Apr 22, 2014

An Australian killed, to the studied indifference of his government

An Australian has been killed overseas. But the federal government is strangely incurious about it, and has nothing to say about it. Its ideology is getting in the way.

Bernard Keane — Politics editor

Bernard Keane

Politics editor

Why was Christopher Harvard of Townsville killed in Yemen in November by a American drone strike, along with a dual New Zealand-Australian citizen known as "Muslim Bin John", and three other "militants"? Why was he the victim of an attack that left so little of him that only DNA from his family could help identify his remains? And why do New Zealanders know more about the killing of Muslim Bin John than we do about Harvard’s death? Last week, New Zealand Prime Minister John Key spoke openly about Bin John, his terrorist links and how he had been placed under surveillance by NZ intelligence agencies before leaving the country. The only official comment about Harvard in Australia has come from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (its response is here), which provided scant detail about his killing. Instead, we have been given anonymous backgrounding on Harvard from a "senior counter-terrorism official", provided to The Australian’s Paul Maley and Mark Schliebs -- The Australian, commendably, has tried to follow up the story and Harvard's background. According to the anonymous source quoted in The Australian, Harvard and Bin John were al-Qaeda "foot soldiers" who were "collateral damage" in a strike against more senior al-Qaeda figures. "There was a suggestion they were involved in kidnapping Westerners for ransom." Who suggested that, we're not told. This sort of official "response" is familiar to anyone who has followed the drone issue; it is the standard practice of the Obama administration, which has killed thousands of "combatants" with drone strikes in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Yemen. Until recently, there was virtually no official confirmation that drone programs even existed -- and there are two: a military one and a CIA one, both controlled by the White House -- let alone that individual strikes were carried out. The only information provided to the media about United States drone strikes was from anonymous officials (the kind of official leakers who never get pursued or punished for revealing national security information) explaining how valuable they were at crippling terrorism networks and killing al-Qaeda and Taliban "combatants". The problem is, it later emerged that the Obama administration defined "combatants" as any male 18 to 65 years old killed in a drone strike, regardless of who they were or what they were doing. Drone strikes could thus be "successful" even if they only killed civilians. Even Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was initially described as one of several "militants" after the drone strike that killed him in Yemen in 2009. Al-Awlaki was a 16-year-old boy from Denver, Colorado, who was in Yemen looking for his American father, the al-Qaeda member Anwar al-Awlaki, who had been killed in a drone strike two weeks earlier. No "militants" of any kind were present when Abdulrahman and several young friends were blown up in an outdoor cafe. The man who ordered the drone strike that killed the boy, former White House counter-terrorism adviser John Brennan, has never been investigated or prosecuted for his role in the killing. Instead, President Barack Obama promoted him to CIA director.
"The Australian government is strangely uninterested in the killing of one of its citizens ..."
So experience suggests it pays to be highly sceptical of what anonymous officials say about drone strike victims. And Harvard’s family disputes the account from the unnamed official -- as Schliebs related, they say Harvard went to Yemen to teach English and that conversion to Islam had helped him get his life together. Separately, the Townsville Bulletin speculated Harvard might have been radicalised at a mosque in Christchurch, NZ, although there is no known connection with Bin John. Criticism of the Obama administration’s indiscriminate use of drones and the civilian death toll they inflicted eventually became too much, especially when respected figures like former Afghanistan commander General Stanley McChrystal warned they could prove counter-productive because of the radicalising effect they had on civilian target communities. In May last year, Obama revealed he has established a new set of guidelines for using drones. The actual guidelines remain classified, but the White House released some details, including requirements of "near-certainty" that the target is present, the "near-certainty" that civilians will not be harmed, and that:
"... the United States will use lethal force only against a target that poses a continuing, imminent threat to U.S. persons. It is simply not the case that all terrorists pose a continuing, imminent threat to U.S. persons; if a terrorist does not pose such a threat, the United States will not use lethal force."
Were the three al-Qaeda militants targeted in the attack that killed Harvard and Bin John posing a "continuing, imminent threat to US persons" in the remote province of Hadhramaut, where the strike took place? If not, it was in breach of the rules Obama himself laid down. We know of at least one other strike that was in breach of these new rules -- a strike in Yemen in December that killed 12 people and injured 15 others when drones targeted a wedding procession. The Yemeni government later paid compensation to the families of the killed and injured. Several civilians have also been killed in a wave of drone strikes in Yemen over the last few days. What we do know, via Key, is that Bin John had been known to NZ intelligence services before he’d left New Zealand, that he was the subject of a warrant by NZ agencies and, Key says, had links to terrorist organisations. Unlike his Australian counterpart, or the Obama administration, Key was prepared to speak officially about individual drone strikes that killed one of his citizens. Perhaps Harvard was indeed a "combatant"; perhaps he indeed was involved in kidnapping westerners. Certainly he was profoundly foolish to be where he was when he was. But maybe he was in Yemen teaching English. We don’t know, and we’ll never know. He’ll get no trial, no opportunity to defend himself, not even the half-baked "opportunity" terrorism suspects get under Australia’s draconian anti-terror laws and a Federal Police force with a history of fabricating evidence. The Australian government is strangely uninterested in the killing of one of its citizens, having apparently asked no questions of the Americans about what happened or whether the strike that killed him complied with the US' own rules. And rather than discuss it publicly, it prefers to hide behind anonymous security bureaucrats.

