US, Israel in "full agreement" on nuclear Iran

By North America correspondent Craig McMurtrie, wires

Updated 4 minutes ago

 

Photo: Barack Obama has spoken with Benjamin Netanyahu 

After being criticised for not meeting Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu in New York earlier this week, the White House has revealed president Barack Obama has spoken to him on the phone.

The White House says the two leaders are in full agreement on the "shared goal" of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

The conversation came as the United States removed an Iranian opposition group from its list of designated terror groups.

The White House said two men spoke for 20 minutes after a colourful United Nations speech by the Israeli leader, where he held up a picture of a lit bomb and drew a red line to underscore his push for a clearer ultimatum to be delivered to Tehran.

During his speech to the 193-member UN assembly, Mr Netanyahu did not mention Israel's threats to stage a unilateral attack, but said Iran's uranium enrichment plants were a credible "target".

Photo: Benjamin Netanyahu points to a red line he drew to represent Iran's nuclear program (Reuters: Lucas Jackson)

 

"At this late hour, there is only one way to peacefully prevent Iran from getting atomic bombs - and that's by placing a clear red line on Iran's nuclear weapons program," he said.

Mr Obama and Mr Netanyahu "underscored that they are in full agreement on the shared goal of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon," said a White House statement. They "took note of the close cooperation and coordination" between the United States and Israel on "the threat posed by Iran" and agreed to continue regular consultations, the statement added.

The two have had an awkward relationship, particularly over how far to go against Iran. But Netanyahu welcomed Obama's vow at the UN General Assembly on Tuesday to "do what we must" to stop an Iranian bomb, the White House said. White House officials say they agreed to continue regular consultations.
Republican presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, has also spoken to Mr Netanyahu.

Without naming Israel or the US, Iran's foreign minister Ali Akbar Salehi said Friday his country has been a victim of "nuclear terrorism". Mr Salehi said the Security Council, which has passed four rounds of sanctions against Iran's uranium enrichment, should stop using nuclear weapons fears "as a pretext to act as a legislative body".

'Terror' group de-listed

The US has announced the removal of an Iranian opposition group based abroad, the People's Mujahedeen of Iran, from its blacklist of designated terror groups after years of intense lobbying.

The move, ending a complex legal battle fought through US and European courts, came just days ahead of an October 1 deadline set by a US appeals court by which secretary of state Hillary Clinton had to decide on the fate of the group.

"The secretary of state has decided, consistent with the law, to revoke the designation of the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MEK) and its aliases as a Foreign Terrorist Organisation (FTO) under the Immigration and Nationality Act and to delist the MEK as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist," the State Department said in a statement.

"Property and interests in property in the United States or within the possession or control of US persons will no longer be blocked, and US entities may engage in transactions with the MEK without obtaining a license."
The MEK, whose leadership is based in Paris, has invested much money and years of intense lobbying to be taken off the list.

The left-wing group was founded in the 1960s to oppose the shah of Iran, and after the 1979 Islamic revolution that ousted him it took up arms against Iran's clerical rulers.


In a statement the head of the group, Maryam Rajavi, "welcomed and appreciated" the decision. "This has been the correct decision, albeit long overdue, in order to remove a major obstacle in the path of the Iranian people's efforts for democracy," Ms Rajavi said. "In the days and months ahead, we hope to better introduce ourselves and our goals to international community and the American people." But in its note about delisting the MEK, the State Department stressed that it had not forgotten the group's militant past. "With today's actions, the Department does not overlook or forget the MEK's past acts of terrorism, including its involvement in the killing of US citizens in Iran in the 1970s and an attack on US soil in 1992," it said. "The department also has serious concerns about the MEK as an organisation, particularly with regard to allegations of abuse committed against its own members."

The United States designated it a "foreign terrorist organisation" in 1997, putting it in a category that includes Al Qaeda, the Palestinian Hamas and Lebanon's Hezbollah. The State Department deems the MEK responsible for the deaths of Iranians as well as US soldiers and civilians from the 1970s into 2001.

First look at our potential new banknotes - and the untold tale behind their design

• by: ADAM SHAND
• From: The Australian
• September 27, 2012 12:00AM

Designers were briefed to capture "characteristics of Australia" with "youthful" and "energetic design qualities". They were supplied with new portraits depicting the subjects on the notes at earlier moments in their lives.

 

Controversially, the Reserve Bank toyed with the idea of removing the Queen from the $5 note in favour of the father of Federation, Henry Parkes, and Australia's first female political candidate, Catherine Helen Spence, who featured on a commemorative $5 note in 2001. It is understood that the Reserve Bank decided to stay with the Queen and returned to the other existing portraits in the middle of last year.

In 2009, then Reserve Bank assistant governor Bob Rankin said it would be controversial to choose new portraits but there were "some good reasons" to change, including a legal threat by a descendant of indigenous author and inventor David Unaipon, whose likeness appears on the $50 note.

Unaipon's great nephew, Allan "Chirpy" Campbell, has alleged the Reserve Bank paid for permission to use the image to the late Melva Linda Carter, who had falsely claimed to be Unaipon's daughter. Mr Campbell said that he loved the newer portrait of his uncle. "It's deadly, but if they want to use it the Reserve Bank is going to have to renegotiate with the proper family," he said.

GALLERY: See the banknote designs

A spokesman for the Reserve Bank confirmed the existence of the banknote project in a statement to The Australian last night. "Australia has experienced relatively low levels of counterfeiting for many years," it said.
"To ensure that this remains the case, the bank has been working for some time on a program that will result in an upgrade of Australia's banknotes. These upgraded banknotes will incorporate a number of new security features but most of the existing design elements such as the colour, size and portraits on the current banknote series will be unchanged."

