Monday, 25 January 2016

To have a strategic direction we have to be a nation

Sounds obvious, but we are in a muddled state here.

In recent years I have become uneasy about chauvinistic displays of the Australian flag by more and more around Australia Day, tomorrow, 26 January. Glad to see all the chauvinalia stacked in the front of local supermarket at half price yesterday. Long may they decline in significance.

I have also been uncomfortable with the rising enthusiasm for war-remembering and marching, with less questioning of commitments we take to go to war and more snarling at suggestions we should lift into the Australian calendar those dreadful wars in Australia, the only wars in Australia, against indigenous Australians, by white invaders.

I am pleased that there exists a radical Australian news-on-line source with whole-Australia including Aboriginal focus and that I am a supporter of it, albeit a very modest supporter. Please read and become a contributor to New Matilda.

I am pleased that people have begun to say they will not sing the Australian National Anthem because it spits on the full history of Australia, with its dirty dark side. because it claims that Australia is "young and free" when in fact it is an old continent with the oldest people and it is far from free in many senses, in my view least free in its entrapment by fantasies about itself and the world. I'm pleased that we've begun to think about all this and I hope we can move forward collectively without great ructure. But there will be quite a lot of ructure and we need energy and determination for it. Though I am 72 and disabled, I will do what I can.

Former Prime Minister John Howard said we should put the origins of the Iraq war behind us, as also he and a conservative phalanx want us to put behind us the real history of Australia with its dirtiness and brutality towards indigenous people.

We cannot. We must not. Though we hit a muddy rock bottom of racism during 2015.

There is a chance that the tide may turn.

A speech last week, embedded below, on how racism is destroying the Australian dream, by experienced journalist Stan Grant, these days indigenous affairs editor of The Guardian,  has reportedly now gone viral.

When we begin to deal with the dark history of Australia:—
... then may we be able to go on and deal with our culpability for the shit we have created variously in the middle east and in the rise of terrorism by going into a stupid war in Iraq...
... and then maybe we might be able become a sensible ally of the USA, a thoughtful one, with opinions and wisdoms, if we must be an ally, if the USA remains worthy of our alliance (another subject).

Sending a fool as ambassador to Washington and having press fawn over him is not a good start.

May we go forward from here to find an identity without which sensible strategy not possible. State Premiers, all but one of them, today called for an Australian Head of State, but we have to gouge much deeper into systems and psyches

Think upon this: Stan Grant's speech. Let us hope banners are raised and battles won, towards a new kind of Australia, not just the nice multicultural society we used to have but something more robustly, thoughtfully decent, inclusive, respecting and empowered. That's my Australia Day wish.


North Korea (DPRK)

Again I mention the references to the importance of empathy over there in the right column (or probably missing if you read this on a phone).

I wrote this below at The Guardian recently, after North Korea's latest nuclear test.

It was interesting that one person commented TLDR. I learned that TLDR means 'too long, didn't read.' No empathy possible without thought. The translater of TLDR had a nice comment:

  • It's important to recognise that North Korea's behaviour is much as one might expect of a country locked in a broom cupboard for over half a century. Also to recognise that in that time North Korea has been subjected to more overt [nuclear] threats than any other country, including the breach in 1974 of US policy never to confirm or deny the presence of nuclear weapons when US Defense Secretary James Schlesinger affirmed the location of nuclear weapons in South Korea aimed at the north.
    And to recognise that in the 1990s the US failed to meet commitments agreed with North Korea.
    While also recognising that North Korea's attempts at independent technical innovation have more often been ragged than not, and North Korea's ventures in trying to follow China in more open economic relations with the world were terribly timed and they were badly burned especially by the 1979 oil shock... as well as by lousy trade associates.
    And recognising that they have tended to fulfil all the dreadful sarcastic characterisations of North Korea by both US military planners and the whole rang of media pundits and commentators. Be careful what you wish for and plan and militarily manoeuvre against. It is plain that the annual summer reinforcement exercises between the US and South Korea are carried on in a manner to antagonise North Korea, to prod North Korean electronic intelligence and cause agitation in the North Korean leadership. While no more under civilian policy control on the US side than was Douglas MacArthur when in 1950 he wanted to carry the Korean War to Beijing, nuking all the way, until Truman yanked him out.
    And in this situation, particularly worryingly, recognising that reports of widespread use of crystal meths in North Korea, including by leaders, may be true ... and that in consequence decision making may be coloured to say the least.
    In longer history, Korea has had the difficult role of living between China and Korea, with different culture and language more closely related to Finnish and Turkish. A hermit kingdom. Remembering for comparison that up to 150 years ago, in Japan, attempt to leave that country was punishable by death. And that thus there are traditional values deep in the tormented psyche of Pyongyang.
    I come back to the 'locked in the broom cupboard of Asia' analogy with which I began. Having had some role in the 1970s in Australian efforts to recognise and open the door to North Korea, under Whitlam's policy of recognising realities, which saw also recognition of Beijing and Hanoi. Against hostility and ridicule from Washington, Seoul and a wider range of countries that should know better. Over and again, fixing the Korean Question has been put aside, left to be seen as soldiers see it, while other issues given priority in Washington... till we get to this appalling point. Getting the demon we caricatured. But still some have to venture into engagement with the broom cupboard. On terms other than castigation and stick waving.

