Here at Crikey we’ve been at the centre of a vigorous debate surrounding the Australian journalist Wilfred Burchett.
Such has been the interest that we were forced to introduce “The special Crikey Wilfred Burchett section” at the bottom of our comments section of our subscription email.
It all started here, when Crikey reader Nick Shimmin wrote in response to an article by Jeff Sparrow: “Manning Clark, Wilfred Burchett et al will be admired and respected long after the likes of Kelly, Manne and Henderson are forgotten, and this of course is a major reason for their envious sniping.”
From there, a volcano of Burchett admirers and critics erupted onto Crikey’s pages which you can read here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and finally from yesterday, here.
And articles were published by Wilfred Burchett’s son, George Burchett (here and here), Neil James (here), Simon Nasht (here), Bill Hyde (here) and Peter Hruby (here).
In the interest of allowing the debate to roll on, and without it being fought through Crikey’s comments section, we’ve decided to introduce it’s own blog so that Burchett admirers and critics alike can weigh in when they like.
Below is the first post which is comprised from the correspondence we’ve received overnight.
11 Comments
Neil James, Executive Director, Australia Defence Association, writes: Damien Almond and John Donovan (yesterday, comments) are entitled to their opinions but are perhaps not appreciating the timeless gravity of treason and treachery as topics of concern for any citizen on both moral and practical grounds. Surely no thinking Australian can totally ignore this debate, particularly as those still trying to whitewash Burchett’s probable treachery rely on ignorance and indifference to further their ideological cause.
It is also worth noting that this is also not some sort of arcane historical issue in the distant past as the legal loophole concerning treacherous assistance to the enemy in time of war was only closed in 2002. The length of time David Hicks was detained in Guantanamo Bay as a captured belligerent was in effect prolonged by the lack of adequate Australian legislation to try him for serving under arms with the Taliban (at least) – when that organisation was protecting and abetting internationally proscribed terrorist organisations and then undertaking hostilities against the US-led and UN-endorsed multinational intervention to stop Taliban-controlled parts of Afghanistan being used as a sanctuary by Islamist terrorists. The Americans were always quite willing to release Hicks from detention under the Laws of Armed Conflict (LOAC) for a separate criminal trial in Australia but no trial was then possible here because our laws were so inadequate.
Niall Clugston (yesterday, comments) is again either still confused or is being mischievous again. He ignores the complex mix of emerging international law, outdated Australian legislation and ancient British law involved, especially in the early 1950s. He also ignores the inexcusable failure of all governments from Chifley to Keating (and Howard for many years) to fix the problem and puts too much stock on Menzies’ ostensible anti-communism. Furthermore, even if Menzies or his successors had fixed the law (as they should have via a Royal Commission soon after the Korean War ended) it could not have been backdated to try Burchett – just as the 2002 legislation which finally closed the loophole could not be backdated to try Hicks for acts committed (by his own admission) in 2000-01. Finally, the “issues were not brought to court … in the 70s” because it was only a civil libel action, not a criminal trial. This hampered a proper examination of the issues, several of the key witnesses were unfortunately dead or otherwise unavailable by then anyway and memories on both sides were no longer fresh. Perhaps this was one reason why, just in case, Burchett stayed overseas for so long after the Korean War in countries without an extradition treaty with Australia. It is simply incorrect for Clugston to claim that “none of the charges stuck’ because Burchett was unfortunately never charged with anything so his guilt or innocence was never clearly established.
Finally, I note that Niall Clugston, Nick Shimmin and George Burchett continue to avoid answering most of the specific questions posed by various correspondents that expose the numerous contradictions and evasions in their “arguments”. They are notoriously silent on the numerous detailed accusations made by Tibor Meray, the damning first-hand accounts of former PWs such as Derek Kinne, Eric Donnelly and Phil Greville, why Burchett always strongly denied that our PWs had been maltreated in North Korea by the very people he supported in that war (when they clearly had been maltreated and to the point of death in some cases), and why he continued to peddle the bogus “germ warfare” allegations levied against the UN Command long after even the communist powers behind the fabrication had ceased doing so.
Bruce Watson writes: Niall Clugston really should read things a bit closer. Far from “agreeing” with his summary on Burchett, he would see that I listed his statements and rebutted each one, other than as to Burchett being a member of the KGB. If there’s a “joke” it’s on him.
