BigBlog

Circumspect Reflection or Directionless Nationalism

Australia Day is an occasion to celebrate our good fortune to be living in one of the richest, most spacious and most beautiful countries on this planet, and to reflect on our achievements. It is also a time for circumspection, a time to reflect on our shortcomings, our darker side, and to come up with ways to strengthen our nation. We have been endowed with great advantages, hence the Lucky Country term, but we need to look beyond our friendly environment and past achievements.

Unfortunately a strong nationalist surge is driving much of our observances of Australia Day, which at times comes dangerously close to the notion of a master race, glorifying our military exploits and our sporting prowess.Surely a good Australian is first and foremost a good citizen, and citizenship is about community enlightenment, global awareness and readiness to take a stand on issues that matter, based on a commitment to humanitarian ideals. There is certainly much more to it than the current superficial flag waving and flag wearing, those expressions of directionless nationalism. National citizenship, as JFK once put it, is not about what your country can do for you but about what you can do for your country.

A current issue we need to do something about is how to deal with the disturbing presence of racist sentiments, which have led to violence against Indian students and discrimination against our Muslim community. On this issue it was good to hear the wise words of retired General Cosgrove. But I cannot understand why the good General has also expressed his strong opposition to the move for a Charter or Bill of Rights? Certainly we have our strongly embedded democratic standards, but we also harbour a certain selfish nationalism.

This move for a Charter or Bill of Rights is surely of fundamental importance to getting Australians to be seriously committed against racial, ethnic or religious intolerance. An important function of a charter is to confront the community at large with its responsibilities as well as those of our politicians, our judges and all those exercising authority in relation to those human rights standards that form the very fabric of a functioning democracy. Australia may have ratified these conventions years ago but thanks to political inaction they have virtually remained in limbo, and need to be projected before all of us as a national code of conduct, as well as our human rights. That was the aim of those supporting last year’s national consultation, which unfortunately aroused some opposition, including from Bob Carr and Peter Cosgrove, many of the Opposition on the spurious grounds that a Charter would weaken our parliamentary system.

The contrary is surely true, for the charter would confront our politicians with the need to observe what has become a virtual universal code of conduct. It would serve to counter the extravagant and sometimes spurious mandate claims often advanced by the leaders of victorious parties. Electoral victories in a democracy are not a matter of winner take all. There is an overriding responsibility for political leaders to look beyond their own political agendas and uphold those human rights and civil liberties Australia has accepted by virtue of ratification of the relevant conventions.

Hopefully this year we shall get closer to having a charter, but because of opposition from some leading politicians and from other dignitaries like Cardinal Pell, that outcome rests under a cloud. It would certainly act as a definitive condemnation of the racism that still exists among us, a sentiment that some of our politicians are not averse to exploiting.Tony Abbot’s statement on border protection was a disappointing approach to the asylum seeker problem.

We do not want a return to John Howard’s shameful handling of the Tampa affair, nor to the notorious Pacific Solution, reminiscent of those infamous Soviet gulags. In relation to this issue In the first place we need to recognise our own negative role for we took part in those US-led military operations against Iraq and Afghanistan that led to a great loss of life and massive social disruption, as well as an upsurge in sectarian violence.

The fact that tens of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans have been seeking to abandon their countries, with a small number of them risking the dangerous journey to Australia, is hardly surprising. Their plight should be at the top of our agenda. They deserve not to be greeted by a wall of prejudice but by an understanding humanitarian response from Australians, many of whose ancestors also came in ships, disregarding the concerns of the original inhabitants. Let’s hear less about border protection and people smugglers, the latter simply exploiting a lucrative situation we helped create.  

The past year began with a surge of optimism, and then let us down, in relation to multilateral, that is UN, reform and issues to do with the environment, like climate change. The outlook for the year ahead is one of uncertainty, though on the positive side, we have the prospect of continuing Australia’s lead in recovering from the global economic crisis, an outlook more optimistic than for the US and many other Western countries.  

The prospects for most EU states, however, are  quite good, with the exception of the outlook for the UK, where the economic downturn could bring about Gordon Brown’s defeat in May. This time it seems that the big gainers will be major Asian countries, like China, India, Indonesia and South Korea, though not Japan which continues to languish in recession. The economies of the larger Latin American countries, Brazil, Chile and Argentina, will also continue to do well. Much of Africa unfortunately will continue to struggle,  development being marred by conflict and inept administration by undemocratic regimes.  