Emery, a respected Melbourne designer who worked on the current Australian polymer notes, confirmed that he and his team were collaborating with the bank to incorporate fresh artwork and a range of updated security features into the polymer currency, which was progressively introduced between 1988 and 2002.
The bank spokesman said it was expected that it would be several years before the first of the upgraded banknotes would be issued. Other denominations would be issued progressively in subsequent years, he said.

Emery said the project was on track and the Reserve Bank had made only minor adjustments to the designs it had approved for further development in 2010. Internal bank documents, obtained by The Australian, reveal that the bank was initially prepared to exclude Australian designers from working on the new series, opting instead for Swiss designer Alexander Fellmann, who asked for $464,000 to create a set of five banknotes.

Fellmann was recommended to the Reserve Bank by the Swiss-born chief executive of the bank's subsidiary Note Printing Australia, Bernhard Imbach, who lent his support to Fellmann's case. The Reserve Bank confirmed that Mr Imbach and Fellmann had worked together on the redesign of the Swiss banknote series in the 1990s. According to briefing notes of a March 2009 meeting, Mr Imbach told the bank that the costs of hiring Fellmann were "reasonable considering the costs of hiring another designer is much more costly".
According to internal bank memos, Mr Imbach estimated that the cost of acquiring the services of noted banknote designer Roger Pfund at 500,000-600,000 Swiss francs ($517,000-$617,000) "for one design".
The Australian has learned that in 2006 the Reserve Bank contracted Pfund to provide a quote for developing a "benchmark concept" for a new $50 note. His asking price was 35,000 Swiss francs. A former insider said Pfund was overlooked for further work on the project in preference to Fellmann despite his seniority.

Fellmann's first involvement in the NGB project was in 2008, when he produced a benchmark for the $50 note design. He charged $48,000. In a memo dated February 2009, a senior Reserve Bank manager, Tom Rohling, suggested NPA's estimate for Fellmann's costs was "10 times that of a single design, which is line with two full sets of designs". He warned there were "significant risks associated with relying on just one designer for the NGB. The cost of Fellmann's work is substantial, and there is no guarantee that the designs will prove acceptable to the bank," he wrote. "In addition there may be some damage to the bank's reputation if an Australian designer is excluded from the design process."

In March 2009, Mr Imbach's choice of Fellmann was overruled by the bank, and two other designers were invited to quote on producing concept designs. Amanda Jones, a former designer with NPA, told the bank she would charge $50,000 while Emery submitted a quote of $160,000. The Reserve Bank spokesman said the bank had undertaken "a fair and rigorous assessment of the designers". "These designers were chosen by the bank because they were experienced and well regarded in a highly specialised field," he said. "The overseas banknote designer's experience and his previous relationship with the CEO of NPA was disclosed to the bank's management at the time."

Fellmann later dropped his estimate by half to $249,000, which he said did not include the costs of "banknotisation", for which he would charge extra. According to a confidential Reserve Bank briefing note of August 2009, Jones reported to the bank that employees of NPA and its sister company Securency "had told her that her quote was considerably below that of the other two designers". This had raised concerns confidential details had been passed on. No action was taken over the suspected breach, an insider told The Australian. Contacted in Switzerland by The Australian, Fellmann declined to comment on his work, directing questions to the RBA.

A spokesman for Mr Imbach said he was on leave and could not respond to questions for a fortnight. In September 2009, when an RBA internal panel reviewed the preliminary work, Fellmann's designs were judged the weakest, the former insider said. They were rejected in mid-2010 but he was still paid nearly $300,000. The RBA confirmed the three designers were paid about $550,000 in total.
                                    ________________  |  _____________

Never mind the handbags, it's the economy, Tony

• by: NIKI SAVVA
• From: The Australian
• September 27, 2012 12:00AM

Given Tony Abbott gets blamed for everything disagreeable from Muslim riots to tinea, he should also shoulder responsibility for the emergence of duelling handbags as the latest Australian political phenomenon. 

As a spectacle - watching Labor women lining up at 30 paces to chuck their Orotons at Abbott, forcing Liberals to hurl themselves in front of their leader to swat them back - it has about as much subtlety and grace as dwarf-tossing.

As a strategy, it has had some success as Labor plays one of the few cards it has: to destroy Abbott politically and in a deeply personal way if necessary using its women in frontline combat roles. Kelly O'Dwyer rightly bagged the tactic, and if Abbott fails to counter it, and quickly, the image that will be cemented in voters' minds is the one Labor, admittedly with some help from him, has crafted. That can bring only more pain for Abbott and the Coalition.

It is a picture of an aggressive man who directs his anger towards workers in general and women in particular, and his destructive streak towards the environment and the economy - someone in conflict with everyone and everything that makes up modern, tolerant Australia. It is a shame because that is not the real Tony, and not only because in his personal and professional life he is surrounded by women, some of whom happen to be lesbians, who dote on him and work their guts out for him.

He is complex and interesting - with flaws, to be sure - however, scope existed for him on assuming the leadership to be cast as the compassionate conservative alternative. Instead he became the hard man of politics. It produced spectacular results, demolishing like skittles the emissions trading scheme, then Kevin Rudd, crippling Julia Gillard and threatening to wipe out Labor for a generation or more. The irony is that Abbott's toughness is being used to vilify him while Gillard has worked to turn hers into a virtue.

It is not too late for Abbott to recast. People who have heard him talk sensitively and knowledgeably about Aborigines or the disabled, or who have benefited from his many acts of kindness or through his volunteer work, know the substance is there and know he isn't faking it. While he should not be deterred from using his family - there is nothing wrong with it and everybody does it - to show his softer side, he must do the bulk of it himself. This does not mean easing up on the government, only that he modify his arguments to take account of changed circumstances and moderate elements of his presentation that distract people from his central messages.

