Australian professionals and aid workers are doing admirable work for the less fortunate overseas but are not given due assistance when local conditions threaten their personal safety. It is time they rethink the idealism of state protection and move to safer places before political situation deteriorates and make it untenable to live there or leave.
While domestic offices in the bureaucracy are typically bloated (until recent cost cutting and streamlining), foreign offices have always been short staff and stretched. When there was relative calm in the world, it was possible to get by. However, with the Middle East thrown into turmoil in recent years, and the increasing hostility towards Australians for its involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, DFAT resources are strained and unable to cope with quick reaction and protect Australians overseas from physical harm. It's not that Bob Carr is an ineffective Foreign Minister. Times have changed and government has to be well prepared for current and future challenges faced by Australians. There are many more Melinda Taylor out there who need Australia's help.
http://www.lowyinstitute.org/news-and-media/hot-topic/trouble-overseas-how-much-help-enough
Showing posts with label International. Show all posts
Showing posts with label International. Show all posts
Thursday, October 18, 2012
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Lucky Country and Creativity do not mix? Australia lacks innovation
Have always suspected that necessity (and hardship) is the mother of invention. Aussies are lucky and clever but there is no push to innovate as things are well as they are. Australians are not known to rank highly in global comparisons of innovation and creativity.
"There's a disconnect between local reality and international perceptions," GE's Australian vice-president for strategy and growth, Michael Ackland, said.
http://www.smh.com.au/business/clever-country-rates-poorly-as-ideas-factory-says-research-20120118-1q6kx.html
What have Australians invented so far? Some are just first in implementing or using, not necessarily the first to conceive the idea.
http://www.questacon.edu.au/indepth/clever/
http://www.questacon.edu.au/indepth/clever/100_years_of_innovations.html
Clever country rates poorly as ideas factory, says research
Vince Chadwick January 19, 2012
AUSTRALIA has an image problem when it comes to innovation.
That's the blunt assessment of studies released by Thomas Edison's old firm,
General Electric, today.
The GE Global Innovation Barometer ranked Australia's status as an innovation leader 16th from 30 countries.
Only 2 per cent of 2800 senior executives surveyed worldwide mentioned Australia as an ''innovation champion''.
Only 2 per cent of 2800 senior executives surveyed worldwide mentioned Australia as an ''innovation champion''.
The US took out top spot with 65 per cent, while Japan was a model of humility: 45 per cent considered it a leading innovator globally, while only 26 per cent did at home. Eighteen per cent of Australian business leaders nominated
their country.
their country.
"There's a disconnect between local reality and international perceptions," GE's Australian vice-president for strategy and growth, Michael Ackland, said.
He cited the 86 per cent of local executives who agreed innovation is the main lever for a more competitive economy, though 92 per cent did so globally.
Another study commissioned by GE from the Milken Institute, an independent think tank, found Australia leads the world in five of seven innovation indicators such as university-industry collaboration and research and development spending. However, the Innovation Barometer says only 28 per cent of Australian executives said research and development corresponded to their definition of innovation. Globally the figure was 41 per cent.
Before 2008, the Milken study found most research spending in Australia came from business. ''With our spending at 2.2 per cent of GDP, Australia still comes in below the OECD average, but it is rapidly closing the gap,'' the study found.
Thirty-one per cent of Australian executives felt the innovation environment had not improved in the past five years, while 66 per cent said government support for innovation was not well organised. This is despite the federal government's 2009 white paper Powering Ideas: An Innovation Agenda for the 21st Century.
The dean of the University of Technology Sydney business school, Professor Roy Green, said the government's research and development rebate was having some effect but the commodity boom was breeding complacency.
What have Australians invented so far? Some are just first in implementing or using, not necessarily the first to conceive the idea.
http://www.questacon.edu.au/indepth/clever/
http://www.questacon.edu.au/indepth/clever/100_years_of_innovations.html
Saturday, October 29, 2011
Qantas lockout escalated dispute to critical level
More than 68,000 Qantas passengers (13,000 overseas) stranded is sufficient to make it to a national crisis as a result of a drastic executive decision to ground the entire fleet.
Qantas boss Alan Joyce must be living on another planet and time thinking that he could get away with firstly outsourcing work internationally to save costs (when Qantas was still profitable and competitive) and the latest lockout workers taking industrial action.
Extremest actions may fly in developing countries where workers desperate for work and not having sufficient bargaining power would accept lower pay and long hours, where the government could justify making sacrifices for a better future.
Not in advanced nations and certainly not against the backdrop of GFC as corporate chiefs are being cast in unfavourable light of excessive greed and dishonesty.
Qantas boss(es) must know by now that threats have only served to escalate tensions and diminish their influence. There is no question that the incompetent executives and the entire board that were responsible for the crisis must step down to save the day.
Why hadn't the government which is after all a "Labor" party acted earlier using all it could muster from the Fair Work Act? Keeping mum and playing footsie and pandering to corporate interests while trying to give tacit support to workers has only prolonged and exacerbated the quagmire.
Even if FairWork were to order a suspension of the strikes, it would not be sufficient to bring the airline back on the air unless Qantas makes compromises as well. For the sake of national above personal interests, the negotiators must look beyond tactical gains.
The opposition while trying to paint the government in the bad light and waiting for mistakes it could exploit, has nonetheless urged the Gillard cabinet to make a strong stand to end the malaise.
For a national icon which had a good track record, this disastrous episode will mark the point of no return. Apart from the tremendous finnancial losses which has exceed AUD 50 million now, the long-term repercussions of a tarnished reputation would be much more damaging than anyone could envisage.
Thursday, October 27, 2011
The world did not ending on 28 October 2011 or 2012?
Once again, the doomsayers who predicted the end of the world with such confident certainty have been proven wrong - at least in the eastern side of the world.
If there is still time to forewarn those living on the western part of the world who deeply believe in such unscientific rantings, stop the press and avoid doing harm to yourself or others. Those so-called astrological alignments dispensed by self proclaimed gurus are not endorsed by astronomy.
Widely available on the internet such as End of the World predicted : 28 Oct 2011 and many others including Wiki entries, there is no way of tracking how many truly believe in them. Though a minority of mankind, it may not an insignificant number if you count by worldwide standards.
Unlike the "second coming" which does not name a date and claims to be benevolent towards believers, . Nevertheless, the concurrence of such beliefs in mainstream religion could easily be exploited by marginal doomsday believers to bolster their stand.
While these predictors do not qualify as cultists in the strict sense, much harm could be done albeit indirectly. Unlike the likes of Heavens Gate that commit mass suicide and Aum Shinrikyo that employed terrorist poison gas on the innocent, doomsday believers are no less powerful and destructive.
It would be difficult to establish the linkage of accountability and casual responsibility to nail promoters down as culpable murderers unlike a clear cut criminal offence or cult leadership.
No matter whether followers subscribe to their views, publications, or "like" their blogs, propagators of doomsday dates are free from legal obligations and liabilities.
