Contemporary politics,local and international current affairs, science, music and extracts from the Queensland Newspaper "THE WORKER" documenting the proud history of the Labour Movement.
MAHATMA GANDHI ~ Truth never damages a cause that is just.
United States President Donald Trump has sacked
acting Attorney-General Sally Yates after she directed Justice
Department attorneys not to defend his controversial executive refugee
and immigration ban.
Ms Yates had said she was not convinced Mr Trump's travel ban was lawful.
"I
am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain
consistent with this institution's solemn obligation to always seek
justice and stand for what is right," Ms Yates said.
"At present, I
am not convinced that the defence of the executive order is consistent
with these responsibilities, nor am I convinced that the executive order
is lawful."
The Democratic appointee's directive was likely to be
temporary, given that Senator Jeff Sessions, Mr Trump's pick for
attorney-general, will likely move to uphold the president's policy.
Mr Sessions is awaiting Senate confirmation.
Still, Ms Yates's abrupt decision deepened the chaos surrounding Mr Trump's order.
At
least three top national security officials — Defence Secretary James
Mattis, Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly and Rex Tillerson, who is
awaiting confirmation to lead the State Department — have told
associates they were not aware of details of directive until around the
time Mr Trump signed it.
Leading intelligence officials were also left largely in the dark, according to US officials.
Tennessee
senator Bob Corker, the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations
committee, said that despite White House assurances that congressional
leaders were consulted, he learned about the order in the media.
The
fallout was immediate, with friction growing between Mr Trump and his
top advisers and a rush by the Pentagon to seek exemptions to the
policy.
The White House approach also sparked an unusually public
clash between a president and the civil servants tasked with carrying
out his policy.
White House divide deepens as Trump doubles down
A
large group of American diplomats circulated a memo voicing their
opposition to the order, which temporarily halted the entire US refugee
program and banned all entries from seven Muslim-majority nations for 90
days.
In a combative response, White House spokesman Sean Spicer challenged those opposed to the measure to resign.
"They should either get with the program or they can go," Mr Spicer said.
The
blowback underscored Mr Trump's tenuous relationship with his own
national security advisers, many of whom he met for the first time
during the transition, as well as with the Government bureaucracy he now
leads.
While Mr Trump outlined his plan for temporarily halting
entry to the US from countries with terror ties during the campaign, the
confusing way in which it finally was crafted stunned some who have
joined his team.
Mr Mattis, who stood next to Mr Trump during the signing ceremony, is said to be particularly incensed.
A
senior US official said Mr Mattis, along with Joint Chiefs chairman
Joseph Dunford, was aware of the general concept of Mr Trump's order,
but not the details.
US officials and others with knowledge of the
Cabinet's thinking insisted on anonymity in order to disclose the
officials' private views.
Beaming Radio Australia around the world on
shortwave
Updated 15 May 2014, 12:40 AEST
Inside the studios of Radio Australia, it's all hustle and bustle,
but you'll need to travel 200 kilometers up the road to find the
place where the international broadcaster's signal is beamed to the
region. Radio Australia's transmission site is based in Shepparton,
in central Victoria. The site was first used for ABC broadcasts
in 1944.
Chosen for its flat landscape and soil conductivity, the site is
600 acres, or 200 hectares, and is home to seven transmitters of 100
kilowatt capacity.
There are 13 antennas supported by masts 70 metres tall that beam
Radio Australia's signal up to the ionosphere. The signal bounces off
the ionosphere and is sent back to Earth in the direction of the
receiving transmitter.
It's a precise art that's been mastered by the seven staff whose
duties also include maintaining the facility and equipment.
Terry Fahey is the team leader at the Radio Australia transmission
site and has had plenty of time to perfect his behind the scenes
radio technical skills. After all, he's been sending our signal to
you for 34 years. Extract from
Click to hear the Radio Australia Tuning Signal
and Opening Announcements, December 1964!
2012 - entrance to the Station
1945 - transmitter hall
Beginnings
Soon
after the onset of the European Conflict in 1939, discussions
took place between the imperial leaders in
London and the government leaders in Canada and Australia. These
discussions focused
on the setting up of large international
shortwave stations for use as a possible backup for the BBC Empire
Service in England.
