News
and Notes
12 October
2001
Dear
Fellow Alumni
It is hard to believe that it has been more than
a month since the terrible attack on the World Trade
Center. It will be many years, if ever, before Americans,
whether in the United States or abroad, will feel save again.
While there have been thousands of pictures of
the events, most have been taken by either journalists or people
we do not know. But our own Gibbs Williams was able to get
out and take pictures many of which capture the poignancy of the
moment. To see the photographs, simply click here.
On a somewhat less somber note, life, of course,
goes on. Bobbi and Leo have recently sent me some
photographs of "young Leo" and I have started a
"Grandchildren's Page." To see the pictures, click
here. And please send via e-mail or surface mail, pictures
of your grandchildren so they can be posted. After all, why
just brag to your immediate friends and family. Here, you
can brag to the world!!
I have to tell you, reworking the website is a
pain, but from the comments I have received from you, it was a
worthwhile exercise. I'm delighted that you like the new
look and are finding it easy to use.
As promised, the first person to identify the
dancing darlings gets their name posted. Ladies and
Gentlemen, the winner (where the hell is that envelope?) is Roy
Cole. And, the second was Marsha herself who
wrote, "I noticed a picture of Dava and I tapping away in
your gallery. We sure don't look like that anymore."
Well, I beg to differ. I saw you at the last reunion and
thought you looked pretty terrific. How about a picture of
you now so it can be posted - C'mon Mike, send us a recent
picture of Marsha!
Marsha also reminded me that it was the
August/September birthday crew's annual meeting. Here's
her comments.
18 Beachites met on Sunday evening for our
Aug-Sept. birthday party. Rose Benson Stern and hubby, Barbra
Breakstone and Ron Kaplan, Bobbi Merritt and hubby, Leo
Greenfield, Celia Roth, Joan Friedman Klempner, Murry Diamond,
Barry Wachtel, Linda Grussmark and hubby Sonny Finklestein,
Barry and Barbara Sugerman, Ron and Sandy Hertz and me and
myhusband, Mike Coulton. It was a fun evening and good to
see "family". We were one big family and they
were nice, uncomplicated times. Hope we have many more get
togethers.
And Ron Kaplan's notes on the party!!
Murry Diamond, last Saturday night, was at
the "September Birthday" dinner in Fort Lauderdale,
arranged by Marsha (Levy) and Mike (Dr. Myron) Coulton. Next to
him were Joanie Friedman Klempner and Ron and Barbra
(Breakstone) Kaplan. Across from him were Bobbi (Merritt) and
Leo Greenfield. Ask her for a picture of their adorable
grandson; she doesn't need much coaxing. Next to them were Sandy
and Ronny Hertz, toting family wedding pictures, then Celia
Roth. At the other table were Linda (Grussmark) and Sonny
Finklestein, Rose (Benson) and Herb Stern, having just watched
the Dolfins. The ever-wonderful though ever-late Barbara and
Barry Sugerman, and Barry Wachtel, whose wife, alas, was home
with the flu, completed the party.
And, of course, a happy birthday from all of the
other alumni to the birthday crowd!
As you can see from the gallery and the
photomontage, I have posted many of the same pictures that were
on the older site.. Why? Because you haven't sent me
any others. I would love to be able to post more, but
until you send them to me either by surface mail or as e-mail
attachments, I can't. I'd also love to make some
additional web pages for any of you who would like to have
one. Take a look at the web pages for Valerie Gorsen, Alan
Pasternak and Bruce Rosen.
Once the web page has been created, it can be reached directly,
without going through the MBHS55 home page. So, if you
would like your own place on the internet, just let me know by
clicking here. If
you already have an existing web site and would like a link to
it, just tell me and it will be done.
There are three pieces this month. The
first is an essay/article by Joel Kramer. In it he tries
to make sense out of the terrorist attack on the World Trade
Centre. While many of us would argue that it was a
senseless undertaking, Joel suggests otherwise, and looks at
long term consequences and solutions. To read the article, click
here.
A letter from Sherman Carr to Merrill
Gerber Spiro in which he tells what he is doing these days and
comments on the events of September 11th.To read the letter,
click here.
An article on Australia as a safe haven for Nazi
War Criminals by Bruce Rosen which appears in the October
edition of Jewish Magazine (an online journal). To read the
article, click here.
