The power of words strung together

Israel has declared the German author Guenter Grass "persona non grata" and barred him from entering the country because of this poem.

What must be said

Why have I kept silent, held back so long,

on something openly practiced in

war games, at the end of which those of us

who survive will at best be footnotes?

It's the alleged right to a first strike

that could destroy an Iranian people

subjugated by a loudmouth

and gathered in organized rallies,

because an atom bomb may be being

developed within his arc of power.

Yet why do I hesitate to name

that other land in which

for years—although kept secret—

a growing nuclear power has existed

beyond supervision or verification,

subject to no inspection of any kind?

This general silence on the facts,

before which my own silence has bowed,

seems to me a troubling lie, and compels

me toward a likely punishment

the moment it's flouted:

the verdict "Anti-semitism" falls easily.

But now that my own country,

brought in time after time

for questioning about its own crimes,

profound and beyond compare,

is said to be the departure point,

(on what is merely business,

though easily declared an act of reparation)

for yet another submarine equipped

to transport nuclear warheads

to Israel, where not a single atom bomb

has yet been proved to exist, with fear alone

the only evidence, I'll say what must be said.

But why have I kept silent till now?

Because I thought my own origins,

Tarnished by a stain that can never be removed,

meant I could not expect Israel, a land

to which I am, and always will be, attached,

to accept this open declaration of the truth.

Why only now, grown old,

and with what ink remains, do I say:

Israel's atomic power endangers

an already fragile world peace?

Because what must be said

may be too late tomorrow;

and because—burdend enough as Germans—

we may be providing material for a crime

that is foreseeable, so that our complicity

wil not be expunged by any

of the usual excuses.

And granted: I've broken my silence

because I'm sick of the West's hypocrisy;

and I hope too that many may be freed

from their silence, may demand

that those responsible for the open danger

we face renounce the use of force,

may insist that the governments of

both Iran and Israel allow an international authority

free and open inspection of

the nuclear potential and capability of both.

No other course offers help

to Israelis and Palestinians alike,

to all those living side by side in emnity

in this region occupied by illusions,

and ultimately, to all of us.

Günter Grass Nobel Laureate

Translated by Breon Mitchell

The Guardian UK 9 April 2012

A selection of Wikileaks' Stratfor emails for your edification and amusement

The Business of STRATFOR

After fifteen years in business it surprises me sometimes how many people wonder about who we are, who funds us, and what we do.  The media refers to us as a think tank, a political risk consultancy, a security company and worse--academics. The Russian media calls us part of the CIA. Arab countries say we are Israelis. It’s wild.  The only things we haven’t been called is a hardware store or Druids.  Given this confusion, I thought it might be useful to occasionally write to our members about the business of STRATFOR, on topics ranging from our business model to how we gather intelligence. 

Let me start with basics.  STRATFOR is a publishing company and it publishes one product—our online intelligence service.  STRATFOR focuses on one subject, international relations.  It uses intelligence rather than journalistic methods to collect information (a topic for a later discussion) and geopolitics as an analytic method for understanding the world.

Stratfor currently has about 292,000 paying subscribers, divided between individual subscribers and institutional ones.  This inflates our subscriber base.  There are many organizations that buy site licenses for all or many of their employees.  We know that most of them never read us.  From a strictly factual point of view, 292,000 paid readers is the number.  Practically it is less but we don’t know how much less.  On the other hand, our free material, two weekly pieces that are sent to our free list and then circulates virally as they say, has been estimated to reach about 2.2 million readers each week.  Where our paid subscription is certainly increased by an unknown degree, this is probably and accurate number. 

The reason that I can be so casual about these numbers is that we do not allow advertising in Stratfor.  If we did, we would be obsessed by the accuracy.  But we don’t for two reasons, one of which is not that we are concerned about advertisers skewing our objectivity.  We are too ornery for that.  The reason is business.  We are in the business of gathering intelligence and delivering it to readers.  Being in another business, selling our readership to advertisers is too complicated for my simple brain.  Plus we would wind up not only depending on my dubious business acumen, but on the acumen of our advertisers.  Second, advertising on the internet doesn’t come close to paying for the cost of content production.  Content aggregators like Google take free content from others and advertise against that.  That’s great business.  But when you are actually producing content, advertising simply won’t cover the costs.