The number of people would foolishly believe in such doomsday predictions and fall prey by ending their lives which they thought would be more miserable when natural disasters and mayhem are unknown to date. Fuelled by recent spate of natural phenomenons such as the earthquake in Christchurch, Earthquake cum tsunami that led to chain radioactive disasters in Fukushima, pessimists are vulnerable to descend further into the doldrums.
Shouldn't the authorities proactively denounce irresponsible doomsayers and wake the gullible to their senses before more tragedies unfold.
Live our life fully and count our blessings everyday.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Post democratic uprising Tunisian elections brought Islamists to power
Tunisia was the first in the Arab world to ignite the sparks of rebellion contagion which toppled several overstayed dictatorships. It is a defining moment in history. However, when post-revolutionary free and fair elections returned strong support for Islamists over the secular party, are supporters of Arab spring having second thoughts? There is a gap between first world ideals and aspirations expressed by the Tunisians.
Tunisia Islamists Call for Coalition After Taking Vote Lead
The results should not have come as a surprise. Those who have witnessed historical milestones would be a little cynical and less wishful.
Western democratic nations that supported the revolution could not go back on their words and must match their goals of promoting democracy. It would be hypocritical if western supporters of Arab spring were to denounce the victory of Islamists. Respect the will and wishes of the majority is the very core spirit of democracy. The same principle should apply to recognising Hamas (political wing) as a legitimately elected government.
Over in Egypt, Islamists too are expected to garner strong support in the parliamentary elections next month. As I foresaw and had warned on several occasions, it would be premature to celebrate democratic uprisings and failure to take a longer term perspective of the unfolding scenarios would be detrimental to foreign interests eyeing and waiting to get a slice of the economic wealth in the region.
Meanwhile, Tunisian Islamists are quick to assuage concerns by assuring observers that they are not fundamentalist in character and willing to cooperate with the secular counterparts. Whether getting the foot at the door will be a first step to fulfilling their long term hidden agenda remains to be seen. Nonetheless, Islamic fundamentalists won't approve of Tunisian Islamists in the likes of Ghanouchi deemed too liberal for their liking. Let's hope this is proven wrong and Tunisia is on the way to building a democracy unique to the country's conditions.
Friday, October 21, 2011
Australian travellers, please respect local laws and stay out of trouble - the limitations of diplomatic assistance
The wisdom of ancient proverbs : "when in Rome, do as the Romans do" still rings true and applies to modern day situations.
Prof Natalie Klein's article is a timely reminder of the harsh realities for Australians who expect miracles for their folly to think twice before committing a crime overseas.
Celebrities of the unwelcome sort such as Schapelle Corby and the "Bali Nine" gang should starkly deter Aussies from getting into the wrong side of law but to no avail. Instead the media and public are frequently jump in to criticise others and defend the flagrant violation of laws.
Instead of getting mad at the Indonesian system and Australian government, it would be more prudent to avoid getting into trouble by observing local laws. Different jurisdictions have varying penalties to deal with drug trafficking and for good reasons to suit local conditions. It is not for foreigners to argue and try to make exceptions because we are unique and superior and others owe us a living or explanation.
Face is important to everyone, including Aussies, Americans, Europeans, Africans, etc. Some Asian societies are particularly more sensitive and place great importance to "face" saving. The media stoking public anger and whipping up a frenzy is not going to help. Instead, it will jeopardise chances of diplomatic efforts to save whoever is in trouble.
If we hope others will respect Australian laws, we should also do the same and give due recognition when we are on foreign soil. International relations work smoothly on the basis of reciprocity. It is a simple fact of life and should be understood by all.
Quote :
The Australian government has a choice as to what help it will provide nationals imprisoned overseas. Such assistance would usually be welcomed. Yet, as the pressure to act increases, international tension may rise and prevent a quick and favourable resolution.
Australians travelling overseas are often in need of help from their government. They lose their passports, need medical help, get caught up in civil unrest or natural disasters, and they are arrested.
What the government can and should do to help is highly contentious. Under international law, detained individuals can demand little more than the right to have their consulate informed of their situation. What steps a government then takes is a matter of discretion.
The varied support Australia has offered to its nationals detained abroad can be readily seen by the cases of David Hicks and Stern Hu.
The government did obtain a range of assurances from the United States as to Mr Hicks's treatment when he was first detained, but, as is well known, it took its time before insisting that steps be taken to secure Mr Hicks's return. For Mr Hu, the former Rio Tinto executive arrested for bribery and stealing commercial secrets in China, Australia sought to ensure a prompt trial but seemingly did not insist on its rights under a bilateral consular treaty to attend that trial.
The help the Bali boy is receiving is exceptional service, and may not ultimately be in his interest. No Australian should forget that when we travel overseas, we are bound by the laws of the country we're in, including any punishment for violating those laws, whether it is the death penalty or a month in rehab.
Australia cannot step in and have those laws changed or demand that they not apply to an Australian citizen. Imagine if Indonesia contacted the Australian government demanding the immediate return of men and boys held on people smuggling charges. It is unlikely Australia would brook such interference.
Each country is entitled to apply its judicial processes to alleged offenders within its jurisdiction. If due process rights or other human rights of an individual are violated, national courts are afforded the opportunity to address those violations.
Australia's Foreign Minister has acknowledged that Indonesian legal process must be followed for the Bali boy. Kevin Rudd has rightly recognised that any help Australia offers falls within the parameters of Indonesian law.
Australia's right to take legal action on behalf of one of its nationals and assert that claim against another country crystallises when the remedies available domestically have been exhausted. This is Australia's right of diplomatic protection under international law. Before then, it is a question of diplomacy and consular assistance.
The arrest and detention of Australians overseas has become sufficiently common that the government has produced an information pack on its Smartraveller website on what services it may offer. They do not include phone calls from the Prime Minister while the ambassador visits your jail cell. Nor do they normally include front-page news stories with statements of support by the Foreign Minister.
Australia has been able to work effectively behind the scenes to help nationals imprisoned abroad. Thursday's Senate estimates committee hearing that exposed how the name of the Bali boy had been revealed by both sides of Parliament cuts against any notion of diplomatic discretion in Australia's dealing with Indonesia over the Bali Boy.
The difficulty now for the boy is that the high level assistance and large media coverage might backfire.
Indonesia has been left in a more difficult position because of the amount of attention this case has generated. The Indonesian government wants to send a message about its fight against drug offenders. If it makes a decision favourable to the boy now, it risks looking like it has succumbed to Australian pressure in the application of its drug laws. It is then doubtful that any lesson is learned from this episode by other Australians holidaying in Bali. These factors are now more acute and don't help the Bali boy.
This conundrum could have been avoided. Quiet diplomacy and less media attention may have done more for the plight of the boy than may presently be the case.
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Tiger Airways better exit Australia market but too early for Qantas to celebrate
Singapore Airlines has learnt the painful way that major investments must be closely monitored hands-on. It is bad news for budget travellers but safety issues should prevail for everyone's good.
The pathetic quality of service and business ethics (or the lack of it) that plague Tiger Airways are simply unheard of in recent time. It is like between the earth and sky from the image and league that SIA belongs.