Joel Kramer on terrorism
The
World is at a Crossroads
The world is at
a crossroads. Will
the terrorist attacks plunge us into a downward spiraling cycle of violence perpetuating
mutual hatred, or will the world community seize this moment as an
opportunity to address the problem of terrorism not only in its
overt manifestations, but at its roots.
The
attack on America has been called cowardly, but the perpetuators
were not cowards; they were fanatics who undoubtedly saw
themselves as heroes. We
must ask ourselves what can make people throw away their lives
while hoping to indiscriminately kill as many people as possible? Jerry Falwell and Pat
Robertson have said in essence that the death of over 5000 people
is God’s punishment for America permitting secular humanism in
all of its manifestations. In
short, we deserved it, and it was God’s will that we be so
punished. Is this so different from the mentality of those who look at
themselves as the arm of Allah’s will sent to punish the
infidels? Were all
the victims secular humanists?
The United States has declared war on terrorism. Does this include
declaring war on the mentality that sees terrorism as a legitimate
expression of God’s will?
The Bush
administration has repeatedly stated that everything is up for
reevaluation and I hope that is true, with an emphasis on
“everything.” This
must include a reevaluation of our previous policies that have
contributed to the current state of affairs to ensure we do not
make the same mistakes. A past example is our part in
destabilizing Iran out of the fear of communism and then propping
up the Shah, which in turn permitted Khomeini to come to power. Khomeini made popular the use of martyrdom as a tool of
political power, which is now being directed at us. A current example of what
I think of as ugly and stupid beyond the pale is the 43 million
dollars we recently gave the Taliban to fight the so-called war on
drugs. While we
chastise China for human rights violations, we prop up a
government (that we don’t even recognize) that kills its own
people for blasphemy, and its women for showing an ankle or other
expressions of “immodesty.” Their cruelty toward and
enslavement of women is unparalleled. Most likely, some of that
43 million helped the cause of terrorism. Realpolitic aside, how can
we imagine that a regime that treats its own people in this
fashion, when given the chance, will treat us any better.
Certainly
terrorism must be responded to so that “they don’t get away
with it.” But what
does this really mean? If
the world is destabilized and many die, if bin Laden becomes a
martyr, they will have gotten away with it because this is their
agenda. Punishing the
perpetrators, potential perpetrators, and those in complicity with
them must be done in a way so that we do not become the very thing
we abhor. A world
coalition must be maintained that can include moderate and
sensible Islamic countries that undercuts the territorial,
financial, and ideological support of terrorism. This is obvious, but what
is not so obvious is how to go about doing this.
I will
leave it to others to conjecture the worst case scenarios that can
befall the world should wrong decisions be made. Rather, I would like to
focus on a few arenas where I think there is opportunity to move
things toward greater worldwide stability to ensure that those who
died did not do so in vain.
Hopefully,
this is the end of Bush’s star wars satellite defense system. It ought to be clear that
our dangers are not from outer space or from Chinese missiles. Rather, we need the funds
to help rebuild America, fight terrorism, and help cooperating
nations in their fight against this menace. This would include helping
root out the causes that fuel terrorism.
This
tragedy also offers the opportunity to set aside past inequities
and harms (whether real or perceived) from all sides of the
international landscape and build new coalitions that not only
make it more difficult for terrorism to spread, but make it more
difficult for the causes of terrorism to spread.
Unless
root problems underlying terrorism are addressed, it will
continually reappear like a hydra. If the world is serious about
squelching terrorism it must address an area that is a, perhaps
the, major fuel of it—the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. There are those who say
that neither the elimination of Israel nor the creation of a
Palestinian state is the real agenda of bin Laden and his ilk. Rather, their real goal is
the destruction of Western modernism and a return to medieval
Islamic theocracy, worldwide.
Perhaps this is true, but so what? It is the
Israeli/Palestinian conflict that destabilizes the whole region;
that is what bin Laden and other leaders like Saddam use to fuel
hatred and promote terrorism.
And it is the way the United States has backed Israel that
has made us the great devil in many Islamic minds.