Work moved ahead in both countries, and two
large shortwave bases were established; Sackville in Canada for Radio
Canada International
and Shepparton in Australia for "Australia
Calling".
Site
surveys for the Australian shortwave station were conducted
in many areas of south eastern Australia, and
finally the decision settled upon a grassland location of 200 hectares
in the
fertile fruit-growing Goulburn valley of
central Victoria. This site, 6 km north of the town of Shepparton, on Verney
Rd, Lemnos, was reasonably accessible to the
three major cities, Canberra, Sydney and Melbourne, and it was suitable
propagationally for a large shortwave
station.
February 1943 The
main transmitter
hall was completed in February 1943, and even
though it was designed to contain three transmitters, yet none could be
found.
Finally, an agreement was reached with the
United States, and a 50 kW RCA transmitter, originally allocated to the
"Voice
of America", was diverted for installation at
Shepparton.
The
agreement between the American and Australian governments
included a proviso that this lendlease
transmitter should also carry a relay of programming from the "Voice of
America". Thus
it was, that the 90 minute daily program, the
"Philippine Hour", was heard on relay from "Australia Calling" in
Australia
for a year or two.
1961 - transmitter hall
1959 - transmitter hall
1973 - main transmitter room - 100 kW unit
1962 - Control Panel for antenna switching and skewing
1959 - antennas
May 1 1944 This
new
lendlease transmitter from the
United States was installed at Shepparton and it was inaugurated, with
programming co-ordinated
in the ABC studios in Melbourne and
fed by landline to the shortwave transmitter at Shepparton, a distance
of 180 km.
Two
additional transmitters at 100 kW were manufactured
in Sydney as a joint effort between
AWA and STC and these were installed at Shepparton under the callsigns
VLA and VLB. A
total of 19 antennas were erected at
Shepparton, mostly curtains with passive reflectors.
August
15 1945 Transmitter VLA was inaugurated, and just four days later, VLB was inaugurated.
All three of these transmitters incorporated two channels
of programming access.
In
preparation for the 1956 Olympic Games in Melboune,
two new transmitters were installed
at Shepparton. Another American made RCA unit at 50 kW was designated as
VLD, and an Australian
made STC unit at 10 kW was
designated as VLY.Soon
afterwards, during a modernisation
program, one of the channels in each
of the three transmitters at Shepparton was split off and incorporated
into a new transmitter.
The newly derived transmitters were
activated with the callsigns VLC, VLE, and VLF. However, the callsigns
in use at Shepparton
became so complicated that they were
abandoned at the end of October 1961.
Australian Government's
Policy DecisionsIn the 1960s, the Australian Government made a major policy decision that it would progressively
abandon its services for areas outside of the Asia/Pacific region. This
was a consequence
of a decision that RA would provide a
ring of shortwave services into neighbouring countries, a policy which
survives to the
present.
For
many years, I provided part-time engineering support
and consultancy to Radio Australia,
when it was part of the Post Office, as well as preparing scripts and
tapes for the various
Communications programs, including
DXers Calling.
In those
years, I was privy
to many proposals and plans, which
at the time were classified confidential, and were neither divulged nor
released to the
outside world.
That
included Policy Papers concerning RA’s refusal
to permit any foreign broadcasting
service to use the Shepparton facilities, in the “national interest”
A
related policy concerned the Govt's decision not
to allow the construction of any
international broadcasting facility on Australian soil, except in very
special circumstances.
The
decision to allow HCJB to set up its station at
Kununurra, Western Australia, in
1975, came as a complete surprise to many of us in the industry, which
was a complete about-face of an established policy.
It
was well known that it took several years for approval to be
handed by the Govt to set up the new station.
The
establishment of RA’s new facility at the Cox Peninsula, near
Darwin in 1969 also came as a
surprise, as the policies of the time did not support the building of
such a facility so close
to our northern neighbours. There
was already a large military communications facility
at North West Cape, at Exmouth,
Western Australia, and concerns had been raised at the reasons for
setting up a RA station
so close to a facility which had
been believed to be a prime target for airborne terrorist attacks
Just
as surprisingly,
the Government’s decision to abandon
the Cox Peninsula station in 1996 came unexpectedly, which had been
triggered by
growing political unrest and turmoil
acrossSouthern Asia.
