Julie Bishop

Julian Assange, the courageous innovative publisher of Wikileaks, who told the world the truth about US army torture of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib has been found by the united Nations to have been illegally held in indefinite detention since he was granted asylum by Ecuador in August 2012, due to the British and Swedish governments complicity with the United States. Now Australia has lost this citizen of global courage and action in defence of human rights, to Ecuador, which has just recently granted him citizenship. See "Julian Assange granted Ecuadorian citizenship to provide 'another layer of protection'".

The whole Assange case could have been resolved years ago, had the Swedish government given Assange a guarantee that he would not be extradited to the United States, should he go to Sweden to face charges (now dropped) of rape. The fact that no such undertaking was made by the Swedish government (supposedly neutral, but in reality an ally of the United States) clearly demonstrates that the charges of rape were no more than a ploy to arrest Assange and deliver him to the United States deep state.

Throughout this long detention and shameful denial of Julian Assange's human rights, Australian parliament has received letters and petitions asking for the government to help Julian Assange, as an Australian citizen and Victorian resident. To our knowledge, only Greens MPs, notably Scott Ludlum, and, at least once, Adam Bandt, have spoken up on the subject, especially in relation to Bills restricting Australian freedoms and expanding state surveillance. Prime Ministers Rudd and Gillard have been passive in their responses to questions about Assange's welfare, with Gillard actually making the public error of saying that Wikileaks was illegal. Basically no Australian government has stood up for Assange, even though they have occasionally protested that he has received the same rights as any Australian citizen. This has been denied by Assange and his mother. See, "Fed Govt defends its consular assistance to Assange," at http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2012/s3515562.htm. [See note for why we haven't actively linked to this ABC site.[1]] Most tellingly, the fact that the Australian government never denounced Assange as a criminal shows that they must have known he was not guilty of the charges against him. See our excerpts below from Hansard.

Hansard Documentation of how Australia handled Assange's detention and threats to his safety

...............................................................................................................................................................

Julie Bishop, Monday, 19 June 2017, responding to letter: Page: 6766,

"Dear Mr Vasta

Thank you for your letter of 20 March 2017 regarding the petition (PN0054) submitted by the Concerned Citizens of Australia to the Standing Committee on Petitions.

The petition refers to Opinion No.54/2015 of the UN Working Group on

Arbitrary Detention adopted on 4 December 2015, in which it considered that Mr Julian Assange was arbitrarily detained by the Governments of Sweden and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. In that opinion, the Working Group expressed the view that Mr Assange is 'entitled to his freedom of movement and to compensation'. The petition requests that the House of Representatives do all within its power to end Julian Assange's detention.

I received legal advice on the implications of the findings of the Working Group in February 2016. It is important for the Standing Committee on Petitions to appreciate that the Working Group's opinion is directed at the United Kingdom and Sweden; not Australia. Australia cannot intervene in the legal processes of another country, just as we would not countenance other states intervening in Australian legal processes. I also note that the opinions of the Working Group are not legally binding on states.

Mr Assange has been afforded due process by authorities in the United Kingdom, and has avoided lawful arrest by choosing to remain in the Ecuadorian Embassy. Mr Assange will need to address his situation through legal processes in the United Kingdom and Sweden, with the assistance of his legal advisers.

However, the Australian Government stands ready to provide Mr Assange with the same consular assistance it would give to any other Australian in these circumstances should he request it, in accordance with the Consular Services Charter. I enclose a copy for the Standing Committee's consideration.

I trust this information is of assistance.

Yours sincerely

from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Ms Bishop." Monday, 19 June 2017

Page: 6766, House of Representatives, Parliament of Australia.

Senator Ludlam, West Australia, 4 July 2011

"Under existing law, the collection of foreign intelligence is confined to the collection of intelligence concerning the activities of foreign governments, organisa­tions they control or foreign political organisations for the purpose of the defence of Australia or the conduct of international affairs. That is how ASIO have been doing the work that they have been doing in tracking al-Qaeda and tracking terrorist organisations that are much closer to home operating in our neighbourhood. They have these powers. They use them extensively. It is the sole justification that has been given to us for why their staffing and their budget quadrupled in the last decade. It is precisely because they have the range of powers that they need to track non-state actors who mean Australians harm or mean to pursue violent political activities in other countries. They have the powers that they need. When we asked what exactly this was all about, nobody was able to tell us.

What it does do is that it permits ASIO much wider scope to investigate the activities of Australians who are overseas and who do not necessarily pose a threat but perhaps do have implications for foreign relations, such as Julian Assange and other people working in the WikiLeaks organisation. WikiLeaks and Mr Assange obviously have implications for Australia's foreign relations. Things falling out of the document drop were on the front page of every newspaper in the country day after day after day six months ago, and even now those shock waves continue to reverberate through the diplomatic community. So there is no way that you can say that there are no implications there for Australia's foreign relations. But should that entity be spied on by ASIO? Should our clandestine Cold War era spy agency be tracking down Mr Assange, maybe his family if they travel abroad, people working for that organisation, journalists, or people he is talking to or that that organisation is involved with? It appears that the reason that this bill has been known as the 'WikiLeaks amendment' in the Attorney's department is that that is precisely what is intended. The committee simply did not address that issue, and neither did the officer at the table when we asked during the inquiry. This is one example of how a person or organisation outside Australia, combined with the notion of Australia's foreign relations, very considerably expands the scope of ASIO's activities. Australians working overseas for firms that are major rivals to key Australian industries would also be covered. They would be caught by the economic wellbeing argument. If the government has a counterargument to this, it would be delightful to hear it." Senator Ludlam, West Australia, 4 July 2011, BILLS - Intelligence Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 - Second Reading,

Senator Ludlam, Petitions Wikileaks, 9 February 2011

"To the Honourable President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled:

The Petition of the undersigned shows:

1. That Mr Julian Assange is an Australian Citizen.

2. That on 2nd December 2010 the Prime Minister stated that the publishing of certain information on the Wikileaks website by Mr Assange was “An Illegal thing to do”.

3. That the Attorney-General of Australia has stated that he has considered the cancellation of the Australian Passport held by Mr Assange.

4. United States Politician, Ms Sarah Palin, has called for Mr Assange to be “hunted down”.

5. Mr Tom Flanagan, Senior Advisor to the Canadian Prime Minister has, on public television, called for Mr Assange’s assassination.

Your petitioner requests that the Senate:

1. Call upon the Prime Minister to explain to the Senate the basis for her allegation against a fellow Australian citizen that he is a criminal.