I will now
propose what seem to me to be simple truths. Terrorism will not truly be contained until a Palestinian
homeland comes forth. The
world has no good reason to think that the Israelis and the
Palestinians will solve this problem. This is because there are
powerful forces on both sides that really do not want an equitable
solution, which includes many fundamentalists on both sides of the
equation. So, if it
is imperative to solve the problem and the two protagonists
won’t or can’t do it, what are the real options? The only option if the
solution cannot come from within, is that it must come from
without.
Israel
was created out of the agreement of nations that had the power to
exercise their will in that region.
If the international community really wants to disable the
hydra of terrorism it must forge its collective will using
whatever instruments available to say to both parties that if you
cannot come to agreement then we must do it. I propose that through the
United Nations, or any international body deemed appropriate, the
Israeli and Palestinian leaders be told that they have a realistic
time frame to come to an accord, and if they are unable to do so,
it will be taken out of their hands. I know that such a
solution will bring up innumerable
problems. I also know
that if the international will is clear and strong all problems
are surmountable, in part because I think there is no other
solution. This might
include an international peace-keeping force in place to ensure
that this process is not disrupted by terrorists from either side.
There are those who will say that changing American policy as a
result of terrorism brings more terrorism. A Palestinian solution
is part of American policy. Terrorism
of the kind we experienced demands extra-ordinary measures not
only from the United States, but from all nations that have any
pretensions of being civilized.
These are
some of the opportunities this horrendous attack offers. Now I
will briefly outline the broader context that I see terrorism
embedded in that I believe also needs to be addressed. It is only religion gone
awry that can fuel the kind of fanaticism we have witnessed. But this is just one,
albeit extreme, example of what I call “ideological uncaring.” Here people care more
about furthering their ideologies than they do about people. To my mind the real battle
that is occurring on this planet today (including in the United
States) is for the minds of human beings. I call this battle “the
morality war” for it involves who has the right to impose
what’s right, and what gives them the right to do so. On one side are ideologues who wish to force people into
their mold by authoritarian means.
This would include not only certain segments of
fundamentalism, but social systems like communism, misplaced
patriotism, or any ideology that glorifies itself while
denigrating others. On
the other side are those who will not permit their beliefs to
justify actions that exceed human decency.
There is an
implicit taboo against criticizing the beliefs of others,
especially around religion. People have the right to believe what
they will, but we can no longer exempt beliefs from criticism and
censure when they are empirically harmful to human well-being. Surely, if there is evil
in this world, the recent terrorist attack is that. Yet to characterize the
war on terrorism as “good versus evil” is to use the exact
rhetoric of the opposition. Once
the opposition is demonized as pure evil, then this justifies
their eradication by any means.
This is the way bin Laden has succeeded in characterizing
us to far too many people, and the terrorist attack is the result
of that mentality. If
we adopt that stance and act without restraint, then he will win
whether we kill him or not. This is the path that will escalate
the fuel of terrorism—hatred.
The world is at
a crossroads, and this is a rare and necessary moment for human
decency to prevail.
Joel Kramer
To return to the top of this
page, click here.
Sherman Carr to
Merrill Gerber Spiro
Hey there Merrill!!!
I actually am flying again for a company called
Bombardier/Flexjets. Its like a time share for private jet
aircraft and we fly movie stars, sports figures, and business
people around the country. I'm having a lot of fun doing it and
fortunately we are pretty far removed from the problems of
traveling on a regularly scheduled airline. The limousine pulls
up to the airplane and we are airborne five minutes later. We
use smaller, less congested airports and avoid the big
hassle.
It is sad to see the terrorist strike so
successfully at home. I had been flying on other parts of the
world where this was a more common problem. The Tajik experience
I wrote about in "Snow Leopard" was unfortunately, not
that unusual.
My main concern at the moment is that we have a
measured, precise response at those actually responsible. A too
broad reaction by us will only serve to create a whole new
family of terrorists. We must also win the battle for the minds
and hearts of those who presently see us as "The Great
Satan." It is much cheaper to use the truth and education
than bombs and rockets. On, the other hand, you have to get
their attention first.
Hope you are well.
Sherm
To return to the top of this
page, click here.
The
following article will appear in the
October edition of Jewish
Magazine.
Australia,
Nazi Haven for the new Millennium?
by
Bruce Rosen
IT WAS the best of times, it was the worst of times, it
was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the
epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the
season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the
spring of hope, it was the winter of despair… (Charles
Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities (1859).)
