Public Opinion

« February 2003 | Main | April 2003 »

March 31, 2003

We won't see this

It would seem that al Jazeera's English language site is a victim of war as it has been made inaccessible to english readers. So we have to turn elsewhere.

Robert Fisk in Baghdad has seen an al-Jazeera videotape of recent events in Basra that was driven up to Baghdad on the open road from Basra. It is important because there are no western journalists in Basra and the western media turnd down the images offered to them from al Jazeera.

Fisk describes what he see thus:

'Two British soldiers lie dead on a Basra roadway, a small Iraqi girl – victim of an Anglo American air strike – is brought to hospital with her intestines spilling out of her stomach, a terribly wounded woman screams in agony as doctors try to take off her black dress.

An Iraqi general, surrounded by hundreds of his armed troops, stands in central Basra and announces that Iraq's second city remains firmly in Iraqi hands. The unedited al-Jazeera videotape – filmed over the past 36 hours and newly arrived in Baghdad – is raw, painful, devastating.

It is also proof that Basra – reportedly "captured'' and "secured'' by British troops last week – is indeed under the control of Saddam Hussein's forces. Despite claims by British officers that some form of uprising has broken out in Basra, cars and buses continue to move through the streets while Iraqis queue patiently for gas bottles as they are unloaded from a government truck.'

If you can't trust seeing through Fisk's eyes, then these photos indicate the damage being wrought by precision bombing. Fisk describes the kind of bombs being used by the US. And some of todays cartoons from the Arab press. A extensive list of cartoons from March in the Arab Press.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 02:34 PM | Comments (0)

Has the War changed?

The American military command is saying that they are on plan, have had great success, that there are only pockets of resistance and they have control over large tracts of Iraq. By all accounts the dash to Baghdad for coffee has stopped 80 kilometres short of the gates of the city, where it waits for supplies and reinforcements. The battle for Basra is a stalemate. And is the northern front all show and no go? Its time for re-assessment. There is less swagger and arrogance by the militarized Enlightenment machine.

There has been a shift in the way the war is being fought, and governments are worried.

What has changed is an awareness of Iraq's capacity to counter of the American strategy for conventional engagements in which the US forces Iraq into fixed-position warfare where American technological superiority and air power can then destroy Iraq's best fighting force. They are now aware of Iraq's strategy to fight a partisan war; a guerrilla warfare across Iraq that is motivated by Iraqi nationalism resisting a foreign invader. Consequently, the strategy of street-to-street fighting that the American strategists had sought to avoid now looks more likely.

A guerrilla war undermines the key strategic goal of American Military Command: the acceptance by Iraq's people of an invasion intended to change their government. The Iraqis people were characterized by the militarized Enlightenment as being so brutally repressed by Saddam Hussein's regime that they would quickly rise up to overthrow the dictator when the Americans arrived. A guerrilla war indicates that, rather the Coalition soldiers being welcomed as liberators, they are often confronted with resistance and the possibility of street-by-street fighting in the rubble of Baghdad and other cities.

The military strategy of the Bush administration response is to escalate and keep escalating to destroy the Iraqi regime. That wil reinforce the dominant Arab view that it is war on Islam; may result in a Muslim jihad against the US and Australia, and undermine the long-term goal of stability in the Middle East and in Indonesia. Australia may well need to deal with regional instability and threats alone --there is no guarantee of US support.

Many ex-military types only see the military campaign in Iraq and continue to thunder away. The pro-war media continue to concentrate on the narrow goal of destroying a dictatorship for good: finishing the job and destroying Saddam Hussein's apparatus of terror forever. They are oblivious to, or simply ignore the political fallout. For Australia the political fallout comes from the shift from the internationalist position of supporting the UN and independence from the United States to a foreign policy selfish national interest defined in terms of falling into the template of knee-jerk support for the United States. Within the Asia Pacific region Australi's creditibility is on the line.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 08:34 AM | Comments (0)

March 30, 2003

Strategic Implications of War on Iraq

A report by Geoffrey Barker, 'Australia at war', in The Financial Review (subscription required) says that:

"The federal government's top advisors are acutely sensitive to the long -term strategic implications of the war in Iraq and of Australia's decision to fight alongside the US and Britain. To the extent that they can, they alert the Prime Minister, John Howard and senior ministers to the implications of the war for the Western alliance, the United Nations and regional relations."

What are these implications? Barker doesn't say that much. He mentions the post-Cold war division in the world of nations between those nation states who have jumped onto the US bandwagon and others aligned against it; Australia being dragged into subsequent wars waged against other "rogue states" that form part of the axis of evil such as Iran and North Korea; and how such serial entanglements impact on Australia's relations with important regional nation-states.

He implies that Canberra is not really listening to the strategic advice because it is too caught up in the war on Iraq. It also appears that the advice is at odds with the politics of Canberra jumping on the US bandwagon currently driven by the neocons. Australia should endeavour to persuade the US to stay within UN processes; and to ensure that Australia's commitment to the reduction and elimination of weapons of mass destruction works through UN processes.

What can we infer from this? One implication is suggested by Barker. He says that the strategic advice is at odds with Canberra's signing onto, and acceptance of, the US doctrine for pre-emptive strikes and preventive warfare. They intelligence and strategic community are reluctant to buy into Canberra use of this doctrine in the region.

That reluctance is reasonably. Pre-emptive strike has the potential to badly backfire by radicalising the Muslem world and formenting terrorism. The use of force agaisnt another nation state without the backing of the international community opens a Pandora's box. But Canberra is not listening. When the French raise such concerns about the effects of the Iraqi war, such as radicalising the Arab middle class, toppling regimes in the Middle East saand the formation of new terorists organizations, Canberra dutifully follows the Washington script and attacks France.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 01:45 PM | Comments (0)

Taking a reality check

John Howard, the Australian Prime Mnister and leading Coalition hawk, is reported to have said that the Iraqi war is going extremely well. He says:

"I believe in all the circumstances the war is going extremely well. To those who are suggesting that because it hasn't in effect resulted in complete victory in the space of a week, I suggest they take a reality check."

Well, I have been taking a reality check--- I watched BBC World News for several hours in the small hours of the morning until I fell asleep. I am not persuaded that the war is going extremely well.

The hawks confuse the issue as usual. On their terms the war in Iraq is a part of the overall war on terrorism that is target at a militant Islamic fundamentalism. On this account the war in Iraq is just one battle in a wide-ranging long-term war. All that Howard is saying is that this particular battle is going okay despite the need to change military tactics.

But the war itelf is not going extremely well. This paragraph indicates why:

"Large civilian casualties in Baghdad will cost the US not just Iraqi hearts and minds but the goodwill of the international community and entrench hostility in the Arab world, where support for Iraq has risen with the bloodshed."

Entrenched Arab hostility means an increase in Arab resistance to the hegemony of the US, a rise in Arab fundamentalism, increased instablity of those despotic Arab regimes that support the US and a targeting of Syria and Iran as enemies. Thus we have a deepening of the perception among Arabs that this is a war against Islam and the construction of Islam as being anti-Christian and anti-western amongst the Anglo-American nation-states.

This is going badly. It is the hawks who ought to take a reality check.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 10:28 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

March 29, 2003

Hearts and Minds

Two quotes of significance from different texts in the Iraq discourse of the US military machine.

The first is from the US Military, a Lieutenant General William Wallace, a Commander of V Corps. During a visit to the 101st Airborne Division headquarters in central Iraq he acknowledged that the combination of overextended supply lines and a combative adversary using unconventional tactics have stalled the U.S. drive toward Baghdad. This has increased the likelihood of a longer war than many strategists had anticipated. He then said:

"The enemy we're fighting is different from the one we'd war-gamed against."

I bet those war games never factored in Iraqi patriotism. They probably assumed that a bit of shock and awe would lead the Iraqi' to rebel against a dictator, would hunt down and kill the central figures in the Iraqi regime, throw open the gates of Baghdad and welcome the Anglo American army of liberation. Instead the Iraqi's are fighting for the country they love. In concentrating on playing mind games with the Iraqi's the American psych.ops forget about the Iraqi heart.

The second quote is from Greg Sheridan, a conservative Australian commentor specialising in foreign affairs. He says:

"...the military briefings of the Central Command, which the whole world watches on Fox, CNN or the BBC...are atrocious, as bad as anything I've seen...the Centcom military briefings have been a disgrace. Just one example. Either they were incredibly sloppy in telling us that Umm Qasr had been taken when it hadn't, or they were telling lies. For the first few days of the war, the primary objective of these military briefings was to convince Hussein's forces that they should quit. But running deception operations against Iraqis through military briefings to your own people runs the grave risk of undermining your own support because people eventually realise they are not being told the truth."

The hearts and minds of Anglo-American citizens were completely ignored if not treated with utter contempt.

The consquence is indicated by the photo on the front page of The Australian (no link). In the foreground stands a yound Iraqi girl dressed in red/purple dress with white rectangular lines on the upper body. She is waiting for food in Al Zubata, south of Basra. She is surrounded, enclosed, by the brown/olive Coalition (pressumably British) troops who form a backdrop of bodies. A military hand rests on her right shoulder restraining her. Guns flank her on both sides.

This image has been put there centre stage by a pro-war Australian editors to say Liberation. But it says Occupation.

Sloppy editing? Nope. Its blindness to the significance of the massive destruction being wrought by shock and awe wrapped up in historical amnesia.

A new narrative about the war (not just military battles) is in formation, and it is a counter to the totalizing peace, propersity and freedom narrative of the Militarised Enlightenment. The counter narrative works from interpreting the images and words of the censored western media otherwise. The newly-forming counter narrative, which is based on the hearts and minds of citizens, is a tragic one representing human suffering and moved by historical shudders.

You don't have to read Derrida to understand the significance of difference in the war on Iraq. Deconstruction is the name for reading texts and images otherwise.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 11:27 AM | Comments (6)

March 28, 2003

Peggy Noonan in Australia

Peggy Noonan, from the Wall Street Journal, recently appeared in The Australian as part of the conservative campaign to soften up public opinion. It is the first time that her column has appeared in Australia as far as I know.

It was pretty thin material as usual. The message was we (the US) have to hang tough when the bodies of the soldiers start piling up. True, it was written, more gracefully than that. Here is a sample:

"After Vietnam, the US military establishment began to press for new preconditions of war. They would insist that political backing for any military action be real, clear and sustainable; that military planning include exit strategies in case of insupportable disaster; and that the US go into any conflict with full and ferocious force. Thus the heavy bombing, the highly technologised fighting force, the highly trained specialists that we see on the news every night.... The idea was that if you go in with overwhelming force, victory will beat the body bags home. All of which is understandable as strategy, but it has also tended to support the assumption that Americans can't take battlefield losses, that they've grown soft and unused to suffering, that ultimately they don't want to pay a price."

But things are not turning out the shock and awe way---despite the best attempts by the embedded media. Now embedding the reporters of the US networks enabled the Pentagon to control what we see and what they report on. And to see something different we need to turn to the foreign press; and what they show us ---mangled, blackened torn civilian bodies is viewed with disapproval by both the US media and the Anglo-American war politicians. And images that are offered to the western media by Al Jazeerah, for instance, are turned down by the Western media. They are too harsh and alarming and the they might give the public the wrong idea of what the war is about.

But the negative does trickle into the US consciousness along with the growing awareness the war is going to be tough and hard. So Peggy says 'hang tough'. We can take the body bags coming home. The American people will suffer through this, accept the body bags because they believe the war is needed and the US position is right. They will accept the high price that needs to be paid to oust Hussein and pacify Iraq. We Americans have moral courage and clarity.

Thats Peggy Noonan in Australia folks. An embedded journalist doing a good publicity job for the Bush administration. Much needed in Australia to give the local gals (Janet and Miranda a lift.) In the US Peggy is much loved by Tom over at TBogg and James over at The Rittenhouse Review. They have a deep appreciation of Peggy's moral uplift. Unsure what moral uplift is? Check out Peggy's latest effort Eyes on the Main Prize. It informs us that we should keep our eyes on the prize. Why? Becuse Peggy senses that the US:

"...is about to startle and reorder the world. We are going to win this thing, and in the winning of it we are going to reinspire civilized people across the globe. We're going to give the world a lift. Victory will remind the world that faith and effort trump ennui and despair. It will demonstrate to the civilized world that the good do not have to see themselves as at the inevitable mercy of barbarians."

Thats moral uplift. Want some more?:

"A victory in Iraq is about to enhance America's stature in the world. America deserves it. Because of all the powerful countries in the world, it is the most trustworthy, reliable and constructive. Soon this war will be over. It was hard getting there, hard doing it and there will no doubt be hard going. But it will be over, and we won't come back from hell with empty hands. We will have won a great deal. In the next week and weeks it will be good to keep that in mind, and keep our eyes on the prize."

You can see why Peggy is needed in Australia. The local conservatives are too negative. They just attack the left. They have no moral uplift.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 04:18 PM | Comments (4)

thin gruel

The conservatives are not doing a very good job on managing the domestic politics of a war that daily grinds on. Maybe they hope that by sitting tight and avoiding public debate the US-led war will get them across the line in terms of electoral politics. Maybe they hope that the fallout of the war will convulse the Labor Party? Maybe they hope that the shift in the reason for a war from ridding Saddam Hussein of his weapons of mass destruction to a humanitarian war to save the wretched citizens of Iraq will do the trick.

Commentators are now beginning to address the longer term consequences of the Iraqi war. The old western alliance is split, Europe is split; the UN displaced and the doctrine of state sovereignty is not sustainable.

What then of the US ordering the world as a hegemonic power as a global policeman? What does Pax Americana necon style mean post Iraq? This obliquely came up on Radio National this morning, when Gerard Henderson was asked about the impact of the neo-cons on the Bush administration. He discounted their influence, without giving any indication of the neo-con theoretical strategic framework which the Bush administration is working within. Let us say kindly that Gerard is out of his depth on the geo-political stuff.

This article by Josh Marshall is what Gerard should have talked about or addressed: the possibility of future chaos in the Middle East due to US neo-con strategy in the region. An bleak assessment for Australia can be found at eye of the eagle.

It was sort of addressed in Geoffrey Blainey's article, Causes for concern. He is celebrated as challenging orthodoxies, questioning long-held assumptions, deciphering history, making it and being able to write well. Blainey has a good opening paragraph:

"Much of the public debate about war and peace is like a debate about malaria in the era before it was realised that swamps and mos­quitoes were the villains. The peace marchers are sometimes like an anti-malarial squad, passing a long swamp on its way to a city square, not realising that the swamp should be its focus. While it is vital that there should be peace movements, it is vital that they should be fighting the correct enemy."

The peace movement is flawed because it singles out one enemy, creed, institution or culture as the main cause of war. With the current war we have simple anti-capitalist and ant-American placard-like theories of war.

Now Blainey is not just deciphering placards in marches. He acknowledges that:

"...most of the Australians who temporarily sympathise with the peace movement are pragmatists, possessed by no grand theory. They simply believe for one reason or other that Australia should not be taking part in today's war. If the United Nations approved the war, however, most of these Australians presum­ably would support it."

However, the:

"...high weakness of the peace movement, in all its manifestations, is that it remains confused about war. It assumes that peace is the normal condition of the world and that if people can only prevent the outbreak of any future war, then peace and stability will reign. But peace can create anarchy just as war can create anarchy."

Then Blainey is of on a history of war, appeasement, Hitler to argue that in "disputes between nations, war remains the ultimate court of appeal. In that sense, international war fulfils a vital function. Only when that elementary truth is realised will a serious attempt be made to replace war."

So the peace movement is a bunch of pacificists. What about those who would support invading Iraq if there had been UN approaval? They are not peaceniks. Blainey dismisses them quickly:

"My own view is that Prime Minister John Howard's arguments in favour of a war in Iraq are stronger than the arguments against him. Indeed, the raggle-taggle United Nations may well be the beneficiary if the war succeeds. But the rightness of any such verdict will depend on the war itself. If the war is short, swift and successful, the leadership by President George W. Bush will seem justified, in the medium term at least."

Why are Howard's arguments better? No reason. They just are. Is it because the raggle-taggle UN is pretty useless? Talk about placard-like theories. Blainey is mixing it with the best of them. Oh, course this is good writing.

Then Blainey is off canvassing the possibilities of a swift clean war. Towards the end he returns to the issue at hand:

"Saddam Hussein, year after year, has made the UN look like a monkey. Ironically those who say they believe fervently in the UN, and who refuse to sanction war in Iraq without UN consent, have unwittingly done their best, in the past weeks, to protect Saddam instead of helping the beleaguered monkey."

To adopt a strategy of the PM's, Geoffrey is entitled to his view. I hear and understand where he is coming from. But its thin gruel. The UN sucks. Nothing about the neo-con view of international relations vs working through the UN.We have all the academic spin by an authority in history who dishes up junk about quitening down the debate and internal criticism of government policy by Australian citizens.

And the swamp? What does the swamp refer to? Is that the anarchy and disorder in world of nations? Presumably, given the refernce to the sparks flying across the Iraqi border sparking violence in other nation states and redrawing the map of the Middle East. However, Blainey says this should not deter the Anglo Americans from intervention and prevention.

He addresses Gerard Henderson's silence on the US neo-con strategy for the Middle East region. Blainey holds his tongue on the US setting out to redraw the map of the Middle East. He does his job by mocking the antiwar movement, discrediting the UN and justifying US occupation of Iraq. Through 'prevention' he legitmates prolonging the war through attaks on other nation states in the name of rooting out Islamic terrorism and Muslim fundamentalism. The US neo-con strategy is slipped in under the covers of war being the ultimate court of appeal.

If we come back to this, we find Michael Costello questioning Blainey's prevention strategy: Costello says:

"... the US is going to have to find a way to redefine its way out of its announced policy of unilateral pre-emption, which has so blighted the powerful case for action against Iraq. This doctrine is intolerable to its friends and allies. It is in practice unenforceable. The US is not going to undertake unilateral pre-emption against Iran or North Korea because, despite its awesome military power, the costs of such action would dwarf that of the Iraq war."

I reckon that the neo-cons ae going to get mugged by reality once again. The public debate is pretty thin gruel in terms of the blowback of the war in our region.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 11:08 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

A simple question

I watched some of the news on SBS tonight about the war. Northern front opening up, change of US military tactics, Iraqi's running a guerilla war by attacking coalition supply lines, more civilian deaths in Baghdad, British forces continue to shell Basra, urban warfare begins in Basra and Americans are bombing civilian areas.

Why are the British shelling---pounding--- the city? What is the purpose? Is that where al Qaeda are holed up? Is that where the weapons of mass destruction are hidden? What has this has to do with 9/11? Are they liberating the people in the city by starving them out?

