Public Opinion

« April 2003 | Main | June 2003 »

May 31, 2003

Life imitates the movies?

This is a great article by Paul Krugman. It appears that he has been re-reading the screenplay of the 1997 Hollywood movie Wag the Dog. He says that in this political satire:

"An administration hypes the threat posed by a foreign power. It talks of links to Islamic fundamentalist terrorism; it warns about a nuclear weapons program. The news media play along, and the country is swept up in war fever. The war drives everything else — including scandals involving administration officials — from the public's consciousness."

It got quite good reviews too.

Just sounds like real life huh? Do you think that the Bush administration got the idea of the Iraqi war from Hollywood? The movie is premised on the bold and cynical assertion that truth is unimportant since it is only what people believe to be true that matters. (I haven't seen the movie. I wil try and get a DVD tonight and watch it.)

Well, the unimportance of truth looks like what happened. It is what people believed to be true with respect to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction being the central reason for going to war. There are lots of doubts now; even amongst Generals. Columinists are now suggesting that government officials leaned on the intelligence agencies to exaggerate the Iraqi threat and deceive the public?

And worse. Officials in the American administration (eg., Paul Wolfowitz) are now admitting that though the oppressive treatment of the Iraqi people by the Iraqi regime was a reason to help the Iraqis; it was not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk-----certainly not on the scale they did. So much for that reason.

I cannot access the US Defence Department website for the Wolfowitz Vanity Fair transcript. But Tim Dunlop over at Road To Surfdom has the core bits and an extended commentary and analysis.

If what Wolfowitz says is so, then that leaves us with Iraq's alleged links with al-Qaida as the reason to go to war. Well, that was never adequately established.

So what was the reason for war again? That Iraq was an imminent threat to the US? How so? Because Saddam was actively supporting the Palestinians against the Israelis, threatening to light up the whole region with war and so was the prime source of instability in the region?

None of that has much to do with Australia's national interest at all. No one every bothered to argue it in Australia.

There ought to be a Senate Inquiry into how and why Australia went to war with Iraq.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 4:40 PM | Comments (5)

May 30, 2003

ABC as democracy's watchdog.

Max Uechtritz, the director of news and current affairs at the ABC, puts his money on the table in his response to the criticism of bias and prejudice made by Senator Alston, the Minister of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. Uechtritz puts his money on the table by linking the critical watchdog role of the media to democracy. But that's not enough these days.

First the ABC case. Uechtritz says:

"In wartime, distortion - for good reasons and bad - is a given. And that's why the most essential tenet of journalism, healthy scepticism, needs to be applied with full vigour. The media have to explore all points of view, have to try to get to the truth or some way towards it."

Hence we have the classic appeal to truth. Why do we need the truth? Uechtritz says:

"It is the duty of independent journalists in a robust democracy to question everything. The senator seems to think the media's duty in time of war is to fall meekly into line with the government of the day."

Truth is linked to democracy. But why question what happens in democracy? Uechtritz says that during a war:

".. it is not always in the interests of the military and those who govern them to deliver the whole truth....It is the media's role to question what the military and their political masters say, to look at both sides, to seek the truth. At times that will inevitably make people from both sides a little uncomfortable.
It's called democracy."

So in a democracy (what sort does Uechtritzh have in mind?) journalists have to adopt a questioning mode to uncover the truth that has been covered up or hidden by Canberra spin. Uechtritz implies that journalists uncover the government's spin and, when it is uncovered, there lies the truth revealed for the audience to see. That is the watchdog role and it is what the ABC did during the war. Its a key argument and it needs to be made. It is developed to good effect here over at Crikey.com

There rests the ABC's case. It is a classic defence of journalism; one which the commerical stations have largely discarded in favour of cheque book journalism and infotainment. It is a rational for public broadcasting that counters the ratings, revenue salary focus of the commercial media. Such a defence does raise lots of questions about truth. Nor does it go far enough in addressing the lefty politics of the ABC.

First a quibble about the appeal to truth. Is there are a truth to the matter as is implied by Uechtritz? What, for instance, is the truth about the reasons for going to war with Iraq? Do we not have layers and layer sof interpretation all the way down here , rather than some bedrock indisputable fact? Secondly, is not the truth of the matter about the reasons for Australia going to war more akin to some form of public agreement or consensus that that bedrock indisputable fact. For example, a consensus is forming within the formation of public opinion that the WMD reason was not a real reason?

If so, should we not focus on the deliberative process? If we do, then Uechtritz's
defence of the ABC implies a large and heterogeneous public sphere. It implies fairness or reasonable between different points of view in the current ABC media. But this is not right. It ignores the detail about the audience of current affairs programs and says nothing about group polarization in liberal democracy.The communications market the public is deeply divided one with different groups preferring their own communications package.

This consumer fragmentation means that the different groups hear more and more louder versions of their pre-existing commitments and prejudices. Its what Geoff Honnor noted about the ABC, but the same can be said for the Herald Sun and the Daily Telegraph. So we get a flowing of controversial and substantive programmingin which the audience hears the same viewpoint stated over and over again. The trend is for public deliberation to become more and more an enclave deliberation. This is a problem because, for liberal democracy to work, we need shared understandings of some minimal sort between the enclaves. What are these?

More substantively, Uechtritz fails to state that the ABC has a political agenda. Clearly it has---a left liberal one as ABC Watch well knows. The ABC's market segement is a left liberal audience; it reflects this enclave groups values and is the springboard for this groups deliberations. Yet Uechtritz pretends otherwise with his appeal to truth. He implies that the ABC speaks the truth. It has no political bias. That is what is implied. What is also implied is that the commerical stations have a political agenda but not the ABC.

Its political spin and it deserves to be deconstructed by conservatives. And it is politically indefensible in the face of Alston's criticisms. What needs to be done is to link the left-liberal politics to the ABC's role as a national broadcaster. What is the role of the ABC, apart from a critical questioning of political spin in the name of truth? What is it that makes it different from commerical media?

The answer has to be along the lines of the value of truth being linked to the requirements placed on the ABC through its Charter under the Broadcasting Act. This Charter places an emphasis on the ABC contributing to a sense of national identity, informing and entertaining, and reflecting the cultural diversity of the Australian community. Consequently, the ABC needs to show how its left liberal politics fosters a sense of national identity and reflects the cultural diversity of the Australian community.

Uechtritz failed to give such a defence. And that is the flaw in the way the ABC currently conducts itself in the public sphere. The defence needs to be made, otherwise the difference of the ABC as a public broadcaster in relation the commerical media will be continue to seen in subjective terms. The difference is all in the eye of the beholder.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 1:20 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Driving forward on new policy ideas?

I'm currently glancing through this weeks Bulletin and come across Maxine McKew's lunch with Lindsay Tanner (subscription required) who has the Labor Party's opposition Communications Portfolio.

Tanner is an intellectual politician who wrote a book called Open Australia not so long ago. In the interview he is selling himself as a future leader. Maxine McKew conveniently provides the platform for the product sell.

In the interview he talks about the problems faced by the Australian Labor Party. He says:

"We've got a product problem. That's something thats been building for years. Its reflected in thr threat from the Greens and its reflected it the hollowing-out of our party membership around the country. We've lost our way as a political party. We have to fix that. It means taking risks, being bold, going on the attack. Putting forward strong alternative visions about Australia as it could be under a Labor Government."

Thats a pretty accurate diagnosis. In Tanner's own words the ALP is currently filled with mechanics who fiddle with the engine to make it run. It's lacking in drivers who decide where to go and how to get there.

So how does the ALP move forward? Stop recycling people in the same ideas framework. Embrace change agents, says Tanner. Fair enough.

But as Maxine points out there is nothing coming from the ALP to challenge the Brendan Nelson's user pays reforms to the universities. How would they ensure equity and greater resourcing? As Maxine points out Jenny Macklin, who is in charge of policy development, is not delivering. What ever happened to Knowledge Nation?

We have an ALP on the defensive not one that is bold and beautiful. And it has been on the defensive since 1996. The 1980 ideas of neo-liberal economic reform have run their course. As Tanner would say no robust alternatives have come forward.

There was the initiative on the Murray-Darling Basin in the Budget Reply. An opening perhaps?

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 12:49 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Cloud cuckoo land

The saga of the missing weapons of mass destruction continues to unfold. Remember the allegation?

The US, UK and Australian Governments claimed that Iraqi president Saddam Hussein had both spent billions of dollars developing chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, and that he was poised to hand them over to terrorists or fire them at US troops or neighbouring countries. The national security of all three countries was threated. A pre-emptive strike was necessary to deal with the threat because the UN inspectors were unlikely to find them in time. Iraq was too tricky to allow that.

It looks more and more like a good old smoke and mirrors job. It was what many thought at the time because the argument just did not stake up. That was why the UN was not convinced to take the adopt a resolution authorizing war on a sovereign country. Not enough evidence to substantiate the claim.

It's all a bit ho hum in Australia. But they take the issue a bit more seriously in Britain than we do in Australia, judging by this report. It has to do with the credibility of the Blair case for attacking Iraq. Has the British public been conned?

Meanwhile The Sydney Morning Herald reports that back in the USA, Mr Rumsfeld's deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, has said that:

'... the US decision to stress the threat posed by Iraq's supposed banned weapons above all others was taken for "bureaucratic" reasons to justify the war. "For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on."

Apparently this was said in Vanity Fair but there is nothing online. Its all subscription only. But it indicates that the Americans don't really care about questions of legitimacy. It was all spin and power from the beginning.

Meanwhile, back in Australia we find Coalition ministers singing different tunes. For instance, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Alexander Downer, continues to insist that the legal basis for Australia's role in the invasion is Iraq's alleged failure to comply with United Nations resolutions on weapons of mass destruction. Apparently the justification is solid because of the recent discovery of the two trailers.

It is soooo compelling. The minister always appears to be pulling rabbits out of a hat. He seems to have forgotten that John Howard had hummed the liberation from oppression tune. He plays the magician because he won't publicly say what he knows privately: the evidence is not there. Can we put the poor performance by the Adelaide hills boy down to jetlag? He is looking more and more like an old trouper who can't perform the old theatre tricks any more.

The Defence Minister, Robert Hill hums a different tune. He dutifully follows the Rumsfeld script. He says that that no banned weapons may ever be found. Then he echoes Rumsfeld. It might be the case that Iraq may have destroyed more than we believed he says. A good criticism of this line is given by Tim Dunlop at Road To Surfdom

Presumably that destruction was before the war started? Why would Saddam disarm himself? And only believed? And what has happened to the hard evidence? Never there? Just a few facts and lots of interpretation?

These guys in Canberra are so predictable. They just echo Washington. Some are just more up to date than others. But their act does not work. They are not working as a unit on stage. Not enough in the way of rehearsals? Its a bit embarrasing watching these old tricks go through their tricks. Too many mistakes.

They are not very good with the rhetoric. I thought that the purpose of rhetoric was meant to be one of persuasion. They are undercutting themselves. The threads of the government's script are unravelling on this one. But they don't seem to care. They know they have a stranglehold on power. Thats all that matters. But you can see the arrogance creeping in.

And us? Well we have a choice. We s can say that we have been conned yet again, or that the Coalition lives in cloud cuckoo land. Take your pick. You can choose both if you so desire.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 9:52 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

May 29, 2003

Its happening again

The US press is once again falling in behind the Bush Administration on the threat posed by Iran's nuclear program to the US. The Wall Street Opinion Journal wants a bit more toughness. And see this Washington Post editorial.

Neither make mention of Israel's nuclear programe. And the Americans have known about that Israel is a nuclear state Israel refuses to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or any other accord that would require it to account for the nuclear material it produces at its Dimona reactor in the Negev Desert.