We are therefore one of the few original content producers to be making money by simply selling subscriptions on the web without advertising.  I’m pretty proud of that, in a world where experts say it can’t be done, and I wish I could take credit for that, but it actually is something our Chairman, Don Kuykendall, came up with in 2000.  His view was simple: if you can’t sell at a profit, you don’t have a business.  So we asked people to pay and to my stunned surprise, they did.  So we had a business.

Until that point we were a consultancy.  Only we weren’t a consultancy because a consultant is an expert drawing on long experience to give answers.  Its nice work if you can get it. But we never were a consultancy really. We were a service provider—we would find out things in foreign countries for our corporate clients, usually expensive work in unpleasant countries.  The problem here was profit margin. It costs a lot to gather information in foreign countries, so the nice fat contracts looked very skinny by the time we were done.  We do some intelligence for companies who have been clients of ours for a long time, but at this point about 90 percent of our revenue comes from publishing—you subscription. That supports over 100 employees in the U.S. and sources around the world.

So think of us as a publishing company that produces news using intelligence rather than journalistic methods.  That means that we have people in the field collecting information that they pass on the analysts who understand the information who pass it to writers who write up the information, with any number of steps.  This division of labor allows us the efficiency to produce the product you pay for.  And it has to be a quality product to earn your continued subscription get you to continue to pay. Still gets the point across but sounds less cavalier about it…

The nice part of all of this is that we really aren’t beholden to anyone except our readers, who are satisfied by what we produce, since we have one of the highest renewal rates in the business.  Our goal is simple—to make the complexity of the world understandable to an intelligent but non-professional readership, without ideology or national bias.  Dispassionate is what we strive for, in content and in tone.  In a world filled with loud noise, speaking in a subdued voice draws attention. With over one-quarter of our readers coming from outside the U.S. and Canada, and that percentage growing, these are essential things what are?.

We are more aware than our readers of our shortcomings—everything we do comes under scrutiny from whoever wants to take a shot—including everything I write.  Knowing our shortcomings (I will not tell you about them until we fixed them in the event you missed it) is the key to our success. Fixing it is our challenge.   We are now in a six month surge focused on increasing quality and staff.  The two seem contradictory but that’s our challenge.

Hopefully this gives you some sense of the business of Stratfor that will help you understand us.  I’ll be doing these very few weeks (I don’t want to be tied down on a schedule since I travel a lot—heading to Indonesia at the end of this month).  But its probably time to make sure we aren’t thought of as a think tank—a term I really hate.  When you think of it, think tank is a really bizarre term.

Not for Pub --
We have a sealed indictment on Assange.

Pls protect

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

It is possible to revoke citizenship on the grounds of being a dickhead except in Australia, where all of Queensland and a good part of South Australia, along with all of Sydney Uni would lose their passports.

On 12/05/10 22:42 , Chris Farnham wrote:

Is it possible to revoke some one's citizenship on the grounds of them being a total dickhead?
I don't care about the other leaks but the ones he has made that potentially damage Australian interests upset me.
If I thought I could switch this dickhead off without getting done I don't think I'd have too much of a problem.
BTW, close family friend in Sweden who knows the girl that is pressing charges tells me that there is absolutely nothing behind it other than prosecutors that are looking to make a name for themselves. My friend speaks rather disparagingly about the girl who is claiming molestation.
I also think the whole rape thing is incorrect for if I remember correctly rape was never the charge.

One other point is this. Ferreting out his confederates is also key.
Find out what other disgruntled rogues inside the tent or outside. Pile on. Move him from country to country to face various charges for the
next 25 years. But, seize everything he and his family own, to include every person linked to Wiki.
Marko Papic wrote:
Nate makes a good point. The arrest is not necessarily the end of Julian Assange. He could become a martyr in jail, particularly a Swedish jail, which I imagine has better amenities than my house.