Funny isn't it. One week into the war?--is it that long? And all the rhetoric about why we are going to war with Iraq has dropped away. Nobody seems to notice. The embedded journos are writing about this tank, this bridge, this explosion, this sandstorm ---nothing about why all of this happening. Its almost as it nobody believes all the pre-invasion rhetoric any more. A far more brutal reality has taken over.

Its all about power now in the live feeds, the expert commentary that wraps around the live media feeds and the studio journos getting excited by the breaking news. This is a pre-emptive war and if there are lots of civilian casualties, and British really don't find evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Basra, what then?

The British have a big political problem. Their standing and creditbility are shot to pieces.

So why are the British shelling Basra? And what has that got to with 9/11?

But then this war was always about power. And thats the pathway to a great human tragedy.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 12:06 AM | Comments (4)

March 27, 2003

tragic, flawed and false

Tragic, flawed and false. Thats how Richard Woolcott, the former secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, describes Australia's Iraq war policy when having lunch with Maxine McKew from The Bulletin (no link). It is a tragic culmination of a flawed policy based on false assumptions.

The false assumption is that Iraq presents some sort of threat to Australia. "Absolute nonsense", says Woolcott, "Iraq has been perfectly contained for over a decade."

The policy is flawed because the pro-Washington stance is destructive. Howard has decided to go with the strength. Though Australia needs to have a good relationship between Canberra and Washington, under Howard's watch Australia is seen to be "too dependable, too predictable, too uncritical", and so Australia will "be taken for granted." Howard's many deceptions around the war with Iraq indictes that we have reached "the point where Australia is a complete hostage to Bush's fortunes."

It is tragic because Australia's involvement in the war with Iraq is not worth one Australian life.

This policy is "damaging Australia's image and interests." Why?

"We have got ourselves involved in an unnecessary war. War with Iraq is not in our national interest. And what ever happens, we will bear the scars for a long time for having participated in what is an act of aggression. This is the first time for Australia. We are the invaders"

Australia, by being part of the Anglo-American war machine, has reinforced its image "as an Anglo-American outpost in the South Pacific."

We have gone back full circle to the time of Harold Holt and "All the Way with LBJ". In going circle we have dumped the pursuit of an independent foreign policy within the framework of the American alliance. "The perception in the wider world is that we're closer to the US than we've been since the early days of the Vietnam War."

That's what Richard Woolcott said at lunch with Maxine at Wildfire at Sydney's West Circular Quay.

Woolcott expresses the position of the weblog very succinctly.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 03:57 PM | Comments (2)

March 26, 2003

Reverberations

There is a concerted effort by the Anglo-American war machine to control the flow of media images and words about the Iraqi war. The central message that comes through all the spin and disinformation circulated by the media is that it is only a question of time before Saddam Hussein falls. This will happen through the dictator being ousted from power by people tired of his tyranny. This scenario is held to be beyond doubt.

There is little space for a bit of Derridean difference in the US media's version of the Iraq war. What we get is eclipse of difference. Can we open things up by introducing the play of difference.

What is not wanted by the militarised Enlightenment are graphic TV shots of civilian air raid shelters bombed, incinerated corpses in burnt-out tanks, or badly disfigured bodies of children on Anglo-American television. So it controls the media through embedding journalists. As Philip Knightly puts it:

"... the fear in the broadcast news business is that the Pentagon is determined to deter western correspondents from reporting from the Iraqi side and will view such journalism in Iraq as activity of "military significance" and bomb the area.....My assessment of these early days is that the Pentagon is winning hands down. Its plan for "Managing the media in the war against Iraq" is up and running and aiming for tightly controlled, patriotic reporting of a "clean" war with minimum casualties – no matter what really happens. "

So we have to look elsewhere for the reverberations from the war. Well, for starters, lets ask:how is the war going? Russian intelligence reports paint a different picture to that of the tabloid Fox News. The initial dash to Baghdad strategy is not working.

This extract from the ABC's 7.30 Report creates some distinctions that the Americans have overlooked. Ian Mcphedran, an Australian correspondent in Baghdad, is speaking:

"I think there's been a lot of bombing of the Republican Guards to the south of the city, a lot of aerial work and some reports of artillery work, which I haven't been able to verify yet, so the campaign is getting ready to move forward and the people of Baghdad are getting ready to defend their city.

KERRY O'BRIEN: When you say "the people of Baghdad", to what extent is it your sense that it is Saddam Hussein's militia ... I mean, where are the civilians in all of this?

We're hearing some reports of an uprising in Basra, but what is your sense of where the civilians are in Baghdad?

IAN MCPHEDRAN: My sense of it is that they're behind the defence of their country.

I spoke to one guy yesterday who's definitely not a Saddam supporter, but he is an Iraqi and a proud Iraqi, and he said he will fight to defend his country's sovereignty.

He will not fight to defend Saddam Hussein.

He will fight to defend Iraq.

Now, I think there's quite a lot of people in that position here and just how they react when it comes down ... when push comes to shove ... will be crucial in the outcome."

This patriotism will be dismissed as paranoid nationalism by those suffering from compassion fatique but it means that ordinary Iraqi's will stand and fight for their country.

And this article is from the ArabNews in Saudi Arabia> It is filed by a correspondent in Amman Jordan. War will be easy compared to the peace. These perspectives give us an insight into the blowback of the Iraqi war in the Middle East. And this piece,Region braces for political shockwaves of a drawn-out conflict is a reasonable scenario. Shahram Akbarzadeh says:

"The unexpected resilience of Iraqi defence against the US-led attack is complicating the Pentagon's military strategy. It has thrown expectations of a quick victory in doubt and does not bode well for the US exit strategy. It looks as though US forces will be required to stay in Iraq; first, to subdue Iraqi resistance and, second, to protect the post-Saddam regime against internal malcontents.The latter challenges are yet to crystallise, but all indications point to their inevitability. "

The eventual success of US-led military forces in the war against Iraq could come at the expense of political reforms in post war Iraq and greater regional stability in the Middle East. Its the long politics that's crucial here.

All is not well in Washington either, with new fault lines opening up amongst the conservatives. Neo-cons and paleocons are going one anothers throats. The faultline? Israel.

And Australia? The policy makers in Canberra must have got beyond the dream of guns and roses by now. The would be in a state of security anxiety as they learn that what they dreaded is looking ever more likely to happen. This is a big backlash from the Islamic countries in our region as the US merges from its war with Iraq with control over of postwar Iraq; a US military protectorate running a divided country; and the UN sidelined in the re-building of Iraq.

Thase reverberations open up the space for difference to appear. Difference is the key to understanding what is happening not identity. This is how difference appears in the liberal media. It arouses a desire to step into the beyond and read the original articles, rather than make do with a summary. But no links are provided in the old media.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 09:57 PM | Comments (1)

Cartoon

Do you think the relationship between the current Iraq regime and the US was prior to 1991 was like this?

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 09:04 PM | Comments (1)

Media briefs & public debate

The public philosopher over at philosophy.com has been writing long posts on the need for the humanities to address public issues of concern to citizens

These daily media briefings provided by ANU are one example of the humanities showing their public relevance. Are they useful? Yes, because of the lack of information and knowledge about the Middle East in Australia.

Some instances.

First, Amin Saikal, the professor of Arab and Islamic studies at ANU, says that the briefings provide an opportunity to redress the paucity of opinion from an Arab or Islamic perspective in Australia. Most notable is the footage showing large numbers of civilian casualties broadcast on in the Arab world has been given little or no airing in the West. Only SBS is making an attempt, followed by the ABC.

Amin says that different perceptions are being formed by the contrasting coverage of the war in the Middle East and the West. The images on the Al-Jazeera network:

"...are the images that the Arab masses get and they shape their perception of what is really happening, and their perception of the American, British and Australian drive to Baghdad".

What we don't see much of are the gruesome pictures of civilian and military casualties that made front pages in Europe. So its CNN v Al Jazeera

And if you are not in Canberra? Tough luck. No media briefing There is nothing online. In Adelaide, for instance, there is a panel discussion in a week or so which costs money to attend. So we are left with a paucity of opinion from an Arab or Islamic perspective in Australia.

Secondly, we have need to counter the orchestrated, triumphalist Anglo-American one from the embedded journalists who concentrate on technology at the expense of the human element. It is orchestrated because, as Tony Walker argued in the Australian Financial Review, the US networks are the media used as weapon (subscription required). The media has become a conduit for military information. The largely pro-US view of CNN gives us lots of scenes of tanks charging through desert sand storms and spectacular, night-vision footage of bombardments of Baghdad.

Its Hollywood joining hands with the Militarized Enlightenment to give us the guilty pleasures of The Shock and Awe Show The public relations is being run by the Pentagon's instrumental reason as if it were a political campaign. This creates an illusion of being inside the war machine with a direct access to the empirical truth. In reality this picture is constucted around on photo-ops that enable viewers to identify with the troops and the mission. What disappears is the questioning of the war.

Thirdly, we have the Howard Government's control of the information. As Margo Kingston says:

"Unlike our allies, Australian reporters get nowhere near our troops, and the people are told virtually nothing of what they're doing. Like the Defence force war on boat people, there is a total media blackout, except that, unlike that war, the government is silent too, not spinning the facts to suit the politics."

She argues that John Howard only wants us to see that which his apparatus can control, shots where Australians look strong and nowhere near the victims of war. Hence we have fake warshots of the troops.

Three instances. All point to the need for citizens to access knowledge to question and make their judgements about the implications of this war (blowback) in our region; or the implications of the pre-emptive strike doctrine for the western alliance and world security. All three instances indicate the lack of knowledge: we have a knowedge vacum. We need lots more of this analysis.

The significance of the ANU media briefings is that the academics are providing knowledge that we citizens lack; this enables us to question of where Australia is going and its implications for us. These media briefings indicate that the Humanities can play useful role in this questioning of public policy: they can provide information about the significance of the images of civilian casualties; the reactions of distrust and sense of abandonment by the Iraqi people; the reactions by Iran to the war; and the changes in the world order arising from the new fault lines in interantional relations and so on.

But the universities are not coming to the party in any substantive way by putting the media briefings online. The corporate managers, infatuated by the money making possibilities of the biotech sciences have generally seen the humanities as useless, and so have downsized staff and starved them of resources. So we citizens turn elsewhere. The humanities are marginalized even further.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 02:31 PM | Comments (2)

well well well

I haven't read The Australian for a couple of days. I remembered it as pro-war and pro-Bush. So I was suprised to see this article by Paul Kelly. In it he argues that:

" ...a theory of pre-emption at state-to-state level will not endure because its political gains cannot outweigh its costs and a democratic society such as the US will adjust accordingly."

Kelly argues against the neo-conservative Washington global strategy on the grounds that:

"Far from Iraq being the precedent that launches a new US global strategy this war will represent the best and last demonstration of the pre-emptive faith that has guided America's neo-conservatives. The truth about pre-emption is that such a doctrine has severe limits – strategic, economic and political. America's neo-conservatives, in denial about the costs of pre-emption, are about to be hit by their full force. "

Howard, Hill and Downer in Australia have signed up to the neoconservative doctrine of pre-emption against enemies even though they routinely publicly cast doubt on it. I have no doubt they would support US surgical strikes against Iran. After all, they classify Iran as a rogue state.

Pre-emption for Kelly stands for empire:--the hegemonic US as a new empire, a pax America. Americans generall recoil from this:---the latest example is Martin Walker, "Power prevails but what of the glory?", in the Higher Education supplement in The Australian (26 03 2003, pp 26-27). Walker does not like the America as Rome analogy-- too brutal, triumphalist, go it alone. The Rome analogy is rejected because of its connotations of emperor and imperial ambition. Walker prefers America as the new Athens. By America as Athens he means that the US:

"...would join allies and partners in collaborative ventures with a common purpose, such a sglobal warming treates ndf interantionalist legal structures. It would be extrovert, and open, encourage the growth of democracies and trading partners, and help to build a world where all can enjoy and dream of prosperity."

He contrasts this Clinton Liberal vision of empire with the Bush one, which he calls America as Sparta. This empire would be:

"...introspective, defensive, protectionist and unilateralist. It would prefer clients and satellites to allies that might someday challenge its primacy. It would seek to maintain military superiority at all costs and be suspicious of the erosions of national sovereignty that might result from cooperation with other states. "

These are nice and nasty versions of empire. But America as empire is taken for granted. (Note the absence of the UN.)

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 01:15 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Popular uprising in Basra

The media are reporting a popular uprising in the town of Basra in southern Iraq. This is good news---the Iraqi people----the Shi'ite opposition group---are taking things into their own hands. Rejecting both the rule of Iraqi regime and the future rule of the Anglo-American army.

Remember the history. The Shi'ite Muslim population, rose up against Iraqi
President Saddam Hussein in 1991, and is broadly hostile to the Iraqi regime, was sold down the river by the Americans. The US refused to intervene and the rebellion was crushed. Would the Iraqi regime have fallen if the US had supported the Shi'ite rebellion?

The Americans would be seen to be better than the Iraqi regime but still not trusted. They are still foreigners. It is not their country. Given the distrust the best way for the Anglo-American army to help is support the popular uprising, bring in lots of humanitarian aid, and enable the Iraqi's to establish a more democratic and federal regime. Or will thre Americans be seen to be occupy the country?

It is Tony Blair's credibility that is online here. It is he, rather than Bush or Howard, who has made the moral case of enabling the Iraqi's to have a better future and a more flourishing life. It is he who has taken up the mantle of the failures of the past. The burdern of distrust is on his shoulders. Howard has washed his hands of all that history.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 08:14 AM | Comments (5)

March 25, 2003

Media's view of the war

The melancholy cultural critic over at a heap of junk for code has a go at the media reporting of the war in the post, 'On the road to Adelaide'. It appears that he has retreated to the BBC in disgust with the US networks.

Well, this post Anglo-American Lies Exposed is a critique of the language used by the embedded BBC journalists to represent the Anglo-American war on the ground.

How do we interpret this text? What is bought to bear on the public thinking in the media networks by Fisk is a historical perspective that rightly challenges the ahistorical, technocratic language of the US military. Consider this statement from a US marine, a Sgt Sprague, from White Sulphur Springs in West Virginia:

"The problem with these people is that you can't believe anything they say... If it weren't for the liberal press, we might have taken Baghdad last time...I've been all the way through this desert from Basra to here and I ain't seen one shopping mall or fast food restaurant," he said. "These people got nothing. Even in a little town like ours of twenty five hundred people you got a McDonald's at one end and a Hardee's at the other."

A great start. This raises a broader issue.

What is missing in all this war commentary is a deep historical sense---the media's stops at 1991. Yet Australia was fighting with the British in Iraq in the 1941-1918 war; the British & Australians marched on Baghdad in 1915-1916 to knock of the Ottoman Empire; and both the UK and US have a long history of regime change in the region that marked the edge of the Classical Roman world. It is a region saturated in layers and layers of history; a history in which Arab people have suffered.

It is this history which explains why Arabs read contemporary events differently to the US media. Our history in Australia stops at Gallipoli which has become a sacred site we honour the dead, celebrate the forging of the Australain nation in blood and affirm our national identity. We forget that Australia also has a history of fighting other people's wars in the region. There is historical blank between 1981 and 1991 when Iraq invaded Kuwait. The Arab peopel do not have that kind of blank.

So I think that Fisk is quite right to challenge the gungho technocratic thinking of the Militarised Enlightenment and remind us of the politics involved in Great Powers bringing liberal civilization to the Arab people. We need a little less hubris and triumphalism about being liberators here. In the long run it is the Iraqi people who will have to establish a democratic Iraq and run the state as citizens for their own well-being. The best that the western powers can do is lend a hand.

But history indicates that the track record of western powers lending a hand to the Arab people in their fight for democracy is not a good one.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 02:02 PM | Comments (1)

After the Celebrations

The Americans (ie., Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defence) are confident that the war will be over soon and the Iraqi people will end up being liberated. They are confident that those living in Baghdad are going about their business and they are impressed with the precision of those targeting the bombs and missiles. The resistance encountered on the road to Baghdad is little more than "sporadic firefights from some dead-enders", whilst the Iraqi people that have been liberated in the southern part of this country are grateful and appreciative. And that will be the case as Baghdad is liberated.

Some counter views. This is about the ongoing fallout in Basra from 1991.This is counter view of the current situation in Basra based on Russian military intelligence. The language is dry and bureaucratic----its the UN after all--- but this assessment of the impact of war is sobering. It states that nearly 500,000 Iraqis are prone to suffer serious injuries during the first phase of an attack. The report says that the number “includes up to 100,000 wounded in combat, and another 400,000 hurt in the devastation expected during any U.S.-led attack on Iraq. "

From our perspective its the peace thats the problem. There are two scenarios and we give each of them a dialectical twist.

The Ken Parish view, in which the US easily triumphs in the war Iraq, installs liberal democracy+free market and manages to deal effectively with potential internal Iraqi frictions and external complications.

The downside of this scenario is that the Bush administration's disdain for the Europeans, the Arabs and the UN continues to grow as it becomes increasingly confident of being a hegemonic power in the world of nations. This points to a hawkish agenda regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that dovetails with that of Israeli Prime Minister Sharon.

The second scenario is the anarchy one suggested by this weblog. Here the conquering American forces become an occupying force and find themselves hopelessly embroiled in Iraqi civil wars, tribal insurrections, Shi'ite-Sunni and Turkish-Kurdish fights, and increased terrorism and incitement.

The upside of this is that, faced with a living hell the US might seek to placate the surrounding Arab world and the Europeans by adopting an energetic peace process agenda that puts pressure on both Israel and the Palestinians. The weblog has suggested a bi-national liberal state with national citizenship as the pathway out of the quagmire.

That as far as I have got. The international fallout on the Middle East has been explored further bitterlemons.org and from both the Palestinian and Israeli perspective. I concur that with the view of Mouin Rabbani that "Israel will emerge as the main regional winner of this war, and that its various adversaries will in the process be cut down to size or eliminated."

Mouin Rabbani goes on to say that:

"While Israel certainly stands to gain in numerous ways--this is, after all, one of the reasons this war is being fought--celebration seems somewhat premature. Israel’s military victories in 1956, 1967, and 1982, it bears remembering, ultimately resolved nothing. And viewed in historical perspective, they appear dubious indeed."

The prospects for an Israeli-Palestinian peace process are not looking good. This is an Israeli strategic analysis of the region after the collapse of the Iraqi regime. The section called, 'Securing the Northern Border', focuses on containing Syria.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 10:47 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

After the War: Democracy?

There has been lots of talk about the US, as the representative of the liberal enlightenment, bringing democracy to the Middle East through war as part of the general transformation of the region.