Might not Israel as a nuclear state activate the Iranian desire for nuclear weapons? Look at this old Washington Post report. It says that:

"A thick canopy of ambiguity shrouds Israel's nuclear program, held in place by legal restrictions that generally prohibit the disclosure of state secrets -- including public discussion of Israel's nuclear weapons. The only way journalists and academics have been able to address the issue is by attributing any facts to "foreign sources" -- a device that allows Israel to pretend it is keeping the world guessing about its nuclear capability. This deliberate policy of obfuscation is called "nuclear opacity."

And it goes on:

"Eventually, Washington and Jerusalem came up with a formula that would avoid a bruising political confrontation: Israel would neither test nor declare its nuclear weapons, and the United States would look the other way. For Israel, this policy has provided the best of all possible worlds: It has enabled the country to keep its nuclear weapons, unhindered by U.S.-led non-proliferation efforts that have prevented the development of such weapons by other countries; and it has continued to receive American aid. For the United States, opacity has served as a lesser evil, helping to keep Israel's nuclear thumb out of Arab eyes and thus reduce the potential for regional war."

There is nothing about any of this in the Washington Post's editorial. It dutifully echoes the Bush administration line with a touch of caution. And this newspaper used to be a watchdog for democracy. What is happening?

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 8:41 PM | Comments (0)

sigh

Oh well, it was to be expected. The ABC and the Coalition are two differently painted square cultural pegs in a round hole. Their relationship has pretty much been a history of ongoing cultural warfare. This charge of the ABC being blatantly biased and anti-American in its Iraq war coverage does raise the stakes and temperature in the cultural wars.

Richard Alston's specific charges of bias on the ABC's AM programme on Radio National can be found here.The Bunyip approves and reckons that Alston could have gone in even harder in calling the ABC to account.

It is pretty clear that the Coalition Government does not see the role of the ABC as a national broadcaster in terms of being a watchdog for democracy. Factual reporting is what is required. No comment. We the listening public make up our minds based on the facts presented to us.

Its a bit like the way that Gareth Parker presents the issue. Here's Alston's dossier. Read it and make up your minds.

This deep-seated empiricism (only the facts ma, only the facts) ignores the way that journalism is commentary, prejudice and myth. Journalism operates within a global media flow of interpretations and it responds to those interpretations. Hence we have conflicting interpretations trying to make sense of particular events. What Gareth is implying is that that journalism should be about reporting facts and it should not engage with interpretation.

The issue raised by Alston's political intervention is not just faulty journalism--getting the facts wrong---by the AM crowd because of their political bias. There is a genuine issue here. What the Coalition cannot countenance is the ABC use of a critical public reason to expose the media spin around government policy. On the other hand the ABC does see itself acting a watchdog for democracy. Remember how the Hawke-Keating Government went off the planet about the ABC's use of Robert Springborg as a commentator in 1991 during the first Gulf War? They too reacted angrily to the ABC acting as a watchdog for democracy. Many politicians do not like the media acting in a watchdog role. They want lapdogs on a drip feed.

Hence it is an issue about the role of the public journalism of the national broadcaster in a liberal democracy. Should the ABC play a critical role? Should it present commentary from perspectives excluded by the corporate media---eg., the Murdock Press in Australia? Should it present critical commentary that questions competing interpretations of political events?

Update

There is a discussion on the politics of the Alston criticism of the ABC by by Tim Dunlop over at Road to Surfdom. I forgot to link to it yesterday.

And Geoff Honnor has a post here It says that righties have to learn to deconstruct ABC Radio National interpretations just like Lefties have to deconstruct those in The Australian. They need some education to help them do so.

Yep. Its what citizens do. Think for themselves. That political freedom means questioning the habitual thinking of right and left and the centre.

And Scott over at The Eye of the Beholder has a good post that accepts both bias in journalism as a fact of life and the diversity of the media.

Prejudice as bias is a part of everyday life and the media. The different forms of media in rbiing against one another can challenge these taken-for-granted prejudices, and so we get a form of debate or dialogue or conversation going through an exercise in political freedom. That exchange of ideas in the public sphere by citizens is a core tenet of liberal democracy.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 2:06 PM | Comments (19)

Howard's Way

Howard's reason for going to war with Iraq was that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. That reason looks thinner and thinner these days. In fact it looks downright misleading as the US finds it ever more difficult to find evidence of stockpiled Iraq WMD.

We now hear that Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, arguing that Iraq may very well have destroyed its weapons of mass destruction before the US invasion.. The logic gets ever more bizarre. There is a discussion here

Howard realised that the WMD argument for war was pretty thin around May, and so he shifted his justification for going to war. Liberation of an oppressed people from a brutal dictator then became the reason. All the war bloggers and journalists dutifully followed suit, swallowed the retrospective rationale without gulping, and started obediently attacking the Left for supporting a brutal dictatorship.

According to these media platoons only the right stood for freedom. The left now stood for totalitarianism. It was a very old line pulled from the Cold War archives and recycled without shame or embarrasment. All the arguments about Australia's national interest were avoided.

Remember all that? It was just before, and around the time, that the troops returned safely and everybody rejoiced in the great victory. Howard was vindicated, yet again. The master politician with the deft touch.

So the legal basis for war is now one in which a sovereign country can be invaded by Australia to save an oppressed people.

So lets invade Indonesia and set the people of Aceh and West Papua free. They are oppressed.

I'm only joking. I know that Canberra won't even put pressure on Jarkata. It wil pretend that nothing much is happening. Canberra will return to accepting the national sovereignty argument.

Don't ya just love the spin? Its all about power: keeping Howard in power.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 11:58 AM | Comments (3)

SA's romance with the money men

There is a report in Wednesday's Australian Financial Review (subscription required) that confirms my judgement about the Rann Labor Government. It is a government beholden to dry economics. It deeply desires to be loved by the hard money men.

The report says that Treasurer Foley is preoccupied with cutting costs and balancing the budget even though SA has low state debt. Foley is aggrieved that SA does not enjoy a Standard & Poor's AAA credit rating----the only mainland state not to do so.

Why not? The reason says Foley, is that:

"SA has been living beyond its means for far too long. I want to change that. My sole goal is a strong financial position for SA . I want us to be recognized for outstanding financial management. The only avenue to that goal is to build strong accrual surpluses by cutting govrenment spending in lower-priority areas, resisting the temptation to spend cash surplus windfalls and imposing strong budget discipline."

Note Foley's the "sole goal". There is no mention of broader economic development issues nor sustainability ones. He is a slash and burn finance man.

And those low priority areas? Why they included big cuts to health and education in the last state budget.

The second budget will be handed down this afternnoon. The media reports (based on leaks) are all positive. Lots of money on the River Murray, some money for child protection and rehabilitation for sex offenders in prison, more counsellers in primary schools, homeless etc. It could be merely announcing the repackaging of old money to give a shining gloss to Foley's lean and mean.

Addition
It was announced on the news Foley's 2003 Budget urged South Australians to treat the battle to save the Murray River as the moral equivalent of war. To help the war effort a new tax was then announced. South Australian residents will pay a $30 annual Murray River levy while non-residential ratepayers, including farmers with properties larger than 10 hectares, will pay an annual levy of $135. Pensioners are excluded. The new tax will generate about $20 million a year. Half would be spent on specific restoration programs and the other half set aside for SA's contribution to initiatives across the Murray Darling Basin to provide water for increased
environmental flows.

It was a lean and mean budget. There is a budget surplus of $312 million.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 11:55 AM | Comments (0)

Corporate governance

Corporate governance does not just refer to the way corporations govern or misgovern themselves within the marketplace. It also includes the way that the state regulates the market. It includes the way the proceses sof the market allow the retail business to be dominated by Coles Myer and Woolworths in Australia These corporations just get bigger and bigger as they move into liquor stores and petrol chains.

And the federal government stands by and watches the duopoly grow. It basically says that there is competition between the two big retailers. Hence we have the benefits of competition. Thats all that matters. It is big business. But is it genuine market competition?

What would Graeme Samuels, the new (acting ) head of the Australian Competiton and Consumer Commission, do? He is alleged to be in the pocket of big business----the true competitive capitalists in the business world?---by some; and has a sold faith that competition is the best way to promote the public interest, consumer welfare and sustainability. Will we expect a push for some anti-trust action in the name of increasing competition?

Samuels has to work with the confines of the Trade Practices Act and case law. But that legislation has its philosophical roots in the ethos of the liberal market. So we can ask: What about the independent retailers? Or the independent fuel retailers? Aren't they meant to be the stalwarts of the free market?

Isn't the ethos of the market meant to be something like this. We should:

"....trust the dynamism of the self-organizing market and reject any attempts by bureaucrats and politicians to suppress competition...celebrate the decentralized decision-making of market capitalism and those quick-thinking, street-savvy entrepreneurs who take risks and use the unique knowledge they possess to take the opportunities open to them."

If so shouldn't we be using this:

" vision of a society of independent, self-employed producers to criticize the concentration of power in capitalist society;...to be deepy critical of the reality of liberal society in which the new forms of corporate organization and hierarchy (eg., major media players) act to make individuals subordinate to higher authority. So... [shouldn't we].... dismantle these concentrations of political and economic power and then distribute power and property as widely as possible to ensure that Australia becomes a nation of dynamic entrepreneurs."

Somehow I do not think that is what Costello and Samuels mean by a competitive market. It is Hayek though. Wasn't Hayek the public philosopher behind compettion policy? Or am I mistaken?

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 11:53 AM | Comments (0)

May 28, 2003

A tricky fellow

Even the Israeli's, it seems, are unsure what Sharon is up to these days.

What we can rely on is more postponements of the peace talks and the very real possibility of the plan going the way of all the previous peacemaking initiatives. Being discarded.

Cynical? Well check this report from the Washington Post:

"Sharon's acceptance of the road map has the earmarks of a move made to deflect American pressure -- more precisely, to maintain the political friendship that Bush and Sharon present as a glowing and productive one that helps each electorally.

And the road map has loopholes galore. Its formal acceptance could well be the high point of its utility, after which it could join the Jarring mission, the Rogers plan, Camp David II and other high-minded exercises in the graveyard of failed comprehensive Middle East peace initiatives.

Such plans are offered up periodically to propitiate the merciless anger of the region, to encourage talking instead of shooting -- even if only for a while. The road map belongs to the tradition of the caring cynicism of peacemaking in the Holy Land."

Its all part of being tricky. But Big Kim has his finger on the pulse of the Middle East. He knows that the Sharon government is serious about moving on negotiations within a viable frameworkand that they "absolutely accept a two-state solution."

I'm still sceptical.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 11:34 PM | Comments (0)

think tanks needed

There is a story in the Australian Financial Review about Frank Lowy establishing an Australian think tank that focuses on international affairs.(subscription required). He will provide it with $5-6m per year from his own salary ($12m) for 5-6 years. It is called the Lowy Institute for International Policy.

We need more of these. This is too narrow. Its time the Packers and the Murdocks chipped in, don't you think? Help to contribute to the nation's intellectual life by picking up on the American idea of philanthropy.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 11:09 PM | Comments (0)

Arc of crisis

This article from the New York Times offers a state of play in the Middle East situation for the Bush administration.

Of course, it does not mention the key American strategy in the Middle East-----the emergence of the US as the dominant power in the Middle East, the Persian Gulf and Central Asia. But it raises lots of questions.

A key problem for the US is that Iran is the leading regional power. Is it Iran that represents Arab interest in the region? With Saddam Hussein long gone, which state is actively seeking to live up to a self-declared role as protector of Arab regional interests? Does that role require a confrontation with the US?

So can there be an accord between the US and Iran? Say a pragmatic co-existence under American hegemony. Or is it to be confrontation between both sides. I reckon its confrontation.

Thats what Alexander Downer, the boy from the Adelaide Hills, has been saying. And he would know wouldn't he?

Now is that why Sharon has jumped onto the road map? He is positioning himself for the US crack at the Iranians? Does Sharon recognize, or even foster, a new round of brinkmanship in the Middle East?

The Iranians support such terrorist gangs as Al Qaeda, Hizballah and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. So for the Americans the Iranian Government must undergo radical change, and on no account be in possession of nuclear weapons in any shape or form.