But on the Passport issue: I agree Burchett should have had his passport renewed. But Burchett was not singled out in this respect. Extremists of both colours have had theirs taken away or refused by their Government of the day. Burchett’s fellow communist colleague in Korea Alan Winnington had his taken away by the British Government on the basis that by adhering to the North Koreans he had effectively “abandoned” the UK and on the Right, Sir Oswald Mosley and his family were refused passports and permission to leave the UK for a number of years after World War Two. The Americans confiscated that of Melinda Maclean the wife of the KGB agent Donald Maclean upon her return to the USA from Russia. Australian governments both Labor and Liberal still exercise this power against some Australian citizens today. Whether they should or not is another matter entirely, but on the passport front Burchett was far from alone. The practice continues.
Incidentally there’s a certain irony to Burchett and the passport. While he travelled freely enough on documents supplied by Soviet bloc countries, he should never have complained given he had previously written that the freedom to travel (like to vote and to free speech) was really an illusory or academic one. Funny how he had a different attitude in his own case when he happily denied that same right to others.
Wilfred Burchett lived procreated shat and died. Now he has his own posthumous blogspot. A life well-lived. Please feel free to contribute o WB afficionadoes and others and leave my Crikey newsletter alone. And I will do the same with this blog. Enjoy WB’ers. Thankyou very much Crikey and esp. Leigh Josey.
Good idea to make a home for Ye Olde Burchett Chronicles which was in danger of out-pseuding “Pseud’s Corner” all on its lonesome. My effort on a “National Security” related issue (probably too off-topic for the avid Burchetti): I’m expecting the imminent release of the following National Archives of Australia files; “Grant of Naturalisation to Communists, 1955-78″ and “Rejection of Applicants for Naturalisation on Political Grounds, 1957-78″. I’m hoping they refer to submissions etc. to the 5th Menzies Cabinet on the topic, which may be of passing interest to others.
I’m glad to see that Bruce Watson agrees with me on the passport issue too. (On his “refutation” of my other points, I just say that not liking the conclusion is not the same as disagreeing.)
With regard to Neil James’ comments, I agree that fixing the alleged problem would not allow a retrospective prosecution of Burchett. But it would allow the prosecution of future cases, including Burchett himself who was also accused of treason during the Vietnam War. I still don’t understand why Menzies (and, yes, other PMs) didn’t fix this issue. And Menzies is pivotal. After all, he was the PM for 20 years, including the crucial period, and it was he who was responsible for the Kisch Case, the attempt to ban the Communist Party, and the prosecution of the Communist Party for sedition over the biological weapons allegation. And he was a pre-eminent lawyer. I’m not, but I find it hard to believe there was such an anomaly and he of all people did nothing.
I recognise the ’70s case was a defamation trial and I was using the term “charges” loosely. But the fact remains that the testimony of Kinne etc that James champions was given in that trial. As previously stated, this testimony is amply dealt with by Gavan McCormack in ”Burchett: Reporting the Other Side of the World” (available in many libraries). The testimony of POWs is either non-incriminating or dubious. Kinne, for instance, is rehashing allegations he made in the ’50s against someone else. Charitably you could say this was faulty memory or mistaken identity, not perjury.
Bill Hyde of Callistemon Publications writes: Re. “The Cold War remains unfinished business” (yesterday, item 19). I wish to comment on a sentence in Jeff Sparrow’s contribution. The sentence was: Wilfred Burchett might have been hideously wrong about the so-called People’s Democracies, but that doesn’t, in and of itself, invalidate his stance on, say, Hiroshima or Vietnam.
The assertion as to Burchett’s stance was correct about Hiroshima is not “the full story”.
Tibor Meray, in his book titled On Burchett, published by us, Callistemon Publications, acknowledges that Burchett was the first Western journalist to travel to Hiroshima after it was hit by an A-bomb and Burchett warned the world about the dangers of nuclear warfare.
The reason why this is not the full story is as follows, as Tibor Meray explained in his book.
Chairman Mao had a brainwave that a nuclear war would not be, after all, a bad idea since the Soviet Union and America would mutually annihilate each other, Europe would perish, half of China’s population (800 million then) would also perish but the surviving 400 million would be able to build a glorious socialism.
Needless to say not even the Soviet leaders were keen on this murderous, madcap scenario. However, Wilfred Burchett remained conspicuously silent about it!
The other part of Jeff Sparrow’s above sentence, namely that “Burchett might have been hideously wrong about the so-called People’s Democracies”, is a gross understatement of Burchett’s misdeeds.
