What an eventful day of public transport happenings!
On my way to the city aboard the 412 bus, I squeezed into my seat. I wouldn’t say I’m much overweight but Sydney buses don’t make much space for large people. I sat beside a woman, showing appropriate disinterest. I immediately sensed she could have been cast as a nasty character in a Kath and Kim episode - miserable from the start. Can only guess why.
As we approached Central, she said “excuse me” and indicated she was about to alight. I closed the biography of Gandhi I was reading, picked up my backpack and swung my legs into the aisle. At the time this seemed a thoughtful thing to do. I was balancing the need to keep the aisle clear as lots of others were also leaving the bus at Central, while making space for my seated companion. She was unimpressed with my efforts.
She yelled “ stand up you idiot” in a gentle effort to persuade me that her passage would be made easier if I left my seat. I obliged, was shocked and somewhat amused and wished her a wonderful day. Perhaps Gandhi had rubbed off.
On the way home, Gandhi served me well again. This time the bus was so crowded there was barely standing room. I had my backpack and another shoulder bag which, added to my own bulk, was quite an imposition on the aisle space.
As I made my way down the aisle, a smallish Indian man in his late 50s (I’m 41) jumped from his seat and insisted I take it. He pleaded with me as he was so pleased I was reading about Gandhi. Only after a determined (but polite of course) refusal on my part, did the bald Indian man retreat back to his seat. Apart from minor wound and public embarrassment of being offered a seat by a man so much older, it was a moving scene. The other passengers were amused.
How wonderful I thought that this Indian man identified so much with the greatness of Gandhi. He was ecstatic that an Australian commuter might be reading about his country’s great hero. What a wonderful role model for a country to have. I wondered how I would respond in a crowded Indian bus if I saw a man reading of one of our heroes – Kerry Packer perhaps?
And what of my earlier encounter?
I have been reading Gandhi’s biography in fits and starts for about three months. Almost through it now. I think I’ll keep it on hand!
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
Monday, April 10, 2006
APPLE AT HEIGHT OF ITS POWER AND ARROGANCE
When a hard disc fails, what rights does a consumer have to recover data from the faulty drive? My recent experience with Apple came as a big surprise.
I’m a reformed Apple zealot. Like most Apple zealots, my passion for the company and its products was beyond good reason. Like an aggrieved former zealot, my contempt for the company and its practices now runs deep.
My story is fairly simple.
In October 2005, the hard drive in my Apple Powerbook G4 computer melted down in Ho Chi Minh City Vietnam – where I spend a lot of my time. I hoped beyond hope that the problem was software related and spent lots of time communicating with Apple service people in India via Skype. It became clear after a while that this was likely a hardware meltdown. The machine was a little over one year old but I’d purchased an optional three year warranty package known as Apple Care. All good apart from the immediate inconvenience – or so I thought.
After searching for an Apple service centre in Ho Chi Minh City unsuccessfully, I decided to defer the repair until I returned to Sydney where I purchased the machine. In Vietnam, there were plenty of people ready to sell Apple equipment, none it seemed were able to service them. The Apple website did not seem to offer any assistance in locating service centres either.
So back to Sydney I headed with dodgy computer in hand. On arrival, I dropped the machine at the Apple Centre Broadway. They advised shortly thereafter that the hard drive was dead. I paid for a 24 hour express diagnosis – who can wait for the repair of a work laptop?
After eight days or so, a new hard drive was installed (seemed like a long wait to me) and I then started to focus my attention on recovering data from the faulty drive. Problem was, I was due to head back to Vietnam right away.
I am fairly good with backup but I was concerned I may have lost some precious image files. It was worth it to run a recovery from my perspective to ensure that these weren’t lost.
I asked the service centre to see whether they could recover data. They instigated a recovery ($282.00) that failed to locate the data I was concerned about. By this time I was back in Vietnam and in a mild panic about potentially lost data.
Dino had previously recommended a professional data recovery centre specialising in extracting hard to access data from dodgy drives. I thought I should get hold of the drive and give this a go.
That’s when the trouble began.
Apple Broadway advised that I must purchase the dud drive at full commercial value of a new drive if I wanted to take possession of it. I was appalled. All I wanted was to recover my own data. Apple could have the drive back after that. The only value of the drive was my data. How could Apple charge me to access that? Wasn’t I an aggrieved customer already having experienced a failed drive 13 months after the purchase of my Powerbook G4? The drive had no other value. Surely that was my right?
Not according to Apple. If you want to access your drive, you need to buy it back! I only needed it for a week or so! Nup. I was told I had to purchase it.
Under duress from Vietnam, my prime concern was the data so after much protest, I passed over $374.00 to purchase the dodgy piece of hardware at the centre of the fiasco.
On my return to Australia in January, I decided to take this outrageous policy up with Apple. 3 months later, I have made no headway. The trail of correspondence is below if you have time to read it. I have spoken to four Customer Service people.
In essence then, if an Apple customer wants to recover data from a faulty Apple disc, even under warranty, that Apple customer must buy the faulty disc. Shocked? So was I.
POSTSCRIPT
After sending this story and all of the accompanying correspondence (7 long emails) and advising of my intentioning of taking legal action, Apple finally agreed to refund the cost of the disc - After 6 months and untold hours of squabbling. It shouldn't have been that hard. Shame on Apple!
I’m a reformed Apple zealot. Like most Apple zealots, my passion for the company and its products was beyond good reason. Like an aggrieved former zealot, my contempt for the company and its practices now runs deep.
My story is fairly simple.
In October 2005, the hard drive in my Apple Powerbook G4 computer melted down in Ho Chi Minh City Vietnam – where I spend a lot of my time. I hoped beyond hope that the problem was software related and spent lots of time communicating with Apple service people in India via Skype. It became clear after a while that this was likely a hardware meltdown. The machine was a little over one year old but I’d purchased an optional three year warranty package known as Apple Care. All good apart from the immediate inconvenience – or so I thought.
After searching for an Apple service centre in Ho Chi Minh City unsuccessfully, I decided to defer the repair until I returned to Sydney where I purchased the machine. In Vietnam, there were plenty of people ready to sell Apple equipment, none it seemed were able to service them. The Apple website did not seem to offer any assistance in locating service centres either.
So back to Sydney I headed with dodgy computer in hand. On arrival, I dropped the machine at the Apple Centre Broadway. They advised shortly thereafter that the hard drive was dead. I paid for a 24 hour express diagnosis – who can wait for the repair of a work laptop?
After eight days or so, a new hard drive was installed (seemed like a long wait to me) and I then started to focus my attention on recovering data from the faulty drive. Problem was, I was due to head back to Vietnam right away.
I am fairly good with backup but I was concerned I may have lost some precious image files. It was worth it to run a recovery from my perspective to ensure that these weren’t lost.
I asked the service centre to see whether they could recover data. They instigated a recovery ($282.00) that failed to locate the data I was concerned about. By this time I was back in Vietnam and in a mild panic about potentially lost data.
Dino had previously recommended a professional data recovery centre specialising in extracting hard to access data from dodgy drives. I thought I should get hold of the drive and give this a go.
That’s when the trouble began.
Apple Broadway advised that I must purchase the dud drive at full commercial value of a new drive if I wanted to take possession of it. I was appalled. All I wanted was to recover my own data. Apple could have the drive back after that. The only value of the drive was my data. How could Apple charge me to access that? Wasn’t I an aggrieved customer already having experienced a failed drive 13 months after the purchase of my Powerbook G4? The drive had no other value. Surely that was my right?