I am deeply sceptical of the neo-con Bush Adminstration on this aspect of its Middle East geo-political strategy, and I suspect that little democratisation will happen for many years. There will be slow progress towards liberal democracy just enough to stave off discontent of the Arab street and to keep the current authoritarian/despotic regimes afloat. This pathway will be taken to avoid chaos.

Here is a Round table discussion of the prospects of democracy in this region by scholars working in the field.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 12:04 AM | Comments (0)

March 24, 2003

Grand plans and precision campaigns

It would seem that 'the Baghdad for coffee' scenario has meet with a few hiccups on the way. Iraqi resistance is being encountered at Nasiriya. Despite all the shock and awe the Iraqi regime has yet to collapse, and the Coalition faces the prospect of a long standoff at the gates of Baghad. The Americans have the desert but not the towns.

The military are giving very little away other than emphasising the idea that the campaign is essentially going to plan, that everything is hunky dory apart from a few minor difficulties. Is it?

Reading these BBC journalist weblogs indicates a fracturing of the campaign based on a 'quick and clean' high-tech war.

A messy picture is emerging from southern Iraq. It was meant to be the easy part of this war. Despite intensive bombardment and despite water and electricity being cut off for at least 48 hours, Basra has not been taken, urban warfare is happening and a guerilla war is begining to form. The high expectations of the British, that Basra would welcome the troops as liberators and that they would be able to wander in lightly armed havde been dashed.

And northern Iraq? The American plan is a total failure. Turkey blocked the American's northern front, and it appears that Turkey is about to enter the war to whip the Kurds into shape. Why? This article, TURKEY’S TWO GREAT CHALLENGES IN IRAQspells the case out:

"Turkey wants to participate in this war... to protect its territorial integrity and control a possible rush of Iraqi refugees towards its borders...... the Turkish Armed Forces (TSK) is very determined to hold back the flow of Iraqi refugees in northern Iraq. Turkey will allow only 80,000 Iraqi refugees to enter its territories. That’s why Turkey has to deploy its troops in northern Iraq and provide Iraqi refugees with humanitarian aid at the refugee camps established there."

And the Kurds? How do they see all this? They are only to happy to see the End of Saddam. Life under the current Iraqi regime was a nightmare for them. However:

"Winning the war will be easy. Winning the peace will be much more difficult. The standard for success will be the attainment of stability, democracy and federalism for the two main nations that make up Iraq: the Kurds and the Arabs. But stability will be elusive if the Kurdish and the Arab agendas are discarded by the liberating U.S. army and its provisional rule."

This Open Letter to President Bush talks in tems of US betrayal and the US government not really caring about the Kurds.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 10:46 PM | Comments (2)

Driving the wedge

The war in Iraq has been going on for several days. And no attacks on Israel by the Iraqi regime. How come? Wasn't this Saddam guy meant to be itching to dominate the region with military force? Do you think, just maybe, that Iraq doesn't have the military capacity to do so? Or that Israel is the dominate military power in the region? Do you think that there is just a possibility that the Coalition of the Willing and Eager got their public account a bit screwed up?

Ken Parish has a good assessment so far here though it is a little light on the strategic role of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq's game plane. Lisa English over at Ruminate this asks the right question:"So, where are the weapons of mass destruction?" For the role of WMD, given that Saddam Hussein is boxed into a corner with few options, see Tim Dunlop over at Road to Surfdom.

There is another war going on. One is being waged within Australia around influencing public opinion in terms of domestic politics. The conservatives are attempting to use the Iraqi war as part of their wedge politics. Some quick indications.Miranda Devine says that the:

"Anti-war protests made some sense before our troops were committed, so those opposed to Australian involvement in Iraq could send a message to Canberra. But now they just appear to be the futile gesture of sore losers who don't care who they hurt. Protesters should understand they have lost the argument. Whatever your position on the war, the only outcome of continuing activism is to create more discord and division at a time when troops need to know they are supported at home."

Why is this part of a wedge campaign? Because no credence is given to the distinction drawn between being critical of the Howard Government and supportive of the troops as people who are putting their lives on the line for their country. Miranda is not engaging in public debate. This is clearer from Miranda's contempt for her fellow citizens.

" ...anti-war protesters appeared on our TV screens, fired up with their own moral virtue....whether baby boomers trying to relive their youth, anti-capitalist extremists or well-meaning pacifists, they...don't want to hear Iraqi people welcome liberation."

The "hate-filled protestors" will "react to the joy of the liberated Iraqi people ... with silence, most likely, having learned nothing."

I thought that the problem with the anti-war crowd was that there were too humanitiarian, so much so that they were appeasers. Who then is Miranda raging on about. Demons of her own construction?

Why not? Why are the "hate-filled protestors" not fully human? Christopher Pearson (Rebels as gullible as before, the Weekend Australian, 22 03 2002, p. 30) explains all in terms of gullibility. They are gullible because they "believe that the inviolability of Iraq's sovereignty is somehow of more consequence than Saddam Hussein's excesses or those of his regime."

There is no mention of the key role the UN plays in the anti-war account. None at all. Its not much of an argument from the neo-con in residence in Adelaide.

And gullible does not=inhuman, not by any stretch. Gullible suggests human, all too human.

These are such poor argument that they can only be interpreted as merely pretending to be argument in a public debate. They are really weapons used to probe the soft underbelly to drive the thin end of the wedge into the heart of the left. For the US see Tim Dunlop's Instaslur

Back to the other war. Images of wounded Iraqi civilians from Basra are beginning to circulate. And Saddam appears to be boxed into a corner in Baghdad trying to hold out as long as he can and with few options to play. That is not the action of a hegemonic regional power. It is the action of a weak power. Surely, we cannot say that the decade-long containment strategy to keep Iraq from being a hegemonic power actually worked, can we?

So what is Saddam up to then? This Iraq's David and Goliath tactics is one suggestion.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 09:14 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

March 23, 2003

Constraining Bush, Greening Carr

At last someone is succeeding in constraining the Republican Administration in Washington. These republicans really are bad news for the environment.

Oh, and the greens in NSW didn't do as well as expected did they? They were gunning for more than 2 upper seats. They were after that elusive lower house seat. It looks as the Greens have replaced the Democrats as the third force. The Democrats were not that green in NSW.

Will the Greens now green the Carr Government and get them to move beyond their greenwash to acting resolutely in clawing back water in the NSW section of the Murray-Darling Basin to help save the River Murray?

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 09:46 PM | Comments (2)

Sobering thoughts

Its not all kisses, roses and cheers in the Middle East, despite the general retreat by the Iraqis, the 'see you in Baghdad for breakfast' scenario and the beautifully violent shock and awe spectacle provided by the network's live footage.

There is the usual disinformation. Lots of violently pretty images and streams of live feeds that are hard to make sense of. As expected 'the Arab street' is not too happy Behind the dash for Baghdad the carve up of Iraq into military zones begins. There is along history of western powers doing this.

There is the Israeli state's policy of the transfer of the Palestinian people mentioned in Whither Israel?, then this site may be of help.( Link is courtesy of Not in my name.)Its a bit sobering and it will only fuel the Arab anger towards what they see as the American tolerance of Israeli aggression against the Palestinian people.

This is a sobering account of the possibility of the US losing its leverage over Turkey, with the Kurdish people being worse off after a war by Martin Woollcott. Is this the first step into a quagmire where Kurdish dreams Kurds’ dreams are Turkey's nightmares?

And this sobering piece on Americans as sitting ducks explores the negative possibilities of the American occupation of Iraq.

Are we opening the gates of hell to a world of anarchy as many Arabs fear?

Perhaps it is a bit too early to get all teary eyed about the flag, roll out the red carpet and break open the champagne.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 03:12 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

comment on comment.

I'm slowly getting around to reading the weekend newspapers. I refused to watch television last night. I wanted a break.

I read Paul Kelly's 'Fight of their Lives' in the Weekend Australian (no links) this morning. Kelly's text is good on the domestic side of the conflict of the war with a militarily weak Iraq, and poor on the international side. Kelly says about Howard's speech justifiying war that:

"Howard did not argue that Iraq posed a real or immediate threat to Australia or the world. He did not argue any serious link between Iraq and al-Qa'ida....He made no effort to relate the decision to Australia's regional position and interest. He made no reference to the split in the Western allaince but, significantly, neither he endorse Bush's doctrine of pre-emption that Iraq symbolizes. His speech was devoid of strategic evaluation."

Kelly puts his finger on Howard's reason for Australia marching with the US to Baghdad: it is for the US-Australia alliance. So what have we signed up to? Kelly is thin, waffly and evasive at this point. He says:

"The question for Australia is whether the Iraq war heralds a new order or whether it is an aberration. The US under Bush is a more demanding alliance partner but Iraq is a test of whether his demands work for Australia's national interest. The truth is that Australia needs a US that works with the world community, not against it; a US that is liked, not hated."

This leads to an evaluation of where is Bush going in the Middle East; it requires an assessment of the neo-con strategy in this region. But Kelly is silent. He evades any assessment of the neo-Bush policy of helping Israel against the Arab states overturning the current regimes in Iran, Syria and Saudia Arabia through the preferred instrument of force; extending US power in the region and the globe and checking the rise of any competitor state (eg. China). This is a lot more than the US just being global cop protecting the status quo. As Peter Hartcher in the Australian Financial Review says this is The first of many wars.

Brian Toohey in the Australian Financial Review(subscription required) asks the right question: whats in it for Australia? What do we Australians's get for paying the premiums on our insurance policy for future securitywhen payout time comes. What's our payout, if Islamic fundamentalists ever come to power in Indonesia? That is the unspoken Australian neo-con nightmare---it is where the long road to Baghdad leads for Australia. Forget the free trade stuff: its a side issue. Target Indonesia is the real game in town.

Will Australia ask the US to confront a hostile Indonesian state and not accommodate them? As we all know there are no guarantees that the US will come to Australia's rescue. If the US-Australia alliance is not a contract, so does the US as a close friend and ally have an obligation to attack Indonesia to protect Australia? Doubts flow freely on this one.

Similar reasoning about the national interest can be found in Britain, where Tony Blair also claims a 'special relationship' with the US. David Carr at Samzdata.org sums this up pretty well:

"But there are others on the British right who are vigourously opposed to Britain taking any part in the attack on Iraq not because they harbour anti-American sentiments (indeed, they heartily reject such nonsense) but because they believe that it is not in British national interests to do so. They are far from confident that any US administration would go to bat for Britain in the way that Britain has gone to bat for America..."

Such considerations of national interest take us a long aay from the Australian neo-con claim (eg., C. Pearson, in his 'Rebels as gullible as before' in the Weekend Australian, no link) that, for the left, the inviolability of Iraq's sovereignty is of more consequence than the Iraqi regime's brutal and repression practices.

Remember what we are seeing in the mediascape's representation of travelling on road to Baghdad---lots of wreckage and collatoral damage. Remember how the Arab media and Islamic groups see the US---as a big, uncivilized bully trampling all over improverished and weak Arabs. Canberra should be in the grip of strategic anxiety.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 02:08 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

March 22, 2003

Such a rag tag army

I surfed tv. channels and watched the media representation of the war on Iraq last night until 1pm. We are now living inside this mediascape and so are obliged to assess the images, words, and interpretations flowing into our living rooms.

I caught Simon Crean's speech on Friday night (21 03 2003): it was pretty good---one of his best. Alerion over at Southerly Buster thought that Crean had found his voice. He did. He clearly set out the three reasons why Labor opposed Australian involvement in the Iraqi war. Though Crean didn't address the regional implications of going to war with Iraq--a destablised Indonesia.

The ABC's 7.30 Report was a big disappointment---too one dimensional. SBS World News Special (limited online service) offered by far the best the coverage as it was the most diverse. It introduced the Arab perspective by looking at what was happening in the Arab media in the Middle East and Australia through Arab eyes. This showed the limitations ABC's Australian perspective up no end.

I'm reading the BBC. And Electronic Iraq.

Christopher Allbritton is still returning to Iraq but he is filing good stories on the way. Have you read Raed The Baghdad blogger?

Within the mediascape I saw the tanks rolling onto Baghdad unchallenged stopping only to give the crews a rest; Iraqi soldiers with little or no equipment surrender; heard that the scud missiles launched by Iraq to hit Kuwait had fallen harmlessly in the desert. Most of the commentary was about needing to secure the oil resources in the north and south. This was before the shock and awe tactics (blitzkrieg) had been deployed on Baghdad.

My initial response? This was the nation that threatened the US and Australia big time, so big--a threat to world peace remember--- that it had to be taken out? Its a macabre joke. Cynics would say it was a big lie. Looking back we realize that much of it was what we had suspected: it all publicity and spin to create an enemy.

Do you recall the commentary that assured us on mother's heart that this was not a war about oil? That was just the left being crude and vulgar as usual. Now the commentators cannot stop talking about oil. Its oil oil oil oil oil. So who was kidding who?

Do you recall the PM repeatedly saying that Australia would not be a target of terrorists attack even though it had it had hitched its wagon to the US war train? Day 2 of the war and we this on the wires.

And the claim by those who convinced that a central purpose of the Iraqi war and US occupation of Iraq is to foster a free, democratic and prosperous Iraq; and that this stable democracy is a model for the rest of the Middle East---the democratic domino effect. This push is going to be resisted by Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait, Syria, Lebanon etc:---nearly everybody wants the least possible change in Iraq to ensure regional stability.

Realpolitik folks, realpolitik. These regimes have populations who see the war as an act of US imperialism or neocolonialism that will benefit Israel; and these regimes are at adds with whose of their citizens who want democratic reform. Do you think these regimes wil sign their death warrant?

Its going to be a long bumpy ride. Oh, and I'm still wondering about a central political problem about this war: most people in Australia still find it hard to understand why Iraq is such a threat to us.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 04:15 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

Pillars of security shaking

The Australian has a go at addressing what the new international order will look like post Iraq. It is about time.

The attempt by Harlan Ullman, 'Pillars of security shaking', (no links) is a pretty poor effort. He does sense the coming of a new world order. And he gets the risk of the dismantling of the 4 pillars that underpinned US security---the 3 regional pillars (NATO, northeast Asia and the Middle East) and the world economy----bit right. But then leaves it at that. He says:

"Until the Bush administration recognizes what is at stake, and acts to reinforce or replace these pillars, the image of a blind Samson bringing down the temple on top of himself will not go away."

We can say more than that! The US knows what it is doing. It is not clear that Canberra does.

As Paul Dibb observes in his 'Loud, and carrying a big stick' piece in The Australian (no link) we can discern what is taking place in the interrelationships in the world nations. What we are witnessing is:

"...a dramatic shift in the international system between those who identify with Washington's intention to change the international order, including by military pre-emption of necessary, and others determined to resist what they see as US hegemony."

According to Dibbs we aa return to classical Realpolitik, which emphasizes the primacy and legitimacy of power struggles in world politics. So the US is more unilateralist, more interventionist, and more willing to use military force; and this becomes the defining feature of the security architecture of the future. This is the wagon train that Canberra has hitched its wagon to.

What is most worrying is Dibb's assessment of Canberra's understanding of what is happening in the world of nations. He says:

"...there is no evidence that Canberra understands the implications of the course upon which we are entered. Instead we get surreal pronouncements in the foreign policy white paper and its defence update document that 'relations between the major powers are now more stable than they have been for many years' and that the focus of the major powers is on 'co-operating to advance shared interests.'"

As Dibbs rightly points out the new world order is more likely to be world divided and a return to the essentially tragic history of international affairs.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 03:52 PM | Comments (0)

March 21, 2003

Some truth telling

Well, at long last.

John Howard, the Australian Prime Minister, has decided to speak a little more honestly to Australian citizens and to break with his old strategy of just recycling the White House script. Does he remember that aeons ago he was known as Honest John? He has given the US alliance as a reason for going to war in his speech to the nation last night:

"There's also another reason and that is our close security alliance with the United States. The Americans have helped us in the past and the United States
is very important to Australia's long-term security. It is critical that we maintain the involvement of the United States in our own region where at present there are real concerns about the dangerous behavior of North Korea. The relationship between our two countries will grow more rather than less important as the years go by. A key element of our close friendship with the United States and indeed with the British is our full and intimate sharing of intelligence material."

Pine Gap and the other US spy stations in Australia are important an important part of the reason for Australia's role in the War. Is more than an insurance policy now. Australia has, to all intents and purposes, become a part of the US national security state. Australia is caught up in the geopolitical strategies of the US in the Middle East to ensure that the US remains engaged in the Asia-Pacific region.

The PM may consider some truth telling is necesary but we are still not getting much truth telling about Australia's geo-political strategy. Australia's national interests are now identical with the US---with a touch of regional colouring. Australia has signed up to the US's identification of its national interests with those of the world; and to the US policy of the unilateral use of military power to protect its vital national interests. We are part of the crew ogf the US ship of state.

The Australian fails miserably in truth telling. True, it's editorial,A war we can fight with a clear conscience, is more conciliatory than usual. It says that the Iraqi regime is "so despicable a regime that even men and women of goodwill who oppose this conflict have no words of praise or even apology for its deeds." And there is lots of stuff about unity of the nation, the anti-war crowd dropping their name calling and everybody getting behind the troops.

But when The Australian says that "The goal is not to destroy Iraq's productive capacity, or to kill its people, but to put a end to an evil regime" it continues to dissemble and spin. There is little in the editorial about the Iraqi war providing an opportunity for the Bush administration to put its belligerent unilateral policy into effect; establishing US power in the region; shaping the region in terms of US national interests; or the occupation of Iraq and its consequences.

There is also no understanding that those national interests have been served by needing to create a credible threat to unify the people and Congress, then whipping up a sense of danger and fear; or that the national interests in the Middle East have been served in the past by support for very conservative and traditionalist regimes that have been dictatorships. All The Australian sees is that this "is not a war of aggression; it is not a war to force our will on an innocent people. It is a war to disarm a dictator."

The Australian is full of optimistic technological illusion of wars as relatively short and clean because of "technological superiority"; it has no historical sense of the legacy of failure of ad hoc US geo-political strategy in the Middle East that opposed nationalist regimes; nor any feel that the disasters of US policy has caused the emergence of fundamentalist Islam and tradtionalism; nor an awareness of the way the US has profoundly alienated the reactionary and repressive regimes it has fostered; and that it is now involved in a conflict which threatens to destablize nation-states in the region.

The editorial not only ignores the failures of the past polices of the US in the Middle East; it shows no understanding that the Arab media has good reason to view past US policy in the region as a form of bullying, opportunism and political adventurism.

