BigBlog

A Franker Exchange Needed 

.This month the presidents of two of Australia’s most important international relationships are to visit. Barak Obama’s visit nearer the end of the month has already been well publicised. Despite his setbacks in the US he remains a popular figure here and is bound to receive the warmest of welcomes, that is, from those of us who manage to get sight him, thanks to an inevitable stifling security screen.

Of more immediate moment, however, is the visit to Canberra this week of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono of Indonesia who is to address the Federal Parliament. SBY is far more popular here than were his predecessors, with the possible exception of Wahid, so he, too, is in for a warm welcome. His meetings with Prime Minister Rudd will undoubtedly go well, as these two leaders have already established an easy rapport. Curiously they have political problems in common right now. Both were riding high last year but are now under much more pressure despite their successful efforts to ride out the economic crisis. Rudd has had to deal with the failure of his climate change legislation and the home insulation debacle, as well as a relentless assault from a loquacious Opposition leader. 

SBY, on the other hand, has also had to deal with very serious domestic matters, with the Indonesian parliament now taking its democratic role seriously. The most serious are the allegations of corruption over the $800million bailout of the Century bank, allegedly involving, among others, his vice President. Unheard off in Suharto’s day, there have been calls for the President’s impeachment, and the issue has split the coalition backing the President. The Indonesian Parliament is now demanding action against VP Boediono and Finance Minister Muljadi.

Both Rudd and SBY may have domestic problems, but both retain good standing internationally. They will have plenty to talk about, on which their views will probably be compatible. Both leaders no doubt share an interest in the directions of the changing scene in Asia, especially the role of its two largest nations, India and China. Of course there is Kevin Rudd’s quest for a wider regional body, but that idea is not going anywhere right now.   

There are a few irritants in the bilateral relationship. One is how to  stem the flow of asylum seekers, nearly all of whom come via Indonesia, where the last stage of their perilous voyage is invariably arranged by those we call people smugglers. This irritant is likely to remain, whatever the actions by the two governments, for little can be done about the unstable situations in the countries of origin, which is the real problem. Here many Indonesians consider the Western interventions, in which Australia has taken part, as being a major cause. That may be true, but it does not apply to Sri Lanka, the source of many recent arrivals.

On the positive side Australia’s generous response to recent natural disasters in Indonesia has won us respect from a people who inhabit one to the world’s most geologically unstable regions. There are some important underlying problems in the Australian-Indonesian relationship that are unlikely to be discussed during SBY’s visit. In fact they have been carefully kept off the agenda in recent contacts between the two leaders.

Yet these matters, which cloud many Australians’ view of our neighbours, really need transparency and accountability treatment, to use the jargon leaders of democratic states are fond of. They also impact of Indonesia’s democratic progress. One is the handling of the Balibo affair by the Indonesian authorities, which was an insult to our intelligence. It may have happened a long time ago, but its brutality and injustice was recently revived by the Balibo film. 

What concerns many of us is not that this tragedy happened, but that post-Suharto governments have refused to acknowledge any responsibility for what was clearly calculated and cold-blooded murder. It was followed by the brutal occupation of East Timor at a cost of nearly 200,000 lives. Despite the efforts of some of us to bring those responsible to account no TNI officer has ever been brought to justice for these crimes against humanity. For many Australians these unresolved events are a barrier to further progress in this important relationship. They also continue to attract international concern. Hence at the recent UN Security Council debate on East Timor there were calls for further investigations into these crimes. A frank and open discussion of these past events would, I believe, be welcomed by many Indonesians, as well as concerned Australians. 

Is the Global Economic Crisis Endangering European Unity?

Since the onset of the global financial crisis, the attention of Australian politicians and our media has been predominantly on events in the Asian region and in the US.  We have given little attention to what has been happening in Europe, the region which constitutes, historically speaking, the lands of the forebears of most citizens of this country. Europe is the main source of our culture and, for the most part, our democracy, while Greece and Italy (Rome) are the settings for Western civilisation as a whole.

In the post-World War II years it was Europeans, reeling in shock from the experience of  two catastrophic wars in the first half of the century, who led the way towards a more cooperative and humanitarian world. Thus the European Union was born, and with it new standards of democracy and human rights. The Americans and Australians talked loudly about ending the scourge of war, and enforcing a new regime of human rights, but it was Europeans who set about defining the problem and how to deal with it, introducing conventions with the force of law, a step that we, to our shame, are still baulking at on utterly spurious grounds.

The most profound contribution of Europe in the second half of the 20^th century, however, has been the integration of now some 25 nations into the European Union - with the enlargement that followed the collapse of the USSR. These nations have formed themselves into the kind of cooperative arrangement that has removed the risk of war, and created the kind of regional political economy which set a balance between the weaker and richer nations, offering protection against economic downturns. In the EU, smaller and weaker nations like Ireland and Portugal have thus been able to prosper. Well, thanks to the global crisis, which began to impact on Europe in late 2007, that arrangement is now being sorely tested. The weaker economies desperately need the kind of help that the rich members, who face their own economic problems, are unenthusiastic to offer.

Up to now the EU seemed to be riding out the crisis rather better than the US. But now several member nations, mostly those designated the Club Med states (Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal) are in deep trouble, with their recovery dependent on substantial help from the larger and more stable EU economies, especially Germany, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia and to a lesser degree, France.