It is hard to be optimistic about the Middle East conflict situations. It will be difficult to make progress with the Palestine peace process without a major concession from Israel, and another conflict could easily be ignited by extremists, whether Israeli or Palestinian. The one hope is that Obama’s more evenly balanced approach may prevent that occurring. In Iraq more nasty bombing incidents suggest violence and political instability will continue to be around in the year ahead, reminding us that the sectarian violence that followed Bush’s intervention still poses a threat to Iraq’s national integrity.  In Afghanistan, this year will be a testing time for Obama’s move to upgrade the US commitment, and expand NATO operations against the Taliban. In a way it is a huge gamble, for If this strategy fails then the outlook for region, including Pakistan, will surely be grim, with the alarming risk of that highly dangerous nuclear arsenal falling into the hands of Muslim extremists.

This is a war we probably should never have become involved in, but to withdraw at this critical stage unilaterally could have catastrophic consequences. The outlook for the West’s dialogue with Iran is not looking good. Last year began with hopes for a constructive dialogue, but the fiery President Ahmadinejad has moved Iran away from detente, with the increased risk of Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon capability. One encouraging aspect is the strong opposition Ahmadenejad’s policies have aroused, but unfortunately in recent weeks they have been ruthlessly crushed by the Republican Guard.  

The massive American economy is predicted to slowly pick up, though clearly serious economic problems have yet to be addressed. After some weeks in San Francisco I gained the impression that few in the business community have yet to acknowledge the shortcomings of their capitalist free market system. It means that serious problems underlying the recent crash are unlikely to be addressed. If 2009 was a difficult year for Barak Obama, it will probably not be much easier in the months ahead. He is about to get a watered down version of his national health scheme, but opposition to his ‘liberal’ ideas is mounting, and the Democrats could lose their control of Congress at the November elections. If that happens, the two years prior to the next presidential elections in November 2014 will be very difficult, reducing Obama’s prospects of winning a second term.  

The year ahead promises to be a year of sobering reality for the Rudd Government in its relations with Asia. A year ago the Government was confidently lauding its achievements in our relations with major Asian states, like China, Indonesia, Vietnam and India, but the problems that have crept into these important relationships show that, here, there is a lot of work to be done.  There was the Stern Hu affair, the impact of the Balibo film, allegations of racist-inspired violence against Indian students, and now the problem involving Qantas executives in Vietnam. I feel that racism in relation to Indian students is anything but widespread, and maybe Indian politicians and media are making too much of it. They are right to urge us to deal with the problem, but in fairness violence based on sectarian and religious differences is more common in India, with more serious humanitarian consequences. In the circumstances the next twelve months will challenge the Rudd government to negotiate around these problems, but without disregarding or downgrading the fundamental humanitarian principles involved. 

 Some Reflections on Obama’s Progress 

The climatic change from our warming South Coast to a northern Californian winter was something of a shock. Thanks to icy winds and rain this part of the world is unusually cold and bleak. To add to this bleakness there is the recession. Recovery is on the way we are reassured, which has given rise to a cautious optimism. However there are lingering doubts among its victims, those forced out of their jobs and homes when the crisis hit. The onset of Christmas has somewhat brightened up this fascinating city, but there are doubts about the year ahead.

This predominantly Democratic region is of course Obama country but the glittering lights and optimism that came with his impressive presidential victory have dulled somewhat. Barak Obama may retain a certain popularity but the great enthusiasm that came with his inspiring ‘Yes, we can!’ speech has been dulled. In the complex and diverse political society that makes up America there are important things he is clearly having great trouble doing.

Firstly the global financial crisis hit hard in this part of the US, the Bay Area with its 7.5 million people. Thousands walked out of homes whose values had fallen to half their mortgage values, and unemployment rose alarmingly. As if to complete this bleak economic scene, the state itself is virtually bankrupt. The popular shift is now in reverse with Californians moving east in search of better employment prospects. Here the urban services infrastructure has been weakened, with, for example, reduced urban transport services. The weak public health service has been affected, though this could be substantially improved if the President’s national health scheme manages to get Congressional approval.

Having said all this, the situation is not really so grim. California’s economy is slowly moving out of recession, with a modest growth expected next year. Indeed the optimism and glitter that goes with Christmas is largely undiminished. Among the businessmen I have met there is hope that the worst is over. There is also an element of warm generosity in the air. While waiting at bus stops that are now infrequently serviced I have had several unsolicited offers of lifts from passing motorists, one of whom had just lost his job.