Allowing autonomy could be very costly especially when the executives and management do not deliver sterling quality and great customer service. Read : Tony Davis. Tiger's image and brand name is as good as gone in Australia.
The only saving grace to cut losses from Tiger's exit of the Aussie market is an earlier alliance forged between SIA and Virgin that will hopefully help to make up for the business losses and opportunities to keep Qantas on its toes for the lucrative trans-Pacific route.
Quotes :
Singapore Airlines has always presented itself as an arm’s-length, passive investor in Tiger Airways. It would appear that is no longer the case. The grounding of Tiger’s Australian fleet until at least the end of this month has ignited a flurry of activity within the boardroom of its Singapore parent, culminating in the departure of its Australian chief executive, Crawford Rix, and the appointment of the parent company’s chief executive, Tony Davis, as the local CEO – presumably on the basis that he was responsible for the turmoil and therefore it is up to him to fix it.
Singapore Airlines, which holds just under 33 per cent of Tiger’s capital, and the Singapore government’s investment arm, Temasek Holdings, which controls about 7.5 per cent, would have been embarrassed and aggrieved at the mess Tiger has got itself into in Australia. It appears they have been spurred into taking aggressive action to wrest control of the boardroom and the situation. Apart from the financial and brand damage Tiger has experienced, Tiger’s inexplicable decision to defy the public warnings of Australian Competition and Consumer Commission chair Graeme Samuel and continue to take bookings, until it finally backed down under duress on Tuesday, would have caused consternation in Singapore, where defiance of government authorities isn’t usual.
Qantas, through its Jetstar brand, and Virgin Australia could also be expected to seek to put a lot of pressure on Tiger if it is allowed to resume services, in the knowledge that an already loss-making business will be even more vulnerable in its damaged state. Tiger is likely to need a lot of time and capital if it is to re-establish itself and become a viable competitor in this market. Tiger’s Asian operations are profitable and growing and it may make more sense for the reshaped board and senior management to abandon the Australian market and redeploy the ten planes in the local fleet elsewhere.
Tiger Airways faces a tough task in coming back from its month-long grounding, Virgin Group CEO Sir Richard Branson says.
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has decided to extend Tiger Airways Australia's initial week-long grounding, which had been due to end on Saturday, until August 1.
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/
Qantas should not be complacent and absorb some lessons from the Tiger episode. It is high time for bystanding "winning" airlines to take the cue and try to iron out its own internal technical, organisation, services and security lapses.
The pathetic quality of service and business ethics (or the lack of it) that plague Tiger Airways are simply unheard of in recent time. It is like between the earth and sky from the image and league that SIA belongs.
Allowing autonomy could be very costly especially when the executives and management do not deliver sterling quality and great customer service. Read : Tony Davis. Tiger's image and brand name is as good as gone in Australia.
The only saving grace to cut losses from Tiger's exit of the Aussie market is an earlier alliance forged between SIA and Virgin that will hopefully help to make up for the business losses and opportunities to keep Qantas on its toes for the lucrative trans-Pacific route.
Quotes :
Singapore Airlines has always presented itself as an arm’s-length, passive investor in Tiger Airways. It would appear that is no longer the case. The grounding of Tiger’s Australian fleet until at least the end of this month has ignited a flurry of activity within the boardroom of its Singapore parent, culminating in the departure of its Australian chief executive, Crawford Rix, and the appointment of the parent company’s chief executive, Tony Davis, as the local CEO – presumably on the basis that he was responsible for the turmoil and therefore it is up to him to fix it.
Singapore Airlines, which holds just under 33 per cent of Tiger’s capital, and the Singapore government’s investment arm, Temasek Holdings, which controls about 7.5 per cent, would have been embarrassed and aggrieved at the mess Tiger has got itself into in Australia. It appears they have been spurred into taking aggressive action to wrest control of the boardroom and the situation. Apart from the financial and brand damage Tiger has experienced, Tiger’s inexplicable decision to defy the public warnings of Australian Competition and Consumer Commission chair Graeme Samuel and continue to take bookings, until it finally backed down under duress on Tuesday, would have caused consternation in Singapore, where defiance of government authorities isn’t usual.
Qantas, through its Jetstar brand, and Virgin Australia could also be expected to seek to put a lot of pressure on Tiger if it is allowed to resume services, in the knowledge that an already loss-making business will be even more vulnerable in its damaged state. Tiger is likely to need a lot of time and capital if it is to re-establish itself and become a viable competitor in this market. Tiger’s Asian operations are profitable and growing and it may make more sense for the reshaped board and senior management to abandon the Australian market and redeploy the ten planes in the local fleet elsewhere.
Tiger Airways faces a tough task in coming back from its month-long grounding, Virgin Group CEO Sir Richard Branson says.
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has decided to extend Tiger Airways Australia's initial week-long grounding, which had been due to end on Saturday, until August 1.
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/
Qantas should not be complacent and absorb some lessons from the Tiger episode. It is high time for bystanding "winning" airlines to take the cue and try to iron out its own internal technical, organisation, services and security lapses.
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
The Ideal Australian official : incorruptible, uncorrupt - home and away - is this achievable
An interesting read in today's newspapers : an analysis of the fiasco invovling some former executives of Securency and Note Printing Australia (NPA) on bribery charges.
Companies can no longer afford to turn blind eye to bribery practices
Benny Tabalujan July 05, 2011
http://m.smh.com.au/business/companies-can-no-longer-afford-to-turn-blind-eye-to-bribery-practices-20110704-1gz2i.html
Companies can no longer afford to turn blind eye to bribery practices
Benny Tabalujan July 05, 2011
http://m.smh.com.au/business/companies-can-no-longer-afford-to-turn-blind-eye-to-bribery-practices-20110704-1gz2i.html
Well, it's all good and well on paper.
First off, the parameters of longstanding laws governing officials performing their duties are limited by territorial jurisdiction. Even though the ambit has been expanded to cover foreign activities, making officials potentially liable for criminal prosecution, it is difficult to enforce.
Australian government departments and boards do not have the resources to monitor, supervise, administer and enforce the best rules that have been put in place.
The officials' primary concern is to get the job done, clinch a deal, sometimes necessitate bending the rules and work according to local conditions. Inflexibility and failure to adapt to the international environment may result in Australia lagging behind and even losing out to its global competitors. As far as we know, these Securency officials did not personally pocket the funds.
FEW Australian would condone corrupt behaviour and defend the officials' misdeeds. It could also be argued that an Australian organisation's interests are undermined having to pay for the bribes. Moreover, once the rules are flouted, there is no guarantee that human beings will be tempted to bend backwards to please their counterparts. Where do we draw the line?
Monday, March 7, 2011
Silicon Valley Immigrants returning home. Protectionism hurt employment of locals - the myth of skilled migrant entrepreneurs
Is there something Australia should learn from the USA's experience.
In the wake of tightening visa regulations, many international graduates are forced to leave before they could find a job in Australia. We have seen the crunch on reducing the number of foreign students and therefore the lucrative earnings from our education services sector. We are already feeling the pinch. Now restrictions will be extended to be imposed on the number of foreign skilled workers trained in Australia as well. The bite will sink in a matter of time. Are we still thinking of stimulus and growth or getting modest and withdrawn to savour our past glories?
