial and allow dangerous individuals to go
free or re-enter the battlefield without ever facing an
Afghan court. On July 29th, Legal Adviser Harold Hongju Koh
and Deputy Ambassador Frances Ricciardone demarched Attorney
General Muhammad Ishaq Aloko about our concern over pre-trial
releases and presidential pardons of narco-traffickers
(Reftel Kabul 02245) In Spring 2008, Post had previous
demarched National Security Advisor Rassoul about our concern
over pre-trial releases. Despite our complaints and
expressions of concern to the GIRoA, pre-trial releases
continue. END SUMMARY

Wikileaks published online, Senior editor J. Assange, 2 December 2010:

VZCZCXYZ0001OO RUEHWEBDE RUEHBUL #2246 2180528ZNY SSSSS ZZHO 060528Z AUG 09 ZDKFM AM EMBASSY KABULTO SECS TATE WASH DC IMMEDIATE 0662S E C R E T KABUL 002246SIPDIS DEPARTMENT FOR SRAP, SCA/A, INL, EUR/PRM, INR, OSD FORFLOURNOY, CENTCOM FOR CG CJTF-82, POLAD, JICENT KABUL FORCOS USFOR-AE.O. 12958: DECL: 08/01/2019 TAGS: PREL PGOV MARR AF SUBJECT: COMPLAINTS TO GIROA ON PRE-TRIAL RELEASES ANDPARDONS OF NARCO-TRAFFICKERSREF: REFTEL KABUL 02245Classified By: DEPUTY AMBASSADOR FRANCIS J. RICCIAR DONE FOR REASONS 1.4(B) AND (D)

¶1. (S) SUMMARY: On numerous occasions we have emphasized withAttorney General Aloko the need to end interventions by himand President Karzai, who both authorize the release ofdetainees pre-trial and allow dangerous individuals to gofree or re-enter the battlefield without ever facing anAfghan court. On July 29th, Legal Adviser Harold Hongju Kohand Deputy Ambassador Frances Ricciardone demarched AttorneyGeneral Muhammad Ishaq Aloko about our concern over pre-trialreleases and presidential pardons of narco-traffickers(Reftel Kabul 02245) In Spring 2008, Post had previousdemarched National Security Advisor Rassoul about our concernover pre-trial releases. Despite our complaints andexpressions of concern to the GIRoA, pre-trial releasescontinue. END SUMMARY

Dracula Rising and David Hicks {video}

Say no to whaling today over at WDCS International

Whale photograph from The Daily Mail online

Below is one online email which was sent from the NSW North Coast in support of the international ban on whaling.
You too can have your say through the International Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society email page here.
Emails are needed before 20 June 2010. This is your last chance to influence the vote at the next International Whaling Commission meeting in Morocco.
Given Sunday's report in The Times concerning alleged vote buying by the Government of Japan, a grassroots counterbalance is needed.

President Obama
The Hon. Dª Elena Espinosa Mangana
The Right Honourable John Key
Ambassador Christian Maquieira

I call upon you to oppose whaling, to ensure the International Whaling Commission's ban on commercial whaling stays and to act to stop all commercial whaling and trade in whale products now!
I fully support the IWC moratorium on commercial whaling. This ban should not be reversed or weakened in any manner.
Additionally, I respectfully ask that any further slaughter of whales under the guise of 'scientific' research be stopped.
Living as I do in a small coastal community dependent in large part on the fishing industry and tourism, I am very aware that a healthy and biodiverse ocean returns the most rewards.
Both in terms of food and cultural/aesthetic values.
Whales are an integral part of this healthy diversity; and reducing their numbers through non-subsistence/commercial whale hunts is not just an assault on cetacean species, it is an assault upon future human generations.