While Obama’s popularity may have dipped, many of those who voted for him seem to harbour a sympathetic understanding of the difficulties he is facing, ,but some are now say that he could turn out to be a one term president. He is seen as a reformer facing impossible obstacles from conservative America, the Mid-West and in the Bible belt. While there is now widespread support for his watered down national health scheme that this country should have had long ago, strong opposition persists from Americans’ traditional suspicion towards any kind of government operation. The public mood is swinging Obama’s way but he still faces strong opposition, including from some Democrat politicians. However, here in California my impression is that support for healthcare reform is overwhelming.

The President’s most  difficult challenge is in foreign policy, the Middle East in particular. Now that he has decided to send 30,000 more troops to what is now an unpopular war in Afghanistan, some here are suggesting that he has become hawkish, others that too much influence is being exerted by the military. Obama is probably trying to walk a tightrope, emphasizing the importance of peace initiatives, yet showing strength and resolve.

The tricky question is, what would happen if US and NATO troops withdrew? Would it not lead to a Taliban victory, and then to their success against Pakistan forces, with the risk of that nuclear arsenal coming under their control? This time his decision has the support of most Republicans, but not of the Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi, the Democrat Speaker who comes from California, and reportedly told him that she would not lobby reluctant Democrats to support the policy initiative in Congress.

In the circumstances his earlier Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech at Oslo seemed to have been framed for an American audience as well as the international community.  Was his reference to just and unjust wars a move towards an Obama doctrine, some Americans are asking? Is he moving back toward Bush’s pre-emptive strikes, which aroused negative reactions? My feeling is that he is trying to navigate through the minefield of problems that surrounds the Afghanistan situation.What bothers me here is that he did not mention the UN’s role in relation to the question of just wars. Surely it will be impossible to justify any military action without it being authorised by the Security Council. We would not want a repetition of the Iraq invasion which was opposed by the UN, and was virtually a violation of the UN Charter, a charter which Americans played a leading role in formulating, and which was signed here in San Francisco in June 1945.

Today it should be unthinkable to embark on such operations without the virtual approval, and participation of the international community, on moral as well as political grounds. In relation to our military involvement in East Timor here there is a message for the Rudd Government. Major General Taur Matan Ruak has just reportedly urged our force to withdraw. Frankly I think it should stay a little longer, but if it were slightly reconstituted as a PKF it would be less vulnerable to pressures from military leaders who would like to be in a position to assert an authority they should not have in a functioning democracy.   

While some of the media found the crisis involving the leadership of the Liberal Party a subject of entertainment, the shift that unfolded is a serious matter. Its implications go beyond  a shift in leadership. It constitutes a struggle for the soul of the Party, which could ultimately influence the direction of Australian politics, as happened when John Howard became leader.

One consequence is the loss of a consensus on the fundamentally important issues underlying climate change, and what we as a nation should be doing about it. The other concern, now that Malcolm Turnbull has been toppled, is what could be the loss of the small ‘l’ liberal consensus in  Australia politics generally. The latter is very important in terms of presenting an expression of what the majority of Australians consider should be our role in the major issues facing this country today.

What to do about our beleaguered environment is only one of these issues, albeit an important one. There is also human rights, in particular the current campaign to establish a charter or bill of rights.When abroad we constantly speak about where Australia stands on basic issues like the role of the UN, arms control, and on specific security issues, like Iraq, Afghanistan, and the prevention of the spread of nuclear weapon capability to countries like North Korea and Iran.  

When diplomats talk about Australia’s position on any one of these issues, we like to think that is the way Australians in general feel. In reality, of course, it is about the positions and prejudices of leaders of the political party in government.Because it so deeply affects all of us, the climate change issue is a very testing one for Australia. We are one of the leading polluters, and with our droughts and water shortages we are also a leading victim.

The situation calls for a national expression of political will. As it happens our sceptic politicians are something of an embarrassment at a time when our Prime Minister is about to attend the UN Conference on Climate Change, which starts in Copenhagen on 7 December.  This is a critically important conference which will test the strength of the world community’s resolve to deal with the deteriorating state of Planet Earth’s atmosphere.

If it makes progress then the situation should gradually improve as most nations take serious action in relation to carbon emissions. If it fails then there the momentum will be confined to regions like the EU and certain concerned nations.While I can sympathise with those who are questioning whether the mounting global pollution is causing accelerated global warming, there is little doubt about the harmful impact of toxic emissions in general on our earth’s atmosphere. While we should take note of the ten percent or so of scientists who are sceptical about global warming, surely we must act in response to the majority of scientific opinion on this matter. We should accept that global warming is happening, and set out to do something about it, while there may still be a chance to stem a process that could seriously affect the lives of future generations.In the circumstances Copenhagen offers a test of world leadership and political will.