2. Call upon the Attorney-General to state to the Senate whether he received any request for the cancellation of Mr Assange’s Australian Passport pursuant to the Australian Passports Act.

3. Call upon the Minister for Foreign Affairs to summon the Ambassador for from the United States of America to Australia and demarche condemning the comments of Ms Patin. [sic - meant Palin.]

4. Call upon the Minister for Foreign Affairs to summon the Canadian High Commissioner to Australia and demarche condemning the comments of Mr Flanagan.

5. Call upon the Governor-General of Australia to provide such protection and assistance to Mr Assange as to which he may stand in need. "

Senator Ludlam, Petitions Wikileaks, 9 February 2011,

Senator Ludlam, West Australia, 3 March, 2014

"I wonder whether the Attorney-General might rise to the occasion, as it were, and provide us with some information as to why he will not back up on the public record, neither here in this chamber nor even at an estimates committee last week, how he is able to accuse Mr Edward Snowden the whistleblower of being a traitor when he has been neither charged nor convicted of any crime in the United States, when senior US administration figures have been careful not to use that phrase and when he cannot prove or show any evidence whatsoever that Australians have been put in harm's way? Similar claims were put about publisher Julian Assange when the WikiLeaks documents were first put into the public domain. And unless Senator Brandis is about to prove me wrong, we are about to see debate in here closed down." Senator Ludlam, West Australia, 3 March, 2014, National Security - Order for the Production of Documents,

Senator Ludlam, W.A. Australian Greens, 7 February, 2017

"We let Australian citizen Julian Assange and his courageous colleagues hang out to dry for disclosing war crimes in Iraq and more conventional crimes revealed in the state department cables. When the United States government says jump, then, if we are lucky, our Intelligence and Security Committee will do a rapid bipartisan inquiry into how high. But inevitably, we jump." Senator Ludlam, W.A. Australian Greens, 7 February, 2017, "ADJOURNMENT - Australia-United States Relationship,"

Michael Danby, MP, Melbourne Ports, 1 December 2014, Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill, (No.1) 2014

"I want to end with this discordant note. It is not surprising to see the Greens political party lead the charge against this proposed legislation. In my view, the Greens seem to have an automatic Pavlovian kind of reaction to undermining the intelligence capabilities of our country. People like the Greens political party's Senator Ludlam have publicly supported self-appointed protectors of privacy and trust—stalwarts of moral standing like Julian Assange. Of course, the Greens' backing of Julian Assange and his ideological stablemate Edward Snowden has not exposed a single piece of evidence of the abuse of privacy or citizens' rights in authoritarian countries like Russia. Mr. Assange, the Greens' hero, used to host a program on the Russian disinformation network RT. To give you a flavour for his content and his policies, his first interview gave an armchair ride to Hezbollah's feared terrorist leader, Sheikh Hussein Nasrallah.

Indeed, it is delicious irony that the Greens' other hero, Edward Snowden, preaches excessive oversight and accountability but chooses to reside in Russia, of all places. He destroyed his credibility when popping up on Russian TV a few months ago to give another soft-serve Dorothy Dixer to the new Russian tsar, Vladimir Putin. Perhaps the Greens believe Russia is actually a bastion of human rights. Certainly, Senator Rhiannon used to believe that. I am honoured with the fact that Senator Ludlum has put a fatwa on the Greens speaking to me because I pointed out Senator Rhiannon's political similarity to the wife of the Romanian dictator, Elena Ceausescu. But the main point I make about her is she has never dissociated herself from her membership and participation in the pro-Soviet Communist political party in Australia. It was a seamless transition to the Greens.

Of course, the serious people in this parliament can smirk about Snowden's choice of patrons and about Assange's presence on RT. But it is hard to believe that here, in this House, we have parliamentarians that oppose legislation and seek to foil the efforts of our Defence forces and cooperation with our security services overseas. It occurs to me that the Greens political party ought to be more concerned about people losing their heads than about the people holding the swords. We had the appeasers in the 1930s. Eighty years later we have the Greens." Michael Danby, MP, Melbourne Ports, 1 December 2014, Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill, (No.1) 2014,

See also, Greg Barns, "Now is the time for Australia to finally stick up for Julian Assange," The Drum, 12 May, 2015. :

Prime Minister Gillard responds to question from Adam Bandt, MP, Greens in House of Representatives, Australian Parliament, Questions without Notice, 13 May 2015:

"Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (14:34): My question is to the Prime Minister. Senior figures in the United States have called for Julian Assange to be hunted down and in the US courts he may face the death penalty. Has the government sought an assurance from the United States that he will not be prosecuted. What steps has the government taken, or will the government take, to prevent Julian Assange being taken to the United States? Will the government put the interests of Washington ahead of the liberty of an Australian citizen and the freedom of the press?"

"Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:35): I thank the member for Melbourne for his question. I know that he is raising an issue that is on the minds of many Australians as result of the recent news about the decision in the UK on the extradition matter involving Mr Assange. Can I assure the House of the following: the Australian government is providing full consular assistance to Mr Assange, as it does for all Australian citizens. I am advised that Australian consular officials visited Mr Assange on a number of occasions during his period of detention in London and raised several matters of concern with prison authorities on his behalf. Australian consular officials have attended all of Mr Assange's court appearances, including yesterday's hearing.

Since Mr Assange was released on bail, Australian officials have repeatedly conveyed offers of consular assistance through his lawyers, with whom they were most recently in contact yesterday. Swedish authorities have confirmed that any legal action against Mr Assange will be conducted in accordance with due process. As the Minister for Foreign Affairs has said today, at this stage we do not have any advice from the United States that there is an indictment against Mr Assange or that the United States has decided to seek his extradition. If at any stage in the future Mr Assange faces legal proceedings from the United States we would, for Mr Assange—as we would for any other Australian citizen—seek assurances from the United States in relation to due process. The Australian government cannot interfere in the judicial processes of other countries, but of course we will continue to closely monitor proceedings against Mr Assange and continue to provide full consular assistance to him." 13 May, 2015,

See also: "Prime Minister Julia Gillard has been left floundering after she labelled the actions of the WikiLeaks 'illegal', but couldn't say how" (24 February 2015) | SBS

Mr Rudd responding to a letter re Assange, 4 July 2011

Dear Mr Murphy,

I refer to your letter of 16 March 2011. regarding a petition about Mr Julian Assange, submitted for the consideration of the Standing Committee on Petitions. I note the Committee's referral under Standing Order 209(b) of items 3 and 4 of the petition. My response follows.