    Some effort needs to be made to see the world as seen from Pyongyang if ever we are to resolve issues with Pyongyang. And not with ridicule and sensationalist description as seems the norm in the west. So often we succeed in proving to Pyongyang that opening to the world is very dangerous. Sit for a moment in Pyongyang and try to understand Donald Trump. Consider the wisdom and success of US policy in the Middle East. Consider what has happened in countries recently open to 'democracy' and the west. To liberation, like Libya and Syria and of course Iraq, Afghanistan ... and the USSR. Baby it's cold outside. All our perspectives are distorted, all our hands are dirty. Let's step back from righteous giggling out here. At least setting off a bomb stops the giggling, let's see how those Americans react with shit in their pants: that's what they are thinking in Pyongyang, let's get some respect round here, respect the way they've sought respect out there.
  • 1 2
    tldr
  • 0 1
    Too lazy, didn't read... Too bad, it was interesting.

Saturday, 23 January 2016

January 2016

I have not written for half a year here. Looking back on what I wrote in most recent posts I am pleased to rediscover what I said, that it still seems to make sense... and almost that there is nothing more to say. Things seem so cut and dried in our political system right now when our Australian Prime Minister has an approval rating of 80%, we know so little about what his policies and capabilities ... and we have an Opposition Leader with popularity below 20% and policies which may be quite good but who will never be seen as a leader.


In the right column I quote two fiction writers on the importance of empathy. We need to read and think and put ourselves in the places of others.

We also need to be aware of history. I commented on a recent quality article at The Guardian about Saudi Arabia and the oil outlook as follows (links and some tidying now added). My intention is just to offer one subject among many where we can benefit from deeper understanding rather than just instant manic policy lurch or godlike strategic pronouncement:
Can I offer these thoughts for those who scoff at Saudi princelings. 
in 1900 the only member of the British cabinet who was not a princeling was Joseph Chamberlain, the millionaire who moved his politics to the right to become a monster of empire and start the Second Boer War. That he came from Manchester: Manchester that rose to wealth on the backs of poor Irish workers and, earlier on,  southern American cotton picking slaves, then empire-cheap workers. From such sprang mighty Immodest Britain. 
Can I note as historical record that the beginning of significant oil taxation in the west began with the first oil shock in 1973, when the Saudis organised OPEC and prices went up. That the intention was to restrain consumption but it is evident that consumers are not so daunted by price... until we compare with the effect of negligible restraint in the USA and the persistence there of gas guzzling. Thank you Europe for restraint, taxation, more sensible prices and vehicles. And thank you Saudis for taking a hold of your resources and getting the world on a slightly better course. 
Can I mention that the great USA-Saudi-Aramco relationship can be traced to the rivalry between Lawrence of Arabia and Philby Senior, father of Philby Spy, for influence in London. Lawrence was the bigger charmer and sold London on giving first place to relations with Amman and Baghdad. Philby, fuming over his conditions as consul in Jeddah [dip toes here] and annoyed that London had spurned the Saudis, introduced the Americans, which some might say a greater betrayal of England than his boy achieved. But not greater than Lawrence's betrayal of us all, teaching Arabs the virtue of blowing things up. I cite Basil Liddell-Hart's opinion on that, Lawrence's responsibility for legitimising terrorism. 
Can I also note that turbulence in Iran can be traced back to British and American intervention. http://www.iranchamber.com/history/coup53/coup53p1.php says that the 1953 coup was the CIA's first success, but we may well consider the long view and the dreadfulnesses since the 1970s especially. 
Can I mention to those that scoff at free education and capital expenditure based on oil in Saudi Arabia that Australia's roads and hospitals and schools have been sustained in the last several decades by China and others buying resources. 
And note that indicative of our higher intellects we will abandon public schools and hospitals before we abandon road spending. Or consider sensible redistributive taxation. Electing conservative leaders similar to those in the UK and USA who though in the great scheme of things not hugely rich perversely consider it a goddess-given virtue to work wholeheartedly for the 1%. 
If people don't begin to see such perspectives then ... Well the world will be as much at risk as if its fate were in the hands of young history-naive children in banks and trading places wherever.