Facilities in 2012There are
seven transmitters
of 100 kW carrying exclusively the
international programming of Radio Australia. There are 13 antennas,
supported by masts
70 metres tall. The site is owned
and operated by Broadcast Australia, employing seven full time staff.
March 2015As a
result of massive
budget cuts across the ABC, all
transmissions from Shepparton to Asia were cancelled. Broadcasts in
English, Tok Pijsin and
French continued only for the
primary service area for the Pacific, from three transmitters.
Transmissions in Chinese, Indonesian
and Thai were cancelled. Services
in Tok Pisin ware reduced. A 5-minute news broadcast in French continued
on Mondays to Fridays, intended for
New Caledonia, Vanuatu and other French speaking communities in the
western Pacific.
The ABC has been heavily criticised by Northern Territory residents since it announced in December it would save $1.9 million by cutting the transmission.
ABC
Radio is currently broadcast throughout remote parts of Australia, as
well as to international audiences in the Pacific islands.
Mick
Hutton from Beadell Tours, who regularly travels through the western
deserts with tourists, said there was no other service available to
replace the shortwave.
"The ABC broadcast over that HF radio is
about our only connection during daylight hours with what's going on in
the world," he said.
"That's about the only news, reliable weather forecasts, including your emergency warnings for bushfires and cyclones.
"That's all you've got - there isn't anything else because there's no mobile phone service."
Mr Hutton said once the service ends, travellers would need to use a satellite phone to source news.
"There won't be any avenue for an emergency service broadcast and that's probably the most worrying," he said.
"There
are all sorts of things that can be done notifying people but it's
exceptionally difficult if the people you're trying to notify don't have
the equipment to be notified on."
'At least 5,000' people tuning into ABC's shortwave radio services
A shortwave radio supplier estimates 5,000 people regularly use a shortwave in Australia and the Pacific to listen to ABC Radio.
Garry Cratt from Tecsun Radio Australia said
the ABC should continue to provide people with basic information,
especially those who cannot otherwise access other services.
"I
think it's fair to say there would be several thousand in the Pacific
that would be listening to Radio Australia on a daily basis," he said.
"Of course there are all those people in yachts and they're in an itinerant listening group, and then the stockmen as well.
"I'd say there is at least 5,000."
Mr Cratt took exception to the ABC's assertion that the shortwave radio is now 100-years-old and outdated.
He said his business recently shipped 500 radios to the Solomon Islands to be distributed to outlying villages.
"The
Solomon Islands do have a fairly unreliable domestic shortwave service
themselves but most people listen to Radio Australia," he said.
"A
lot of the places that do receive Radio Australia, there is no power
for a start, so they're relying on batteries and solar panels.
"The
people that are listening, that will be affected, are those people who
are maybe still back in the last century but that's not their fault."
In a previous statement, the ABC said "the move is in
line with the national broadcaster's commitment to dispense with
outdated technology and to expand its digital content offerings
including DAB+ digital radio, online and mobile services, together with
FM services for international audiences.
"The majority of ABC
audiences in the Northern Territory currently access ABC services via AM
and FM and all ABC radio and digital radio services are available on
the VAST satellite service."
Earlier on Wednesday, NT Labor
Senator Malarndirri McCarthy posted on social media that she was meeting
the ABC's managing director Michelle Guthrie to discuss the shortwave.
"We listen to ABC, now you listen to Territorians," she tweeted.
The end of shortwave transmission services is scheduled for January 31.
South Australian senator Nick Xenophon says he will
introduce legislation to Parliament to force the ABC to reinstate its
shortwave radio service, which is ending today.
Key points:
Xenophon says the ABC has underestimated the impact of its decision
ABC says shortwave radio is outdated technology
Pastoralists, remote communities among those calling for reversal of decision
The ABC announced in December that it would switch off
its shortwave transmission to remote parts of northern Australia and
across the Pacific.