Assange is going to make a nice bride in prison. Screw the terrorist.
He'll be eating cat food forever, unless George Soros hires him.

The following email exchange involves retired Nationals Senator for Queensland Bill O’Chee.

Revenge is a dish best served cold.

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "William \"Bill\" O'Chee"
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 21:57:49 +1000
To:
Subject: Re: Julian Assange arrest
Sadly he didn't have a car accident on the way there.
William Oa**Chee
aa**aa"*aa>>*
Partner
Himalaya Consulting
Australia: +61 422 688886
China mob: +86 1365 1001069
On 07/12/2010, at 9:52 PM, burton@stratfor.com wrote:

Thx

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Doomsday is a minute closer now according to atomic scientists

Doomsday Clock moves to five minutes to midnight

10 January 2012

It is five minutes to midnight. Two years ago, it appeared that world leaders might address the truly global threats that we face. In many cases, that trend has not continued or been reversed. For that reason, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists is moving the clock hand one minute closer to midnight, back to its time in 2007.

Nuclear disarmament

Despite the promise of a new spirit of international cooperation, and reductions in tensions between the United States and Russia, the Science and Security Board believes that the path toward a world free of nuclear weapons is not at all clear, and leadership is failing. The ratification in December 2010 of the New START treaty between Russia and the United States reversed the previous drift in US-Russia nuclear relations. However, failure to act on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty by leaders in the United States, China, Iran, India, Pakistan, Egypt, Israel, and North Korea and on a treaty to cut off production of nuclear weapons material continues to leave the world at risk from continued development of nuclear weapons. The world still has approximately 19,500 nuclear weapons, enough power to destroy the Earth's inhabitants several times over. The Nuclear Security Summit of 2010 shone a spotlight on securing all nuclear fissile material, but few actions have been taken. The result is that it is still possible for radical groups to acquire and use highly enriched uranium and plutonium to wreak havoc in nuclear attacks.

Obstacles to a world free of nuclear weapons remain. Among these are disagreements between the United States and Russia about the utility and purposes of missile defense, as well as insufficient transparency, planning, and cooperation among the nine nuclear weapons states to support a continuing drawdown. The resulting distrust leads nearly all nuclear weapons states to hedge their bets by modernizing their nuclear arsenals. While governments claim they are only ensuring the safety of their warheads through replacement of bomb components and launch systems, as the deliberate process of arms reduction proceeds, such developments appear to other states to be signs of substantial military build-ups.

The Science and Security Board also reviewed progress in meeting the challenges of nuclear weapons proliferation. Ambiguity about Iran's nuclear power program continues to be the most prominent example of this unsolved problem — centrifuges can enrich uranium for both civilian power plants and military weapons. It remains to be seen how many additional countries will pursue nuclear power, but without solutions to the dual-use problem and without incentives sufficient to resist military applications, the world is playing with the explosive potential of a million suns and a fire that will not go out.

The potential for nuclear weapons use in regional conflicts in the Middle East, Northeast Asia, and particularly in South Asia is also alarming. Ongoing efforts to ease tensions, deal with extremism and terrorist acts, and reduce the role of nuclear weapons in international relations have had only halting success. Yet we believe that international diplomatic pressure as well as burgeoning citizen action will help political leaders to see the folly of continuing to rely on nuclear weapons for national security.

Nuclear energy

In light of over 60 years of improving reactor designs and developing nuclear fission for safer power production, it is disheartening that the world has suffered another calamitous accident. Given this history, the Fukushima disaster raised significant questions that the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists' Science and Security Board believe must be addressed. Safer nuclear reactor designs need to be developed and built, and more stringent oversight, training, and attention are needed to prevent future disasters. A major question to be addressed is: How can complex systems like nuclear power stations be made less susceptible to accidents and errors in judgment?