To those in crisis we should add the UK and Ireland, though the former is still outside the eurozone. The woes of the UK economy are well known, but fortuitously being outside the Euro zone has had its advantages. Most attention here has been focussed on the dire crisis facing the Greeks, now led by George Papandreou’s centre-left Pasok party, which had just won office. The EU commission has become involved, declaring support for the austerity measures introduced by the new government, but holding back on direct financial assistance.

Just how far the cash-strapped wealthier countries are prepared to go is in some doubt, with calls for help likely to come from other member states affected by the global recession. The Germans in particular are reluctant to commit themselves to costly bail-out arrangements, demanding that the stricken economies take the first drastic step of reducing government spending. This, however, is easier said than done. It would mean weakening welfare programs at a time of pressing need, from millions of refugees as well as unemployed, thus risking unrest and instability.

We need the EU’s inspiration and I hope it will ride out the crisis without being significantly weakened. It would be tragic if monetary union collapsed - If for example Germany were to withdraw from the Euro and return to the mark. It could lead to a fragmentation of the EU structure. This would be a sad state of affairs for a community of nations that has shown us the way to a peaceful regional format, and to stricter observance of international human rights. It could weaken NATO at a time when the nations participating in the Afghanistan conflict have become very war-weary. But I should end on an optimistic note. The EU has already weathered some difficult situations since the beginnings of integration with the Schuman Plan in 1951, which led to the Treaty of Rome. There is always some uncertainty about the British commitment, but when it comes to the position of Germany and France, that is unlikely to change, for the steady development of the EU has been predicated on the solid commitment of Germany and France.  

Taking the Climate Change Issue Seriously

Election years are never relaxing times for our politicians and those who take elections seriously, especially supporters of the government, and this year could be a particularly testing time, despite the Australian economy’s impressive rate of recovery. With the Coalition shifting rightwards under Tony Abbot, the election will probably be very divisive, especially in relation to the important  issue of climate change and greenhouse gases.

The dividing of the community is to be regretted for we really need to stand united on such a fundamental issue impacting on the lives of future generations. To get the best response to the problem we need maximum community understanding of the problem, and acceptance of how to deal with it. Thanks largely to the Coalition’s shift, many people find the way ahead littered with confusing arguments and distractions. Understanding the underlying issues was hard enough without the looming division that followed the change in Coalition leadership.

The distracting interventions of Lord Monckton have added to a significant growth in scepticism. As Mike Carlton pointed out in his latest SMH column, Moncton appears to be a right-wing ideologue with little credibility. He appears to lack the appropriate scientific credentials to pass judgement on what is a very complex scientific issue. Though Moncton may have influenced  the sceptical public, what is important is that his views have been dismissed by the relevant scientific community, 90% of whom, according to a leading scientist long involved in this debate, support the view that our expanding output of greenhouse gases is affecting our climate. These are the authoritative voices we should be heeding, not the likes of Lord Moncton, or sceptical politicians. If we fail to curb these harmful emissions life on earth could ultimately be threatened. We may have reservations about some of the ideas of Al Gore’, for example, but Moncton’s lampooning of the former US vice-president was at best distasteful.

As for criticising the Copenhagen forum, although the outcome was disappointing, it should not be regarded as a complete fiasco, as some have branded it. Agreement was reached on the need for action to reduce greenhouse gases, and many nations have moved to launch, even if they fall short of what is needed. Reports of  errors among the UN reports on  these issues have also aroused some scepticism, and clearly the reporting procedures of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change need tightening up. But even when we take these shortcomings into account the general thrust of the problem remains the same, and we need to face up to it accordingly, and beware of attempts to discredit the entire process by  political sceptics or the mining industry establishments. 

The environment debate will be around us this election year, but as a foreign policy issue it is unlikely to present the government with a headache, for in the region the planned Australian response is among the more enlightened. On other issues, especially relations with the major regional states, 2010 promises to be more challenging than last year. From Australia’s point of view the the Asian political landscape is less settled than it was a year ago.

Clearly the refugee issue is causing mounting resentment at political levels in Indonesia. Also still causing irritation is the Balibo film with its grim indictment of the Indonesian military, some of whose senior officers have been appointed to senior posts in the Yudhoyono government. One example is Lt. Gen Sjafrie Sjamsuddin who was one of the generals who organised the setting up of the militia in East Timor and gave it its agenda of violence, with the aim of sabotaging the move towards independence. This is only one of a number of indications that opposition to  the exposure of the TNI’s brutal excesses in East  Timor is as strong as ever, despite the move towards democracy. This trend may suit Australian politicians and officials, but, thank goodness, the UN Security Council has so far refused to remove these matters of serious crimes against humanity from its agenda.

The way ahead may not be so easy in our relations with East Timor, where we still have some 500 troops in the ISF, and where there is a growing assertiveness by politicians and government officials of their independence. The Timorese military commander recently called for an end to the ADF intervention, apparently regarding their continued presence as undermining the country’s independent status (I believe it should stay on for another year or so). Another rearing problem is about East Timorese impatience with the existing oil exploration arrangements, and its moves to set up installations in East Timor, as an alternative to Darwin.Taking into account the growing complexity of relations with both India and China, the  way ahead may not be so easy.

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.