Mr Xenophon said his introduction of
legislation next week was not the ideal way to handle the issue, but
something had to be done.
"This is a pretty messy way of doing it — putting up a bill — but it will force the ABC management to account," he said.
"If it means part of the solution is trying to squeeze more money out of the Government, then so be it."
Mr Xenophon said he believed the ABC had underestimated the impact of its decision.
"The
fact is this will affect thousands of Australians who are in remote
areas, but it seems it will affect many tens of thousands, perhaps
hundreds of thousands of people who are regular Radio Australia
listeners throughout the region," Mr Xenophon told Radio Australia's Pacific Beat program.
"This
is an essential service not just for the bush in Australia but for the
region. I hope I can get bipartisan support to reverse this decision."
The
ABC said shortwave technology was out of date and it would save $1.9
million by cutting the service, which it said would be reinvested in
expanding content and services.
The national broadcaster said in a
statement there would be a transition program and it "has offered
comprehensive advice on how to best access emergency information, ABC
News and entertainment".
Pastoralists, fishermen among those angered by decision
But
the decision has prompted widespread criticism from federal and
Northern Territory MPs, pastoralists, fishermen and tour operators, as
well as from communities across the Pacific.
"This is shocking
news, totally shocking news," said Francesca Semoso, Deputy Speaker of
Bougainville's Parliament in Papua New Guinea.
"The reason being that wherever you go — if you are up
on the rooftop of your house, if you are up in the mountains in
Bougainville, if you are down in the valleys, in the Pacific islands in
Papua New Guinea, in Bougainville — the only medium that can reach me at
that location is shortwave."
Northern Territory Cattlemen's
Association chief executive Tracey Hayes said the move would have a
profound impact on the wellbeing of isolated workers and families.
"There will be just silence in the vehicle and they would have had no contact with the outside world," she said.
"I can't imagine what it is going to be like for people who are being put in that position."
Norther
Territory MP Gerry McCarthy said he had invited ABC managing director
Michelle Guthrie to his remote electorate to listen to people affected
by the decision.
"Come to the
Northern Territory for a start, consult with the people that are
affected, real Australians out there in remote areas," he said.
"Also
we've offered the help and support of the [Northern Territory]
Department of Housing and Community Development to go and do some
serious analysis about who are the users of shortwave."
ABC Radio
will continue to broadcast across the Northern Territory on FM and AM
bands, via the viewer access satellite television (VAST) service,
streaming online and via the smartphone app.
TRUCKED OFF!
Garry Williams is a long haul truckie based in SA with Gilberts
Transport Service, a great family owned business. He is pretty
“trucked off” that on the 31st of January, ABC management in
Sydney will kill off its shortwave broadcast from the Northern
Territory which will affect thousands, including truck drivers,
remote area communities in the far north of SA, and large parts of
the Territory.
The $1.9 million that the ABC will save is peanuts compared to
their billion dollar budget and is a kick in the guts to
Australians living and working in remote parts of Australia.
Garry made the point that, for a large part of his trip to
Darwin, from Tuesday he will be able to pick up shortwave
broadcasts in Mandarin and Japanese and other Asian languages, but
not from Australia’s national broadcaster which is relied on for
news and emergency announcements. Shame.
Along with my colleagues, I’ll be putting up legislation in
the parliament to mandate that the ABC reinstates this critical
service.
The American public needs to know the real reasons behind the arbitrary list of countries
‘Of course, excluding all Saudis and Egyptians from entering the United States is a bad idea.’
Photograph: Mark Wilson/Getty Images
When President Trump issued executive orders limiting immigration
on Friday, it appears there was at least one important omission. He has
failed to instruct the National Park Service to put a hood over the
Statue of Liberty, the world’s most renowned symbol of freedom.
It is not the only omission. In identifying Muslim-majority countries
from which refugees and visas will be blocked because of concerns about
terrorism, Trump left out Saudi Arabia.
Yet most of those who hijacked airliners to attack New York and
Washington DC on 9/11, the deadliest terrorist episode in history, were
Saudis.