Not according to Apple. If you want to access your drive, you need to buy it back! I only needed it for a week or so! Nup. I was told I had to purchase it.
Under duress from Vietnam, my prime concern was the data so after much protest, I passed over $374.00 to purchase the dodgy piece of hardware at the centre of the fiasco.
On my return to Australia in January, I decided to take this outrageous policy up with Apple. 3 months later, I have made no headway. The trail of correspondence is below if you have time to read it. I have spoken to four Customer Service people.
In essence then, if an Apple customer wants to recover data from a faulty Apple disc, even under warranty, that Apple customer must buy the faulty disc. Shocked? So was I.
POSTSCRIPT
After sending this story and all of the accompanying correspondence (7 long emails) and advising of my intentioning of taking legal action, Apple finally agreed to refund the cost of the disc - After 6 months and untold hours of squabbling. It shouldn't have been that hard. Shame on Apple!
Thursday, April 06, 2006
BIG GOVERNMENT'S CHAMPIONS
It is one of the more exquisite ironies of our time. Messrs Bush, Blair and Howard spend a good part of their careers telling us that governments are very bad at doing things like providing health care, education, building public infrastructure etc etc. Small government is good government we are told. The private sector does things best. Governments invariably waste money and stuff things up.
Then they ask us to trust them and their governments with our most precious asset of all – our freedom.
Well sorry guys, I’m happy to entrust government with lots more involvement in health, education and transport – something you seem less interested in - but get your dirty hands off my hard earned freedoms.
Of course I didn’t earn my freedoms. I happily inherited them though. They were hard earned over many centuries by all kinds of people using all kinds of means. If they lived now, they’d be dismissed by the Right as members of a reviled “commentariat” – unionists, political activists academics and idle bods who think that government requires scrutiny and analysis and good governance is a permanent struggle.
It seems to me though that these guys brought us democracy, the rule of law, labour standards, free press etc etc.
So now we’ve reached the point where we’re headed backwards. So many simple but important values trashed in a few short years - habeas corpus, freedom of the press, access to information, right to a fair trial, rights of children to humane treatment, compassion for victims of torture and abuse – all diminished. Our small government guru Howard has extended government significantly – but only in the most pernicious liberty destroying way.
If you want a look at where this might all be going, the story of Bisher al-Rawi and Jamil al-Banna, extraordinarily rendited from Gambia in November 2002 gives some direction. They’ve received minimal coverage in Australia from what I can tell. I spotted their story in the SMH last week. Their case is in the UK courts and getting more press there.
These two guys were initially considered terrorist suspects when a suspicious device was found in their luggage at Gatwick Airport in the UK. They were later cleared by MI5, released and travelled on to Gambia to start a business. The suspicious device was found to be a souped up battery charger.
The CIA it seems received the initial data from MI5 without the subsequent clearance. They then dropped one of their special “extraordinary rendition” flights into Gambia and packed the two boys off to Guantanamo Bay where they have languished since.
How many other Guantanamo detainees have similar stories? How many terrorists have been created by the existence of Guantanamo? What of David Hicks? Whether Hicks is innocent or guilty, the Australian government’s refusal to defend his right to a proper judicial process is another of its countless gutless acts. Even our recent and beloved visitor Tony Blair insisted that British nationals be released from Guantanamo Bay. A request the US government accepted. None of them have been charged since.
Perhaps the most appalling thing about the war on terror has been the disposal of many of our great if imperfectly practiced legal traditions. This is not a wet plea for a kind and gentle approach to horrible crimes. No, it is based on a view that these traditions evolved not from nice soppy people that wanted to feel good about the way they treated their neighbours but that they are the best means for safe guarding the rights of all people. In turn they are the best hope against unjust or extremist government that leads to disaffected or victimised minorities who become the likely perpetrators of crimes against a state.
So why did we have September 11 when all of these rights were in some sense in tact? - Too many reasons to go into here. No level of “civilisation” or anti terror edicts will completely protect us. The question is whether we are safer or not because of extraordinary rendition, Guantanamo Bay, approval of torture and the dilution of our domestic freedoms?
Every time we lower the bar, we give energise extremists and dictators. Every new Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo story creates another terrorist for our diminished system to defeat.
British agents set men up for CIA detention http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/british-agents-set-men-up-for-cia-detention/2006/03/28/1143441149276.html
MI5 tip-off to CIA led to men's rendition http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,,1741076,00.html
Richard Ackland Innocence ignored at Guantanamo
http://smh.com.au/news/richard-ackland/innocence-ignored-at-guantanamo/2006/02/23/1140670202994.html
Then they ask us to trust them and their governments with our most precious asset of all – our freedom.
Well sorry guys, I’m happy to entrust government with lots more involvement in health, education and transport – something you seem less interested in - but get your dirty hands off my hard earned freedoms.
Of course I didn’t earn my freedoms. I happily inherited them though. They were hard earned over many centuries by all kinds of people using all kinds of means. If they lived now, they’d be dismissed by the Right as members of a reviled “commentariat” – unionists, political activists academics and idle bods who think that government requires scrutiny and analysis and good governance is a permanent struggle.
It seems to me though that these guys brought us democracy, the rule of law, labour standards, free press etc etc.
So now we’ve reached the point where we’re headed backwards. So many simple but important values trashed in a few short years - habeas corpus, freedom of the press, access to information, right to a fair trial, rights of children to humane treatment, compassion for victims of torture and abuse – all diminished. Our small government guru Howard has extended government significantly – but only in the most pernicious liberty destroying way.
If you want a look at where this might all be going, the story of Bisher al-Rawi and Jamil al-Banna, extraordinarily rendited from Gambia in November 2002 gives some direction. They’ve received minimal coverage in Australia from what I can tell. I spotted their story in the SMH last week. Their case is in the UK courts and getting more press there.
These two guys were initially considered terrorist suspects when a suspicious device was found in their luggage at Gatwick Airport in the UK. They were later cleared by MI5, released and travelled on to Gambia to start a business. The suspicious device was found to be a souped up battery charger.
The CIA it seems received the initial data from MI5 without the subsequent clearance. They then dropped one of their special “extraordinary rendition” flights into Gambia and packed the two boys off to Guantanamo Bay where they have languished since.
How many other Guantanamo detainees have similar stories? How many terrorists have been created by the existence of Guantanamo? What of David Hicks? Whether Hicks is innocent or guilty, the Australian government’s refusal to defend his right to a proper judicial process is another of its countless gutless acts. Even our recent and beloved visitor Tony Blair insisted that British nationals be released from Guantanamo Bay. A request the US government accepted. None of them have been charged since.
Perhaps the most appalling thing about the war on terror has been the disposal of many of our great if imperfectly practiced legal traditions. This is not a wet plea for a kind and gentle approach to horrible crimes. No, it is based on a view that these traditions evolved not from nice soppy people that wanted to feel good about the way they treated their neighbours but that they are the best means for safe guarding the rights of all people. In turn they are the best hope against unjust or extremist government that leads to disaffected or victimised minorities who become the likely perpetrators of crimes against a state.
So why did we have September 11 when all of these rights were in some sense in tact? - Too many reasons to go into here. No level of “civilisation” or anti terror edicts will completely protect us. The question is whether we are safer or not because of extraordinary rendition, Guantanamo Bay, approval of torture and the dilution of our domestic freedoms?
Every time we lower the bar, we give energise extremists and dictators. Every new Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo story creates another terrorist for our diminished system to defeat.
British agents set men up for CIA detention http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/british-agents-set-men-up-for-cia-detention/2006/03/28/1143441149276.html
MI5 tip-off to CIA led to men's rendition http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,,1741076,00.html
Richard Ackland Innocence ignored at Guantanamo
http://smh.com.au/news/richard-ackland/innocence-ignored-at-guantanamo/2006/02/23/1140670202994.html
Wednesday, April 05, 2006
SOME SUBSTANCE PLEASE GREG AND MIRANDA
The recent third anniversary of the invasion of Iraq by US and coalition forces revealed the woeful state of conservative opinion writing in Australia.
I collect my media in a haphazard way here in Saigon. Sometimes I read opinion on the internet. More often I manage to pick up second hand editions of The Australian, the SMH or the Financial Review from the newspaper boys on Dong Khoi St. It was this random process that availed me of the following pieces marking the third anniversary of the invasion of Iraq – Greg Sheridan’s “The Iraq War is a noble cause” 23 March, Miranda Devine’s “From Iraq’s front line, it looks like the media has lost the plot”.
If you’re familiar with these columnists, you could probably predict their positions on the Iraq war. Sheridan and Devine are dependable defenders of the Howard universe and supporters of the Iraq adventure. Their two pieces seemed, with precious little supporting data, to expect us to trust that all would be OK in Iraq and that it is a just and necessary campaign. Both writers fail to address the key arguments posed by the war’s opponents. Nor do they provide accurate accounts of the current realities.
The Sheridan and Devine pieces demonstrate the truly low quality of conservative opinion writing in Australia – predetermined partisan party political positions with facts tailored to fit. The referenced pieces exemplify the appalling lack of intellectual discipline and rigour that characterises most conservative writing.
I have frequently marvelled at Greg Sheridan’s capacity to hold down the Foreign Editor’s job at our only national daily while rarely if ever exhibiting incisive or fresh analysis. He gushes when referring to his heroes Howard, Blair, Downer, Bush, Wolfowitz, (past) et. al. There is a palpable childish excitement in his writing. (Take a look at this piece following Blair’s vist http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,18646472%255E25377,00.html. )
He favours the US invasion of Iraq (perhaps it’s best referred to as past policy as it has few advocates today) far more than most US Republican members of Congress not to mention Democrats or the US people.
The core premise of Sheridan’s piece is that despite an appallingly executed post military campaign, “the Iraq War was the right war against the right enemy at the right time waged for broadly the right reasons.” He contends that there was no viable alternative but war. While Bush, Blair and Howard have retrospectively appropriated the “bring democracy to Iraq” rationale, Sheridan posits that Saddam’s desire to acquire nuclear and chemical weapons and to dominate the Middle East was in itself sufficient justification for war. His total incapacity to realise his fantasies is of no consequence. Harbouring the fantasies alone it seems was a sufficient cause for war.
It is logical that Sheridan should be arguing for a more urgent military campaign against a more menacing and much emboldened Iran not to mention North Korea. He does not endeavour to apply his dodgy justification for war to other international trouble spots however.
That Sheridan can make his grand case for the Iraq War without addressing the consequential strengthening of Iran drains his piece of any credibility.
Sheridan’s work always reads as though it has been written to please his US and Australian foreign policy mates. He shows just how out of step he is though when he concludes “Perhaps that makes me a neo conservative. So be it.”
Neo conservatism is on the nose the world over . Condi is doing her best to wind back the failed approach. If The Australian is a mainstream newspaper, is it appropriate that its foreign editor be a self avowed neo conservative? Imagine the outrage if a leftist equivalent, say Noam Chomsky, was appointed Foreign Editor! Where’s Gerard Henderson’s outrage at the extremist infiltration of our newspapers?
The low point of Sheridan’s piece is when he poses the question “Is it wrong that Iraqis vote?”. The suggestion that opponents of the war have an ideological objection to Iraqi or Middle Eastern democracy echoes Howard and Downer nicely but is not worthy of someone purporting to argue seriously about the pros and cons of the war. Pathetic!
The nice thing about Miranda Devine’s piece is that it doesn’t even attempt to present a coherent, fact based position. She asks us to trust that things in Iraq are OK as a friend of hers working in the Green Zone has told her so. Near the end of her piece that is typically disjointed, Devine suggests“ The anti war protesters who are picketing Rice might try having more faith in the Iraqis and the brave soldiers like my friend who are supporting them.” Of course there is no connection between protesting against the war and having faith in Iraqis or admiration for soldiers in the front line. These connections, like the one made by Sheridan are cheap, dishonest and intellectually untenable.
According to Devine, the media is painting an inaccurate picture and the reality is much brighter. We should be assured things are going quite well in Iraq because Devine’s friend has told her so. How so? How can the Iraq disaster be overstated?
It occurs to me the media does not sufficiently report on the depths of the disaster.
The media gives coverage to events deemed visually interesting like car bombings, mosque bombings and the various atrocities committed by Islamic terrorists and sectarian militias and the Abu Ghraib abuses. None of these are pretty stories to be sure. The reality may be worse. Any wider reading on Iraq paints an even more disturbing picture that is inexplicably ignored in the Sheridan and Devine analysis and rarely featured in any media coverage of the war. Some thoughts that come to mind –
• The enormous loss of military and civilian lives.
• The creation of a jihadist magnet and a fulfilment of an Al Qaeda dream by seemingly validating claims of US imperial ambition in the Middle East.
• The emboldening of Iran through the creation of a great Shia sphere of influence.
• Enabling the flourishing of sectarianism that threatens to descend into civil war.
• The weakening of US military esteem and capability as well as the dilution of the standards of proof required to justify military action.
• The failure to assemble a true coalition of modern democratic powers.
• An enormous diversion of military and financial resources that may have been put to any number of more effective uses. Some current estimates put the likely cost of the Iraq war at 2 trillion USD. Original Pentagon estimates expected the war to cost around 50 billion USD. (Australia has spent around 1.5 billion AUD in Iraq so far.)
In the US and the UK, the Iraq debate has transcended party politicking. Some of the most vigorous critics of the war are Republicans or Conservatives and senior military people. Take a look at Condi’s mentor and Bush senior National Security Advisor, Brent Scowcroft’s views on the war, or former Middle East Envoy and CENTCOM Commander, General Anthony Zinni who has just weighed into the debate again demanding the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld for incompetence. Zinni’s work is especially compelling. His critique before the war has been largely vindicated and his comments since are persuasive. His experience in the Middle East is extensive and he is a respected member of the US military establishment. Sorry Greg, his work seems to be more credible than yours.
http://www.cdi.org/friendlyversion/printversion.cfm?documentID=2208&from_page=../program/document.cfm
He comprehensively despatches Sheridan’s dismal arguments.
As with most major issues facing Australia, the quality of the debate on the conservative side is woeful. Defenders of the war like Sheridan and Devine trot out their spurious facts and leave the hard parts out altogether. There is no wide dissent from the establishment as there is in the US on the Iraq war or much else. Howard walks from scandal to scandal without a bruise. That can’t be a good thing in democracy.
Some interesting pieces that demonstrate the emptiness of the Sheridan / Devine position –
Thomas L. Friedman: Iraq at the 11th hour http://iht.nytimes.com/protected/articles/2006/03/31/opinion/edfried.php
Gen. Anthony Zinni, USMC, (Ret.) Remarks at CDI Board of Directors Dinner, May 12, 2004
http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?DocumentID=2208
BREAKING RANKS
What turned Brent Scowcroft against the Bush Administration?
by JEFFREY GOLDBERG
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/051031fa_fact2
Tony Walker and Brian Toohey also had very interesting pieces on Iraq in the Australian Financial Review on 18 March 2006. It is hard to believe they’re righting about the same conflict as Devine and Sheridan.
I collect my media in a haphazard way here in Saigon. Sometimes I read opinion on the internet. More often I manage to pick up second hand editions of The Australian, the SMH or the Financial Review from the newspaper boys on Dong Khoi St. It was this random process that availed me of the following pieces marking the third anniversary of the invasion of Iraq – Greg Sheridan’s “The Iraq War is a noble cause” 23 March, Miranda Devine’s “From Iraq’s front line, it looks like the media has lost the plot”.
If you’re familiar with these columnists, you could probably predict their positions on the Iraq war. Sheridan and Devine are dependable defenders of the Howard universe and supporters of the Iraq adventure. Their two pieces seemed, with precious little supporting data, to expect us to trust that all would be OK in Iraq and that it is a just and necessary campaign. Both writers fail to address the key arguments posed by the war’s opponents. Nor do they provide accurate accounts of the current realities.
The Sheridan and Devine pieces demonstrate the truly low quality of conservative opinion writing in Australia – predetermined partisan party political positions with facts tailored to fit. The referenced pieces exemplify the appalling lack of intellectual discipline and rigour that characterises most conservative writing.
I have frequently marvelled at Greg Sheridan’s capacity to hold down the Foreign Editor’s job at our only national daily while rarely if ever exhibiting incisive or fresh analysis. He gushes when referring to his heroes Howard, Blair, Downer, Bush, Wolfowitz, (past) et. al. There is a palpable childish excitement in his writing. (Take a look at this piece following Blair’s vist http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,18646472%255E25377,00.html. )
He favours the US invasion of Iraq (perhaps it’s best referred to as past policy as it has few advocates today) far more than most US Republican members of Congress not to mention Democrats or the US people.
The core premise of Sheridan’s piece is that despite an appallingly executed post military campaign, “the Iraq War was the right war against the right enemy at the right time waged for broadly the right reasons.” He contends that there was no viable alternative but war. While Bush, Blair and Howard have retrospectively appropriated the “bring democracy to Iraq” rationale, Sheridan posits that Saddam’s desire to acquire nuclear and chemical weapons and to dominate the Middle East was in itself sufficient justification for war. His total incapacity to realise his fantasies is of no consequence. Harbouring the fantasies alone it seems was a sufficient cause for war.
It is logical that Sheridan should be arguing for a more urgent military campaign against a more menacing and much emboldened Iran not to mention North Korea. He does not endeavour to apply his dodgy justification for war to other international trouble spots however.
That Sheridan can make his grand case for the Iraq War without addressing the consequential strengthening of Iran drains his piece of any credibility.
Sheridan’s work always reads as though it has been written to please his US and Australian foreign policy mates. He shows just how out of step he is though when he concludes “Perhaps that makes me a neo conservative. So be it.”
Neo conservatism is on the nose the world over . Condi is doing her best to wind back the failed approach. If The Australian is a mainstream newspaper, is it appropriate that its foreign editor be a self avowed neo conservative? Imagine the outrage if a leftist equivalent, say Noam Chomsky, was appointed Foreign Editor! Where’s Gerard Henderson’s outrage at the extremist infiltration of our newspapers?
The low point of Sheridan’s piece is when he poses the question “Is it wrong that Iraqis vote?”. The suggestion that opponents of the war have an ideological objection to Iraqi or Middle Eastern democracy echoes Howard and Downer nicely but is not worthy of someone purporting to argue seriously about the pros and cons of the war. Pathetic!
The nice thing about Miranda Devine’s piece is that it doesn’t even attempt to present a coherent, fact based position. She asks us to trust that things in Iraq are OK as a friend of hers working in the Green Zone has told her so. Near the end of her piece that is typically disjointed, Devine suggests“ The anti war protesters who are picketing Rice might try having more faith in the Iraqis and the brave soldiers like my friend who are supporting them.” Of course there is no connection between protesting against the war and having faith in Iraqis or admiration for soldiers in the front line. These connections, like the one made by Sheridan are cheap, dishonest and intellectually untenable.
According to Devine, the media is painting an inaccurate picture and the reality is much brighter. We should be assured things are going quite well in Iraq because Devine’s friend has told her so. How so? How can the Iraq disaster be overstated?
It occurs to me the media does not sufficiently report on the depths of the disaster.
The media gives coverage to events deemed visually interesting like car bombings, mosque bombings and the various atrocities committed by Islamic terrorists and sectarian militias and the Abu Ghraib abuses. None of these are pretty stories to be sure. The reality may be worse. Any wider reading on Iraq paints an even more disturbing picture that is inexplicably ignored in the Sheridan and Devine analysis and rarely featured in any media coverage of the war. Some thoughts that come to mind –
• The enormous loss of military and civilian lives.
• The creation of a jihadist magnet and a fulfilment of an Al Qaeda dream by seemingly validating claims of US imperial ambition in the Middle East.
• The emboldening of Iran through the creation of a great Shia sphere of influence.
• Enabling the flourishing of sectarianism that threatens to descend into civil war.
• The weakening of US military esteem and capability as well as the dilution of the standards of proof required to justify military action.
• The failure to assemble a true coalition of modern democratic powers.
• An enormous diversion of military and financial resources that may have been put to any number of more effective uses. Some current estimates put the likely cost of the Iraq war at 2 trillion USD. Original Pentagon estimates expected the war to cost around 50 billion USD. (Australia has spent around 1.5 billion AUD in Iraq so far.)
In the US and the UK, the Iraq debate has transcended party politicking. Some of the most vigorous critics of the war are Republicans or Conservatives and senior military people. Take a look at Condi’s mentor and Bush senior National Security Advisor, Brent Scowcroft’s views on the war, or former Middle East Envoy and CENTCOM Commander, General Anthony Zinni who has just weighed into the debate again demanding the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld for incompetence. Zinni’s work is especially compelling. His critique before the war has been largely vindicated and his comments since are persuasive. His experience in the Middle East is extensive and he is a respected member of the US military establishment. Sorry Greg, his work seems to be more credible than yours.
http://www.cdi.org/friendlyversion/printversion.cfm?documentID=2208&from_page=../program/document.cfm
He comprehensively despatches Sheridan’s dismal arguments.
As with most major issues facing Australia, the quality of the debate on the conservative side is woeful. Defenders of the war like Sheridan and Devine trot out their spurious facts and leave the hard parts out altogether. There is no wide dissent from the establishment as there is in the US on the Iraq war or much else. Howard walks from scandal to scandal without a bruise. That can’t be a good thing in democracy.
Some interesting pieces that demonstrate the emptiness of the Sheridan / Devine position –
Thomas L. Friedman: Iraq at the 11th hour http://iht.nytimes.com/protected/articles/2006/03/31/opinion/edfried.php
Gen. Anthony Zinni, USMC, (Ret.) Remarks at CDI Board of Directors Dinner, May 12, 2004
http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?DocumentID=2208
BREAKING RANKS
What turned Brent Scowcroft against the Bush Administration?
by JEFFREY GOLDBERG
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/051031fa_fact2
Tony Walker and Brian Toohey also had very interesting pieces on Iraq in the Australian Financial Review on 18 March 2006. It is hard to believe they’re righting about the same conflict as Devine and Sheridan.
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
PACKER'S PASSING
24 FEBRUARY 2006
The best thing about leaving Sydney on Wednesday 15th February to return to Vietnam was that it ensured I was away for the Packer memorial on the 17th and all the associated nonsense.
So much has been written about Packer that there is perhaps not a lot to add. I’ll have a shot though.
Packer’s shameless and ruthless exercise of political power has been widely discussed. The funeral line up of political, business, sporting and entertainment luminaries led by a fawning John Howard was evidence of the broad reach of Packer power.
So what else was there to this man?
Presumably to know his best attributes, you’d refer to his great admirers. Alan Jones clearly had the family’s endorsement. He was the MC at the Memorial Service after all. So what did he say?
In his Packer obituary published in the Sydney Morning Herald on 28 December, Jones’s obsequious portrait failed in its desperate efforts to create a legend. Jones recounts two of the classic Packer anecdotes. One concerned his bullying rants at a 1991 parliamentary enquiry where Packer “marvelled” at the fact that people pay tax at all given “the way politicians wasted it”.
The other was the tale of the huge tip given to pub staff in England to spite another establishment down the road where Packer had been refused service because they were closed. The tip we’re told was conditional on the enriched advising their unfortunate neighbours of Mr Packer’s pathetic use of his largesse.
No, nothing endearing about these portraits yet they are thrown around by Jones to demonstrate what a great bloke old KP was.
The reality is that they both reveal what a singularly unattractive persona we are choosing to lionise.
The Parliamentary enquiry performance revealed a man utterly contemptuous of the system that provided the infrastructure for his extraordinary accumulation of wealth. It may be a boring point to make but the Packers, the Pratts, the Singletons and every other wealthy person in the country depend on the education, health, judicial,transport and other infrastructure to do anything. These things happen to be funded by the tax system. It may be an imperfect system, but I did not see Packer presenting any worthwhile alternatives. Nor it seems did he go to any lengths apart from selective acts of benevolence to replenish the tax system for its contribution to his success.
Another oft recited Packer anecdote concerned his tacky proposal “I’ll toss you for it” when colliding with someone who’d won millions in a casino. This tale is especially grotesque and speaks only of complacent billionaire deluded by his material achievements and ready to show them off in the most tacky fashion.
Nothing of the humble, straight talking, modest down to earth Aussie bloke that those beholden to the big fella - who are now writing or rewriting his history - are attempting to overlay on the more apparent reality.
Perhaps the most interesting point about all of this is alluded to in former Packer man, Richard Walsh’s piece on the big man in the Herald today. The celebration of Packer tells the story of Australia’s power elites and where they’re at - especially the Howard government and its values. Howard has embraced the Packer legacy like no other since he became Prime Minister. Horrifying. I’m not sure whether Packer adoration flows into the wider community. Certainly Packer interest runs very high. I know that from talking with newsagents around Sydney about sales of the Packer memorial edition of the Bulletin magazine. It’s been reproduced repeatedly and must have injected a new sense of purpose into the moribund weekly.
I have another big beef with Packer though. It’s about casinos.
I frequently ponder which entrepreneur gets to take the moral high ground when the casino operator, the brothel operator, the porn peddlar and the drug runner come together. I don’t have an easy answer. The drug runner is breaking the law of course. But the social costs of gambling are very high - surely on a par with drug abuse? Casino operators gain respectability from the exclusive nature of their licenses and the huge amounts of money they pour into government coffers. Despite the money and glamour, it is a tawdry business by any measure preying on the desperate. Its operators do not deserve to hold esteemed positions in society. The Packers have increasingly viewed the gambling industry to be the future source of their wealth. Little recent attention has been given to this critical feature of the Packer empire. We’ve preferred to focus on his media and sporting business exploits.
So Kerry, don’t take any of this personally, after all I didn’t know you. I’m sure the affection expressed by your close friends and family is sometimes genuine - especially from those whose financial or political well-being was not connected to your empire. You may even have been a nice bloke. No, this piece is directed more at ourselves, our media and power elites and our polticians. You did what you did. We should view it for what it was.
Our country needs much better role models than you if we’re going to manage the challenges of this century. And we’re going to need to be measuring value using instruments more sophisticated than the size of someone’s bank account or the length of the trail of fawning politicians they leave. Let’s hope some better role models are out there!
The best thing about leaving Sydney on Wednesday 15th February to return to Vietnam was that it ensured I was away for the Packer memorial on the 17th and all the associated nonsense.
So much has been written about Packer that there is perhaps not a lot to add. I’ll have a shot though.
Packer’s shameless and ruthless exercise of political power has been widely discussed. The funeral line up of political, business, sporting and entertainment luminaries led by a fawning John Howard was evidence of the broad reach of Packer power.
So what else was there to this man?
Presumably to know his best attributes, you’d refer to his great admirers. Alan Jones clearly had the family’s endorsement. He was the MC at the Memorial Service after all. So what did he say?
In his Packer obituary published in the Sydney Morning Herald on 28 December, Jones’s obsequious portrait failed in its desperate efforts to create a legend. Jones recounts two of the classic Packer anecdotes. One concerned his bullying rants at a 1991 parliamentary enquiry where Packer “marvelled” at the fact that people pay tax at all given “the way politicians wasted it”.
The other was the tale of the huge tip given to pub staff in England to spite another establishment down the road where Packer had been refused service because they were closed. The tip we’re told was conditional on the enriched advising their unfortunate neighbours of Mr Packer’s pathetic use of his largesse.
No, nothing endearing about these portraits yet they are thrown around by Jones to demonstrate what a great bloke old KP was.
The reality is that they both reveal what a singularly unattractive persona we are choosing to lionise.
The Parliamentary enquiry performance revealed a man utterly contemptuous of the system that provided the infrastructure for his extraordinary accumulation of wealth. It may be a boring point to make but the Packers, the Pratts, the Singletons and every other wealthy person in the country depend on the education, health, judicial,transport and other infrastructure to do anything. These things happen to be funded by the tax system. It may be an imperfect system, but I did not see Packer presenting any worthwhile alternatives. Nor it seems did he go to any lengths apart from selective acts of benevolence to replenish the tax system for its contribution to his success.
Another oft recited Packer anecdote concerned his tacky proposal “I’ll toss you for it” when colliding with someone who’d won millions in a casino. This tale is especially grotesque and speaks only of complacent billionaire deluded by his material achievements and ready to show them off in the most tacky fashion.
Nothing of the humble, straight talking, modest down to earth Aussie bloke that those beholden to the big fella - who are now writing or rewriting his history - are attempting to overlay on the more apparent reality.
Perhaps the most interesting point about all of this is alluded to in former Packer man, Richard Walsh’s piece on the big man in the Herald today. The celebration of Packer tells the story of Australia’s power elites and where they’re at - especially the Howard government and its values. Howard has embraced the Packer legacy like no other since he became Prime Minister. Horrifying. I’m not sure whether Packer adoration flows into the wider community. Certainly Packer interest runs very high. I know that from talking with newsagents around Sydney about sales of the Packer memorial edition of the Bulletin magazine. It’s been reproduced repeatedly and must have injected a new sense of purpose into the moribund weekly.
I have another big beef with Packer though. It’s about casinos.
I frequently ponder which entrepreneur gets to take the moral high ground when the casino operator, the brothel operator, the porn peddlar and the drug runner come together. I don’t have an easy answer. The drug runner is breaking the law of course. But the social costs of gambling are very high - surely on a par with drug abuse? Casino operators gain respectability from the exclusive nature of their licenses and the huge amounts of money they pour into government coffers. Despite the money and glamour, it is a tawdry business by any measure preying on the desperate. Its operators do not deserve to hold esteemed positions in society. The Packers have increasingly viewed the gambling industry to be the future source of their wealth. Little recent attention has been given to this critical feature of the Packer empire. We’ve preferred to focus on his media and sporting business exploits.
So Kerry, don’t take any of this personally, after all I didn’t know you. I’m sure the affection expressed by your close friends and family is sometimes genuine - especially from those whose financial or political well-being was not connected to your empire. You may even have been a nice bloke. No, this piece is directed more at ourselves, our media and power elites and our polticians. You did what you did. We should view it for what it was.
Our country needs much better role models than you if we’re going to manage the challenges of this century. And we’re going to need to be measuring value using instruments more sophisticated than the size of someone’s bank account or the length of the trail of fawning politicians they leave. Let’s hope some better role models are out there!
WAR WITHOUT COST
2 MARCH 2006
As Iraq experiences its most ugly chaos since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, Australia’s role in the whole sorry saga seems more surreal than ever.
Iraq is Australia’s Clayton’s war - the war you have when you’re not having a war. But we are at war and for the Iraqis at least, the consequences of that war are profoundly real.
I have long been fascinated by Australia’s role in Iraq, its media coverage and its political impact.
George Bush’s popularity is at an all time low. Tony Blair’s legacy is irreversibly stained in the Labour Party, Britain and the world. The lies and mismanagement of the Iraq War are the main political baggage weighing down these two leaders.
John Howard meanwhile celebrates ten years of office with no significant political fallout from his decision to involve Australia in the Iraq tragedy - nor for his propagation of lies to support our involvement. Iraq will hardly rate a mention as we review the past 10 years.
There is no better demonstration of our sickly democracy than this. Australia went to war for a lie, the war is a mismanaged disaster and our Prime Minister barely has to answer for his role in the tragedy.
Australia’s involvement in Iraq is of course much smaller than that of the UK and US. We have fortunately been spared combat casualties as well. Nonetheless, the symbolism of our membership of the coalition is important internationally and our contribution on a per capita basis is substantial.
A review of US and UK media reveals that Bush and Blair are brought to account for their Iraq decisions on a daily basis. Both the media and opposition largely spare Howard any Iraq based discomfort however.
Why so?
I would suggest four reasons -
1. An Easy War - Iraq may be hell for Iraqis, Americans and Brits but it seems we are able to wage war there without loss of life. This is not discredit the bravery of those who are serving there. Nor does it suggest that theirs is an easy or safe lot. No, the easy lot is for the government that sent our troops to Iraq and the Australians who elected that government that rise each day without a moment of thought for our complicity in the mess.
The Australian news is fascinating. Most reporting seems to assume that Australia is not even engaged in the conflict. The government is rarely required to explain a strategy or purpose. Reporting on Iraq, usually by foreign agencies, never connects with Australia’s presence there and certainly never presents any Australian position on strategic or other matters. Despite watching the news and reading the papers avidly, I cannot name the place where Australians are serving. Nor have I seen any pictures or footage of Australians in action. I assume the same is the case for the rest of Australia.
So far at least, for Australia and the Howard government, it’s been an easy war. Let’s hope it stays that way for our troops.
2. A compliant media - Australia’s media seems largely happy with the government’s performance on Iraq. There are exceptions of course. The commentators you would expect to dissent do.
The contrast with the US and UK press is striking. In these countries, the connection between US and UK policy and the Iraq War is implicit in reporting. Rising casualties and large and influential progressive media in these countries ensures that Iraq remains in public consciousness.
Led by the New York Times and the Washington Post, the progressive US media still plays a big part in agenda setting. A raft of magazines like the New Yorker, Harpers and Vanity Fair provide in depth reporting on the issues. Even the CBS and NBC television anchors still have a degree of missionary zeal in their presentations. The US blog network is also proving a highly effective political force with some blogs attracting audiences bigger than city newspapers. Check out crooksandliars.com or dailykos.com
Progressive talk back and comedy shows like The Daily Show also ensure the general population gets some critical appraisal of the war.
Our own Rupert is there of course waving the flag for W on the popular FOX network.
In the UK, the classic stalwarts, The Guardian and the BBC ensure that the government remains accountable. The Conservative press doesn’t mind putting the boot into Labour over its war either.
In Australia, well nothing much happens at all. With the exception of the opinion pages, progressive press (SMH and AGE) has gone lifestyle. The ABC struggles on against the odds but is increasingly cowed by the government.
Meanwhile, the press that actually penetrates the wide community - Channels 7 an 9 news and current affairs, talk back radio and the tabloids maintain the illusion that Iraq is a far away war being fought by Americans and Brits.
Rupert Murdoch’s support for the war is widely known and this view is reflected in most news and editorial writing in his publications.
3. A dead opposition - Labor is a disaster. Kim can’t spend his time trying to out Howard Howard on most security and defence issues and then mark out a meaningful Iraq policy. Latham and Crean both lucidly and credibly opposed the war and took firm policy positions. Kim’s views on Iraq have dissolved into the noise of his general ramblings. Once again he fails to pack a punch.
4. You and I - Maybe this should come top of the list. I’m gradually accepting the idea that you can’t just blame the Howard government, the media and the opposition for the political mess we have in Australia at present. No, it’s a reflection of who we are. Australians have traded many of the values of our nation for their mortgages and economic prosperity. It won’t stay this way. But that’s the way it is for now. Nobody really cares about Australia’s role in Iraq - providing our economic and security comfort zones aren’t impacted.
But that’s where the complacency will end. Despite appearances, our participation in Iraq is not without consequences. Any honest analyst from Mick Keelty down (that has not been muzzled by the PM) confirms that our presence in Iraq increases the risk of terrorist attacks against Australians. Common sense would arrive at the same conclusion. And this is a war that was concocted only on a lie to make us safe.
As Iraq experiences its most ugly chaos since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, Australia’s role in the whole sorry saga seems more surreal than ever.
Iraq is Australia’s Clayton’s war - the war you have when you’re not having a war. But we are at war and for the Iraqis at least, the consequences of that war are profoundly real.
I have long been fascinated by Australia’s role in Iraq, its media coverage and its political impact.
George Bush’s popularity is at an all time low. Tony Blair’s legacy is irreversibly stained in the Labour Party, Britain and the world. The lies and mismanagement of the Iraq War are the main political baggage weighing down these two leaders.
John Howard meanwhile celebrates ten years of office with no significant political fallout from his decision to involve Australia in the Iraq tragedy - nor for his propagation of lies to support our involvement. Iraq will hardly rate a mention as we review the past 10 years.
There is no better demonstration of our sickly democracy than this. Australia went to war for a lie, the war is a mismanaged disaster and our Prime Minister barely has to answer for his role in the tragedy.
Australia’s involvement in Iraq is of course much smaller than that of the UK and US. We have fortunately been spared combat casualties as well. Nonetheless, the symbolism of our membership of the coalition is important internationally and our contribution on a per capita basis is substantial.
A review of US and UK media reveals that Bush and Blair are brought to account for their Iraq decisions on a daily basis. Both the media and opposition largely spare Howard any Iraq based discomfort however.
Why so?
I would suggest four reasons -
1. An Easy War - Iraq may be hell for Iraqis, Americans and Brits but it seems we are able to wage war there without loss of life. This is not discredit the bravery of those who are serving there. Nor does it suggest that theirs is an easy or safe lot. No, the easy lot is for the government that sent our troops to Iraq and the Australians who elected that government that rise each day without a moment of thought for our complicity in the mess.
The Australian news is fascinating. Most reporting seems to assume that Australia is not even engaged in the conflict. The government is rarely required to explain a strategy or purpose. Reporting on Iraq, usually by foreign agencies, never connects with Australia’s presence there and certainly never presents any Australian position on strategic or other matters. Despite watching the news and reading the papers avidly, I cannot name the place where Australians are serving. Nor have I seen any pictures or footage of Australians in action. I assume the same is the case for the rest of Australia.
So far at least, for Australia and the Howard government, it’s been an easy war. Let’s hope it stays that way for our troops.
2. A compliant media - Australia’s media seems largely happy with the government’s performance on Iraq. There are exceptions of course. The commentators you would expect to dissent do.
The contrast with the US and UK press is striking. In these countries, the connection between US and UK policy and the Iraq War is implicit in reporting. Rising casualties and large and influential progressive media in these countries ensures that Iraq remains in public consciousness.
Led by the New York Times and the Washington Post, the progressive US media still plays a big part in agenda setting. A raft of magazines like the New Yorker, Harpers and Vanity Fair provide in depth reporting on the issues. Even the CBS and NBC television anchors still have a degree of missionary zeal in their presentations. The US blog network is also proving a highly effective political force with some blogs attracting audiences bigger than city newspapers. Check out crooksandliars.com or dailykos.com
Progressive talk back and comedy shows like The Daily Show also ensure the general population gets some critical appraisal of the war.
Our own Rupert is there of course waving the flag for W on the popular FOX network.
In the UK, the classic stalwarts, The Guardian and the BBC ensure that the government remains accountable. The Conservative press doesn’t mind putting the boot into Labour over its war either.
In Australia, well nothing much happens at all. With the exception of the opinion pages, progressive press (SMH and AGE) has gone lifestyle. The ABC struggles on against the odds but is increasingly cowed by the government.
Meanwhile, the press that actually penetrates the wide community - Channels 7 an 9 news and current affairs, talk back radio and the tabloids maintain the illusion that Iraq is a far away war being fought by Americans and Brits.
Rupert Murdoch’s support for the war is widely known and this view is reflected in most news and editorial writing in his publications.
3. A dead opposition - Labor is a disaster. Kim can’t spend his time trying to out Howard Howard on most security and defence issues and then mark out a meaningful Iraq policy. Latham and Crean both lucidly and credibly opposed the war and took firm policy positions. Kim’s views on Iraq have dissolved into the noise of his general ramblings. Once again he fails to pack a punch.
4. You and I - Maybe this should come top of the list. I’m gradually accepting the idea that you can’t just blame the Howard government, the media and the opposition for the political mess we have in Australia at present. No, it’s a reflection of who we are. Australians have traded many of the values of our nation for their mortgages and economic prosperity. It won’t stay this way. But that’s the way it is for now. Nobody really cares about Australia’s role in Iraq - providing our economic and security comfort zones aren’t impacted.
But that’s where the complacency will end. Despite appearances, our participation in Iraq is not without consequences. Any honest analyst from Mick Keelty down (that has not been muzzled by the PM) confirms that our presence in Iraq increases the risk of terrorist attacks against Australians. Common sense would arrive at the same conclusion. And this is a war that was concocted only on a lie to make us safe.
CHINA SYNDROME
7 MARCH 2006
Condoleezza Rice’s current visit to Australia comes at a time when the United States is reassessing the global implications of China’s rise. The reassessment is long overdue as it is in Australia.
John Howard has lulled much of Australia into a political coma with strong economic performance and the promise of a relaxed and comfortable time. The Chinese government has seduced its own people and the world into a similar uncritical state with staggering economic development and a promise that (nearly) everyone can have a share. Few want to look hard at the implications.
Australians may be feeling relaxed and comfortable but some agitation might be in order. China’s rise should be one source. China’s achievements during the past twenty years have been staggering. Beneath the incredible economic performance are amazing human achievements. The Chinese have engineered the greatest poverty alleviation programme in history. The redirection of policy led by Deng Xiaoping following the death of Mao has transformed hundreds of millions of lives from dire squalor.
The Chinese aren’t just richer either. They’re undoubtedly more free as well. Free to have a shot at cashing in on the country’s economic bonanza, free to enjoy a restricted internet, free to enjoy international travel, free to enjoy increasing but still limited opportunities for expressing political views. Chinese people have dramatically more control over their lives today than they did twenty years ago.
All in all it’s a very positive story of progress - albeit from a horrible base. Life for the Chinese through the 50s, 60s and 70s was truly dire (in fact it was pretty awful for most Chinese during the hundred years that preceded Communism as well). It remains pretty bleak for hundreds of millions of rural poor.
The rub is that until now, we’ve been viewing China as a nation on its own development mission with upside for our own economy but with little possible downside - notwithstanding occasional verbal skirmishes with the Taiwanese.
That’s we’re we’ve been wrong.
China’s continuing rise in the coming twenty years will be a fraught and complex affair. Some of the signals of where we are headed are already visible.
China’s impact is now moving beyond economics. China’s economic power is starting to naturally manifest politically.
The first territory for the battle has been in the all important internet and technology sectors. Some of the world’s major technology companies, Google, Microsoft, Cisco and Yahoo have all seriously compromised their products in order to ensure no offence is caused to the Chinese government. Microsoft and Cisco sell products to the Chinese that support “the Great Firewall of China”. Most appallingly though, in 2005, Yahoo volunteered private email correspondence to the Chinese government that resulted in the imprisonment of three Chinese dissidents (see www.booyahoo.blogspot.com).
If China is able to exercise significant influence in the corporate world now, what lies ahead? Especially as the barriers between technology and media companies collapse? Will a China two or three times more powerful economically than it currently is be shaping the way we live in the West as well? It seems likely. Will it seek to use its power to influence the way media in the West behaves? It seems likely also.
It’s not just companies bowing to the wishes of China. Governments are proving highly accommodating as well. In Australia, we had the outrageous situation in 2005 where Chinese government officials were given access to Chinese asylum seekers. Would this have happened before China became the underwriter for our minerals boom? Have the advancements in China’s human rights situation been sufficient to justify such access?
China is making its mark on the international political landscape as well. China has long taken a “see no evil” view of international affairs. It is happy to trade with and actively support pariah states like Burma and Sudan. Many of the world’s most repressive states would prefer to have investments from a “no questions asked” Chinese government than frequently more complicated investments from western companies that are sometimes at least, subjected to media, government or popular scrutiny.
In our region the Burma case is the most striking. Any western efforts to isolate the shocking Burmese junta are undermined by China’s economic and political courtship. Perhaps the most sound argument in favour of greater western business engagement in Burma is that it can counteract the Chinese activity. A boycott that does not include the Chinese is not a boycott at all.
And then there is China and Japan. China’s relationship with Taiwan is a source of tension and global concern. Recently, increasingly fractious interaction between Beijing and Tokyo presents a further regional challenge that shows no sign of receding.
China’s aggressive efforts to secure necessary energy and other resources to fuel its expansion will also present increasing challenges in the years ahead.
China’s emergence in the coming decades as a massive power seems all but assured. The character of that massive power depends on what happens domestically in China. There are two probable scenarios.
China will either commit to a more ambitious domestic political reform agenda - there is some evidence of momentum in this direction - or it will continue to pursue economic ends without any real political relaxation.
We should be hoping for the former.
Spare a thought for China’s leaders. I do not envy them. Post Tiananmen Square, both liberals and hardliners must squabble daily on the best course forward. The sudden promulgation of a democratic state seems unlikely in the extreme - and may even be foolhardy. So even those who wish to achieve a democratic end, must ponder a complex process of steps to create proper foundations. Western democracies did not suddenly present. Nor will successful democracy suddenly present in China.
One expects a more liberal and democratic China to be a less belligerent international player. Of course recent history shows that big democracies (aka USA, UK and Australia) are still very capable of belligerent foreign policy.
The absence of credible state advocates of freedom and human rights in the era of Bush and Howard has given succour to the hardliners in China’s ranks and tyrants the world over. You can just imagine the sniggering about Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, the Iraq War, extraordinary rendition, the abandonment of habeas corpus, mandatory detention of child asylum seekers - (should I continue?) when US or Australian officials deliver their homilies to the Chinese on human rights.
The obsession with the war on terror, the counterproductivity and incompetence of so much of its execution, and the accompanying abandonment of hard fought and time honoured liberal democratic values, will be the legacy of the Bush - Howard era. It has distracted us all from the most important foreign policy challenge we face - the challenge of China. We need those abandoned values more than ever at this time.
I am far from a total pessimist about China. China’s development could play out many ways - some good, some bad. I am also very conscious that the challenges that face the Chinese government any day of the week are massive - corruption, environmental disaster, rural poor, crumbling health system, domestic calls for liberalisation - and that there are many highly capable and committed people working in the Chinese government to achieve good governance, a more liberal domestic political climate, prosperity and a positive role in international affairs.
The Chinese will shape their future largely themselves. A West diminished by a disgraced and weakened superpower makes it less likely China’s continuing rise will be as we might wish.
Condoleezza Rice’s current visit to Australia comes at a time when the United States is reassessing the global implications of China’s rise. The reassessment is long overdue as it is in Australia.
John Howard has lulled much of Australia into a political coma with strong economic performance and the promise of a relaxed and comfortable time. The Chinese government has seduced its own people and the world into a similar uncritical state with staggering economic development and a promise that (nearly) everyone can have a share. Few want to look hard at the implications.
Australians may be feeling relaxed and comfortable but some agitation might be in order. China’s rise should be one source. China’s achievements during the past twenty years have been staggering. Beneath the incredible economic performance are amazing human achievements. The Chinese have engineered the greatest poverty alleviation programme in history. The redirection of policy led by Deng Xiaoping following the death of Mao has transformed hundreds of millions of lives from dire squalor.
The Chinese aren’t just richer either. They’re undoubtedly more free as well. Free to have a shot at cashing in on the country’s economic bonanza, free to enjoy a restricted internet, free to enjoy international travel, free to enjoy increasing but still limited opportunities for expressing political views. Chinese people have dramatically more control over their lives today than they did twenty years ago.
All in all it’s a very positive story of progress - albeit from a horrible base. Life for the Chinese through the 50s, 60s and 70s was truly dire (in fact it was pretty awful for most Chinese during the hundred years that preceded Communism as well). It remains pretty bleak for hundreds of millions of rural poor.
The rub is that until now, we’ve been viewing China as a nation on its own development mission with upside for our own economy but with little possible downside - notwithstanding occasional verbal skirmishes with the Taiwanese.
That’s we’re we’ve been wrong.
China’s continuing rise in the coming twenty years will be a fraught and complex affair. Some of the signals of where we are headed are already visible.
China’s impact is now moving beyond economics. China’s economic power is starting to naturally manifest politically.
The first territory for the battle has been in the all important internet and technology sectors. Some of the world’s major technology companies, Google, Microsoft, Cisco and Yahoo have all seriously compromised their products in order to ensure no offence is caused to the Chinese government. Microsoft and Cisco sell products to the Chinese that support “the Great Firewall of China”. Most appallingly though, in 2005, Yahoo volunteered private email correspondence to the Chinese government that resulted in the imprisonment of three Chinese dissidents (see www.booyahoo.blogspot.com).
If China is able to exercise significant influence in the corporate world now, what lies ahead? Especially as the barriers between technology and media companies collapse? Will a China two or three times more powerful economically than it currently is be shaping the way we live in the West as well? It seems likely. Will it seek to use its power to influence the way media in the West behaves? It seems likely also.
It’s not just companies bowing to the wishes of China. Governments are proving highly accommodating as well. In Australia, we had the outrageous situation in 2005 where Chinese government officials were given access to Chinese asylum seekers. Would this have happened before China became the underwriter for our minerals boom? Have the advancements in China’s human rights situation been sufficient to justify such access?
China is making its mark on the international political landscape as well. China has long taken a “see no evil” view of international affairs. It is happy to trade with and actively support pariah states like Burma and Sudan. Many of the world’s most repressive states would prefer to have investments from a “no questions asked” Chinese government than frequently more complicated investments from western companies that are sometimes at least, subjected to media, government or popular scrutiny.
In our region the Burma case is the most striking. Any western efforts to isolate the shocking Burmese junta are undermined by China’s economic and political courtship. Perhaps the most sound argument in favour of greater western business engagement in Burma is that it can counteract the Chinese activity. A boycott that does not include the Chinese is not a boycott at all.
And then there is China and Japan. China’s relationship with Taiwan is a source of tension and global concern. Recently, increasingly fractious interaction between Beijing and Tokyo presents a further regional challenge that shows no sign of receding.
China’s aggressive efforts to secure necessary energy and other resources to fuel its expansion will also present increasing challenges in the years ahead.
China’s emergence in the coming decades as a massive power seems all but assured. The character of that massive power depends on what happens domestically in China. There are two probable scenarios.
China will either commit to a more ambitious domestic political reform agenda - there is some evidence of momentum in this direction - or it will continue to pursue economic ends without any real political relaxation.
We should be hoping for the former.
Spare a thought for China’s leaders. I do not envy them. Post Tiananmen Square, both liberals and hardliners must squabble daily on the best course forward. The sudden promulgation of a democratic state seems unlikely in the extreme - and may even be foolhardy. So even those who wish to achieve a democratic end, must ponder a complex process of steps to create proper foundations. Western democracies did not suddenly present. Nor will successful democracy suddenly present in China.
One expects a more liberal and democratic China to be a less belligerent international player. Of course recent history shows that big democracies (aka USA, UK and Australia) are still very capable of belligerent foreign policy.
The absence of credible state advocates of freedom and human rights in the era of Bush and Howard has given succour to the hardliners in China’s ranks and tyrants the world over. You can just imagine the sniggering about Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, the Iraq War, extraordinary rendition, the abandonment of habeas corpus, mandatory detention of child asylum seekers - (should I continue?) when US or Australian officials deliver their homilies to the Chinese on human rights.
The obsession with the war on terror, the counterproductivity and incompetence of so much of its execution, and the accompanying abandonment of hard fought and time honoured liberal democratic values, will be the legacy of the Bush - Howard era. It has distracted us all from the most important foreign policy challenge we face - the challenge of China. We need those abandoned values more than ever at this time.
I am far from a total pessimist about China. China’s development could play out many ways - some good, some bad. I am also very conscious that the challenges that face the Chinese government any day of the week are massive - corruption, environmental disaster, rural poor, crumbling health system, domestic calls for liberalisation - and that there are many highly capable and committed people working in the Chinese government to achieve good governance, a more liberal domestic political climate, prosperity and a positive role in international affairs.
The Chinese will shape their future largely themselves. A West diminished by a disgraced and weakened superpower makes it less likely China’s continuing rise will be as we might wish.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