Just as the past century has been one of great achievements
it has also been one of great horror. Certainly one of the
greatest, if not the greatest of these horrors, was the
attempt to wipe the Jewish people from the face of the earth. It
was only after the Second World War, that the full devastation
of the Holocaust was brought home to Jews and non-Jews alike.
Unfortunately what was not recognized by many in the
post-Victory euphoria was the seemingly admiration by some of
the victors of elements of Nazi Germany.
There are two reasons for this failure of recognition. First,
in the flush of winning, most of those in the West wanted to put
as much of the events of the previous years behind them as
possible. Many accepted, with unbelievable naivet?, the claims
of many Germans that they had no idea of what was going on, they
had never heard of concentration camps even when they were on
their doorstep and they had no idea of what was going on in the
death camps. Second, for many, it was unthinkable that those
governments, which had brought the Axis powers to their knees,
could be guilty of the same immorality as their German foes.
Unfortunately, these optimists were wrong. Even those who should
have known better were prepared to turn a blind eye to Nazi war
criminals as fears of a new conflict with the Soviet Union began
to emerge.
Australia is the only major Western country that admitted
large numbers of Nazis and ex-Nazis between 1945 and 1950 and
has failed to successfully prosecute even a single one. As the Jerusalem
Post noted last year, Australia "has failed to convict,
denaturalize, deport, expel or extradite a single Nazi war
criminal", making it "a haven for some of the worst of
Hitler's henchmen". Technically that may have changed with
the decision by the Courts to extradite Konrads Kalejs to Latvia
following a request for his extradition from that country.
However, with Kalejs' appeal estimated to take up to four years,
and considering his age and alleged state of health, it is
unlikely that he will ever leave Australia.
Australia assumes that the bizarre notion that all sins are
forgiven along with the granting of citizenship. It has been
suggested that because convicts, transported from Britain to
settle in Australia this country has adopted a live and let live
philosophy and that this notion, along with the principle of
tabula rasa is at work. I find this argument specious on two
grounds. First, convicts transported to Australia were not
granted a "clean slate." In fact, for many decades it
was considered appropriate to hide one's past. Secondly, those
who committed crimes of a more serious nature were either not
transported, having being hanged, or if they were transported
and committed grievous crimes in Australia, were likely to
suffer the same fate as they would have suffered in Britain. But
such an argument would only be marginally relevant at best since
we are not talking about criminals (for whom forgiveness might
be acceptable) but monsters.
The view that we should stop pursuing "old and sick
men" and let them live out their lives in peace is a
seductive one. But what of those who never had the opportunity
to reach the age of their murderers? Perhaps it is fanciful, but
I cannot believe that they would be prepared to forget, let
alone forgive. Such an attitude is, I believe, and should be,
morally abhorrent to most Australians in the twenty-first
century. Even Britain, which was unwilling to act on Konrad
Kalejs, allowing him to leave voluntarily to avoid prosecution
and deportation, was not prepared to forgive Ronnie Biggs, the
great train robber, despite his advanced years and ill health.
Equally, in Australia, the attempt to extradite Christopher
Skase from his Majorca hideaway continues unabated despite
reports of his serious health problems.
By any international standard Australia has been largely free
of the most virulent forms of Anti-Semitism. On the whole
Australia's pre-war Jewish population marched to the same
drummer as their non-Jewish counterparts except in the matter of
religion. Post-war immigrants were too concerned with building
new lives to focus on what they rightfully felt was behaviour
totally outside the realm of what was appropriate and decent in
a democratic society. Nonetheless, Australia has not been
entirely free of neo-Nazi activity.
In 1993, the synagogue of the Brisbane Hebrew Congregation
was plastered with posters and graffiti. In 1994, in Adelaide,
South Australia, a community which glories in being known as the
city of parks and churches, a group of twenty neo-Nazis, looking
a bit like the pathetic leftovers from a racist masquerade
party, goose-stepped through the city's major mall shouting
"Seig Heil" and "Heil Hitler." It didn't
take long for the march to turn ugly with fifteen people injured
and four of the marchers arrested. Some weeks later another
demonstration was held in Adelaide. A rally, sponsored by
Australian National Action, to denounce proposed anti-racist
legislation drew approximately 100 skinheads and neo-Nazis.