Free Trial

Proudly annoying those in power since 2000.

Sign up for a FREE 21-day trial to keep reading and get the best of Crikey straight to your inbox

By starting a free trial, you agree to accept Crikey’s terms and conditions


Leave a comment

20 thoughts on “An Australian killed, to the studied indifference of his government

  1. T2

    I see that you said the government was “uninterested” in Harvard, which, of course, is very different from Crikey’s headline which said it was “disinterested”.

  2. mikeb

    Let’s not get too cute here. Christopher Harvard was not in Yemen as an innocent bystander. We all know that even though no “fair” trial has taken place. If you lie down with dogs you get fleas.

  3. Hugo Armstrong

    Could not agree more! Crikey subs, PLEASE look up disinterested and uninterested. Our Government may well be uninterested, but disinterested they are NOT!

  4. Bill Hilliger

    One day the other side will also have drones and target suspected American war mongers and drone operators, what then?

  5. Mark out West

    @ T2 & Hugo


  6. Mark out West

    @ Bill


    When would it be okay for Americans to bomb Australians like they do elsewhere??

  7. Phillip Monk

    @ mikeb

    True, but the article is about the government’s behaviour, not Harvard’s. We should be holding our government to a higher standard of accountability than it has displayed so far on this matter.

  8. David Hand

    It has become very fashionable to criticise our government for keeping secrets that it believes are in the country’s interests. Snowden and Assange have become folk heroes for leaking highly sensitive information that has aided people who wish us harm.

    In the pages of Crikey, the US government has become the enemy. Christopher Harvard has become “an English teacher”. The AFP “fabricates evidence”. The government must be wrong not to talk because John Key has public (with the dang awkward statement that the Kiwi was indeed part of Al Quaeda). The government is guilty because it won’t provide us with information it has.

    You guys have been watching too many “Evil military-industrial corporation” movies.

    Who do you think is protecting you from a bomb going off at Town Hall Station?

  9. AR

    Can we start a porgrom on the meme, put about by the one-eyed, and one handed in David’s case,Snowden and Assange have become folk heroes for leaking highly sensitive information that has aided people who wish us harm..
    Untrue, not then, or now. Ever.
    As to his “raping sister” question, those with nowt to hide got nowt to fear. And dulce decorum..,/I> the old, vile, lie.

  10. dcparker

    I am not a defender of our Government, and it certainly seems that the NZ government has provided its public with more information, which has only shown that the New Zealander concerned chose to go to a combat zone for a particular military, quasi-military or military support purpose. It seems likely that the Australian was the same. Whilst I think the his government should be equally open as that of his co-combatant, it was his choice to embroil himself in a war. The consequences may be unfortunate, but it was ever thus.

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details