Also, he and his office have to avoid slip-ups that add charges of sloppiness to oafishness. He has to keep his prime focus on the economy, then balance it with a Liberal (cap L, not small l) social agenda. One easy way he could show that is to free up the Coalition on the signature issue of same-sex marriage. His reason for not allowing a conscience vote in last week's debate is that the Coalition went to the 2010 election promising to oppose it.

Having fulfilled that obligation and having admitted he also wrestles with this issue, he is free to release himself and his MPs from that pledge in the next campaign for the next parliament. For too long Abbott has allowed Labor to frame him. As a branding exercised it converged most dangerously and destructively with David Marr's essay.

Not one single witness emerged to corroborate the story that Abbott as a 19-year-old punched the wall beside a woman's head, yet Labor used it mercilessly to brand him as a thug, ably assisted by media untroubled by the absence of evidence then or now. Journalists without the heart or the ticker to pursue allegations of professional misconduct in the Prime Minister's more recent past and eager to even up the political contest leapt on to Abbott. The flimsiest accounts were presented as corroboration. One supposed male witness said anonymously he saw Abbott throw a punch but did not see it land. We must assume embarrassment over his cowardice in not springing to defend the woman or remonstrate with Abbott explains his 35-year silence.

This was not the beginning of Abbott's problems, it exacerbated them. It began to go wrong for him when things started to go right for the Prime Minister, marked by her successful rope-a-dope tactic with the premiers on the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Abbott comprehensively mucked up when BHP Billiton announced the abandonment of its Olympic Dam project. This story was an absolute gift with more legs than a centipede but Abbott reduced it to two by crudely blaming it all on the carbon and mining taxes, then he amputated those when he said he hadn't read the statement.

Although the mining giant let him hang, it was nevertheless a perfect opportunity for Abbott to recast and marry his arguments. He could have put those two taxes into a much wider narrative to build the theme of a government reckless with the truth, reckless with people's money and reckless with the economy, and here was an example of the inevitable consequences when a government obsessed with politics went rogue on policy.

It was and should always be about the government's economic management, its reason for being and its integrity. Lindsay Tanner fleshed out that narrative, exposing Labor's wounds and vulnerabilities, and helped change, at least for now, the political dynamics. Reacting with real feeling to Tanner's friendly fire, Bob Carr said yesterday it was too easy to talk about Labor's failures rather than its accomplishments. Too true, Bob.
Tanner's intervention should help Abbott - and Rudd - check Gillard's momentum, depending on how smartly they react. Rudd should shut up and Abbott should never stop referring to it. Gillard's desperation to ward off the twin threats posed by Rudd and Abbott has spawned some deplorable measures, including Friday's proposal to quarantine the conditions of Queensland public servants forced out into the private sector.

Abbott has to prove he appreciates the economic challenges the government has neglected or created, has the solutions and will implement them conscientiously. He has to do it by talking about the economy, stupid, over and over and over, in complex terms to the experts and in simple terms to the punters, and not just in an economic headland speech he is planning.

One man who can help him do that is Arthur Sinodinos, whose belated elevation to the frontbench follows the belated, inevitable and justified dismissal of Cory Bernardi. Sinodinos should also travel with Abbott during the election campaign, a role filled by Nick Minchin last time, to provide the leader with constant sound political and policy counsel at the most critical time.

Abbott, in the firmest and nicest possible way, has to capitalise on Labor's day of reckoning, otherwise known as the mid-year economic and fiscal outlook, by zeroing in on the mistakes without making any of his own and reassuring people he is capable of doing better.
                                       _________________  |  ________________

Inside the Gang of Four

• by: Lindsay Tanner
• From: The Australian
• September 26, 2012 12:00AM

THE comprehensive trashing of Kevin Rudd's management of government during the Labor leadership battle early this year struck me as extremely perverse. Inevitably, it was highly exaggerated; that's how politics works. 

The real surprise was the identity of the perpetrators. Key players in that government who are now leading figures in the current government rely heavily on their record of having protected Australia during the global financial crisis and having kept unemployment low when external economic threats were at their greatest. They are right to be proud of these achievements, but it's difficult to see how they can continue to lay claim to them when they publicly describe the government that presided over them as a dysfunctional shambles.

I have avoided contributing to these agitated retrospectives until now for several reasons. The main reason is my desire to avoid damaging the interests of the Labor Party, to which I owe so much. At some point in the future, an incumbent Liberal prime minister will use Labor's own words about its performance as a first-term government under Rudd as a good reason not to elect another Labor government. Previous Labor leaders like Gough Whitlam and Paul Keating have faced plenty of internal criticism about their style of leadership; but, largely, the most pointed commentary has remained private. Even the outpouring of bile in The Latham Diaries was greeted with calm forbearance by the Labor leadership group at the time. The attack on Rudd's legacy during the leadership challenge early this year was unprecedented.

 

Now that the circus has moved on, I feel it is important to reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of the Rudd regime, particularly surrounding the role of the fabled Gang of Four. For most of 2007, while in opposition, Rudd, Julia Gillard, Wayne Swan, and I met regularly as an informal group carrying the innocuous title of "leader's planning group". At the end of 2007, now in government, this group re-formed to sort through a vast array of savings options. As 2008 unfolded, prime minister Rudd began to use the group more broadly, and it was soon given official status as a cabinet committee: the strategic priorities and budget committee. Its central role was cemented by the famous all-weekend meeting in mid-October 2008 that designed the first stimulus package and bank guarantees.

In January 2009 we met almost continuously for two weeks, in almost every capital city, to craft the second stimulus package. We later moved on to conduct extensive deliberations on the National Broadband Network proposal, and on complex health reform and tax reform proposals.

As this new decision-making mechanism became entrenched, it became our preferred vehicle for dealing with the most complicated and difficult issues facing the government, as a result of which the role of cabinet shrank noticeably. The scheduling of regular cabinet meetings on Thursday evenings of sitting weeks contributed to this trend.

