Commercialized shame
Tag Archives: Australia
Radioactive Europe, Inside Fukushima, US Sells to China, French Nuke Waste
Uploaded by NukeNews on Nov 12, 2011
http://NukeNe.ws – 11/11/2011 Radiation Levels Up in Europe, Depleted Uranium & More: Infowars Nightly News :: To make money, USA to sell nuclear technology to China nuclear weapons company
To counter China, USA to set up another military base in Australia
France grapples with the eternal unsolved problem of nuclear wastes
Radiation standards for children made stricter in Japan
Legal actions against oil companies on effects of global warming?
Scathing criticism of Koch brothers and climate change denialists
Climate Change has cost $14 billion in health toll
Scene inside wrecked nuclear reactor in Japan
Fukushima nuclear disaster: how it was for the workers when it happened
Mystery of radioactive iodine particles in Europe
Fire at Idaho National Nuclear Laboratory
Bob Brown, possibly Australian government’s only sane member, wants scrutiny about USA military bases
While USA sells nuclear technology to China, Australia gets USA military base against China
NY Times reporter detects 300 microsieverts per hour while inside bus
USA to sell nuclear technology to Chinese company involved in nuclear weapons
Maralinga’s hidden legacy of radioactivity AND asbestos
Australia’s Maralinga veterans and Aboriginals paid the price for nuclear bomb testing
Malcolm Turnbull makes a strong case against Climate Change Denialists, and Koch brothers
Climate change events leading to legal action against oil companies
Marathon uranium miner to sue South Australian government
Now Poland and Denmark report “radioactive dust” — IAEA official: “We are a little concerned”
Fallout forensics hike radiation toll: Global data on Fukushima challenge Japanese estimates
Fukushima Lets Media In (VIDEO)
Fukushima Update — Day 247
Fukushima man reports seeing yellow flash when Reactor No. 3 exploded… from over 30 miles away (VIDEO)
Fukushima, Japan update 11/10/11
Former Tepco employee: Plutonium and uranium in Reactor No. 3 has all been blown out — This was no ordinary explosion — Gov’t is concealing truth (VIDEO)
Hydrogen explosion at Idaho nuke facility? INL Engineer: Sodium released hydrogen… the reaction “can range in magnitude from a flash to an explosion”
First glimpse into Fukushima graveyard (VIDEO)
Japanese Government updates radiation maps with data on six new prefectures -8 Months after Nuclear Meltdown – 12th Nov 2011
Japan Times: Official told of extremely bad conditions at Fukushima — Workers often abandoned after exceeding radiation limit
Mysterious radiation levels detected across Europe, says UN nuclear agency – 12th Nov 2011
#Radioactive “Ekiden” Road Race: High Radiation Detected in the Stadium, on the Course
AP: Anonymous IAEA official says iodine-131 release appears to be continuing across Europe
U.S. NRC approves restart of quake-hit North Anna nuclear plant — Smart move?
EDF fined millions and its senior officials sentenced to years in prison for spying on Greenpeace France
UCS questions NRC on status of shield building prior to Davis-Besse restart
Radioactive basketballs
Idaho National Laboratory experiences second on-site emergency this week
http://NukeNe.ws
http://NukeNe.ws/Contributors
Live Headlines: http://NukeNe.ws/headlines
Audio Credits: http://soundaudiomusic.com
NukeNe.ws is a current and comprehensive nuclear news site.
Fukushima kindergarten imported sandbox sand from Australia
They can’t even supply radiation free sand in Fukushima. can’t understand why they try to remain in Fukushima even by importing sand from Australia. Even if the sand is not so contaminated, everything else is contaminated.
I really want these kids in the picture to grow up and live long.
Affiliated kindergarten of Fukushima college imported sandbox sand from Australia to open the event called “container kids☆sandbox” on 7/31/2012.
The sandbox is 12m long and 2.4m wide. It’s in a container with windows and air conditioner.
It’s one of the activities of Fukushima reconstruction project by Children’s environment academic meeting.
The atmospheric dose outside of the container was not published.
Strong fatigue like Bura bura disease is observed among Fukushima children. It is not confirmed the relationship between radiation and their fatigue yet.
On 7/9/2012, Ms. Hagiwara, an Economic journalist interviewed Ms. Shikamata, the principal of “Tsukushimbo nursery school” in Koriyama Fukushima. It’s restricted for children to play outside for up to 15 minutes a day. The atmospheric dose is 1.5 μSv/h around the nursery school. (60km from Fukushima plant)
She is concerned about the decrease of physical strength of the students. “Children can’t even climb a jungle gym or a slide after an interval though they used to climb them before 311. Now it’s when they physically grow up, I guess it is because the children couldn’t go out for a long time because of radiation.”
Bura bura disease ? Fukushima children can’t climb a jungle gym
Ms. Hagiwara also visited another nursery school “Sakura nursery school” located at the bottom of Hanamiyama in Watari area, Fukushima city. (cf. Reality in Fukushima [Video])
It was banned to enter this area last year,radiation level is still very high.
79 of 0 ~ 5 years old children still go to Sakura nursery school. (The quota is 90.)
A mother of the student told Ms. Hagiwara that the children don’t want to go outside or play outside.
She thinks it’s because children feel how concerned their parents are.
Tepco and government are forward to restart nuclear plants but they haven’t even paid 12,800 USD of decontamination cost to this nursery school.
LET’S ALL SUPPORT THE FUKUSHIMA DIARIES -AGAINST MEDIA BLACK OUT
Tasmania cannot sell a lie
When I developed the Tasmanian Business and Industry Strategy in the 1990’s to transform our failing economy from a dig it up and cut it down “quarry” to one based on our world renowned natural advantages, I emphasised that “Clean and Green” would only be successful, if it was authentic.
You cannot sell a lie and get away with it indefinitely. Protection of the brand is all important in business and it is all important to Tasmania.
That is even more so today with Google Earth and the Internet providing immediate access to maps, photographs, live footage and information so that anyone can check claims that are made in a matter of minutes. Premier Giddings, Senator Abetz and their Legislative Council colleagues need to recognise that trying to engage in cover up, in a “keep logging but don’t tell anyone” strategy, only leads to greater scandals when the cover up is exposed.
Senator Abetz says that Ta Ann uses regrowth and plantation timber younger than Senator Brown. Go to http://www.observertree.org and see for yourself. Miranda Gibson is sitting up a tree in a native forest coupe that has never been logged. These areas are often called ‘regrowth’ because a fire went through it in the past 100 years but the use of the word regrowth makes people think the area has been logged. So who is engaging in misinformation Senator Abetz?
Miranda Gibson’s forest coupe is inside the area of high conservation value forests which Prime Minister Gillard and Premier Giddings said would go into immediate interim protection. It didn’t, so whose word is truthful? If Ta Ann was not using high conservation value forest, this area would not be logged because Gunns’ quota has been retired. Ta Ann is driving the destruction of high conservation value forests and that fact is being conveyed to world markets which have been lied to in the advertising of Ta Ann’s “Ecoply”.
No wonder the London Olympics dumped Ta Ann as a supplier, because it is trying to be the most environmentally sustainable Olympic Games of all time and could not afford the reputational damage of using timber sourced from high conservation value forests. The Markets for Change campaign is helping to protect the reputation and brand of companies that want to do the right thing and these campaigners are now being subjected to the very intimidation of which Senator Abetz complains. How proud are we as Tasmanians of a political leadership which tries to silence those who have no vested interest but only a commitment to environmental protection?
Senator Abetz needs to realise that the world is now demanding transparency and the market at the high end wants to be sure of ethical standards, which is why footage of environmental destruction or animal cruelty or workplace abuse is so powerful. Rather than try to hide what really goes on in our forests, Senator Abetz should be joining the community groups who are demanding that the forest industry stops undermining Tasmania’s global reputation of being Clean and Green and transforms itself to reinforce our environmental competitive advantage.
Senator Abetz’s claims that corporate campaigns are blackmail campaigns, using unethical tactics by self appointed activists are more appropriately levelled at the real blackmail campaigns driven by some of the wealthiest most self-serving people in the nation. He did not mention the campaign against the super profits tax by Twiggy Forrest, Gina Reinhart, the Minerals Council and the big miners who paid $22 million in TV advertising to blackmail and intimidate a Government into letting them off paying back to the nation a reasonable return on the super profits they were making. This means less schools and hospitals for everyone right across Australia including Tasmania’s North West coast.
Senator Abetz is not worried by Rupert Murdoch owning 70 percent of the print media in Australia and using it to destroy the policies of democratically elected governments. Senator Abetz supports those self-serving and anti-national public interest corporate campaigns and those that undermine action on climate change or try to stop the health system being made fairer. In Senator Abetz’ world, it is okay for vested interest to use corporate campaigns to protect their profits but not environmentalists in the public interest. Hypocrisy writ large Senator Abetz.
Tasmania’s challenge is to have all its industry sectors – tourism, agriculture, forestry, fisheries, services, education, manufacturing, and the arts – all moving to secure long-term jobs and investment based on a high quality of life underpinned by our magnificent environment.
This appears as an opinion piece in The Advocate online.Source
The Opal File – A secret history of Australia and New Zealand part 2
It also contains references to CIA operations to place subliminal TV broadcasts throughout Australia and NZ, and other countries.
November, 1977: Muldoon introduces the S.I.S Amendment Bill, designed to keep the economy free of obstruction and to help uncover obstructive elements. Telephone taps, mail tampering and other surveillance methods approved after CIA input on contents of legislation.
Late 1977: Muldoon travels to the US to meet top Rockefeller officials, including Trilateralists’ Deputy Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, and Richard Bolbrooke, who were in charge of the new “South Pacific Desk” at the State Department established by Rockefeller to target exploitation of both New Zealand and Australia. In Los Angeles, Muldoon meets top
Rockefeller officials, Robert Anderson (Rockwell Chairman, also Director of Kashoggi’s Security Pacific National Bank) and P. Larkin (Rockwell Director, also Chairman, Executive Committee Security Pacific National Bank and Director of Marac).