So is the US planning direct action: military action to wipe out Iran's rogue nuclear program? Is this a serious option in their strategic calculation? They have a free hand to whip a rogue state to make them more pliant. Direct action would fit in with their new unilateralist and pre-emptive policies. By the way the Bush Administration is currently talking, Iran poses a threat to the US. Is sufficent to warrant regime change? Does it warrant a pre-emptive strike at the Iranian nuclear plant?

It is what the Israeli's did with Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor near Baghdad in 1981.

Could it be more than this?Aggressively engaging anti-American forces to ensure fundamental transformation of Middle East.

Lots of questions here but few answers.

But we should note how the intellectual justifications have changed re global progress. It was not so long ago that the US pundits were going about the 'end of history'; then it was the 'end of the nation state' and with the rise of free markets, free trade and ever more freedom. Now its the 'end of national sovereignty' and the blossoming of Empire. The White House has its own military philosophers expounding on the theme of national security, civilization and barbarism and the clash of civilizations.

Is it all atmospherics? Or a fundamental change in international relations? A redrawing the geopolitical map of the region. Is this what Sharon is positioning himself for?

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 12:21 AM | Comments (1)

May 27, 2003

beyond boring

The melancholy cultural critic over at junk for code seems to have recovered from the boring syndrome that afflicted him last week after he read Tim Blair's weblog.. Public opinion thinks that Tim has definitely gone upmarket with the shift to Movable Type. Much improved.

The cultural critic has a longish post on the Hollingworth saga, which he sees in terms of a tragic life. He has trouble though in putting his finger on the deep driving forces of the tragedy, and so he turns to Angela Shanahan for help.

What is problematic about this sorry saga is the relationship between ethics and politics in political life. We do not really expect much in the way of ethical behavior from our politicians---we accept that they are bottom feeders with dirty hands---but we do so with the Governor General. That public office is different---an exception?

What we do know is that Sir William Deane's conduct was judged to be in accord with moral standards of the GG's office but that Peter Hollingworth's conduct was not. Its not the politics---its the ethics. So what are the moral standards attached to that office?

Do we know? Presumably they are historical conventions because they have not been written down anywhere in the Constitution, nor as a code of conduct written by the Federal Parliament. These conventions have developed over time and they appear to have evolved into a democratic relationship between the GG and citizens.

Paul Kelly sees the relationship in political terms. He says:

"....the claim of public ownership of the office [of the Governor General]is growing – the notion that the governor-general is responsible to the people. That means, in turn, the office is being politicised."

He misses the ethical dimension of the claimand its connection to a common ethical life.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 1:07 PM | Comments (0)

Israeli occupation

Well. Well. Well.

I never thought Sharon would accept the road map nor get its acceptance through his cabinet. I thought he was a prisoner of the far right ethnic and religious nationalists. It now appears not. I thought that Sharon's Likud Party would resist it to the bitter end. And he got it through cabinet without consulting the Likud parliamentary party.

Consider this description of the road map by The Washington Post:

"The road map, drafted by the United States, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations, calls for an immediate cease-fire, followed by a series of simultaneous confidence-building steps by the two sides, including the disarming and dismantling of Palestinian militant groups, the withdrawal of Israeli troops from the West Bank and Gaza Strip, a freeze on Jewish settlement expansion and the immediate dismantling of small settlement outposts established in the past two years. The plan calls for the creation of a "provisional" Palestinian state by the end of this year and a fully independent and sovereign state by 2005."

The Israel Cabinet must have choked on that content.

But then what they have accepted is the steps not the content of the road map. Looks like a way to buy time to me.

And I'm still having trouble coming to terms with this. Sharon saying that Israel is an occupying force and that keeping "3.5 million Palestinians under occupation is bad for Israel and the Palestinians." Is that Sharon saying that? Sharon is the first Israeli prime minister to use the term “occupation” in reference to Israel’s presence on lands captured in the 1967 all-out war launched by its Arab neighbors.

This paper spells out the international (UK) pressure on George Bush to push ahead with the road map, and the internal (Jewish) constraint on him not to pressure Israel to make any concessions.

Is Sharon carving out a place in history as the determining voice in where Israel goes next and a key role in Washington’s design for a new Middle East? Is he going to the Middle East power broker?

Addition

And The Sydney Morning Herald is equally puzzled. Its editorial says:

"Could the man who has so vehemently pursued a military solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have had such a change of heart? Or could Mr Sharon, a veteran of decades of failed peace efforts, simply be maneuvering within the new confines of the post-Iraq international environment."

And the answer the SMH gives?

"Whether of not the Israeli hawk is sincere in his conversion to the long, arduous process of a negotiated peace will only now be revealed as those negotiations progress."

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 9:44 AM | Comments (7)

Iraq: Democracy postponed

It would seem that Anglo-American interests in Iraq are now best served by an occupation authority rather than democracy. It would not have anything to do with the Shiite majority in southern Iraq wanting an Islamic state would it? Iraqi groups are now an appendage of the Iraqi occupation authority as the Americans try to shape things so they get a Iraqi goverment they want.

So much for democracy. Or is it guided democracy for Iraq? Still rebuilding is a big job.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 9:14 AM | Comments (0)

travelling with the neocons

I thought that the ABC's 4 Corners show on the failure of diplomacy leading up the Iraq War--Road to War---was a pretty poor effort. Billed as an inside story by the BBC, it was both very uncritical of the main players and offered little in the way of deconstructing the war text. Classy gossip ---eavesdroppping on the big names and main players, some of whom performed for the camera.

This and this from the New York Review of Books are much better. And this from the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) puts regime change in Iraq into a context of regime change in Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia.

These neo-cons have big ambitions.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 12:49 AM | Comments (1)

May 26, 2003

US lines up Iran

The US is just not happy with Iran. So it is shifting away from supporting the elected government of President Mohammed Khatami in its battle with hard-line clerics to a more radical policy of destablizing the Government. It is talking about working to topple it with a popular uprising. I presume this kind of confrontation by the neocons is called ensuring regional stability. For two speeches on Iran from the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) see here and here.

I am sure that this destablizing with a made-in-America stamp all over it will go down a treat in the Islamic world. It will be seen as the US playing an overtly imperial role of direct intervention in regional politics of sovereign Arab states.

And Alexander Downer, Australia's Foreign Minister, duly repeats Washington's lines. He issued a tough, last-chance call to Iran yesterday to crack down on al-Qaeda terrorists allegedly in the country;warned Iranians not to interfere in political developments in Iraq in relation to leaders of Iraq's Shiite majority in Iran calling for the establishment of an Islamic state;and urged that Iran sign a protocol enabling unfettered access to its nuclear facilities by inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency.

This is Canberra acting as the mouthpiece of the US in the Middle East.

We can ask: What concern is Iran for Australia? Surely, what the Iranians do in their region is no business of ours … What if Iran is full of men engaged in doing evil non-liberal things? That does not mean that we should act as policemen threatening to round them up; or acting as judges finding them guilty of evil deeds and to sentence them with an invasion! Surely, as a nation we have no national interest in what Iran does inside its own country.

Is not Downer, in so acting on behalf of the US, really speaking in the name of a western arrogance that is backed by US military power? We don't have the fire power to destablize Iran. So why is Downer making threats an delivering a tough, last-chance call? He sees the military victory in Iraq as a first step in a Middle East policy to radically change the region through the direct and indirect use of American power.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 12:28 PM | Comments (5)

blood on Indonesian tracks

Aceh just seems to get worse as the days from the broken December 2002 agreement increase.

The Indonesian army (TNI) is promising Jakarta a swift and short campaign against the Free Aceh Movement (GAM). It promises President Megawati that it will be both militarially successful and humanitarian, as it will concentrate on winning the hearts and minds of the Aceh population and groups in civil society. Megawati wants this to be humanitarian war that blends tough action against the rebels with protection of civilians. The TNI talks in terms of a "hunt and crush" operation and plans to forcibly move villagers into secure compounds in an effort to starve guerrilla fighters into submission.

That implies a break in history of the Indonesian state marked by three decades of repressive, authoritarian rule under the regime of General Suharto. That New Order regime was characterised by state terror and violence: from the massacre of up to a million people when Suharto came to power through to the brutal aggression against East Timor including state terror in Aceh and West Papua.

But times change. A new regime is in power in Jakarata and civil society is flourishing. Yet the military plays a dominant role in Indonesian politics and
behaving badly is par for the course the TNI. Thus in Aceh, according to Tapol:

"...almost five thousand cases were recorded, including killings, disappearances, torture and arbitrary detention, perpetrated by the Indonesian security forces. From 1989 till 1998, more commonly known as the DOM period, when special military operations were underway in Aceh, tens of thousands of Acehnese were victims of military brutality. None of the perpetrators has been brought to justice."

Then you read this comment by Endriatono Sutarto, the Indonesian military Chief, that the TNI will "hunt them down and exterminate them." The TNI has documented history of brutality and human rights abuses. The TNI's solution to a political problem is to bang people on the head then shoot them, whilst saying that it has come to Aceh to protect people from the terrorism of GAM. It probably has ethnic cleansing on the program. It may not. But behaving badly is par for the course the TNI, and state terror continues to used within the shell of the democratic state.

East Timor indicated the terror tactics that are used by the TNI. Unrest and bloody incidents are deliberately created in the region at odds with the policies of Jarkata. Rogue military elements disguised as civilians carry out the dirty work. Provocation or the use of militia-groups becomes the daily scene and armed youth groups or militia groups have been a constant factor in creating the political violence and terror. State terror, not winning the hearts and minds of the civilian population, is the normal mode of operation of the TNI.

And Australia's response to the terrorism on our back doorstep in Aceh?

This is from Greg Sheridan:

"It is also important to note that GAM has rejected a generous autonomy package offered by Megawati's Government. This, too, is a fundamental difference with the history of East Timor. It had always proved impossible to get former president Suharto to offer real autonomy to East Timor.

THE Aceh deal gives the restive province the vast majority of its resources income and allows it to implement sharia law. It is true that the implementation of this package has been extremely flawed, with much of the money apparently disappearing as a result of corruption. This could have been tackled at the political level. Jakarta was prepared to concede almost anything short of formal independence. But GAM is determined to set up a fully independent, Islamic fundamentalist state."

By corruption Greg means years of mismangement by the provincal and central government during the decade of 1988-1998 --the years of special military operations. Mismanagement and corruption because the provincal government and military siphoned off the money earmarked for schools, roads and hospitals. There is little by way of liberation from the grinding poverty for a population in an oil-rich province. Since the problem has not been tackled at the political level so state terrorism will solve it. So much for winning the hearts and minds of the civilian population.

Greg seems to see it through the eyes of international terrorism:----the problem lies with the Muslems and it needs cleaning up. GAM is a Muslim separatist movement but there are no al-Qaeda links. People are going to be slaughtered but, for Greg, the political ends justify the military means. The ends? Greg is not clear on this point. I presume Greg means the unitary Indonesian state. What has to be avoided is the fragmentation of the Indonesian republic. What is ignored is the question of social justice for human rights abuse.

And Canberra? It sees Aceh as a problem of internal stability:--Aceh is a part of Indonesia, and the Indonesians have to sort out this problem themselves. Canberra supports Aceh remaining part of Indonesia. It sees a sovereign Aceh as as weakening regional stability; as setting off a chain reaction and evokes the image of a disaster. It urges moderation and dialogue.

The TNI and moderation? What happened to state terrorism.

Canberra sees the region through the eyes of the deputy sherriff of the US. And it comes down on the side of Jarkata as it deploys the violence of GAM and not that of the TNI. The national interest, it is said, requires the continuation of an Indonesian state.

Yet that state was the clumsy creation of Dutch colonial power. The Indonesian Republic inherited the empire of the Dutch East Indies. Every Indonesian president since 1945 has been dedicated to keeping the inheritance intact, as a unitary state, centralised on Java. Does not Aceh indicate that Indonesia state might function better as a federation? This has never been seriously considered so we have state terror deployed to ensure unity.