Quote :
At a time when our economy is stagnating, some American political leaders are working to keep the world’s best and brightest out. They mistakenly believe that skilled immigrants take American jobs away. The opposite is true: skilled immigrants start the majority of Silicon Valley startups; they create jobs.
Meanwhile, entrepreneurship is booming in countries that compete with us. And more than half a million doctors, scientists, researchers, and engineers in the U.S. are stuck in “immigration limbo”. They are on temporary work visas and are waiting for permanent-resident visas, which are in extremely short supply. These workers can’t start companies, justify buying houses, or grow deep roots in their communities. Once they get in line for a visa, they can’t even accept a promotion or change jobs. They could be required to leave the U.S. immediately—without notice—if their employer lays them off. Rather than live in constant fear and stagnate in their careers, many are returning home.
American immigration officials are also clueless. They do everything they can to make life miserable for immigrants who want to make the U.S. more competitive and create U.S. jobs. As I noted in this piece about the Startup Visa, they interpret rules and regulations as restrictively as possible.
Unlike a lot of problems facing our country, this one is easy to fix. We just need to increase the numbers of permanent-resident visas available for those trapped in “immigration limbo”. And we should create a Startup Visa that is more inclusive than the VC/Super Angel bill that is being proposed. This may give the economy a significant boost at no cost to taxpayers.
http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/06/why-silicon-valley-immigrant-entrepreneurs-are-returning-home/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Techcrunch+%28TechCrunch%29&utm_content=FaceBook
In the wake of tightening visa regulations, many international graduates are forced to leave before they could find a job in Australia. We have seen the crunch on reducing the number of foreign students and therefore the lucrative earnings from our education services sector. We are already feeling the pinch. Now restrictions will be extended to be imposed on the number of foreign skilled workers trained in Australia as well. The bite will sink in a matter of time. Are we still thinking of stimulus and growth or getting modest and withdrawn to savour our past glories?
Quote :
At a time when our economy is stagnating, some American political leaders are working to keep the world’s best and brightest out. They mistakenly believe that skilled immigrants take American jobs away. The opposite is true: skilled immigrants start the majority of Silicon Valley startups; they create jobs.
Meanwhile, entrepreneurship is booming in countries that compete with us. And more than half a million doctors, scientists, researchers, and engineers in the U.S. are stuck in “immigration limbo”. They are on temporary work visas and are waiting for permanent-resident visas, which are in extremely short supply. These workers can’t start companies, justify buying houses, or grow deep roots in their communities. Once they get in line for a visa, they can’t even accept a promotion or change jobs. They could be required to leave the U.S. immediately—without notice—if their employer lays them off. Rather than live in constant fear and stagnate in their careers, many are returning home.
American immigration officials are also clueless. They do everything they can to make life miserable for immigrants who want to make the U.S. more competitive and create U.S. jobs. As I noted in this piece about the Startup Visa, they interpret rules and regulations as restrictively as possible.
Unlike a lot of problems facing our country, this one is easy to fix. We just need to increase the numbers of permanent-resident visas available for those trapped in “immigration limbo”. And we should create a Startup Visa that is more inclusive than the VC/Super Angel bill that is being proposed. This may give the economy a significant boost at no cost to taxpayers.
http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/06/why-silicon-valley-immigrant-entrepreneurs-are-returning-home/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Techcrunch+%28TechCrunch%29&utm_content=FaceBook
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Tunisian Revolution - what next? power vacuum does not bode well for secular democracy
Now that the autocrat Zine Al Abidine Ben Ali has been overthrown fled the country, is there cause for celebration?
Whether the Tunisian Revolution result in better or worse for the people depends on who are the players that fill the power vacuum. There appears to be no credible political alternative.
Surrounded Islamic fundamentalists and the festering instability threatening other "autocratic" modern secular governments in Islamic states, the "jasmine revolution" does not seem to bode well for secular democracy.
Iran, Iraq, ... we've seen the mayhem that follows a revolution.
So world liberals - don't hold your breath.
Quote : "
Similarities between Iranian and Tunisian revolts cannot be ignored
The Tunisian revolt, which began four weeks ago because of growing unemployment, food prices and corruption, quickly snowballed to embody the population's accumulated grievances against Ben Ali's iron-fist rule during the past 23 years.
He imposed his secular rule largely through a repressive security apparatus and good relations with France, the European Union and the United States, which backed him for maintaining political stability and promoting socio-economic development. In the process, he stifled the opposition, and personalised power and politics, with grievous human rights violations.
The circumstances of Ben Ali's overthrow are reminiscent of those of the US-backed shah of Iran, who was forced by a mass revolution to leave the country 31 years ago, also in mid-January. Just as the shah was declined asylum by his main patron, the US - ending up in Egypt where he died of cancer in July 1981 - Ben Ali has experienced a similar predicament.
After France refused him asylum on Friday, Saudi Arabia came to his rescue. Like the shah, he has left a country in a mess, with no united democratic alternative to take over.
The Speaker of the Parliament, Fouad Mebazaa, has taken over as interim president. He has asked Ben Ali's veteran Prime Minister, Mohamed Ghannouchi, to form a government of national unity until a president is elected within 60 days.
But this may not prove enough - just as the shah's installation of the reformist prime minister Shapour Bakhtyar in the 11th hour could not contain the flood of public discontent.
In the case of Iran, democratic reformers responsible for spearheading the revolution lost out to the shah's leading religious opponent, Ayatollah Khomeini, whose legacy of an Islamic government, with an anti-US posture, continues.
Tunisia is in the throes of a similar development, although the establishment of a theocracy does not seem to be an option, given the absence of a strong Islamist movement and lasting French secularist colonial influence in the country.
The US and the EU seem to have abandoned their goal of bringing democracy to the Arab world - which was once promoted fervently as a core issue in their Middle East policy - in favour of what is called security and development. Yet this is unlikely to halt people's quest for democratic reforms.
The Tunisian uprising may fail to achieve its goals but the struggle between the forces of authoritarianism and democracy will be a dominant factor in the Muslim Middle East in the years to come.
Amin Saikal is professor of political science and director of the centre for Arab and Islamic studies (the Middle East and central Asia) at the Australian National University. "
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/similarities-between-iranian-and-tunisian-revolts-cannot-be-ignored-20110116-19seo.html
http://www.smh.com.au/world/egyptians-believe-their-turn-is-coming-20110116-19smh.html
Whether the Tunisian Revolution result in better or worse for the people depends on who are the players that fill the power vacuum. There appears to be no credible political alternative.
Surrounded Islamic fundamentalists and the festering instability threatening other "autocratic" modern secular governments in Islamic states, the "jasmine revolution" does not seem to bode well for secular democracy.
Iran, Iraq, ... we've seen the mayhem that follows a revolution.
So world liberals - don't hold your breath.
Quote : "
Similarities between Iranian and Tunisian revolts cannot be ignored
The Tunisian revolt, which began four weeks ago because of growing unemployment, food prices and corruption, quickly snowballed to embody the population's accumulated grievances against Ben Ali's iron-fist rule during the past 23 years.