Yours faithfully
[redacted for privacy reasons]
Australia

Excerpt from The Times 13 June 2010 article:

The revelations come as Japan seeks to break the 24-year moratorium on commercial whaling. An IWC meeting that will decide the fate of thousands of whales, including endangered species, begins this month in Morocco.
Japan denies buying the votes of IWC members. However, The Sunday Times filmed officials from pro-whaling governments admitting:
- They voted with the whalers because of the large amounts of aid from Japan. One said he was not sure if his country had any whales in its territorial waters. Others are landlocked.
— They receive cash payments in envelopes at IWC meetings from Japanese officials who pay their travel and hotel bills.
- One disclosed that call girls were offered when fisheries ministers and civil servants visited Japan for meetings.

Yamba say a big hello to Ronald McDonald!

News of the face-off between that small NSW coastal town Yamba and McDonald's Australia appears to have spread to Illinois.
McDonald's Corporation in Chicago is also turning up on Internet traffic meters Googling yamba mcdonalds for information.

Go O'bama! Kick those Aussie pollies some more

Teh Oz reported on Wednesday:

"Communications Minister Stephen Conroy is believed to have been summoned to a meeting with Prime Minister Kevin Rudd last week after media reports revealed the US was concerned that this ran contrary to its policy of encouraging an open internet to promote economic growth and global security. One senior cabinet minister is said to have responded to the US reaction by telling Conroy: "With internet censorship you won't need a national broadband network."

So that's what it finally took to get Rudders interested in what Conroy is doing as he builds the Great Australian Firewall - a stern word from Obama & Co.

Selective deafness? Won't hear us but will hear the Yanks. ;-)

Obama appointment of Medina as U.S. representative on International Whaling Commission indicates developing pro-Japan stance?

President Obama's appointment this month of former Pew Institute director of whale conservation to the post of U.S. commissioner for the International Whaling Commission does nothing to bolster support for Australia's determinedly anti-whaling position.
In fact Monica Medina's views at the end of the day would seem to run parallel with the current Japanese push for limited commercial whaling in the Antarctic.

Limiting Japan's Whale Hunting

Publication: Bangor Daily News

Author: Monica Medina

01/10/2008 - The Japanese whaling fleet set off recently amid much fanfare and celebration from its home port of Shimonoseki. Children waved flags covered with cartoon whales, politicians made speeches, and a band played "Popeye the Sailor Man." Officials told the assembled crowd that Japan must preserve its "whale-eating culture."

While it's true that Japanese communities have been whaling in their coastal waters for hundreds of years, in fact no nation, including Japan, is legally permitted to conduct a hunt like this one — where almost 1,000 whales may be killed — for the purpose of preserving its whaling tradition.

And in reality, today's high-tech whaling in no way resembles traditional Japanese coastal whaling. Japanese whalers use boats the size of battleships and employ high-powered automatic harpoon guns to kill whales. They process the whale meat at sea so that it can be sold once they return home.

Meanwhile, back home in Japan, demand for whale meat continues to decline — more than 4,200 tons remains stockpiled in freezers, according to a recent government report. It is hard to understand why the Japanese government is trying so hard to preserve its whale-eating tradition. But at least the world is beginning to understand their real motives.

In the past, Japan had been more guarded about describing these motives. For more than 20 years, international law has prohibited commercial hunting because whales had been hunted to the brink of extinction. The law, however, contains a large loophole. As long as the Japanese maintain that whale hunting is conducted for the purpose of scientific research, they can kill any species of whale, even endangered whales, and can do so anywhere in international waters, even in a whale sanctuary.

So whereas they may call it research, the Japanese officials' send-off remarks only confirm what many have suspected all along — the whaling expedition is not primarily about science......

But Japan is still actively expanding its "scientific research program." It still plans to kill hundreds more whales than it killed last year, including highly endangered fin whales. Since the prohibition on all commercial whaling was enacted, the Japanese alone have killed more than 15,000 whales under the guise of science.

Moreover, Japan is planning to build a new, state-of-the-art commercial-sized whaling vessel that would operate for many years to come. Scientists across the globe have condemned Japan's "scientific" whaling program.......