The Gang of Four didn't deal with everything: all defence, immigration, terrorism and foreign policy issues were still dealt with by the national security committee; the expenditure review committee continued to handle the nuts and bolts of budget decision-making; the climate change committee laboured for countless hours to produce the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme; and asylum-seeker issues were handled by an immigration subcommittee.

By the beginning of 2010, the SPBC process was deteriorating. Meetings were called, rescheduled and cancelled with great regularity, so that I lost the ability to schedule diary appointments any more than two or three days in advance with any confidence.

Individual matters of middling importance were left unresolved for extended periods, and ministers and public servants were sometimes kept waiting for hours before getting a chance to enter an SPBC meeting to discuss their particular issues. In some cases, the issues weren't even discussed because of the logjam in the agenda.

Late in 2009, concerns about our decision-making processes were raised in cabinet. Only a couple of ministers complained at the time, while several indicated that they were quite happy for others to spend half their lives in arduous meetings about matters outside their own portfolios. It wasn't until March or April 2010 that serious rumblings about the role of the Gang of Four began to emerge.

The SPBC was the crystallisation of an underlying reality of all governments: all decisions of any consequence need to be filtered through a very small group of people -- a handful of senior ministers and public servants. Other ministers will be involved in matters that are relevant to them; but, to pick just one example, the foreign minister is not likely to spend much time picking over the intricate details of health reform.

All governments have some kind of kitchen cabinet arrangements, and all governments sometimes employ flawed decision-making processes. Those criticising the Rudd government seem to have forgotten the gestation of John Howard's $10 billion water plan, which was announced with so little preparation that finance minister Nick Minchin later admitted that it hadn't even been costed by his department.

There were positive aspects of the SPBC process. With key public servants and relevant ministers around the table, many hours of detailed examination of complex questions ensued in a way that would have been extremely difficult in a full cabinet context. This is because public servants only rarely present to cabinet meetings, and the weight of individual portfolio responsibilities is so heavy that ministers have very limited time to dedicate to major matters outside their portfolios.

I can recall days when I was in the cabinet room at various cabinet, SPBC and committee meetings from around 8am to almost midnight, with only minor breaks in the anteroom for lunch and dinner. It is difficult to see how the traditional cabinet process could have handled the endless meeting hours that were undertaken by the SPBC without rendering the government genuinely dysfunctional.

In hindsight, the central mistake that ultimately cost Rudd the prime ministership was his failure to change gear once the immediate threat of the global financial crisis had receded. In one sense, he was unlucky. New governments run by people who have been in opposition for a long time typically take quite a while to shed the habits and behaviours of opposition. Just around the time that this psychological transition would have occurred within the Labor government, the GFC hit. That drama entrenched the slightly manic habits that are bred in opposition, and we didn't change gears once the GFC had faded.

So, by early 2010, the problems were accumulating: too much was being dealt with by SPBC, in an increasingly erratic fashion, and there were too many major items on our agenda. The government was caught in a spiral of problems that it couldn't escape.

As I was contemplating retirement, I was relatively agnostic about the growing internal discontent about the Gang of Four. I understood why some ministers were disgruntled, and I did my best to ensure that the reasons for their unhappiness were minimised. But I also recognised the special pleading that was involved, and what I felt was the true cause of our problems -- which was that, with the aid of the GFC, we had put ourselves in a position where we were simply dealing with too many huge and challenging issues at the one time.

By the time our internal problems started to come to a head, I had already advised Rudd that I would not be recontesting my seat. Whatever capacity I may have had to play a key role in fixing the problem had dissolved. In retrospect, I wish I had done more; but, like the proverbial frog in gradually boiling water, it is difficult to recognise just how serious such problems really are until a crisis occurs. There are important questions about how governments are run that are involved in the Gang of Four story. There are no perfect administrative systems, and the challenges of dealing with the problems of an increasingly complex and volatile world keep mounting. As a mechanism for dealing with the global financial crisis, the SPBC worked extremely well.

But, once it began to usurp more and more of the ordinary business of government, its utility declined. The real lesson from this, I think, is that the traditional system of cabinet government is antiquated and is desperately in need of a complete overhaul.

When regimes are deposed by radical and extraordinary means, the new rulers invariably demonise those who have been unseated, in order to justify the enormity of their own behaviour. You can even see this in the way that historians are still unravelling the web of Tudor propaganda that painted a grotesque caricature of Richard III in order to justify Henry Tudor's seizure of the British crown in 1485. Closer to home, Australian conservatives have created an image of the Whitlam government that is almost fictional in order to justify the constitutional atrocity they perpetrated in 1975.

Removing a first-term elected Labor prime minister by a caucus vote, ostensibly because of his management style, is such an extreme thing to do that those involved have found it necessary to enormously exaggerate the deficiencies in Rudd's leadership. There were some deficiencies, it's true. In fact, I suspect I suffered their consequences more than most. The critical question, though, is whether they justified a leadership ambush of the kind that occurred on June 23, 2010. I think the answer is clearly "No", and that many people who supported that challenge would now privately concede it was wrong.

Labor is now caught in a trap of its own making, publicly impugning a government that remains central to its current identity: it is impossible to attack the Rudd government without undermining the Gillard government. The Labor Party is likely to live with the consequences of the 2010 challenge for a long time.

The sad thing about all this is that Labor is trashing its own great achievement. In spite of everything that has since happened, we should be very proud of our government's handling of the 2008-09 crisis. With the spectre of the Scullin government and the Great Depression looming over us, the fact that we kept unemployment so low is of immense significance.

And we should be proud of the fact that, when it really mattered, four leading Labor figures with a lengthy history of personal rivalries and conflicting ambitions were able to put tensions aside and act to protect Australia in a time of global turmoil.