He imposed his secular rule largely through a repressive security apparatus and good relations with France, the European Union and the United States, which backed him for maintaining political stability and promoting socio-economic development. In the process, he stifled the opposition, and personalised power and politics, with grievous human rights violations.
The circumstances of Ben Ali's overthrow are reminiscent of those of the US-backed shah of Iran, who was forced by a mass revolution to leave the country 31 years ago, also in mid-January. Just as the shah was declined asylum by his main patron, the US - ending up in Egypt where he died of cancer in July 1981 - Ben Ali has experienced a similar predicament.
After France refused him asylum on Friday, Saudi Arabia came to his rescue. Like the shah, he has left a country in a mess, with no united democratic alternative to take over.
The Speaker of the Parliament, Fouad Mebazaa, has taken over as interim president. He has asked Ben Ali's veteran Prime Minister, Mohamed Ghannouchi, to form a government of national unity until a president is elected within 60 days.
But this may not prove enough - just as the shah's installation of the reformist prime minister Shapour Bakhtyar in the 11th hour could not contain the flood of public discontent.
In the case of Iran, democratic reformers responsible for spearheading the revolution lost out to the shah's leading religious opponent, Ayatollah Khomeini, whose legacy of an Islamic government, with an anti-US posture, continues.
Tunisia is in the throes of a similar development, although the establishment of a theocracy does not seem to be an option, given the absence of a strong Islamist movement and lasting French secularist colonial influence in the country.
The US and the EU seem to have abandoned their goal of bringing democracy to the Arab world - which was once promoted fervently as a core issue in their Middle East policy - in favour of what is called security and development. Yet this is unlikely to halt people's quest for democratic reforms.
The Tunisian uprising may fail to achieve its goals but the struggle between the forces of authoritarianism and democracy will be a dominant factor in the Muslim Middle East in the years to come.
Amin Saikal is professor of political science and director of the centre for Arab and Islamic studies (the Middle East and central Asia) at the Australian National University. "
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/similarities-between-iranian-and-tunisian-revolts-cannot-be-ignored-20110116-19seo.html
http://www.smh.com.au/world/egyptians-believe-their-turn-is-coming-20110116-19smh.html
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Expert assessment on Iran's nuclear diplomacy - Aussie leaders with big ego reject independent advice, tread dangerously on confrontations
In a nutshell, Kevin Rudd who wanted us to believe he was anti-war turned out to be really the opposite of what he projected in the election campaign. Labour might have got rid of a tough talk wimp as PM but his presence continued to be felt as FM and the successor PM Julia Gillard is just a woman with Rudd substance as far as foreign affairs are concerned. As Wikileaks are published in the local media, the more embarrassing our leaders look in the international stage.
Why aren't our politicians cleverly utilising resources from the intelligence agencies and military to go for win-win in smart and effective ways? We knew that Rudd did not pay due respect to the military commanders by turning up late for meetings. Perhaps it would help to pause and listen more to the professionals since they are less politicised, fairly independent and seem to know their craft well. The pun in intelligence must tell leaders to take heed.
After many catastrophic lessons in history, we know that the world is made of people who are not stark black and white as what some political leaders call good versus evil empires. Real world situations are a lot more complex though politicians have a penchant to simplify matters for the masses whom they believe will not understand politics. More likely, the leaders deal with world issues on the basis of their personal prejudices.
Politicians are very selective in making use of intelligence as evidence to bolster their ventures. Much rarer would they share with the public what really went on behind the scenes at real time.
Remember the episode that WMDs in Iraq which never existed. The slightest hints from untested and unreliable sources and Saddam's rhetorics were taken too seriously and sexed up to help President GW Bush muster support to invade oil-rich Iraq, remove Saddam Hussein and opened up opportunities for instability, violence and terrorism to spawn in a weak Iraq. Most of the time, intelligence has been ignored if it does not help to strengthen individual leaders' beliefs and policies. However, undertakings which involve commitment of troops (lives of Australians) and taxpayers' money ought to be measured, debated and well considered. There are times we need to be assertive but to volunteer Australia to get into more wars especially with nuclear powers is far from being responsible.
Read more :
AUSTRALIAN intelligence agencies fear that Israel may launch military strikes against Iran and Tehran's pursuit of nuclear capabilities could draw the US and Australia into a potential nuclear war in the Middle East.
Australia's peak intelligence agency has also privately undercut the hardline stance towards Tehran of the US, Israeli and Australian governments, saying its nuclear program is intended to deter attack and it is a mistake to regard Iran as a rogue state.
The warnings about the dangers of nuclear conflict in the Middle East are given in a secret US embassy cable obtained by WikiLeaks and provided exclusively to The Age. They reflect views obtained by US intelligence liaison officers in Canberra from Australian intelligence agencies.
''The AIC's [Australian intelligence community's] leading concerns with respect to Iran's nuclear ambitions centre on understanding the time frame of a possible weapons capability, and working with the United States to prevent Israel from independently launching unco-ordinated military strikes against Iran,'' the US embassy in Canberra reported to Washington in March last year.
''They are immediately concerned that Iran's pursuit of nuclear capabilities would lead to a conventional war - or even nuclear exchange - in the Middle East involving the United States that would draw Australia into a conflict.''
Australian concerns about a possible Israeli military strike against Iran are also recorded in another US embassy cable, sent to Washington in December 2008, reporting on discussions between Peter Varghese, then chief of Australia's peak intelligence agency, the Office of National Assessments (ONA), and the then head of the US State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), assistant secretary of state Randall Fort.
The embassy's report of the meeting says that ''ONA seniors and analysts were particularly interested in A/S Fort and INR's assessments on Israeli 'red lines' on Iran's nuclear program and the likelihood of an Israeli strike against Iranian nuclear facilities''.
An earlier cable, sent in July 2008, records that former prime minister Kevin Rudd was ''deeply worried'' that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's intransigence concerning Tehran's nuclear program meant that the window for a diplomatic solution was closing and that ''Israel may feel forced to use 'non-diplomatic' means''.
Last week Mr Rudd called on Israel to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty as part of a broader effort to establish the Middle East as a nuclear-weapon-free zone.
The US embassy's March 2009 report told Washington that the Australian government was ''more broadly concerned about the potential for renewed nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, driving south-east Asian states to abandon the [nuclear non-proliferation treaty] and pursue their own nuclear capabilities, which could introduce a direct threat to the Australian homeland''.
Australian intelligence views on Iran were solicited by US officials in response to a request from Washington to ascertain reactions to the possibility that the US might seek to discuss regional security issues with Tehran.
The US embassy cables confirm the presence in Canberra of representatives of all US national intelligence agencies: the CIA, the National Security Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office, the National Geospatial Agency, the Defence Intelligence Agency and the FBI.
US intelligence liaison officers engaged all their Australian counterpart agencies on the Iran question including ONA, the office of the National Security Adviser, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Australian Secret Intelligence Service, the Defence Intelligence Organisation, the Defence Signals Directorate, the Defence Imagery and Geospatial Organisation, the Defence Science and Technology Organisation, and the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation.