Partly when people are scoffing at Arabia and enthusiastic about bombing we can see race prejudice. Partly we can see the influence of computer games and enthusiasm for swift winner hits. And desire that problems can be solved from a safe distance.

We have a problem in the Australian state of New South Wales that the only planning body is the roads authority: therefore we get world's-best roads proliferating without much tethering to comparative value of expenditure of billions of dollars on this or other purpose, or on other means of transport, or other more modest standards for roads. Similarly in national strategy, we have mainly a defence-oriented, or rather defence-force-focused way of making policy. And for so long as we have members of the defence force in Afghanistan and Iraq it is necessary for governments to mindlessly chant what a wonderful job they are doing to good purpose... though this is really precisely when we should review rigorously. This extraordinary review of the last decade or so by George Soros is a good place to start any thinking about the future.

In Washington the US President exclaims that Australia is the second largest contributor to war against ISIL, read this fodder for Murdoch tabloid. But in Australia we have no debate on this extraordinary contribution, there is just the macho--national-security-bug-squash reflex. There is no discussion of our own direct contribution, by going to war in Iraq in 2003, to precisely the problem of ISIL.

We march to the drum beat, policy subordinated to that of a major ally partner, let no one discuss the decline of American power, the demonstrated inefficacy of military force, the demonstrated fact that our essays in war create monstrous new problems.

In this bright new year, emerging from the summer holiday season in Australia, we do look with horror at the dreadful prospect of a possible Republican president in the United States. In the 1970s when I was counsellor and acting Minister in the Washington Embassy, it was a bit droll to have Prime Minister Fraser visit President Ford and say "I agree with you" and the next year visit President Carter and say "I agree with you"... when obviously these presidents did not agree with each other.

We have an election late this year in Australia too. We enter the election year with a recently-installed-in-party-coup conservative Prime Minister Turnbull with a popularity of 80%, being a man of elegance, eloquence and wealth, about whose policies there is deep uncertainty. We have an Opposition Leader, Labor's Bill Shorten with popularity <20% whose appearances in public are fumbling and excruciatingly embarrassing, and whose policies may be more merciful but ... it is unimaginable to think of him as an inspiring leader, driving us towards whatever future, commanding relations with other countries. So we may expect the nation to continue with negligible mental preoccupation beyond rages of Facebook and Twitter. And the price of petrol. And the smoothness of roads. And the occasional annoyance about people who have no work. And occasional mad paroxysms about people who are different. Government spending will be significantly altered with the commencement of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) in 2016-2017... We wait to see from where funds will be taken.

Tuesday, 2 June 2015

neglected

I have been neglecting you dear blog.

Various reasons including desultory health but also standing back and watching the energy so many people put into having opinions and wondering if somewhere there is some mechanism, some magic ingredient to make the utterances of more and more mean anything more than addition to mass brass instrument cacophany. Do a web search for number of books published to see the explosion just in books... but books are a declining element in public writing.

Perhaps this metaphor is apposite because I am writing this in often quite noisy Mexico City.
Solitude is the profoundest fact of the human condition. 
Man is the only being who knows he is alone, and the only one who seeks out another.
Octavio Paz, The Labyrinth of Solitude
This may have greater meaning now that the internet becomes as noisy as a Mexican street. But do those of us who write to the web write for others, to engage with others? Or to express the urge to utter?

There are a number of my generation who have been active in government policy who write about their past fields, repeating what they said before or with l'esprit de l'escalier what they wished they'd said before. But I do not sense a connect to younger generations who must be the ones to find sensible new international policies.

I'd just recommend that younger generations reject a lot of the silly and dangerous adventurist and posturing baggage of Australian strategic utterances and deployments. We have been shown by Ireland just how slow and backward we are on equality issues.