No amount of criticism of Rudd's leadership style can change that, and Labor people would do well to remember it.

Exclusive extract of the chapter Inside the Gang of Four, from Politics with Purpose: Occasional Observations on Public and Private Life by former Labor finance minister Lindsay Tanner (Scribe, $32.95), out today.

President Obama | United Nations

The following is a transcript of President Obama's address to the U.N. General Assembly. 

Mr. President, Mr. Secretary General, fellow delegates, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin today by telling you about an American named Chris Stevens.  Chris was born in a town called Grass Valley, California, the son of a lawyer and a musician.

As a young man, Chris joined the Peace Corps and taught English in Morocco, and he came to love and respect the people of North Africa and the Middle East.  He would carry that commitment throughout his life.

As a diplomat, he worked from Egypt to Syria, from Saudi Arabia to Libya.  He was known for walking the streets of the cities where he worked, tasting the local food, meeting as many people as he could, speaking Arabic, listening with a broad smile.

Chris went to Benghazi in the early days of the Libyan revolution, arriving on a cargo ship.  As America's representative, he helped the Libyan people as they coped with violent conflict, cared for the wounded, and crafted a vision for the future in which the rights of all Libyans would be respected.

And after the revolution, he supported the birth of a new democracy, as Libyans held elections, and built new institutions, and began to move forward after decades of dictatorship. Chris Stevens loved his work. He took pride in the country he served, and he saw dignity in the people that he met.  Two weeks ago, he travelled to Benghazi to review plans to establish a new cultural center and modernize a hospital. That's when America's compound came under attack.  Along with three of his colleagues, Chris was killed in the city that he helped to save.  He was 52 years old.

I tell you this story because Chris Stevens embodied the best of America.  Like his fellow Foreign Service officers, he built bridges across oceans and cultures, and was deeply invested in the international cooperation that the United Nations represents.  He acted with humility, but he also stood up for a set of principles:   a belief that individuals should be free to determine their own destiny, and live with liberty, dignity, justice and opportunity.

The attacks on the civilians in Benghazi were attacks on America.  We are grateful for the assistance we received from the Libyan government and from the Libyan people.  There should be no doubt that we will be relentless in tracking down the killers and bringing them to justice.  And I also appreciate that in recent days the leaders of other countries in the region -- including Egypt, Tunisia, and Yemen -- have taken steps to secure our diplomatic facilities and called for calm, and so have religious authorities around the globe.

But understand, the attacks of the last two weeks are not simply an assault on America.  They're also an assault on the very ideals upon which the United Nations was founded:  the notion that people can resolve their differences peacefully, that diplomacy can take the place of war, that in an interdependent world all of us have a stake in working towards greater opportunity and security for our citizens.

If we are serious about upholding these ideals, it will not be enough to put more guards in front of an embassy or to put out statements of regret and wait for the outrage to pass.  If we are serious about these ideals, we must speak honestly about the deeper causes of the crisis, because we face a choice between the forces that would drive us apart and the hopes that we hold in common.

Today we must reaffirm that our future will be determined by people like Chris Stevens, and not by his killers.  Today we must declare that this violence and intolerance has no place among our united nations.  It's been less than two years since a vendor in Tunisia set himself on fire to protest the oppressive corruption in his country and sparked what became known as the Arab Spring.  And since then, the world has been captivated by the transformation that's taken place, and the United -- the United States has supported the forces of change.

We were inspired by the Tunisian protests that toppled a dictator because we recognized our own beliefs in the aspiration of men and women who took to the streets.  We insisted on change in Egypt because our support for democracy ultimately put us on the side of the people. We supported a transition of leadership in Yemen because the interests of the people were no longer being served by a corrupt status quo.

We intervened in Libya alongside a broad coalition and with the mandate of the United Nations Security Council, because we had the ability to stop the slaughter of innocents and because we believed that the aspirations of the people were more powerful than a tyrant.

And as we meet here, we again declare that the regime of Bashar al-Assad must come to an end so that the suffering of the Syrian people can stop and a new dawn can begin.  We have taken these positions because we believe that freedom and self-determination are not unique to one culture.

These are not simply American values or Western values; they are universal values. And even as there will be huge challenges to come with the transition to democracy, I am convinced that ultimately government of the people, by the people, and for the people is more likely to bring about the stability, prosperity, and individual opportunity that serve as a basis for peace in our world.

So let us remember that this is a season of progress. For the first time in decades, Tunisians, Egyptians and Libyans voted for new leaders in elections that were credible, competitive and fair.  The democratic spirit has not been restricted to the Arab world. Over the past year, we've seen peaceful transitions of power in Malawi and Senegal and a new president in Somalia.  In Burma, a president has freed political prisoners and opened a closed society.  A courageous dissident has been elected to parliament, and people look forward to further reform.

Around the globe, people are making their voices heard, insisting on their innate dignity and the right to determine their future.  And yet the turmoil of recent weeks reminds us that the path to democracy does not end with the casting of a ballot.  Nelson Mandela once said, ``To be free is not merely to cast off one's chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.''
 
True democracy demands that citizens cannot be thrown in jail because of what they believe, and that businesses can be open without paying a bribe.  It depends on the freedom of citizens to speak their minds and assemble without fear, and on the rule of law and due process that guarantees the rights of all people.
In other words, true democracy, real freedom is hard work.

Those in power have to resist the temptation to crack down on dissidents. In hard economic times, countries must be tempted -- may be tempted to rally the people around perceived enemies at home and abroad, rather than focusing on the painstaking work of reform.  Moreover, there will always be those that reject human progress, dictators who cling to power, corrupt interests that depend on the status quo, and extremists who fan the flames of hate and division. From Northern Ireland to South Asia, from Africa to the Americas, from the Balkans to the Pacific Rim, we've witnesses convulsions that can accompany transitions to a new political order.