In its July 2009 report to Washington, the embassy noted that the Australian intelligence community had ''increased its collection and analytic efforts on Iran over the past decade, demonstrating Australia's strategic commitment to engage substantively as a significant US partner on Iran''.
US diplomats expressed ''high confidence'' that the Australian government would have no objections to US efforts to engage Iran, noting that while Australian troops remain stationed in Afghanistan ''the Australians will look to increased US engagement with Iran to improve upon creating a realistic framework for an accelerated reduction and eventual cessation of Iranian support to the Taliban, al-Qaeda and related groups, and Hezbollah. Simultaneously, Australia will look for increased US-Iranian engagement to lead to a more stable governance environment for Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and the Levant.''
The US embassy's cable on the December 2008 intelligence exchange in Iran reported ONA director-general Varghese's view that possible conflict between Israel and Iran ''clearly represented the greatest challenge to [Middle East] stability''.
ONA analysts said the Iranian government appeared determined to acquire nuclear weapons, though this was probably driven by the desire to deter Israel and the US rather than an intention to strike against other Middle East states.
''ONA viewed Tehran's nuclear program within the paradigm of 'the laws of deterrence,' noting that Iran's ability to produce a weapon may be 'enough' to meet its security objectives,'' the US embassy reported.
''Nevertheless, Australian intelligence viewed Tehran's pursuit of full self-sufficiency in the nuclear fuel cycle, long-standing covert weapons program, and continued work on delivery systems as strong indicators that Tehran's preferred end state included a nuclear arsenal.''
ONA analysts told their US counterparts they were not alone in this assessment, asserting that ''while China and Russia remain opposed to it, they view Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons as inevitable''.
However, ONA urged a balanced view of Tehran as a sophisticated diplomatic player rather than a ''rogue state'' liable to behave impulsively or irrationally.
Mr Varghese said ONA was telling the Australian government: ''It's a mistake to think of Iran as a 'rogue state'.''
The embassy cable reported: ''ONA analysts assessed that Tehran 'knows' about its lack of certain capabilities, but plays 'beyond its hand' very skilfully … ONA judged that Iran's activities in Iraq - both overt and covert - represented an extreme manifestation of Iranian strategic calculus, designed to 'outflank' the US in the region.''
However the Australian intelligence analysts ''asserted that … the most effective means by which Tehran could ensure its national security would be a strategic relationship with the US via some 'grand bargain'.''
http://www.theage.com.au/national/nuclear-war-our-fear-of-iran-20101212-18u0q.html
x x x x x
ISRAEL'S ambassador to Australia found Kevin Rudd to be ''very pro-Israel'' and senior Australian diplomats warned the former prime minister that his condemnation of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad risked retaliation against Australia's embassy in Tehran, according to leaked US diplomatic cables.
A highly experienced Israeli diplomat, ambassador Rotem told US officials in July 2008 that during his first meeting with Mr Rudd after Australia's 2007 federal election, the newly elected prime minister had described Iranian President Ahmadinejad as a ''loathsome individual on every level'' and said that the Iranian leader's anti-Semitism ''turns my stomach''.
Asked by the US embassy about whether Mr Rudd's views on Iran had elicited any response, Mr Rotem said the Iranian government had reacted to the prime minister's statements by taking ''retaliatory measures'' against the Australian embassy in Tehran.
''These measures make it harder for the embassy to conduct its day-to-day business,'' Mr Rotem observed.
The Israeli ambassador added that the Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Michael l'Estrange, and Office of National Assessments director-general Peter Varghese had ''met several times to convince the PM to think through the consequences of his rhetoric on Iran''.
The ambassador added that Israeli officials would normally have been concerned at the prospect of an Australian Labor government: ''However, this was not the case because Rudd had long gone out of his way to stress his strong commitment to Israel and appreciation for its security concerns. Rotem said that he has had excellent access to Rudd and noted that the PM has taken a strong interest in even minor issues involving Israel.
''Commenting that DFAT officials are very frank in expressing their annoyance with the PM's micromanaging of foreign policy issues, Rotem laughingly said that 'while I understand their point of view, how can I complain about having that kind of attention from the PM'.''
The Israeli ambassador's enthusiasm for the Labor government extended to deputy prime minister Julia Gillard, with the US embassy reporting in January 2009 that Mr Rotem was ''very satisfied'' with the Australian response to Israel's military offensive in Gaza.
Mr Rotem added that Ms Gillard's statements surprised many Israeli embassy contacts as being ''far more supportive than they had expected''.
Ambassador Rotem added that he would be ''playing to Rudd's vanity'' to encourage him to pay an early visit to Israel and continue to speak out in support of a hard line against Iran's nuclear ambitions.
In a meeting with US diplomats in October 2009, First Assistant Secretary Patrick Suckling and then assistant secretary, now Australian ambassador to Israel, Andrea Faulkner, said Australia ''fully supports US efforts to engage with Iran'' but expressed ''deep official scepticism'' about the prospects for diplomatic progress. Mr Suckling said: ''Australia wants the most robust, intrusive and debilitating sanctions possible.''
http://www.watoday.com.au/national/rudd-derided-loathsome-ahmadinejad-20101212-18u0s.html
Why aren't our politicians cleverly utilising resources from the intelligence agencies and military to go for win-win in smart and effective ways? We knew that Rudd did not pay due respect to the military commanders by turning up late for meetings. Perhaps it would help to pause and listen more to the professionals since they are less politicised, fairly independent and seem to know their craft well. The pun in intelligence must tell leaders to take heed.
After many catastrophic lessons in history, we know that the world is made of people who are not stark black and white as what some political leaders call good versus evil empires. Real world situations are a lot more complex though politicians have a penchant to simplify matters for the masses whom they believe will not understand politics. More likely, the leaders deal with world issues on the basis of their personal prejudices.
Politicians are very selective in making use of intelligence as evidence to bolster their ventures. Much rarer would they share with the public what really went on behind the scenes at real time.
Remember the episode that WMDs in Iraq which never existed. The slightest hints from untested and unreliable sources and Saddam's rhetorics were taken too seriously and sexed up to help President GW Bush muster support to invade oil-rich Iraq, remove Saddam Hussein and opened up opportunities for instability, violence and terrorism to spawn in a weak Iraq. Most of the time, intelligence has been ignored if it does not help to strengthen individual leaders' beliefs and policies. However, undertakings which involve commitment of troops (lives of Australians) and taxpayers' money ought to be measured, debated and well considered. There are times we need to be assertive but to volunteer Australia to get into more wars especially with nuclear powers is far from being responsible.
Read more :
AUSTRALIAN intelligence agencies fear that Israel may launch military strikes against Iran and Tehran's pursuit of nuclear capabilities could draw the US and Australia into a potential nuclear war in the Middle East.
Australia's peak intelligence agency has also privately undercut the hardline stance towards Tehran of the US, Israeli and Australian governments, saying its nuclear program is intended to deter attack and it is a mistake to regard Iran as a rogue state.