Generations seem to be getting both dumber and more cautious, their world full of threats, disemployment, apprehension about saying the wrong thing. As I said in a 2004 speech about the Iraq war, the right to speak is reduced, vocabulary is reduced, distorted:

In 1914 and over the years that followed, as in 2001 and years that follow it, we see political leaders create a situation where they must remain consistent with already failed strategy. They must chew up more lives, because to do otherwise risks not just their own positions but the whole posture and shape of state power they have built up to reinforce their strategies. So much so, that rivals... have to speak the same language, have to say yes they will fight the War on Terror, otherwise they themselves fear being political losers because the whole political vocabulary has been distorted by fear and misinformation. We say to ALL political leaders this: we reject the macho thick-skull notion that you can’t change your mind. We will support you in any pursuit of sane new policy directions to other than war.

In Washington in the 1970s and next in writing speeches for the Labor Party in opposition I thought I made some way with the argument that a good ally is one which helps a big friend to see some course of action is unwise, rather than trotting behind. Huh! It seems so blindingly obvious. Why grasp the coat-tail of someone who won't listen. Why imagine you are more than a doormat if all you do is say yes.

Meanwhile my partner and I have been finding happier times visiting family in the USA and going on for several weeks in Mexico. From which two blogs. It's a slog but good for the brain to try to write up a day's travel or a moment's something. And you can change yourself and be fully alive by thinking freely. There is so much to learn and if you don't take it in you won't learn, won't change.

Here are the two current blogs:
Seattle to San Francisco
Mexico

Saturday, 17 January 2015

What does the Australian Labor Party stand for?



National Archives photo
forty years ago
when Secretary of the
Prime Minister's Department.
John Menadue has today reposted a very sensible clear statement of what the ALP needs to do if it is to have a future. 

Read it here. 

Please.

A sample of the clarity and sense:
"If Labor is to differentiate itself from conservative parties, it needs to express that difference in a clear set of principles which accord with the best of Australians’ values. Otherwise the political contest is reduced to satisfying short-term materialist ‘aspirations’, appeasing vested interests and managing the media cycle. In such a contest, Labor is engaged in a futile struggle, for the Coalition is adept at conveying the misleading impression that it is the ‘natural party of government’, particularly because of its supposed competence in economic management. Joe Hockey’s performance as Treasurer shows that this supposed competence is a myth but conservative commentators still persist with the myth."

That's from part 1. John has also reposted his concluding elegant part 6.  The language is clear, the arguments important.
Even conservatives acknowledge that only the public sector can provide some services such as national defence and management of the money supply. In addition, however there are economic functions where private funding or provision is possible but only at high economic cost, with distorted incentives and with serious consequences for equity. These include education, health insurance, energy and water utilities and communication and transport infrastructure. In these and other areas there are market failures for which prudent economic principles require a strong government role in funding or provision. Unless Labor articulates and defends the proper economic role of government – a pre-requisite to improving Australia’s weak taxation base – economic growth will be restrained by inadequate public spending and investment.
Of these investments, the most important is human capital to ensure that people can develop their capabilities so that they can contribute to their full potential through employment, business or unpaid work...
...[Labor] should present its human capital policies in the context of a unified set of principles in infrastructure, education, health, environmental  protection, underpinned by principles of investing in capabilities, nurturing individual freedom and autonomy and supporting social inclusion.

Charlie Hebdo, Paris 17; Baga, Nigeria 2000

My entry in this blog on 9 January about Charlie Hebdo and 9/11 may have been gloomier than necessary. OR not gloomy enough. The quality of transient passion whipped by social media was nicely summed up in the New Yorker's daily cartoon 26 December.


John Menadue, at his blog, has written and linked to some good thoughts on Charlie Hebdo.

The Independent carried this report which makes sobering reading about the way the virtual world and political pompery of the developed world has reacted to the massacre of 17  rude people in Paris, while the murder of 2000 innocents in a Nigerian village arouses scant attention, though its strategic consequences are large, much as Ebola has strategic consequences.

As to what to do about Charlie, Russell Brand again makes good sense.

Friday, 9 January 2015

Charlie Hebdo and 9/11

I'm afraid that the global reaction to the Charlie Hebdo atrocity reminds me more than anything else of the mad response to 9/11.