Climate change

In fact, the global community may be near a point of no return in efforts to prevent catastrophe from changes in Earth's atmosphere. The International Energy Agency projects that, unless societies begin building alternatives to carbon-emitting energy technologies over the next five years, the world is doomed to a warmer climate, harsher weather, droughts, famine, water scarcity, rising sea levels, loss of island nations, and increasing ocean acidification. Since fossil-fuel burning power plants and infrastructure built in 2012-2020 will produce energy — and emissions — for 40 to 50 years, the actions taken in the next few years will set us on a path that will be impossible to redirect. Even if policy leaders decide in the future to reduce reliance on carbon-emitting technologies, it will be too late.

Among the existing alternatives for producing base-load electricity with low carbon dioxide emissions is nuclear power. Russia, China, India, and South Korea will likely continue to construct plants, enrich fuel, and shape the global nuclear power industry.
Countries that had earlier signaled interest in building nuclear power capacity, such as Vietnam, United Arab Emirates, Turkey, and others, are still intent on acquiring civilian nuclear reactors for electricity despite the Fukushima disaster. However, a number of countries have renounced nuclear power, including Germany, Italy, and Switzerland. In Japan, only eight of 54 power plants currently operate because prefecture governors, responding to people's opposition to nuclear power, have not allowed reactors back online. In the United States, increased costs of additional safety measures may make nuclear power too expensive to be a realistic alternative to natural gas and other fossil fuels.

The hopeful news is that alternatives to burning coal, oil, and uranium for energy continue to show promise. Solar and photovoltaic technologies are seeing reductions in price, wind turbines are being adopted for commercial electricity, and energy conservation and efficiency are becoming accepted as sources for industrial production and residential use. Many of these developments are taking place at municipal and local levels in countries around the world. In Haiti, for example, a nonprofit group is distributing solar-powered light bulbs to the poor. In Germany, a smart electrical grid is shifting solar-generated power to cloudy regions and wind power to becalmed areas. And in California, government is placing caps on carbon emissions that industry will meet. While not perfect, these technologies and practices hold substantial promise.

Yet, we are very concerned that the pace of change may not be adequate and that the transformation that seems to be on its way will not take place in time to meet the hardships that large-scale disruption of the climate portends. As we see it, the major challenge at the heart of humanity's survival in the 21st century is how to meet energy needs for economic growth in developing and industrial countries without further damaging the climate, without exposing people to loss of health and community, and without risking further spread of nuclear weapons.

The challenges to rid the world of nuclear weapons, harness nuclear power, and meet the nearly inexorable climate disruptions from global warming are complex and interconnected. In the face of such complex problems, it is difficult to see where the capacity lies to address these challenges. The political processes in place seem wholly inadequate to meet the challenges to human existence that we confront.

As such, the Science and Security Board is heartened by the Arab Spring, the Occupy movements, political protests in Russia, and by the actions of ordinary citizens in Japan as they call for fair treatment and attention to their needs. Whether meeting the challenges of nuclear power, or mitigating the suffering from human-caused global warming, or preventing catastrophic nuclear conflict in a volatile world, the power of people is essential. For this reason, we ask other scientists and experts to join us in engaging ordinary citizens. Together, we can present the most significant questions to policymakers and industry leaders. Most important, we can demand answers and action. As the first atomic scientists of the Bulletin recognized in 1948, the burden of disseminating information about the social and economic "implications of nuclear energy and other new scientific developments rests with the intelligent citizens of the world; the intense and continuing cooperation of the scientists is assured."

Few of the Bulletin's recommendations of 2010 have been taken up; they still require urgent attention if we are to avert catastrophe from nuclear weapons and global warming. At a minimum these include:

• Ratification by the United States and China of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and progress on a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty;
• Implementing multinational management of the civilian nuclear energy fuel cycle with strict standards for safety, security, and nonproliferation of nuclear weapons, including eliminating reprocessing for plutonium separation;
• Strengthening the International Atomic Energy Agency's capacity to oversee nuclear materials, technology development, and its transfer;
• Adopting and fulfilling climate change agreements to reduce carbon dioxide emissions through tax incentives, harmonized domestic regulation and practice;
• Transforming the coal power sector of the world economy to retire older plants and to require in new plants the capture and storage of the CO2 they produce;
• Vastly increasing public and private investments in alternatives to carbon emitting energy sources, such as solar and wind, and in technologies for energy storage, and sharing the results worldwide.