It is time for the Japanese government to face the reality of its fading whaling industry. Rather than killing whales in the name of science, exploiting a loophole in the international commercial whaling moratorium, it should attempt to determine whether some elements of the long whaling tradition could be retained without causing lasting harm to whale populations and the international rule of law.

And rather than increase the size and scale of its falsely labeled scientific research, in the face of shrinking demand for whale meat at home and a chorus of rebuke abroad, Japan should completely abandon its ambitions to kill humpbacks and other endangered whales.

For its part, the U.S. government must push for real reform of the international laws and institutions established to protect whales. And it should employ all available diplomatic channels to obtain binding assurances that the Japanese will not hunt endangered whales in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary. It is time to bring whale conservation into the 21st century.

Monica Medina is director of whale conservation at the Pew Charitable Trusts Environment Group.

Some of the most depressing online posts about the Internet this week - confirming that we're all just mushrooms to the powers that be

From Boing Boing:

Secret copyright treaty leaks. It's bad. Very bad.
The internet chapter of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, a secret copyright treaty whose text Obama's administration refused to disclose due to "national security" concerns, has leaked. It's bad. It says:

• * That ISPs have to proactively police copyright on user-contributed material. This means that it will be impossible to run a service like Flickr or YouTube or Blogger, since hiring enough lawyers to ensure that the mountain of material uploaded every second isn't infringing will exceed any hope of profitability.

• * That ISPs have to cut off the Internet access of accused copyright infringers or face liability. This means that your entire family could be denied to the internet -- and hence to civic participation, health information, education, communications, and their means of earning a living -- if one member is accused of copyright infringement, without access to a trial or counsel.

• * That the whole world must adopt US-style "notice-and-takedown" rules that require ISPs to remove any material that is accused -- again, without evidence or trial -- of infringing copyright. This has proved a disaster in the US and other countries, where it provides an easy means of censoring material, just by accusing it of infringing copyright.

From An Onymous Lefty:

Why shouldn't a US media company kick you off the internet with no right of appeal?
Do you remember voting for the government to force your ISP to spend your money sifting through your internet logs to check that you're not infringing a foreign corporation's potential copyright? No? That's weird

From Michael Geist:

The ACTA Internet Chapter: Putting the Pieces Together
The Internet chapter raises two additional issues. On the international front, it provides firm confirmation that the treaty is not a counterfeiting trade, but a copyright treaty. These provisions involve copyright policy as no reasonable definition of counterfeiting would include these kinds of provisions. On the domestic front, it raises serious questions about the Canadian negotiation mandate. Negotations from Foreign Affairs are typically constrained by either domestic law, a bill before the House of Commons, or the negotiation mandate letter. Since these provisions dramatically exceed current Canadian law and are not found in any bill presently before the House, Canadians should be asking whether the negotiation mandate letter has envisioned such dramatic changes to domestic copyright law. When combined with the other chapters that include statutory damages, search and seizure powers for border guards, anti-camcording rules, and mandatory disclosure of personal information requirements, it is clear that there is no bigger IP issue today than the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement being negotiated behind closed doors this week in Korea.

From The Huffington Post:

Transparency of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)
Unlike nearly all other multilateral and plurilateral discussions about
intellectual property norms, the ACTA negotiations have been held in
deep secrecy. This has led to a chorus of criticism, and demands that
the ACTA process be opened up, and that documents in ACTA negotiations
be disclosed, as they are routinely in intellectual property
negotiations at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) or
the World Trade Organization (WTO).
After a year of criticism over the secrecy of this negotiation, the
White House United States Trade Representative (USTR) recently began a
policy of offering some persons access to documents in this negotiation,
on the condition that they sign a non disclosure agreement (NDA) that
prevents any public discussion of the contents of those documents. The
opportunity to see the ACTA documents under the NDA was offered to a
large number of business interests, but very few public interest or
consumer groups, and there were no opportunities for academic experts or
the general public to review the documents.
USTR officials have indicated that this policy of access by invitation
and NDA fully addresses the legitimate demands for more transparency of
the negotiation, and it is being considered as a model for the future.
We are opposed to this approach because it creates a small special class
of citizens who have rights superior to the majority of the population,
and because it gives the government too much discretion in deciding who
can monitor and criticize its operations. We have no confidence in this
new approach.