April, 1978: Muldoon sets up Petrocorp. New Zealand taxpayers pay for the exploration costs but the oil companies control all distribution outlets. Muldoon blocks development of Maui B as restructured supplies mean higher prices and bigger profits for Shell/BP/Todd. South Island gas market not developed as Great South Basin fields closer than Kapuni. Plans develop for re-opening of National Parks for mineral exploitation.
22nd July, 1978: Director of Australian Federal Bureau of Narcotics suspends his investigation into the Nugan Hand Bank after pressure from the CIA and Australian politicians controlled by Mafia, particularly Malcolm Fraser.
Brierly’s declared assets reach $200 million, with shareholders’ funds only $17 million.
May, 1979: Trilateral Commission secretary Zbignieu Brzezinski appoints Muldoon chairman of Board of Governors of IMF/World Bank on orders of David Rockefeller. Muldoon would head three-man administration committee which included Canadian Finance Minister Mitchell Sharp, key figure in the Mafia Council and the Trilateral Commission. Australian Treasurer McMahon also involved.
8th June, 1979: Michael Hand, Frank Nugan, Brierley and James Fletcher meet in Hand’s Sydney penthouse to discuss the establishment of the New Zealand Mafia organisation.
Mid- 1979: Gulf Oil using its man Brierley, begins operations designed to capture key sectors of the economy. A.B Consolidated restructured into the Goodman Group and Goodman to run operations but with the majority of the stock held by IEL and Brierley using Shell companies plus dummy corporations.
* Strategy: To take over food and produce resources, Brierley and Fletcher restructured a small private company, H.W. Smith, using Cyril Smith as Chairman but with key executives Judge, Collins and McKenzie. Bob Jones helps.
Private company used, as no Commerce Commission control, accounts not published, no public disclosure of transactions. Bunting is established as a shell company and the South Island is targeted for asset-stripping and takeover, as well as key sectors of theautomobile industry.
Unlimited funds channelled through City Realties, NZUC and Marac extends Travelodge operations by buying control of Transholdings, which has strategic holdings in Vacation Hotels and Tourist Corp. Fiji Holdings.
17th August, 1979: New Zealand Mafia inaugral meeting in Sydney including Hand, Brierley, Fletcher, Goodman, R.Trotter, Alan Hawkins and L.Papps.
Key sectors of the economy would be taken over- food, using Goodman; forestry and farming, using Fletcher and Trotter; property, using Brierley and Jones. Brierley, Hand and Papps would be responsible for banking, insurance and finance, while Hand and Hawkins would be responsible for setting up new “laundry” channels into New Zealand.
The economy would be taken over using cheap loans of less than 5%, while consumers would pay 28%.
October, 1979: BP Oil begis $100 million joint venture deal with Fletcher and Trotter at Tasman.
Muldoon makes secret deal with oil companies which effectively robs New Zealand taxpayers by giving Shell/BP/Todd the Maui Gas deal. Normally the granting of drilling rights on public land is done using a worldwide system which incorporates an auction tender system. Muldoon bypassed this. Also, Shell/BP/Todd pays no tax on Kapuni profits, while putting funds into
Maui development.
19th November, 1979: Secret meeting in Auckland between Muldoon, Fletcher and Trotter to transfer 43% Tasman Pulp and Paper held by New Zealand Government to Challenge Corporation (Chairman Trotter) and Fletchers. Tasman has lucrative 75-year contract for cheap timber signed in 1955.
Muldoon paid off with a $1 million ‘non-repayable’ loan – $500,000 to be paid into account number 8746665 at New Hebrides branch of the Australian International Bank.
November, 1979: Muldoon drops restrictions on foreign investment. AMAX (Standard Oil of California subsidiary) captures the Martha Hill goldmine.
Muldoon unveils the Government’s plans (instructed by Rockefeller) to form New Zealand into an offshore production base for the multi-national corporations as benefits include government export incentives, stable government, cheap labour, and so on.
27th November, 1979: Gerald Parsky’s lieutenant, David Kennedy, meets Muldoon to deliver $US100,000 cash to Muldoon for implementing the Internationalists’ Mafia Think Big plans.
These plans began with big contracts and guaranteed profits for the Seven Sisters, Bechtel, Mitsubishi, Mitsui, Nippon Steel, Internationalists’ Mafia banks.
With the experimental petroleum plant, the oil price has to be $50/barrel to be profitable, yet Mobil’s profits are guaranteed.
New Zealand Steel is to be expanded 500%, even though there was a global steel glut of 50%.
Fletchers own 10% of New Zealand Steel and are majority stockholders in Pacific Steel and control monopoly over wire rod, reinforcing steel. Also, New Zealand taxpayers subsidise Fletchers’ profits.
Muldoon introduces the National Development Bill with ‘fast-track’ legislation, to keep the economy ‘free of obstruction’ for long-term monopolisation. C.E.R. plan introduced, designed to integrate the economies of Australia and New Zealand with the Trilateral Commission for the purpose of exploiting the South Pacific countries and as a ‘back-door’ entrance into China – the world’s largest untapped consumer market. New Zealand is also the closest country to Antarctica, which has a vast mineral resource for future exploitation.
“Think Big” projects begin, even though Muldoon aware of studies that show New Zealand could conserve up to 40% of energy consumption using existing technology, which would mean funds could be invested elsewhere to lower consumer prices, lower inflation rates, less demand for imported oil and increased imployment by creating new industry to manufacture and install
energy-saving technology. None of these options seriously considered as all would lessen profits for members of the Rockefeller organisations.
December 1979: Muldoon unveils ‘stage two’ of a four-stage plan to exploit the Great South Basin discovery. Plan prepared by Trilateralist ‘Think Tank’ – the Brookings Institute.
‘Stage Two’ includes methanol plant and synthetic petrol plant, which would initially use gas from the Maui field and later would link with underwater gas pipe from Campbell Island.
With the New Zealand Steel 500% expansion, ‘stage three’ of the project and Think Big contracts to go to Bechtel, Fluor Corp., Mitsubishi, Mitsui, Nippon Steel, etc. All investments would be financed by the New Zealand taxpayer.
17th January, 1980: $500,000 deposited in Muldoon’s account number 8746665 at the Australian International Bank, being the final payment for the Tasman deal.
Early 1980: Kashoggi Travelodge operations extended with affiliation agreement between Dominion Breweries and Western International Hotels (Seattle First National Bank).
May, 1980: Mafia’s Nugan Hand banking operation crashes after Frank Nugan killed. Death ruled as suicide even though no fingerprints found on the rifle. Maloney, Houghton, Yates and Hand shred important documents, but miss some. CIA helps Hand and Bank President Donald Beasley escape to the U.S. The CIA and Australian Security Intelligence Organisation cover
everything up. Beazley appointed President of Miami City National Bank, run by Alberto Dugue for ‘laundering’ profits from the CIA Colombian cocaine operation.
There is a probability that Michael Hand killed Frank Nugan because of his involvement with Hand’s fiancee.
25th May, 1980: Colby arrived in Australia to discuss replacement of the Nugan Hand Bank with Hand, Brierley, and Seldon. Immediate funding available from Sydney branch of the Deak Bank, a separate CIA operation, and IEL would be used to buy NZI Corp., to prepare for future laundering operations.
Maloney, Houghton, Yates, and Hand would shred all documents leading back to the New Zealand Great South Basin connection, and the CIA would help Hand and Bank President Donald Beazley escape to the USA. The CIA and ASIO
would also cover everything up.
Hand and Beazley turn up in Miami – Beazley appointed President and Hand ‘consultant’ to the Miami City National Bank, but also Hand turned up in El Salvador to help organise bankrolling of the Contras with other ex- members of Nugan-Hand.
23rd June, 1980: New Zealand Mafia, including Brierley, Fletcher, Trotter, Jones, Hawkins, Goodman, and Papps meet in Wellington to discuss merger of Fletcher Challenge and Tasman.
In order to replace Nugan Hand Bank’s 22 world-wide branches, quick moves are made to buy control of NZI by New Zealand Mafia using Brierley, thereby capturing an established, world-wide organisation through the Hong Kong and
Shanghai Bank, which is also linked to the CIA through its subsidiary, World Finance Corporation.
Late 1980: Fletchers, with strong Rockefeller links, obtains lucrative contracts on US Bases in the Pacific and joint ventures in Saudi Arabia and Iraq.
Control extended over New Zealand natural resources – Fletcher Challenge and Tasman Pulp and Paper merged. NZFP takes control of M.S.D. Spiers and Moore Le Messurier (Aust). Brierley begins joint venture with NZFP through Williamson and Jeffrey. I.E.L, through Goodman, buys 20% of Watties and begins cross-shareholding agreement. Goodman continues buying up control
of NZ bakeries and flour- mills.
February, 1981: TNL., Brierley, AMOIL and MIM Holdings begin joint gold mining operation. MIM major shareholder is ASARCO (US), whose Chairman, Barber, is also Director of Chase Manhattan Bank.
New Zealand Insurance and South British merger.
Parliamentarians For World Order – Richard Prebble elected one of twelve councillors.
Fletcher and Papps (Chairman UEB) sell their hotel operations to Singaporian interest clossely associated with the Pritzker family – owners of the Hyatt Hotel chain. Bueton Kanter, Pritzker family lawyer and Director of Hyatt Hotels, who helped arrange the deal, was an old family partner of Paul Helliwell (CIA paymaster for the Bay of Pigs fiasco) and had helped the Pritzker family set up tax shelters using the CIA’s Mercantile Bank and Trust and the Castle Bank, which had been set up by Helliwell for ‘laundering’ profits from the Onassis heroin operations as well as ‘skim money’ from the Hughes casino operations in Las Vegas.
Others who used these banks include Richard Nixon, Bebe Rozo, Robert Vesco, Teamsters Union, etc.
12th March, 1981: Brierley calls secret meeting in Auckland, which includes Jones, Fletcher, Hawkins, Papps and Burton Kanter, to discuss transfer of the Fletcher Challenge and UEB hotel operations to the Singapore front company controlled by the Pritzker family.
20th July, 1981: Parsky, Colby, Brierley and Seldon meet in Sydney with two new members, Kerry Packer and Alan Bond.