Item 3 called upon me to summon the Ambassador for the United States of America to Australia and demarche him condemning the comments of American politician Ms Sarah Palin on Mr Assange. Item 4 called upon me to summon the Canadian High Commissioner to Australia and demarche him condemning the comments of Mr Tom Flanagan, former Senior Advisor to the Canadian Prime Minister, on Mr Assange.

The Australian Government deplores and condemns all calls to violence against any Aus­tralian citizen wherever and by whomever they are made. However, neither of the individuals in the petition cited are holders of public office in their respective countries so it would not be app­ropriate to demarche their governments through their diplomatic representatives on statements they are reported to have made. Both the United States of America and Canada have laws protecting the rights of individuals against threats to their person. under which any concerns about these reported statements could be pursued.

I trust this information will be of assistance to the Committee in its consideration of the petition. from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Rudd, 4 July 2011

NOTES

[1] The reason we have not linked to the Assange article on the ABC is because the ABC does not have an SSL certificate for this article. That means that if we link to it, oversensitive browsers will say that candobetter.net is linking to unsafe links. SSL certificates are security certificates. Just because the ABC does not have an SSL certificate, it does not mean the site isn't safe; it just means that it hasn't paid its protection money to issuers of SSL certificates. But your browser may tell you that it is unsafe - so we don't actively link.

See also: Countering the dangerous MSM (mis)perceptions of Syrian conflict (10 Oct 2015) | RT Op-Edge

The Australian Foreign Minister, Julie Bishop, is pushing long-refuted lies about Syria as she speculates where she and her colleagues might find a replacement for Assad, without the slightest suggestion of irony or 'elections'. Article first published in Russian Insider at http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/australia-fm-pushing-long-refuted-syria-lies/ri10271, October 6, 2015.

In an interview with Australia's state broadcaster on Sunday, foreign minister Julie Bishop stated that there must be a 'political solution' to the Syrian crisis, and that this would have to involve Syria's President Bashar al Assad during a 'transitional period'.

Although this position is being portrayed as 'going soft on Assad', it is actually not a new position for Australia, which has privately conceded to the Russian proposals in the 2012 Geneva agreement. What was striking about Bishop's statement was that it elicited such consternation in the interviewer, who clearly saw 'working with the Assad government' as being similar to helping the head-choppers of ISIS.

Up to this point in the interview Bishop's answers to his questions - like 'what is Russia doing?', and 'why is Russia doing this now?' were properly diplomatic, and displayed the effects of conversations she has had with Russian and Iranian ministers. We shouldn't doubt that they 'put her in the picture' on Russia's viewpoint and red lines over Syria.

But this experienced ABC commentator, who frequently interviews government representatives on important issues, displayed shocking bias against both Russian and Syrian leaders with a series of heavily loaded questions, pushing Bishop to make some surprisingly ill-judged statements. She was forced to 'concede' that 'the Assad regime is truly odious', and that 'Assad cannot remain - as he has used chemical weapons against his own people… this is how it all began'.

The well mis-informed interviewer was reassured by this embellishment of the familiar old story (the 'Chemical Weapons attack' - or 'Ghouta false flag' - happened two and a half years after 'it all began'), and displayed his own evident outrage at Russia for 'targeting the moderate opposition forces fighting against the brutal tyrant Assad'. The two then speculated on where we might find a replacement for Assad, without the slightest suggestion of irony, or mention of 'elections' or of Syrians' democratic choice.

To say I am exasperated at this renewed barrage of anti-Syrian and anti-Russian propaganda is insufficient; it is becoming both intolerable and dangerous, and with every new development in the war being misrepresented by Western leaders and media, the real war is more than ever an information war. Of course it always has been, with the covert use of snipers to incite violence in the first protests.

But after four and a half years of fighting this battle for the truth, and the feeling that some progress was being made, it is infuriating to see the same old stories resurrected with added vigour. I had entertained the ridiculous idea that sooner or later the Australian government would 'admit' to understanding two essential truths about the Syrian government - that it was legitimately elected, and that it did NOT use chemical weapons in 2013.

Sadly quite the opposite is happening, and Russia's intervention is evidently 'the cause' of it. Russia has called the West's bluff, that it is fighting terrorism in Syria, so we might expect a certain amount of squealing from those who were just pretending to do so, accompanied by some muffled denials. What is a little unexpected is the resurrection of some long-dead myths instead, like the 'moderate rebels' and the 'Free Syrian Army' ( whose  resurrection was remarkably rapid and involved many new converts!)

Some other myths have been exposed too - the myth of the CIA trained forces from Jordan has been exposed as true! With remarkable cunning, the US and its complicit media have devised a cover story for this revelation - of 10,000 fighters trained over the last several years; 'we trained 54 'moderates', but only 4 or 5 survived an assault by Al Nusra' - says US defence secretary Ashton 

Carter. Some of those thousands of US trained and armed insurgents were discovered by Russian bombs, when the CIA shamefacedly dared to complain that their 'moderate forces' in Western Syria had been hit. In as strange twist for the chronically misinformed ABC, another senior presenter then revealed her apparent ignorance of the main terrorist group the Syrian Army is fighting in this area - the so-called 'Army of Conquest', which Saudi Arabia and Turkey launched into Syria back in March in a last ditch attempt to impose their own 'political solution' on Syria.

The Army of Conquest is purportedly mostly Al Nusra fighters of Chechen and Turkmen origin, but given the advice of the CIA's David Petraeus recently that 'we should work with Al Nusra in Syria', - well one might conclude that 'we' already are!

So when Julie Bishop and other Western officials say that 'there must be a political solution in Syria' they are missing the rest of the sentence - 'for our goals to be achieved'. And because it was long intended by the US coalition to achieve those goals by military means, no amount of careful Russian diplomacy would ever have succeeded in countering them.

Let's hope now that Russia is delivering a message to the West in the only language it seems to understand, that the 'military solution' to Syria's battle will be swift and effective - with a little information back-up…

The misreporting and failure to report on the nature of the threat facing Syrian society – by which I mean the majority of that society which supports the Syrian army and the Syrian president against the foreign-backed insurgency – has now assumed a far less benign role in the Syrian conflict; in the view of many, the Western mainstream media have now become complicit with that insurgency, and in controlling the narrative that enables an illegal and criminal violation of Syrian sovereignty.

The Honourable Minister for Foreign Affairs Julie Bishop
David Macilwain,
Sandy Creek, Victoria
16th June 2015
Dear Minister Bishop,

While acknowledging your response to my letter of 10th October last year, which seriously challenged the accepted narrative on the situation in Syria and the Australian government’s position on it, I urge you now to reconsider the points I made in the light of recent developments, particularly in regard to the use of Chemical Weapons.