At this point I must say that I agree with Bruce Watson (February 9) when he dismissed Clugston’s summary of Burchett (February 6).
To summarise what Tibor Meray wrote in his well documented book and also based on his personal knowledge of Wilfred Burchett I can say this:
Wilfred Burchett was by no means a “Champion of Truth” but a disinformer, in the pay of the Chinese, North Korean and other communist governments; Burchett was not only a disinformer: he also informed on fellow journalists; The supposedly “excellent investigative journalist” Wilfred Burchett not only swallowed holus-bolus the fantastic charges against the accused in show trials behind the Iron Curtain: he added a shovelful of his own lies to these fabricated accusations; Burchett was not merely a ’supporter’ of communism (as Clugston would have us believe): he was a card-carrying CP member.
Meray’s conclusion, based on his diary pages — supported by facsimile illustrations in his book — was confirmed later by Peter Hruby in correspondence he found, after the collapse of communism, in the archives of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia.
My contention is not Burchett — or anyone else for that matter — being a communist party member. After all, everyone is entitled to join any party of his choosing. My contention is: this shows that Burchett, by masquerading as an “uncommitted, independent journalist” was a dissembler, on top of being a disinformer; Meray documents instances when Burchett falsely claimed scoops in journalism while these scoops did not exist or were attained by others.
There are also instances when Burchett claimed — once again falsely — of “changing history”; Meray came to the conclusion, and Robert Manne came to the same conclusion later on, that Burchett was not a KGB agent in the sense of Kim Philby.
However, this is not the full story: Meray shows that Burchett was a second-or third rate informer, bearer of useful gossip, etc. Still nothing to be proud of!
Meray documents several instances when Burchett did not acknowledge at all his past “mistakes” or his admission was wishy-washy. There are also documented instances in the Meray book when Burchett aggravated a previous lie by a new one.
Burchett would have seen an plenty injustice, terror, poverty, oppression in the various communist countries he lived in – and Meray mentions what these were. Burchett, however, elected to remain silent about these.
The above summarized points are by no means all of what Tibor Meray relates in his book. But, by all means, show that Burchett was a lot worse than Jeff Sparrow’s acknowledgment in half-a sentence.
I used the word “supporter” in the basic sense of “someone who supports something”, with the intention of sidestepping the rather trivial debate on whether he was, in the McCarthyist phrase, a “card-carrying Communist”. As Robert Manne has admitted, the assertion that Burchett was a lifelong member of the CPA is dubious, not least because he spent much of his life outside Australia (and CPs aren’t supposed to believe in paper memberships). Hyde’s description of him as a “dissembler” is hard to sustain given Burchett’s open friendship with Ho Chi Minh etc. If anyone didn’t know he supported (that naughty word again!) the Communist line, then frankly they must have been thick as two bricks.
Neil James, Executive Director, Australia Defence Association, continues to accuse others of ducking the important questions regarding Wilfred Burchett. Neil, I for one did not avoid your claims at all. Apart from your unsubstantiated accusation that Burchett was a Bulgarian and/or Russian spy (a claim now dismissed as false by even Burchett’s most trenchant critics) you have accused him of treachery on account of his alleged participation in the mistreatment of allied POWs during the Korean war.
In fact you went further than most in claiming “at the very least Burchett was directly involved in causing the severe maltreatment, and in some cases torture, of Australian and allied prisoners-of-war.” Along with the spying claim, this is a very serious allegation indeed.
As I have said previously, the Korean was stories have a long and murky history. A comprehensive alternative case to your allegations has been put by the likes of Gavan McCormack, Jaimie Miller and others. Those interested can make of these what they will.
However what you have comprehensively failed to respond to my initial response to you (http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/20081219-Theres-something-about-Wilfred-Burchett.html) This showed documentary evidence of the significant support Burchett received from many Allied POWs, military and civilian, British American and Australian, lowly ranked and even the highest rank prisoner of them all, Major General William F. Dean.
What are we to make of your failure to acknowledge these ? Are they an inconvenient truth? Or do the betray an unwillingness to consider ALL the evidence, not just what suits your fixed position? Who is doing the ducking here Neil?
Similarly, you continue to rely heavily on claims by Tibor Meray against Burchett, even as you attack Burchett for peddling the “bogus “germ warfare” allegations against the UN Command.” Surely Neil, in the interests of full disclosure you might at least make reference to the fact that the person who first and loudest peddled these claims was none other than Tibor Meray himself? Perhaps this is not an insignificant fact?