But The Australian is more than just engaged in a public relations campaign on behalf of American unilateralism and the US neo-con conception of geo-politics in the Middle East. It is advocating bad policy that has a history of failure. What is most astonishing here is the naivety of The Australian as it does not see that Iraq is one battle in a long war. It has no understanding at all of the permanent crisis extending over the Islamic arc reaching from the Middle East to the Southeast Asia; a crisis that the US and Australia will have to confront in the decades to come. This crisis will not be won by using military high tech weaponary to solve political and social problems.

Yet solving social and political problems with military technology is what The Australian is advocating in the fight against international terorism.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 09:57 AM | Comments (3)

March 20, 2003

WAR: Japan sides with US

So the US-led war against Iraq has begun. Planes and cruise missiles over Baghdad. Air raid sirens wail. Smoke fills the air.

This is a local strike, not the opening of a massive rain of cruise missiles and bombs. These are expected in the next fews days. I guess the Americans are going to try to knock out the command and control, communications systems of the Iraqis. That means the Ba'ath party head-quarters and the leadership of the Iraqi regime will be targeted.

How is the war seen in the Asia Pacific?

Japan has changed its position on the war with Iraq. It's initial position emphasised the importance of international coordination on the Iraq crisis and that the U.N. Security Council should adopt a fresh resolution authorizing a war on Iraq. Now it supports a U.S.-led war on Iraq without a fresh United Nations resolution.

So Koizumi puts U.S. alliance ahead of U.N.

Why? Same reason as Australia. Security. It cannot defend itself. What if North Korea launches missiles at Japan? it would have to put a call through to Washington.

So it was not rational for Japan to oppose the US on Iraq and to then depend on the US for protection against North Korea.

At least the Japanese are honest about their foreign policy realism. You never get this realist reasoning by Australian politicians in public. And they are more realists than revisionists.

So how does the inner wheels of the national security apparatus work? What would we see if we were to peep inside behind the closed doors and windows? This is one one account that draws on Australian experience. In the light of that clearing read this account of a Deprived, ignored and scorned North Korea is driven into a corner Washington refuses to engage in dialogue with Pyongyang.

China has keept a low profile but supports the UN on Iraq. And the Americans don't like it China Blows a Big Chance by Playing It Safe This is a more realistic analysis of China's geopolitical concerns.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 01:14 PM | Comments (1)

The New American Century

Scott over at the Eye of the Beholder has a good post on the UN. He argues that the UN has been a failure in terms of ensuring global security. That case has also been made by F Gareth Parker here in relation to the Australian Labor Party's support for a UN sanctioned war with Iraq. Basically the case is that the UN is nothing but a bunch of countries arguing for their interests. Gareth's is a good post with interesting comments.

This is a fuller statement of the demise of the UN by Richard Perle, a US neo-con. The security council of the UN is not capable of ensuring order and saving us from anarchy is the case argued.

Scott accepts the demise of the UN then goes beyond this to talk about a new international security order. He says:

"The point is that nations will above all else protect what they perceive to be their vital security interests. And if nations perceive that the UN is inadequate for the task, then they will act unilaterally.
In the case of the US, this of course has knock-on effects elsewhere. North Korea and China being prime examples. But this is illustrative of the need for an effective international security system, rather then a need to go back to the obviously inadequate UN.
If we are to build a workable order for the future we need to ask hard questions of the international community and face a few unpalatable home truths. Pretending that 'everything is ok, it's just those reckless Americans' is to be in denial."

Well, we do have a new world order. it has been outlined by the New American Century thinktank as a global pax America, neo-con style. According to the document Rebuilding America's Defences the world order in the American century is to be structured around maintaining global US pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests. It is defended here and criticised here For a commentary A Wilful Blindness

These global strategic concerns of a hegemonic US involves the US fighting and winning simultaneous major theater wars---eg., Iran and North Korea--- and performing policing duties to ensure that the security environment in critical regions (eg., South East Asia, the Middle East) is under control.

Given this the politicians hope for a clean and swift war through shock, awe and annihilate to cause the Iraqi regime to collapse like a house of cards is disingenious. Australia has signed up to The Long Haul (subscription only)---- 40 years plus.

Its going to be a bumpy ride.

Update Some Australians are begining to spell out thebumps ahead

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 10:33 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Wedge Politics

There is an interesting reading of John Howard's political management of the war issue here. In the article Alan Ramsay quotes the pollster Rod Cameron who says that the fundamentals of national politics are begining to change:

"For Australia's best-ever political prime minister, he's now making significant political misjudgements. I mean, what was he thinking of to invoke the Bali victims with the war in Iraq. It's crazy stuff. And I think, despite his frantic searching, he just can't find a wedge in this issue. He has, quite superbly, controlled the political agenda by wedge politics - by dividing the electorate on some emotional issue and forcing the Opposition to side with the moral but unpopular position. But there's no wedge in the Iraq issue. The numbers are now, and will remain, opposed to a war. I think that's true with or without UN backing."

Cameron goes on to say:

"And why I think the fundamentals are changing, is that, OK, he's not getting the wedge, he cannot now win this issue, and yet that's his lifeblood. His whole success as prime minister has been intimately involved with the wider security issue. You know, security/refugees/asylum seekers/immigration/defence. All that is one overarching issue. And now it is changing into, more specifically, war/Iraq/subservience to the Americans. And that is one he isn't winning. And I don't think he can now."

I think this is right. The wedge has not work this time even though it was pushed very very hard by the Coalition government after 9/11. The political strategy of 'war now' through a pre-emptive strike did not connect with the emotional template of the Australian people. The charges of anti-Americanism, appeasement etc that so easily rolled off the lips of the pro-war crowd alienated public opinion.

Using the wedge indicated why Howard did not engage in public debate or blocked all attempts by Australian citizens to be involved in policy discussion through arguing which course of action is best for Australia. All that John Howard is willing to grant is that Australian citizens have a right to express their opinion. Since he blocks our participation in the process of making a decision about Australia going to war our right to express our opinions is little more than a whistling in the dusty wind.

A commitment to democracy is not one of John Howard's strong points. We citizens are left to dissent from an already agreed upon position--being part of the US posse----rather than contributing a policy option to the public discussion. John Howard makes an announcement after visiting Washington and that's policy. Alexander Downer then elaborates the announcement. Thats how policy is made. All we citizens can do--the only option granted us--- is to agree or disagree with it.

That is not much of a democracy. So we fight to be a part of the process of policy formulation. We reject the limited conception of democracy of the Prime Minister.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 08:05 AM | Comments (1)

March 19, 2003

A quote

'All warfare is based on deception'.

The Sun tzu Art of War

Today we add including the deception of public opinion.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 11:49 PM | Comments (1)

Through different eyes

I've always wondered how the Iraqi regime strategically saw the approaching war. Did they think they could wriggle out of this one? Why did they allow the country to be destroyed by refusing to disarm? Why did it allow to be backed into a corner where it faces certain destruction?

The Saddam is evil & mad explanation is the one endlessly recycled in the Australian media. This media is content to parrot White House media releases without bothering to do any research work on Iraq. They are content with a non-explanation; an indication of the poverty of the Australian media.

This piece, Saddam's Strategy on the Brink of War, from the Brookings Institute locates his strategic thinking in terms of needing to hold onto power in Iraq and geopolitical considerations. It argues that:

"Saddam Husayn's refusal to part with his chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs, even under severe pressure and the threat of a U.S. invasion, may appear self-destructive and irrational to an outside observer. However, Saddam sees his possession of WMD as essential to his and his regime's survival, as well as to his deeply held aspirations to hegemony and hero status in the Arab world."

This is a policy brief on US-Iranian relations. It is very optimistic and upbeat given that it was written in mid-2001 since it fails to consider the Bush neo-con strategy of taking out Iran because it is rogue state. The reason for the upbeatness can be found here. This supports the position of Ken Parish, It is contrary to my position that the US neo-con view is a Hobbesian one of an anarchic world of nation-states acting in their self-interest that requires a Leviathen (a hegemonic US) to keep order.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 10:05 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Political signifiers

I did not see the debate in federal parliament in Canberra yesterday afternoon over the war. Like other citizens I read about it in the newspapers this morning when I finished reading the speeches. What struck me about this parliamentary debate was a little detail: the action of John Howard, the Prime Minister, turning his back on Simon Crean whilst Crean was delivering his speech.

Okay, it was not a good speech by Crean. Too negative and polemical as usual. Crean needs new speech writers. Maybe they could read this one by US Senator Robert Byrd, We stand passively mute. The phrase I used in the previous post, "sleep walking through history" comes from this speech of Wednesday 12 February 2003. What was missing was spelling out the alternative suggested by the Doc. Evatt heritage in the Australian Labor Party over and above the need for a new UN resolution. Not even Bob Hawke delivered this. His argument was about the lies and deceits that litter the road to war.

The UN tradition within social democratic parties was expressed by Robin Cook's Why I had to leave the cabinet speech. He says that that the national interests of regional powers are "best protected, not by unilateral action, but by multilateral agreement and a world order governed by rules."

So consider what Howard's backturning---some reports say it was turned with a gesture of contempt---signifies. This was more than rudeness or political theatre. It signified 'its all fait accompli':we have signed up to conflict with the Bush administration that has an agenda of its own. Their agenda is our agenda. It signifies an indifference to public debate when the ALP Opposition and the majority public opinion are against war without UN support.

Howard's backturning signified rejection of Australia's foreign policy being centred on support for an international community based on binding rules and institutions at worst; or, at best, a setting aside of an international community based on binding rules and institutions becuase the UN produced a result that was inconvenient to us.

Howard trning his back with contempt whilst Crean was speaking signifies the reality that Australia is now embarking on a war without an agreement in the international bodies of which we are a responsible member. That is taking part in a military adventure without a broader international coalition and against the hostility of many of our traditional allies of the western alliance. It signifies diplomatic isolation including diplomatic isolation from the other nation states in the region.

It's all in the detail as they say----in the political contract as well as the commercial contract.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 02:25 PM | Comments (0)

Time will tell

Accepting that the war will be over quickly American liberals are turning their attention to the long-term consequences of their actions. Paul Krugman in his 'Things to Come column' says:

"What frightens me is the aftermath — and I'm not just talking about the problems of postwar occupation. I'm worried about what will happen beyond Iraq — in the world at large, and here at home."

He makes two points. First the distrust of the Bush administration as a result of its actions over the past two years:

"Victory in Iraq won't end the world's distrust of the United States because the Bush administration has made it clear, over and over again, that it doesn't play by the rules. Remember: this administration told Europe to take a hike on global warming, told Russia to take a hike on missile defense, told developing countries to take a hike on trade in lifesaving pharmaceuticals, told Mexico to take a hike on immigration, mortally insulted the Turks and pulled out of the International Criminal Court — all in just two years."

Secondly, the consequences of the US strategy in the Middle East:

"It's a matter of public record that this war with Iraq is largely the brainchild of a group of neoconservative intellectuals, who view it as a pilot project...In February 2003, according to Ha'aretz, an Israeli newspaper, Under Secretary of State John Bolton told Israeli officials that after defeating Iraq the United States would "deal with" Iran, Syria and North Korea.

Will Iraq really be the first of many? It seems all too likely — and not only because the "Bush doctrine" seems to call for a series of wars. Regimes that have been targeted, or think they may have been targeted, aren't likely to sit quietly and wait their turn: they're going to arm themselves to the teeth, and perhaps strike first."

All this means more hostility and ill will towards the US. This will not go down well within the US once the cracks in the US media appear and US citizens begin to doubt the 'its all just anti-Americanism. story that was spun by the media.

And Australia as the loyal ally of the US? Well, the Howard Government's foreign policy of throwing our lot in with our powerful friend for the sake of the alliance means that Australia is definitely offside with our Asian neighbours. Australia is isolated in the region once more. It is useful to look at the Howard Government through Indonesian eyes:

"Australia's Prime Minister John Howard, who is a strong supporter of Washington's hardline policy towards Iraq and is contributing troops and warships, was not even invited to the meeting. This painfully reveals to Australians that in the framework of current American geopolitics, it only occupies a marginal position. "

So speaks the Jakarta Post

We Australians seem to have closed our minds to the conseqences of a stark defiance of the balance of regional opinion. Blocked it out. Somehow we don't live in the region anymore.

If the nation states in the region--Indonesia, Malaysia China---are the Other, then Australia has become a fortress in a hostile geopolitical landscape. That confirms the conservative view of the world as a nasty brutal place. They are convinced that their view of things reflects the fundamental furniture of the world.

What are Australian liberals saying about this? Are they "sleepwalking through history"? Do they have their finger on the fragile political order in Indonesia? Do they fear that this order will easily be destabilized in a serious manner?

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 08:14 AM | Comments (4)

March 18, 2003

Whither Israel?

The revolving doors of diplomacy have stopped turning. We are all slouching to Baghdad and trying to forget about the monster of history. As we do so we become aware that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict presses itself increasingly into the foreground. This provides both Israeli and Palestinan comment on the recent power sharing in the Palestinian Authority and so it offers a different from the war talk of say Silent Running

In Australia Ken Parish has posted on this Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In his Middle East Dilemnas post here Ken says:

"To the extent that Israel's legal system fails to protect the property rights of Palestinian Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza, and instead protects Jewish settlers who seize and retain their land by force, it cannot claim to be a liberal democratic state (as its apologists are in the habit of proudly boasting). Instead, it is a state which condones and practises serious institutional discrimination based on race and religion. That fact doesn't in any sense justify suicide bombings of innocent Israeli men, women and children, but it does help us begin to comprehend the bitterness and despair that lead to such desperate acts of callous butchery."

That post is five months old. Since then the elections within Israel have witnessed a shift towards a nation-state based on ethnicity and religion. This is a good and informed description of the political shift, as signifed by the electoral shift in support for political parties. This event supports Ken's claim that a question marke needs to be placed next to Israel claim to be a liberal democratic state.

There are four things highlighted by this report that indicate the historical movement of Israel away from a liberal democratic state. First we have the acceptance of the forced movement of a people from the nation state.

"All settlers vote in their settlements: they are citizens of Israel, and their settlements are part of the Israeli democratic state. They voted en masse for the Right, of course, mainly for the parties that solicit 'transfer', which is the term for the expulsion of the Palestinians."

Secondly, it is blind to the effects of occuption or colonization:

"Israelis, in general, are deaf to Palestinian suffering - this isn't just a 'tactic' and a 'strategy', but a way of life. Mainstream Israeli literature was never militarist or chauvinist, but except for a few rare cases it never dealt with the Palestinian tragedy."

This deafness----the non-existence of the Palestinians in the Israeli consciousness----is part of the Israeli view that the Palestinians are a danger. So they have to be excluded from Israeli territory. This turn towards a form of separation now involves is a process of apartheid which is becoming more entrenched:

"....if one travels to see those parts of Palestine already 'separated' by the fence (the town of Qalqilya), one can see how it separates Palestinian towns and villages not only from Israel but from the rest of Palestine as well. And of course the separation is one-sided. Israelis have the right to enter the Palestinian side, but Palestinians cannot enter our country. The same logic works everywhere here. The 'separation roads' have always meant separation not between Israel and Palestine but between Palestinian and Israeli destinations. And now, as the process of apartheid becomes more entrenched, Palestinians cannot drive on those roads or indeed on many other roads in the West Bank. The 'separation roads' create a real continuity between Jewish settlements, while simultaneously destroying any form of Palestinian territorial continuity."

Third, ethnicity is primary form of identification and political ethnicity is no longer deemed to be unacceptable:

"Since 1967, Sharon, and before him Binyamin Netanyahu, and before him Menachem Begin, have been offering the 'new Israelis' a simple way of identifying with the state: by hating the Arabs. This requires a brief explanation. The East-West divide is deeply traumatic for us. There is no part of Israeli life where this tension does not threaten to erupt. Jews from Iraq, or Egypt, or Yemen, or Morocco, in order to be Israelis, must first become 'Eastern Jews' - that is, have a common 'Eastern' identity which did not exist prior to their being Israelis. Then they have to become 'Israelis' - i.e. having become 'Easterners', they immediately escape this definition. The hatred that the state - and even more so the Right - offers them has always been the hatred of one minority for another."

And lastly there is no seperation between church and state:

"This is a state where no one can marry outside the religious establishment. But will Shinui bring about a change in the legislation? Of course not. Most laws have a political, even racist, objective: to define Israel as a Jewish state, and to define Judaism in religious terms. Not one Jewish party supports a real democracy, where the state is the state of all its citizens."

Israel is in transformation away from its roots in western liberal democracy.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 11:40 AM | Comments (9) | TrackBack

Howard's historical hand

War weighs heavily on my mind these days; even when I'm painting the electronic cottage, walking the dogs in the parklands, or relaxing with a glass of wine. My sentiments are similar to those of Timothy Burke over at Easily Distracted. In his March 11 post, Crazy Taxi, he says:

"I had not meant to write as much in this space about the coming war as I have written. It is on my mind more than any event or issue has been in my life, including September 11th. But the coming war, well, I am having trouble sleeping because of it.

What haunts me is an overwhelming feeling that everything about our lives is about to change, and a strong sense of certainty that whatever the short-term results, the long-term changes are going to be for the worse. Perhaps in subtle ways, perhaps in gross and obvious ones.

What grips me is the sense that an extraordinary compound mistake is about to be made, the kind that shifts the forward motion of history onto a new track. It is like being a passenger in a car driven too quickly and erratically by someone who won’t listen to anyone else in the car. Even when you want to get to the same destination as the driver, you can’t help but feel that there’s a way to go there which doesn’t carry the same risk of flying through the guardrails and off a cliff."

The melancholy cultural critic over at a heap of junk for code uses the terms 'the hand of history', or the world spirit for this sense of history. He not only sees world history in terms of the catastrophe that has been and is to come: as permanent catastrophe. It is a form of thinking otherwise to those neo-cons who a think that their plan for a better world is manifest in history and unites it.

John Howard, the Australian PM, has a hand of history. It is about the special relationship and closeness between the American and Australian people; the close connection between the US and the UK as nation states; the sharing of common culture and values; and it being in Australia's 'national interest to remain a close ally of the US.

But Howard's hand includes a joker. His version of the special relationship not only insists on being the closest ally of the American people or the US state; it involves identifying with the current neo-con Bush administration that is in power in Washington. The joker in the hand says that Howard would stick by the Bush Administration, even if it were opposed by the American people.

What is the point of Howard's commitment to the Bush Adminstration. Unlike Tony Blair it has nothing to do with influence to broaden the neo-con agenda:---say developing a new basis for international law, reforming international institutions with which to apply them, ensuring a world ruled by law and by international co-operation, and supporting the UN as its central pillar. Nope Howard just goes along with Bush. He declares his intent to engage in aggressive military war in the name of a pre-emptive strike. and then inviting the UN to choose between sanctioning the inevitable action or standing by and watching it happen.