Will Canberra continue to avert its eyes from the civilian slaughter in Aceh from state terror, ignore the question of social justice in Aceh and warn about the disintegration of the Indonesian state.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 9:02 AM | Comments (0)

May 25, 2003

Defending the Senate

Paul Kelly has rightfully put his finger on a key issue in the Australian political system: the role the Senate.

But what a one sided account. He says that:

"... the Senate and its tactic of obstruction looms as the most substantial [issue]since Federation....the Senate's slow throttle of the legislative agenda of the House of Representatives...."

Kelly then asks:

"Is the Senateprotectign the people or denying reforms in the national interest?...... Who does the Senate really represent? Whose interest does it really serve? Has it become the house of sectional, minority and special interests whose main role is to resist Australia's essential transition to the globalised age?"

Well, he has already given his answer. In case you missed the obvious he repeats it:

"The Senate is in the process of undermining the Howard Government. This is the consequence of defeating a legislative agenda, one no government can treat with impunity. So what does John Howard do?"

Australia needs centralized government, resposnible government located in the Hosue of Rpresentatives. The Senate is obstructionist. It needs to be cut down to size.

And Kelly gives this answer without considering Australian federalism with its checks and balances built into the political system. These are between the executive, judicial and the legislative branches of the federal government and between the states and the commonwealth.

True, the Senate is putting the Howard Governments' legislation under review and some oppostional Seantors are threatening to block parts of it. But all Kelly sees is wilful obstruction by the Senate. Nowhere does Kelly give any consideration to the powers of the Senate or to the process negotiation between the executive and Senate which is what has historically happened with the passing of the GST (Democrats under Meg Lees) and the earlier deregulatory industrial relations (Democrats under Cheryl Kernot).

All that Kelly can see is unwarranted blockage and defiance of the executive: it is the Senate is bad for blocking the good reforms of the representative Howard Government. It is a facile understanding of the Senate's role in Australian federalism.

What Kelly does not mention is the concentration of power in the executive and the domination of the executive over the House of Representatives. The legislature does not currently act as a control on the executive, apart from the Senate. It is the contitutional power of the Senate that enables it to counter the way that executive currently manipulates parliament, and through parliament, to manipulate public opinion. The Senate introduces accountability when the executive keeps itself in office by managing (hosing down) its blunders and misdeeds, and so it is less accountable to the public than it ought to be inbetween elections.

As Harry Evans, the Clerk of the Senate, observes a significant political development:

"....occurred in the 1960s and 1970s with the emergence of minor parties in the Senate. This led to the emergence of the Senate, more or less, permanently not under the control of the majority party in the House of Representatives. That re-introduced into Australia's system of government an element of legislative accountability which had been lost when the party system emerged. We had again the executive being held accountable to parliament in a way that it wasn't in earlier years."

Of course the executive is hostile. Its dictatorial powers are checked. It cannot get its own way. It has to negoitate. And rightly so. As Harry Evans says a geographically-based federalism means that:

"...governments have not been able to rely for long solely on the support of Sydney and Melbourne while ignoring the rest of the country. This has avoided extreme alienation of the outlying parts of the country, in accordance with the main aim of federalism. The fact that the people of the States have voted for the same political parties has not removed this federalist underpinning of the Constitution, although, as has been indicated, the rigidity of the party system has weakened its effect."

Given the current failure of the House of Rpresentatives to make the Executive accountable we should be increasing the power of the Senate not decreasing it.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 9:56 AM | Comments (7)

May 24, 2003

a little bit of political courage

This US. Senator has lots of political courage. Have a read of this and this

A different view of the US Senator can be found here The noble US Senator does have a shocking background as a southern Democrat. A true blue Dixie boy. In spite of his origins and background he is critiquing the national security state.

Oh for some more Australian Senators who find a bit of this man's political courage in standing up to the national security state and then do the same in Australia. There are so few Senators wioth political courage in Australia. Despite the inherent power of the Senate vis-a-vis the executive as the house of review so few of our Senators are little more than hacks who just toe the party line.

Their standard line is: Oh I cannot say that. I have to check to see if its alright. I have to go and make a phone call. Excuse me for a minute. Yes I can say that, but not that. The implication? The Senator's mind is not his/her own. The Party rules. The Senator is but a functionary. Their career depends upon it.

The more independent Senators we have in the Senate the better. Then we may see some political courage.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 11:04 PM | Comments (2)

Little needs to be said

The Governor General should go. He may want to stay in the office; he may see himself as being crucified by public opinion (ie., the mob baying for his blood), and see himself as denied natural justice by the Anglican Church inquiry that criticised his actions in dealing with a previous pedophile scandal and found that found his actions were "untenable" in allowing a known pedophile to continue as a priest.

Christopher Pearson, writing in the Weeked Australian ('Last sex taboo turns sacred', 24 05 2003, p. 18, no link) may dismsss most of this as:

"Sex with minors and adults, especially clergy, has become as national obsession and generated a lot of cant and hypocrisy."

The political reality is that Hollingworth's public reputation is in tatters. He no longer unifies the nation.

He should walk into the night by himself, allow himself to be swallowed up in darkness, do the honourable thing and fall on his sword.

Let the darkness envelop him in his solitude. Nothing more needs to be said.

Addition

There is a good article on Hollingworth by Michelle Gratten here

The Governor-General has resigned

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 8:23 PM | Comments (5)

May 23, 2003

corporate governance

It has been suggested that because public opinion has a lefty focus----even hardline socialist is sometimes said----it does not understand corporate governance or the way markets work. Fair enough. I'm happy to be educated in the intricacies of the market way of life.

Well this is an example of bad corporate governance. Executive pay policies should be performance based and be approved by shareholders.

A little more democracy needs to be introduced into our corporations. Why do they need to be so hierarchical, authoritarian and bureaucratic?

An old Crikey.com article by the Mayne boy on executive payouts can be found here And this article refers to a report that further debunks the corporate myth that high pay=high performance.

This is Gilbertson's defence. A contract is a contract.

Though old lefties may not understand markets they do understand myths, especially the myths generated by the self-organizing market.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 6:31 PM | Comments (5)

Middle East: is the die cast?

This article by Amin Saikal highlights the widening divide between the West and the Islamic world. Australia may be a world away but it is involved.

This paragraph in Saikal's text confirms my previous post on division within the Middle East.

"A disturbing trend is emerging, pointing to the radicalisation of moderate Islamists. If this trend continues, the very people with whom the West needs to interact to rebuild bridges of understanding and trust with the Muslim world will become very short in supply."

For moderate read Saudi Arabia. It cannot be seen to be siding with Israel and the US against the rest of the Arab world. That is an untenable postion for Saudi Arabia. The House of al-Saud would be overthrown by radical Islamists. Hence a regional conflict is something Saudi Arabia would be desperate to avoid. The only way to avoid grass roots Islamic uprisings and ensure the stability of their regimes is to adopt a strong position against the US and Israel.

And this paragraph points to the regional context the Saudi's keep pointing to:

"The Bush Administration's emphasis on "power reality" and therefore application of overwhelming military power has missed the point that neither bin Laden nor Saddam had functioned in an ideological and historical vacuum."

The power reality is the US carving out an troublespot.

But the prospects of regional war still remain post Saddam. Hence all the recent sabre rattling against Syria and Iran by the US.

The radical Islamists are also pushing for regime change: the overthrow of moderate Arab governments (eg., Jordan). Their instrument? Regional escalation of hostilities through the building the Palestinian Intifadah into a regional war.

The die looks to have been cast. Its been a situation of ongoing war for many a long year. Taking out Saddam Hussein was meant to defuse the situationof increasing tension. He was the one stirring the pot on behalf of Arafat and the Palestinian Authority, and always threatening to intervene in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Arafat is the next to go.

However, the Middle East has its own rhythms and those are ones of war. The spark remains the confrontation between Israel and the Palestinaan Authority, but it is the inherent instabilities of the Arab regimes that will ensure the duration and intensity of the regional conflict.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 12:13 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

May 22, 2003

comings and goings

Few are the accounts of the role played by Saudi Arabia in the regional dynamics of the Middle East that can be found in the Australian press. What we do get is some sense of Washington and Jerusalem shaping the Middle East as being the main strategic game.

But what of Saudi Arabia? Where is it situated in this? Is it going to be shaped along with Iraq, Iran and Syria?

We do get snippets about Riyadh's pressure on the US to withdraw its troops from Saudi soil and the attempts by the Saudi ruling class to prevent an Islamic eruption within their territory. These strategies are explained in terms of aimed at reducing the Osama bin Laden threat.

And we know that what the Saudi's fear/dread most is that the US attack on, and occupation of, Iraq will lead to the Middle East igniting with all-consuming Islamic flames. But we don't take this concern about the fragility of the region seriously as we see the Middle East through American eyes. Yet the Arab governments in the region are very vulnerable to the rise of militant Islam and internal subversion.

We don't really know that it is American allies (ie., the Saudi's ) who are supporting terrorists to provoke Israel---not just the "rogue states" Iran or Syria. The Saudi's are doing this to force Israel to make concessions to the Palestinians.

What looms over the Middle East is the threat of regional war. With weapons sof mass destruction possessed by some Arab states the cessation of hostilities with the Palestinians by Israel now needs to be located within the threat and dynamics of regional war. The only way for Washington and Israel to counter this threat ---and ease the threat to Israel's existence---is to reshape the Middle East---Saudi Arabi, Iran and Syria.

Hence the democratic domino strategy advocated by the Bush administration. Democratic Arab states lessen the threat to Israel.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 5:10 PM | Comments (0)

connecting the nation

In earlier posts on broadband commentators (the sharpwitted Scott Wickstein and Alan Anderson) persuasively argued that a deregulatory approach to the take up and development of new telecommunication technology was the best one.

This overlooks the existence of government policy that shapes the freedom of the self-organizing market towards a knowledge economy. There is public policy at work here. The shaping or governance since the mid-1990s accords with the sentiments of the commentators as it is based on the introduction of a full and open competition to ensure that the telecommunications market delivers positive outcomes for consumers, including improved choice and lower prices.

But more is going on than this. We do have investment in infrastructure as in Networking the Nation; the National Communications Fund; and the Advanced Networks Program. The strategy is primarily to develop regional networks that would give regional communities access to broadband; rather than making Australia the most connected country in the world ; or ensuring that all Australian citizens have at least a 2Mbps, if not a 5Mbps, broadband service to the home by 2005.

In so shaping the future it would seem that Australian policy makers are not going to follow the pathway of France and Sweden. It is Korea, which has the highest penetration of broadband services in the world, which is planning to aim for 20 Mbps to every household. But France and Sweden are examples of state-directed capitalism whilst Korea represents Asian Capitalism

This kind of state-direction of capitalism is automatically rejected by the Anglo-American economists in Australia; they set their policy bearings on the US free market economic model. So the content of the goal of broadband being available to all Australians at fair and reasonable prices will be decided by market competition that will enciourage investment in infrastructure services content etc. Its all pretty much along the lines of what Scott and Alan said ought to happen.

However, we should not be fooled by this free market stuff. That may well be the work of the right policy hand. The left policy hand is a state-directed capitalism that is concerned to strenghten the social cohesion of regional and rural communities and provide support for community networks in these areas. Thats the practical politics of conservatism. This is done because the market is not really interested in rural and regional Australia.

The national approach to broadband---ie., national strategy---aims to create a dynamic communications environment. There is talk of Australia being a world leader but that is puff. By all accounts it appears that Australia is just going to take up the technology of broadband networks rather than position itself as a leader. Broadband is the key infrastructure of the knowledge economy---just like roads and rail were were a key infrastructure in an industrial economy. Broadband is a platform for all the innovation and transformation of the Australian economy that is talked about all the time.

It would also enable Australian scientists to particpate in advanced techology activities on the international stage----but we never heard about money for broadband infrastructure in the proposed Nelson university reforms as outlined in the Costello budget.