Does Trump shy away from offending Saudi Arabia because he has
business dealings with wealthy Saudis? Or because he expects them to
curry favor by patronizing his new hotel in Washington? We don’t know.
By refusing to release his tax returns and by refusing to divest himself of his businesses, he raises such questions.
Another country left off the list is Egypt. Yet the leader of the 9/11 hijackers was Mohammed Atta, an Egyptian. Was Egypt
omitted because Trump is developing a warm relationship with the
country’s brutal dictator, General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi? Again, we don’t
know.
Of course, excluding all Saudis and Egyptians from entering the US is
a bad idea. Applicants for refugee status or visas should be considered
individually. Yet failing to exclude them highlights the arbitrariness
of barring all those from some countries whose nationals have had no
part in terrorism in the US.
During his campaign, Trump focused particularly on excluding Syrian
refugees, calling them “the ultimate Trojan horse”. It must be
acknowledged that despite the extreme suffering they have endured, the
US was not especially welcoming of Syrian refugees before Trump took
office.
The United Nations high commissioner for refugees has registered more
than 4,800,000 Syrian refugees. The great majority are in Turkey,
Lebanon and Jordan. The Obama administration proposed to admit 25,000
Syrian refugees to the US in the year beginning 1 October.
Trump has now halted that process. Meanwhile Canada has announced
that it resettled 39,617 Syrian refugees by 2 January 2017. The process
has gone very well. Many thousands of Canadians are voluntarily helping
the refugees and contributing financially to enable them to adjust
successfully to their new environment.
Before accepting the Syrian refugees, Canada vetted them with care.
So far, there have been no security issues. The vetting by the US before
Syrian refugees are accepted for resettlement has been similar, and has
taken up to two years. As in the case of Canada, the US has had no
security incidents involving Syrian refugees.
Yet now, except for a provision that appears intended to exempt the
Syrian refugees who are Christians, and therefore of special concern to
Christian right supporters of Trump, they are to be blocked from
entering the US. This highlights the attempt to engage in religious
discrimination. (Actually, if the exemption is applied as written to
members of minority religions who have been most severely persecuted,
the principal beneficiaries should be Yazidis from Syria and Baha’i from
Iran. That may not be Trump’s intent and it may not be followed in
practice.)
In
the period following the devastating 9/11 attacks, the US committed a
number of acts that damaged the country’s global standing. They include
the invasion of Iraq that was justified by the false claim that Saddam
Hussein possessed an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction that
endangered the US; the water-boarding, wall-slamming and other abuses of
detainees from many countries at CIA “black sites”; the extremely
prolonged detentions without charges or trial at Guantánamo;
the poor administration of occupied Iraq that allowed the country to
descend into chaos and helped to spawn terrorist movements in the
region; and the torture and sexual humiliation of Iraqi detainees at Abu
Ghraib.
Now, by excluding all refugees from certain Muslim-majority countries
and by denying all visas to nationals of those countries, Trump is
further detracting from the prestige of the US as a country where people
are treated fairly regardless of race, religion or national origin. If
he thinks this will enhance safety, he is sadly mistaken.
Even if he could keep out all those he thinks might threaten the US,
he will heighten the danger to many millions of Americans who live, work
and travel outside its borders. America, and Americans, would be safer
if the country is seen by the world to live up to the ideals represented
by the Statue of Liberty.
The vexed issue of Australia-US relations under Trump is even more
complicated than it seems thanks to internal Coalition tensions
Malcolm Turnbu
Contact author
Summer ends now, and it ends much as it began, with Malcolm Turnbull caught uncomfortably between a rock and a hard place.
On Monday, Turnbull declined to follow other world leaders in
criticising Donald Trump’s travel ban, despite the fact it is clearly
discriminatory, inflammatory, possibly illegal and potentially
counterproductive – presumably because Australia needs the new
administration in Washington to stand by the refugee resettlement agreement the government negotiated with the previous regime.
But it’s not only the blindingly obvious imperative of choosing your
words carefully so as not to rock the boat with our most important
strategic ally at a delicate transitional moment, thereby imperilling a
significant prime ministerial achievement – this is the Coalition,
folks.