Jews played a significant role in Australian life in the
twentieth century ranging from the military and the political,
including medicine, the arts, academia and the sciences. One of
the major Australian Football teams (a sport that can only be
understood and appreciated by one with a distinctly
"one-eyed" Antipodean outlook) is owned by an orthodox
Jew. Generally the contributions of Jewish Australians have been
disproportionate to their population. Yet one could be forgiven,
when reading about many of these Australians, if one found no
reference to their faith. Perhaps had Australia's Jews been more
vocal in their Judaism, more vocal in demanding tighter
screening of Eastern European immigrants, governments might have
paid somewhat more attention to them. Even today, when in fact
they are more visible and more vocal, it is largely assumed that
their responses to matters are more likely to be based on their
"Australian" identity than on their Jewishness.
Two recent and related events have once again brought the
question of Australia as a refuge for former Nazis back into
focus. The first, a series of reports by The Sydney Morning
Herald in August of 1999 uncovered documents showing that
scientists and technicians were brought from Germany to
Australia as part of a scheme to bring in highly trained
technicians. The Employment of Scientific and Technical
Aliens Scheme (ESTEA) operated between 1946 and 1951,
bringing in 127 German scientists of whom almost one-third were
affiliated with either the Nazi Party or other Nazi groups. In
addition some of the remainder had worked for the Nazis in
military research or for I G Farben, the notorious chemical firm
that used concentration camp inmates as workers. The second is
the ongoing furore over Konrad Kalejs, an alleged war criminal,
and the unwillingness of successive Australian governments to
take any action in dealing with his case.
As soon as the story of the ESTEA scientists was released,
Jewish groups called for an investigation. Dr Colin Rubenstein,
Executive Director of the Australia/Israel & Jewish
Affairs Council (AIJAC) was quoted as saying,"It is a
deplorable and shocking revelation that fully-paid up Nazi party
members, including those who belonged to Nazi killing units,
were permitted to enter Australia and start new lives, often at
taxpayers' expense."
As far back as 1986, Mark Aarons, an ABC radio journalist
presented a program, Nazis in Australia. He subsequently
developed his research for the radio program into the book Sanctuary,
published in 1989, in which he expanded and detailed his
argument. In both he charged that not only had Nazi war
criminals been allowed to immigrate to Australia but that many
of them came with the knowledge, even the complicity, of
Australian authorities. He further charged that subsequent
Australian governments had refused to act to extradite Nazi war
criminals, even going so far as to "muddy the waters"
in terms of identifying them. In the same year as the radio
program and largely as a result of it, the Labor Government of
Prime Minister Robert J Hawke established an inquiry under the
directorship of Andrew Menzies, QC, former deputy director of
the Attorney-Generals department. Menzies conducted an
investigation into the charges that Nazis had slipped into
Australia as a part of the ESTEA scheme. His report appeared to
clear the scheme and this, in turn, closed the door on any
further investigation of those who had come in as a part of it.
However, he did find that "significant numbers of Nazis had
arrived in Australia and special action was needed."
Following the report, the Hawke government set up a Special
Investigations Unit in 1987. The SIU was charged with
investigating and prosecuting any individuals in Australia who
were believed to have committed crimes against humanity during
World War II.
Robert Greenwood, QC was appointed director of the SIU, which
had more than 800 cases referred to it for investigation by the
time of its closure, by Labor's Attorney-General, Michael Duffy,
five years later, on 30 June 1992, it became clear that no new
cases would be opened or even investigated. The timing of the
closure could not have been worse. Archives in the former Soviet
Union were being opened and new evidence on existing suspects
and information about previously unidentified war criminals was
being found. During its existence, the SIU was responsible for
the mounting of three prosecutions, all of which failed. A
fourth case was quashed by Attorney-General Michael Duffy on the
political grounds that the Australian public perceived the cost
of such prosecutions as excessive. Finance Minister, Peter Walsh
who referred to the SIU as a "crazy exercise," and
urged its termination, supported Duffy's view.
Greenwood, who had quit in 1991, was to write that
"Duffy lacked the far-sightedness of his predecessor"
and as a result, "his job became difficult, frustrating,
exhausting and 'nigh on impossible'". The experience
convinced him that he "was dealing with a Government of
almost nil moral fibre." Eli Rosenbaum, Director of the
Office of Special Investigations at the US Department of Justice
visited Australia in early March, 2000. In an address delivered
in Melbourne, Rosenbaum talked about his relationship with the
SIU.