Chase Manhattan and Security Pacific National Bank will acquire 60% of Packer’s company, with the stock being held in Australia, and 35% Bond’s company, with the stock being held in Hong Kong.
August 1981: Gulf Oil, using Brierley, strengthens its hold over New Zealand natural resources. Cue Energy launched, starring Lawrey and Gunn. NZOG launched with strategic holdings by Jones, Renouf and Brierley with licences in PPD 38206 and 38204 – both next to Hunt’s Great South Basin discovery, NZOG also controls 80 million tonnes of coal through the Pike River Coal Company.
Brierley-controlled Wellington Gas, Christchurch Gas, Auckland and Hawkes Bay Gas and Dual Fuel Systems (Australasia) which controls the vehicle gas conversion market.
Liquigas Limited set up to distribute LPG, controlled by Shell/BP/Todd and Fletcher Challenge.
15th February, 1982: Brierley calls New Zealand meeting – Jones, Fletcher, Trotter, Hawkins, Goodman and Papps. New members include Bruce Judge, J. Fernyhough, and Frank Renouf.
With Muldoon about to deregulate the liquor industry, Brierley and Fernyhough plan to buy up the New Zealand liquor industry, along with its outlets, Lion Breweries and Rothmans to help.
Brierley will do the same in Australia. J.R. Fletcher becomes Managing Director of Brierley’s Dominion Breweries to oversee operations. Rothmans and Brierley (through Goodman) have equal holdings in Saudicapital Corp. Lion Directors Myers and Fernyhough also stockholders in NZOG.
Fletcher and Brierley begin their takeover of the freezing works industry. FCL buys into South Island works while Brierley begins takeover of Waitaki NZR through Watties with the help of Athol Hutton.
With Think Big projects beginning, Fletcher and Trotter plan to take strategic holdings in NZ Cement, Wilkins Davies, Steel & Tube etc., and Brierley would use Renouf to take 3% stake of the Martha Hill gold-mine.
Also targetted are clothing, footwear, carpet manufacture and more of the auto industry for takeover and monopolisation.
June, 1982: Meantime, in Australia, an new money funnel begins. H.W Smith buys to obscure South Pine Quarries, which is renamed Ariadne (Aust). South Pine Quarries owns 50% of Coal-Liquid Inc., with the other half owned by US Defence contractors McDonnellDouglas. Coal-Liquid renamed Impala Securities.
The common link between Gulf Oil and McDonnell Douglas is the CIA’s Mercantile Bank and Trust, which both companies use for world-wide bribery and payoff operations. McDonnell Douglas officials McKeough and G.T.Hawkins later appointed directors of Impala Securities.
US links strengthened through Industrial Equity Pacific, which acquires part of Higbee Company in Cleveland, which in turn is closely linked to the National City Bank of Cleveland. This bank is closely associated with Gulf Oil’s bank, Pittsburgh National and Mellon Bank.
Bruce Judge installed as Ariadne manager.
July, 1982: Media takeover begins. Brierley takes 24% NZ News Ltd and begins buying up private radio. Rupert Murdoch helps.
27th July, 1982. Brierley, Jones and Goodman meet in Auckland with two Japanese members of the Trilateral Commission to discuss integration of the New Zealand economy into the Pacific Rim economy. Trilateralists include: Takeshi Watanabe (Japanese Chairman of Trilateral Commission) and Daigo Miyado (Chairman Sanwa Bank).
The Japan/New Zealand Business Council would be established to co-ordinate policy with Goodman appointed as Chairman.
17th August, 1982: Inauguration of restructured US Mafia Council – rulers include David Rockefeller, responsible for Banking; John McCloy; Redman Rockefeller and J.D. Rockefeller, who would run the Seven Sisters.
Second-tier Council includes:
* Gerald Parsky – responsible for heroin and cocaine operations
* William Simon – responsible for running the Presidency, Cabinet, etc
* Katherine Graham – link to arms manufacturers
* Zbigniew Brzezinski – link to National Security Council and CIA
* George S. Franklin – link to FBI
Third-tier Council includes:
* Zbigniew Brzezinski – Secretary
* Gerald Parsky – Heroin Cocaine operations
* William Colby – crack operations, assassinations
* John N. Perkins – banking, laundering
* Leonard Woodcock – labour, unions
* Mitchell Sharp – banking
* William Simon – presidency, Cabinet
* Ernest C. Arbuckly – arms manufacturers
* George W. Bull – Bildrberg and Council of Foreign Relations
* Katherine Graham – arms manufacturers
* Alden W. Clausen – World Bank, IMF
* Willam T. Coleman – CIA
* Archibald K. Davis – media, radio, television, and newspapers
* George S. Franklin – FBI, and Trilateral Commission co-ordinator
* J.D. Rockefeller – to “spy” on the 15 man council.
September, 1982: Goodman now helps establish the Japan/New Zealand Council with the Bank of Tokyo and the Industrial Bank of Japan. Tokai Pulp Co. buys shareholding in NZFP, which also begins joint venture with Shell Oil.
Fletcher Challenge strengthens links with the Rockefeller organisation by acquiring the Canadian operations of Crown Zellerbach, whose chairman is also director of Gulf Oil. Crown Zellerbach Corp. has direct connections to Rockefeller through directors Mumford, Hendrickson and Granville, to United California Bank through Roth and to the Bank of America through
Chairman C.R. Dahl.
Meanwhile, Robert Jones Investments floated to extend operations of City Realties, Ilmond Properties, Chase Corp., etc. The Commerce Building in Auckland sold to Robert Jones Investments by Robert Jones Holdings for $950,000 when recently it was offered on the market for $200,000. A quick $750,000 for Jones. Robert Jones Investments was set up by Brierley, Jones
and Hawkins.
8th December, 1982: Mitchell Sharp heads top-level Mafia meeting in San Francisco. Others include Parsky, Perkins, Woodcock and C.R. Dahl – Chairman of Crown Zellermach.
Also present are – Brierley, Trotter, Fletcher and Seldon. Meeting to discuss Great South Basin exploitation strategy withfirst priority being monopolisation of the economy; second priority to establish oil refineries and related industries; third to integrate New Zealand economy into Trilateral economy and, fourth, to concentrate power back to the U.S through the Seven Sisters, Chase Manhattan and Security Pacific National Bank.
Fletcher Challenge will link New Zealand economy directly to the U.S by merging with Canadian subsidiary of Crown Zellerbach with funds provided by Security Pacific National Bank and United Californian Bank.
Brierley, Fletcher, Trotter and Seldon will be New Zealand Ruling Council, headed by Brierley, who would take orders from Gerald Parsky.
Mid-1983: Brierley’s Ariadne (Aust) takes control of Repco (NZ) through Repco (Aust), therby taking control of key auto-related industry, helped by Borg Warner and Honeywell – which are closely associated with IEL through International Harvester, Continental Illinois Bank and the First National Bank of Chicago. Toyota and Nissan also help so that Brierley now largest
distributor of auto and industrial parts, largest manufacturer of pistons, filters and engine bearings, as well as biggest supplier of forklifts, tractors and agricultural equipment.
Meantime, control is extended over the Great South Basin oil source with Hunt, after big losses resulting from trying to corner the world’s silver market, being forced to sell out some of his concession to Gulf Oil, which uses Brierley to set up a new company – Southern Petroleum – which takes a 14.5% interest. Hunt retains overall control with 45.5%, Petro-Corp has 40% and Chairman F. Orr, also a Director of Brierley – controlled Watties.
Brierley, through Goodman, takes control of TNL Group and its subsidiaries NZ Motor Bodies and L & M Mining, which has 15% interest in the Chatham Rise, right next to the Hunt concession.
Southern Petroleum set up by Brierley in New Zealand was spearheaded by the Seven Sisters’ companies with Gerald Parsky and William Colby initiators. Southern Petroleum to include 21% of the Great South Basin held by gulf and Mobil Oil. 90% of this stock held in Australia through IEL (ie Brierley’s).
11-12th May, 1983: New Zealand Mafia meet in Cook Islands. Includes Brierley, Trotter, Fletcher, Jones, Hawkins, Goodman, Pappas, Judge, Renouf, and Fernyhough. New members include A. Gibbs, McConnell, H.Fletcher and O.Gunn. Japanese Trilateralists Takeshi Wataneve and Daigo Miyado discuss ‘integration’ of New Zealand into the Pacific Rim economies.
A new political party would be established using Jones and financed by the New Zealand Mafia Council.
* Reason: Parsky and Colby wanted Muldoon out because he had ‘welched’ on a deal to set up two US military deep-water submarine bases planned for Dusky Sound and Guards Bay in the South Island. Parsky, Brierley and Ray Cline hold a separate meeting to discuss the purchase of New Zealand politicians, including Lange, Douglas and Bolger.
Cline was ‘consultant’ to the CIA’s Deak Bank, took orders from Colby, and was responsible for the 10 Australian politicians on the CIA’s payroll, including Bjelke Petersen, I. Sinclair, Keating, McMullen, M.Fraser, D. Anthony, K. Newman, J Carrick, B. Cowan and R. Connor.
Cline outlines CIA plan to begin subliminal television advertising.
22nd June, 1983: New Zealand politician J. Bolger meets Ray Cline in Sydney and agrees to join the organisation for a monthly fee of $US20,000 to be paid into account number GA1282117 at Geneva branch of Credit Swisse.
20th July, 1983: New Zealand politician R. Douglas meets Ray Cline in Wellington and agrees to join the organisation for a monthly fee of $US10,000 to be paid into account number 3791686 at the Sydney Branch of the Deak Bank.
July 1983: Parsky launches a new front company, Chase Corporation, with 25% of the stock being held through Security Pacific National Bank in Australia and 25% held in Hong Kong by Chase Manhattan. Brierley and Hawkins set up a ‘back-door’ listing to cover up true-ownership.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
August, 1983: Muldoon imposes withholding tax on all ofshore borrowing.