The point of Howard's special relationship is to take out a simple insurance policy. We need the US because we cannot face the tricky issues in our region alone. And, these days, with the insurance market being what it is, Australia has to pay a high premium for that insurance. John Howard travels to Washington to take his instructions on to to assist the US in an aggressive military action that will take place thousands of miles from home.

This is how the joker in John Howard's hand understands 'the international community' and Australia's special relationship with the US. It is one that says John Howard would stick by the Bush Administration's war in the Middle East even if it were opposed by the Australian people.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 09:50 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

March 17, 2003

Dissonant notes

For those who like fluff in the morning try this bit of prose from the delightful Peggy Noonan. Peggy is a big fan of George Bush. For those readers who are not fans of Donald Rumsfeld, the US secretary of defence would not be suprised by this.

This a great line from Thomas L. Freidman's, Repairing the World:

"Lord knows, I don't diminish the threats we face, but for 18 months all we've been doing is exporting our fears to the world. Virtually all of Mr. Bush's speeches are about how we're going to protect ourselves and whom we're going to hit next. America as a beacon of optimism — America as the world's chief carpenter, not just cop — is gone. We need a little less John Wayne and a little more J.F.K."

And this is a good line from Paul Krugman:

"We all hope that the war with Iraq is a swift victory, with a minimum of civilian casualties. But more and more people now realize that even if all goes well at first, it will have been the wrong war, fought for the wrong reasons — and there will be a heavy price to pay."

Too late. The US has wanted this war for a long time. The Bush Administration has had little time for diplomacy. As Maureen Dowd says in 'Mashing Our Monster':

"Everyone thinks the Bush diplomacy on Iraq is a wreck. It isn't. It's a success because it was never meant to succeed. For the hawks, it's a succès d'estime....The Bush hawks never intended to give peace a chance. They intended to give pre-emption a chance."

For those interested in some different perspectives there is this Jordanian Arab perspective, which unsuprisingly, reads the Iraqi war in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian situation.

For an assessment of the neo-con Middle East strategy see this piece. This strategy, which was accepted by the President Bush in his recent AEI speech, has three prongs. These are:

This position is defined by three key elements:

1. After September 11 maintaining the status quo, a permanent feature of U.S. policy to the Middle East, was no longer a policy option. This shift is precipitated by the failure of the pro-western Arab regimes in containing Islamism, which hit the U.S. in its dearest symbols.

Furthermore, the Arab world embraces a culture which promotes hatred and antagonism to the U.S. and its values. This culture is induced by an authoritarianism, which is seen to be responsible for the emergence of extreme tendencies in the Islamic world.

2 . Saddam Hussain is a threat to the U.S. and its two intrinsic interests in the region: oil and Israel and, hence, he must be removed.

The removal of Saddam would contribute to the well-being of Israel, secure the oil-rich Gulf region and reduce the likelihood of "terrorists" putting their hands on weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

3. A democratic Iraq would serve as a model for other nations in the Middle East and set the stage for the emergence of a more liberal pro-western élite in the Arab world.

A US State Department Report has undermined 3---the so called democratic domino theory.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 10:17 PM | Comments (0)

Simple truths

Finally we have some honesty being spoken in the media about why Australia is going to war with Iraq. Paul Kelly, in Hapless persauder says it simply:

"First Australia is going to war because of the US alliance, not because the Iraq represents a direct threat to this country. Second, the Australian public, like much of the world, does not accept his [Howard's] argument that the risks of doing nothing outweight the risks of war. "

Yet Howard has said very little about the alliance in selling the message. The message is that rogue regimes are too dangerous to be allowed to have weapons of mass destruction because they might use it or give weapons to terrorists. Hence the need for a pre-emptive strike. This is a 'what if' argument since no evidence has been given that this is indeed the case. It is a Howard's nightmare scenario.

This mesage has some backbone: it is the assumption that containment----which once worked against the Soviets yesterday --- will not work against Iraq toay. Since containment does not work the pre-emptive strike is necessary. But if Howard really accepts this then why are we not launching an pre-emptive on North Korea? Its more a threat to Australia than Iraq.

So Howard is willing to undermine the western alliance, marginalise the UN as a governing institution, fan the hostility of the Islamic world and destablise the Middle East for the sake of the US alliance.

What is most astonishing is that the Australian Liberal Party goes along with this. A few journalists, such as Matt Price, are starting to ask questions. Surely the Liberal party room sees the shoddy reasoning, the credibility gap, the simplifications, the failure to engage the lies about withdrawing troops should the UN fail to reach agreement on going to war. Yet they remain silent even when they know it is an unpopular war. There is no criticism, no public debate, no defence of the UN, no public considerations of the consequences of the US -led invasion, no doubts about US & Australian acquiescence in Israeli extremism?

The Liberal Party room remains mute. The silence is deafening. Are they afraid to rock the boat by expressing their doubts about a member of Bush's posse? Or are they quite happy about being the deputy sheriff suppressing terrorism in our region? Happy to be on the global cops team taking on militant Islam.

Or is the Liberal partyroom genuinely convinced by the US neo-con case that he UN is history and the time is ripe for US unilateral world hegemony. They wil acept that the US can best protect itself by ensuring the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the suppression of terrorism by means of preventive wars waged solely by the US and whatever allies tag along on the policing action. They are willing to accept that all important decisions about global security and collective action are made in Washington and that the only thing required of Australia is acquiescence?

The Liberal Party room is quite willing to turn its back on the option of solving problems in our region through regional cooperation with Indonesia, Japan China.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 09:11 AM | Comments (2)

March 16, 2003

Mark Steyn:--empty headed fantasy

After walking the dogs in the Adelaide Parklands this morning I had breakfast in the early a morning autumn sunshine. A day's painting lay ahead of me after washing the dogs, so I lingered over coffee and glanced through the Weekend Australian and came across an article by Mark Steyn called 'Europe abdicates' in the Inquirer section. Steyn is rarely syndicated to Australian newspapers, and as I had only read bits and pieces of his work, I read the article with interest. He is a big name. Maybe he stood for quality journalism.

You know, after reading it I had no idea what the article was about. I could see the Old Europe bashing ---to be expected in the Murdoch Press that pushes the Washington line. According to Steyn, Europe (ie., one run along French and German lines) was about morality, moral character and pacifism. France pacifist? Germany perhaps given its recent history. France has always stood for the independent use of military power to protect to its national interests. Like the US.

Yet pacifist Europe was what Steyn was trying to argue: Europe as a superpower with no means of defense. But demography--declining population was against it because the continental model of the welfare state presupposed a constantly growing population. It is on the way to becoming a basket case. Europe is a joke. Its a sclerotic statism compared to the vitality of the Anglo Saxon capitalism of the US. UK and Australia.

So what was Steyn arguing? I dunno. You tell me. All I could get was that an arthritic, snobbish Old Europe is finished and three cheers for the defenders of the heathy free market, as this stood for the future of the West. His reference to the this National Review indicates that the three nation states of Auustrali, the US and the UK are the most plausible alternative to the traditional Western alliance as they represent a Western liberal Western civilization characterized by a high degree of individualism and dynamism, assimilation and high trust.

Its trading in fantasy.

Oh, well, now to wash the dogs and do the painting.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 10:32 AM | Comments (2)

More flawed arguments

There is more flawed war logic circulating through the media. The one I spotted on Saturday morning over coffee is Greg Sheridan's, French train goes crashing through the West, in the The Australian. Greg's a soft touch I know but he loses it this time.

First he announces his position as an apologist for US hegemony in the world of nations:

"Commentators talk of the breakup of the UN security system, but there has has never been a UN security system worth a used packet of Marlboros. The real global security system of the past 50 years or more has been the US alliance, which has ocassionally had a multilateral cover provided by the UN. It was the US alliance system, not the UN, that kept global order."

Funny, I thought it was the balance of power between the US and Soviet superpowers that kept global order from 1945 to the 1990s. It was the end of the Cold War that changed the security landscape as it left the US as the only superpower.

Greg powers on spining the American neo-con case. He says that aspects of the US alliance system that kept world order has broken down. This is not due to US unilateralism. It was because

"...France saw an opportunity instead to stymie US influence and aggrandise European and French influence through French determination to blow the system apart...They have succeeded in destroying NATO, which no longer seriously mediates force, and that can be seen as weakening US influence in Europe, France's aim. But they have also destroyed the idea of a common European security and foreign policy."

This does not make sense at all. France was not a part of the NATO command structure. France stood outside it, stood as an independent power within the Western alliance. And the common Europen security and foreign policy that they have destroyed is one that was under the US umbrella; one run by the US for the US against the old Soviet super power. Since that threat is gone NATO has lost its reason and purpose.

Greg ploughs on defending the Washington view of the world.

"...So NATO has been destroyed as an effective institution, but so has any pretension of European political integration, especially in security and foreign policy. What is clear is the US is unlikely to take a serious security question back to the UN, so the UN is another institution the French have damaged gravely."

Once again this is a distortion of the situation. It is the US push for using its power as it sees fit that has displaced the United Nations. The US republican necons have no time for the UN because it acts to constrain US power, and that constraint on its power to pre-emptively strike another nation is unacceptable. They desire absolute freedom and they are only willing to use the UN if it is an instrument to further US security interests. If the UN resists or blocks that, by asserting its independence from the US through arguing that the fostering of global security through international law, then the US will act on its own.

Most of the other nations at the UN do not accept the US case that the Iraqi regime represents an imminent threat to gloabl security and that there needs to be war in the next week. No evidence was present to the UN to warrant that case.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 08:50 AM | Comments (1)

March 15, 2003

No prizes for logic here

There is a paragraph in an article by Tony Baker and Laura Tingle, 'Howard's risky step into history', in the Financial Review, (subscription required, 15 March, 2003, p. 22) that concurs with the view of this weblog about the way John Howard has handled the war issue. The relevant paragraph states that Howard:

"... has to date successfully stifled internal debate [within government and the coalition parties] ---and ignored much public debate--- on the issue [of war with Iraq] by keeping himself to an exceptionally narrow rhetorical argument, with all the various scenarios, including warm dismissed as "hypothetical" and therefore not requiring a detailed answer for the electorate."

The only exception to this strategy was when John Howard engaged in debate at the Press Club, rather than crudely attack his critics using lines from a script downloaded from the Whitehouse. Still that was primarily a platform to sell his message of war now without the UN.

Baker and Tingle say that the danger of Howard's strategy is that it has given rise to a perception of a politician out of his depth in international affairs. That may be. It has also given rise to a political perception John Howard as George Bush's lap dog: justifying the unrestrained use of American power whenever it sees fit and criticising those who desire to constrain US power. Right on cue Howard attacks France calling them spoilers and that France is using the issue to resist American power and reposition itself to prevent its decline.

Howard's reasoning on international relations amounts to this. It is okay for the US to use its power to further its national interests. It is okay for France to do so. Why not? Because in doing so France and Germany are constraining the use of US power and that is bad. Unilateralism is good. Howard is an apologist for the unrestrained use of US power.

And how about this as an example of faulty war reasoning. The Bali bombing was an act of terrorism. The Iraqi regime supports terrorism. Therefore, war against Iraq is justified.

It is so crude and illogical that Howard is not really arguing or engaging in public debate. He is hunting around for images to sell his message and shift public opinion that is against war with Iraq without UN support. So the Howard government simply ignores intelligence reports that do not fit the US game plan or public arguments that are critical of its position. Anything that does not fit its preconceived picture of war now is displaced.

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

March 14, 2003

PM's National Press Club Speech on Iraq

My personal reaction to the PM's case for war delivered to the National Press Club now can be found What can you say. My reaction? I was not persuaded by the passionate rhetoric that Australia should go after Saddam Hussein because he might arm the likes of international terrorists, such as al Qaeda, with weapons of mass destruction

But still, full marks for Howard for engaging in debate at the Press Club and on the ABC's 7.30 Report. There was genine engegement this time not the crude attack on the critics that has been the policy in the past. THe PM was given it his best shot. A very good and critical account of this speech is given by Tim Dunlop How the Australian PM made the case against war with Iraq. On Tim's account the PM's argument is that:

"we go after Saddam because terrorism is a threat and Saddam has WMD. The question is really, then, are the two matters linked in any meaningful way that justifies war now with Iraq? My opinion is that he didn’t make this case....The argument that there is a link between the two, and that therefore attacking Iraq is attacking al Qaeda simply isn't credible."

I concur. The PM's best shot was not convincing. He did not persuade a sceptical audience that we ought to take invade Iraqi regime rather than than attack al Qaeda, because Saddam Hussein has, or is likely to pass his weapons along to al Qaeda.

I would like to come at this speech from a tangent. What struck me from a public policy viewpoint was the PM's one-sided remarks on the Palestine-Israel conflict. John Howard said:

"Israel is also a special target of terrorism. Israel’s legitimacy has been denied for almost fifty years by many of her neighbours. And even the steadfast support of the United States for Israel has not altered that situation. In that setting, many extremist Middle Eastern groups have mounted terrorist attacks on Israeli interests over the decades. And in the 1990s, these murderous methods have spread to other Middle Eastern and Islamic extremist circles. All of this in part emphasises the need for the world to try even harder to achieve a lasting settlement of the ongoing dispute between the Israelis and the Palestinians - a subject to which I may return in a moment."

That, as it stands, tacitly gives support to the Israeli state using military power to crush the Palestinan people and dispossess them of their homeland. (occupied territories) Equally one sided? Maybe. It depends on what John Howard says next.

Before we come to that we should note that John Howard did not address the official acceptance of the ideology of ethnic cleansing by the Jewish state, and its practice under the cover of the US war with Iraq. See this Position Paper Against the Transfer/Ethnic Cleansing of Palestinians (scroll down to 1.31. 03.)

Sharon's new Israeli coalition government includes the racist National Union, which is an alliance of three small parties: Moledet, Tekuma and Yisrael Beitenu. Moledet calls openly for "solving" the Palestinian-Israeli conflict by forcing millions of Palestinians out of their homeland, while the National Union's joint platform states that all three parties espouse "transfer" and "population exchange." This is an open call for the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. It received no recognition in the PM's speech, only muted coverage in the Australia media and has passed largely without comment in thsi country. For the US see this report.

If the PM is rightly concerned about the brutality of the Iraqi regime then he should be concerned with the policy of “solving” the Palestinian-Israeli conflict by ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. As he promised, the PM returned to Palestinian-Israeli issue in his speech. He said:

"Israel has no stauncher friend or ally than Australia in her legitimate aspiration to exist behind secure internationally recognised boundaries. We also support the establishment of an independent Palestinian state and it remains one of the great disappointments I’ve witnessed in the time that I’ve been Prime Minister that the courageous attempt of Ehud Barak, offering so much of what had been asked of him by the Palestinians was not successful. But we have to move on and I would again renew my appeal to Ariel Sharon to use the authority of his re-election to take every opportunity that may be there to move towards peace. And I welcome Arafat's appointment of a Prime Minister and I hope he or she has a good negotiating mandate. But could I just say one thing to the Palestinian Council and any who may be responsible or who may exert influence, how can any Prime Minister of Israel take the steps I’m talking about while the murderous pattern of suicide bombing continues to be inflicted on their people."

Note the position. Though Australia is a staunch ally of Israel, it supports the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. Reasonable enough. However, the Howard government sides with the Israeli state against the murderous use of terror by the Palestinians. Note the complete silence about ethnic cleansing. That is what is shocking, given the critical response to the same practices in Europe when practised by the Serbs.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 10:25 AM | Comments (13)

March 13, 2003

Background to Iraqi War

This provides a good descriptive account of the background to the war---one has been going on since the invasion of Kuwait. Its argument is that the current strategies by the Bush administration are attempts by that administration to use Iraq as a test case for the Bush doctrine of the pre-emptive strike.

What remains in the background is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But it is the US support of Israel, and the latter's unwillingness (refusal?) to accept a democratic multinational (or bi-national) state, that continues to create tensions and antagonisms in the Middle East. This Israel-Palestine conflict is rarely mentioned in the Oz blogging world. So we need some backgrround. This and this previous edition on The Palestinian-Israeli dimension to war in Iraq are a start. Also this bit of history about the The Palestinian-Israeli Conflict is useful. History is important on this, as explained here

And for an interesting discussion on Al-Jazeera, see this. An interesting suggestion came out of this discussion---capture and sell Saddam Hussein in the slave market. For an account of the complex relations between the US, Saudi Arabia and Iraq that places the Palestine-Israel question centre stage, see this excellent essay Beyond the Wedge. This acount of the relationship between Arab intellectuals and the American 'prince' is insightful.

I fully concur with the pathway of Edward Said on this. He says ):

"...some mode of arrangement has to be established that allows them to live together in some peaceable form. And it's not going to be through separation. It's not going to be the way the Oslo process has forecasted, nor will it be the way I and many others used to talk about--namely partition, that there should be two states.

There is another factor which I think is very important: There is a younger generation--beginning with the Palestinians who are Israeli citizens--who are extremely aware of the difficulty that they face as an oppressed minority and are beginning to struggle in terms of civil and citizens' rights.

Interestingly, they are supported, implicitly, by secular Israelis who are extremely worried about the increased power of the clerics and the whole question of defining the laws of the state by religious means in this debate about "Who is a Jew?" A fairly important body of opinion that is secular has begun to talk about things like a constitution--since Israel doesn't have a constitution--and the notion of citizenship, which defines people not by ethnic but by national criteria. This would then have to include Arabs. That's very impressive to me. I've talked to groups from both sides, independently and together. The trajectory is unmistakable."

A liberal state that citizenship, which defines people not by ethnic but by national criteria, and fully embraces mutinationality is a good pathway to walk out of the present catastrophe.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 11:25 PM | Comments (1)

Keeping things in perspective

In this time of neo-conservative political correctness seeking to dominate the centres of decision making, policy advice and political criticism I just love The Onion This is the latest news bulletin from its news desk.

Bush Orders Iraq To Disarm Before Start Of War
WASHINGTON, DC—Maintaining his hardline stance against Saddam Hussein, President Bush ordered Iraq to fully dismantle its military before the U.S. begins its invasion next week. "U.S. intelligence confirms that, even as we speak, Saddam is preparing tanks and guns and other weapons of deadly force for use in our upcoming war against him," Bush said Sunday during his weekly radio address. "This madman has every intention of firing back at our troops when we attack his country." Bush warned the Iraqi dictator to "lay down [his] weapons and enter battle unarmed, or suffer the consequences."

Its good to keep things in perspective especially when we are embarked on something more than blowing up Baghdad and smashing a country to deliver democracy. It is a cultural and religious clash with Islam. How do you win that?

The national security state doesn't have a clue. It only thinks in military terms. What happens when Saddam is disposed and the victorious coalition of the willing is ruling Iraq? Its not Australia's problem says the Howard Government, which is planning to wash its hands of contribution to an occupying force, or the long-term nation building. A modest bit of humanitarin assistance is all that will be offered.