In the late 80s and early 90s, it was my privilege to serve
as liaison for the Special Investigations Unit of the
Australian Attorney-General's Department. I worked very
closely with Bob Greenwood and Graham Blewitt and their
talented staff. They put together some important cases. And I
shared and still share their disappointment that those cases
failed. At least they failed in courts of law. They didn't
fail in another sense. We all know that. By aggressively
prosecuting some suspects, they sent a message to all the
other people in your country who took part in these crimes and
the message was: "You could be caught tomorrow. You
didn't get away with it. Not necessarily. You may wake up
tomorrow to find out that the SIU knows who you are." .
The one case, however, which stands as a symbol of how
Australia's efforts have been too little and too late is that of
Konrad Kalejs. For Kalejs, Australia was nothing more than a
safe haven.
Kalejs was granted Australian citizenship in 1957, but moved
to the United States two years later in 1959. He was deported
from the US in 1994 for concealing his wartime activities but in
the intervening thirty-five years he managed to become a very
wealthy man. Although Australian authorities have always argued
that there was insufficient evidence to act on Kalejs' war
crimes, the level of evidence was sufficient to persuade
American judge, Anthony Petrone who, after carefully considering
the evidence, stated that he was convinced that Kalejs had been
involved in war crimes. Eli Rosenbaum, has stated that the US
decision concerning Kalejs' involvement in war crimes was proved
"to the satisfaction of a judge, under a standard of proof
that is substantially identical to the burden of proof that
applies in criminal cases in all Commonwealth countries…"
After a brief stay in Australia, Kalejs left for Canada from
where he was deported in 1997. Finally it seemed his past was
catching up with Konrad Kalejs. It was probably in the following
year that he again left Australia, this time for England where
he was found in a nursing home in Leicestershire. He then left
Britain voluntarily for Australia after being told that he would
be deported if he tried to stay in the country. Kalejs arrived
back in Australia on 7 January 2000 and was greeted at the
airport by protestors, denouncing his return. He was then
whisked through the terminal while the police blocked reporters
and photographers.
A few days before his arrival back in Australia, reporters
asked the Justice Minister, Amanda Vanstone whether Kalejs would
be welcome in Australia. "Would you expect," she
replied, "a situation where any Australian citizen would
not be?"
In mid-July, 2000, Australia and Latvia signed an extradition
treaty and Latvia issued an arrest warrant for Kalejs. In
November a Latvian court turned down an appeal against an arrest
warrant. His lawyers argued that Kalejs was too ill to come to
Latvia and stand trial. With the strong encouragement of the
United States and Israel, the Latvian government, in December,
requested the extradition of Konrad Kalejs from Australia to
Latvia to stand trial on charges of War Crimes and genocide.
Kalejs was arrested, but later released on bail. On the 29th
of May, magistrate Lisa Hannan after hearing evidence held that
Kalejs should be extradited to Latvia to stand trial and until
such time, committed to prison. Kalejs' lawyers arranged for him
to be out on bail in a matter of hours and immediately started
the process of appeal to the Federal Court. Should this fail,
his lawyers have indicated that they will take the case to the
full bench of the Federal Court and, if necessary, to the High
Court. It seems likely that if Kalejs is indeed as ill as he has
been painted, he will manage to elude justice one more time.
In an interview with the journalist Kerry O'brien, on the
ABC's 7:30 Report, the present Justice Minister, Amanda
Vanstone, was asked about the claim that the Australian
Government had neither the will nor the desire to find and
prosecute alleged Nazi war criminals. The Minister called the
claim "outrageous" and attacked the American 20/20
program, which had made the claim and the American media in
general. .
…in Australia we don't have trial by the media. We have
trial by the courts and in Australia, you are innocent until
proven guilty. Frankly, I feel not only offended in a national
sense by that interview, but as a person, I feel quite
sickened that that type of journalism can go to air anywhere
in the western world. (Australian Broadcasting Commission,
7:30 Report, Transcript, 12 June 1999)
If the best defence is a good offence, then Vanstone could be
seen as mounting a solid defence. Unfortunately, at no time in
the interview did she seem to come to grips with many of the
questions that O'Brien was raising. Her main argument was that
the American experience was totally different from Australia's
and could not, for that reason, be relied upon. She also claims
that the "fourth" case was never proceeded with
because the Director of Public Prosecutions, the independent
arbiter of whether to proceed or not, felt there was
insufficient evidence to achieve a conviction.