As I’m sure you are aware, a collaboration between Saudi and Turkish Intelligence agencies facilitated an invasion of NW Syria by thousands of ‘violent extremists’ in March, with the objective of overthrowing the Assad government. (#1) While the US may not have been directly party to this operation with the immediate supply of arms, the possession of new US-made TOW anti-tank missiles by the ‘Army of Conquest’ – Jaish al Fatah – was a critical factor in the violent recapture of towns and territory over which the Syrian Arab Army had control. The fall of Idlib to these mercenaries was well publicised in our media, though its illegal and aggressive nature was obscured by Opposition claims of fatalities from a ‘Chlorine’ attack on a nearby village by the Syrian army. (No credible evidence exists of the use of Chlorine or ‘barrel bombs’ by the army, just as no credible reason could be given for the government targeting Syrian civilians rather than the terrorists who are threatening the whole Syrian state.)

The failure of Australian mainstream media to acknowledge the nature of this renewed and extreme challenge to the Syrian state, and the failure to identify and condemn the countries responsible for financing and arming the ‘Army of Conquest’, was initially compounded by the concurrent focus on the ANZACs and the commemorations in Turkey. Far from this becoming an occasion to present the current resurgence of Erdogan’s ‘Ottoman empire’ in the light of history, the reality of Turkey’s active support for jihadist groups in Syria including Da’ish/IS passed unnoticed. Even though the army of conquest is dominated by Syria’s Al Qaeda – Jabhat an Nusra – which remains a proscribed terrorist organisation by Australia and her Western allies, both authorities and media seem unaware or unconcerned by its trail of death and destruction. Even An Nusra’s massive truck bomb attack on the National Hospital in Jisr al Shughour failed to interest our national broadcaster, no more the massacre of hundreds of soldiers and civilians as they later tried to escape the attackers.

Writing recently in the Independent, veteran journalist Robert Fisk related the accounts of soldiers recovering from the siege in the hospital in Lattakia, (#2) and confirmed that some of the mercenaries who invaded Jisr al Shughour were Turkish; from other reliable sources it appears that this army was composed mainly of Turks and Chechens.

The misreporting and failure to report on the nature of the threat facing Syrian society – by which I mean the majority of that society which supports the Syrian army and the Syrian president against the foreign-backed insurgency – has now assumed a far less benign role in the Syrian conflict; in the view of many the Western mainstream media have now become complicit with that insurgency, and in controlling the narrative that enables an illegal and criminal violation of Syrian sovereignty. As an example of this role – and one which could only be called ‘supportive propaganda’, both SBS and ABC recently aired programmes which presented the ‘violent extremists’ of Jabhat an Nusra in a relatively sympathetic light, and as fighters in a legitimate struggle against a despotic and violent regime. SBS Dateline screened an interview with a confessed local leader of Jabhat an Nusra in Idlib in which we heard his ‘spin’ on the Islamic state he hoped would soon replace the inclusive secular government of Bashar al Assad, and accompanied him into Aleppo to launch attacks on government-secured neighbourhoods.(#3) Meanwhile the ABC’s Background Briefing allowed us to hear the viewpoint of Australian jihadis going to fight in Syria, without any countervailing narrative from the Syrians they were going to fight. (#4) The ongoing unverified news reports claiming attacks ‘on markets and schools’ with ‘barrel bombs’ and Chlorine by the Syrian army, as well as opinion from some commentators that the Assad government was a greater threat than Islamic State, provided supportive commentary for the sectarian anti-Assad ravings of the ‘takfiris’.

Considering this background of misleading and false information about the nature of the Syrian conflict, I am frankly quite perplexed at the latest presentations from your government, and in particular the claims you made in Perth recently about the dangers of Da’ish obtaining Chemical Weapons. As reported by Seymour Hersh in his revealing report of December 2013 – ‘Whose Sarin?’- (#5) there was already detailed knowledge in the US intelligence community in May 2013 about the abilities of Jabhat an Nusra to use Sarin, as well as those of AQI, the forerunner of Da’ish. Hersh’s source – a ‘senior intelligence consultant’, reported on a top-secret cable forwarded to the Deputy Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, David R Shedd, which ‘confirmed previous reports that An Nusra had the ability to acquire and use Sarin’. These followed from investigations of the apparent use of Chemical Weapons in Khan al Assal in March 2013, which had already been verified on the ground by the Russians. Ironically perhaps, it was to investigate this crime committed by ‘rebel groups’ that the UN finally brought its inspectors to Damascus in August at the insistence of the Syrian government.

Expanding on these reports in his second article published by the London Review of Books – ‘Obama, Erdogan and the Syrian Rebels’, with the subtitle ‘The Red line and the Rat line’, (#6) Hersh described the details of the thinking and actions of Turkish intelligence and the Erdogan ‘cabinet’, leaving no doubt about the role Turkey was playing in actively supporting the armed insurgency, both in assisting the supply of fighters and weapons in entering Syria from Turkey, and apparently in working with An Nusra to ‘set up’ the Sarin attack on Ghouta with the express purpose of pushing Obama over his ‘red line’ for military intervention. Following a recent application by Judicial Watch for Defence Department documents significant evidence of the ‘rat line’ from Benghazi to Syria has now confirmed Hersh’s report. (#7)

It is now clear that Erdogan has tired of waiting for the US to commit forces to actively overthrow the Assad government, despite Obama repeating his desire for this to happen; the current joint operation with Saudi Arabia, and Qatar has now taken the ‘intervention’ out of US hands. Not only that – another development so far also apparently ignored by Australia’s government and media threatens to radically escalate the situation into full-scale war. Following the renewed attack on Syria by Turkish/Saudi mercenaries which Tehran quite correctly interprets as a deliberate act of war by Turkey, Ayatollah Khamenei has now formally committed forces to assist the Syrian Arab Army in fighting the insurgency, and killing the terrorist forces or driving them back into Turkey and Jordan. Along with the problems in Iraq, the potential of this war to spread further into Lebanon is most serious; the insurgency already has a strong base of support from Saudi-aligned groups in Tripoli which are opposed by both Hezbollah and the Lebanese army.(#8)