The Clock is ticking.

Science and Security Board, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
Editor's note: The audio recording of the January 10, 2012 news event can be found here.

Is the Japanese whaling fleet refusing to obey a lawful direction to leave Australian territorial waters?

Since at least 11 January 2012 the Government of Japan-sponsored whaling fleet operating in the Southern Ocean has failed to obey a lawful direction of the Federal Government to quit Australian territorial waters surrounding World Heritage listed Macquarie Island - which also form part of the Australian Whale Sanctuary and the wider International Whaling Commission-endorsed Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary.

One has to wonder why the Japanese Government imagines it has a right to ignore Australia's sovereignty in this manner.

Should it continue this intransigence then the Federal Government would be well within its rights to withdraw the credentials of the Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Japan, His Excellency Mr Shigekazu Sato.

The Australian Whale Sanctuary has been established to protect
all whales and dolphins found in Australian waters

The Sydney Morning Herald 12 January 2012:

A JAPANESE whaling ship has defied high-level Australian complaints to stay in the waters of World Heritage-listed Macquarie Island.

The harpoon-equipped whale hunter Yushin Maru No.3 was still there late yesterday, hours after the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, said the ship was leaving.

''I'm aware that there has been one vessel which I'm advised has been in Australian territorial waters and I'll advise that it will leave Australian territorial waters,'' Ms Gillard said.

The Australian embassy told the Japanese government on Tuesday that whaling vessels were not welcome in the country's waters, repeating earlier complaints.

But the Japanese ship was photographed yesterday within a few miles of the coast of Macquarie Island, which is part of the state of Tasmania……

ANU professor of international law Don Rothwell said if Yushin Maru No.3 was staying close to Macquarie Island it was violating the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea which would normally allow a ship to proceed though these waters.

''The actions of Yushin Maru No.3 are not consistent with the right of innocent passage,'' Professor Rothwell said.

The Greens leader, Bob Brown, said the ship's presence was illegal and called for a naval vessel to be sent there.

Yushin Maru No.3 stayed just off the coast of Macquarie Island yesterday.

Photo: Carolina A Castro/Sea Shepherd

Sometimes the young make my heart sing - Part Five

http://youtu.be/Ko3e6G_7GY4

"Get It Done":

Urging Climate Justice,
Youth Delegate Anjali Appadurai

Mic-Checks UN COP 17 Summit

Durban Climate Change Conference
November/December 2011

The United Nations Climate Change Conference, Durban 2011, brings together representatives of the world's governments, international organizations and civil society. The discussions will seek to advance, in a balanced fashion, the implementation of the Convention and the Kyoto Protocol, as well as the Bali Action Plan, agreed at COP 13 in 2007, and the Cancun Agreements, reached at COP 16 last December.

The Sydney Morning Herald 11 December 2011 - 7:14PM

A United Nations climate conference has reached a hard-fought agreement on a far-reaching program meant to set a new course for the global fight against climate change.

The 194-party conference agreed to start negotiations on a new accord that would ensure that countries will be legally bound to carry out any pledges they make. It would take effect by 2020 at the latest.

The deal doesn't explicitly compel any nation to take on emissions targets, although most emerging economies have volunteered to curb the growth of their emissions.

Currently, only industrial countries have legally binding emissions targets under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. Those commitments expire next year, but they will be extended for at least another five years under the accord adopted on Sunday - a key demand by developing countries seeking to preserve the only existing treaty regulating carbon emissions.

The proposed Durban Platform offered answers to problems which for years have bedevilled negotiations on global warming.

Controversial issues include sharing the responsibility for controlling carbon emissions and helping the world's poorest and most climate-vulnerable nations cope with changing forces of nature.

The US was a reluctant supporter, concerned about agreeing to join an international climate system that was expected to be opposed in Congress....