Unfortunately, this interpretation of the events surrounding
the "fourth" case, that of Karlis Ozols, presented by
Vanstone seems to have differed significantly from the known
facts. It is true that the SIU referred the case to the Director
of Public Prosecutions, which briefed a leading Melbourne
Queen's Counsel and former Director of the National Crime
Authority, Peter Faris. Toward the end of June 1992 Faris
advised the DPP that, in his opinion, a case existed. He noted,
"It would be wrong to shut the investigation down now.
Justice demands that the investigation be completed."
Nonetheless, Attorney-General Duffy refused to continue the
matter and referred it to the Australian Federal Police where
the matter remained uncompleted.
In March of 1997, five years after the closure of the SIU,
Attorney-General, Daryl Williams, announced that the case was
closed. In his statement Williams declared that "in the
Director of Public Prosecution's view the existing material was
insufficient and the incomplete case was referred to the
Australian Federal Police," and went on, "The AFP
concluded that there was little chance of success in pursuing
this case to finality." It would appear that this is the
statement on which Minister Vanstone was relying.
In 1999, the Australian Parliament changed the War Crimes
Bill making it easier to extradite suspected war criminals from
Australia. The changes meant that it was no longer necessary to
establish a prima facie case before agreeing to extradition.
Whilst it has been argued that Australia has a proud record
in human rights, I am left with the distinct impression that
when the children of murdered parents and the parents of
murdered children are told that it is perfectly alright for the
murderers to live in their midst, and the decision is justified
on the grounds that we have something to learn from the
murderers, or that the suspected criminals are too old or too
feeble to endure prosecution, or even that too much time has
elapsed to bother with these people and they should be allowed
to live out their lives in peace, we are dealing with a
significant moral abscess on the part of those making such
decisions. I find it particularly difficult to follow the logic
that says because mass murderers have denied their criminal
involvement in the Holocaust and have been granted citizenship
in Australia they cannot now be stripped of that citizenship.
There has never been and never should be a statute of
limitations on those who practice or support genocide.
Conclusion
Despite the claims of Senator Amanda Vanstone and other
government apologists, it would appear that Australia has been,
at best, extremely reluctant to take any kind of action in terms
of the prosecution of Nazi War Criminals. As recently as April
of this year, the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, assigned Australia
the second lowest "grade" for its efforts in this
area. Australia was seen as one of the countries, which despite
making a minimal effort, had failed to achieve results and had
stopped its efforts prematurely. Australia is described as: .
The only country in the Western world to which large
numbers of Nazi collaborators and criminals (at least several
hundreds if not several thousands) emigrated after World War
II which has hereto failed to take successful legal action
against a single one. Australia closed down its Special
Investigations Unit on June 30, 1992 at a time when highly
important documentation was first becoming available in the
former Soviet republics, where most of the crimes carried out
by the Nazis living in Australia had been committed.
The Australian government which passed legislation enabling
criminal prosecution in Australia but which failed to achieve
a single conviction has refused to switch to denaturalization
and/or deportation, methods being used with outstanding
success, primarily in the United States, but also in Canada. (
Simon Wiesenthal Centre, Nazi War Criminals Prosecution-Annual
Status Report April 2001, 18 April 2001.)
The events that have, more recently, surrounded the case of
Konrad Kalejs might suggest that Australia was finally getting
tough with Nazi war criminals. But, in the end, I suspect that
Mark Aarons is right when he says .
It is too little, too late. The highest probability is that
the last Nazi in the world will die peacefully in his bed in
Australia. We have done virtually nothing, … I can't escape
having to draw the conclusion that neither the Latvian or
Australian government have any enthusiasm for it.
They've been embarrassed by international opinion highly
critical of their inaction. I can't avoid concluding that both
governments are crossing their fingers behind their backs that
the guy will die in the meantime, and they'll say "oh
well, we tried".
To return to the top of this
page, click here.
|