Australia’s involvement in the fight against IS/Da’ish in Iraq which is formally at the invitation of the Baghdad government, ironically puts us on the same side as Iran as Iranian forces are now actively supporting both the Iraqi army and the Iraqi Shi’ite militias who fight with it to drive back Da’ish and restore security to the civilian population. This comes in contrast to US forces, who sought their ‘authorisation’ from the Kurdish regional government. The apparent failure of those US forces to observe and destroy the Islamic State convoy on its long journey across the open desert to reach Ramadi before its recent capture poses some serious questions about US objectives, both in Iraq and Syria. (#9) While Western media have barely asked these questions, military commanders, leaders and public in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Iran have already answered them. For these countries and their defence forces, who have to fight and die at the hands of the modern barbarians, distinctions between ‘Da’ish’, Jabhat an Nusra, the ‘Islamic Front’, or ‘the Army of Conquest’ are increasingly irrelevant. The pipeline of support for all these insurgents is the same and contains the same fuel – weapons supplied and paid for by members of the Western coalition, whether formal or implicit. And while we talk endlessly of the unstoppable march of the ‘Islamic State’, and how it reaps billions from ‘selling oil’, we ignore its Achilles heel – the umbilical connection that enables it to survive and fight in the barren deserts of Syria and Iraq. (#10)

I need hardly explain why I am making this application to you, and to the other recipients of this letter; it is clear that there must be a radical re-assessment of Australia’s role in the Syrian conflict, along with a debate on the legitimacy of the parties to it that we are currently supporting. While the deaths of Syrian soldiers and civilians do not affect us directly, policies are being pursued by the government on the basis of the conflict which do. We should also take note of the recent case in the UK where the government sought to prosecute a man who had been fighting with a ‘rebel group’ in Syria. The case was dropped when the defence argued that the rebel group was effectively also being supported by the UK government. (#11)

It is also clear that current developments will surely drag Australia into direct involvement in the Syrian conflict, and an obligation to join the fight not just against Da’ish but against the ‘Army of Conquest’ being supported by our ‘proxy allies’, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey.

In my opinion a full parliamentary enquiry examining Australia’s commitment to and role in this conflict is necessary and urgent. This should include the role played by our public broadcasters.
I look forward to your response.

Yours etc,
David Macilwain.

[Editor: No response had been received from Ms Bishop at time of publishing this letter on 14 August 2015]

References:

(#1) There were many reports, including in the NYT describing this Saudi-Turkish operation, which began with a visit by President Erdogan to Riyadh:
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkey-saudi-arabia-agree-to-boost-support-to-syria-opposition.aspx?pageID=238&nID=79091&NewsCatID=510
See also Conn Hallinan’s overview:
http://fpif.org/the-dark-saudi-israeli-plot-to-tip-the-scales-in-syria/
(#2) Robert Fisk reports on the Jisr al Shughour hospital siege:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/the-syria-hospital-siege-thatturned-into-a-massacre-jisr-alshugour-breakout-was-less-of-a-victory-than-damascus-claims-10301084.html
(#3) SBS Dateline: Najieb Khaja meets former Australian preacher Abu Sulayman Muhajir, ‘leading figure in Jabhat an Nusra’, and provides a platform for his political viewpoint against Syria:
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/dateline/story/western-jihadis-australian-speaks-out-syrias-frontline
(#4) ABC Background Briefing; Sara Dingle speaks to Australian supporters of ISIS, but also provides a platform for their false portrayals of Bashar al Assad and his government:
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/backgroundbriefing/2015-03-22/6325498
(#5) Veteran investigative journalist Seymour Hersh on questions over the Sarin attack in Ghouta of August 21st 2013:
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n24/seymour-m-hersh/whose-sarin
(#6) The Red line and the Rat line: (please note also the response in Letters from Richard Postol and Theodore Lloyd of MIT following the article)
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line
(#7) Defence department predictions for ISIS in 2012 obtained by Judicial Watch:
http://levantreport.com/2015/05/19/2012-defense-intelligence-agency-document-west-will-facilitate-rise-of-islamic-state-in-order-to-isolate-the-syrian-regime/
(#8) Alastair Crooke, former MI6 agent and specialist on ‘Political Islam’, on the coming war:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alastair-crooke/syria-iraq-fractured_b_7471540.html?utm_hp_ref=tw%3ESunni
(#9) Sharmine Narwani with an Iraqi and ‘Resistance’ viewpoint on the US failure to combat ISIS:
http://rt.com/op-edge/262393-isis-us-coalition-syria-iraq/
(#10) Tony Cartalucci on IS ‘umbilical’:
http://journal-neo.org/2015/06/09/logistics-101-where-does-isis-get-its-guns/
(#11) Richard Norton Taylor on the collapse of the trial of Bherlin Gildo vs UK: (Gildo’s defence referred to evidence cited by Hersh in ‘the red line and rat line’, amongst other information showing Western collusion with terrorist groups including Jabhat an Nusra, which Gildo supported)
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/01/trial-swedish-man-accused-terrorism-offences-collapse-bherlin-gildo

Allegations by Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott against Russia may have no solid basis, but could escalate world tensions. Many people view these allegations as propaganda to provide a platform for eventual NATO aggression. These allegations have recently been reinforced by Julie Bishop, Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, as a reason for applying sanctions against Russia. See "Russia Sanctions based on False Statement by Julie Bishop, Australian Foreign Affairs and Trade Minister"http://candobetter.net/node/4437".

12 May 2015

The Prime Minister,

Dear Mr Abbott,

Would you please let me know the evidence and documentation the Prime Minister or the person who wrote this statement has used to make the serious allegations highlighted in yellow below about the Russian Government, which I also cite below in case the highlighting does not come through.

I am concerned that they may actually have no solid basis and that this and similar press releases will escalate hostilities and the threat of nuclear war by misleading public and politicians.

Allegations:

My inquiry is for a freelance article in the public interest which will be published on candobetter.net among other outlets.

sincerely,

Sheila Newman
03 97835047

01 September 2014

Prime Minister

EXPANDED SANCTIONS AGAINST RUSSIA

The Government is deeply concerned by escalating events in Ukraine.

Russia has been engaged in a campaign to destabilise Ukraine for months. As a consequence, 38 people who called Australia home were brutally murdered, along with many others, when

The situation has recently worsened as Russia steps up its persistent and deliberate violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty.

in defiance of Ukraine’s sovereignty, the international community and international law.

As Russia refuses to heed the international community’s call to de-escalate the crisis and instead is further fuelling it, the Government will expand Australia’s autonomous sanctions and travel bans relating to Russia.

This is being done in coordination with our partners in the US, Canada and Europe.