So the nation will become connected. The speeds will be slow. And we will pay a hefty price for it as consumers and in terms of Australia's capacity to participate and compete in the global economy.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 12:01 PM | Comments (5)

on a lighter note

Think this is boring, academic and turgid? The latest entry in the most boring weblog in the world can found here. Go have a read. Its very boring.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 11:04 AM | Comments (0)

One for the Blairites

In this interview on the ABC's 7.30 Report Philip Ruddock, the Minister of Immigration, said that the treatment of asylum seekers at Woomera by ACM was humane.

PHILIP RUDDOCK: "Well, the point I would make is that we were obliged by law to detain people who arrived without lawful authority, to deal with a number of issues."

KERRY O'BRIEN: "Humanely?"

PHILIP RUDDOCK: "Humanely, yes. And we endeavour to deal with them as humanely as possible. The inhumanity that you speak of is as a result of behaviour of the detainees themselves."

Kerrie O'Brien let the Minister's use of humane in a detention centre run by ACM go past and he moved onto self-harm by the detainees. It was a golden oportunity to explore the new world of the national security state.

The use of the word should be quetioned since the Minster's national security policy is not a humane one. He will not allow two young Balinese children to visit their father (an Iranian) in detention at Baxter even though their mother was killed in the Bali bombings. They have not seen their father for two years.

Why not? An answer is given here by Minister Ruddock.

PHILIP RUDDOCK, IMMIGRATION MINISTER: "My view is that to reunite him with his children with the purpose of a visit without enabling him to remain with them is not really a satisfactory outcome. He is Iranian and he can go to Iran at any time..."

The voice of the reporter picks up this thread latter in the text.

HEATHER EWART: The Immigration Department last month knocked back an application for visitors' visas for his children. This latest bid doesn't look promising either, despite promises from Brian Deegan and Ibrahim Sammaki's lawyer the children would be returned to Bali after visiting their father.

PHILIP RUDDOCK: "What I think is better for the children, is to be reunited with their father.That's what I think is better."

HEATHER EWART: "But not in Australia?"

PHILIP RUDDOCK: "Well, I think the balance of convenience in this case suggests that the father be able to be reunited in the country in which the children are citizens, and that's Indonesia, or that the children be reunited with him in the country of which he is a citizen, and that is Iran."

HEATHER EWART: "But so far Indonesia will only allow a visit and it's not clear whether Iran would take the children as permanent residents along with their father. In the meantime, the Minister says he's worried about the ramifications of the children making even a short visit to Australia."

PHILIP RUDDOCK: "I suspect that man would argue that the children ought to be able to remain with their father.I would be querulous of that if they were putting to me that we ought to have the children join him in detention."

No way says the Minister. They are not Australian citizens. I only care about Australian citizens hurt by the Bali bombings.

This policy is not humane because it refuses to acknowledge the humanity of people who are not Australian citizens.

The national security state is closed. A wall of protection surrounds it. It is such a stark contradiction to the open borders and free trade connected with the big push for a bilateral free trade agreement with the US.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 10:36 AM | Comments (5)

May 21, 2003

The crackdown on Aceh

There is an article by Andrew Burrell in the Australian Financial Review on the Indonesian military(TNI), Megawati and Aceh (no link.) Burrell says that the military offensive in Aceh breaks a promise made by President Megawati to prevent bloodshed in Aceh has been ditched. He adds that the internal reforms of the Indonesian military (TNI) are dead in the water and there is also a question mark over Indonesia's transition from autocracy to democracy.

The article quotes Army Chief, Ryamizard Ryacudu, as saying that the army has a right to uphold Indonesia's territorial and national integrity rather than religion, human rights or democracy.

This implies national unity for the Republic of Indonesia is paramount. Democracy should be sacrificed to ensure unity and federalism, which offers, some form of autonomy for the different regions, is not on the agenda. What has gone is the attempts under the previous President Abdurrahman Wahid to deal with separatist concerns by offering offering the provinces greater local autonomy, and more control over tax revenues from natural resources. This gives the background on the agreement to cess hostilities and bring peace to the troubled Indonesian province. It would seem that the Indonesians broke the agreement

The Jakarta Post makes it clear that the imperative of national unity actually means that is the unity of the centralized state that is being defended. It says that:

"Indonesia's founding fathers thus envisioned the importance of nation building at a very early stage. They saw the need for consciously developing a common attitude, a common will, viewpoint, value orientation, character and behavior that would contribute to the goal of living together as one nation, of being, in fact, Indonesia. For the nascent Indonesia, that goal was formulated in the will to promote and realize the ideal of Indonesian unity...

...Unfortunately, after national independence was achieved in 1945, the interpretation of that lofty concept and the execution of strategies towards the attainment of that goal has differed from one president to the next. And none has so far brought Indonesia any closer to the ideal

Each time the efforts have failed because every successive government has emphasized the superiority of the state above the sovereignty of the people. Each time the government has fumbled because it is disregarding the importance of culture as a means of coordinating, regulating, and directing human endeavor towards achieving the common goal that the Indonesian nation, and indeed mankind, has set itself to achieve -- which is to secure a better existence....

It is indeed ironic that while the nation today celebrates its National Awakening Day, war is returning to Aceh, the people of Papua province are being torn apart, and the nation is being pushed towards disintegration by a legislative body that is supposed to represent the people in promoting and realizing the ideal of Indonesian unity. The education bill is one good example, but there are many more.

As the nation commemorates this auspicious day, it is indeed sad to have to note that many of our leaders have, and still are, betraying that vision of a nation as envisioned by our founding fathers. It could be that this nation needs a second awakening."

Scott over at the Eye of the Beholder reads the crackdown on the Aceh rebels differently. He sees it as part of the big war on terror. Scott seems to be alone in this. Not even The Australian goes that far. I do not see much of sign of terrorism in this account. What we have is resentment about the Indonesian government's profiting from Aceh's rich resources of gas and the 10 years of the Suharto-era of military rule aimed at quelling the insurgency. And it would seem that, as usual, the ordinary people of Aceh will suffer.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 5:02 PM | Comments (0)

a good idea

I came across this courtesy of the Mayne boy's email service. His shop front is here. The story comes from here It refers to nearly 51% of shareholders in Britain's third largest company, drug manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline, voted to reject a proposed 22 million pound golden parachute for chief executive Jean-Pierre Garnier if he loses his job.

Mayne says:

"...the British government recently made it compulsory for companies to put their pay policies to a vote each year and investors are viewing it as a warning to other big companies that excessive boardroom pay deals would no longer be tolerated....Now all we need is for the Howard Government to play catch-up on corporate governance laws and for institutional Australia to wake from their slumber and we might start voting down some of our own excessive executive pay schemes."

Do you think that Howard Government will be so courageous? They could do so in the name of mutual obligation. Or does mutual obligation only apply to welfare recipients.

Bad corporate governance is more than the scandal of corporate rogues enriching themselves at everybody's expense through mechanisms like excessive corporate payouts. It also includes things like losing billions in shareholders funds, cutting corners to improve the bottom line with shoddy services and goods and bad occupational and health practices, deceptive conduct, non-disclosure and incompetent audit practices.

When you start listing them it begins to look like standard corporate behavior. No doubt we will hear voices saying that the political pressure for regulators to have stronger laws to improve corporate governance will constrain business strategy, strong and effective management and wealth creation.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 8:48 AM | Comments (5)

May 20, 2003

A roadmap to where

The news from the Middle East just seems to get worse according to the the news on television. The images are contra to all the spin about the US and its allies winning the war on terrorism in the face of bombings in Riyadh and Casablanca. Maybe the spinners mean that US military forces that occupy Iraq are now moving onto the next battle; instead of nation-building democracy there. Maybe the spinners can see the progress being made in converting the Middle East to liberalism.

Well I don't. Neither does the New York Times and the Washington Post But I guess they would not see the Bush administration in a positive light.

Maybe the spin doctors mean progress is being made because the day of reckoning between Saudi Arabia and the US draws ever closer? Is not the war on terrorism going to last years and there will lots more attacks on western nations. Do not the spin doctors say that this war against a fundamentalist Islam is one that western liberalism cannot afford to lose? Its all a matter of life and death.

The performance-based roadmap for peace in the region crumbles in the face of mutual hostility and hatred between Palestinians and and Israeli's. Is this just a stretch of bumpy road for the Americans? This is a road that bypassess all the tough issues: the future of Israel settlements, the return of Palestinian refugees and the drawing up of national borders.

President Bush is gearing up to get re-elected not brokering peace in the Middle East. The Israeli's do not want a road map to peace. Its too full of concessions about evacuating the territories. And the Palestinians have launched a second intifada on the grounds that violence is the only way to get the Israeli's to leave the territories.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 11:47 PM | Comments (0)

....and SA is doing what?

Peter Garrett from the ACF has an article in The Advertiser on the River Murray (no link). He says that Federal Budget was a real blow to all South Australians who care about the River Murray and the quality of their drinking water.

He adds that there was no money in the Costello Budget to save the Murray. The Federal Govt is sitting on the sidelines as our great river system turns into a trickle, and SA becomes an environmental basket case. Garrett concludes with the following sentence:

"As the Murray dies and salinity continues to ambush our land, the evidence suggests South Australians are being deprived of their bread, butter and water."

The text is all very emotive and it plays well in Adelaide. It is read there in terms of bad Howard Government and the good Rann Government, which is saying that saving the Murray is now the moral equivalent of war. The ACF is trailing its politics---that it is only the ALP that can, and will deliver, on environmental outcomes.

The article is not a good piece of writing. Garrett's defence of the Labor Party conveniently overlooks that the SA government is doing nothing to return water to the River Murray within its own territory. The Rann Labor Government allows SA Water to conveniently on-sell water savings to the Barossa and to sell unallocated water to the Clare Valley for further vineyard development.

It is still the old story of water for development not water for the River Murray that is happening on the ground within SA. Just like the old days SA is continuing to build new pipelines to divert water from the River Murray for agricultural purposes. What has changed, as a result of neo-liberal policies to create a water market, is that a corporatised SA Water is selling the ecological health of environment short to make a profit.

Making a profit is perfectly rational for a self-interested maximising corporation not acting in the public interest. SA Water cannot be entrusted with restoring environmental flows to the River Murray since it is primarily concerned with hiking the rate of return on public assets .Since the control of River Murray water in SA is dominated by SA Water the way is opened up for the whole shift to the sustainable use of water resources to break down.

The common public interest in SA's water infrastructure lies with the SA Parliament. And the state politicians actually foster water development. This is not the action of a state that really wants to save the River Murray; or rather it is a state that wants someone else to make the necessary sacrifices to save the Murray whilst it maximises River Murray water for irrigated development.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 5:31 PM | Comments (4)

Woomera+ABC

I watched the 4 Corners programme on the Woomera Detention Centre on the ABC last night. It was classic investigative journalism by Debbie Whitmont which uncovered what was previously hidden behind the razor at Woomera. That a lot of what happened was publicly hidden can be seen the response here

What suprised me from the expose was not the background government policy to treat the asylum seekers from Iraq and Afghanistan harshly. We already knew that. It was the way Australian Correctional Management (ACM), a subsidiary of the US Wackenhut Corporation, shortchanged the Federal Government on the contractural services provided in order to make a profit. Profit was the bottomline here. 4 Corners argued that ACM left the Woomera Detention Centre dangerously understaffed to maximise profits, and that the senior management of ACM covered up the shortchanging of services with various kinds of falsehoods.

What also suprised me was that the Department of Immigration knew that it was being shortchanged in terms of staffing numbers and the contractural services provided, but it went along with it. As did the Minister presumably.

What the program suggests is that we have a new system of governance that didn't really care about the wellbeing of the asylum seekers. It was a penal system designed to make life miserable and to degrade and dehumanize the asylum seekers inside the razor wire prison in the desert.