There are also the vexed internals to consider.
What is the government’s position on the Trump travel ban? As is
frequently the case with this government, it depends on who you ask.
George Christensen thinks the Trump move is “a sensible policy for national security in the present climate”.
The Queensland LNP backbencher would also like a total ban on
Australia’s humanitarian intake and a ban from countries that have a
high level of violent extremism. Just by the by.
If Cory Bernardi wasn’t currently in a period of radio silence as he contemplates his immediate political future
he’d be all over this too, mining the Trumpocalypse – or in our
domestic context, mining the fertile political fault line where
Coalition support intersects with One Nation support. The treasurer, Scott Morrison, thinks two things:
it is inevitable that other nations will follow Australia’s lead in
implementing maximum deterrence when it comes to unauthorised arrivals,
and nobody should be surprised when a president seeks to implement his
election promises – which is about as close to an explicit endorsement
of the Trump travel ban as you get.
Australia’s trade minister, Steve Ciobo, had a different take.
Ciobo said over the weekend he would not support a Trump-style ban, and nor would most Australians.
Simon Birmingham, the education minister, was conceptually in the
Ciobo camp, but as he ventured out on Monday, he was obliged to bridge
the new position just articulated by the prime minister (we aren’t a
commentator on the domestic policies of another country) and his own
clear commitment to a non-discriminatory immigration policy.
Australia should be proud of our non-discriminatory
immigration policy, Birmingham said, adding somewhat crisply that
Christensen was “wrong”.
Sadly, the immigration minister Peter Dutton left the room on Monday
as he was being asked whether or not he supported the Trump travel ban,
so we don’t know what the most important conservative figure in the
government thinks, and whether it aligns with anyone else’s thinking.
While declining to criticise Trump, the prime minister said on Monday
what he evidently felt he could: Australia was committed to
multiculturalism, and to a non-discriminatory immigration policy, and to
Secure Borders.
Turnbull, having clearly resolved to have a press conference to try
and stop people opining shrilly that he was in witness protection, or
avoiding a controversial subject, but having also resolved to say
absolutely nothing – declined to go into what he might be doing to
ensure Australian citizens were not caught up in the chaotic scenes
playing out in US airports.
When Australia raised issues “we do so privately and frankly”
Turnbull remonstrated, as if private and frank was an intrinsic virtue
universally acknowledged in polite society, rather than a tactical call
you make when you aren’t in a strong bargaining position.
Other countries – the United Kingdom, Canada – appear to have secured
exemptions from the travel ban from the US for their dual citizens.
Incredibly, (yes, that’s irony font) – these two countries have their
exemption despite saying precisely what they think about the travel ban.
Later on Monday the foreign minister, Julie Bishop, (who is currently
in the Land of Donald), was notably less private about the frankness.
She put her elbows out, and said Australia was seeking the same deal.
“I have directed our officials in Washington DC to work with US
officials to ensure any preferential treatment extended to any other
country in relation to travel and entry to the United States is extended
to Australia,” the foreign minister said.
Back in the “less is less” session in Canberra, Australia’s prime
minister also declined to say anything more than absolutely necessary
about what Trump had given Australia by way of undertakings on the
refugee resettlement deal – presumably lest Breitbart find out, and
start a nasty ruckus.
A journalist asked: “Prime minister, are you able to give us any more
details on the nature of the [resettlement] agreement with president
Trump, how many [people] will go and when they will go?”
Turnbull replied: “No.”
Later he said it would take the US a “some time” to process people,
which was an advance on “no”, but a distance short of full disclosure.
Or even partial disclosure.
Welcome to #auspol 2017 – a startle-rich environment, where Australian prime ministers talk very softly, and carry a tiny stick.
It is extremely rare for a former president to pass comment on the
actions of his successor. Obama expressed gratitude to George W Bush for
refraining from doing so. But the former president also said he would
speak out if he felt fundamental American principles were threatened.
The Trump administration is striving to regain its footing after a weekend of chaos, confusion and protest.