And this pretence at transparency from the Australian Government's Dept of Foreign Affairs and Trade, in which we're given a short one page general summary and the meeting agenda:

Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA): Public information and consultations on the ACTA
The ACTA was first announced publicly by the US on 23 October 2007....
A detailed summary of all elements currently under discussion has been drafted by all ACTA negotiation participants, setting out the topics being addressed in ACTA discussions. This paper is intended to provide greater information to the public on the matters being negotiated, and guide stakeholders seeking to make submissions on ACTA negotiations...
As noted in Mr Crean's media release, Australia seeks an enhanced, practical international standard on IPR enforcement with broad international support, to compliment the existing international IP architecture. Australia regards the extent to which the ACTA can attract support from countries in our region as a critical issue in determining the real value of the ACTA for Australia. Taking part in the negotiations does not oblige Australia to join any resulting treaty.....
Australia will next participate in the sixth round of negotiations to be held in Seoul in November. The agenda for this meeting can be found here. We also intend to continue to promote enhancing the transparency of negotiations at this round, to ensure the Australian public is kept well informed and has further opportunities to give input. Australia expects negotiations to extend into 2010.

Bush, Blair, Howard unlawful war legacy drags on through the courts

The degree to which the very expensive former Australian Prime Minister John Winston Howard and the Liberal Party seek to defend and frequently re-define his political record may indicate some internal unease concerning that very record.

When it comes to human rights, unlawful invasion of sovereign nations and the conduct of war, there is much to be concerned about.

According to the Belfer Centre for Science and International Affairs in December 2008:

"On September 16, 2007, a group of contractors working for the firm Blackwater USA engaged in a chaotic and bloody firefight in Baghdad's Nisoour Square that left 17 Iraqi civilians dead, Blackwater's $500 million in government contracts in jeopardy and the future of the privatized security industry in question. What exactly happened in Nisoour Square remains in dispute. Blackwater alleges that its contractors came under small arms fire and lawfully engaged to stop the threat. The Iraqi government and the US military both argue that Blackwater opened fire unprovoked and used excessive force — including machine guns, grenade launchers and helicopter fire. The FBI, which is conducting a formal investigation into the shootings on behalf of the Department of Justice, argues that 14 of the 17 deaths were unjustified killings and finds no evidence, thus far, that Blackwater was justified in shooting at civilians.

The Nisoour Square incident was broadly proclaimed to be the final straw that would force the White House, Congress and the courts to come to terms with the complex and often fraught relationship between the U.S. military and the increasingly ubiquitous, increasingly interoperable private military contractors that it hires. The FBI investigation marks the first time since the end of the Cold War that the US government is attempting to hold a private security company criminally liable for extraterritorial crimes committed in the course of a government contract.

However, while the episode has subjected the privatized military industry to heightened scrutiny from the Iraqi government, the US military, Congress, and the public, the Department of State and the Department of Justice contend that despite recent efforts to the close the legal loopholes through which private military contractors have slipped in the past, there remain considerable, perhaps insurmountable, hurdles to prosecution.

Meanwhile, at the time the grand jury investigation into the Nisour Square shootings was opened, a civil lawsuit was filed by the New York based Center for Constitutional Rights on behalf of the Iraqi families who lost loved ones in the incident. These families are suing Blackwater in tort, under causes of action including assault and battery, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligent hiring and wrongful death. While the jurisdictional challenges faced by the Department of Justice may ensure that Blackwater never faces criminal liability, the barriers to entry for a civil suit are far lower.