This mode of governance backfired because the politics could not be managed. Woomera was in the headlines and became synonymous with riots, protests and breakouts by desperate detainees plus claims that mental illness, self-harm and attempted suicide were rife.

The impression given by 4 Corners was that the rough-house treatment of asylum seekers by ACM was standard operating procedure. No doubt Philip Ruddock, the Immigration Minister, will make light of the staff claims: ----no doubt something along the lines that there is no need for any inquiry because all that happened was just a few management hiccups in difficult circumstances. That message will be wrapped up in a lot of legalese.

Woomera may be closed. Baxter is now open and running

Addition. On the 7.30 Report Minister Ruddock whitewashes ACM:

KERRY O'BRIEN: "But we're talking about conditions that were still applying up to last year.Eighty per cent of all Woomera's inmates were ultimately granted visas.In other words, most on the face of it were genuine refugees who had already suffered God knows what in humanity, who had put their lives at risk in leaky boats to get here.

Did they deserve to be treated like that like that?To be driven to that level of desperation? If the evidence of these carers is accurate?"

PHILIP RUDDOCK: "Well, the point I would make is that we were obliged by law to detain people who arrived without lawful authority, to deal with a number of issues."

KERRY O'BRIEN: "Humanely?"

PHILIP RUDDOCK: "Humanely, yes. And we endeavour to deal with them as humanely as possible. The inhumanity that you speak of is as a result of behaviour of the detainees themselves."

Read that last line again. The inhumanity at Woomera had nothing to do with actions of ACM. Nothing

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 1:20 PM | Comments (3)

May 19, 2003

Is this the case?

This text by Kenneth Davidson is one of the more interesting interpretations of Simon Crean's mapping of the ALP's response to the 2003 Costello Budget. It builds on the more immediate responses.

Davidson says:

"It is about time that MPs began to refocus on the main game - nation-building - which involves reinforcing the nation's social cement as well as its skills and its physical infrastructure."

Is this what Crean is foreshadowing? A return to, and reinventing of, nation building through publicly funded infrastructure and ecological renewal?

By social cement (ugh!) I guess Davidson means social cohesion or the communal ties that bind us as a nation. He says:

"Australia is not so lucky that it can manage to retain a cohesive society while deliberately setting out to create a two-tier health and education system under the rubric of seeking excellence, while looting public infrastructure built up over 200 years."

Many liberals, including lefty ones, do not like the word community, or more correctly communitarian but we do live in a nation under the sign of fraternity as well as liberty. Social cohesion is important, especially when the self-organizing market frays the ties that bind. The conservative response is to reshape social cohesion through the national security state through appealing to fear and anxiety.

Is what Davidson saying plausible? That:

"Simon Crean's budget reply last week [is] the first breach in the neoliberal consensus since Paul Keating won the unwinnable 1993 election against John Hewson's Fightback package of "reforms" - which John Howard has been implementing by stealth ever since he promised to create a "relaxed and comfortable" society in the 1996 election."

Is the ALP on the path to finding alternative ways to renew public infrastructure and foster social cohesion to that of the Howard Government? Are we actually moving into to a public policy situation where there will be real and genuine policy differences?

Or is it still going to the old scenario of Tweddleedum and Tweddleedee with marginal differences in packaging----eg like table salt in the supermarket? Same salt different packaging.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 2:13 PM | Comments (9)

May 18, 2003

Tim Blair watch

I see that Tim Blair is having a bit of fun at my expense. (See Saturday 17 May, 6.38PM) He quotes this text from National Review Online about the use and abuse of the term "neoconservative" by liberals by one no less that Jonah Goldeberg himself. Tim quotes this:

"In fact, neoconservative has become a Trojan Horse for a vast arsenal of ideological attacks and insinuations. For some it means Jewish conservative. For others it means hawk. A few still think it means squishy conservative or ex-liberal. And a few don't even know what the word means, they just think it makes them sound knowledgeable when they use it."

And public opinion is fingered by Tim as being the local example of being someone who don't even know what the word means and who just thinks it makes them sound knowledgeable when they use it. No particular web entry is mentioned so it must be all of them.

I do use the term neo-con a lot on this weblog because there is such a political beast. And just to set the record straight, see this text.

At public opinion neo-con means two things. It means

".....former liberals (which explains the "neo" prefix) who advocate an aggressive unilateralist vision of U.S. global supremacy, which includes a close strategic alliance with Israel." There is a bit more on the foreign policy side of things here and here

The historical background to US neconservatism can be found here. This book gives a deeper levelled and historical meaning to neo-con.

So neo-con also means favoring the self-organizing market and minimal state; support a minimal welfare as safety net, the rule of traditional elites, and the return to traditional cultural values. In short they are a mixture of libertarian and conservative.

I reckon that should do for starters.

Oh, by the way, Tim Blair is an Australian neocon. So is Christopher Pearson.

And John Quiggin is a social democrat.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 10:34 PM | Comments (16)

Commercializing universities

The neo-liberal press has celebrated the proposed Nelson reforms to the universities. He has found a way forward with clever politics. Setting the universities of Australia free said The Australian. And the Australian Financial Review (no link, 15 May, 2003, p. 70) says the reforms ensure a richer and more fertile future.

The Australian spells out the argument:

"But for all its faults, Dr Nelson's package must be praised. It is designed to impose a market discipline on universities, a concept despised by those academics who believe that they should not have to compete on the basis of talent and diligence. The Nelson reforms seek to create a market culture in education in two ways. First, by allowing universities the freedom to charge students a premium based on course quality and, second, by ending the old-style industrial relations system that determines pay and conditions according to academic rank rather than by individual achievement. The desired outcome of both is to free the universities from the chains of conformity and give them the chance to prosper by focusing on what they do best."

And the consequences of these pro-market reforms?

"The end result for students is that they will be able to choose the university that offers them value for money. The end result for academics is that they will need to provide quality teaching if they and their institutions are to prosper..... Adopting the Nelson reforms will unleash the same expertise and energy at home that has created such a major export market. The idea of change might frighten some academics but Dr Nelson's reforms offer them a unique chance to help their institutions grow and prosper. It is a chance that all who believe Australia needs a world-class university system must embrace."

According to this account the only way forward is to make the universities into business corporations who sell educational services to consumers. Those who resist these reforms in the name of academic values are reactionaries frightened of change. This resistance is wrong headed says Alan Gilbert because it will be:

"...a tragedy for Australia's universities and, indirectly, for Australia's prospects of remaining at the forefront of knowledge-creation, innovation and technological development in an emerging global knowledge economy, if we fritter away this once-in-a-generation opportunity to create an internationally competitive higher education sector.....Nelson is to be commended for facing up to the reality that existing public policy settings are leading slowly but inexorably towards mediocrity. The long-term competitiveness of the Australian economy is likely to depend, among other vital prerequisites, on the capacity of Australian universities to match their international competitors. Under present policy settings, most are certainly falling behind."

What this means is that the elite Group of Eight universities will be the winners, whilst the cash-strapped smaller universities will lose out because they will not have the market leverage to charge full fees to students with access to deep pockets. Hence we have a two-tired university system. Robert Manne concurs with this judgement:

"...the Australian university system seems certain to become more hierarchical, with prosperous, high-salaried, research-oriented "world class" universities at the top of the pyramid, attracting the most talented academics and most promising students, beneath which there will be a larger number of less affluent, lower prestige, more vocationally oriented, mainly teaching universities, with limited involvement in cutting edge scholarship or research."

Such a divide is perfectly acceptable says the Australian Financial Review. It says that the regionals can fill the gaps in the market left by the elite universites. I doubt that this will happen as it is the elite universities who will have a richer and more fertile future. What is of concern to the free marketeers is that it is necessary for one or two of the elite Australian universities are freed from regulation so that they can become internationally competitive.

The alternative to deregulation as a way to provide money for cash-strapped universities is a massive injection of public funds. I cannot see that massive e injection coming from the ALP in the near future. So the road to deregulation will continue to be travelled by the liberal state.

Another consequence of the reforms is that the humanities will continue to be marginalized because they are not big money earners. Not a problem says the Australian Financial Review. The small regional universities,it says, can " specialize in the classical liberal arts degrees of the kind offered by successful colleges in the US." Ken Parish diasgrees with this account. He says:

"....the non-vocational humanities disciplines are unlikely to attract substantial numbers of full fee-paying students, with the result that these faculties will probably continue to wither on the vine at an even faster rate than over the last decade. The "sandstones" will maintain viable non-vocational humanities faculties for prestige reasons, but regional universities will probably move incrementally towards an almost entirely vocational mix of course offerings. NTU's abolition of its English department a few years ago will be seen as the "cutting edge", though not in a favourable sense."

The bottom line is the neo-liberals do not really care about the non-elite universities---they can basically fend for themselves. Nor do they treat the humanities sympathetically. because theses are the discplines that have gone postmodern, are the site of political correctness and engage in too much irritating critique.

Gilbert's defense of deregulation implies is that an educational corporation is not in conflict with academic values of the liberal university, and that a corporate university would protect these academic values and even enhance them. Is this the case?

For an alternative and pessimistic view, see Invisible Adjunct Here is a review of a book on Universities in the Marketplace This says that the commercialization of higher education is headed for a crisis due to the sacrificing of academic values for profit-making.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 1:49 PM | Comments (3)

May 16, 2003

A shooting star?

Like Gummo Trotsky I missed Simon Crean's reply to the Costello budget on telly last night. Too busy getting myself hooked up to broadband. Crean's speech is here for those who like to read set pieces. It was a defining moment. It would have been nice to have seen the performance. Its the performance that counts in terms of establishing credibility.

Two comments. Labor has begun to talk about its own core social democratic convictions. Crean defended the idea of equitable access to health care and education on the grounds of them being public goods. He was strong on Medicare and sidestepped higher education with promises.

The other comment is that Simon Crean committed himself to saving the River Murray--to restoring enough environmental flows to keep the mouth of the Murray open and to restore to water. However, the $150 million down payment is a long way shsort of the $1.5-$2 billion that is needed. Ken Parish concurs.

But figures for environmental flows for the River Murray were actually mentioned---1500 gigalitres over 10 years & 450 gigalitres in the first term of a Crean Government. There was even mention of buying back water licences from irrigators, buying out farmers by RiverBank and recyclingof storm and waste water. The proposed Environmental Flow Trust to manage environmental flows is a good idea, as it takes it out of the hands of the various water authorities (SA Water in South Australia) who have EVERY interest in selling water and NO interest in restoring environmental flows. The trust will ensure that all water savings were used permanently for environmental flows and did not go back to irrigation.

This speech has enough good rhetoric and enough detail to play well in SA and would be welcomed, and talked up, by an embattled Rann Government that is very short on actionable policies to return water to the River Murray in its own state.

Margo Kingston was very impressed. Her heading was Let our rivers flow, says Simon Rightlyso because there was nothing on this issue from Howard at all even though he said water was a key priority of this term of office. Since he actually cut money in the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality, water is not a core policy issue.

Simon Crean even went further. He would stop "large and indiscriminate" land-clearing to prevent salinity and commit to legally binding greenhouse gas reduction targets by signing the Kyoto protocol. It is too good to be true.

Addition There is a great post on the Murray-Darling at Southerly Buster

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 10:53 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

philosophy behind Costello budget

I argued in a previous post that the 2003 Costello budget has its roots in the 1980s neo-liberal Fightback manifesto of John Hewson. It goes back to the old roots of self-sufficiency, individual responsibility and lower taxation. Its a 1980's tune many citizens love to sing along with.

We are looking at small (but strong) government through an explicit rejection of a collectivist social liberalism that developed the welfare state in the name of social justice. You can hear Rupert Murdoch rubbing his hands with glee upon hearing the news. Reduce the power of the state, reduce the power of the state he says to himself. He mutters 'the state is a monopoly with coercive powers.' Thats bad. Small government is the key to reviving the good market order The Australian thunders.

This article by Louise Dodson makes a similar argument.