Australia’s expanded sanctions will include:

restrictions on arms exports;
restrictions on the access of Russian state-owned banks to Australian capital markets;
preventing the export of goods and services for use in Russia’s oil exploration or production;
restrictions on Australian trade and investment in Crimea; and
targeted financial sanctions and travel bans on an additional 63 Russian and Ukrainian individuals and 21 entities (taking the total number of financial sanctions and travel bans to 113 individuals and 32 entities).

These measures build on Australia’s existing financial sanctions and travel bans, announced in March this year.

They reaffirm Australia’s clear and unequivocal support for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine.

Australia stands with countries around the world in urging Russia to de-escalate tensions, pull back its military, and engage in genuine dialogue with Ukraine.

We remain determined to see the perpetrators of the cowardly attack on Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 brought to justice. We owe this to the innocent victims and their families.

The Government does not rule out further sanctions in the future.

Russia must understand that if it does not act to defuse the current situation, the cost to its economy and international standing will grow.

1 September 2014
Source: https://www.pm.gov.au/media/2014-09-01/expanded-sanctions-against-russia

Julie Bishop is the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. Recently she issued sanctions against Russia on the basis of a presumption that Flight MH17 had been shot down by a surface-to-air missile from Ukrainian territory under the control of Russian-backed separatists. Minister Julie Bishop justified these sanctions by repeating allegations by the Prime Minister of the causes and origins of damage to MH17 which she described as consistent with statements in the Preliminary Report by the Dutch Safety Board. In fact the Preliminary Report does not seem to contain any such evidence and it actually seems to contradict Ms Bishop's statement. (Furthermore, the ABC has long since apologised for promoting a similar view, agreeing that there is no conclusive evidence. See ABC Australia apologises for bias against Russia in reporting MH17 crash and general tag: http://candobetter.net/taxonomy/term/585.)

Crucial to any assumption of guilt, no-one has yet supplied a motive for Russia to have backed such an alleged attack on a passenger aircraft, but the United States has a history of false flag incidents involving aircraft.[1]
Whilst Russia lacked any apparent motive to shoot down a civilian aircraft intentionally, Kiev took advantage of the crash to escalate its armed assault on the area. The refusal of the US to provide satellite surveillance data requested by Russia is suspicious. An agreement signed on 8 August 2014 between Ukraine, the Netherlands, Belgium and Australia giving any member of the agreement the right to veto publication of the results of the investigation is hardly reassuring for truth seekers.

Unwise polarisation

It is of great concern that Australia seems to be taking sides in formal foreign policy in an internationally tense situation between superpowers based on such prejudiced and premature interpretation of events.

Narrow public consultation

Prior to instituting these sanctions against Russia, DFAT advertised on its site and circularised some trade contacts requesting submissions regarding proposed sanctions and received only four. Two were confidential and two were entirely commercially oriented. There was no wider canvassing for submissions from the general public. It appears that there was no associated discussion about the forensic position on MH17 or the political consequences beyond narrow commercial ones. See correspondence with the legal department of the Sanctions Section at DFAT. [2]

Letter sent to DFAT re concerns

I have sent a letter to the Media Liaison Unit of DFAT, (reproduced in this article) asking for them to please point me to where the Dutch report bears out Ms Bishop's statement but have received no response in the past 12 days. A similar letter sent the same day to Prime Minister Abbott (who made similar statements on September 1) has also gone unanswered. See "Concern that Abbott position on MH17 has no solid basis and is unfair to Russia." I am therefore drawing this matter to public attention because I am concerned that our position against Russia is unwise and unjust in a time when increased international tension may magnify consequences and highlights the need for restraint.

Letter emailed by Sheila Newman to DFAT Media Liason on May 12, 2015.

Dear Sir/Madam,

The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties (JSCOT) Australian Parliament held an inquiry into the Treaty between Australia and the Kingdom of the Netherlands on the presence of Australian personnel in the Netherlands for the purpose of responding to the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17. Because of the urgent nature of the treaty it was fast tracked under the National Interest Exemption provisions and came into effect on the date it was signed, 1 August 2014. The treaty was tabled in the Parliament on 30 September 2014 and the Committee called for submissions until 10 October 2014. The public hearing was held on 27 October 2014 and tabled its report on 12 February 2015. (Report 146: Treaty tabled on 30 September 2014)

In the statement referenced below promoting the Australian-Dutch Treaty by Julie Bishop, Ms Bishop repeats allegations by the Prime Minister of the causes and origins of damage to MH17 which she says are consistent with statements in the Preliminary Report by the Dutch Safety Board. Could your office please point me to where this report bears out Ms Bishop's statement highlighted below regarding the 'Australian Government's initial assessment' because I cannot find the evidence and the report actually seems to contradict Ms Bishop's statement below:

"On 9 September, the preliminary report by the Dutch Safety Board into the incident was released. Its purpose is to determine the cause of the incident – not to attribute blame or liability.

I welcome the preliminary report as a clear step towards achieving the full, thorough and independent international investigation sought by Resolution 2166.

The damage to the aircraft documented in this preliminary report is consistent with the Australian Government’s initial assessment - voiced as early as the morning of 18 July - that MH17 had been shot down by a surface-to-air missile from Ukrainian territory under the control of Russian-backed separatists. [3]

On 19 September I attended a special meeting of the United Nations Security Council in New York on MH17. Members of the Security Council firmly rejected Russia’s attempt to discredit the investigation into the downing of MH17 and reaffirmed their support for the International Dutch-led criminal investigation." Source: http://foreignminister.gov.au/speeches/Pages/2014/jb_sp_140930.aspx

HOWEVER, when you go to the actual Dutch preliminary report, what she says is not confirmed.

(1) The report describes multiple small holes consistent with a large number of 'high energy objects' penetrating the aircraft from outside; (2) The report does not seem to have anything to say about where those penetrating objects came from. I.e. it does not locate their origin at all let alone in the Russian- 'backed' separatists area.

"The pattern of damage observed in the forward fuselage and cockpit section of the aircraft was consistent with the damage that would be expected from a large number of high-energy objects that penetrated the aircraft from outside." [The report contains a number of highly illustrative photos of aircraft exterior peppered with holes. ] Source:http://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/uploads/phase-docs/701/b3923acad0ceprem-rapport-mh-17-en-interactief.pdf

REFERENCES

[1] See for instance the Lockerbie bombing allegations where Libya was railroaded and the United States flouted international law. And the destruction of the Iran Airbus by the U.S.S. Vincennes during the summer of 1988 about six months before the Lockerbie bombing, in which a US Navy Captain shot down an Iranian civilian airliner in 1988 and escaped with a bare minimum of sanctions. Boyle, Francis A. (2013-09-11). Destroying Libya and World Order: The Three-Decade US Campaign to Terminate the Qaddafi Revolution, Clarity Press. Discussion pp. 107-144.

