24 December 2007


Julian Moti is not just a Fijian Born Lawyer with Australian citizenship. According to Wikipedia, he has been Adjunct professor at Bond university since 1992, and has a rather outstanding international CV in India and Oceania.

The proximate cause of his demonization is the allegation that he raped a 13 year old girl in Vanuatu circa 1997. This case was dismissed with substantial damages by a magistrate in Vanuatu at the time. Since then Moti has continued his legal career as a professor at various universities, and finally accepted a position as the top legal person in the Solomon Islands.

In 2006 Moti was arrested in Port Moresby. At the time he stated that Australia's pursuit of him was a politically motivated "witch-hunt" and only came about after he was named for the top legal post.

It is good to see our Federal government in such vigorous pursuit (after a hiatus of ten years) of a case of statutory rape of a 13 year old girl when that case occurred in a foreign country after the local judicial system cleared him of the "alleged" crime, and in fact awarded him substantial damages. The Australian government denies that there is any political motive for it's prosecution.

This prosecution is especially noteworthy in light of the recent case in Australia where nine men raped an eight year old aboriginal girl, and were all given suspended sentences.

It is also good to see our government is so actively "not intervening" in regional affairs. It gives me a nice, safe feeling seeing the efficacious methodology employed. Especially notable is the way in which the judicial systems of PNG acted in the interest of Justice against the wishes of PM Somare, and the way public opinion in the Solomons stopped Moti's appointment.

As a total non sequitur, I bet that in future there won't be too many appointments made to political positions in the Pacific Islands without first obtaining Canberra's approval.

13 December 2007


Kevin Rudd has taken power in Australia. There are some warning signs, and some reassurances.

One troubling warning sign is the size of the cabinet. Powerful prime ministers are usually able to keep the count of ministers small. Weak prime ministers must build support by creating new ministries to repay political support. It remains to be seen whether this seemingly conservative prime minister can restrain the 70% of unionists in cabinet, and the massive support they must wield at branch level.

One of the reassuring signs is the blocking of arch greenie Peter Garret from any executive power over environmental matters. Another is the restraint shown at Bali by refusal to commit to limiting greenhouse emissions by 2020. Of course unionists were never particularly committed to being green, after all, many unionists are employed in a greenhouse gas emitting industry.

NIE (National Intelligence Estimate)

Obadiah of Samson Blinded has explained the NIE statement that Iran has not been building nuclear weapons since 2004  is the result of a deal between Iran & the US. That deal was that if Iran was to stop sponsoring terrorism in Iraq, then the US would make that (btw, I believe that it is probably true) announcement, which would have the effect of reducing the ability of the US to gain political support for an attack on Iran.

That explanation best fits the facts as I see them, including Bush's continued rhetoric against Iran. I do find it difficult to otherwise explain the reduced Shia terrorism in Iraq. Sure, "the surge" has reduced terror around Baghdad, but that small increase in US forces does not explain the massive decrease in Iraqui terrorism.

8 December 2007


This blog started before Serbia was accused of atrocities in Kosovo. Here are my reports of alleged Serbian atrocities. Here, where Serbia alleged KLA fatalities. Here is a blog of conditions after the NATO invasion. and further postwar KLA terror reports, and Milosevic's illegal capture. And here is the requiem for Milosevic, a very convenient death in World Court custody for those who invaded Serbia.

To the best of my knowledge (and I have followed the news on this subject with interest) there have been no discoveries of prewar mass graves in Kosovo that were not disclosed prior to the invasion. Those graves contained bodies that were of alleged KLA drug criminals killed in police actions, or were Kosovan civilians of ethnic Serbian & Albanian stock allegedly killed by the KLA. Mass graves created since the invasion are claimed to be civilians killed by NATO bombs, and I am unaware of anybody who has seriously questioned that evidence.

The trial of Milosevic stopped a few weeks before the judges brought out a decision, due to Milosevic's alleged suicide. It is suggested by the blue press that Milosevic committed suicide because he realized he was about to be found guilty. Reports of the trial prior to that time did not seem to indicate that Milosevic was likely to be found guilty, rather the contrary. I do not buy the argument that Milosevic committed suicide. I think that "suicide" was a little too convenient for NATO.

Now, according to reports in "The Australian", the 80% of Serbians who do not live in Kosovo fear that the UN is planning to give Kosovo independence. I applaud and support such a courageous UN decision. It is perfectly clear that the majority (80%) of Kosovans are ethnic Albanians, and they have indicated 80% support for independence. Their desire for independence should be granted. Perhaps at the same time the 20% of Serbians living in the NE corner of Kosovo should be given independence from Kosovo in the same process?

I realize that self determination of independence within a nation is no business of the UN. This is clearly stated in it's charter (Article 2.4) which reads:  All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.   However I warmly encourage the UN to alter it's charter to accommodate the desire for self determination by the oppressed minorities of the world.  For further reading on the charter Alexandra has kindly provided this link.

Any short list of the people who would take heart from such a decision would contain all the trouble spots on the planet. The Tibetans, the Kashmiris, the Basque, the Southern & Western Sudanese, the Chechens, Aceh & W New Guinea & the Kurds (in Turkey, Syria, Iran & Iraq).

The Kurds in Iraq are a very special instance. Like the Kosovan Albanians they form about 20% of the national population, and within that nation they form a substantial local majority in a region of that nation.  In both cases the nation is occupied by foreign forces with the power to execute a separation.  I would imagine that the Iraqui Kurd case for becoming a new nation after a Kosovo separation would be particularly strong.

Muslim Arabs would lose all moral claim to Israel, because the majority (Jews) want an independent state which most Arab nations refuse to recognize. I guarantee that there are other places that would seek separation. Quite possibly some of the southern USA, almost certainly Western Australia, possibly even Scotland, maybe Quebec, Hong Kong and maybe a few African countries.

Somehow, I do not think such a plan would be approved by the general assembly, even though it would completely exonerate Clinton and NATO for the Serbian war.

mail comment