Neil, believe it or not, I have no interest in hagiogragaphy. Burchett’s flaws were many and manifest. But we don’t really learn anything if we continue to rely on half-truths, misrepresentations and outright falsehoods to attack him. What is the sense in that?
Perhaps its time also for you to finally relent (as have Manne, Meray, and others) and admit you got it wrong about Burchett being in the employ of foreign intelligence services. There is no evidence to support it (and Lord knows, ASIO looked for it) so after more than 50 years we may be entitled to dismiss it as a rather nasty lie, though one often repeated.
Then at least we can get around to considering all the evidence about whether or not Burchet was, as you claim, directly involved in causing the torture of Australian POWs.
Simon Nasht
Oh neil,banging on about treason and treachery,regurgitating the cold war.
In these days of falling asset prices and mass unemployment who are our real enemies?
Hmm,they seem to be the bankers and CEOs not the left wing journos.
I always enjoyed burchetts books,probably because i would be accused of treason by neil.
I always knew that our involvement in vietnam was a crock and now having read much about the korean war i think we were wrong there too.
The korean war certainly was a bloodbath,a huge stuff up and left us the legacy of a nuclear armed north korea-brilliant!
By contrast the vietnam war had left us a legacy of a stable,united and very productive vietnam.
I see burchett as another in a long line of brave,resourceful aussie journos who tried to inform us.
Burchett just happened to be batting for the other team,as did I.
Who would i be putting up against the wall today?
Burchett or bankers?
I see that burchett ghost wrote sihanouks book-My war with the CIA.
Oh cambodia,the country that we bombed into the stone age with no regard for the people.
Does neil criticise kissinger or nixon?-no burchett is the criminal.
Go figure.
Bill Hyde of Callistemon Publications writes: Re. Niall Clugston and Simon Nasht. Clugston introduces McCartyism although in my description of Burchett’s activities I explicit stated that in my opinion anyone is entitled to join any party of his choosing.
Furthermore: Clugston ignores what Tibor Meray relates about Burchett’s party membership in his book titled On Burchett, published by us, Callistemon Publications and supports with facsimile reproductions of pages of his diary, his claims later confirmed by Peter Hruby what he found in the Czechoslovakian archives.
Furthermore: Meray in his book documents instances when Burchett explicitly denied his party membership.
If Clugston has not read Meray’s book then he is not in the position to comment on it. Clugston also distorts what Robert Manne stated about Burchett’s communist party membership. Manne said that Burchett later on moved in higher circles, it was not necessary for him to be a member of the [Australian] CP.
That is: he may have transferred his membership to the Soviet or another CP. Therefore Burchett, by denying his party membership, was a dissembler although in his later years he was more open about his allegiance.
As to Simon Nasht’s suggestion that Meray’s exposure of Burchett’s role in the germ warfare propaganda should be dismissed because Meray, too, was involved in this propaganda. First of all: Meray’s own involvement should not be a logical reason to dismiss his account of the germ warfare canard and Burchett’s (and his own) role in it. One would think that a close reading of Chapter 9 in the book would be more appropriate instead of Nasht’s one-sentence dismissal.
Also: in view the existence of the above mentioned chapter in the book by Tibor Meray about Burchett’s (and his own) involvement and the germ warfare propaganda plus an Annex showing Meray’s subsequent investigation as to what may or may have not been true in this affair (as early as 1957!) Nasht cannot claim that he had a “bombshell” exposing Meray: Meray had done it a lot earlier!
Nasht either has not read Meray’s book and in this case he should not talk about it. Or what is worse: he has read it but he does not wish others to know about what is in it. I wonder where the truth lies?…
To adopt my opponents’ pedantic style, I did not accuse Bill Hyde of being McCarthyist (though he obviously is!) nor did I comment on Tibor Meray’s book. Finally, far from misrepresenting Manne, I have the same interpretation of his argument that Hyde does – but Hyde doesn’t like the inevitable conclusion: that Burchett probably wasn’t a “card-carrying Communist” for most of his life. Burchett did not need a party card to hob-nob with Uncle Ho, to live in Bulgaria, or to write pro-Communist articles. Why this inane obsession with formal membership? Burchett’s activities spoke far more loudly than any of the documents all these rightwing footnote soldiers have unearthed!
3 Trackbacks