And the US? Hugh White puts the problem nicely:

"Once Saddam is gone, Bush may find it hard to persuade Americans that they need to carry this burden. Britain has hoped that the UN will come to the rescue, and take over responsibility for Iraq, as it did in East Timor. But if the invasion goes ahead without UN endorsement, the UN is unlikely to help pick up the pieces afterwards. Herein lie the seeds of a troubled future. America has the will to invade Iraq without UN support, but it may not have the will to rebuild it without UN support."

The coalition of the willing cannot expect the UN to pick up the tab or the job when they have declared the UN to be irrelevant, are pursuing a new unilateralism, scorn global governance and are only engaging with the UN to give Tony Blair a helping hand.

We can expect John Howard to roll out the standard lines for going to war: terrorist groups want to get hold of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons; the Iraq people need to be liberated from their suffering; and the need to eliminate Iraq's weapon of mass destruction. This article provides a reality check. It says that this a war about US strategic objectives. So it is not a war to protect Australia's national interests. This is a view that is common amongst defence intelligence officials who are concerned about the use of intelligence for political purposes.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 09:17 AM | Comments (2)

Bad diplomacy?

For some implications of what can only be called incompetent US diplomacy over the last few days Will the US Have to Fight Alone? and Promise to Blair .

For an account of the 'transfer' of Palestinians from Israel-Palestine (ethnic cleansing?) under the shadow of war seeLiving on the Edge. Transfer operates on the assumption that the very presence of Palestinians in Israel and the West Bank constitutes a threat to the future of the Jewish state.

Using and Abusing the UN, Redux is an account of the US relations with the UN and provides a good background to the PM's rehearsed lines at today's National Press Club speech.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 07:56 AM | Comments (0)

March 12, 2003

UN: a different view

The UN is seen to have its future in the balance. Will it fracture from conflict and the US, backed by its coalition of the willing take the policing of the world of nations into their own hands?

Thats what the neo-cons want because they see the UN as a total failure in terms of enforcing global peace and security. The US is best off doing the job itself. They have no time for Kofi Annan view of the UN as providing a common framework for securing peace.

There is another way of looking at the UN. The West has long used the UN along with other international institutions (IMF & World Bank) as an instrument to run the world to maintain Western predominance, protect western interests and promote western political and economic values.

I reckon thats how it would look from the perspective of the Arab states.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 08:21 PM | Comments (0)

In the national interest

We have argued against Australia going to war with Iraq as part of the US posse on the grounds that it is not in our national interest to do so. This argument has never been much credence, or given much of a hearing, let alone engaged with. What we get from the neo-cons is the charge, and ocassionally the argument, that those who oppose going to war with Iraq are anti-American or peaceniks.

So it is good to see the national interest case being argued in the national press. John Hewson, the former Liberal Party leader, has done just this in the Financial Review (subscription required, Friday 7 March, 2003, p. 82) He says:

"Saddam Hussein needs to be stopped, But leave George Dubya and a handful of his other deputies to do it, and only with United Nation's sanction. This is not our war. This is not one where Australian lives should be sacrificed, nor our diplomatic efforts concentrated."
Hewson goes onto to argue that:

'Surely, ensuring a sensible outcome on North Korea ---that is, avoiding a potential Asian disaster---is much more in our "national interest."'

Hewson has become so sensitive to the abuse of national interest under the Howard Government that he sees it similar to 'patriotism, as the last refuge of ihe scoundrel.' Dumping national self-interest leaves you nowwhere to go. Nation-states do have interests that affect them deeply in a world of nations. It woudl not be in Australia's interests to have Papua New Guinea collapse and disintegrate; or for Indonesia to become a militant Islamic state.

National interest is too good a word to let go.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 07:11 PM | Comments (5)

Wilkie Resignation

The argument of Andrew Wilkie, the former Intellligence officer at Office of National Assessments, goes to the heart of the issue. His arguments confirm the position of this weblog that, as Australia's national interest is not threatened by the Iraqi regime, we have no reason to go to war. It is a US war led by the White House.

Wilkie says that Iraq does not pose a security threat to the US, or to the UK or Australia, or to any other country, at this point in time; that he could see no evidence that there was a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq; and that war with Iraq increases the risk of the Iraqi regime lashing out recklessly and using weapons of mass destruction and to possibly play a terrorism card.

Wilkie's judgement is that it is a foolish war that could lead to disaster, and that we have good reason to fear the consequences of this war. His reasons would be based on the high-level intelligence assessments which provide the information base for policy formulation by the federal government. It is a judgement based on the view that Saddam Hussein has, and is concealing, weapons of mass destruction to some degree.

Wilkie's argument is a critical response to the arguments used by the Howard Government for why it should go to war with or without UN approval. This raises the question: does the Howard Government have the evidence to justify their position? Or did they make a political decision and then hunt around for the evidence to justify it?

My judgement is the latter was what happened. My reasons? First, The Howard Government has never provided convincing evidence; the evidence that it has used is interptretation of the work of others eg., the inspectors reports to the UN. Secondly, Wilkie confirms the view of a leaked high-level British intelligence report that leaked to the BBC about a month ago they had no evidence of a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. And lastly, the purpose of war constantly changes: from regime change; from it being a part of the war against terror; and then rolling out Western democracy from Iraq through the Arab world.

What we have is a political decision based on the acceptance of American hegemony, pre-emptive strike, preventing China from equalling the US in military power rejection of UN contraints of US power to further national self-interest. The war is being driven by the White House not by the evidence gathered by the US, UK and Australian intelligence community. What evidence there is is being used by the politicians to justify a political agenda.

Wilkie's argument strengthens the case that the threat Iraq does present to the region can be contained. This was the view of the head of the CIA, George Tenet, who told Congress last year that Iraq can be stopped from using its weapons of mass destruction without needing to attack it.

Not that you wil not see the Howard Government ministers respond to Wilkie's arguments. They will dismiss Wilkie as a person of little relevance. They are more concerned with putting out the bushfires and managing the politics than engaging in public debate. All John Howard does is say that he has taken the pro war stance because it is right. Why right?

"We have taken the stance we have because we believe very much that it is right. I don't want this country to live in a world in which rogue states like Iraq are able to retain chemical and biological weapons and continue to aspire to the development of nuclear weapons."

Neither do we John. But that does not address the containment versus war options. For the PM containment is displaced because the choice is either appeasement of Sadam Hussein or disarming Iraq through war. Instead of engaging the PM is just selling a message. Nothing more. Tony Blair, in contrast, is engaging in a public debate with his fellow citizens.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 08:06 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

March 11, 2003

NSW Democrats not travelling well

It would seem that the NSW Democrats are still having a difficult time getting their political mesage through the filters of the media. The media is distracted internationally by the possible war with Iraq and locally by the rise of the Australian Greens as a viable political third force.

As things stand at the moment either James Lantry, has to fails to win a seat in the upper house or the party has wins more than 4per cent of the upper house vote in the March 22 poll. If it does not be eligible for public funding and so will no longer be a political party in the State. It is make or break time because they lost public funding in 1995.

Things do not look good. According to this report current opinion polls suggest it is unlikely the Democrats will win more than 3per cent.

And their message? They are strong on support for the disabled and mentally ill, as well as legislation for open government. According to this report they have a political niche in reforms to workers' compensation, public liability insurance, civil liberties and law and order.

Not very exciting. There is nothing mentioned about green issues in the State---such as coastal development, water, land clearing and preservation of native forests? Or has that been filtered by the media?

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 03:23 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

War

War is almost upon us. The UN is doing its job of constraining the war party. Russia and France continue with their proposals. John Howard pushes for war In the US Anne Coulter continues to fume; Charles Krauthammer has a case of the historical shudders; Peggy Noonan dreams on; but Mark Steyn's spirits sag.

So we need to think about war. Why not turn to someone who has written extrensively on war?. This historical account by the military historian Martin Van Creveld, called 'Through a Glass Darkly' is to one way to transgress the heroic machismo view of war of the top guns.

His views on the Israel/Palestinian conflict can be found here in a interview with the ABC's Foreign Correspondent and here

Martin Van Creveld's views are controversial, as can be seen by this Interview

And for those with a big optimism about peace through war should read PROFESSOR VAN CREVELD’S TERRIFYING WORLD to understand why some of us get the historical shudders.

This interview suggests a way to avoid war. This link is courtesy of Loren Webster's Planting seeds of hope. My personal response to the historical shudders is inspired by Loren and can be found at forever young

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 09:55 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 10, 2003

Four Corners on neo-con US global strategy

The ABC 4 Corners programe tonight, American Dreamers was on the US neo-cons, their geopolitical strategy in the Middle East and the war with Iraq. It defined the neo-cons more narrowly than public opinion has done---4 Corners preferred anti-totalitarianism & pro-Israel with their strategic thinking defined by the 1930s scenario of appeasement and holocaust. This misses the whole dimension of the shift from the left liberalism to conservative liberalism during the 1980s and 1990s-- the culture wars. This is a jaundiced view of the neocons from a conservative perspective.

But the focus was on the neo-con geopolitical strategy: the US keeping its hegemony; pre-emptive strike; see the UN as undermining US power; unlimited power is the destiny of the US; regime change; the long-term scenario of taking out Iraq, Iran and Syria. This provides a background a background and commentary.

The programme concentrated on a few key individuals---Richard Perle & Paul Wolfowitz and was more or less an elaboration of this.

Key documents mentioned in the strategic thinking of the crew behind Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfield are Letter to the President’ on 20 September 2001, circulated by the Project for the New American Century; the Clean Break document coauthored by Perle and Feith as advisory paper for the newly elected Likud Prime Minister Netanyahu, which called for ‘a clean break from the peace process’, by Israel.

The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) came up a lot in the programme as the neo-think tank. They hold reguar briefings on the road to war with Iraq. Here is a transcript of one from early March. It is very informative talks on US military preperations, the post-Saddam scenario in Iraqi, how the UN works and the West providing the Iraqi regime with its military arsenal.

There is very little of this quality (I'm a leftie talking about righties remember) being produced in Australia. What we get is its all about a neo-conservative conspiracy But we do have this but they have yet to step into the public arena like the AEI. Nor are they likely to. We need more think tanks in Australia.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 11:21 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The Carr campaign

Bob Carr says that he runs a modest ship of state. It is about keeping things ticking over with fiscal restraint + a modest list of promises, including more teachers, smaller classes and expanded cancer services.

Graham Young provides an on-the-ground feel-- the NSW street---of the election from the work at the On Line Focus website

And green issues? Is not Bob Carr being sold by the ALP publicity machine as the Green premier? The Premier says:

"We have elevated environment concerns to the heart, not the fringe of politics. We have fought against the ultimate in overdevelopment - namely, a rate of population growth too big forSydney or Australia to handle. We have engaged a mature electorate about population policy and the slim carrying capacity of our fragile land. Labor's approach in NSW is far removed from the growth at any cost view of some other states. Our focus is on protecting our quality of life."

It is not just overpopulation. Its more about unsustainable practices with respect to water and land clearing and overdevelopment along the coast. Political expediency has meant little has been done over the last 8 years. The greens raise these issues and this makes them more than a outlet for protest votes against the Carr Government.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 11:41 AM | Comments (4)

The UN: Where to now?

A large part of the conflict around the forth-coming war on Iraq centres around the role of the United Nations as a governing institution in the world of nations. We are in the first skirmishes in a long battle about the role that should be played by international institutions in a global world. Is the UN a debating club; an instrument of the national interest of sovereign nation states; a governing institution that tempers or constrains the power of hegemonic states; or the first step toward world government.
This puts the issue squarely on the table. There were some interesting remarks made on this issue in the Freedom and Terror post at philosophy.com in the comments section.

The role of UN needs to be discussed in the context of American global hegemony in which the US as the dominant power retains its no.1 position in the world of nations, seeks to push aside obstacles to advancing its own self interest, and counters all attempts to develop countervailing power (eg. by Europe).

But too much power byone state activates resistance amongst other states due to fear of their own security (eg. North Korea). Nation states like Russia China, or Europe fear that a hegemonic US will use its power to aggrandize itself and get its way at their expense. So they will act defensively to offset hegemonic power, seek to become a great power, and form counterbalancing coalitions against the US and its subservient allies. Hegemony contains the seeds of its own destruction.

Why not view the UN as one way to counterbalance US hegemony? Why not counter this hegemony with greater Australian independence within Asia, rather than the current policy of cuddling up to America and independence from Asia.? But such talk these days meets with the charge of anti-Americanism, seeing the US as a malevolent force; automatically choosing to disbelieve everything US officials say; and putting the most sinister interpretation on every American action.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 10:58 AM | Comments (0)

Formula I

Well the big race is over for another year. Melbourne hummed. Only hummed? The heroes have been duely saluted and the nationalism put back in the draw.

Melburnians can sit back knowing they are well and truly on the international map as a result of the television coverage.Thousands of tourists will be now flock to this great city because of the city's international exposure from this form of marketing and publicity. For a moment Melbourne was the centre of the universe--if we are to believe the hype.

There is another side: the one behind the hype, spin and publicity. Formula 1 is facing disappearing sponsors and collapsing television audiences. Why? Because as a 'bread and circuses' spectacle it is boring due to the absence of genuine racing. And putting on the show is now so expensive that the level of expenditure required to compete threatens to bankrupt half the field.

Melbourne may have witnessed a competitive grand prix but one race won't turn the creditability problem round.

And then there is the economics of it all. Stephen Mayne of Crikey.com.au captures the economic side. In his special Sunday email he says:

"Whilst our largely foreign-owned 5-star hotels do well, the event is a disaster for most traders around the track except for the pubs. Crikey popped into the South Melbourne markets on Friday and it was dead. One fruit stall owner said it was usually close to the worst weekend for the year.

Of 463 local businesses surveyed in 1998 only 13.6 % said they had an "increase in trade" (including seven pubs and one brothel) This year the only signs that the Grand Prix is on in South Melbourne are a few flags on pubs and brothels, virtually nothing on the shops and the barricades down the main street.

And Ron Walker keeps on tell people that Bernie Ecclestone is coming to inspect one of the best GPs but then he never shows up. It's called taking the money and running."

Funny that. It was the same in Adelaide. Very poor returns for the traders in Hutt Street. Most of the local businesses around the Race track closed because they were inacessible due to traffic closures. And it sort of became ho hum after a while for all the talking up by the promotors.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 09:00 AM | Comments (2)

March 09, 2003

Turkey backtracks

It appears that Turkey will soon consent to US forces using Turkey to launch a second front within a week or so. See DebkaFile

What do you think the Iraqi regime is doing? Buying time? Playing poker? Does Saddam Hussein reckon he has between two and three weeks to play with before deciding which way to jump to survive? Going for him are the Putin plan, the Franco-German counter-initiative to the US-backed Security Council motion – which offers the arms inspectors another four months for their mission and the spiraling controversy between Turkey and the Kurds of northern Iraq, who threaten to fight any Turkish troops entering Kurdistan.

The Arab summit, which convened in Cairo Saturday, March 1 – amid sore divisions over Iraq- didn't help him much. So Iraq reckons sit can play for time by dribbling out concessions.

This is a good account of the current mood in Washington. The full text of the March Blix report to the UN can be found here. This is Fisk on Blix. This is the New York Times judgement about the impact on the UN Security Council of the latest Blix Report. This is an interpretation of how thing are being played in Moscow

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 10:25 PM | Comments (2)

Knives circle Medicare

Two quotes from senior Government ministers courtesy of Mike Carleton at the Sydney Morning Herald.

The first is from John Howard, the Prime Minister, who says:

"It is simply not possible for the Government and it has never been possible for this Government and it was never the design within the contemplation of the former government that we could guarantee bulk-billing for every Australian citizen. That is not my understanding of universality. It never has been, it isn't and it never will be."
The second is from the Petrer Costello, the federal Treasurer, delivered within hours of the first, and spoken from the same script:

"The Government's view on bulk-billing is that it's important for pensioners or low-income earners. But it is never and was never intended to be universal to everybody, including those on high incomes. But we think it's important to ensure that people on low incomes continue to have access but we've not argued, the Labor Party has never argued, the founders of Medicare have never argued that it needs to be universal, 100 per cent."

The code is fairly clear. We don't like Medicare. Never have. Its smacks of socialism, which as we all know, strangles people's freedom of choice. It has to go to, and to be replaced with a US-style deregulated system. But we cannot launch a frontal assault on it because it is very popular in the community. So we will starve it of funds and talk about a safety net for the deserving poor whilst pouring billions to prop up the private health funds.

The knives are out. Why? Money is needed to fight the war against Iraq. So a bit of slash and burn of the welfare state is needed. A justification for displacing public health is given by Scott Wickstein who argues that Medicare is roughly equivalent to a free lunch. and that equity is provided by the deregulated market & safety net. There are good informed comments there and Scott is having a bit of trouble persuading his readers.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 08:29 AM | Comments (0)

March 08, 2003

Tim Blair retreats

You have to read the post a couple of times before the significance of the fragment sinks in. Tim Blair has conceded defeat and he has beat a retreat under the cover of a smoke screen.

The post was a comment on the recent Phillip Adams column in which he rejected the anti-America charge and argued that he was anti-Bush. Tim Blair conceded the argument on March 8 2003 at 9.25 am---'Its all about Bush' he says. As indeed it is.

Thats a huge defeat for the 'lets pulverise Iraq now' crowd. Anti-Americanism was one of their chief tactics to delegitimise their opponents.

The smokescreen? Calling his opponents 'shallow as Lake Eyre'. A witty quip to be sure. But it has no bite since surface is everything in postmodernity and Tim has always operated on the surface.

I feel sorry for Tim's fans. They will be distressed when their news gets out that their hero has retreated from the battle. Tears all round. Will their hero retreat on other fronts?

Now the neo-cons will have to argue their case to justify their going along with Bush's unilateralism, displacement of the UN as a governing institution, might is right, absolute freedom and American hegemony. Arguing their case rather than attacking the person will be something new.

John Quiggin has noticed Blair's retreat as well.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 08:31 PM | Comments (9) | TrackBack

The selling of Bob Carr

Two portraits of Bob Carr. This one, A premier performanceand this one, The pretentious populist(subscription required.)

In the former we have a driven politician with a lot of self-control striving to control the media and using public relations to prevent any negativity from surfacing. So this particular story is controlled--it's a selling Bob Carr story--the enlightened liberal intellectual in politics bathed in the light in the hill is the image that is being presented for our consumption.

Is it spin? Contrast it the latter portrait. This is one of the politician as a leader of a regime out to win at all costs. It is so swept along by the media-driven law and order campaign that it is willing to both constrain civil liberties undermine the independence of the judiciary by shaming magistrates into meeting police and community representatives in order to bring their judgements into line with community expections.