The travel bans, apparently rushed and without consultation, provoked
fierce criticism from politicians, businesses and organisations across
the globe. Obama’s spokesman Kevin Lewis said:
“Citizens exercising their constitutional right to assemble, organize
and have their voices heard by their elected officials is exactly what
we expect to see when American values are at stake.”
The former president “fundamentally disagrees” with discrimination that targets people based on their religion, Lewis added.
As mass demonstrations and legal challenges mounted, the White House
continued to defend the abrupt move, insisting that while 109 travellers
had been “inconvenienced” over the weekend, “coming into this country
is still a privilege”.
But a draft memo circulated around foreign missions strongly
dissented against Trump’s executive order, issued on Friday. “We are
better than this ban,” the memo said, arguing that it would backfire,
making the US less safe from terrorism, and “stands in opposition to the
core American and constitutional values that we, as federal employees,
took an oath to uphold.
The
draft memo added: “A policy which closes our doors to over 200 million
legitimate travelers in the hopes of preventing a small number of
travelers who intend to harm Americans from using the visa system to
enter the United States will not achieve its aim of making our country
safer. Moreover, such a policy runs counter to core American values of
nondiscrimination, fair play and extending a warm welcome to foreign
visitors and immigrants.”
The memo is intended to be sent through the state department’s
“dissent channel”, intended to allow alternative points of view inside
the institution. But normally they are confidential and rarely have more
than one author. Any memo of public dissent signed by a significant
number of US diplomats would be very rare.
The last similar occasion was a dissent memo over the Obama
administration’s Syria policy signed by more than 50 diplomats last
June. That memo was the culmination of years of fierce debate, while it
has taken just days for the Trump White House to trigger an even more
ferocious backlash from the nation’s diplomats.
Trump’s executive order, signed on Friday, shut US borders to people
from seven countries – Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and
Yemen – for 90 days. It also suspended the Syrian refugee programme
indefinitely, a move that Doctors Without Borders warned “will
effectively keep people trapped in war zones, directly endangering their
lives”.
The order was reportedly sped through without prior consultation with
John Kelly, the homeland security secretary, or the defence secretary,
James Mattis. There appeared to be widespread confusion among
authorities over how the bans would be applied to groups such as legal
permanent residents. Several federal judges stayed the order in their
districts. There were protests at airports across the country and outside the White House and at Trump’s Washington hotel on Sunday.
There was confusion on Monday
about whether or not anyone remained in detention at airports following
the chaotic scenes that resulted from the order. Advocacy groups said
that the US government was not giving them sufficient information to
know for sure that no one remained detained. The government had not
provided any list of names of travellers held.
Meanwhile, the Council on American–Islamic Relations (Cair) issued a lawsuit
claiming the travel ban violated the first amendment of the
constitution, which establishes the right to freedom of religion. And
Jay Inslee, the governor of Washington, said he was also launching a
legal challenge, making Washington the first state to do so.
“The judicial system is adept at protecting the constitution,” Inslee
said. “President Trump may have his alternative facts, but alternative
facts do not work in a courtroom.” He said the banning of immigrants
based their country of citizenship went against state statutes meant to
stop discrimination based on place of birth or nationality.
After days under siege from national and global criticism,
the White House attempted to mount a public relations counter-offensive.
Sean Spicer, the press secretary, claimed that 109 travellers had been
temporarily delayed at airports out of a total of 325,000.
“It’s a shame that people were inconvenienced, obviously, but at the
end of the day we’re talking a couple of hours,” he told reporters.
“Coming into this country is still a privilege. We’re still the greatest
country on earth.”
Spicer added: “A hundred and nine were temporarily inconvenienced for
the safety of us all. I truly believe it is being blown out of
proportion ... The system actually worked really well. That’s the
takeaway from this. The country is safer for it.” Stephen Miller,
a senior policy adviser to Trump and the alleged architect of the
policy, went on morning TV to insist its implementation had been
“orderly” and “efficient”.
Trump’s first seven days in the White HouseMiller, who is also Trump’s principal speechwriter, told CBS’s This
Morning: “Any time you do anything hugely successful that challenges a
failed orthodoxy, you’re going to see protests. If nobody is disagreeing
with what you’re doing, then you’re probably not doing anything that
really matters.”