"The philosophy is small "c" conservatism writ large. Based on economic rationalism, it involves dismantling the welfare state and introducing two-tiered health and education systems. The catchword is "choice" - giving taxpayers the choice of pocketing extra money as tax cuts and spending it rather than the Government spending it for them. Consumers also have the choice of using private health and education rather than publicly funded services."

There is a bit more going here than the market talk of choice and diversity. Low taxes mean low public spending. Low public spending means the welfare state is reduced to a minimum safety net designed to prevent acts of desperation by the needing.

Louise Dodson goes to make another point about these neo-liberal reforms.

"The middle classes are most affected. With a safety net for the poor, those on middle incomes will pay more for medical consultations and private health insurance. They will pay more for their children's tertiary education, although the budget makes it more likely that their children will get to university, because the number of places has been increased.They are compensated by benefiting more from the tax cuts."

Compensated? One should add the middle class are only only partly compensated. Remember the bracket creep. The tax cuts are a smokescreen to hide the shift in spending from government to consumer. As Geoff Kitney says:

"The policy changes announced in the budget represent the most profound change in the way Australia has thought about these issues in 30 years. They dramatically accelerate the demolition of the Whitlam transformation of health and education policy in the early 1970s when responsibility was shifted from individuals to the community."

The undergraduate degree is a big cost---we are looking at $60-100,000 for a degree. Its a debt. Those with deep pockets will be able to afford a good education; the others will be able to buy a second rate one for second rate jobs. Its old-fashioned elitism achieved through one's market capacity and an explicit rejection of the ethos of equality.

Gareth Parker asks: what is wrong with a two-tiered system? Its a good question. It may not address small matters such as market failure, the need for public goods and Australians being citizens who live in a democracy. Not everything in public life is about the market. We do not live in the market alone.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 12:23 PM | Comments (0)

May 15, 2003

oh Crikey

I see that Stephen Mayne has lost his strong bid to become the first activist director. A big pity. Corporate governance in Australia needs a good shakeup. Who better to kick things along than the Mayne boy.

The institutions are a bunch of wimps. I can only agree with Mayne on that score. The directors re-elected were the very ones who had presided over a massive fall in the capital value of shareholder funds---- "$10 billion on a foreign frolic" as Mayne puts it. The institutions were okay with that loss!

Shame shame shame. I concur with the sentiments from yelled from the back of the meeting. The institutions did not want the Mayne boy to get a directorship.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 8:09 PM | Comments (2)

Return to the past?

I've been thinking about the Howard Government's third term reform agenda in the light of the Costello 2003 Budget that proposes to return future surplus as small tax cuts.With debt being paid for by the sale of Telstra the reform shift in health and education is to a user pays systems. The market is going to the instrument that is used to govern health and education.

If any affordable surplus from future tax growth will be delivered as tax cuts and not in general as spending on public services, then that puts a cap on public spending. So the continuing structural reform will be within the constraints of good economic management. This means there is a shift to the consumer paying more for private services. The new money that is going to go into health and education will come from consumers paying more and for health and education services.

It is a return to the 1993 Fightback policy platform. As Max Walsh points out the health reforms there "proposed that free health care be confined to pensioners and health-care card-holders only." And in 1987, "when Howard first ran for the prime ministership, his health platform proposed the abolition of bulk billing except for the disadvantaged."

Is Howard using his political ascendancy over Labor to push for the "privatisation" of a universal public health and public education system and so create a two-tiered private and public system?

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 3:21 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

Australian press

I find myself in full agreement with Gerard Henderson on this. The Australian press is very insular. It was clearly evident in the Iraq war. They---as a collective body---- had little understanding of the Middle East.

Canberra is the centre of their media universe. Do they----the Canberra Press Gallery----- actually read the international papers?

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 9:42 AM | Comments (5)

May 14, 2003

Iraq: the spin

Why am I not suprised?

The US has not found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Yet it said it had good evidence gained from intelligence sources that indicated where they were. But no smoking gun was found. So what happens to Iraq's supposed links with al Qa'ida, which werre the basis for the US attack and Australian support? The links look threadbare. The threat looks mythical.

Can we infer that the US did not know what is going on? Or that the Bush Administration knew what was going on but it did not level with the rest of the world?

No doubt that story will continue to unfold. So will the terrorist attacks in response to the US presence in Iraq.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 1:00 PM | Comments (0)

Trust me says Pete

I listened to the Treasurer defend the Budget on the 7.30 Report last night. We've got a money left over over paying for the war, low debt, and so the surplus should be returned to the punters. So we get $10.7 billion on tax cuts and $1.5 billion on public funding of universities.

It is hard to question the tax cuts, for though they are across the board, they have been pitched to those on $10, 000-$27,000 income range; those who are on part-time jobs. They get a couple of dollars under $20,000, $6 up to $25,000 and $4 up to $27,000. Enough to buy a couple of issues of the Australian Financial Review. Big deal, especially when lot of the cut consists in the return of bracket creep.

But more tax cuts are promised from future budget surpluses. You can trust me to deliver on that says Pete. Look at my track record. There's next years election strategy.

You'd definitely be out of pocket if you decided to go to the regional university to acquire a bit of intellectual capital. That is the path to debt. So you'd need to be asssured that you'd get a job and that it would pay enough to pay back the education debt. That means postponing buying a house. But you cannot earn more than $62,000 because that means you are rich! So you pay 47% of your income in tax.

The answer? Take out an investor loan buy a unit and negatively gear to reduce personal income tax and acquire capital gains, which are then taxed at lower rates than the income tax.

What if the economy runs out of steam (its not a high economy) from international events.The Treasurer painted a grim and dark outlook and the Australian economy is very vulnerable to shocks from overseas. What use are tax cuts when you lose your job and houseprices nosedive?

What does all that mean? It means a transfer of spending on publci goods (education and health ) from the government to consumers. It means working harder and longer for younger workers. And for older workers? Their future of unemployment, persistent poverty and social disengagement is unlikely to change.

And the universities? They will be increassingly be run like a business with collective bargaining being displaced in favour of individual work contracts. The business ethos is not sympathetic to fundamental university research. It is geared towards directing funding to commercially-orientated research such as biotechnology. It also means concentration of research in elite corporate universities that can charge full fees for status courses. Regional universities (eg. Flinders University) will continue to rely on public funding because they do not have the prestige to charge full fees for many undergraduate courses. And the increased public spending is not only over 10 years; it does recoup the cuts made in 1996. Expect more privatisation of education as cash-strapped elite universities push for more deregulation.

What I get from it all is that consumers have to keep spending to keep the economy ticking over. To do that we consumers need confidence. We need rising house prices (they are very high now), low interest rates, low inflation reduced charges and taxes by the states (haven't they got the GST revenue stream?) and more jobs. And all that depends on a big surge in growth in the US economy.

You cannot say that this budget is brimming with vision about nation-building in a knowledge economy. It all looks as if Costello is planning to give the Treasury job the flick.

So what is Labor going to do? The Libs are going to enjoy making and watching Labor suffer from a thousand cuts.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 12:01 PM | Comments (3)

May 13, 2003

The Budget: it whimps... but

I've only paid cursory attention to this years Federal budget. I've been too busy worry about the beautiful and constructing my life to accord with the taste dictates of Vogue Living.

My fear is that the budget will have cuts in the grants for scientists just to undermine the building momentum that is making Australia a "smart or clever country." Remember the Howard Government's Howard government’s Backing Australia’s Ability (BAA) program, which supposedly set the scene for being a smart country. It is doubtful if the 2003 Costello Budget will strengthen and broaden this program to enable Australia to join the bottom league of being an innovating nation; or to attract talented Australians overseas to return and join dynamic cooperative research centres bursting with creative ideas, innovative energy and strong commercialisation. Well, the Howard Government once talked that way. Today its a dream

Will the CSIRO will be punished for entering into public policy debates?

I also doubt that Costello's budget will be a deficit one to fund improvements to public infrastructure; or give me hugh tax cuts; fund public health and education; or buy back water licences to save the River Murray. All the signs are, from the headlines I've noted, is that military spending (defence and security) is going to take up oodles of cash; the budget has to remain in surplus; and that the Howard Government lacks the courage to break with economic orthodoxy in the face of declining world economic growth----what economists call the economy being soft!

When the economy is growing they talk in terms of stellar economic performance. No doubt we will hear how great the Australian has been doing due to the wonderful economic management of Costello and Howard.

Surely they are not going to go about needing the surplus to pay off the national debt again? There cannot be much left.

The education reforms? Will they facilitate the shift to a clever, sustainable country? Or are the reforms more about deregulation, user pays (more full feeing places), increased competitiveness, increasing export earnings of international education and allowing regional universities to drift into teaching only institutions.

Addition I caught the budget speech while cooking dinner. A big spin about minor tax cuts----tiny weeny tax cuts to grab newspaper headlines in the morning. Nothing about the environment though. It was not even mentioned---only preserving the cultural heritage of significant sites of national remembrance. Not much long-term green vision there. And there is increased governance of the universities through the deregulated market is the long-term vision for higher education. Of course, there is no research money for philosophers to critique the neo-liberal policy agenda or the lack of drive in the sustainable policy agenda. The humanities will become even more marginalised. Ansd we have lots of promises to spend money many years from now.

Pretty lame and tame all round. Apart from election, election, election.

The faces of the government front bench as they looked at the Labor Opposition said it all. Smugness, arrogance and contempt. They have the federal Labor Party over a barrell. Who would have believed that it is the Liberals have control of the health and education policy fields and it is the Australian Labor Party that is on the defensive and looking for answers.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 4:05 PM | Comments (3)

Digital Adelaide revisited

The good Bunyip professor with a great literary style has generously given up his precious time to respond to my earlier post on digital Adelaide. I'm seen as a confused, delusional lefty clinging to the old Keynesian state. So I'm stripped bare by the professor of the bilabong. Have a look here. Its a good read.

But a bit of dust must have landed in the Professor's eye. He did not address the gap between the rhetoric and reality of the SA government around IT, SA becoming a part of the knowledge economy, or Adelaide reinventing itself as the education city. There needs to be some sort of policy framework for regional economic development.

I read the professors' public policy advice to the state parliamentarians to be this: trust the dynamism of the self-organizing market and reject any attempts by bureaucrats and politicians to suppress competition. He celebrates the decentralized decision-making of market capitalism and those quick-thinking, street-savvy entrepreneurs who take risks and use the unique knowledge they possess to take the opportunities open to them. And our good professor has a radical edge----he uses his vision of a society of independent, self-employed producers to criticize the concentration of power in capitalist society. He really is deepy critical of the reality of liberal society in which the new forms of corporate organization and hierarchy (eg., major media players) act to make individuals subordinate to higher authority. So we should dismantle these concentrations of political and economic power and then distribute power and property as widely as possible to ensure that Australia becomes a nation of dynamic entrepreneurs.

Behind the conservative mask of Bunyip sits a revolutionary. Dont ya just love the way dialectics works away in the background. Yep I'm giving a strong interpretation of the Bunyip's text; it is no more than the interpertation the good professor gave to mine. His strong reading dug up my commitment to the state as facilitating the building of IT infrastructure for the public good.

The Professsor is really a closet Straussian. Not in the sense of preferring premodern to modern philosophy; it is in the sense of their being two levels in his text: the surface one for the mass audience and the secret one for those in the know.

If we take the Bunyip Professor's libertarian vision of a good society seriously (the secret reading), then clearly the car industry in Adelaide has to be broken up along with all transnational comapanies including the IT ones. All employers should be encouraged to dump their dependence and become entrepreneurs.

Or would the Professsor reject this as lefty mischief making and say that his faith in the invisible hand of the market leads him to accept as benign whatever evolves spontaneously? If GMH or EDS is to be accepted, then what happens to to the decentralised character of knowledge and the moral character of participation in the marketplace?

As far as I can see the good professor has a bit of a problem here. Is oligopoly---nay monopoly with EDS, NRG Energy & United Utilities---a minor problem because of the power of these large companies will be constrained by competition. Hence there is no need for anti-trust and anti-monopoly legislation.