Environmentalists criticised the package - as did many developing countries in the debate - for failing to address what they called the most urgent issue, to move faster and deeper in cutting carbon emissions.

"The good news is we avoided a train wreck," said Alden Meyer, recalling predictions a few days ago of a likely failure. "The bad news is that we did very little here to affect the emissions curve."

Scientists say that unless those emissions - chiefly carbon dioxide from power generation and industry - level out and reverse within a few years, the earth will be set on a possibly irreversible path of rising temperatures that lead to ever greater climate catastrophes.

Sunday's breakthrough capped 13 days of hectic negotiations that ran a day and a half over schedule.



Now this is something you won't hear Tony Abbott be man enough to admit

http://youtu.be/dme0nyz0OgU

Shell targets polar bear's home for drilling. We're suing says NRDC

Help us stop Shell in court! Shell is moving full speed ahead with its plan to drill off the coast of the Arctic Refuge, the polar bear’s favorite onshore birthing ground. Help send NRDC to court to stop Shell! Important news: We have filed suit in federal court to stop Shell from drilling off the coast of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge next summer. We can’t wage and win this courtroom battle without your help. Please make an online donation right now that can help us stave off Shell’s latest assault on Arctic wildlife. As you know, the Obama Administration recently gave Shell tentative approval to begin exploratory drilling near the Arctic Refuge, the polar bear’s favorite onshore birthing ground. Shell’s rigs will operate in wildlife-filled waters -- home to vulnerable populations of seals, whales and migratory birds. An oil spill in this fragile and sensitive ecosystem would be devastating. Any polar bears swimming in thickly-oiled waters will most certainly die, and an oil spill offshore could blanket the coast of the Arctic Refuge with a layer of thick, toxic oil for generations to come. Help NRDC fight in court and make sure this tragedy never happens. Shell’s oil spill response plan reads like a fantasy. The oil industry still has no proven method for cleaning up spills in ice-filled waters. Yet Shell is claiming that more than 95 percent of spilled oil will be recovered before it hits shore. Only five percent of the oil unleashed by BP in the Gulf was ever captured. Thanks to your support, we’ve been fending off Shell’s repeated attempts to drill near the Arctic Refuge since 2008. But with the Obama Administration now paving the way for Shell’s latest plan, we need your help more than ever before. Shell has vast resources to bring to this fight. We, on the other hand, rely entirely on Members and activists like you to help ensure the survival of America’s polar bears and other Arctic wildlife. And unlike Shell, we can’t afford to lose even once. Your tax-deductible donation will allow us to wage and win this courtroom battle against Shell’s scheme and defend our environment in the most effective way possible. If we’re going to stop Shell before it sinks its first drill bit into Arctic water next summer, we have no time to waste. Please let me know that I can count on your support today. Sincerely, Frances Beinecke President Natural Resources Defense Council

Australian High Court: Federal Government has "no power" to remove asylum seekers to Malaysia [excerpts & link to full transcript]

On 25 July 2011 the Gillard Government announced an agreement with Malaysia to transfer asylum seekers arriving by boat in Australia waters to Malaysian territory, after the agreement was legally in effect. This decision was challenged by application to the High Court of Australia.

Here are excerpts from Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship; Plaintiff M106 of 2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] HCA 32 (31 August 2011).  
FRENCH CJ, GUMMOW, HAYNE, HEYDON, CRENNAN, KIEFEL AND BELL JJ presiding.

FRENCH CJ.:

Conclusion

68.         The ministerial declaration of 25 July 2011 was affected by jurisdictional error. It was not a declaration authorised by s 198A of the Migration Act. The plaintiffs cannot therefore be taken to Malaysia pursuant to the power conferred by s 198A(1). Nor is it open to any officer of the Commonwealth to remove the plaintiffs to Malaysia pursuant to s 198(2) of the Migration Act without first assessing their claims to be persons to whom Australia owes protection obligations.

69.         In relation to M106, I agree for the reasons explained in the joint judgment[72] that he cannot be removed from Australia without the prior consent in writing of the Minister under the IGOC Act. I agree with the orders proposed in the joint judgment.

GUMMOW, HAYNE, CRENNAN AND BELL JJ.:

Conclusion and orders

148.      For the reasons that have been given, the Minister's declaration that Malaysia is a specified country for the purposes of s 198A of the Act was made without power. There should be a declaration to that effect. The Minister may not lawfully take either plaintiff from Australia to Malaysia and the Minister should be restrained accordingly. In addition, in the case of the second plaintiff, the Minister should be further restrained from taking the second plaintiff from Australia without there being a consent in writing of the Minister given under s 6A(1) of the IGOC Act. The defendants should pay the plaintiffs' costs of the proceedings to date before Hayne J and the Full Court.

KIEFEL J.:

Conclusion and orders

258.      There was no power to make the declaration of 25 July 2011. Because the declaration is invalid, there is no power to remove the plaintiffs to Malaysia. Any attempt to do so would be unlawful. In the case of Plaintiff M106, his removal from Australia to any country is also unlawful absent the consent of the Minister in his capacity as guardian of Plaintiff M106.

259.      I agree with the orders proposed in the joint judgment.

HEYDON J.:

Conclusion

199.       It is not necessary to deal with an alternative argument advanced by the defendants which relied on s 198 of the Act.
200.      Each Amended Application should be dismissed with costs.

Full judgment transcript here.

Judgement summary here.

* This post was emended for name error and dissenting judgment included

Put a hand in your pocket for the Horn of Africa

No glib comment is needed as a reminder that famine is always with us somewhere in the world. This time it is the Horn Of Africa and Somalia in particular which is bearing the brunt of widespread drought and crop failure.

So come on Aussies, put a hand in your pocket and send a donation to the Australian fundraising arm of the United Nations Refugee Agency, Australia for UNHCR and the East Africa Emergency Appeal online by credit card or call 1300 440 433 or 1300 361 288 (within Australia) to find out how/where to send cheques or money orders.

“All donations in response to this appeal will go directly towards UNHCR's emergency relief operations in East Africa, providing much-needed essentials like food, clean water, shelter, sanitation, survival kits and emergency feeding and nutrition programs.

90 cents in every dollar donated will go directly to the field to help people in need in East Africa.”

Photographs of famine victims found at Google Images

What a difference having a genuine national fiscal policy makes

The Economist’s Global Public Debt Clock 2011
Click on image to enlarge

Now before we all give into any international media-inspired hysteria and cry the sky is falling, here is Australia’s sovereign credit rating according to Standard and Poor’s (S&P) as of 5 August 2011:

Commonwealth of Australia

Sovereign local currency ratings (LT/Outlook/ST)  
AAA/Stable/A-1+

Sovereign foreign currency ratings (LT/Outlook/ST)
AAA/Stable/A-1+

Transfer and convertibility assessment  
AAA

The Commonwealth of Australia has retained an excellent Triple A credit rating from Standard and Poor's (as well as from Moody’s and Fitch) for the last eight years - for which successive federal governments of different political persuasions can take credit.

In 2011 its public debt as a percentage of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is running in the vicinity of 23 per cent, the current account deficit is around 2.5 per cent of GDP and total combined public, corporate and private individual foreign debt only resulted in a 3.9 per cent net income deficit as a percentage of GDP in the March 2011 Quarter - according to the figures I can find.


Just as importantly, one of the nation's major Asian trading partners China continues to see Australia as "stable" and gives a domestic currency credit rating of AAA and a foreign currency credit rating of AA+ at a time when Dangong Global Credit Rating has downgraded 
America's rating to "negative" and the official Xinhua news agency is stating; China, the largest creditor of the world's sole superpower, has every right now to demand the United States to address its structural debt problems and ensure the safety of China's dollar assets.

Now compare that brief fiscal thumbnail with the recent credit rating history for the USA, courtesy of a Democrat Government incapable of dominating the Congress and a Republican Party which has lost its way.

Standard and Poor’s release on 18 April 2011:

We have affirmed our 'AAA/A-1+' sovereign credit ratings on the United States of America.

The economy of the U.S. is flexible and highly diversified, the country's effective monetary policies have supported output growth while containing inflationary pressures, and a consistent global preference for the U.S. dollar over all other currencies gives the country unique external liquidity.

Because the U.S. has, relative to its 'AAA' peers, what we consider to be very large budget deficits and rising government indebtedness and the path to addressing these is not clear to us, we have revised our outlook on the long-term rating to negative from stable.

We believe there is a material risk that U.S. policymakers might not reach an agreement on how to address medium- and long-term budgetary challenges by 2013; if an agreement is not reached and meaningful implementation is not begun by then, this would in our view render the U.S. fiscal profile meaningfully weaker than that of peer 'AAA' sovereigns.

Standard and Poor’s release on 5 August 2011:

We have lowered our long-term sovereign credit rating on the United States of America to 'AA+' from 'AAA' and affirmed the 'A-1+' short-term rating.

We have also removed both the short- and long-term ratings from CreditWatch negative.

The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government's medium-term debt dynamics.

More broadly, the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policy making and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges to a degree more than we envisioned when we assigned a negative outlook to the rating on April 18, 2011.

Since then, we have changed our view of the difficulties in bridging the gulf between the political parties over fiscal policy, which makes us pessimistic about the capacity of Congress and the Administration to be able to leverage their agreement this week into a broader fiscal consolidation plan that stabilizes the government's debt dynamics any time soon.

The outlook on the long-term rating is negative. We could lower the long-term rating to 'AA' within the next two years if we see that less reduction in spending than agreed to, higher interest rates, or new fiscal pressures during the period result in a higher general government debt trajectory than we currently assume in our base case….

We have taken the ratings off CreditWatch because the Aug. 2 passage of the Budget Control Act Amendment of 2011 has removed any perceived immediate threat of payment default posed by delays to raising the government's debt ceiling. In addition, we believe that the act provides sufficient clarity to allow us to evaluate the likely course of U.S. fiscal policy for the next few years.....

United States of America

Sovereign local currency ratings (LT/Outlook/ST)  
AA+/Negative/A-1+

Sovereign foreign currency ratings (LT/Outlook/ST)
AA+/Negative/A-1+

Transfer and convertibility assessment  

AAA


According to The Australian on 5 August 2011; Australian 3-year government bond prices posted their biggest one-day rise since 1991 as investors rushed en masse to the safety of risk-free assets.

In addition, The graph below shows historical exchange rates between the Australian Dollar (AUD) and the US Dollar (USD) between 7/7/2011 and 8/5/2011 as the international financial markets began to panic:

At 12pm (AEST) 6 August 2011 the Australian dollar was trading at 104.91 US cents....down from $US1.0665 late yesterday and off a 30-year high of $US1.1080 last week.  By 8 August the dollar was at 1.0343 US. 

On 5 August 2011 NASDAQ placed this recently high currency rate into perspective with this statement; the latest ascent comes about three months after the Australian dollar last hit a 30-year high. The initial push higher that started in June of 2010 came as a continuing mining boom and a series of interest rate hikes from Australia's central bank that began in October 2009 lifted the currency more than 30% against the U.S. dollar in a year.

According to the Herald-Sun the Australian stock market fell by 4 per cent on 5 August and at close of business yesterday the ASX All Ords and S&P/ASX200 graphs were not catastophic:

Placing that fall within an historical context is this ASX All Ordinaries (XAO) Index chart 1988 - 2011 graph:

Even the International Monetary Fund doesn't consider the Australian economy an overtly risky proposition. So the next time either the Opposition Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey, unidentified Liberal/National sources or elements in the Murdoch press  attempt to slyly suggest that Australia's economy is inevitably on the way to the poor house without drastic regime change - yawn loudly and turn aside.

The only thing Australia has to fear at this point in time is the contagion of fear itself and perhaps being overly irritated by the silly political point scoring of conservative politicians and big business lobbyists alike.