[2] Dear Ms Newman

Thank you for your message.

As the Australian Government sanctions regulator, our primary role is responding to applications from Australian businesses for sanctions permits. You should direct any further concerns about Australian Government policies in relation to Russia to your local Member of Parliament.

As you know, the Australian Government announced the introduction of autonomous sanctions in relation to Russia in 2014. Here are the links to the Government’s statements in this regard:

Foreign Minister

Ukraine situation: Australia announces sanctions
http://www.foreignminister.gov.au/releases/Pages/2014/jb_mr_140319.aspx?ministerid=4

Further sanctions to support Ukraine
http://foreignminister.gov.au/releases/Pages/2014/jb_mr_140521.aspx?ministerid=4

Sanctions in support of Ukraine commence
http://foreignminister.gov.au/releases/Pages/2014/jb_mr_140619b.aspx?ministerid=4

Expanded sanctions against Russia come into force
http://www.foreignminister.gov.au/releases/Pages/2015/jb_mr_150331b.aspx?ministerid=4

Prime Minister
Expanded sanctions against Russia

https://www.pm.gov.au/media/2014-09-01/expanded-sanctions-against-russia

In amending the Autonomous Sanctions Regulations, DFAT conducted a public consultation process, which was advertised on DFAT’s website and emailed to our sanctions mailing list. The submissions that were not published were marked confidential by their authors.

Regards

Sanctions Section

_______________________________
Sanctions, Treaties and Transnational Crime Legal Branch
International Legal Division

Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
www.dfat.gov.au/sanctions

[3] Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17
Statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Hon Julie Bishop MP
Speech, E&OE
Parliament House, Canberra
30 September 2014

"I rise today to table the Treaty between Australia and the Kingdom of the Netherlands on the presence of Australian personnel in the Netherlands for the purpose of responding to the downing of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17. The treaty is accompanied by a National Interest Analysis.

We live in an increasingly interconnected world where events far from home can have profound implications for us.
On 17 July, Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur was shot down over separatist-held territory in eastern Ukraine killing all 298 passengers and crew on board. It was a civilian aircraft in civilian airspace, with the wreckage landing in a war zone. In a cruel twist of fate Australia was suddenly at the fulcrum of the Russia– Ukraine conflict.

Among those killed were 38 passengers who called Australia home - and another three with close links to Australia. We have been profoundly saddened by the loss of so many Australians. Among them: a 25 year-old travelling in Europe, like so many young Australians do; a couple, both doctors in Toowoomba, at the end of a six-week holiday; three young Western Australian children travelling with their grandfather, returning home for the start of the school term. All innocent people, for whom we continue to grieve.

In response to this horrific crime, the Government launched Operation Bring Them Home – our contribution to international efforts to secure, identify and repatriate the remains of the victims, to investigate the cause of the incident and to hold those responsible to account.

Australia authored UN Security Council Resolution 2166 which was endorsed unanimously on 21 July. It called for a ceasefire to access the crash site, and a full, thorough and independent investigation into the downing of MH17. During that debate I said:

“Our resolution demands that armed groups in control of the crash site provide safe access immediately to allow for the recovery of the bodies, and that these armed groups stop any actions that compromise the integrity of the crash site. This is imperative.

“There must be a ceasefire in the immediate area around the site. The victims must be treated with dignity, brought back to their homes and laid to rest. All parties are required to fully cooperate with these efforts. Russia must use its influence over the separatists to ensure this. Russia must also use its influence to bring the conflict in Ukraine to an end.
“Our resolution also demands a full, thorough and independent international investigation into this act. We must have answers. We must have justice. We owe it to the victims and their families to determine what happened and who was responsible.”

Over 500 Australian police, military, diplomatic and consular personnel were deployed to Ukraine and the Netherlands in support of these efforts.

As of today, 251 victims have been identified by the Identification Commission in The Hague. We have representation on that Commission and its work is assisted by a number of technical experts from Australia.

Out of respect for the families involved, I will not confirm the number of Australian victims that have been identified to date, however it will be some time before the identification process is complete. I attended two memorial services at Eindhoven airbase in the Netherlands and I acknowledge again the outstanding efforts of the Netherlands in bringing dignity and respect to the retrieval process.

In parallel to the process of recovering, identifying and repatriating remains, an investigation into the cause of the crash, as required by the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation, is underway.

The investigation has broad international participation, drawing on experts from France, Germany, Indonesia, Italy, Malaysia, Russia, Ukraine, the United Kingdom and the United States, as well as from the European Aviation Safety Agency and the International Civil Aviation Organisation.

On 9 September, the preliminary report by the Dutch Safety Board into the incident was released. Its purpose is to determine the cause of the incident – not to attribute blame or liability.

I welcome the preliminary report as a clear step towards achieving the full, thorough and independent international investigation sought by Resolution 2166.

See also: Someone's Already Fighting ISIS: The Syrian Arab Army (15/9/14) by Tony Cartalucci.

To better understand the seemingly perplexing recent developments in Iraq and Syria, please read 1 Washington Menaces America with Its ISIS Creation (11/9/14) by Tony Cartalucci (aka Land Destroyer), 2 The ISIL Caliphate in Iraq and Syria, “Made in America” (13/9/14) by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya—included interview embedded here as Appendix 3—and 3 Australian-Syrian organisation begs Obama to work with Syrian Government against ISIL (13/9/14), including embedded interview with the Syrian Girl, here on candobetter.

At 7.29PM on Saturday 13 September, the Melbourne Age newspaper published the story Julie Bishop condemns Syria over use of toxic weapons. A search of the Internet revealed, the OPCW media release of 10 Sep in which the claim was originally made. 10 September 2014 is only 2 days after Syria's cache of chemical weapons was destroyed under a United Nations monitored program (see Appendix 2). That media release failed to show where, on the OPCW site, the report, upon which it was supposedly based, was located. Other stories, based on that media release, include:

(OPCW): Chlorine probably used in Syria (10 Sep), OPCW claims evidence of toxic chemical use in Syria (10 Sep), OPCW: Chlorine gas used as weapon in Syria (Kuwait News Agency, 10 Sep), Syrian government continues 'horrific chemical attacks' (Channel 4, 10 Sep), Chemical watchdog confirms "likely" use of chlorine in Syria attacks (Deutsche Welle, 10 Sep), Chlorine gas used in Syria attacks, says OPCW (Panorama, 13 Sep), Weapons watchdog: Chlorine likely used in Syria (Blackburn News, 10 Sep), OPCW confirms 'systematic' chlorine attacks in Syria (The Daily Star, Lebanon, 10 Sep), Syria crisis: Chlorine gas used in attacks, says OPCW (BBC, 10 Sep),OPCW: Compelling evidence that toxic chlorine was used in Syria (Memo Middle East Monitor, 13 Sep).