Mr. Rudd should be congratulated for seeking to play a leadership role in the development of the kind of global response that just might head off a global disaster.  The plain fact is that if nations were to have taken positive measures before the conference, rather than delay until afterwards, the prospect for follow-up action will be much better.  Actually the Australian plan in relation to carbon trading is quite modest, for we really need to do much more, as Bob Brown repeatedly reminds us, to make a difference. But the Green refusal to support the ETS is unfortunate. What is important is to make  a start, even it falls short of what we should be doing. In a global context that start will serve to stimulate international momentum.Well, thanks to Tony Abbot’s victory, and the Liberal opposition to the ETS, Australia will limp into the conference at Copenhagen.

Turnbull opponents argue that we should wait and see. Not good enough! This means returning to our past practice of being followers, never leaders. Right now we need inspired leadership, encouraging Obama who also faces many doubters, for the sake of  the future health of our planet. It is really irresponsible to delay the kind of action that could make a difference. Other countries, including China and the EU, are taking this matter more seriously, for the impact of rapidly intensifying pollution is starkly before them. Our Australia environment may be cleaner because our huge toxic output is widely dispersed, but don’t forget that in per capita terms we are one of the world’s worst polluters. In the circumstances to fail to act responsibly is an act of irresponsible selfishness.

Nurturing a Neglected Relationship

Most media reports suggest that Kevin Rudd’s visit to India was not easy going. He got quite a lot of verbal harassment over the attacks of Indian students in this country, and his answers were not always well received. At one point, the Indian Prime Minister himself seemed to display a reluctance to shake hands with our leader. So can it be that Australia’s relations with our giant fellow Commonwealth member are not in particularly good shape?

If they are on the sour side, Mr. Rudd can hardly be blamed. He inherited the outcome of the policies of previous Australian governments, both Labor and Coalition, who never gave India the attention this important nation deserved. The relationship should have long enjoyed a special status. Both countries are members of the Commonwealth,  and India has a long democratic tradition, in an Asia which is rather short on real democracy.

It should not be forgotten that   Australians and Indians were comrades in arms both World Wars, with comparable casualties. However, in the post war years our diplomacy followed different paths – India became a leading non-aligned power in the Cold War, developing good relations with the USSR. Australian became a partisan, a staunch US ally,  engaging in the  Vietnam War which India condemned. India’s relations with China continued to be somewhat strained, whereas to us the latter came to be seen as an economic partner.

 Australia’s Asian focus has been largely confined to East and Southeast Asia,  with China the centrepiece. Thus for some two decades undemocratic China, and not India,  has occupied a special status in Canberra. It is only recently that Australia seemed to notice that India, too, was emerging as a major world economic power. However, China continues to be portrayed as our economic saviour – a partnership   under whose aegis our economy will continue to prosper at an impressive rate.

 India  at last may be getting some attention but few Australian politicians rate India’s status as a fellow democracy as being important to our future.. Somehow our political vision skips the Sub-continent. Our regional fix is on Indonesia, China, Japan, then it shifts to the Middle East.  It is surely time we gave India the attention she deserves as the world’s second most populous state, and likely to become the most populous by 2050. As a major nuclear power India is strategically important, and, along  with Brazil and, perhaps, Japan, deserves to be a permanent member of the UN Security Council.

Australian support for this would improve our standing in New Delhi.Two specific issues would have clouded the Rudd visit. First the violent attacks on Indian students, whose continued presence is of great economic importance to our universities. Here we deserve a bit more understanding from Indian leaders, for sectarian and communal violence continues to be a much more serious problem in India itself. I guess it is the presumed racist slur underlyng the violence here that rankles in India. I find it difficult to understand,  other than as a resentment at Indian competition for jobs much sought after by lower income groups in Melbourne and Sydney.

Unfortunately it suggests an underlying racial resentment that Chinese students, for example, do not appear to encounter.  It is an embarrassing problem which may have been exacerbated by the current economic crisis. It is in the national interest to end this racist behaviour A second matter that would not have impressed Indians is the government’s clumsy handling of the Tamil Asylum-seekers now near Tanjung Pinang. Sri Lanka may have 2 million Tamils, but India has over 60 million of this ethnic group. Understandably in Tamil Nadu there have long been serious concerns at the way their cousins have been being treated by the majority Sinhalese in Sri Lanka.

The ‘Indonesian solution’ would not have impressed them. Australia, three times the size of India, is seen as a rich country of wide open spaces, and our border protection policy risks being perceived as an expression of racially based self interest, a manifestation of the fear of invading hordes from the north that still fuels racist attitudes in this country.