He denied that the policy had been botched. “By any measure I would
describe that as efficient, orderly, enormously successful,” Miller
said. “We’re going to take the next 30 days to develop a new set of
screening protocols.”
The
former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani also claimed to have worked on the
policy and referred to it explicitly as a “Muslim ban”. On Saturday
night, he told Fox News: “So when [Trump] first announced it, he said,
‘Muslim ban.’ He called me up. He said, ‘Put a commission together. Show
me the right way to do it legally.’”
Giuliani added: “And what we did was, we focused on, instead of
religion, danger – the areas of the world that create danger for us.
Which is a factual basis, not a religious basis. Perfectly legal,
perfectly sensible. And that’s what the ban is based on. It’s not based
on religion. It’s based on places where there are substantial evidence
that people are sending terrorists into our country.”
Trump himself used his favoured medium – Twitter – to deny the order was responsible for disarray at airports.
“There is nothing nice about searching for terrorists before they can
enter the country,” he posted. “This was a big part of my campaign.
Study the world!”
He added: “Big problems at airports were caused by Delta computer outage, protesters and the tears of Senator Schumer.”
Delta Airlines experienced a two-and-a-half-hour shutdown on Sunday night, a problem that caused delays for thousands of passengers but was unrelated to Trump’s executive order.
Chuck Schumer, the Democratic minority leader in the Senate, had
become tearful during a press conference on Sunday where he stood
alongside refugees and condemned the order as unconstitutional and
“un-American”.
Trump mocked him on Monday during remarks after a meeting with small business owners at the White House.
“I notice Chuck Schumer yesterday with fake tears,” he said. “I’m
going to ask him who was his acting coach, ’cause I know him very well. I
don’t see him as a cryer. If he is, he’s a different man. There’s about
a 5% chance his tears were real, but I think they were fake tears.”
The president also criticised Democrats for holding up some of his cabinet nominations.
“Where was the outrage of the Democrats when all of our companies
were fleeing to Mexico and to other places far away and leaving jobs
behind?” he said. “Now they’re all coming back. They’re coming back by
big numbers.”
It was not clear if Trump’s use of the word “fleeing” was intended to
draw comparison with the refugee issue. Schumer and the House minority
leader, Nancy Pelosi, were due to stand alongside immigrants and Muslims
outside the supreme court on Monday evening.
Democrats
are drafting legislation to overturn the ban. Senator Chris Coons, a
member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told CNN on Monday: “I
see it as illegal, unconstitutional and un-American. I don’t think this
ban will make us any safer. I frankly think it will be a propaganda
bonanza for Isis. It has outraged a number of our close allies on whom
we are relying to be our partners on the war on terror, and it has sent
the wrong message to our allies around the world about what we stand for
as a country.
“Some of the first people caught up in the misguided ban just over
the last 48 hours were Iraqi translators who risked their lives for
American troops in the war in Iraq, and I think the symbol that sends is
a strong one and I look forward to joining others who will be
protesting this ban and challenging it both with statutory actions and
legal actions.”
The Pentagon is creating a list of Iraqis who have worked alongside
the United States which will be passed to agencies responsible for
implementing the executive order. “We have been provided the opportunity
by the White House to submit names and we are working forward to do
that,” the Pentagon spokesman Capt Jeff Davis said.
More than a dozen Senate Republicans have opposed the order or
expressed concerns. John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South
Carolina said in a joint statement that it “sends a signal, intended or
not, that America does not want Muslims coming into our country. That is
why we fear this executive order may do more to help terrorist
recruitment than improve our security.”
Trump was also facing criticism for allowing his chief strategist,
Steve Bannon, to attend regular meetings of the White House National
Security Council, while the chair of the joint chiefs of staff and the
director of national intelligence were told to attend only when deemed
necessary.
Spicer insisted on Monday that there had been no change to the structures since the Obama administration.
Trump also said on Monday that he would announce his pick for the
vacancy on the supreme court at 8pm on Tuesday. The court has been
working with eight justices since the death last year of Justice Antonin
Scalia.
Additional reporting by Amber Jamieson in New York