The press release of 10 September 2014 by the Organisation for the prevention of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), referred to above, is OPCW Fact Finding Mission: "Compelling Confirmation" That Chlorine Gas Used as Weapon in Syria. It commences:

The fact-finding mission (FFM) appointed by the OPCW Director-General to examine alleged uses of chlorine gas as a weapon in Syria has found information constituting "compelling confirmation" that a toxic chemical was used "systematically and repeatedly" as a weapon in villages in northern Syria earlier this year.

The report that allegedly substantiates the above and other allegations in the remaining 4 paragraphs of the press release (see Appendix 1, below) is nowhere to be found.

The sudden appearance of 'evidence' of the use of chemical weapons only days after the destruction of Syria's chemical weapons stockpile (see Appendix 2) would seem most convenient for the Obama administration which has stated its intention to violate Syrian airspace to supposedly destroy the ISIS insurgency in Iraq and Syria.

Given that 88.7% of the 77.342% of eligible Syrian voters voted for President Bashar al-Assad in the certified elections of 4 June 2014 (see Syria's press conference the United Nations doesn't want you to see of 21 June 2014 for press conference by international observers who testified for the validity of the elections) what would President Assad have stood to gain by trying to kill Syrians whom he would have known had supported his government?

Appendix 1: Media release of the OPCW of 10 September

OPCW Fact Finding Mission: "Compelling Confirmation" That Chlorine Gas Used as Weapon in Syria

Editorial comment: I could not find a copy of the report referred to in this media release anywhere on the page on which it was published or anywhere on the OPCW web-site.

The fact-finding mission (FFM) appointed by the OPCW Director-General to examine alleged uses of chlorine gas as a weapon in Syria has found information constituting "compelling confirmation" that a toxic chemical was used "systematically and repeatedly" as a weapon in villages in northern Syria earlier this year.

In its second report that includes key findings, the Mission states that "the descriptions, physical properties, behaviour of the gas, and signs and symptoms resulting from exposure, as well as the response of patients to the treatment, leads the FFM to conclude with a high degree of confidence that chlorine, either pure or in mixture, is the toxic chemical in question."

The report says chlorine was used in attacks on the villages of Talmanes, Al Tamanah and Kafr Zeta, all located in northern Syria. In May this year, the FFM had attempted to visit Kafr Zeta to gather on-site evidence in the aftermath of an alleged use there but was prevented from doing so when the convoy was attacked. The FFM then decided to carry out witness interviews in a safe location outside of Syria.

The FFM's report presents the key findings from dozens of interviews with victims, physicians, first responders and eyewitnesses to the attacks, together with a considerable amount of documentation such as video, medical records and other evidence collected since the publication of the FFM's first report in mid-June.

Following the establishment of the FFM in late April 2014, there was a marked reduction in reported chlorine attacks in the months of May, June and July. But there was a spate of new allegations in August. The Director-General has asked the FFM to continue its work.

Appendix 2: Report from the Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) of 8 September

Al-Moallem expresses appreciation to Kaag for success of OPCW-UN mission

Damascus, SANA – Deputy Prime Minister, Foreign and Expatriates Minister Walid al-Moallem met Head of the joint mission of the Organisation for the Prohibition of the Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and the United Nations Sigrid Kaag and the accompanying delegation.

The meeting came as part of Kaag's final visit to Syria since the joint mission, which deals with eliminating the chemical weapons in Syria, is winding up its work and will be concluded by the end of September.

Talks during the meeting touched upon the achievements made in terms of Syria implementing its obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), which Syria joined in September of 2013.

Minister al-Moallem expressed his deep appreciation and thanks to Kaag for the efforts she and her team put to have the mission of the destruction of Syria's chemical weapons accomplished.

For her part, Kaag said she was pleased with the achievements made and voiced her gratitude for the Syrian government's "constructive" and "fruitful" cooperation which led to those achievements.

She described the accomplishment of the mission as "unprecedented" achievement, which she said would not have succeeded without the Syrian authorities' cooperation with the joint OPCW-UN mission.

Kaag stressed that in light of this achievement, the Syrian state must be viewed as a member state in the CWC.

Haifa Said

Appendix 3: Embedded video interview with Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

The above embedded video is from Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya's Global Research article The ISIL Caliphate in Iraq and Syria, "Made in America" (13/9/1)

A report by the Sydney Morning Herald titled, "Julie Bishop says 'petulant' Russian sanctions reflect its lack of acceptance for role in MH17 disaster," claims that Foreign Minister Julie Bishop says Russia's "petulant" trade sanctions on Australian food imports is yet another example of Moscow trying to evade responsibility for the downing of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17. No evidence for Bishop's position is provided. (See also: Malaysian Mainstream Media: MH17 was downed by a Military Aircraft, "Cannon Fire from Fighter Jet". Article by Tony Cartalucci, previously published 8/8/14 on the Land Destroyer Report and Global Research.)

Bishop fails to indicate why Russia should or would accept responsibility for downing an aircraft when no evidence whatsoever even suggests such culpability. Canberra, Washington, London, and Brussels are citing dubious YouTube videos, Facebook, and other forms of "social media," while Russia has provided radar and satellite pictures and has repeatedly called for and supported a proper, independent, impartial investigation into the incident.

Since no such investigation has been concluded, Julie Bishop is not citing the conclusions of such a process, but merely repeating baseless accusations. These are the same variety of baseless, tenuous lies the West used to sell interventions in Iraq, Libya, and Syria that have devastated entire regions of the planet and left well over a million innocent human beings dead.

This latest from Canberra is the continued leveraging and exploitation of human tragedy to advance a political agenda, not ascertain the truth or seek true justice. Australia's latest comments represent the greater truth behind the West's international agenda – that it is global anarchy dressed up as global order – the rule of the jungle sporting the fig leaf of "rule of law."

Julie Bishop demands Russia take "responsibility," but will she take responsibility for leveling baseless accusations against an entire nation? Defamatory accusations would be grounds for resignation – at least in an administration guided by justice and truth. Each day now that Bishop retains her post is an indictment against the government of Australia's utter lack of both.