Image versus reality= disenchantment. The 'tough on crime' stance is more than the tactics to avoid being outflanked on law and order issues by the Coalition. I suspect the Carr regime is premised on politicians as the authoritarian guardians of the state who keep things tightly locked down whilst keeping the administrative wheels turning.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 06:46 PM | Comments (1)

On the pathway to happiness

The utilitarian policy makers hold that "the pursuit of happiness" (utility) was the key objective of public policy. It is an old idea, genderally traced back to Jeremy Bentham; and though it is rarely mentioned these days, it is still tacitiy held. The neo-liberal emphasis on wealth creation for its own sake would seem to buried happiness as policy goal, but what is the point of earning a lot of money if you are unhappy?

Unhappy because you are sick from pollution, no one loves you, you have no friends and the dog leaves you for the butcher around the corner. So happiness is not dead and buried as a policy goal. Its just that the economists had been seduced by mathemetics, model building and equations. A slow resurrection of happiness has begun because of the horrors of the market place.

People are not happy even though we are being told by John Hyde in the Australian Financial review (8.3.2003, p. 50; subscription required) that we have benefited from the economic reforms of the past two decades and become a lot more wealthy. We are very unhappy with corporations and their corporate governance as these have resulted in a decade of downsizing, overwork, unpaid overtime, insecurity of employment, a mean organizational culture, hugh executive payouts for bad performance and destruction of shareholder wealth. And whats more these guys have poured scorn on democracy.

No one is in the mood to kiss the CEO these days. There's not much room for love in the marketplace.

Who knows? Maybe we are so unhappy that we have taken to reading old French history books. Maybe, in our blackest moments, we thinking about bringing back the guillotine to sort things out.

So you can see why the economists and policy makers are brushing the dust of that old concept of happiness as the proper end of public policy. (Link courtesy of the excellent waydownhere weblog).

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 01:10 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 07, 2003

Howard: We don't need the UN

So John Howard is planning to spurn the UN. He reassures us citizens though Parliament that his 'government will never act in breach of international law.'

Well John Howard's conception of international law is that national interest prevails. Thats what the Tampa incident indicated. And Iraq? Well that might is right. We are just part of the US posse that is little more than a bunch of vigilantes with the UN. And we off to a hanging, to hanging a non-white.

Is it any wonder that others are saying whoa there. Hang about. Lets cool the macho/Rambo stuff for a moment.

But the posse is not really interested in listening. They are too fired up. They want a fight.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 09:40 PM | Comments (1)

Richard Woolcott Speaks his Mind

These words by the ex-diplomat Richard Woolcott---whom I've seen as stuffed-shirt Wasp and pro-Indonesian---make good sense. Woolcott says:

"Our interests and American interests are not always going to coincide. In recent times we have been too responsive to American pressures. A friend can say no, and I think a good friend should when it feels its ally's taking a mistaken course, even if it doesn't have the capacity to change that course."

Woolcott says the US has taken a mistaken course. Washington's preoccupation with terrorism is assuming the mantle of a moral crusade that will have a distorting effect as an all-powerful America becomes more self-righteous and unilateralist. He says that in mid-2002, Australia should have dissociated itself from the start of the American push to overthrow the Iraqi regime.

What is going on now, Woolcott says, is a charade since "America intends to invade Iraq with or without UN backing." Woolcott argues that the new American doctrine of pre-emptive strikes risks returning us to "the 'might is right' approach... if not to the law of the jungle." What Australia should be doing is arguing "that the world needs a rules-based international order."

Sounds pretty good to me.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 03:09 PM | Comments (0)

Miranda Devine on Green Politics in NSW

It is difficult to follow the NSW election at a distance. You miss the detail and the local politics. There are compensations the heavy spin in which policies just form a back drop comes through loud and clear. What we have is selling the leader as a personality package whilst the Ho hum election battle involves big conflicts over meat pies and sausage rolls. The policies are merely a back drop for the circulation of media images. As Tim Mc Donald says Promises, promises: Show me the policies!

So all the policy conflicts and battle of ideas shift to the Greens. They are the ones causing policy waves around drugs and education. If it ws not clear before it is now: the Greens have replaced the Australian Democrats as the third force in Australian electoral politics. Antony Green observes:

"While replacing the Australian Democrats as the third force, the Greens are very different political beasts. The Democrats occupied that small part of the political spectrum between Labor and the Coalition, while the Greens are unambiguously to the left of Labor. As a result of this firmer ideological position, the Greens have begun to receive the sort of policy scrutiny that has never been applied to the more pragmatic Democrats."

What sort of scrutiny is that? The well-known Miranda Devine has taken upon herself to put the Greens under the microscope. Her big claim is red inside the green watermelon: that the environment movement has been taken over by people with a class warfare agenda. The good coverage of the NSW election by the SMH, and the excellent work by the ABC's Mattew Liddy in his Election Pole Vault weblog, does not scutinize the commentary within the battle of ideas. So there is no scrutiny of Miranda Devine's scrutiny of the greens. Being at a critical distance from the din of the battle allows us to do this. So lets have a closer look at Miranda.

She basically makes the argument in terms of the timber industry whose utilitarian environmentalism pretty much amounts to the wise use of natural resources. Miranda says that the green movement's dishonesty is nowwhere more apparent

"....than in the destruction of the NSW timber industry, which once led the world with its skill and innovation. Right now, after what should have been the best logging season in 50 years, timber mills on the North Coast are running out of logs, 1400 jobs are at risk and the certainty the industry was promised by the Government and conservation groups three years ago has turned out to be a mirage."

Why is this? What is wrong with conserving old growth forests? Miranda's argument is a bit unclear at this point. But the Carr Government's attempt to establish its green creditionals, and so wrap up green preferences, is involved. Miranda see this as:

"...a pre-election "gift" to the Greens of 15 new national parks comes despite the fact that 1.6 million hectares incinerated in NSW and the ACT (including much of the Kosciuszko National Park) this bushfire season show the National Parks and Wildlife Service to be incapable of managing the flora and fauna already in its care. Of course, such election-eve announcements are not really about saving the environment. They are about feeding the green monster. "

Presumably Carr is also feeding the growth monster, eg., big business, developers and casino operators, would by okay. Miranda's feeding the green monster argument is not that persuasive since the Carr regime has to feed both "monsters" to retain its hands on the levers of power. Regaining power is what it is all about.

Of course Miranda would reject 'feeding the growth monster', but she presents no arguments for that claim. She has to since the whole idea of the free and competitive market as a force of creative destruction means that industries come and go. It is time for the present practices of forest industry to go. In a global economy more money can be made elsewhere. As things currently stands this suggests that Miranda is calling for protection for an outmoded, inefficient industry. Spinning for Pauline Hanson now?

However, Miranda has been well schooled in the ways of rhetoric and she knows that she needs something more substantial for the SMH readership, than spinning to protect the forestry industry. If things are left with this emotional appeal to jobs Miranda would quickly be out of a job. So she has another line of argument:

"And the terrible irony is that destroying the timber industry may ultimately do trees more harm than good. A school of progressive, rational environmental thought around the world now holds that timber is the ultimate sustainable industry, a solar-generated renewable resource that we should be using more of, not less."

This is the wise use of the utilitarian conservatism being wheeled out. It talks the language of sustainability not just protecting jobs. But it is hard to make sense of. Miranda is saying that we should use more of these natural resources not less. Why so? She turns to an expert, (Patrick Moore, website www.greenspirit.com) who says that:

"...trees are the answer to environmental problems from soil erosion to salinity, water pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. [We should be] growing more trees and then using more wood, both as a substitute for non-renewable fossil fuels and materials such as steel, concrete and plastic, and as paper products for printing, packaging and sanitation".

What does this mean in practice? Well wilderness is rejected as is specially cultuivated plantations. What is advocated is that our native forests should be logged through the selective culling practised on the North Coast, because this thins the eucalypt canopy thereby allowing young trees to grow and old trees to flourish.

Miranda does a quick flick of the switch at this point. Its the key move. She says the greens are opposed to a sustainable forest industry:

"....as is clear from the NSW Greens' policies on [drugs, taxation and education] the environmental movement has been hijacked by people with agendas that have less to do with the environment than with class warfare. Trees are just a convenient cloak under which they can hide an old-fashioned long-discredited ideology, and they will quite happily sacrifice those trees on the altar of their principles, as the bushfire devastation shows."

And away she goes on bushfires just like Wilson Tuckey. Miranda has to move in this direction if she is to establish her 'green monster' case. She does this by trying to show that the greens are irrational. Pretty nifty use of rhetoric eh? This is the key line:

"People who base their opinion on science and reason and who are politically centrist need to take the [green] movement back from the extremists who have hijacked it, often to further agendas that have nothing to do with ecology."

We need to do this because of the the absurdity of the current situation in which 'timber towns disappear and the precious bush skills of timber workers are squandered' all 'for the illusion that we are saving the environment.'

Are the greens irrational in not supporting a sustainable forest industry? Far from it. Its a furphy. Have a look here under policies, caring for the earth then environment (section 1.3. 2 Forests and Wood Production) and the greening of industry. Miranda has not even bothered to read the website. So there is no engagement with any of the ideas contained in these policies.

Great journalism huh?

The failure to engge with green policies leaves Miranda Devine exposed as spinning for the state government to protect the forest industry. Miranda is no economic rationalist. Maybe she could do a bit of work for Pauline Hanson's election campaign. It sure needs a helping hand.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 11:39 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

Glimpse into another world

This private email to a few friends is by a journalist participant at the recent World Economic Forum at Davos. It was leaked and it is currently circulating through the internet.

Have a glimpse into a world we will never see in person. Called 'Big bourgeoisie distressed': Laurie Garrett's notes on Davos, it is well worth reading. It is very interesting.

I like this bit:

'The WEF was overwhelmed by talk of security, with fears of terrorism, computer and copyright theft, assassination and global instability dominating almost every discussion.

I learned from American security and military speakers that, "We need to attack Iraq not to punish it for what it might have, but preemptively, as part of a global war. Iraq is just one piece of a campaign that will last years, taking out states, cleansing the planet. The mood was very grim.'

The US reaaly does see itself as a trigger happy sheriff.

Thanks to Hector Rottweiller Jr's Weblog for the link.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 12:06 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

March 06, 2003

Condoleezza Rice

Condoleezza Rice is the National Security Advisor to George Bush and an exponent of realism in international relations---it all comes down to national interest in the end--- and unilateralism. I was looking for some articles on the net that woudl give the intellectual rationale for current US actions but I could not find any apart from this

What I got was an early profile Condoleezza Rice George W. Bush's celebrity adviser. And an interview part I and Part 2

Then time ran out.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 11:37 PM | Comments (0)

Tim Blair Watch

For all those readers who love to know what Tim Blair has been up to with his hit and run journalism.

The Tim Blair Watch can be found at a heap of junk for code today.

After scrolling through his work I have realized that Tim Blair has no pity or compassion for the vulnerable and the fragile. He has only scorn. He also lacks a conceptual graps of living life live on the razor's edge of luck.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 05:36 PM | Comments (0)

NSW Election

I love Nick Cowdrey, the Director of Public Prosecutions in NSW

I do admit that I find him a bit of a stuffed shirt in SBS forums. But then he is defending against cynical reason of the tabloid media. Why do I love him? Because he gives stick to the politcians. He takes them on. He exposes the way they standardly use law and order issues to create fear amongst citizens that crime is spiraling out of control, and then engage in bidding wars with one another about who has the toughest penalties. He exposes the deceits, spins, and political whoring in in the name of truth; and he does so without fear or favour.

See Stop the fearmongering on crime, DPP tells parties

And he takes on the shock jocks and the tabloid media in Sydney for dealing in one sided views, dealing in sensational stories and treating crime as entertainment.

This is a legal reason as a critical reason that intervenes into public debate on the name of truth to prevent the manipulation of public opinion. Cowdery does so even though the state Lib/Lab politicians may pay him back by nobbling him. Cowdery has political courage in spades.

And, did you know that the ABC has a weblog on the NSW elections run by the delightful Mathew Liddy. Have a look.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 03:45 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Timor Sea Treaty Ministerial Meeting

Ever wondered what went on behind closed ministerial doors? Ever wondered how our political representatives conduct themselves on behalf of Australia citizens with foreign states that our neighbours.

Then read this transcript of Timor Sea Treaty Ministerial Meeting between Alexander Downer, Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs, Ian Macfarlane, Australian Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources, and H.E. Dr. Mari Alkatiri, the Prime Minister of East Timor. It is courtesy of crikey.com.au

For a comment on the way the negotiations were handled see East Timor bows to PM on gas by Mark Baker

For some background to the conflict over gas reserves, see this or this or this or this

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 01:07 PM | Comments (2)

Dialectics and public policy

Now that dialectics has made its appearance in public affairs and given legitimacy by a senior federal government minister, we can gently put it to some use. Take this advice offered to the government by an editorial in the Financial Review 9 March 6, 2003, p. 70). It states:

"The Australian economy is still fairly resilent in the face of global slowdown and the drought and is not in danger of suffering a prolonged period of sluggish activity...But if the outlook is not as rosy as the consensus suggests, the economy will need additional stimulus beyond the momentum in the pipeline if unemployment is not to rise. That's the measurable social cost of reform fatigue: in the long run, the most vulnerable pay the price. Rather than take this chance the commonwealth and the states should be taking out insurance by committing themselves to reforms that encourage invetment and jobs."

Sound advice, if you accept the premise that the aim of the politics is to keep the economic machine ticking over. But that ole dialectical negative is working away under the surface. The free market works by creative destruction. For insights on this see the posts, OF GALES OF DESTRUCTIVE CREATION, and SCHUMPETERRHOEA by Rob Schaap. Creative destruction means more unemployment as old industries give way to new ones. Under the market rules of the survival of the fitest boosting the economy means creating new jobs and new unemployment.

Aah, the power of dialectics. No wonder the neo-classial economists prefer the analytic method. It makes policy life so much easier.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 10:56 AM | Comments (0)

Formula I Grand Prix

It is good to see Crikey.com having a go at the public subsidies for the travelling circus for petrol heads. Nobody will really listen though, for many find the Formula One very seductive indeed. Something to do with glamour and the identification with machines.

In his Wednesday subscription email Stephen Mayne bounces off a little report in the Financial Review by Michael Cave about the Grand Priz being a by-product of burrning money. Mayne states:

"Most of the media is focusing on the glamorous side of the Grand Prix, even though it is becoming a bigger financial basket case every year and losses will probably top $10 million for the first time this year.

Crikey hears that it now costs an incredible $18 million to put all the infrastructure in to run the race. When dodgy Bernie Ecclestone is pocketing a similar sized fee, how on earth can the event ever stop the losses which have now topped $74 million since 1994, according to the Fin. Throw in an additional $50 million spend on Albert Park for the first race and there is no way the race can be justified on a cost-benefit basis.

Then there is the moral issues. The global tobacco industry spends about $600 million a year sponsoring Bernie's circus. This means the Melbourne race is sharing in about $35 million of this when it clearly goes against the ban on tobacco advertising."

The public subsidy for a circus was no different in Adelaide when the former free market Olsen Liberal Government was in power. The Bracks Government makes the same justification ----all the visitors who flock to the state spend lots of tourist dollars.

Those who lived near the race track---as I did---detested the circus, the noise and the sleeze. I always suspected the dodgy economics that always showed millions upon millions of tourist dollars pouring into the state. These dollars somehow never made a difference.

All this for a race that is won in the pits!

The Olsen Government would not let Adelaide's Parklands be. The parklands were seen as a resource to make lots of money. They were not making enough. money as they were empty. They had to pay their way big time. However, no real money was ever put back into improving the Parklands. They just suffered, recovered and slowly deteroriated. My sympathies are with the 'Save Albert Park' group. No doubt they will be dismissed as a bunch of nutty greenies.

But they have a similar point to my own---if Adelaide or Melbourne want the Formula I circus, then the race should be shifted to a purpose built track, rather than spending millions in putting temporary structures up then pulling them down. Such rationality is beyond the state governments of South Australia and Melbourne.

Meanwhile Stephen Mayne does what we did when confronted by rev heads trampling, urinating and voimiting over everything---clear out for a couple of days the madness is in town.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 08:40 AM | Comments (2)

March 05, 2003

Tony Abbott discovers he's human

I see that Tony Abbott, the federal Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, admits that he has made a mistake. In the early 1990s this one nation conservative defended the position taken Geoffrey Blainey and John Howard in the immigration debate. Both had argued that the proportion of Asians as part of Australia's total migrant intake should be reduced and both opposed multiculturalism.

Abbott called for a reduction in Asian immigration, saying that Australia "will be about 10 per cent Asian" by 2005 and stated that the policy of multiculturalism would result in Australia becoming a "pastiche of cultures". Abbott also effectively called for a test for Australian-ness, namely, a society that "studies Shakespeare, follows cricket and honours the Anzacs".

In this Convergence speech Abbott dismissed the need for any test of "Australian-ness"; recognised that "there's hardly an extended family, these days, which doesn't include people of quite different backgrounds and ethnicities"; praised multiculturalism as facilitating this convergence; and declared that "paradoxically, Australia has turned its very diversity into kind of unity".

Wow. The Minister has discovered Hegel---unity in diversity. Very dialectical. This is venturing onto dangerous ground for a senior government Minister. Dialectics is a wild beastie as all the power is in the underground workings of the dynamic negative.

Can we say that Tony Abbott's 'seeing the light' of multiculturalism is an example of one nation conservatism being mugged by reality?

What does that mean for one nation conservatism of the national security state?That the unity bit keeps the diversity bit under control? What if the diversity bit includes Islam, as it does in Australia? Are we repelling them from our borders in the name of national security? Don't we, of the unity faction, reckon that diversity is a cover for terrorist sleeper cells? My judgement is that the unity bit will not embrace diversity to the extent of celebrating Australia as a multi-nation liberal state. The fortress bit of unity will overwhelm the diversity bit.

Now that he has discovered he is a sensitive human being, and not an attack dog machine who savages the unemployed within the protected walls of Parliament, maybe the Minister might dvelp a different comportment. Some advice. He could start by expressing some sympathy for unemployed people, understanding their difficulties they have in reinventing themselves in a globalised world; and remove some of the obstacles the government places in the way of them getting back into the workforce.