Chase Manhattan, United California Bank and Brierley begin new banking operation in New Zealand to take over the International Harvester Credit Co (NZ), Australasian Investment Company. Participants include Chase Manhattan’s Kuwait Asia Bank, D.F.C., Saudicorp (Brierley has 12% through Goodman) and United California, represented by National Insurance which is
part of Equus Holdings.
Renouf sells 20% NZUC to Barclays and prepared for expanding of operations with Brierley.
Meantime, Murdoch and Brierley expand their close ties by each taking a piece of New Zealand Maritime Holdings and with the election imminent, divide up New Zealand media for takeover to increase Mafia control. NZ News buys Hawkes Bay News, Nelson Tribune, Timaru Herald, etc. Brierley increases holding in Hauraki Enterprises and other private radio stations.
Brierley and Murdoch have majority stockholding in NZPA with 48.5%, while in the UK, Murdoch has large stockholding in Reuters.
The phoney news becomes THE news.
Head of the Murdoch operation is Burnett, who is also on the board of Winstones – a Brierley company.
September, 1983: With global heroin epidemic, Rockefeller expands operations to recycle profits.
New Zealand South British sets up the IDAPS computer bureau to establish international holding companies, dummy corporations, etc and to pursue aggressive global acquisition programme. IDAPS linked to satellite bureaux in Australia, Far East, UK and the US, where the global network is completed through links with the Rockefeller organisation computer network.
General Manager of the operation, George Wheller, previously director of the international operators of Firemen’s Fund (US), Chairman Du Bain, director of the United California Bank, and Vice-Chairman of Amex.
As part of the expanded laundry operation, Rockefeller associate Adnan Kashoggi establishes new Australian bank – Security Pacific National Bank (Aust). Brierley’s part of this operation is to buy up computer companies such as Andas, CID Distributors (NZ Apple computer franchise,etc).
Investment companies begin operations in Australia and New Zealand to assist recycle Mafia profits.
October 1983: Brierley takes over NZFP through Watties, helped by newly-appointed chairman Papps. Papps also chairman of NZ Railways and presided over transport deregulation, the major beneficiaries of which include Watties and Freightways – Managing Director Pettigrew and Director Lang also both on the NZFP board with Papps.
Papps also responsible for the railways’ electrification programme with big contracts for Cory Wright & Slamon, whose directors include I.I McKay, also on the board of NZFP.
Late 1983: AMAX (Social) gives Gulf Oil a share in the Martha Hill gold bonanza by selling 15% of its holdings to Brierley through Goodmans. Oil companies say that only $870 million worth of minerals in Martha Hill, while true figure is closer to $3 billion.Source
Blue Gold
PIPE SCHEMES
The water privateers are now also setting their sights on the mass export of bulk water by diversion, by pipelines and by supertanker. Modified tanker deliveries already take place in certain regions that are willing to pay top dollar for water on an emergency basis. Barges carry loads of freshwater to islands in the Bahamas and tankers deliver water to Japan, Taiwan, and Korea. Turkey is preparing to sell its water by shipping it on converted oil tankers and through pipeline from the Manavgat River to Cyprus, Malta, Libya, Israel, Greece and Egypt.
In the summer of 2000, Israel began negotiations to buy over 13 billion gallons of water a year from Turkey; the tankers are already moored to huge yellow floating stations two miles offshore, awaiting delivery orders. Turkey’s water company says it has the pumps and pipes to export four to eight times that amount.
To deal with droughts in southern European countries, the European Commission is looking into the possibility of tapping into the sources of water-rich countries such as Austria. If its plans to establish a European Water Network are realized, Alpine water could be flowing into Spain or Greece, rather than Vienna’s reservoirs, within a decade. “This means that in theory we could supply everyone in the European Union, all 370 million of them,” declares Herbert Schroefelbauer, deputy chairman of Verbund, the country’s largest electrical utility. A high-tech pipeline already transports quality spring water from the Austrian Alps to Vienna, and the proposal to extend this system to other countries is creating great unease among Austria’s environmentalists, who warn of the damage bulk exports could have on the sensitive alpine ecosystem.
Gerard Mestrallet of Suez Lyonnaise is planning another Suez Canal-this time in Europe. He has announced his intention to build a giant 160-mile aqueduct to transport water from the Rhone River through France to the Catalonian capital, Barcelona.
To address England’s growing water crisis, some political and corporate leaders are calling for large-scale exports of water from Scotland, by tanker and pipeline. Already, several British companies are exploring the possibility of water exports and one Scottish entrepreneur told The Scotsmail that Scottish companies are also interested. Complicating the political sensitivities is the fact that Scotland still has a publicly owned water system, while British water is run by privatized companies. Ironically, some of these companies have been lukewarm to exports because the scarcity of water in England has kept prices and profits high.
Professor George Flemming of Strathclyde University claims that it would be relatively simple to extend pipelines and natural waterways that already exist between the north of Scotland and Edinburgh to London and other parts of England. However, support for water sovereignty in Scotland is strong. When Scotland’s water authority, West of Scotland Water, publicly sounded out a plan to sell surplus water to Spain, Morocco and the Middle East, public reaction forced it to back off. Still, many see this reluctance as temporary. Flemming believes that England and Wales are running out of water because of global warming and that imports of bulk water are inevitable.
In Australia, United Water International has secured the contract of the water system of Adelaide (located in southern Australia) and has developed a 1 5-year plan to export its water to other countries for computer software manufacturing and irrigation. Domestic companies were not allowed to bid for this contract because it was assumed that a large transnational would increase the value of the water exports, now expected to be in the range of $628 million.
Several companies around the world are developing technology whereby large quantities of freshwater would be loaded into huge sealed bags and towed across the ocean for sale. The Nordic Water Supply Company in Oslo, Norway, has signed a contract to deliver 7 million cubic meters of water per year in bags to northern Cyprus. During the Gulf War, Operation Desert Storm used water bags to supply water to their troops.
Aquarius Water Trading and Transportation Ltd. of England and Greece has begun the first commercial deliveries of freshwater by polyurethane bags, towed like barges through waterways. The company, whose corporate investors include Suez Lyonnaise des Eaux, delivers water to the Greek Islands where a piping system links the bag to the main water supply on the island. Aquarius predicts that the market will soon exceed 200 million metric tons per year. The company’s bag fleet consists of eight 720-ton bags and two 2,000-ton versions. The larger bags hold two million liters of water each. Aquarius has completed research and development on bags ten times larger and is searching for the capital investment to produce them. The company has its sights set on Israel, and claims to have the interest of several major water companies.
Nowhere are dreams for the trade in water as big as they are in North America. Every few years, plans to divert massive amounts of Canadian water to water-scarce areas of the United States, Asia and the Middle East by tanker, pipeline, or rerouting of the natural river systems, are raised only to be shut down by public protest. One of the largest proposed diversion projects was called the GRAND Canal-the Great Recycling and Northern Development Canal. It originally called for the building of a dike across James Bay at the mouth of Hudson Bay (both of which now flow north) to create a giant freshwater reservoir out of James Bay and the twenty rivers flowing into it. A massive series of dikes, canals, dams, power plants and locks would divert this water at a rate of 62,000 gallons a second down a 167-mile canal to Georgian Bay, where it would be flushed through the Great Lakes and taken to the U.S. Sun Belt.
The NAWAPA-the North American Water and Power Alliance-was a similar scheme. The original plan envisaged building a large number of major dams to trap the Yukon, Peace and Liard rivers into a giant reservoir that would flood one-tenth of British Columbia to create a canal from Alaska to Washington state and supply water through existing canals and pipelines to thirty-five American states. The volume diverted would be roughly equivalent to the average total annual discharge of the St. Lawrence River.
In the early 1 990s, a consortium named Multinational Water and Power Inc. spent $500,000 promoting the diversion of water from the North Thompson River (a tributary of the Fraser River) into the Columbia River system for delivery by pipeline to California.
In the last decade, these projects have quietly been drawing support again from the business community in Canada. In 1991 Canadian Banker magazine said that water export would become a multi-million dollar business “The concept of NAWAPA… remains a potentially awesome catalyst of economic and environmental change.”
In the same year, Report OH Business magazine stated “Pollution, population growth and environmental crusading are expected to put enormous pressure on the world’s supply of freshwater over the next ten years. Some of Canada’s largest engineering companies are gearing up for the day when water is moved around the world like oil or wheat or wood…What will be important is who has the right to sell it to the highest bidder.”
Meanwhile residents of water-scarce regions continue to live in denial. In a July 1998 article for The Atlantic Monthly titled “Desert Politics,” writer Robert Kaplan notes the blind faith of people living in the Arizona desert believing that some magical solution to their water shortage will manifest itself while they Id continue to build in an area never meant for human habitat in these numbers. He notes that more than
800,000 people live in greater Tucson alone and four million in Arizona, a tenfold increase in seventy years. According to Wade Graham of Harper’s Magazine, municipal development in Phoenix is occurring at a rate of an acre every hour. Kaplan writes,
“Maybe, as some visionary engineers think, the Southwest’s salvation will come ultimately from that shivery vastness of wet, green sponge to the north Canada. In this scenario a network of new dams, reservoirs, and tunnels would supply water from the Yukon and British Columbia to the Mexican border, while a giant canal would bring desalinized Hudson Bay water from Quebec to the American Midwest, and supertankers would carry glacial water from the British Columbian coast to Southern California-all to support an enlarged network of post-urban, multiethnic pods pulsing with economic activity.”
CANADA AND ALASKA: OPEC OF WATER!
The call to export water by supertanker is heating up again in Canada after a lull of a few years. In British Columbia, a number of export companies such as Western Canada Water, Snow Cap Water, White Bear Water and Multinational Resources were already lined up for business when the government banned the export of bulk water in 1993. One project was to involve a Texas company prepared to pay for a fleet of 12 to 16 of the world’s largest supertankers (500,000 deadweight tons) to operate around the clock. Under one contract, the annual volume of water to be shipped to California was equivalent to the total annual water consumption of the city of Vancouver.