The Guardian has offered an editorial and a commentary urging moderation and thoughtful response and quite quickly shut down commenting with bricks being hurled at the paper. It has highlighted some letters which point to the need to maintain perspective, not least the context of western military violence, including against media, this without offering room for comments.

In my view the mass outpouring of sympathy is one thing, the mass leaning towards retribution is very dangerous, especially as it seems more global and crowd-pushed than 9/11. It will be difficult for governments to be moderate, it will be easier for security perspectives to prevail if people demand hostile responses and if people use the event to tag every Muslim. And easier for far right politics to come to the fore. Along with anarchic leftish activity, the old left being as comfortable as President Hollande is popular in this swirling stream.

And some pillars of progressive editorial virtue are ready to pillory any murmur of doubt about the righteousness of Charlie.

I find myself very uncomfortable finding any measure of agreement with the disagreeable Bill Donohue, given his demeanour and his ugly outpourings generally, but there is a germ of reality in his comment on this event.

While social media and much mass entertainment depends upon and stokes extravagant rudeness and wildness there are things which work towards peace and freedom and things which reinforce intolerance and whip up hatreds. As did many of the cartoons, the wild-child nose thumbing and toilet humour of Charlie Hebdo and your everyday wave of nastiness on social media. It is of the fabric of bullying, of American exceptionalism, of the right to rush into other countries, the right to bash a spouse for disagreeing or just to vilify. Vilification is vilification.

And if we are concerned for war avoidance and enhancement of development and stability in the world, we need to be very concerned about what has happened in the reaction as much as the atrocity. Or more, because if we assert that we are better people, we should try to be better people.

The atrocity in Paris is criminal, not an act of war... of if it is found to have been directed rather than inspired by some known terrorist organisation, then we should look carefully at its effects and our responses have to be deliberate and constructive. If is is an act of war it has been immensely successful in causing political chaos in the enemy. Clausewitz discussed the tendency of war to drive out policy:

Were [war] a complete, untrammeled, absolute manifestation
of violence (as the pure concept would require), war would of
its own independent will usurp the place of policy the moment
policy had brought it into being; it would then drive policy out
of office and rule by the laws of its own nature, very much like a
mine that can explode only in the manner or direction
predetermined by the setting. This, in fact, is the view that
has been taken of the matter whenever some discord between
policy and the conduct of war has stimulated theoretical
distinctions of this kind. But in reality things are different,
and this view is thoroughly mistaken.
.... As quoted by Suzanne Nielsen, POLITICAL CONTROL OVER THE USE OF FORCE: A CLAUSEWITZIAN PERSPECTIVE, May 2001, p.16
Sadly I think Clausewitz's last sentence quoted above, while relevant to war in the early 1800s, is not relevant now, in a period of absolute and pervasive war, with proliferation of tools of violence and mobility and independence of decision that he could not have imagined. He wrote in the wake of the Congress of Vienna, the great moment in which 'the state' was affirmed as the definition of international life and strategy and power. Presided over by Metternich, hero and role model of Henry Kissinger, whose metternichian approach to international affairs as national security advisor to Nixon, later Secretary of State under Nixon and Ford in the United States, 1968-1976, saw pursuit and promotion of notions of a two or three power world model in which the interests of lesser states were utterly disregarded, creating the basis for many ongoing miserable conflicts which have become more inflamed with the removal of the cold war packaging, direction and savagery. That mindset evident in the embalmed perspectives of such as Edward Luttwak. Mindset that is part of the blood stream of American exceptionalism, Clintonist we-will-be-great-again (see second last para) as well as the now dominant American right.

And now we have Charlie exceptionalism, driven as wildly as extreme Islamist exceptionalism. And shouting drowns out thinking, war drowns out policy, war in its own exceptionalism, war as a virtue for some industry, war easily made and easily armed, war increasingly unconventional.
---

See how even my local tourist office wants to exploit terrorism-mindedness for business.

I recall, in the wake of 9/11 and at the beginning of the Iraq invasion, in 2003, listening to talkback radio, driving at night, in which people in Sydney were ringing in with all sorts of apprehensions, explaining how their attitudes and behaviours had changed, how they looked at parked cars, how they did not want to stop in strange places in the dark... There is a recent shift in body language, in how people smile or seem to smile less, meet the eye less in negotiating passage through confined spaces in shopping places. I'm thinking it's not just Howard-encouraged self-centredness, it's a depth of irrational apprehension, adding now with economic insecurities with their real base and as fomented by government doomsaying.