At time, the conflicts arise along the fault lines of race or tribe, and often they arise from the difficulties of reconciling tradition and faith with the diversity and interdependence of the modern world.  In every country, there are those who find different religious beliefs threatening.  In every culture, those who love freedom for themselves must ask themselves how much they're willing to tolerate freedom for others. And that is what we saw play out in the last two weeks, where a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world.  Now, I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity.  It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well.

For as the city outside these walls makes clear, we are a country that has welcomed people of every race and every faith.  We are home to Muslims who worship across our country. We not only respect the freedom of religion, we have laws that protect individuals from being harmed because of how they look or what they believe. We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them.  I know there are some who ask why don't we  just ban such a video.  The answer is enshrined in our laws.  Our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech.

Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense.  Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs.  As president of our country, and commander in chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day, and I will always defend their right to do so.

Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views -- even views that we profoundly disagree with.  We do so not because we support hateful speech, but because our founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views and practice their own faith may be threatened.  We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can quickly become a tool to silence critics and oppress minorities. We do so because, given the power of faith in our lives, and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech -- the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.

I know that not all countries in this body share this particular understanding of the protection of free speech.  We recognize that. But in 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with the click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete.
The question, then, is how we respond.  And on this we must agree: There is no speech that justifies mindless violence.
 
There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There is no video that justifies an attack on an embassy.  There is no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan.

In this modern world, with modern technologies, for us to respond in that way to hateful speech empowers any individual who engages in such speech to create chaos around the world.  We empower the worst of us if that's how we respond. More broadly, the events of the last two weeks also speak to the need for all of us to honestly address the tensions between the West and the  Arab world that is moving towards democracy.
Now let me be clear, just as we cannot solve every problem in the world, the United States has not, and will not, seek to dictate the outcome of democratic transitions abroad.

We do not expect other nations to agree with us on every issue. Nor do we assume that the violence of the past weeks or the hateful speech by some individuals represent the views of the overwhelming majority of Muslims any more than the views of the people who produced this video represents those of Americans.
However, I do believe that it is the obligation of all leaders in all countries to speak out forcefully against violence and extremism.

It is time to marginalize those who, even when not directly resorting to violence, use hatred of America or the West or Israel as the central organizing principle of politics, for that only gives cover and sometimes makes an excuse for those who do resort to violence.  That brand of politics, one that pits East against West and South against North, Muslims against Christians and Hindu and Jews, can't deliver on the promise of freedom.

To the youth, it offers only false hope.  Burning an American flag does nothing to provide a child an education. Smashing apart a restaurant does not fill an empty stomach. Attacking an embassy won't create a single job.  That brand of politics only makes it harder to achieve what we must do together, educating our children and creating the opportunities that they deserve, protecting human rights and extending democracy's promise.

Understand, America will never retreat from the world.  We will bring justice to those who harm our citizens and our friends, and we will stand with our allies.  We are willing to partner with countries around the world to deepen ties of trade and investment, and science and technology, energy and development, all efforts that can spark economic growth for all our people and stabilize democratic change.

But such efforts depend on a spirit of mutual interest and mutual respect.  No government or company, no school or NGO will be confident working in a country where its people are endangered.  For partnerships to be effective, our citizens must be secure and our efforts must be welcomed.  A politics based only on anger, one based on dividing the world between us and them not only sets back international cooperation, it ultimately undermines those who tolerate it. All of us have an interest in standing up to these forces.

Let us remember that Muslims have suffered the most at the hands of extremism.  On the same day our civilians were killed in Benghazi, a Turkish police officer was murdered in Istanbul only days before his wedding, more than 10 Yemenis were killed in a car bomb in Sana'a, several Afghan children were mourned by their parents just days after they were killed by a suicide bomber in Kabul.

The impulse towards intolerance and violence may initially be focused on the West, but over time it cannot be contained. The same impulses towards extremism are used to justify war between Sunni and Shia, between tribes and clans.  That leads not to strength and prosperity, but to chaos. In less than two years, we have seen largely peaceful protests bring more change to Muslim-majority countries than a decade of violence.  And extremists understand this, because they have nothing to offer to improve the lives of people, violence is their only way to stay relevant.  They don't build.  They only destroy.

It is time to leave the call of violence and the politics of division behind.  On so many issues, we face a choice between the promise of the future or the prisons of the past, and we cannot afford to get it wrong.  We must seize this moment, and America stands ready to work with all who are willing to embrace a better future.
The future must not belong to those who target Coptic Christians in Egypt.  It must be claimed by those in Tahrir Square who chanted, ``Muslims, Christians, we are one.''  The future must not belong to those who bully women.  It must be shaped by girls who go to school and those who stand for a world where our daughters can live their dreams just like our sons.

The future must not belong to those corrupt few who steal a country's resources.  It must be won by the students and entrepreneurs, the workers and business owners who seek a broader prosperity for all people.  Those are the women and men that America stands with.  There's is the vision we will support.  The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.  But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied.
 
Let us condemn incitement against Sufi Muslims and Shia pilgrims. It's time to heed the words of Gandhi, ``Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit.''  Together, we must work towards a work where we are strengthened by our differences, and not defined by them.  That is what America embodies.  That's the vision we will support. Among Israelis and Palestinians, the future must not belong to those who turn their backs on the prospect of peace.  Let us leave behind those who thrive on conflict, those who reject the right of Israel to exist.

The road is hard, but the destination is clear:  a secure Jewish state of Israel and an independent, prosperous Palestine.  Understanding that such a peace must come through a just agreement between the parties, America will walk alongside all who are prepared to make that journey.  In Syria, the future must not belong to a dictator who massacres his people.  If there's a cause that cries out for protests in the world today, peaceful protest, it is a regime that tortures children and shoots rockets in apartment buildings.  And we must remain engaged to assure that what began with citizens demanding their rights does not end in a cycle of sectarian violence.