The British Columbian government that made the decision to ban bulk water exports is politically committed to this position; however future governments in B.C. might easily reverse this policy, opening a floodgate of export proposals. Canadian water expert Richard Bocking explains that the same companies would transport oil and water, in some cases, emptying oil on one leg of the trip, and carrying water home on the return voyage
“Water export from the B.C. coast would involve huge supertankers, operating year round on tight schedules. They would wind their way through tortuous coastal waterways, maneuvering around islands and reefs in an area where no well-developed marine traffic management system exists. There are strong and often turbulent tidal currents in coastal inlets where winter winds often reach ferocious velocities.
“These huge tankers would travel through waters that are amongst the world’s finest for recreational boating and fishing. Pods of killer whales move regularly through these waters. Along with commercial and sports fisheries, spawning for almost the entire commercial oyster industry of coastal B.C. is located here. The enormous fuel tanks of supertankers are full of bunker C fuel, the worst possible grade of oil in environmental terms. With currents, winds, rocks, and reefs intersecting with tight ship schedules, the stage is set for tragedy on a grand scale.”
In recent years, two other Canadian provinces received corporate applications to allow the export of bulk water for commercial profit. In the spring of 1998, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment approved a plan by Nova Group to export millions of liters of Lake Superior water by tanker to Asia. However, the province later rescinded the grant after an outcry from the International Joint Commission; (then) U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who claimed that the United States had shared jurisdiction over Lake Superior; and the public, most notably those living in the Great Lakes area of Canada and the United States. The other application, a request to export 52 billion liters of water a year from pristine Gisborne Lake in the Newfoundland wilderness, seemed poised to receive the go-ahead, given recent statements made by Newfoundland’s new premier, Roger Grimes. The company, McCurdy Group of Newfoundland, plans to ship the water to the Middle East by supertanker.
Newspaper and business publications are intensifying the debate. In February 1999 the National Post called Canada’s water “blue gold” and demanded that the government “turn on the tap.” Its business columnist, Terence Corcoran, added fuel to the fire “Canada is a future OPEC of water. Here’s a worthwhile long-term bet By 2010, Canada will be exporting large quantities of freshwater to the U.S., and more by tanker to parched nations all over the globe.
“The issue will not be whether to export, but how much money the federal government and the provinces will be able to extract from massive water shipments. Rather than resisting the idea of water exports, Canada will end up scrambling to head the WWET, the World Water Export Treaty, signed in 2006 by 25 countries with vast water reserves. Using the OPEC model, they will attempt to cartelize the world supply of water and drive the price up.” The Calgary Heraid’s editorial board agreed, “Canada has plenty of freshwater, so let the commercial exports begin.”
However, Canada isn’t the only water-rich region being eyed by transnational business. A Canadian company, Global Water Corporation, has signed an agreement with Sitka, Alaska, to export 18 billion gallons (58 billion liters) per year of glacier water to China where it is to be bottled in one of that country’s “free trade zones” to save on labor costs. Although the company brochure acknowledges that there is a severe water crisis in China, it entices investors “to harvest the accelerating opportunity…as traditional sources of water around the world become progressively depleted and degraded” and laments the fact that the government of British Columbia in Canada has placed a ban on bulk water exports.
The company is now engaged in a “strategic alliance to plan an international strategy to move water globally in bulk tankers” with the Signet Companies, an international maritime shipping company based in Houston, Texas. Signet has been engaged in the bulk movement of water since 1986 when both Western Canada Water and its predecessor contracted the shipping company for the “design, development, analysis and implementation of an international water transport system.” As Global explains, “Water has moved from being an endless commodity that may be taken for granted to a rationed necessity that may be taken by force.”
But Global is only one of the many companies with interests in Alaskan water. Alaska has become the first jurisdiction in the world to permit the commercial export of bulk water. The Ataska Business Monthly bluntly states, “Everyone agrees water has 21st century potential as an export from Alaska, and communities from Annette Island to the Aleutians are thinking about turning on the tap.” The journal reports that a Washington-based company has begun shipping city tap water from Alaska on barges to be bottled in Kent, Washington, and that several other projects are in the works.
Alaska’s water resources are staggering, reports the pro-export Alaska Business Monthly. For example, it suggests that if Sitka filled a million-gallon tanker per day, this would still be less than 10 percent of its current water usage. In Eklutna, Alaska, Brian Crewdson, assistant to the general manager of the Anchorage Water and Wastewater Utility, estimates the export potential to be as high as 30 million gallons (90 million liters) per day.
He reports that in 1995 a Mitsubishi-leased tanker taking on petroleum by-products for processing overseas also loaded a couple of millions of gallons of Eklutna water for shipment to Japan. He believes this may have been the first tanker shipment of water out of the United States and when word got out, he received calls from companies interested in doing business in New York City, Washington D.C., and Charleston, S.C. Crewdson adds that there is more money in bulk water exports than bottled water exports.
One entrepreneur who is poised to profit from Alaskan water exports spent much of his career shaping water policy in the public sector. Ric Davidge, president of Arctic Ice and Water Exports, served in the U.S. Department of the Interior as chairman of the Federal Land Policy Group and was a key advisor to both the federal and state governments in the clean-up operations for the Exxon Valdez oil spill. As Alaska’s director of water, Davidge was responsible for initiating the marketing of the state’s water and established the policy framework that allowed for the export of water. Soon after he set the export wheels in motion, he moved into the private sector and began a water export business. He is now known as “Alaska’s Water Czar.”
Davidge’s curriculum vitae states that he provides a “wide range of consulting services to foreign and domestic companies developing bulk and bottled water exports from Alaska.” Clients include companies from Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, Alaska, Washington, Canada, South Korea, Tanzania, Japan, Mexico, California and Nevada.
There are some who say that bulk export of water is too expensive to be economically viable and suggest that the future lies with desalination. However, the World Bank points out that the world has already tapped all its low-cost, easily accessible water reserves; the financial and environmental costs of tapping new supplies, however they are developed, will be two to three times more than those of existing investments and the demand will be there even if the sources are expensive.
While desalination will be used by some countries, it is a very expensive process and is fossil fuel intensive. Massive desalination projects would be possible only to those countries with abundant energy supplies, and would seriously add to global warming-a crisis already exacerbated by freshwater diversion.
Davidge points out that the price of water on a dollar-per-unit basis is already higher than refined gasoline. “Everything from soft drinks to French wine to microchips will get many times more expensive as area reserves of clean water are drawn down.” He argues that desalinated water is more expensive to produce and more environmentally destructive than bulk water shipments in tankers and water bags.
Quebec businessman Paul Barbeau of Aquaroute, Inc., a company “dedicated to water transportation in bulk,” agrees. He says that water can be easily exported by tanker vessel on very short notice. He claims that at his former company, Enercem Tankers, he converted and operated a petrol carrier into a water carrier which was used to transport Canadian water to the Bahamas. “Capturing water is easy. A floating ship can simply pump what may be declared as a water ballast. This is done daily on any coastal or ocean-going vessel or even more simply with any barge as there are already some on the Great Lakes. The tools to export water afloat are already there. What is missing is the precise development in law to prevent an uncontrolled practice.”
Even some environmentalists believe that water commodification and trade is inevitable. Says Allerd Stikker, “It could very well be that in the beginning of the 21st century clean water will start to become a major regional and inter-regional commodity, being produced and traded in volumes undreamt of today.”
Especially in light of economic globalization, it is a myth that large cross-border transfers of water are not economically feasible. The only difference between these and other mega-projects is that water becomes a product transferred across borders. These megaprojects are identical in purpose to domestic water projects and governed by the same economic analysis. There is no reason to believe that current massive government subsidies to industry and agribusiness are going to end anytime soon. Transnational corporations operating in water-intensive industries are going to expect local governments to find and fund the water supplies they need before making investment and production decisions.
BOTTLED WATER BECOMES BIG BUSINESS
Where there is a demand for the trade of water across borders, it is already well underway. The trade in bottled water is one of the fastest-growing (and least regulated) industries in the world. In the 1970s, the annual volume was 300 million gallons. By 1980, this figure had climbed to 630 million gallons, and by the end of the decade, the world was drinking two billion gallons of bottled water every year. But these numbers pale in comparison to the explosion in bottled water sales in the last five years-over 20 percent annually. In 2000 over 8 billion gallons (24 billion liters) of water was bottled and traded globally, over 90 percent of it in non-reusable plastic containers.
In Canada, the amount of water extracted by bottlers has grown by more than 50 percent in less than a decade; bottlers, who pay no fee for the water they capture, have the legal right to extract about 30 billion liters a year-1,000 liters for every person in the country. Almost half of it is exported to the U.S.
As the world’s freshwater supply becomes more degraded, those who can afford it are favoring the packaged item, even though bottled water is subjected to less rigorous testing and purity standards than tap water. A March 1999 study by U.S.-based Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) found that much bottled water is no safer than tap water and some is decidedly less so. One-third of 103 brands of bottled water studied contained levels of contamination, including traces of arsenic and E. coli and at least one fourth of bottled water is actually bottled tap water, the study found.
Alongside the giants of the industry, such as Perrier, Evian, Naya, Poland Spring, Clearly Canadian, La Croix and Purely Alaskan, there are literally thousands of smaller companies now in the business. As well, the big soft-drink players are entering the market en masse. PepsiCo has its Aquafina line and CocaCola has just launched the North American version of its international label, Bon Aqua, called Dasani. CocaCola predicts that its water line, which is just processed tap water and sells for more than gasoline, will surpass its soft-drink line within a decade.
These companies are engaged in a constant search for new water supplies to feed the insatiable appetite of the business and are engaging in the trade of water by tanker shipments and by purchasing water rights from farmers. In rural communities all over the world, corporate interests are buying up farmland to access wells and then moving on when supplies are depleted. In South America, foreign water corporations are buying vast wilderness tracts and even whole water systems to hold for future development.
Sometimes these companies leave dried-up systems in a whole area, not just their own land. A ferocious debate has been taking place in Tillicum Valley, a picturesque fruit and wine district in British Columbia. Clearly Canadian Beverage Corp. has been mining the ground water of the region so relentlessly that local residents and orchard growers say the company is “draining their water supply dry.”