The warnings about the dangers of nuclear conflict in the Middle East are given in a secret US embassy cable obtained by WikiLeaks and provided exclusively to The Age. They reflect views obtained by US intelligence liaison officers in Canberra from Australian intelligence agencies.
''The AIC's [Australian intelligence community's] leading concerns with respect to Iran's nuclear ambitions centre on understanding the time frame of a possible weapons capability, and working with the United States to prevent Israel from independently launching unco-ordinated military strikes against Iran,'' the US embassy in Canberra reported to Washington in March last year.
''They are immediately concerned that Iran's pursuit of nuclear capabilities would lead to a conventional war - or even nuclear exchange - in the Middle East involving the United States that would draw Australia into a conflict.''
Australian concerns about a possible Israeli military strike against Iran are also recorded in another US embassy cable, sent to Washington in December 2008, reporting on discussions between Peter Varghese, then chief of Australia's peak intelligence agency, the Office of National Assessments (ONA), and the then head of the US State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), assistant secretary of state Randall Fort.
The embassy's report of the meeting says that ''ONA seniors and analysts were particularly interested in A/S Fort and INR's assessments on Israeli 'red lines' on Iran's nuclear program and the likelihood of an Israeli strike against Iranian nuclear facilities''.
An earlier cable, sent in July 2008, records that former prime minister Kevin Rudd was ''deeply worried'' that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's intransigence concerning Tehran's nuclear program meant that the window for a diplomatic solution was closing and that ''Israel may feel forced to use 'non-diplomatic' means''.
Last week Mr Rudd called on Israel to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty as part of a broader effort to establish the Middle East as a nuclear-weapon-free zone.
The US embassy's March 2009 report told Washington that the Australian government was ''more broadly concerned about the potential for renewed nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, driving south-east Asian states to abandon the [nuclear non-proliferation treaty] and pursue their own nuclear capabilities, which could introduce a direct threat to the Australian homeland''.
Australian intelligence views on Iran were solicited by US officials in response to a request from Washington to ascertain reactions to the possibility that the US might seek to discuss regional security issues with Tehran.
The US embassy cables confirm the presence in Canberra of representatives of all US national intelligence agencies: the CIA, the National Security Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office, the National Geospatial Agency, the Defence Intelligence Agency and the FBI.
US intelligence liaison officers engaged all their Australian counterpart agencies on the Iran question including ONA, the office of the National Security Adviser, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Australian Secret Intelligence Service, the Defence Intelligence Organisation, the Defence Signals Directorate, the Defence Imagery and Geospatial Organisation, the Defence Science and Technology Organisation, and the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation.
In its July 2009 report to Washington, the embassy noted that the Australian intelligence community had ''increased its collection and analytic efforts on Iran over the past decade, demonstrating Australia's strategic commitment to engage substantively as a significant US partner on Iran''.
US diplomats expressed ''high confidence'' that the Australian government would have no objections to US efforts to engage Iran, noting that while Australian troops remain stationed in Afghanistan ''the Australians will look to increased US engagement with Iran to improve upon creating a realistic framework for an accelerated reduction and eventual cessation of Iranian support to the Taliban, al-Qaeda and related groups, and Hezbollah. Simultaneously, Australia will look for increased US-Iranian engagement to lead to a more stable governance environment for Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and the Levant.''
The US embassy's cable on the December 2008 intelligence exchange in Iran reported ONA director-general Varghese's view that possible conflict between Israel and Iran ''clearly represented the greatest challenge to [Middle East] stability''.
ONA analysts said the Iranian government appeared determined to acquire nuclear weapons, though this was probably driven by the desire to deter Israel and the US rather than an intention to strike against other Middle East states.
''ONA viewed Tehran's nuclear program within the paradigm of 'the laws of deterrence,' noting that Iran's ability to produce a weapon may be 'enough' to meet its security objectives,'' the US embassy reported.
''Nevertheless, Australian intelligence viewed Tehran's pursuit of full self-sufficiency in the nuclear fuel cycle, long-standing covert weapons program, and continued work on delivery systems as strong indicators that Tehran's preferred end state included a nuclear arsenal.''
ONA analysts told their US counterparts they were not alone in this assessment, asserting that ''while China and Russia remain opposed to it, they view Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons as inevitable''.
However, ONA urged a balanced view of Tehran as a sophisticated diplomatic player rather than a ''rogue state'' liable to behave impulsively or irrationally.
Mr Varghese said ONA was telling the Australian government: ''It's a mistake to think of Iran as a 'rogue state'.''
The embassy cable reported: ''ONA analysts assessed that Tehran 'knows' about its lack of certain capabilities, but plays 'beyond its hand' very skilfully … ONA judged that Iran's activities in Iraq - both overt and covert - represented an extreme manifestation of Iranian strategic calculus, designed to 'outflank' the US in the region.''
However the Australian intelligence analysts ''asserted that … the most effective means by which Tehran could ensure its national security would be a strategic relationship with the US via some 'grand bargain'.''
http://www.theage.com.au/national/nuclear-war-our-fear-of-iran-20101212-18u0q.html
x x x x x
ISRAEL'S ambassador to Australia found Kevin Rudd to be ''very pro-Israel'' and senior Australian diplomats warned the former prime minister that his condemnation of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad risked retaliation against Australia's embassy in Tehran, according to leaked US diplomatic cables.
A highly experienced Israeli diplomat, ambassador Rotem told US officials in July 2008 that during his first meeting with Mr Rudd after Australia's 2007 federal election, the newly elected prime minister had described Iranian President Ahmadinejad as a ''loathsome individual on every level'' and said that the Iranian leader's anti-Semitism ''turns my stomach''.
Asked by the US embassy about whether Mr Rudd's views on Iran had elicited any response, Mr Rotem said the Iranian government had reacted to the prime minister's statements by taking ''retaliatory measures'' against the Australian embassy in Tehran.
''These measures make it harder for the embassy to conduct its day-to-day business,'' Mr Rotem observed.
The Israeli ambassador added that the Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Michael l'Estrange, and Office of National Assessments director-general Peter Varghese had ''met several times to convince the PM to think through the consequences of his rhetoric on Iran''.
The ambassador added that Israeli officials would normally have been concerned at the prospect of an Australian Labor government: ''However, this was not the case because Rudd had long gone out of his way to stress his strong commitment to Israel and appreciation for its security concerns. Rotem said that he has had excellent access to Rudd and noted that the PM has taken a strong interest in even minor issues involving Israel.
''Commenting that DFAT officials are very frank in expressing their annoyance with the PM's micromanaging of foreign policy issues, Rotem laughingly said that 'while I understand their point of view, how can I complain about having that kind of attention from the PM'.''
The Israeli ambassador's enthusiasm for the Labor government extended to deputy prime minister Julia Gillard, with the US embassy reporting in January 2009 that Mr Rotem was ''very satisfied'' with the Australian response to Israel's military offensive in Gaza.
Mr Rotem added that Ms Gillard's statements surprised many Israeli embassy contacts as being ''far more supportive than they had expected''.