Yet, on the other hand, the good professor is deeply troubled by the rise of such powerful bureucratic organizations (eg. media companies such as The Sydney Morning Herald and the tendency for the dependency of their employees to undermine the moral basis of the market.These employees (eg., Margo Kingston) do not have to face the uncertainities of the market, do not take responsibility for themselves and are unable to learn the necessary virtues that are needed to sustain a free market culture. They cannot become independent sovereign individuals and go-getting entrepreneurs. Their life experience leads them to embrace collectivism.

Since most of us are employees so the chances of breaking the back of collectivism are slim indeed. And what is worse for the good professsor, the moral ethos of the free market becomes ever more difficult to preserve the more succesful and developed capitalism becomes.

As the Mayne man says do ya best prof.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 10:41 AM | Comments (2)

May 12, 2003

Neocons & US regime change in Iraq

We are aware of the important role played by the neo-cons in justifying the regime change in Iraq by the US, the proposal to install democracy there and the democracy domino theory of the region.

This paper by Robert Blecher charts the way the neo-cons changed their minds about democracy in Iraq between 1991 and 2003. No chance in 1991. Every chance in 2003. It shows this in the context of the US becoming an empire.

Reading does not change my mind that the US-style democracy in Iraq will come down to a notion of democracy built around limited government and personal freedoms, not a robust democracy with majority rule that woudl allow the Shi'ites to gain power. The new democratic Iraq will also be a compliant state that will further US strategic interests in the region.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 2:05 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

The G.G. & dirty hands

Well, he had to do something. He has become a moral cripple. He needs to spend 40 days in the desert reflecting on his lapses of judgement, instead of developing strategies to hang onto power and stay put. He really did get dirty hands from his protection of pedophiles during his long climb up the ladder in the Anglican Church. The Report into the past handling of sexual abuse can be found here.

It's a case of dirty hands not the basest political blackmail as Paul Sheehan is trying to argue. The dirty hands have politicized the office of the Governor General. It appears that the current incumbent does not the moral character and civic virtues to unify the nation and articulate its aspirations. Hollingworth says that he aspires to a man for all people. It appears otherwise. And appearances carry a lot of weight in politics.

Michelle Grattan has got it right:

"...that Hollingworth's credibility is shot to pieces because of his handling of pedophilia when Anglican Archbishop of Brisbane. Specifically, he let a priest who admitted pedophilia continue in the ministry."

It is increasingly obvious that Hollingworth does not have the right moral character for the job. Thats the judgement that is being made by public opinion and it is why the G.G. has been on the defensive for the last two years. That flawed moral character is continuing to undermine the very basis on which the G.G operates---public trust and confidence. As Ken Parish says its time to go

But is the current 'standing aside' a clever strategic political move by Howard to retain the G.G? A political fix? This is considered by Alan over at The View from the Right in an interesting post. Alan highlights the political campaign against the G.G. (and John Howard.) However, he fails to deal with the problem of dirty hands in which managers and politicians are involved in situations that require them to commit moral violations to achieve worthwhile goals.

The tense relationship between politics and ethics is addressed here by John Morgan. He says:

"In the Elliot case – which involves child sex abuse by a man before his ordination by another bishop – a pastoral and disciplinary judgment was made, in which it is asserted Hollingworth got the balance wrong. But, the independent report says, it was a judgment made "in good faith". This has gone unacknowledged.... Have we recently decided on matters of sex abuse that unless a strictly legalistic line is followed, condemnation ensues for making a decision and getting the penalty wrong? Or are there other agendas relating to our moral confusion?"

Is there moral confusion here? Its drawing a long blow. It is more a case of dirty hands in which ethics was put aside to protect the church. This means we need to ask: how should we view morally questionable political acts that are done for some good purpose?

Morgan does not address this. He continues with his moral confusion theme:

"Jesus spoke of judgment, repentance, restoration, compassion and care. In dealing with sex abuse, this applies towards victims as well as perpetrators. Some of that is hard to accept – especially in the present legalistic mood. Ways of dealing with wrongdoing or sin of any kind are held in tension within Christian communities...There is hypocrisy and ambivalence in our community in matters involving sexuality.....We need to take a long, hard look at ourselves and ask: What is the moral basis of our own lives as individuals and as a community? Are we so confused that we will jump on any particular campaign wagon and believe the worst of certain people? Are we so confused as to believe that truth is only as we want to perceive it?"

Hardly. Hollingworth handling of pedophilia when he was Anglican Archbishop of Brisbane is seen to be morally wrong because he let a priest who admitted pedophilia continue in the ministry. It is a morally questionable political act because he did this to protect the Church.

Morgan is saying that it is right sometimes it’s right for a senior bishop to let a known pedophile continue to give pastoral care for the greater good of the church. The contrary judgement is that Hollingworth has done a moral wrong. Its the ethics of dirty hands that is crucial here not the politics of a witchhunt.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 4:33 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

May 10, 2003

Digital Adelaide

I have been trying to get connected to broadband this week. I 've signed up, the modem is arrived and a few technical glitches to do with security in the high tech townhouse are being sorted.

But I haven't actually signed up to Broadband even though I live in the commerical district next door to all the lawyers and surrounded by local businesses. I have signed up to some beast called ADSL that is neither one thing nor the other. What that means is that high-speed cable has not laid through the CBD. And I presume that local loops from exchanges to located users in the city where network resources are concentrated are in need of an upgrade. So I pay for Broadband and get something second best.

Its a personal story true. But it is a very good example of the lack of commitment by the state to making Adelaide an integral part of the knowledge economy. Instead of cutting budgets and laying off more public servants the Rann Government ought to be spending on infrastructure for the knowledge-economy or on Adelaide becoming an education city.

Now the Rann Government does have an IT strategy called Information Economy 2002. It is about:

"...creating networks of people, building a connected community where all community members benefit rather than a select few. The most effective way to achieve this is to ensure that all South Australians are encouraged and enabled to participate in the Information Economy, locally, nationally and globally...[Its initiatives are] intended to place South Australia firmly on the map of the new global economy as a centre of connectivity, creativity and entrepreneurial activity—a truly information-enabled society in every way."

Yet the key agency here, the Department of Further Education, Employment, Science and Technology, does not even have its own website! The Information Economy Policy Office website says nothing. The Office of Innovation has nothing online whilst the link to The Information Economy 2002 strategy is broken. Digital Adelaide indeed. Its a joke. No doubt the neo-liberals are cutting the public servants in the The Information Economy Policy and Innovation Office.

Even though there is a council election happening in Adelaide there is very little talk about a digital Adelaide---- not even by by the high profile Michael Harbison, whose website says that he:

"...has thrown himself into the task of revitalising Adelaide in his role as an Adelaide City Councillor and Deputy Lord Mayor. Michael believes that now is the time to lead Adelaide from the front as Lord Mayor."

His priorities for a revitalised Adelaide say nothing about hotwiring Adelaide to make it digital.

What a sorry state of affairs. SA will remain the backward state forever envious of Victoria and NSW. It cannot be like these economic powerhouses because global capital has passed it by. So it needs to develop an alternative regional identity in a globalised world. This is what it is failing to do. It plays areound with all sorts of ideas-----high tech hub, education city, defence centre, knowledge nation-----but none have any traction.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 1:45 PM | Comments (11)

May 9, 2003

high tech hubs

The environmental philosopher at philosophy.com has raised the issue of the knowledge economy in his rambling wilderness holiday reflections. In the late 20th century Adelaide tried to launch itself as Australia's technological centre by creating a multifunction polis (MFP). The state under the then Bannon Labor Government attempted to create a urban complex to provide the infrastructure to attract hi-tech industry. It had some vague gesture to sustainability.

The attempt to create a high-tech hub failed. Some history is provided hereIt was not one of SA's glorious moments.

The bureaucratic policy makers concentrated on investing in buildings not people. They had some sense of the importance of science and technology shaping the future and the need to shift away from the traditional reliance on exploiting natural resources. But they had little understanding of education, the links between research, venture capital and the commercialisation of technology. It was all a bit cargo cultish. Then the State Bank crashed and that was that.

No genuine effort was made by the Brown/Olsen Liberal Government to build up the science base, an educated work force, or the local knowledge-based industries other than through the privatisation of public IT, water and electricity utilities. The big corporate multinationals would enable SA to buy a place in the new knowledge economy. Another example of a cargo cult mentality.

And the Rann Government? It is still haunted by the State Bank disaster and reckons that the task of shifting to the knowledge-economy is best left to business. It lacks political courage. Small government, balanced budgets, onggoing cuts to public spending and public relation gestures to sustainability are its ethos. The knowledge-economy is not in the forefront of public policy of the state nor in its planning for economic development. It relies on policy advice from the Economic Development Board whose focus is on an export strategy.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 9:22 AM | Comments (0)

May 8, 2003

We've heard it all before

Whilst on holiday I missed out on a lot of reading of newspapers. Today I glanced through some back copies of the Financial Review and I could not help noticing that the Howard Government is facing a hostile Senate. The executive is talking about the Senate impeding its ability to govern the country with a strong hand, a double dissolution and using a referendum to reforming the Senate by reducing its numbers and so improve its numbers in the Senate. No talk of doing away with proportional representation though.

This government is becoming ever more uncompromising and concerned with executive dominance. Once again the Senate becomes the battleground around a reform agenda around education, work and family, Medicare and workplace relations. It is a reform agenda that shifts the balance away from the public welfare state to the competitive market subsidised by the state. Is not Howard subsidising the private health funds to the tune of $2.3 billion per year with the 30 per cent tax rebate on private health insurance?

We've been here before. Remember Paul Keating's remark about the Senate being unrepresentative swill? Then, as now, the conflict is about executive dominance.

Then Keating wanted to us to accept high levels of job insecurity as his economic reforms tried to transform everyday life to mirror a competitive market. We had to keep reinventing ourselves to stay employable in a market society. The line then was that education was the big key in the newly-forming knowledge economy. Yet so many graduates could not find work and ended up in low skilled jobs whilst those in full time work worked longer and longer hours.

In one way or another work weighed heavily on our lives in a market economy. during the 1990s. And we became more unhappy and more depressed.

Lets hope this time the Senate stands firm against Howard's attempt to continue to transform Australia into a market society.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 11:18 PM | Comments (0)

May 7, 2003

Easing back into things

I did not see any television whilst on holiday in Mallacoota Inlet. Nor did I listen to the radio. I did glance at The Australian and The Age now and again. I noticed that Meg Lees had formed a new party; that the neo-liberals had launched their attack on public health dimension of the welfare state to create a two tier health system. Whilst the Labor leadership squabbles over strong and popular leadership, the Liberals position themselves within the Labor Party's 'natural' territory.

I also couldn't help noticing that Angela Shanahan was accusing second wave feminists of being all career and no motherhood yet again.

And John Howard had been feted in Washington; the West was still going on about terrorism; the Palestinians were under US pressure and fish feel pain when hooked.

Tis easing back into things ever so gently.

And I noted that John Howard was even talking up water policy (salinity, water rights and tree clearing) as being an important part of his third term policy agenda. Under clear treeing is the regulatory environmental state. How far will the Howard government embrace tough constraints on liberty? The key focus of this water policy is on a nationally acceptable water right system to facilitate free trade in water and to ensure compensation for adjustment for farmers. Under such a regulatory trading regime water will gravitate to most high value users who can then achieve significant productive benefit with less amount of water.

So we have a heavy sell for the market as a neo-liberal instrument for sustainability----production in the Murray Darling basin will double and the amount of water used will halve.

But will this instrument achieve long-term sustainability and enhance the health of our rivers? Or will it be used to increase the irrigated land under cultivation? Is sustainability the new wrapping for yet more water development?

I find it odd that people talk about (water) rights for something that has been little more than access entitlements. Yet a national system of water rights remains the core of water reform and water reform along with health is high on Howard's third term agenda.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 10:20 AM | Comments (1)