Of course, the global income gap is mirrored in inequitable access to bottled water. The NRDC reports that some people spend up to 10,000 times more per gallon for bottled water than they do for tap water. For the same price as one bottle of this “boutique” consumer item, 1,000 gallons (3,000 liters) of tap water could be delivered to homes, according to the American Water Works Association. Ironically, the same industry that contributes to the destruction of public water sources-in order to provide “pure” water to the world’s elite in non-reusable plastic- peddles its product as being environmentally friendly and part of a healthy lifestyle.
Source
2011-03-04 Jennifer Robinson: Brief to Canberra meeting of MPs re Julian Assange
The following brief was submitted to the meeting outlined here by WL Central: On 2nd March 2011 at 9.15am a meeting was held, organised by Andrew Laming (Liberal Party MP Bowman Qld) at Parliament House Canberra to allow federal parliamentarians who wished to attend, some insights into the matters of Julian Assange facing extradition from the UK to Sweden, and facing (subject to that extradition process) a possible trial in Sweden and another possible extradition to the USA thereafter.
Among others, MPs Andrew Laming, Malcolm Turnbull, Doug Cameron and Sarah Hanson-Young were in attendance, along with parliamentary staff members.
Three speakers made themselves available for oral presentations and questions: Greg Barns, barrister from Tasmania; former Australian diplomat Tony Kevin and Peter Kemp solicitor from NSW, the latter two made written material available for the parliamentarians reprinted here with their permission.
The following brief was submitted to the meeting by Jennifer Robinson of the firm Finers Stephens Innocent. She is part of the legal team representing Julian Assange in the extradition proceedings requested by Sweden.
Jennifer Robinson’s biography.
1. I am writing to you to provide a briefing for the meeting of members of Federal Parliament on Wednesday 2 March 2011 regarding the case against Julian Assange. This briefing note sets out the timeline of events and the human rights concerns that we have raised in relation to Julian’s case in Sweden.
2. Julian is facing extradition to Sweden pursuant to a European Arrest Warrant (EAW). He is currently electronically tagged and held under virtual house arrest, having spent nine days in solitary confinement in a London prison for a crime that he has not been charged with and in relation to allegations that he emphatically denies.
3. It is mutually concerning that an Australian citizen like Julian has been treated in ways which would not accord with the standards of Australian law or indeed international law. As I set out in this note, if he is extradited to Sweden, he will be held incommunicado, in solitary confinement, and without bail for several months and then tried in secret on allegations which are weak and which would not constitute a crime in Australia or in the UK. In such event, it can be predicted that Australians will be outraged and that considerable damage will eventuate in respect of relations between Australia and Sweden.
4. It is hoped that this briefing note will act as a resource for concerned Australian MPs to raise questions and to take action on Julian’s behalf.
Timeline of Events and Overview of Concerns
5. Julian had travelled to Sweden in August last year for the purposes of giving public lectures about his work on Afghanistan and in order to seek protection for WikiLeaks from the strong free speech and publication protections under Swedish law in advance of the Iraq War Logs, the publication of Iraq war military reports, and “Cablegate”, the publication of US diplomatic cables. The allegations against Julian were made to police on 20 August 2010.
6. That same day, the initial Prosecutor, Maria Häljebo Kjellstrand, unlawfully told the press that Julian was wanted for rape (reported in the tabloid Expressen) before he himself had been informed. Julian first learned of the allegations when he read it in the papers. In providing this information to the press the Prosecutor contravened Swedish privacy and secrecy law, which protects the confidentiality of preliminary criminal investigations and is supposed to protect those being investigated from adverse and prejudicial media coverage. A complaint was made about the Prosecutor’s illegal act to the Judicial Ombudsman but no action is being taken. As a result of this illegal act, Julian discovered in the press that he was ‘wanted for double rape’. Within hours there were millions of website hits for “Assange” and “rape”, causing irreparable and incalculable damage to his reputation. The illegality of the Prosecutor’s actions was confirmed by our expert evidence in the extradition proceedings here in London, as was the fact that no remedy exists in Swedish law for the breach.
7. The next day, Chief Prosecutor of Stockholm, Eva Finné, threw out the rape charge after reviewing the police file and the statements of the two women. The investigation continued on lesser allegations of harassment only. Julian volunteered himself for interview on 30 August 2010 in relation to this ongoing investigation. Julian sought an undertaking from the police that his testimony would not be provided to the press. This undertaking was violated: his police interview turned up in the tabloid Expressen the very next day. Again, Julian has no remedy against this breach of privacy and the continued disclosures by police have continued to fuel prejudicial media coverage.
8. An appeal was brought against Ms Finné’s decision to drop the rape charges by a lawyer acting for the complainants, Mr Claes Borgstrom. Mr Borgstrom is a Social Democrat politician who was, at that time, campaigning for election in the election to be held the following month (September 2010) and whose political platform and reputation is closely associated with sexual offence law reform. The Prosecutor, Ms Ny, granted the appeal on 1 September 2010 and the rape investigation was reinstituted. Julian was not informed of this appeal or provided the opportunity to make any submissions.
9. The Prosecution continued to provide information about the preliminary investigation to the press. Expressen applied for access to the police file on 1 September and this was granted: redacted versions of Julian’s statement and emails between the police and prosecutor were provided to the press shortly thereafter. We were only alerted to this on 21 January 2010, some four months later, when this same material was disclosed by the Prosecutor to Mr Hurtig and passed to us. It is noteworthy that Mr Hurtig had applied for disclosure of the police file in September and November 2010. Both requests for disclosure were denied by the Prosecutor, Ms Ny, despite the fact that some of this material had already been provided to the press.
10. Julian remained in Sweden for approximately 5 weeks to answer the allegations against him. Through his lawyer Mr Hurtig, proactive attempts were made to arrange interview and to seek permission to leave the country. For example, Julian offered himself for interview on 15 September but this was rejected by the prosecutor because the relevant police officer was sick.
11. An interview was finally proposed on 22 September (more than three weeks after Ms Ny had begun the investigation) for 28 September. Mr Hurtig was unable to contact Julian to communicate this request. It is important to note here that Julian was, at that time, difficult to contact. He was maintaining a low profile because of threats to his security and increasing pressure from the US in advance of the two largest disclosures of US classified documents in history: the Pentagon had just announced a team of 120 people dedicated to “taking action” against WikiLeaks. Before Mr Hurtig was able to contact Julian he had already left Sweden for Berlin for WikiLeaks meetings associated, having been told on 15 September that Ms Ny had no objection to him leaving the country. He did not flee the country to avoid interrogation, as has been suggested by the Prosecution, but instead had left for a pre-arranged business meeting with Der Spiegel – one of his media partners in Cablegate, on the understanding that there was no impediment to him leaving the country.
12. Julian telephoned Mr Hurtig from Berlin on 29 September to inform him that his luggage had gone missing on his Stockholm-Berlin flight and that it was now presumed to have been stolen since the airline had not been able to locate and return it. He called to instruct Mr Hurtig to take legal action. It was then he was informed of Ms Ny’s intention to interrogate him. Julian offered to return to Sweden on 9-10 October for interrogation. This date was rejected as being ‘too far away’.
13. During October and November, Julian was in London working on the Iraq War Log release and preparing for Cablegate with media partners, including The Guardian, Der Spiegel, Le Monde, El Pais and The New York Times. He also travelled to Switzerland to present at a United Nations Human Rights Council meeting. During this period, we offered that Julian be interviewed via telephone or video-link from London on the condition that the Prosecutor provide him further information about the allegations and potential charges. We offered his voluntary cooperation, through his Swedish lawyer Mr Hurtig, and suggested the use of the Mutual Legal Assistance scheme between Sweden and the United Kingdom. These offers were rejected.
14. In the meantime, I wrote to the UK police on 2 November 2010 and informed them that we acted for Julian and that he could be contacted through us for the purposes of any legal proceedings. This is significant: throughout this period Julian had continually indicated his willingness to cooperate with the authorities by offering alternative means of interview to the Swedish and by reporting his presence in the UK to the local police. The widely reported suggestion he was in hiding from justice is simply false.
15. After our voluntary offers of cooperation were rejected, the arrest warrant in Sweden was granted on 18 November 2010. Ms Ny, the Prosecutor, sought an arrest order to have Julian held incommunicado pending potential trial. These pre-trial detention conditions in Sweden have been heavily criticised by the European Council and by the United Nations, in particular, for the treatment of foreigners.
16. Just before the hearing on 18 November Mr Hurtig was, for the first time, provided a description of the allegations against Julian and provided copies of parts of the police file. At that time he was also shown more than 100 text messages between the two complainants and their friends, which contained important evidence about the allegations and the women’s motives. For example, the second complainant had been texting her friends in between sexual encounters with Julian over the course of the evening in question and states that she was “half-asleep” at the relevant time at which the arrest warrant asserts she was “asleep”: a very important factual error in the warrant which undermines the entire case. Further, the women speak of getting “revenge”, making money from the allegations and ruining Julian’s reputation by going to the press. However, the prosecutor refused to allow Mr Hurtig to take copies or to even take notes from this important evidence.
17. Mr Hurtig has made numerous requests for further disclosure under Swedish Criminal Procedure Code (Chapter 23.18), but these have been denied. In correspondence with the Australian Embassy in Stockholm, Ms Ny justifies her position in refusing to disclose this important material on the grounds that Julian has not yet been charged. This highlights the injustice of the EAW system: Julian has been held in solitary confinement and is now under effective house arrest without the Swedish Prosecutor having to show a reasonable case against him – or, indeed, any of the evidence against him to the British court.
18. Despite Mr Hurtig’s requests, Ms Ny had consistently refused to inform Julian regarding the specific charges to be brought against him before he was interviewed: interview by ambush is the preferred Swedish method. We had requested a specific description of the charges and the evidence in English as a condition precedent to Julian returning to Sweden to be interviewed. This, again, was refused. The first document Julian received from the prosecutor in English was the translation of the EAW provided by the English police at Kentish Town Police station in London when Julian voluntarily met with police to answer the warrant on 7 December 2010. This was the first time he had been informed in writing of the specific allegations and potential charges against him in English. I was with Julian at the police station and witnessed his shock and surprise at reading the allegations as described in the warrant.