Then, as an ex-trainee priest, the Minister could begin to address the social costs of the ongoing economic reforms from a Catholic ethical perspective of Rerum Novarum:On the Condition of the Working Classes of Pope Leo XIII (1891). Since the Minister is busy the Minister he could turn to this blogspot for some suggestions. It would help the Minister to put a bit of backbone into the Howard Government's third term social reform agenda.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 09:31 PM | Comments (3)

Us neo-cons versus Oz public

The Australian Financial Review has an article by Charles Krauthammer, the US neo-con, on the need to attack France.(3.3.2003, p. 63) ther reason. France is playing power politics over the war with Iraq and is endeavourrng to contain the US. France is positioning itself as a leader of a bloc of former great powers to challenge US supremacy.

This challenge cannot be tolerated. Krauthammer says:

"That is a serious challenge. It requires a serious response. We need to demonstrate that there is a price to be paid for undermining the US on a matter of supreme national interest."

France must be punished.

Krauthammer then lists the ways to cut France down to size: push for an expansion of the UN Security Council with India and Japan as permanent new members to dilute French influence; no role for France in Iraq after the war has been won; turn away from NATO and build a new alliance structure around the US, Britain, Australia and Turkey plus Spain Italy and the pro-American new Europe.

Then I read an article in The Advertiser by Paul Starick, 'Howard's battle on the domestic front' (no link, 3.3. 2003, p. 19). This states that the case for war with Iraq has not been made. Paul says:

"Like Mr. Blair, Mr Howard appears to harbour the personal conviction that rogue states sharing so-called weapons of mass destruction with terrorists is a nightmarish scenario which threatens the entire world. Like Mr. Blair, he has not convinced the public why Australia must rush to war...the evidence thus far has clearly been inadequate to sway public opinion. Is Iraq about to hand over nuclear, chemical or biological weapon to Osam bin Laden, or other terrorists in the next few weeks?"

Juxtapose the two articles. What results? Its not good.

The US neo-cons do not care a fig about Australian public opinion. The US neo-cons only care about US national interest and whether we are either with them or against them. If we are not with them then they will bully us because we are acting to constrain the freedom of the US to do what it sees fit. Their line is that Australian troops (around 2000?) should sacrifice themselves on the field of battle fighting to protect US national interests. Australian citizens have no say in whether or not Australia goes to war.

The best that can be said for this is that it is not good public relations. The eneo-line will hardly help solve the domestic 'persuade problem' currently faced by Blair and Howard.

And what does the Howard Government do in this situation of a divided country and Parliament.? Why it continues to repeat and echo the lines of the White House. Alan Ramsay has the story.Its called Hard to believe, logically, that PM has mind of his own

What does the Labor Party do in this situationof a divided countrywhen the majority of Australian ciitzens want the Government to act through the UN? Why it closes down debate on the war. Once again Alan Ramsay has the story. Its called Little men in a coward's castle

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 02:06 PM | Comments (4)

They did it their way

The Australian Financial Review is running a series of articles on the economic reforms undertaken by the consensus Accord politics of the Hawke-Keating Labor Government. These reforms of the 1980s-1000s aimed to internationalise the economy and they included: floating the dollar, deregulating the banking system, removal of tariffs, a shift from centralised wage fixing to decentralised wage fixing, reforms to welfare higher education, superannuation, public health telecommunications and competition policy.

The first article by Laura Tingle, 'Hawke & Keating: architects of a revolution', (AFR, 28 Feb.2003, pp. 1, 80-81, subscription required) sets the tone. It adopts the perspective of the political revolutionaries. They see themselves as blowing open the business establishment, challenging the ideas that had dominated Australia since Federation, and fundamentally changing the economic and political landscape. They see themselves as political heroes. They had understood that reform was long overdue due to the decline in the terms of trade that had started in the mid 1960s;knew that the changes had to be profound; they had the courage to act, and they delivered the required reforms.

What was the point of the reforms? To create a competitive economy, increase economic growth, ensure profitablity and provide jobs. They delivered. They will be judged favourably by history. That is the judgement of the Financial Review. Inequality caused by a competitive market economy is dismissed; the environment is not mentioned; and unemployment is gestured only in terms of 'creating new jobs'. Big reforms required that a few eggs had to be broken but the strongest survived the big adjustment in the economic environment.

What do we interpret all this to mean as a way of writing history? What sort of history is this if the big failure is seen to the 1990-1991 recession, not long-term unemployment caused by structural adjustment?

This is is neo-Darwinian history written by the winners. According to the third article by Alan Mitchell (March 3, 2003, pp. 1 & 60), this period of dazzling economic reform to transform Australia from a sheltered industrial backwater into an open dynamic economy was a barrel of thrills and spills.

These reforms, which changed the Australian economy forever, are helping to derive economic growth through rapid productivity growth and businesses expoerting to Asia. What counts in this history is the judgment of global financial and foreign exchange markets who are hostile to wage justice, equality and all round protection, and couldn't care less about environmental sustainability or social justice. The end of public policy is creating a competitive economy and ensuring economic growth.

And if the spills are seen as human casualities? Not just the smooth-talking entrepreneurs who were there one minite and gone the next. I mean the ordinary people who lost their jobs. Well, they they have no real voice in this history about The ALP being ' the party of superior economic management 'and saving the economy from becoming a banana republic before time ran out.

This is a neo-liberal history that is strong on the thrills for economists and weak on the spills for ordinary citizens. The love of reform of the Hawke-Keating has been lost. The current Labor Party has lost its stomach for reform. So the achievements of Hawke and Keating should be celebrated. Mistakes are acknowledged in this neo-liberal history: the 1990-91 recession; aboriginal affairs; not delivering on a consumption tax; failure to continue with privastation and labour market reform and lack of corporate regulation. But the big picture is that these reforms have set Australia up to ride the rollar coaster of globalization and to hook into the gfuture rowth of the Chinese economy.

This is the sort of historical narrative the Financial Review would run goven its concern about the economy. But other stories can be told. Paul Kelly notes that the shift to a competitive market economy is also a shift to a more individualist society; a shift away from the state to individual rights; a shift away from a traditional high culture to a market consumer culture.

But there was not a shift to a more ecologically sustainable society or economy. That was the big failure. But it goes unmentioned. That part of the 1980s has been quietly forgotten.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 12:42 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

March 04, 2003

Power Dressing Milan-style

If you want to make a big impression at the office, then how about a bit of power and awe to overwhelm those you are trying to persuade to give you that top job. Is this not war by other means?

There is lots to choose from in these suggestions from Milan.

Let us have a bit of fun to ease the war gloom. Imagine a young 30s something hip Liberal/Labor Party politician on the make. You know the type, ex-lawyer, wealthy parents, good connections, anxious to do well in public life, has a social conscience, wants to be a minister in no time at all and has the toe cutters backing her. She reckons that she has to cut a bit of dash around Sydney town to-- to be noticed in terms of the public eye.

My suggestion is to do it in a day. The web web number for the power breakfast.

Parliament is sitting early so a quick change is needed to get the media's attention where it matters. I reckon puss in boots would get the headlines if worn in federal parliament. It would certainly show up the grey/black suits of the old men with stiff limb.

This silk look for the campaign launch would get your policies noticed by the male journalists for sure.

The Silk and sweater would give the right casual tone of that Bulletin lunch interview with Maxine.

The etro mix is just right to say goodbye to the troops.

This beautiful dress for drinks at 5pm to get the local vips on side.

Definitely the sweeping velvet for the dinner that celebrates the party hero.

I reckon it would work. Those around the leader might not be too happy about it all. I'm sure that can be handled with some professional spin.

But be warned. My reputation is not good. According to the bearers of cynical reason I am only capable of doing a half double pike twist with a twist of lemonlips and, being a jackass, I end up splitting my head open on the board on the way down. And whats more, such routines bores cynical reason to tears.

So I may have got it wrong. But here's a thought. Those young neo-con turks who spend most of their time crying will come on side. I know they they are mostly bored to tears by their opponents and hopeless on the policy stuff. But who needs policy wonks these days? And boredom is just a public pose--- an anti-politics politics. But they will be charged up from the media pictures of the day's splash. Sex and politics what an explosive mix! Just imagine it . Its so Futuristic. That passion just needs to be properly directed by the war machine.

The neo-cons will be only too willingly to bash anybody's head in without a hint of remorse. They know how to do the wedge. They understand that its war. They will be more than willing to do the muscle work for the greasy pole climb. And they will do it for nothing more than a promise because what they really love is the blood and gore of politics. Tarantino is their boy.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 01:10 PM | Comments (0)

March 03, 2003

An interview with Tony Blair

This is an interview that Tony Blair gave on the weekend in which he, like John Howard, brushes aside the mass anti-war demostrations. Blair takes the big picture approach--history will be the judge of his actions not public opinion. He comes across as a true believer; he cannot resist running the 1930s appeasement against the anti-war movement; he spins the line that criticism of the government sends mixed messages to Saddam Hussein.

The lines are similar to John Howard's.

An excellent close reading, and critique, of Blair's interview can be found here by John Smith.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 11:03 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Iraq, Israel and US strategy

This article from the DEBKAfile is a very good account of what is happening in the Middle East after the re-election of the Sharon Government. it situates the goals of the Sharon Government within the overall geopoiltical strategy of the region.

What I find of interest is the argument that the:

"...US-led war against Iraq and Saddam Hussein’s overthrow [is] but one tile in America’s redesigned ethno-geopolitical mosaic for the Middle East and Persian Gulf..... The permanent presence of a large American military force of some 70,000 troops in Iraq for the next decade will have a revolutionary impact on the military-strategic balance of power in the region. This presence will differ from the longstanding US military foothold in Saudi Arabia in that it will be America’s main military base for the Mediterranean, the Persian Gulf and Horn of Africa. The global war against terrorism and the rogue nations deploying weapons of mass destruction will be conducted from bases guarding the banks of the Euphrates and the Tigris and the oilfields of northern and southern Iraq."

In all likelihood Israel will become an even more significant regional power with expanded boundaries. And this article details the military preparations for war taking place amongst the Arab states in the Middle East.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 10:01 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Media & the War

How will the media conduct themselves in the forthcoming war with Iraq?

For some back ground to news and war, see Tim Porter

Will the media conduct themselves in being objective & telling the truth? Or will they act along the lines of this account of CNN's preparations by Robert Fisk. That is food for thought.

Let us hope that the media corporations show more initiative than they did last time around to be ‘to be witnesses to the truth’. It does not look to be so.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 04:10 PM | Comments (3)

Confession time

I have a confession to make. I agree with Christopher Pearson.

In his 'Online canons guard bards' column in the Weekend Australian (March 1, 2003, p. 2) he---wearing his hat as a member of the Australia Council---calls for the works of Australia's out-of-print poets to be available on an internet archive.

What a great idea: ---a national archive to preserve our cultural heritage before it has been forgotten. Why not include the out of print plays as well?

Common ground between lefties and righties? That puts a bit of sand in the wheels of the blog world eh.

Rest assured. Its not all confession. My mood is not one of contentment from complicity with the neo-cons.

My heart lifted, nay soared, when I came across the scornful tone of the brooding, bunyip professor who, he leds us to believe, lives near a bilabong. He is having a go at eastern liberal journalists reading Cicero and other Roman writers. He sees all of this self-education as a bit of a joke and he pokes fun at them.

The dark passions driving the neo-con 'attack the enemy now' polemics is alive and well. You can see it in the writing.

The good Professor wraps his words in scorn to makes us merry with laughter. Its an old trick: using expert academic knowledge to pour contempt on the other. Only the trick has a new style: ---a polemical humour that is a parody of the rhetorical tradition.

Many of his readers celebrate the writing. Yet the self-conscious, light heartedness of the writing has become false and bewitched. It has a certain dullness to it. Why? Because the good professor has been taken in hand by the new culture industry, and the light-heartedness has become sadistic mockery.

Buried in this writing is a tacit political claim that the cultural heritage is not for civilizing the hoi polloi. That humanist tradition has been trashed along with the need for a liberal education in a democracy. Its pull up the drawbridge time and take refuge behind the walls. Those inside the walls will keep the classical treasures for a select few: ie., those who the wisdom and esoteric knowledge to understand the truth content of the classics. These texts are too dangerous to be left in the hands the children of democracy living on the plains below. They might get the wrong ideas from reading Cicero, and they may not accept the good professors interpretation of these texts. We cannot have his authority being challenged can we?

No sir, I do not believe the Bunyip's comic line about living by the bilabong, being open to nature and caring for the animals. It is a life in the castle, which centres around the joys of masturbation and firing arrows from the turrets at democracy. The virtual professor may celebrate personal freedom and detest the dictates of the (liberal) culture industry, but he sure hates green. Its enough to turn him red and fire off his arrows.

When I read the conservative arrogance towards their enemy---the Other as uncouth, barbarian scribes of the liberal press--- I laugh at the laughter they cause. I laugh at the absurdity of this form of merriment and entertainment. What is remarkable is all that effort that goes into deploying the techniques of rhetoric---the moving force of eloquence--to savage and wound liberal journalists. It suggests that the conservative webloggers are fingering liberal journalists as the cause of a civilized liberal order going all hollow in the centre.

The big thesis, 'demented liberal journalists are the cause of catastrophe', provokes my laughter. But it is also laughter about despair at the decay of liberal values and the dumbing down of the content of rhetoric. Unlike the classic rhetorical writers, the new rhetorical writers rarely engage with ideas.

The trashing of rhetoric by those who profess to defend and guard it indicates just how much conservatism has been colonized by a cynical reason blinded by being on the pleasure machine of violence, death and destruction.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 11:51 AM | Comments (4)

March 02, 2003

Memories of academia

Whilst painting the front part of the electronic cottage yesterday in the autumn sunshine I got to thinking about academia and painting as ways of making a living.

This came up because a couple of professionals were tarting up the place up next door for tenants and we got to talking as they were leaving for another quick job. They asked me about the standard poodles who were keeping an eye on the comings and goings and about how the job was going. They talked about how they felt about getting bogged down on the job and the need to keep pushing through the depression.

It was one of those friendly chance encounters that make your day and make inner city living so pleasurable. It was the lack of this, coupled to the underlying unspoken hostility and suspicion in suburbia, that caused me to flee sububia to the inner city.

Whilst rendering a wall an hour or so latter I thought about the tedious nature of the job, then recalled that academia was similar. I hated the hated marking of bad essays and exams; could not get enthused about teaching; detested the hype about scholarship liberal education and meritocracy; recoiled from the worsening work conditions and the lack of money for research in philosophy; the ignorance masquerading as knowledge etc etc.

Basically I couldn't wait to get out. Political life was a breath of fresh air and I felt alive once again. I had no desire to return. Today if tenure was offered I would not take it. The security is not worth the sacrifice of autonomy by living a sick mode of life.

Then this morning, after breakfast, I read this and this by Dorothea; this by Alex; this and this by Liz and this by Baraita.

What did I came across in my reading? Insularity for one thing.

Few looked beyond the walls of academia to see themselves in the context of public policy or political life. Most were concerned with their life within the institution. I came across a narrow life of marking and teaching, little time of research and a life marked by trade union concerns. Alex is concerned with intellectual property and the pressures of research; Liz, who has got tenure, speaks about the pressures of research but loves her job and celebrates her job. Dorothea like me, thinks that academia is a lousy system that damages people.

Liz is very up beat about the play, autonomy, openess and creativity in academia. On her account there is a lot more of this in academia than in painting houses. I agree. But academia is still an inward-looking institution with some very bad practices that damage people.

Despite the phenomena of academics with weblogs, I see little effort being made by academics to engage with webloggers. It is still a case of high culture versus popular culture:---academics see webblogs as involving a dumbing down of their arguments for mass consumption; rather than as another kind of writing from a different place in civil society. Very few seem to understand the weblog as a way to foster the Habermasian public sphere like Tim Burke

Most of the commentary was within academia about academia with a little looking out beyond the ivy walls to the wider society via the internet. There was little effort to locate this academic mode of life into the broader dynamics of society and the economy--ie the way the state is shaping the shift to the knowledge society through market mechanisms. Why not view academia from the market perspective of the policy makers?

Maybe Australia is different because higher education reform is currently a crucial public policy issue of the Howard Government. These reforms are designed to force the universities to become education industries whilst protectign regional diversity. What we have is the push to tap into, and then apply the academic resources of new knowledge generated by an increasingly technoscience-based society.

What the policy makers see is the new economy being organized around networks of capital, management and information. They see that the access to techological know-how is at the roots of increasing productivity and competitiveness of the economy. For them academia is now a set of interconnected nodes through which communications flows occur. This is the network society. Maybe all this is accepted as the norm in the US and the market mode of university life is the way things are done around there.

So where to from now in terms of critique, when the ivory tower is no longer the ivory tower of scholarship. What we are noticing in Australia is that, intellectual practice shifts more and more outside the university and to the centre of civil society. Coupled to this fusion of the deregulated market and intellectual practice there is a decline in the critical and culturally interpretative role of intellectual practices.

What we now have is an instrumental market mode of life that is increasingly stripped of the established reference points in history, nature, place and tradition. It is a fundamental shift. Few in academia are addressing it. Maybe the US academic webloggers take this shifted for granted?

Still, the hollowing out of critique is a big worry. Do we sing songs and write poems instead?

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 02:34 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 01, 2003

The John & Alex routine

Have you noticed the routine?

Whilst John Howard is whipping up anxiety at home about Australia needing continental missile defences because North Korea just might fire missiles at us, Alexander Downer is travelling northern Asia doing the soothing routine selling a collective security pact and talking about trust between nations.

One script is for domestic politics the other script is for international politics.

The subtext that links the two is unilateralism and pre-emptive strike. That is the way the two scripts are being read in Indonesia, South Korea and North Korea. The US and its allies are flinching their muscles and have their finger on the trigger.

And the neo-cons? Well Greg Sheridan reinforces the Howard line, in his 'Facing up to a dark new world'. (no link) He says that North Korea:

"...is developing missiles that could reach Australia. The Howard Government used this as a rationale for investigating the developing missile defence technology....the more sobering reality is that over the next few yesars a range of Asian nations---China, India possibly Pakistan--- will develop missiles that can hit Australia. There is no reason to fear any of these nations."

We should query the routine by asking: where is the reason for why we should fear North Korea? Is the reason that North Korea is a rogue regime, that Pyongyang that is isolated and paranoid, and that is run by the dictatorial psychopath Kim Jong-il----as Paul Kelly maintains?

It is hard to take that seriously. As Brian Toohey observes in his 'Missile test puts Australia in a spin', (AFR, March 21, 2003, p. 51 no link.) 'North Korea has not yet tested a workable intercontinental ballistic missile, let alone one that could deliver a functioning nuclear warhead.'

So let us call a spade a spade. There is no strategic reason for North Korea to attack Australia even if it had the capacity to do so. The threat is being used by the national security state is being used to increase the level of anxiety within Australia. It is a deliberate political strategy of general alerts medium level threats, hostile dark worlds, hostile nation states.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 11:36 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack