Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

China is suffering the effects of massive and chronic “overinvestment”, over-capacity, and declining productivity. About nine out of 10 manufactured goods are in over-supply and have been for almost a decade. Chinese companies keep pumping money into making goods, building roads and infrastructure, and erecting buildings that are not used or needed. No wonder achieving growth is becoming less efficient. The Chinese are clearly getting less and less bang for their buck.
  
When making foie gras, the French force-feed the geese to artificially enlarge the liver before the slaughter. In China, it is economic growth that is artificially fuelled and force-fed. The Chinese know, better than anyone else, that this approach has almost run its course and are finally admitting as much.
  
The September ABARE study cautions against the possible consequences of the American sub-prime fallout but is sanguine about the prospects for continued Chinese growth. But the concern raised by the study about inflationary pressures in the Chinese economy is just the tip of the iceberg. The Chinese model is fundamentally unbalanced.

The American sub-prime fallout combined with a failing Chinese economy: could we be seeing the end of the  longest boom in  Australia's history? The tremendous waste of the Howard government may have squandered the best years Australia has ever seen.

Australia has been riding the dragon's back ever since. It is no coincidence that our record 17 years of unbroken economic growth has coincided with 17 years of explosive economic growth in China, now our biggest trading partner. The Howard-Costello Government's strong economic credentials rest in part on decisions made and enforced in Beijing.

But what China giveth, China can also taketh away.....................

Beijing is sitting on what may be the largest accumulation of funds ever assembled, an ocean of money. It has the world's largest foreign currency reserves, and it has locked up the vast amount of savings by the Chinese people. What China decides to do with this ocean of money will affect you, me, the world economy and global financial stability.

What has been driving the world economy has been a combination of American spending and Chinese hoarding. Now America has spent too much and China has hoarded too much. The rest of the world will have to brace itself when this imbalance is finally confronted, which must happen soon. Everybody sees the contradiction. But nobody is sure how it is going to be resolved.

Australia's economic success over the last 17 years  has been driven more by decisions made in Beijing  than those made in Canberra. As the US looks like it is heading into a recession our future rests more with Beijing that it does with Washington. We need a Prime Minister who is just as comfortable with the Chinese leadership as he is with US leadership. Neither Howard nor Costello has the skills to guide us through the challenges of this change in global power. At least Rudd has a knowledge of the Chinese language.

Solomon: You wrote, I am quite sure the accepted casualty range for the Iraq/Afghanistan wars is in the tens of thousands, with the high estimates around in the hundreds of thousands. It is certainly not in the millions. 

I think it depends on who is doing the counting, see latest estimates,

The current best estimate is that over one million Iraqis have died as a result of the invasion. That number is an extrapolation of a scientific study led by researchers from Johns Hopkins that estimated that as of July 2006, 650,000 Iraqi deaths were attributable to the invasion. The extrapolation was done by the organization Just Foreign Policy.

We will never know the true figure, its a bit like the 6 million killed in the holocaust. The true figure will never be known.

You wonder why I am anti Howard,  This obscene number of casualities  is a  pretty good reason, I would think. When you see  the results of  Howard's foreign policy, he should be tried as a war criminal, not put up for another three years as our Prime Minister.

As for Kevin Rudd's vision for Australia.

On Education. 

1. fund a pre-school year – providing 15 hours for 40 weeks a year of early childhood education for all four-year-olds.
2. invest between $500,000 and $1.5 million per high school, to create trades training centres in all of Australia's 2,650 secondary schools.
3. develop Individual Learning Plans for all of our children and act on them throughout their schooling.
4. introduce a national curriculum in the subjects of Maths, Science, English, History, Geography and Languages.
5. offer incentives for students to study and teach maths and science by halving their HECS and halving it again if they work in those fields after graduation.

 On Climate Change.

 

1. ratify the Kyoto Protocol, introduce an emission trading scheme, set a target to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 60 percent by 2050 and substantially increase investment in renewable energy, like solar and wind.
2. provide rebates of up to $500 for around 500,000 households across Australia to install rainwater tanks or grey water pipes.
3. provide loans of up to $10,000 to help up to 200,000 families invest in solar and practical water and energy savings devices.
4. invest $500 million in clean coal technology and $500m in developing Australian green cars.
5. put an end to Mr Howard’s plan for 25 nuclear reactors, coast to coast across Australia.

On the cost of living.

 

1. keep the Budget in surplus on average over the economic cycle and will maintain the independence of the Reserve Bank.
2. not increase taxation as a proportion of GDP.
3. keep a permanent watch on petrol prices by appointing a new Petrol Commissioner to the ACCC and give the ACCC the power to monitor grocery prices and to publish regular surveys of prices to inform consumers.
4. establish both a $500 million Housing Affordability Fund to save up to 50,000 new home buyers up to $20,000 on their home and a $603 million National Rental Housing Affordability Scheme to provide new rental housing to 50,000 middle and low income families at 20 percent below market rents.
5. create an Office of Work and Family which will publish local child care fees, vacancy data and parental reviews so parents can make better choices.

 On Health

1. help end the blame game on health by establishing a $2 billion National Health Reform Plan in cooperation with the States and Territories to deliver improved health outcomes for patients in Australia's health care and hospital system and to take financial control of Australia's 750 public hospitals if State and Territory governments have not begun implementing the Plan by mid-2009.
2. invest $158 million over five years to create up to 2,000 transition care beds to free up hospital beds and help other older Australians get home
3. bring in a Healthy Kids Check to test the health, development and wellbeing of all our children in the first year of school and trial Stephanie Alexander's Kitchen Garden Program in 190 primary schools across Australia to encourage our children to make healthier eating choices.
4. Labor will invest up to $290 million to fund up to one million additional dental consultations, establishing a Commonwealth Dental Health Program.
5. make preventative health a priority to keep Australians healthy and out of hospitals.

 

John, your support for Rudd seems to consist largely of problems with Howard. I can't think of a single policy of Rudd's that has displayed anything of "vision", rather, he has done as the Prime Minister did in '96 and picked up special interest groups alienated by the government, in Rudd's case the Climate Change lobby and the anti-war movement. That is not to say he is incapable of vision only that he seems to be behaving cautiously except on certain issues. I don't know what "education revolution" means but it seems to be a version of typical Labor education policy hyped up in to excessive rhetoric. Industrial relations is simply the reversal of government policy, which can hardly constitute vision.

I am impressed that he speaks Mandarin but this is not sufficient.

Personally I was against the wars but I am lukewarm on troop withdrawal. I am quite sure the accepted casualty range for the Iraq/Afghanistan wars is in the tens of thousands, with the high estimates around in the hundreds of thousands. It is certainly not in the millions. I don't think troop withdrawal will stop the violence, or, necessarily even lower it. You can't undo the chaos the wars have created, the problem is there and its resolution will take a long time.

I used to support a referendum in Iraq on troop withdrawal but now I am less sure, as I think that in the climate of violence any notion of "democracy" is flawed. In the last election candidates did not put up posters showing their faces for fear of being assassinated. If you create political incentives for political violence  - which, unfortunately, a referenduum is likely to do - then in a lawless society like Iraq, where violence has become normalised, it will probably instigate more violence. The creation of social order is the precondition to democracy.

Judging on not much study and a casual observation of the debates between Garrett and Turnbull, they are about on par in their arguments re climate change. I can also see the essential economic underpinnings of any climate change policy, and I am uncertain the Rudd government quite has a handle on this aspect, and as such I lean towards Turnbull. Howard distrusts the Green movement and this is no secret (though strange that in '96 he was spruiking his environment credentials) but he seems to be bowing to public pressure.

I would like to see the Federal government engage more in the debates. Like many others I want to know what exactly went wrong in regards to the Iraq war, and, what the government proposes to do about it. The government's silence on this issue is as apalling as it is baffling. The only way to improve their situation on this issue is to address the feelings of betrayal in the community. This is not rocket science but it appears the Prime Minister's pride is, not for the first time, getting in the way of addressing the issues.

John, I think the Australian people are entitled to a leader of vision, if that means what I think it means, which is a belief in the possible as much as the actual. If I could distil the emotion down to its essence (as advertisers do, searching for the ratio decidendi of consumption) that I find here on Webdiary against the government, and similar previous governments, it is that they have taken us down a path that we did not really want to go. In a way what is needed to address this feeling is to look backwards and re-assess the decisions we have made to come to this point. As such it is not the future that we need talk about but rather the past and how we came to be where we are. I am willing in my heart to declare an amnesty on prior decisions and approach the tasks of the future in good faith, and a presumption that others will act in good faith.

I have decided today that I will shed my cynicism and devote myself to the possible. I am tired of the poison. Perhaps it is worthwhile embarrassing individuals with the belief in their potential to be a positive force in the world. Rudd, to me, is a man of general competence and thoroughness, but not necessarily one of vision. His overwhelming tone in speech is one of bitterness - I realised this for the first time today. He often seems to compromise, and is praised for it as part of political necessity. We are entitled to more than this, even if we feel similar to him. I am tired of political pragmatism, as what it amounts to is declining to achieve something, and as such has no practical outcome.

Solomon: Your quote from Keating’s book is interesting. Perhaps if the latter volume turns up on some bookseller’s $1 table out in the street some day, I might even buy it:

"However, I did not, and do not, believe that a government's foreign policy should only be about human rights. The nation has other equally valid, and sometimes competing, interests and values that have to be protected and nurtured….”

Keating’s foreign policy was never about human rights. That was why he could get up at a Jakarta banquet hosted by Suharto two weeks or so after the 1991 Dili Massacre and say never a word to wipe the condescending smile off the dictator’s face.

There was no issue that did not trump human rights as far Keating was concerned. His idea of ‘security in Asia’ rather than ‘security from Asia’ had a simple corollary. Given that that traditionally there had been a view in defence circles that any regional military threat to this country was most likely to come from, or through, Indonesia, ‘security in Asia’ meant developing the closest possible relationship and accommodation with ‘Indonesia’: not with the people of the archipelago, but with the military dictatorship that lorded it over them. For Keating, every other Asian country paled into insignificance beside Suharto's Indonesia, and he prided himself on his close friendship with Suharto, one of the most blood-drenched despots of all human history.

That meant appeasement, fawning, bowing and scraping, at which art his Foreign Minister Gareth Evans was a front-rank maestro.

I cannot believe for one moment that Keating conned Suharto, who was always master of the ‘relationship’. Nor did he fool too many observers, whose opinion found ultimate expression in the election of 1996. However, I am willing to entertain the proposition that he fooled himself.

All one has to do is add one name to the last paragraph of your quote to realise what a self-contradictory and ultimately self-defeating policy Keating was running. I have added the necessary  word below:.

After the brutality and excesses of Hitler and Stalin and Pol Pot, Suharto and Idi Amin and their ilk, an emerging international norm for what constitutes civilised and acceptable behaviour (sic). This is one of the encouraging things that has developed in this brutal century. It is a real measure of human progress and a critical one. But to extrapolate from that a requirement that all governments in all places conform to certain nostrums determined by well-fed small 'l' liberal journalists and activists is extravagant conceit."

I suspect that the real reason Keating’s sentence ending in your ‘(sic)’ is unfinished is that his mind could not rise to the task. Perhaps his own obsession with power: the accumulation of it, the exercise of it, and above all, the company of it, somehow tangled up the neuronal connections inside his head. Perhaps melancholy mixing mentally with his own frustrated megalomania managed mastery over his muse.

Keating’s much ballyhooed ‘treaty’ signed in Jakarta got torn up by the Indonesians in 1999 without a moment’s hesitation when the military decided that it had been outflanked by John Howard. If ‘security in Asia’ had been anything more that Barnum & Bailey bullshit, that would not have happened. The will of the East Timorese had been expressed, also that of the UN. Keating publicly expressed his displeasure with what the East Timorese had done; never, even when out of office, getting out of line with his old mates in Jakarta.

As an old Labor man, true always to the democratic principles that were the foundation of that party, I voted unhesitatingly for John Howard in 1996. I have never regretted it. But what an obnoxious choice to have to make!

Last year, China burned the energy equivalent of 2.7 billion tons of coal, three-quarters of what the experts had said would be the maximum required in 2020. To put it another way, China now seems likely to need as much energy in 2010 as it thought it would need in 2020 under the most pessimistic assumptions.

To produce 1 gigawatt of electricity for a year, you have to burn about 3 million tons of coal, releasing 9 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, China pumped about 8.1 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere last year from the burning of coal alone. China's energy demand is growing above the most pessimistic forecasts. It will take the best of diplomatic skills to encourage China to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions. We should vote the best team into power, the diplomatic tasks ahead are enormous. If Australia is to survive this next century, we can no longer afford to run a "B" grade diplomatic service. We need the leadership of Kevin Rudd and leaders with vision.

Got ahold of "Engagement" and reading through it I can see that the reason I failed to remember the precise details of Keating's critique is because of his penchant for vague allusions to facts and situations to which he does not intend to elaborate.  His one explicit criticism of Howard over Timor is not really about Timor - it is over the deterioration of security agreements and the pursuit of strategic interests with Indonesia. This is a legitimate point but it seems to entirely miss the substantial points of the Timor crisis, in pursuing his own particular agenda. It is part of his polemical style for developing arguments against the opposition that come from defending "national interest", whilst dodging particular left-wing styles of discourse. It is less an analysis than it is the scoring of a point. The whole book consists of points he wishes to score and omits anything else.

Earlier he thunders out his views on foreign policy and the human rights lobby. I think it is worth quoting at length. I remember when I first read it it was one of the pieces that stood to me in the book, but upon revisiting it now I can feel the rage in it. I think it is the crucial portion of his philosophy, where he tries to grapple with some of his demons.

"However, I did not, and do not, believe that a government's foreign policy should only be about human rights. The nation has other equally valid, and sometimes competing, interests and values that have to be protected and nurtured. For example, we have interests in maintaining national security so Australians do not have to go to war. War is the ultimate trampler of human rights. To avoid war, governments need to establish and work on a national security framework which contains its own reinforcing equilibriums; which comprehends all pressures and understands all nuances. Including, and especially, the need to maintain our influence in scores of different countries at the same time. We have commercial interests, too: developing markets for our farmers and other exporters so Australians have jobs and income. We have interests in creating a cooperative regional and global atmosphere in which we can deal with problems such as the environment that can't be handled nationally.

These other interests are valid and important - and they are interwoven. They are also morally serious. The division which some commentators make between moralism and realism in foreign policy is, I believe, completely facile.

Human rights groups are very judgemental of governments. Some of them believe that those who have to deal with governments of a style different from our own are either tainted or suspect, as if the world and all its governments have to have some stamp of approval by western assessors as to whether they meet social democratic values. This is, of course, arrogant nonsense. Some among them see themselves as being on a civilising mission, hearing voices they believe most of the rest of us can't hear. After the brutality and excesses of Hitler and Stalin and Pol Pot and Idi Amin and their ilk, an emerging international norm for what constitutes civilised and acceptable behaviour (sic). This is one of the encouraging things that has developed in this brutal century. It is a real measure of human progress and a critical one. But to extrapolate from that a requirement that all governments in all places conform to certain nostrums determined by well-fed small 'l' liberal journalists and activists is extravagant conceit."

He goes on to argue the case for using Stalin against Hitler and calls the military defeat of Nazism a human rights advance. This is of course true for Germany, but not for the Soviet Union, or any of the countries that it aquired on its way to Berlin. It is a non-argument because apart from the specific military necessity to defeat Nazism it has no application. It is scarcely as if the Soviet Union ever harboured the delusion that we were their friends, or would have treated us any differently if we pretended we approved of their methods. Stalin knew very well he was being used and used us in turn. It would not have made any difference if we said so, and in a way we did: the whole Cold War was about saying so.

Human rights, of course, have nothing to do with western arrogance, though this is how it they constructed by oppressive regimes, in order to appeal to nationalist instincts. The whole basis of human rights is in their universality. They are not "social democratic", that is a political philosophy; human rights proceed from a non-partisan belief in minimum standards of justice and human dignity. The attack on "well-fed" journalists and activists is insidious because it implies that poverty somehow justifies human rights abuses. The whole philosophy is insidious not because it recognises that priorities and compromise is necessary but because it does not want us to say out loud what we believe to be right and wrong. It is succumbing to bullying.

One of the points made by Susan Rees on East Timorese asylum seekers is that they are eager to learn English and that this was denied them because of the method by which they came to our country. The reward-punishment approach that we take to humanitarian immigration is structurally flawed, in that we end up disadvantaging people who are more than likely already deeply traumatised. Rees also records a phenomenon where parents put pressure on their children to perform, because of deep insecurities. This needs to be watched very carefully, and, seems to be from what I have read and experienced, a phenomenon quite prevalent in many migrant communities. It is understandable but potentially excessive in a country where the conditions for survival are not so high.

There is also, of course, the perpetuation of fear and a lack of healing occasioned by a system which cannot make up its mind quickly. People fear what they will be sent back to. The Refugee convention is strict, having compassion only for "well-founded" fear of persecution, and having little compassion for the subjective mental state of the person. Australia is much stricter in its interpretation of international refugee law than comparable countries, forcing asylum seekers in to higher and higher levels of review, which only perpetuates their state of limbo. Again I wonder at the phenomenon of dislocation from the home country, in which the level of danger may fluctuate, and, where the individual has only bad memories on which to base their assessments.

I wonder if such phenomena might be modified through new communication media, with the ease with which one can contact family and others from the country of origin giving fresh and immediate assessments of the politics on the ground, from sources that the individual will be more inclined to trust than a faceless government department.

One thing DIAC gets right is its telephone translation service, TIS. It is very important that refugees get appropriate legal advice in their own language, and, volunteering in an immigration centre I have found TIS to be absolutely top-notch. It doesn't matter if the client speaks Farsi, Amharic or Kirundi, you can easily and quickly be provided with someone to translate. Free legal advice is readily available to those on the lower end of the triangle. There is so much that we get right as a country, it is heart-breaking to see a government defy reason and argument so consistently and mercilessly.

Bob, Keating's work was published in 2000, a year after the beginning of the UN intervention. I tend to think he watched events closely and gave an honest record of how he would have responded, had he been in power. Of course anything is possible. I don't have it with me, I will have to retrieve it. In office he valued the relationship with Indonesia, was close to Suharto, and is on record as saying that he did not want East Timor to dictate the whole course of Australia-Indonesian relations. There were massacres during his government, as there was all throughout East Timor's history. I think, nevertheless, that he had his limits. One of the most revealing comments in Don Watson's biography of Keating was on a trip to Papua new Guinea, where, Keating declared that if anything happened there: "I will make this my Vietnam." There is no telling where this emotion might have led him.

I am still at a loss as to what precisely you object to in my comments. You say I should look in to Howard's role during the Fraser years, though I posted a link to a Green Left Weekly article that records his position, and, I don't dispute any of it. I think perhaps you want me to blame Howard for the violence after the independence vote because he lobbied for autonomy (unlike Fraser) during his Prime Ministership. This to me seems like a completely normal and unobjectionable thing for the Prime Minister to do, and, shows that either he had a change of heart or that he saw votes in it. I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Howard responds to media pressure more than anything. He is no angel, and, he comes from a time when Australia had different priorities - to put as positive a spin on it as possible. It was the cold war.

Indonesia is a country of 240 million people. Indonesia kicks us around, we don't kick them around.

The purpose of Indonesian-Australian military operations is in part to try and rub off some democratic ideals on TNI. I don't think it worked but it is one point absent from the Green left Weekly critique. I remember Keating criticised organisations like Amnesty International for not quite understanding the limitations that national governments have to work under, whilst acknowledging that they need a "single focus". Australia does have economic and strategic interests in the region, and, these can't be wholly ignored. The whole philosophy of "engagement" is an interesting idea. Egg-sucking? Who knows. Keating was full of ideas, and, was developing them right up until the election defeat.

You say I should do more research on the changes in Indonesia. If you are referring to the pro-democracy anti-Suharto movement, I stand by my position that this had a limited impact on the dominance of the Indonesian military and how it behaved in East Timor. Please don't tell me you harbour romantic notions about the period.

The autonomy/independence referendum was not Howard's idea and I think Habibie takes the blame for not heeding the advice of Ali Alatas, about a referendum being a recipe for civil conflict. Prior to the referendum the Indonesian government had already been engaged in negotiations about an autonomy agreement. The more I think about it the more sympathy I have with Ali. Habibie ought to have heeded the advice of Horta and removed the military from the country first. Howard ought to have pushed harder for UN security, as Green left argues, but I doubt Indonesia would have accepted this without the outbreak of violence and resulting international pressure. It was a catch 22.

Howard ought to have been less "Gung Ho" about Australia's troop commitment. Yes I think Keating would have better handled Indonesian sensitivies, since he put so much value in the relationship. Yes, all of this exists against a backdrop of complicity in Australia's gruesome response in '75, when we sold out East Timor for oil.

I recall once making a facetious comment on Webdiary during the Peak oil debate, where I suggested that we ought to invade a country like Timor to prevent other countries from doing like-wise, in pursuit of oil. Margo Kingston chided me for it. My point was only that the peak oil debate was not necessarily going to lead to peace but rather might ignite war. I expected that such a comment was so far off the mark in morality that it would be taken as a joke. But it wasn't, and, it isn't funny, because not very long ago people did think in these terms.

I think I have been brought up in a way where I have been educated about history but never have I believed it. There was always this undercurrent of "Things are different now" but they really aren't. The first time I became conscious that all was not right with the world, even in my own country, was in 2005, and, that fear led me to hospitalisation. I met an East Timorese man in hospital, as it turns out. He always insisted I eat everything I had. I was advised he had a rather difficult time in Timor and it was evident enough to me that he was a little worse for wear. The really pathetic part about the abusers here is that they bear none of the consequences of their actions, it is left to ordinary people to try and heal the trauma that has been inflicted.

Howard has blocked his ears on the asylum seeker question, even though there is growing evidence from a lot of smart and rigorous people that the system negatively impacts on the mental health of detainees.

Prosecuting Howard as a war criminal? Well we would have to prosecute them all, starting with Whitlam. It gives me bad visions, with Howard taking the place of Milosevic, and, dragging the thing on for years, before dying and eluding the judgement of the people. I can think of nothing more he would enjoy than being a defendant. No, I don't think this would achieve anything, and, it would divide the Australian people in a way that is unecessary.

I think what I truly want is for national leaders to tell the truth about the basis of their decisions. There is that whole "Truth and reconciliation" philosophy that we tried in South Africa, and, I haven't wholly given up on it. A royal commission? I don't know.

I am not interested in judging these people. Rather I pity them the throws of their conscience, if they have any of it left.

Then, there are the people they represent, and, whose interests will still need to be served tomorrow, and the next day. What I most want out of this election is for the needs of the Australian people to be properly negotiated, I don't care who wins.

Solomon, you wrote "I'm all ears". You also asked "what errors and omissions?" I have given some examples in previous posts. All ears, no eyes? Adding material after I have mentioned problems does not invalidate my criticism.

We know what Keating would have done because he told is in his book. I recall he said it was mishandled but I don't recall the detail of his critique.

We can read what Keating says he would have done. Whether, if the situation had arisen while he was pm, he would have done what he said he would  is another matter. Even what people say before an event can be different to how they behave when the event later happens, such as Andrew Peacock's rhetoric as Opposition foreign affairs spokesman in 1975 to how the Fraser government behaved in office.

Just now I was reading about the problems faced by women East Timorese asylum seekers, both under occupation and here in Australia, written by Susan Rees. It nearly made me vomit.

Interesting comment as I had written:

BTW, what happened to your musings about joining the Liberals or Young Liberals? You chose to do an awful lot of musing over that on a thread about the suffering of women in Iraq.

Do I assume your digestive system was not too upset to prevent all that musing. No need to answer, it is too late to do so. 

Thank you for your answer on the first part. If it's any consolation, not being wanted by a party led by an war criminal (and the case is very strong) could be seen as a good thing. Which brings me to some earlier comments you made:

 I think it reflects the desires of the Australian people for justice, a passion you so obviously share. I don't want to use this sentiment to further Howard's agenda, rather, I want to use it to further its own agenda, the pursuit of a just world.

Yet when I presented a partial list of of Howard's misdeeds, all of which have been debated and those that can be considered crimes for which a case can be made, including the war of aggression you make this comment:

I don't know precisely what point you are trying to make, other than that you extremely dislike Howard, and want to crucify him.

Where did I say I want to crucify him? I have presented evidence on a number of matters and in the case of the biggest international crime, support his being tried for war crimes. If you want a just world should you not also support the prosecution of those against whom cases for such serious breaches can be made?

Bob, I had a meeting with Hillsong MP Louise Markus but it came to nothing. I lobbied her on the immigration system, explaining my admiration for Petro Georgiou and Judi Moylan (and for his work on the Spycatcher trial, Malcolm Turnbull), in the short space that I had, voicing my belief in conscience and loyalty to the public over a political party. My request to volunteer came to nothing because of lack of "deskspace" and I have recently told them of my dissatisfaction with how I was handled. I have recieved no referrals to any Young Liberal groups, or, Liberal party membership forms as I requested. I was intensely interested in contacting other people of my age who are interested in politics.

Know your audience. All politics is hustling.

Just now I was reading about the problems faced by women East Timorese asylum seekers, both under occupation and here in Australia, written by Susan Rees. It nearly made me vomit. That is real research. As for yours all it has produced is an attitude problem and an arrogance so I don't know what its worth. I made a study of the East Timorese issue several years ago and the details were not clear in my memory, but I have reaquainted myself with it and I think I have a better handle on it now. What "errors" and "omissions" are you talking about? I've voiced opinions, get a life.

Yes, its emotional.

We know what Keating would have done because he told is in his book. I recall he said it was mishandled but I don't recall the detail of his critique. It was mishandled, that is obvious. All I know from you is what you don't like, I have no idea what your policy position is and how you would have proposed to deal with it. Frankly I don't think you're capable of anything but petty carping. When have you ever done anything else? Show me something substantial, prove it to me, if we're going to play this one-upmanship game. I'm all ears.

Yes I suppose I have a certain contempt for the Green movement, not for their policies, but because they never get anywhere. They are content to be marginal.

What stands out to me now most of all which didn't before is the role of the media in changing opinion on East Timor, and, the importance of the refugee program. From Rees work I can see how disgracefully it has actually been administered, which only makes me more determined to try and see some change in this disgraceful government. I don't care if it comes from inside or outside, but it needs to happen.

George Megalogenis of the Age got an interest article on the seat of Bennelong: Heavyweight bout for Mandarin belt.

He wrote that:

"Bennelong, which is home to the nation’s second-largest Chinese-born population................. Mainland Chinese represent 6.9per cent of Bennelong’s residents; those from Hong Kong account for another 3.3 per cent. What has made Bennelong fraught this time around is that the raw number of mainland Chinese-born residents almost doubled between the 2001 and 2006 censuses, from about 5000 to 9600. The Hong Kong-born population has remained steady. Howard holds Bennelong by a margin of 4 per cent, or fewer than 3500 votes based on the 2004 result........ .... But Howard and Rudd are confident that siding with Hu won’t cause a backlash among Chinese-Australian voters. One source explained that Bennelong’s Mandarin belt was proud of China’s economic ascension".

I just want to make two points:

1. Many Chinese don't like the current regime in Beijing, this writer included, but they can tell the difference between a political regime or dynasty that will come and go, but China will stay. They are always proud of China and will never let China be humiliated and suffered again as she has been from 1644 to 1949. So they will tolerate the current regime in Beijing.

2. Kevin Rudd speaks Mandarin with a broad mainland accent. This will appeal to the mainland Chinese in Bennelong. Many chinese are surprise at how good his phrasing, diction and tonal were, as Mandarin is very much a tonal language.

Solomon, no one forced you to do anything. Not even pass opinions based on on limited knowledge, errors and omissions. You had other choices including doing the further research I advised.

BTW, what happened to your musings about joining the Liberals or Young Liberals? You chose to do an awful lot of musing over that on a thread about the suffering of women in Iraq.

Ali Alatas, former Habibie minister, declares Howard and his letter as instrumental in Habibie's decision on ABC's AM. This not because Howard was too pushy but because he was too soft.

"Mr Alatas said the Australian Prime Minister's suggestion of an interim autonomy period angered Mr Habibie, who saw it as a waste of time and money, and likely to attract further international criticism of Indonesia."

From Alatas:

"No, it's not the letter you know which is the bone of contention between the two. It was rather the spirit of overzealousness of Australia suddenly to send troops and send the largest contingent of troops. Sometimes it's a gung-ho attitude etcetera. It was not the letter, it was not the letter."

Sounds familiar. This attitude so upset Osama Bin Laden, the Bali bombers, amongst others.

It is interesting that by all accounts Alatas was the only figure in office that understood the consequences of a rapid move to independence. See the International Herald tribune, in february 1999.

"Q. Ramos Horta, East Timor's representative-at-large, and Xanana Gusmao have always insisted on a referendum so the people can decide their own future. Is that acceptable to Indonesia now?

A. No. A referendum is a recipe for civil conflict. Already now there is fighting between pro- and anti-independence factions, and we don't want to be stuck with this problem for another couple of years."

Alas!

Bob, you get the response you deserve.  You've forced me to extrapolate on a number of points far beyond what I set out to comment on, and, nothing of what you said alters my original statement. It doesn't matter how you feel, East Timor was a success in electoral terms for the government, and, it is part of the electoral machinery. I think it reflects the desires of the Australian people for justice, a passion you so obviously share. I don't want to use this sentiment to further Howard's agenda, rather, I want to use it to further its own agenda, the pursuit of a just world.

I had a moment today and read the first chapter of John G. Taylor's book on the issue The Price for Freedom, and he seems to back up my view that the pro-democratic, anti-corruption, anti-Suharto movement in Indonesia did little to alter the prominence of the Indonesian military, especially in East Timor, where they proceeded to engage in a reign of systemised violence and terror. There was a hope that it would under Habibie but the military clearly continued to operate as a law unto itself. I was glad when Yudhoyono was elected, hoping a military leader might have the street cred to reign them in. I think he is a similar leader to Vladimir Putin, coming at a similar juncture in Indonesian history, in a country of similar magnitude.

Taylor seems to see more democratic leanings and history-seeking in Habibie than merely a reaction to the Asian economic crisis. He also emphasises the international outrage, spurned on by the work of journalists in recording the atrocities, and of the role of the Clinton administration in using the threat of economic sanctions to convince Habibie to accept a UN peace-keeping force. Clearly the intervention occurred far too late, the military pre-planned its malicious involvement before any referendum, and the oppression of East Timor was facilitated by governments of all stripes who wanted good relations with Jakarta. He seems to ignore Australia as having any prominent role.

It makes me more adamant that the military ought to have been removed from East Timor prior to any independence vote, as outlined by Horta.

So Howard had a hand in occasioning the East Timorese independence catastrophe. I never said he didn't. So Howard responded to changed circumstances - of course he did. One of those circumstances was the post-Keating era and an outraged public. He responded to this and increased his support within the community because of this, which you almost admit yourself when declaring his actions had an eye to electoral advantage. I don't know precisely what point you are trying to make, other than that you extremely dislike Howard, and want to crucify him.

I am not making a "propaganda" campaign for Howard, simply commenting on what I see as electoral realities, and, how they might affect current and future problems. Vote Green, what do I care? Some decisions Howard has made are right, some are wrong. History won’t matter on election day, because our leaders are so very rarely faultless that the public wont take past mistakes as a good enough reason to dismiss a candidate. Otherwise they would have nothing to choose from.

The government and the opposition have taken a soft touch to human rights violations in China, in their efforts to build good trade relations, and I think the public is uncomfortable with this kind of diplomacy, just as it is uncomfortable with the approach taken to Indonesia by governments of all stripes.

Solomon, the issue of East Timor is a very vexed and emotional one for Australians. There are Australians who did not forget the blood debt we owed to them from WWII. Others did. I am not impressed by efforts to use events surrounding East Timorese independence as part of a pro-Howard propaganda campaign. He was faced with changed circumstances and tried to deal with those circumstances in a manner that suited his priorities. 

Back to your comment:

I am not sure what other changes in Indonesia you refer to - as far as the East Timorese were concerned, ...

That was one of the matters for which I suggested you needed to do more research. In your latest post you wrote:

It was Habibie that wanted a quick cut and for the Indonesian military to take care of the security for the vote,
with disastrous consequences. He was either ignorant of the situation
on the ground or indifferent. I tend to think it was the latter.

It was not just the situation in E T that was important for determining courses of action to follow but the situation in Indonesia- both for Indonesia and Australia and any others who were involved/interested. To be making assessments on actions taken with a limited understanding of these issues does not impress me. You wrote:

My comments were nevertheless based on the Australian domestic
political context and were not intended to delve in to the handling of
the East Timor question in such detail

 If you are not prepared to do it properly, don't go there.An example:

It was Habibe that declared the need for a referendum on East Timorese
independence. I nevertheless think Howard rose to the occasion, based
on a wave of public sentiment, rather than his own particular
conviction.

I asked about the role Howard played in Habibie's decision and you said you were aware of Howard's letter. From the link you provided: 

Habibie considered it would be illogical for Indonesia to go on
subsidising a costly autonomy that might well lead to independence
later. He had said privately to colleagues: "Why do we have this
problem when we have a mountain of other problems? Do we get any oil?
No. Do we get gold? No. All we get is rocks. If the East Timorese are
ungrateful after what we have done for them, why should we hang on?"

At a fateful Cabinet meeting on January 27, 1999, President Habibie
brandished a letter sent by Prime Minister John Howard the previous
month suggesting that, after a period of autonomy, there should be an
act of self-determination in East Timor.

So it was more than Howard "rising to the occasion", he had a hand in occasioning it.

Now for this:

Bob, I have a better idea. How about you design a crossword puzzle of Indonesian trivia and I'll fill it in when I have a moment.

Here's my idea, how about you hold such comments until you inform yourself much better about issues and also take a look at Howard's full record and life, not overlooking his part in the Fraser government in re E T, and not overlooking his complicity in a war of aggression, nor  victimising asylum seekers for partisan political purposes, nor winding back Mabo, and a shipload more.

Bob, this piece by Richard Woolcott is close to how I feel. I was aware of the letter Howard sent to Habibie and the lobbying on East Timor. I recall at the time I sought out opinion from Indonesians on their view of the intervention, and, was told that Australia had been too pushy. I think it could have been handled better but I find it difficult to criticise Howard for lobbying for East Timorese independence, rather, I think it is to his credit that he did. He wanted a period of autonomy and for the UN to take care of security for the vote. It was Habibie that wanted a quick cut and for the Indonesian military to take care of the security for the vote, with disastrous consequences. He was either ignorant of the situation on the ground or indifferent. I tend to think it was the latter.

For any more detail I would have to consult my Mother; She speaks Indonesian and is an Asian studies student. She took me to Indonesia as a 12 yr old, and we travelled deeply throughout the country.

My comments were nevertheless based on the Australian domestic political context and were not intended to delve in to the handling of the East Timor question in such detail. I did make a fairly comprehensive study of the Keating years, and, what I was trying to suggest was that the mood in the public is a preference for harder-edged, zero tolerance towards injustice abroad. I don't think your comments or opinions contradict me, here, but rather that you affirm it with your accusations against all governments for their complicity in East Timorese genocide.

The Fraser years were important in determining current policy, as are all previous governments but I think it was the Keating years that were decisive, in that the public loathed him and everything he stood for, and, that this loathing prompted Howard and his cohorts to change course. He has of course not converted to the degree of relinquishing East Timorese oil, though I think East Timor's problems are more political than economic.

Bob, I have a better idea. How about you design a crossword puzzle of Indonesian trivia and I'll fill it in when I have a moment.

Solomon, you wrote:

I was also not making a case for Howard over Keating, rather, I was making the point that the policies of the Howard years were, in part, a consequence of the Keating years.

What of the Fraser years? After all, the Coalition was in office when Indonesia invaded ET. At overtly invaded.

I am not sure what other changes in Indonesia you refer to - as far as the East Timorese were concerned, I suspect it was "business as usual" for them too.

Better preparation required before commenting. You are aware of the end of Soeharto's rule so that would have been a good place to start your research.

Indeed Howard's attitude was "business as usual" until faced with the poorly executed independence vote by Habibe, when he made the right decision for a military intervention.

Did Howard have any role in Habibie's decision making process? Some research needed there, as well.

Bob, I linked to Green Left Weekly because I thought it was informative. I don't dispute any of the facts. I was also not making a case for Howard over Keating, rather, I was making the point that the policies of the Howard years were, in part, a consequence of the Keating years. My preference would have been for a slow transition similar to the kind put forward by Jose Ramos Horta.

Indeed Howard's attitude was "business as usual" until faced with the poorly executed independence vote by Habibe, when he made the right decision for a military intervention. I am not sure what other changes in Indonesia you refer to - as far as the East Timorese were concerned, I suspect it was "business as usual" for them too. There were violence and massacres from '75, and, their lives were dominated by the Indonesia military.

Solomon, lots of "I think" statements by you. Think what you like, your thoughts might have some value.

I have my own thoughts, of course. One I related to you earlier:

There you were making a case for Howard over Keating.

There is a major problem in making such a comparison, that being that Keating was not faced with the radical changes in Indonesia that occurred during Howard's first term. So we do not know how Keating would have responded to those changed circumstances. We do know how Howard behaved as PM until those changes occurred - business as usual. As I have stated previously on WD - way back on the Anatomy of a Rally thread in mid-2005 I posted my views on Howard's motivations re E T - I consider all Australian PMs from Whitlam on to have been complicit in the genocide of the people of East Timor. Howard has, in addition, complicity in the war of aggression against Iraq on his record. Not a good basis for a Howard PR campaign.

On the matter of East Timor, I followed events very closely at the time and later as part of post-graduate studies. So I have done great deal of research on the matter. Which brings me to your:

Green left Weekly of course has a different tack, accusing all and sundry of complicity in the oppression of the East Timorese.

Why this link? As you did raise it and in a disparaging tone, perhaps you might like to provide a substantiated rebuttal to any of the claims in the article you object to.

Bob, I think a longer transition from autonomy to independence in East Timor would have been a good idea, given the violence that followed the independence vote, supported by sections of the Indonesian military. In '96 Horta made the case for a slow transition starting with de-militarisation and removal of the control of the media by the Indonesian army, when he won the Nobel peace prize in 1996. His plan was much more measured than Habibe's surprise announcement, and, I think it would have been more effective in easing tensions created by the change. Politics in East Timor is vexed even now.

I think Howard was careful to try and make the intervention appear international, rather than just an Australian effort. I think it was this more than anything that has produced the solidarity with the USA on the two wars, and, the quite viceral reactions at the Dutch and the Phillipines for pulling out of Iraq. Yes I think he was driven by the feelings of the electorate but I don't think this is mutually exclusive with concern for the East Timorese, rather, he is a Prime Minister who prides himself on his connection with the populace.

Horta said of Australia:

"The majority of the East Timorese residents outside the country are in Australia. In spite of our sadness over Australia's role on East Timor I wish to state here our deepest appreciation to Australia for the shelter, hospitality and generosity shown to the thousands of East Timorese refugees on Australian soil.

We appreciate the many representations the previous and current govern­ments of Australia have made to impress upon the government of Indonesia regarding the human rights situation in East Timor. No other Western country has been more persistent in this regard."

Note the emphasis he places on Australia's refugee program. Again I think humanitarian re-settlment is the moral issue that takes first priority.  Green left Weekly of course has a different tack, accusing all and sundry of complicity in the oppression of the East Timorese.

Horta says of Suharto:

"No one can honestly suggest that the 30-year regime of Gen. Suharto has not done good for Indonesia. The record of the past 20 years has been impressive. The Suharto regime lifted the Indonesian economy from extreme poverty to the status of an economic tiger. Living standards, literacy, health care and food production increased to impressive levels."

So here we have one of the leaders of the independence movement engaging in the same mix of flattery and criticism as the bigger players. This is "diplomacy".

Solomon, oh, I like this:

... clearly Howard was not keen on challenging Indonesia originally.

Howard's first o/s trip after becoming pm was to -Jakarta. Tim Fischer said Soeharto should be Time magazine's "man of the half century". Howard had form as a minister in the Fraser government on the E T issue.

I nevertheless think Howard rose to the occasion, based on a wave of
public sentiment, rather than his own particular conviction.

That's one way of putting it. It was, imo, concern for the electoral prospects rather than for the East Timorese that motivated him. But "rose to the occasion" I consider gilding the lily. Howard originally wanted a long period of E T autonomy, thus minimising the degree Indonesia would be upset. Momentum took over and then Howard thought he could earn browny points by playing the international statesman. When the pressures grew Howard looked to the US to bail him out - Clinton in refusing to supply anything more active that logistical support - was saying, in effect, "You've been grandstanding, you sort it. But it was the US that enabled the intervention of the UN force. Some phone calls were made and the Indonesians relented and agreed to the entry of the UN. If it had been left to Howard the Australian contingent would have been left sitting on their backsides in the NT.

In an earlier post you wrote:

I think if Australia believes in anything it believes in justice and
part of the problem of the Keating years, eased by the Howard years,
was being labelled racist because of not wanting to take a soft touch
to human rights violations in our region.

There you were making a case for Howard over Keating. In response to my question came this:

It is the public mood that interests me, not the particular consciences of politicians.

Ho hum.

Nevertheless I think Howard's support for the Bush administration has a lot to do with his experience in East Timor.

It has much to do with the worst case of "Great Protector syndrome" I know of. Have you read Alan Renouf's The Frightened Country? An apt title.

Bob, clearly Howard was not keen on challenging Indonesia originally. It was Habibe that declared the need for a referendum on East Timorese independence. I nevertheless think Howard rose to the occasion, based on a wave of public sentiment, rather than his own particular conviction. Keating was associated with a soft touch policy to Asia. It is the public mood that interests me, not the particular consciences of politicians. Nevertheless I think Howard's support for the Bush administration has a lot to do with his experience in East Timor.

Solomon, you wrote:

One reason Keating was ousted was because of his attitude to Indonesia.

What was Howard's attitude to Indonesia from gaining office in March 1996 until the fall of Soeharto in mid 1998?

My objection to China is in the fact that it re-patriates North Korean refugees, who face brutal reprisals. This is especially true if they have been in contact with Chinese Christian missionaries, which they often are. China has the largest number of refugees from North Korea.  In contrast the US utterly opposes the Communist dictatorship of the DPRK, broadcasts pro-market propaganda in to the country via radio and has specific legislative provisions for the re-settlement of North Koreans in the USA, put in place by the Bush administration.

Resettlement in South Korea or other South-East Asian countries is problematic. I recommend this State department report on the North Korea Human Rights Act (2004).

Joseph R. DeTrani:

"The position of many Southeast Asian governments on North Korean refugees also presents sensitive political challenges. Only three countries in Southeast Asia are party to the 1951 Refugee Convention or its 1967 Protocol: Cambodia, East Timor, and the Philippines. Further, many of the countries in Southeast Asia have diplomatic relations with North Korea and are reluctant to cooperate publicly with the United States on an Act that Pyongyang has labeled as "hostile" to its regime. A survey of regional U.S. diplomatic posts in Northeast and Southeast Asia found that governments would likely be reluctant to permit U.S. refugee admissions processing on their territory at this time. However, some of those same governments have been willing to cooperate informally with the R.O.K., the United States, and UNHCR to protect North Korean refugees, on a case-by-case basis. We will continue to work closely with all of the region’s governments and UNHCR in seeking better cooperation."

South Korea has specific provision for Northern defectors but this causes difficulties because of the proximity to the North. Inevitably some refugees will want to get as far away from the problem regions as possible.

From Arthur Dewey, Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration:

 "Last year, nearly two thousand North Koreans arrived in the R.O.K. While some countries in Asia have been willing to allow for the discreet transit of North Koreans to Seoul through their territories, none has welcomed North Koreans for permanent resettlement. Governments hosting North Korean refugees, particularly the P.R.C. and others in Southeast Asia, would oppose direct, U.S.-funded humanitarian assistance and U.S. refugee admissions programs for North Koreans on their territories. We believe that the primary reason for this reluctance is a fear of creating a magnet effect that would draw other North Koreans to their territories. In addition, some of these governments have relationships with Pyongyang that they are unwilling to put at risk."

Australia's restrictive immigration program is similar to that of China and South-East Asia, which seeks to discourage the flow of human traffick to our territory. We frustrate and disallow the will of refugees just as they do. I think we exist in a kind of nether region between the USA and Asia in regards to immigration policy. I think we ought to be more like the USA and I have lobbied Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard on this point (at the time they were marketed as a "team") but recieved no response at all. I argued that we ought put in place something along the lines of the North Korea Human Rights Act (2004). This is one reason I shall not be voting for the ALP.

Liberal and Labor policy to China and the region is both one of quiet diplomacy, and, as far as I can see are indistinguishable from one another in its broad strokes. Kevin Rudd is the "mini-me" of Alexander Downer, not Howard. Rudd made his name as shadow foreign affairs minister and it is easy to see why Downer has a particular petty dislike for him.

The Australian people really don't like this kind of diplomacy. One reason Keating was ousted was because of his attitude to Indonesia. The Australian people drove the push for an East Timor intervention, and, increased their support for Howard when he "stood up" to Indonesia. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars were similarly accepted by a proportion of the Australian people, I believe because of similar sentiment. It mirrors the uncomplicated pro-liberty and anti-fascist attitude of the US. I think if Australia believes in anything it believes in justice and part of the problem of the Keating years, eased by the Howard years, was being labelled racist because of not wanting to take a soft touch to human rights violations in our region.

I don't care about the wars anymore. The costs of intervention verses the costs of non-intervention are going to have to be weighed up and examined in all cases, but I don't see any right or wrong, only decisions both with unfortunate consequences in both cases. There is no perfect solution to such deep and systemic problems. Yet it is necessary in this troubled world to make provision for people who wish to leave their situation and find a life where they can live in freedom and free from persecution. Getting the immigration system right, at an international level, to me is our first moral imperative.

One of the first friends I made at university was a Bosnian immigrant. She was indistinguishable from any other young woman (unadorned with Islamic dress, though from memory she was of a Muslim background) except for the horrible stories that she had of the war. She had to live in bunkers and face sniper fire to retrieve supplies. She had many stories of relatives that had been brutalised. She was heavily against the US intervention in Iraq, based on her experiences of war. Yet, when pressed, she admitted there were some benefits in having the US there. I think the decisions to go to war are vexed, but creating a place of sanctuary for those who need it should not be so controversial. The US is pro-war but it is also more pro-refugee and inclusive.

Sorry if this is hard reading, very tired! 

In 2005 (I think) the communist party of China officially started a war on the 'hearts and minds' of citizens in developed countries, including Australia. I'd say its working.

If any Australian thinks that China is EVER going to be able to replace our alliance with the USA, they are horribly mistaken. China will use any alliance with us to milk us for whatever we're worth, you might think the US is bad but thats only because you don't know enough about China.

I have lived in China for the past 10 years, it's my job to understand China and it is my firm opinion that we have to be extremely careful and watch China very closely because they are extremely shrewed in getting what they want, and unlike our government which is bad enough, they answer to NO ONE. China WILL pressure Rudd to loosen ties with the USA in order to get some sort of benefit from China. And if you think Kevin will resist it, just look at his suck up speech! Look at what happened when the Delai Lama came to Australia. Our Kevin is a pushover for the Chinese.

 Right now in Africa, China is causing massive problems, they are destroying every nation on the continent. Thats all China knows how to do, cheat, steal, lie, whatever you have to do to get what you want.

 The person Rudd addressed in his little suck up speech was Hu Jintao, who personally ordered the brutal slaughter of 1,000 unarmed innocent Tibetans in 1989, thats the move that earned him the trust of the party elders who installed him as Chairman. He was the 3rd party member to  officially congratulate the leadership at that time on their brutal crackdown in Tian an men. He ordered the execution of nearly a million Falun Gong practitioners whose organs were and are still sold at huge profits to hospitals around China in a state run blood business. That is capitalism Chinese style.

Last year Hu made a pledge to relax media controls and allow more press freedom. It just so happens that more journalists have been jailed since that pledge than at any other time in the last 10 years, not only jailed but put into forced labour camps, and 're-education' camps.

Under Hu's control, corruption in China has increased, internet censorship has increased, kids are assaulted at school from the age of 4 till 18 with party propaganda, not your average propaganda either, religious propaganda, the party is a religion. There are about 400M 'rich' Chinese, the ones used in China's 'economic miracle' calculations, their lives have significantly improved, but everyone seems to forget that the only reason those people are rich is because they are using what's basically a slave labour force of 1,000M whose living standards have DECREASED during the past 10 years. Why does this happen? Because Chinese are taught not to have morals, get rich, any way you can, if people die as a result, if you have to treat others like crap, its OK, in fact it makes you more clever. If you are in doubt, learn a few dialects and travel through the tier 2 and 3 cities and the rural areas of China, then go to Beijing and Shanghai.

Is that the country we want to be best buddies with?

 If we elect Kevin Rudd, I hope for the sake our our country's security and future as well as our general moral standing that he knows to watch what the Chinese DO not what they SAY. And for f***ks sake, stop sucking up.

Pandas are great, but I prefer morals and peace.

Richard:  Pleased to meet you, Gareth!

CLIMATE CHANGE AN IMPORTANT APEC ISSUE, BUT DON'T FORGET HUMAN RIGHTS

Climate change is an important issue for APEC members, but human rights must also be on the agenda, Family First leader Steve Fielding said today.

“I am concerned China could be using climate change as a cover to avoid scrutiny of its poor human rights record,” Senator Fielding said.

Family First supports emissions targets, but only after the government has done a detailed study so the full implications of particular targets are known.

“Perhaps our world leaders can sign off on what could be called a ‘Sydney Protocol’,” Senator Fielding said.

“It may be too early for them to agree to targets, and I understand the reluctance of developing countries to commit to targets when the effect on their people could be severe, but the Sydney Protocol could at least map the way forward.”

Senator Fielding said emissions targets must balance the needs of the environment with the needs of families and maintaining jobs and prosperity.

“It is a concern that targets will increase costs for families already struggling to make ends meet, and the government needs a plan to compensate them,” he said.

China had an appalling human rights record and the Australian Government and APEC should not pass up the opportunity to pressure it to change.

“Good relations with China should not stand in the way of basic human rights,” Senator Fielding said. “China is a one party state which executes more than 5000 people every year, tortures and coerces confessions from prisoners and uses forced labour. The Chinese Government continues its one-child policy which involves forced abortion and sterilisation. It is horrifying.”

"But not John Howard and Alexander Downer, especially Downer, who claimed he has also learnt to speak Mandarin Chinese in the last two months. "

An ambiguous statement here, PF: It could mean that (a) Downer has gone from zero Mandarin to mastery in only two months, or that (b) some time in the last two months, he has made a claim to have mastered the language, after some unstated period of study.

If (a), then we have a serious situation, in that it looks like we are about to lose a Foreign Minister who is one of the greatest linguists of all time: capable of achieving fluency in a language at lightning speed, and of conversing in their own languages with Chinese mandarins, English lords, and God knows who else.

One small comfort for Downer however: should the Government go down at the next election and he fail to become Opposition Leader (or not deign to), he could walk straight into a job at the UN as its Chief Translator. You know, one of those amazing people who can effortlessly translate one of several languages into one of several others, none necessarily being the translator's first language.

Possibilities include Chinese into Japanese, French, Urdu, Swahili, Pidgin, or the Australian vernacular.

PF: Thank you for this and I think I would like to read some of your previous stuff I missed, being only a newcomer here.

Have gotten very interested in Chinese history this past year or so and just enjoyed immensely the book China's Last Dancer which gives such insight into life in China under the late Mao.

Animosity certainly runs high in China from time to time toward the Japanese and it is quite understandable. The war experience left a deep and lasting legacy of distrust and dislike in the minds of the Chinese.  In many ways the Japanese occupation was much worse than that of Hitler in Europe and the medical experiments in those laboratories eclipsed even Mengele in their brutality.  I do not think many are too aware of the extent of that which the Chinese suffered in those war years. We focus only on Changi, Sandakan, and the Burma Railway and such.

For the Japanese to try and deny the true nature of their occupation of China will only poison the relationship further. 

The denials over the comfort women is a good example of how the Japanese fail to acknowledge, or if they do, only grudgingly, the war crimes committed in their name.  If Howard has a problem saying sorry, it is nothing to how the Japanese leaders seem to choke at the very mention of the word. The prefer to re-write the history.

I think it is true, that to ignore China in any strategic discussions is most unwise. Ultimately it will eclipse the US economy and  it is a nuclear power. Ignoring it is not an option.   Maybe Rudd will bring back some balance.

Downer learnt Mandarin in two months?! Let us hope he keeps his mouth shut then.

PF: excellent piece. The diplomatic credentials of Kevin Rudd out shone John Howard this week. I am looking forward to many years of Rudd leadership. Australia is well placed to play a key role in Asia and the talents of  Kevin Rudd will be an asset to us all. There is a lot more to running a country than the economy.