19. It is noteworthy that the both the EAW and the Interpol red notice were issued for Julian by Sweden just before WikiLeaks began to publish Cablegate with their media partners and were executed just days after publication began. Had Julian returned to Sweden in October or November, we know (confirmed by the findings of the judge in London on 24 February 2011) that he would have been held incommunicado in prison pending trial and we may not have seen the release of Cablegate. Furthermore, his Swedish counsel, Mr Hurtig noted at the time that it was highly irregular for an international arrest warrant to be sought in relation to allegations of this kind.
20. The Swedish prosecutor has failed to disclose any materials to Julian in English (the language he understands), which is her obligation under the European Convention of Human Rights. We have since been provided certain excerpts of the police file in Swedish and translation costs now exceed £20,000 (AUD$32,000) as a result of the Prosecutor’s failure to meet her human rights obligations in this regard. Furthermore, she has failed to disclose relevant exculpatory evidence that tends to demonstrate Julian’s innocence.
21. The Prosecutor has apparently failed to consider and disclose exculpatory evidence in her investigation, as is her duty as prosecutor.
(1) First, it is clear that the text messages (approximately 100 of them) between the two complainants and their friends cast doubt on the allegations and contradict the specific factual allegations in the EAW that form the basis of his arrest – though we are unable to properly assess these because the Prosecutor refuses to disclose them to Julian.
(2) Second, it has subsequently come to light that the first complainant, Ms A, has been deleting important evidence (i.e. tweets which demonstrated that she had been enjoying Julian’s company after the alleged assault). It is not clear whether this evidence has been considered because, despite the fact it was provided to the Prosecution by Mr Rudling, it does not form part of the police file disclosed to us.
(3) Third, the Prosecutor has not contacted several potential witnesses who spent time with Mr Assange and the first complainant, Ms A, who know them both and can attest to their friendly relations in the days after the alleged assault.
22. The parts of the police file disclosed to the defence on 18 November 2010 (translated at significant cost to Julian) demonstrate that police have acted improperly and in breach of proper procedures in investigating sexual offence allegations.
(1) First, it is clear that the women met together before making the allegations and had discussed the evidence at length, thereby contaminating their evidence.
(2) Second, it has since come to light that the policewoman who had interviewed both women and initially reported the alleged rape to the Prosecutor was a friend of the first complainant, Ms A, and had also run for election for the Social Democrats (the same party for which Ms A and her lawyer, Mr Borgstrom, have stood for election) .
(3) Third, both women were interviewed only briefly over the telephone and their interrogation is in summary form only. Indeed, the second complainant’s interview summary is not even signed or approved by her (she was upset at hearing Julian had was wanted for rape and her friend’s later interview to the police states that she felt “railroaded” into making the complaint). This breaches police procedure: interviews with witnesses in sexual offence cases must be recorded in full (video or tape recorded) because the initial interview is important evidence at trial. It is notable that all of the Prosecution witnesses interviews are recorded in summary format so it is impossible to know what the police asked and what their precise answers were in response. Only the interviews with Mr Assange and his friendly witnesses were recorded in full. These irregularities in police procedure will cause evidential problems in any trial, particularly if the reliability of the complainants’ testimony is in question.
23. As to the strength of the evidence that founds the basis for the warrant, a number of observations can be made. First, evidence at the extradition hearing in London brought to light that not one, but two well-regarded prosecutors in Stockholm do not believe there to be sufficient evidence to found a prosecution. Eva Finné dropped the rape investigation in August but was overruled on appeal. Ms Ny’s own deputy, Prosecutor Erika Lejnefors, had told Mr Hurtig in November that the case would likely be dropped because it was so weak. Nevertheless, an international arrest warrant was sought for Julian’s arrest. Second, expert evidence from the most respected criminal lawyer in England, Professor Andrew Ashworth of Oxford University, concludes that the facts as alleged in the EAW and the police statements of the two women would not constitute rape or any other crime in England.
24. Further, Julian has suffered immense adverse prejudicial media coverage in Sweden, fuelled both by the disclosure of police material to the press by the Prosecution and by the highly prejudicial media statements of the lawyer of the two complainants and funded by the Swedish government, Mr Borgstrom. Mr Borgstrom has called Julian a ‘coward’ for not returning to Sweden and has alleged that his refusal to return is indicative of his guilt.
25. The Prime Minister of Sweden intervened in the case by making highly prejudicial and pejorative remarks in the Swedish press following the extradition proceedings in London on 7 and 8 February 2011. The Prime Minister told the press that Julian has been indicted and is being prosecuted for rape. This is not correct – Julian has not yet been charged, the preliminary investigation has not yet been concluded and no decision has been made to prosecute. The Prime Minister’s comments are inappropriate given his political position (he had, just weeks earlier, refused to comment on Julian’s case on the grounds it was a matter for the courts and not for politicians) and given that a key question being determined by the British court is whether the warrant is for questioning or for prosecution. The Prime Minister made pejorative remarks regarding Julian’s legal defence, including the incorrect suggestion that Julian’s defence is to deem women’s rights “of little value”. This was subsequently reported as Julian and his defence team “trying to limit the right for women to take a claimed sexual abuse to court”. This clearly and unfairly mischaracterises Julian’s defence case and has led to him being portrayed as an enemy of Sweden and of women’s rights in the Swedish press.
26. Other politicians have followed the Prime Minister in attacking Julian and his defence. For example, the Chancellor of Justice, Anna Skarhed, has described the defence as “shocking”. The Chancellor of Justice then states that the defence has accused the Swedish legal system of being “corrupt”: but anyone who has read our submissions or followed court proceedings will know this is simply not true. Our skeleton arguments and all of the case evidence filed with the court is available on our website: http://www.fsilaw.com/news-media/news/28-julian-assange-case-papers/.
27. Given the nature of the press coverage in Sweden, we have grave concerns as to whether Julian will receive a fair trial: he will be tried in secret, behind closed doors, by a judge and three lay judges (jurors) who are appointed by political parties. The Swedish press does not seem at all concerned with the need for suspects to be presumed innocent and it is difficult to see how jurors could remain unaffected by this media coverage.
28. In summary, our concerns regarding the case in Sweden to date include:
• the unlawful and prejudicial disclosures by police and the prosecution regarding ongoing criminal investigations;
• the failure to disclose details of the allegations and the evidence in English;
• the breaches of police procedures in the investigation of the allegations;
• the apparent failure of the Prosecutor to consider exculpatory evidence;
• the disproportionate behaviour of the Prosecutor in refusing voluntary offers for cooperation and refusing to make use of alternative methods for interviewing Julian – insisting instead on an international warrant which unduly restricts his liberty;
• the pre-trial detention conditions sought by the Prosecutor;
• the prospect of a secret trial; and
• the adverse and prejudicial media coverage, fuelled by the state-funded lawyer for the complainants and the country’s most senior politicians, including the Prime Minister.
Decision to grant extradition – 24 February 2011
29. On 24 February 2011, District Judge Riddle ordered that Julian be extradited to Sweden. It must be noted that this is simply the initial ruling on the validity of a EAW and did not deal with the substance of the allegations against Julian, which he has always firmly denied. The judgment concerns whether it is technically valid for a EAW to be used in this manner. The strength or weakness of the allegations, and even their detail, cannot be heard in a EAW case. This is one of the central complaints made by law reformers about the EAW process – a civil liberties disaster and the subject of investigation and campaigns by human rights groups such as Fair Trials International.[1]
30. It must be remembered that under the EAW system, the British courts are bound to regard the prosecutors of no less than 26 countries, including Poland and Romania – as perfect. The Extradition Act 2003 allows European countries to deem prosecutors and even policemen “as judicial authorities” (a contradiction in terms, because they are neither independent nor impartial) and to demand return of their suspects from the UK so long as they tick the right box on the EAW form. In Julian’s case, for example, they ticked “rape” and the court cannot dispute that the allegation is of rape, even though the leading authority on sexual offences, the Oxford Professor Andrew Ashworth, disputes this characterisation. There can be no questioning on the merits of the charges – in 2003 parliament abolished the traditional right of a suspect to require foreign governments to show a prima facie case before dragging them off to unfair trials. It also took away the historic right of individuals facing extradition to show that the case against them was unfounded.
31. Judge Riddle – a hostile judge – made a number of important factual findings. Judge Riddle ordered Julian’s extradition to Sweden despite the fact that he agreed that:
• upon return to Sweden Julian will be held incommunicado pending trial because Sweden has no system of bail; and
• Julian will be subjected to a secret trial, which is anathema to Australian and British traditions of open justice and an outrage given the widespread dissemination of the allegations against him by the Swedish authorities.
32. The decision to extradite Julian is not final, nor (as has been misreported) does it “determine his fate”. Julian is permitted an appeal as of right by the 2003 Extradition Act. Thereafter, points of law may, with permission, be appealed to the Supreme Court.
33. The appeal to the High Court was filed today in London. The dates for this appeal are not yet available but we anticipate it will be heard sometime between April and June.
34. It is our position that the EAW system should not simply be used as a rubber stamp, but instead ought to be used to improve the quality of justice throughout Europe. Extradition ought to be refused when the trial in prospect is likely to be unfair judged according to fundamental fair trial principles because only then can things improve and human rights blind spots be eradicated. If the British courts declare that open justice is the only possible justice by refusing to extradite Julian to Sweden, this would very likely have the result that Sweden would change its unacceptable policy.[2]
Action points for Australian MPs
35. Julian remains willing to cooperate with the Swedish investigations, provided that certain guarantees are provided in respect of the human rights concerns raised above. We would encourage Australian MPs who are concerned at Julian’s treatment to raise the following concerns.
36. First, to ask our government to seek guarantees from both the Swedish and British governments that Julian will not be extradited to the United States to face prosecution in relation to WikiLeaks publications. Any such prosecution would violate the right to free speech and the protections of the First Amendment. His concern about being extradited to the US is justified in light of:
• US Attorney-General Eric Holder’s ongoing criminal investigation;
• recent subpoenas of Twitter accounts of WikiLeaks, their associates and supporters, which proves an ongoing federal criminal investigation in Virginia and demonstrates intent to prosecute; and
• the recent statement by US Ambassador to the UK to the BBC that the US is waiting to see how things work out in the British courts.
37. Second, demands must be made of the Swedish authorities to ensure that, if Julian returns to Sweden, that his human rights will be protected. These include:
• The evidence in the case be disclosed to him in English, as is Sweden’s obligation under the European Convention on Human Rights. Full disclosure of the police file, including the exculpatory evidence such as the text messages, must be provided.
This request – made in November when an international arrest warrant was being threatened and extended by us to Mr Hurtig as condition precedent to Julian returning/being interviewed – has still not been complied with. Translation costs have exceeded £20,000 because of Sweden’s failure to meet their human rights obligations in this regard. It has also delayed our work and made our legal defence more difficult.
• A guarantee be provided that he will not be held incommunicado or in custody pending any trial.
Again, this was one of our concerns in October and November when Ms Ny requested that he return to Sweden – a concern that was validated on 18 November when Ms Ny sought an order for arrest that would have seen Julian held incommunicado pending trial. These pre-trial conditions have been criticised by international human rights bodies. Aside from human rights concerns, as noted above, Julian was at that time preparing for the release of the Iraq War Logs (23 October 2010) and Cablegate (28 November 2010). Had he returned to Sweden and been held incommunicado in pre-trial detention, these important and internationally significant WikiLeaks releases would have been jeopardised.
• A guarantee be provided that his trial be heard in public: the press and public should be permitted entry to the Court. Other measures, similar to those deployed in Australian courts, can be taken to protect the women in giving their testimony.
• A guarantee be provided that he will not be extradited to the United States, but instead will be allowed to travel back to Australia.
In considering the risk of extradition to the US from Sweden, it must be recalled that Sweden has a history of complying with US requests to hand over persons of interest notwithstanding potential human rights concerns – international bodies have recently found Sweden liable for handing asylum seekers over to the CIA for torture (see Mohammed Alzery v. Sweden (Communication No. 1416/2005, UN Human Rights Committee) and Agiza v. Sweden (Communication No. 233/2003, UN Committee Against Torture, Decision of 24 May 2005 (CAT/C/34/D/233/2003)).
Further, WikiLeaks cables released last December demonstrate that intelligence sharing and cooperation between Sweden and the US is far deeper than anyone had realised, calling into question Sweden’s perceived neutrality, and the extent of this cooperation had been hidden from the Swedish Parliament and the Swedish people.
Related articles
- Prominent Americans urge Ecuador to accept Julian Assange’s asylum request (guardian.co.uk)
- Brisbane activist Ciaron O’Reilly on Julian Assange (blogs.abc.net.au)
- Prominent Americans urge Ecuador to accept Julian Assange’s asylum request (rawstory.com)
- Assange ‘being buoyed by support’ (bbc.co.uk)
- More to Julian Assange…RT: (faktensucher.wordpress.com)
- Sen. Scott Ludlam: Australia gave up on Assange, Exclusive Interview (insomniacanonymous.wordpress.com)
- Celebrities back Assange’s asylum bid (abc.net.au)
- Julian Assange seeking asylum in Ecuadorian embassy in London (guardian.co.uk)
- Assange Demands Diplomatic Assurances (lezgetreal.com)
Sen. Scott Ludlam: Australia gave up on Assange, Exclusive Interview
Hello. This is John Robles. I am speaking with Senator Scott Ludlam with the Australian Green Party.
On May 30th you raised the issue before the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs on Julian Assange’s impending extradition. What was the reaction?
The reaction is really indifference. The Australian government doesn’t completely understand why the people are so concerned and as recently as yesterday we had a Foreign Minister on Twitter throwing his hands up in the air metaphorically saying what more should we have done? And I am struggling to understand what it is that they are not understanding or that they don’t get. We are looking for the Australian government to stand up for Mr. Assange’s human rights and they have been extremely negligent in that duty.
What is now the official position of the Australian government?
The Australian government has essentially said that they offered Mr. Assange a full consular assistance, which is true in a very legalistic way of thinking about it. They’ve sent him text messages, they sent officers to appear at court hearings in the United Kingdom and I think they attended when he was incarcerated in the end of 2010. But at the same time as that is occurring the Australian government has also preemptively declared the work to Wikileaks illegal, that was their prime minister, the Attorney-General instructed the Federal police to investigate whether Assange’s passport could be torn up, there have been false crimes and statements made that he has been charged by the Swedish government, which is obviously not true, and also that he fled Sweden, which is not true. So the assistance has been fairly seen on the ground but there has also been some really quite aggressive political positioning around the work of Wikileaks organization. Now we believe whether you agree with this publishing outfit style and its role in the way that it conducts its work, would you agree with that or not. Julian still has Australian citizenship entitlement, he still has the right to a fair trial, I think he has right to know whether his government will protect him if for example he is prosecuted by the United States.
I find this very bizarre. How is it that he may face the death penalty if he is an Australian citizen?
That’s peculiar. I don’t know how that would work, what is likely is that he would be potentially charged of espionage, that’s what we believe based on the work of the grand jury that was empanelled at the end of 2010. And so there may be espionage charges or charges related to computer hacking, illegal entry to computer systems, but nobody knows, this really is guess work because it hasn’t been revealed whether there was an indictment that was produced by the grand jury, whether it’s underway. And those sort of things I would have thought the Australian government would be very interested in finding out.
Would do you know about the sealed grand jury finding?
We know probably no more than the general public. We know from media reports that the grand jury existed, that was impaneled in the end of 2010, but it was issuing subpoenas tens of thousands pages of documentation that have been assembled and that then it wasn’t mentioned that sealed indictment existed and the Stratfor that leaked via Wikileaks in February. So, there is no proof that there is a sealed indictment, there is certainly evidence leading in that direction. My ask really on the Australian government is that they should simply take an interest, stop pretending they stay out of this debate and talking about consular system, they need political and diplomatic support. That’s what Julian is asking for, that’s what we are asking for. Just to give you one example, a foreign minister was who is an Australian citizen who was there developing prosecutions in the international criminal court. She had diplomatic protection, she should not have been incarcerated and I strongly support a foreign minister travelling there to advocate in her cause. Now that’s not consular assistance, that somebody actually offering her substantive help and that’s what I think – we are not asking for the foreign minister to fly anywhere to confront anybody. We would like to know whether the U.S. government intends to prosecute Julian Assange and if they do whether the Australian government will tolerate that or whether they will resist it.
What documents did you request? Have you received them?
We’ve requested documents in the position of the Australian government, we are relating to the interactions with the counterpart in the department of state and the department of justice. I don’t have any standing to directly demand documents from the US but I am able to inquire to what communications have occurred between counterparts here and in Washington and in that regard the department of foreign affairs has delayed, obfuscated, made excuses and made it difficult as possible to the point where they are not actually in breech of their own guideline, we are appealing that they’ve handled the case. It appears as though they are doing everything they possibly can to prevent everything that might expose what they are actually being doing, which I suspect either announce to ignorance or to complicity, either they know that the prosecutions are about to be launched. They haven’t done anything about it, or they don’t know they are being kept in the dark and I am not sure which is worse.
Now he has sought asylum at the Ecuadorian Embassy. Do you think the US will try to intercept him if he leaves the Embassy?
I don’t believe that the US has ever indicated that they would do such a thing but Scotland Yard have indicated that Julian’s now breached his bail conditions and if sets foot outside the diplomatic protection by the Ecuadorian Embassy, that he will be arrested. So, as long as he stays on that property, but I can’s imagine circumstance in which he would be able to make it through, he is thown onto a claim unless there is negotiated settlement with the British government. So, at the moment quite literally it’s a stand off and I don’t think anybody knows exactly how it is going to be resolved.
So, it looks like he will be there for a long time?
It’s very difficult to say. In part this is up to the president and the government of Ecuador as to whether they choose to offer him asylum. If they deny him asylum, then I understand that he would then be handed back to British authorities who presumably would put him in prison and immediately transfer him to Stockar. If he is prosecuted and found guilty he could potentially serve out some of his term here in Australia, there is an agreement that it would repatriate a prisoner and Australian government indicated that it is aware of that option.
Are there any other developments that you would like the world to know about?
The Australian people by quite a strong majority support the work of the Wikileaks organization. They support the kind of journalism and the kind of publishing that Wikileaks did, mainstream journalists and publishing houses were putting stories originating from Wikileaks, we saw them on the front page of the major papers day after day. These were war crimes that were exposed, these were substantial issues of public policy around the way the United States behaves in the United Nations, the fact that the Australian government had offered military troops to special operations in Pakistan, missile strikes in Yemen that public weren’t aware of. I think the citizens of every country in the world learned some important things from the work of Wikileaks. That’s not good enough now that we stand back and allow the organization to be sabotaged and its proponent to be locked up.
Do you see a public outcry in Australia causing the government to change their position?
Yes, I think that’s actually starting to happen now. We saw yesterday for the first time – I was able to get opposition party support, conservative party support for a motion in the Senate in support of Wikileaks organization and Julian Assange right and that’s the first time that’s occurred. I think the political pressure is mounting, I think the Australian government is starting to become increasingly isolated and I think there is still time for them to do the right thing and I hope they do.
Thank you very much.
You were listening to Australian Senator Scott Ludlam with the Australian Green Party.
Related articles
- Greens back Assange asylum plea, but US has already won (crikey.com.au)
- Australian protests erupt over Wikileaks’ Assange (delimiter.com.au)
- Assange asylum bid may pay off: expert (news.smh.com.au)
- Senate motion backs support for Assange (bigpondnews.com)
- Assange ‘being buoyed by support’ (bbc.co.uk)
- #australia #auspol #UKSC Fight or flight? Government must take a stand for #Assange (tonyserve.wordpress.com)
- #Australia Government’s failure drives #Assange to Ecuador asylum bid – @SenatorLudlum (tonyserve.wordpress.com)
- No US hint of extraditing Assange: Carr (news.theage.com.au)
1rex22
Insomniacs II 