In July 2009 the civil lawsuit, filed as Estate of Husain Salih Rabea et al v. Prince et al, resulted in two declarations being submitted to the court which make statements against Blackwater Worldwide and its founder Erik Prince, accusing the security company and its former CEO of murder and other serious crimes in Iraq (allegedly true copies of Declaration 1 & Declaration 2).

With the Blackwater Five still before the U.S. Federal Court on 34 counts of manslaughter, attempt to commit manslaughter, aiding and abetting and another matter, actions taken under the auspices of the Coalition of the Willing will continue to be scrutinised.

Should either the criminal or civil court cases result in findings that these alleged killings occurred, then the names of Bush, Howard and Blair will forever be associated with known war crimes.

Even closer to home was the Howard Government's rather blasé attitude to an Australian private security firm operating in Iraq. An attitude which may come under closer scrutiny when a U.S. civil court case progresses against Unity Resources Group in a complaint concerning the death of a female Iraqi national (torts, injury, assault, libel and slander).

Blackwater Five 6 page Grand Jury indictment true bill, filed on 4 December 2008

The Ugg Boot trademark fight goes on and Deckers does not cover itself in glory

I'm sure everyone will remember that protracted legal battle over who had rights over the term Ug, Ugg or Ugh boots, in which little Aussie battlers were able to convince the Registrar of Trade Marks that these terms in themselves were generic and therefore beyond trademark in Australia by U.S. Deckers Outdoor Corporation (with the exception of one particular graphic representation of a certain trademark incorporating the word UGG).

In the initial Registrar of Trade Marks decision in 2006 it was stated:

34. The evidence overwhelming supports the proposition that the terms UGH BOOT(S), UG BOOT(S) and UGG BOOT(S) are interchangeably used to describe a specific style of sheepskin boot and are the first and most natural way in which to describe these goods which should innocently come to the minds of people making this particular style of sheepskin boot. The terms thus lack any inherent capacity to distinguish the particular goods. The Yellow Pages®, Internet, magazine and dictionary uses of these terms make it quite clear that these terms are generic – they are the most immediate and natural ways in which to refer to a particular style of sheepskin boot.4 They are terms which are required by other traders without any improper motive to describe those boots. The terms, (as opposed to the registered trade mark), are in all senses analogous to the terms SCHOOLIES - Sports Break Travel Pty Ltd v P & O Holidays Ltd, (2000) 50 IPR 51 or CAPS THE GAME - Powell v Glow Zone Products Pty Ltd (1997) 39 IPR 506.

IP Australia now has this fact sheet on its website explaining the current situation as it interprets it, with this particular rider:

The Internet provides easy access to global markets and takes no account of national borders. If you are trading on the Internet you need to understand the laws of the country into which you are selling goods or services. If you place an offer for sale on the Internet in Australia that invites purchase from overseas, this can amount to trading overseas and could leave you vulnerable to legal action and expensive litigation. Likewise an overseas proprietor selling goods in Australia via the Internet may infringe an Australian trade mark.

Decker Outdoor Corporation was such a bad sport about its Australian loss that it apparently attempted to scare away Internet trade from the small Australian company, which led opposition to its attempt to expand the Decker trademark, by creating www.uggsnrugs.com (it's winter here in Australia, so if you have a little cash to spare why don't you click onto the real Aussie site www.uggs-n-rugs.com.au owned by West Australians Bruce and Bronwyn McDougall and order a pair of Ugg boots to keep those feet warm).

The company also took out additional overseas trademarks using the word UGG, of which some are included in a rolling list of 33 marks in the United States alone.

It seems that in July 2009 the ever-litigious Deckers now has Google Inc in its sights and its legal team is demanding that the Internet search engine cease index listing over thirty websites displaying and selling ugg boots.

Thankfully, it appears that Google is not rushing to obey the dictates of this international marketplace bully as the named websites and goods images were still visible at the time of writing this post.

Graphic from Google Images