Together, we must stand with those Syrians who believe in a different vision, a Syria that is united and inclusive, where children don't need to fear their own government and all Syrians have a say in how they're governed -- Sunnis and Alawites, Kurds and Christians.  That's what America stands for.  That's is the outcome that we will work for, with sanctions and consequences for those who persecute and assistance and support for those who work for this common good.

Because we believe that the Syrians who embrace this vision will have the strength and legitimacy to lead.
In Iran, we see where the path of a violent and unaccountable ideology leads.  The Iranian people have a remarkable and ancient history, and many Iranians wish to enjoy peace and prosperity alongside their neighbors.  But just as it restricts the rights of its own people, the Iranian government continues to prop up a dictator in Damascus and supports terrorist groups abroad.

Time and again, it has failed to take the opportunity to demonstrate that its nuclear program is peaceful and to meet its obligations to the United Nations.  So let me be clear:  America wants to resolve this issue through diplomacy, and we believe that there is still time and space to do so. But that time is not unlimited.
We respect the right of nations to access peaceful nuclear power, but one of the purposes of the United Nations is to see that we harness that power for peace.

Make no mistake:  A nuclear-armed Iran is not a challenge that can be contained.  It would threaten the elimination of Israel, the security of Gulf nations, and the stability of the global economy.  It risks triggering a nuclear arms race in the region, and the unraveling of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.  That's why a coalition of countries is holding the Iranian government accountable.  And that's why the United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. We know from painful experience that the path to security and prosperity does not lie outside the boundaries of international law and respect for human rights.  That's why this institution was established from the rubble of conflict; that is why liberty triumphed over tyranny in the Cold War; and that is the lesson of the last two decades as well.

History shows that peace and progress come to those who make the right choices.  Nations in every part of the world have travelled this difficult  path.  Europe -- the bloodiest battlefield of the 20th century -- is united, free and at peace.  From Brazil to South Africa, from Turkey to South Korea, from India to Indonesia people of different races, religions and traditions have lifted millions out of poverty, while respecting the rights of their citizens and meeting their responsibilities as nations.

And it is because of the progress that I've witnessed in my own lifetime, the progress that I've witnessed after nearly four years as president, that I remain ever hopeful about the world that we live in.  The war in Iraq is over.  American troops have come home.  We've begun a transition in Afghanistan, and America and our allies will end our war on schedule in 2014.

Al Qaida has been weakened and Osama bin Laden is no more. Nations have come together to lock down nuclear materials, and America and Russia are reducing our arsenals.  We have seen hard choices made -- from Naypyidaw to Cairo to Abidjan -- to put more power in the hands of citizens.  At a time of economic challenge, the world has come together to broaden prosperity.  Through the G-20, we have partnered with emerging countries to keep the world on the path of recovery.

America has pursued a development agenda that fuels growth and breaks dependency, and worked with African leaders to help them feed their nations.  New partnerships have been forged to combat corruption and promote government that is open and transparent.  And new commitments have been made through the Equal Futures Partnership to ensure that women and girls can fully participate in politics and pursue opportunity.

And later today, I will discuss our efforts to combat the scourge of human trafficking. All these things give me hope.  But what gives me the most hope is not the actions of us, not the actions of leaders.  It is the people that I've seen.  The American troops who've risked their lives and sacrificed their limbs for strangers half a world away.  The students in Jakarta or Seoul who are eager to use their knowledge to benefit mankind.  The faces in a square in Prague or a parliament in Ghana who see democracy giving voice to their aspirations.  The young people in the favelas of Rio and the schools of Mumbai whose eyes shine with promise.

These men, women and children of every race and every faith remind me that for every angry mob that gets shown on television, there are billions around the world who share similar hopes and dreams.  They tell us that there is a common heartbeat to humanity.  So much attention in our world turns to what divides us. That's what we see on the news, that's what consumes our political debates. But when you strip all away, people everywhere long for the freedom to determine their destiny; the dignity that comes with work; the comfort that comes with faith; and the justice that exists when governments serve their people and not the other way around.

The United States of America will always stand up for these aspirations for our own people and for people all across the world. That was our founding purpose.  That is what our history shows.  That is what Chris Stevens worked for throughout his life. And I promise you this:  Long after the killers are brought to justice, Chris Stevens' legacy will live on in the lives that he touched, in the tens of thousands who marched against violence through the streets of Benghazi, in the Libyans who changed their Facebook photo to one of Chris, in the signs that read simply, ``Chris Stevens was a Friend to all Libyans.''  They should give us hope.  They should remind us that so long as we work for it, justice will be done, that history is on our side, and that a rising tide of liberty will never be reversed.

Thank you very much.

                                          _______________  |  ______________

Hillbilly blog identities exposed is a good thing

Hillbilly blog identities exposed is a good thing

Julia Gillard embroiled in another row

Row over Labor's 'bullies' escalates

• by: EWIN HANNAN and LAUREN WILSON
• From: The Australian
• September 22, 2012 12:00AM

Julia Gillard's chief of staff Ben Hubbard. Picture: Kym Smith Source: The Australian

 

JULIA Gillard's chief of staff Ben Hubbard has taken the extraordinary step of wading into a row with business over ministerial advisers, branding claims that Labor staffers bully top public servants as "shallow, lazy and unsubstantiated". 

Mr Hubbard leapt to the defence of the Gillard government's ranks of advisers after Business Council of Australia chief executive Jennifer Westacott called for the public service to be revitalised by cutting political staff numbers and bringing back civil servants who could provide "frank and fearless" advice.

The Weekend Australian understands the Prime Minister is furious about Ms Westacott's comments. Senior government figures said yesterday the relationship between the government and the BCA had been damaged by her comments on Thursday. Mr Hubbard emailed Labor staffers yesterday to express his disappointment with Ms Westacott's comments "regarding both ministerial staff and the reform performance of this government". "I am proud of the high professional standards and behaviour of our ministerial staff. The shallow, lazy and unsubstantiated claims made yesterday were an insult to both our colleagues and to the once high standards of evidence and policy of the BCA," Mr Hubbard said in the email obtained by The Weekend Australian.

The speech by Ms Westacott, a former senior public servant, has reverberated through Canberra, with former mandarins including Terry Moran backing her push to overhaul the public service but current and former ministerial advisers slamming the plan.

Former advisers from both political camps defended ministerial staffers, saying Canberra public servants operated inside cocoons and had little real world and political experience. At a time when Labor's relationship with business is strained on multiple fronts, Ms Westacott's comments have sparked a spirited debate over the quality of government policy as she outlined on Thursday proposals that would halve the number of personal advisers in ministerial offices.

She said a "culture of intimidation and bullying" had pervaded ministerial offices in part because of the dominance of political advisers over civil servants. In his email, Mr Hubbard said his disappointment was shared by staff across ministerial offices, "particularly given the professional and attentive relationship we have had with the Business Council". He said he had raised his concerns over Ms Westacott's comments with the head of the public service, Ian Watt. Dr Watt and the Public Service Commissioner Stephen Sedgwick would contact Ms Westacott to ask for any specific claims of "bullying" or inappropriate behaviour that Ms Westacott referred to, Mr Hubbard said.

Mr Hubbard wrote that the Special Minister of State, Gary Gray, had raised the issues "in the strongest possible terms" with the BCA yesterday. He attached a link to a statement by the Community and Public Sector Union supporting ministerial staff and criticising the BCA for its "slur".

Government sources said Ms Westacott had not raised her concerns with Mr Hubbard or Mr Gray before her speech, and the first the government became aware of them was when her speech was sent to the Prime Minister's office just prior to delivery. Ms Gillard said there were fewer ministerial staffers in her government than under John Howard, and accused opposition Treasury spokesman Joe Hockey of " negative political carry-on" for complaining Labor was misusing the public service.

"In terms of ministerial staffers and advisers, there are less under this government than there was under the former Howard government," Ms Gillard said. "There's also a clear code of conduct for ministerial advisers, something that this government created." Mr Gray attacked Ms Westacott for making "scapegoats of dedicated public servants with inaccurate and unfair comments." "Australia has one of the best public administrations in the world and it does not deserve the ill-informed and inaccurate criticisms made by the Business Council of Australia," Mr Gray said.

Tony Abbott said it was not the number of advisers that was the problem, but the way they were used by the government.The Opposition Leader said the Coalition would review the entire bureaucracy but "I think it's the misuse to which political staffers have been put, with dirt units and so on, rather than the fact that there are political staffers as such". He praised the quality of advice provided by the bureaucracy.

A former adviser to ex-prime minister Kevin Rudd yesterday warned of the dangers of insulated public servants."Canberra public servants operate in a cocoon, there is little to no fluidity between academia, NGOs and business," the adviser said. "It's fine for a dynamic public service to exert more control, but only if we aren't talking about graduates who move straight to Canberra and spend decades on the treadmill doing nothing else to broaden their perspective. That's worse than having political staffers exerting influence." John Howard's former chief of staff, Arthur Sinodinos, was not aware of ministerial offices bullying the public service.

John Menadue, a former secretary of Prime Minister and Cabinet under Gough Whitlam and Malcolm Fraser as well as Immigration Department secretary, said the problem confronting good government was "the power of vested interests" such as the BCA, Minerals Council of Australia, and Pharmacy Guild "with their hundreds of lobbyists who corrupt" the political processes.

One senior government ministerial adviser said the idea that unelected public servants should be given tenure and be free to act without interference from an elected administration was extraordinary.
                                   ________________   |   _______________

Wind farm under threat

Protesters crash wind farm information session at Walkamin

Tony Stickley

Thursday, September 20, 2012

© The Cairns Post

MORE than 50 protesters crashed an information day for the proposed Mt Emerald wind farm at Walkamin yesterday.

Initially the demonstrators – mostly farmers and residents – staged a vocal protest outside the Mareeba Heritage Museum and Information Centre.

But when they moved inside where executives from wind turbine operator and land owners, Ratch Australia and Port Bajool, were conducting an information day, protesters agreed to leave their banners outside. When they turned on their megaphone and started demanding answers to a series of questions, a Ratch representative protested that they did not have the right to “hijack” the information day, which brought jeers from a boisterous crowd.

One speaker after another asked through the loud-hailer why the meeting was being held at Mareeba, when those affected lived at Tolga and Walkamin. They wanted to know about noise from the turbines, how safe it would be for pilots,  the effect on aerial crop ­spraying, concerns about the visual impact and wildlife in the area, and how close the nearest dwelling would be to the turbines.

Geoff Dutton, Ratch Australia’s executive general manager operations and business, said members of his team of experts would answer questions on an individual basis and respond within two weeks. Mr Dutton said that they had reduced the number of turbines initially proposed in certain locations after community consultation, which reduced their output by 8 percent, leading to a reduction in revenue.

He later told the media: ­“People are coming here asking sensible questions. “We want to answer all of those questions in a sensible way, but it is not appropriate to have a debate across a crowd.” Farmer Rob Watkins, the general manager of Mt Uncle Farming, said the proposal would deface a “beautiful creation of nature” but Mr Dutton said there would be “minimal impact on views”.

 

Not happy: Local protesters show a united front against plans to build a wind turbine farm at Mt Emerald. Picture: STEWART McLEAN.
                                             __________   |   ____________