Ambassador Rotem added that he would be ''playing to Rudd's vanity'' to encourage him to pay an early visit to Israel and continue to speak out in support of a hard line against Iran's nuclear ambitions.
In a meeting with US diplomats in October 2009, First Assistant Secretary Patrick Suckling and then assistant secretary, now Australian ambassador to Israel, Andrea Faulkner, said Australia ''fully supports US efforts to engage with Iran'' but expressed ''deep official scepticism'' about the prospects for diplomatic progress. Mr Suckling said: ''Australia wants the most robust, intrusive and debilitating sanctions possible.''
http://www.watoday.com.au/national/rudd-derided-loathsome-ahmadinejad-20101212-18u0s.html
Monday, December 6, 2010
Kevin Rudd : Wikileaks blunt talk confirms he is the most undiplomatic highest level diplomat of Australia
The open secret of Kevin Rudd's undiplomatic ways is confirmed by the latest series of Wikileaks. Kevin Rudd, Australia's highest level diplomat, is the most undiplomatic official that has ever represented (or misrepresented) Australia.
The best interests of our great nation is not served by stoking war with China, ironically, from a professed scholar of Chinese history with many years of international experience.
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2010/s3085341.htm
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion-old/call-to-arms-reflects-badly-on-rudd/story-e6frfifx-1225967323156
Kevin Rudd's ignorance, bluntness, recklessness and ruthlessless shine through.
Even the US patron would not go to the extent of war mongering after the the debacles of misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US is adept at posturing but has tried to avoid wars in the tense but otherwise peaceful economically driven Northeast Asia region.
The latest documents revealed Rudd's true colours. This will be point of no return for Rudd's political career. It is well known that Rudd has pissed his party colleagues but his abrasiveness apparently did not stop at the domestic arena.
With a friend like Rudd, you don't need enemies. That's probably the thinking of many countries out there now.
After Wikileaks, China and other neighbouring countries will no longer believe the friendship gestures of the Australian Foreign Minister or the government he represents. There will be ramifications on economic relations with Australia's largest trading partner which has thus far helped to avoid economic recession that many parts of the world endured.
Rudd's indiscretion has also annoyed our closest friend and ally, the USA. The American ambassador was apparently enraged by Rudd's last minute cancellation of a meeting with Bush which he had earlier pushed roughshod to obtain. It may be alright for a political satire cartoonist to take pot shods at former US President GW Bush but certainly out of sync for Rudd as a head of a friendly state to partake in gossips and offend his counterpart.
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/technology/technology-news/americans-enraged-by-pms-insults-to-bush-20101207-18obs.html
http://www.theage.com.au/world/the-day-kevin-stood-up-george-20101207-18oc4.html
On the domestic front, Rudd and the Labour party came to power on the vote of diversity and equity. The constitutencies too will not believe in Rudd's sincerity.
While most politicians are hypocrites and generally untrustworthy, the image of good old clean cut Kevin Rudd will disappoint many people. Sadly, we have to approach every nice guy with distrust and examine beneath the superficial pleasantries and promises.
- c.g.
The best interests of our great nation is not served by stoking war with China, ironically, from a professed scholar of Chinese history with many years of international experience.
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2010/s3085341.htm
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion-old/call-to-arms-reflects-badly-on-rudd/story-e6frfifx-1225967323156
Kevin Rudd's ignorance, bluntness, recklessness and ruthlessless shine through.
Even the US patron would not go to the extent of war mongering after the the debacles of misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US is adept at posturing but has tried to avoid wars in the tense but otherwise peaceful economically driven Northeast Asia region.
The latest documents revealed Rudd's true colours. This will be point of no return for Rudd's political career. It is well known that Rudd has pissed his party colleagues but his abrasiveness apparently did not stop at the domestic arena.
With a friend like Rudd, you don't need enemies. That's probably the thinking of many countries out there now.
After Wikileaks, China and other neighbouring countries will no longer believe the friendship gestures of the Australian Foreign Minister or the government he represents. There will be ramifications on economic relations with Australia's largest trading partner which has thus far helped to avoid economic recession that many parts of the world endured.
Rudd's indiscretion has also annoyed our closest friend and ally, the USA. The American ambassador was apparently enraged by Rudd's last minute cancellation of a meeting with Bush which he had earlier pushed roughshod to obtain. It may be alright for a political satire cartoonist to take pot shods at former US President GW Bush but certainly out of sync for Rudd as a head of a friendly state to partake in gossips and offend his counterpart.
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/technology/technology-news/americans-enraged-by-pms-insults-to-bush-20101207-18obs.html
http://www.theage.com.au/world/the-day-kevin-stood-up-george-20101207-18oc4.html
On the domestic front, Rudd and the Labour party came to power on the vote of diversity and equity. The constitutencies too will not believe in Rudd's sincerity.
While most politicians are hypocrites and generally untrustworthy, the image of good old clean cut Kevin Rudd will disappoint many people. Sadly, we have to approach every nice guy with distrust and examine beneath the superficial pleasantries and promises.
- c.g.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Wiki Leaks - Australian hacker Julian Assange in hot soup for revelations of the truth
Much of the juicy details are just adding meat to the skeletal bones that we already know. Most people with some level of intelligence, education and interest in world affairs would have an inkling of the fakeness of diplomacy and know better not to believe the words of politicians.
http://www.aolnews.com/opinion/article/opinion-wikileaks-finally-goes-too-far/19737083
How much harm has been done? The leaks touch on past issues, not assessments and future actions. It is not as big a deal as governments citing security concerns would like to have ordinary citizens believe in.
So was WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is guilty of "a reckless action which jeopardizes lives." Long have we been championing to protect the anonymity, rights and immunity of whistleblowers. But not in this case because the stakes are too high and embarrassing for key figures in the American powerhouse.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704584804575644510268871730.html
What next? Damage control of course is mean feat. The fallout will inevitably affect those in power who have to work out how not to jeopardise war and peace efforts.
The value of truthfulness and honesty has limits or even negative effects. This may be a lesson that absolute "freedom" of information could cause indiscretion, unhappiness and more trouble. To many who unconditionally worshipped the goddess of liberty, it was a dream dashed. Americans' allies include dictators, despots, autocrats and even terrorists! It should also come as no surprise that Australia is a faithful follower of the USA and will back its patron, longtime friend and cultural partner all the way.
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/world/view/20101129-305997/Australia-vows-to-back-any-US-legal-action-against-WikiLeaks
Someone or some people must be make to look like the fall guys and scapegoats to take the blame away from stakeholders. Not the rich and powerful even if they had done wrongs. Guess who?
Where is the hero/villian?
An international arrest warrant was issued in mid-November against Assange, a 39-year-old Australian, on suspicion of rape and sexual molestation of two women in Sweden.
Attorney-General Robert McClelland said yesterday that Wikileaks will be investigated to determine whether or not its whistle-blowing actions violated Australian law.
http://www.zdnet.com.au/wikileaks-assange-offered-ecuador-home-339307631.htm?feed=rss
http://www.aolnews.com/opinion/article/opinion-wikileaks-finally-goes-too-far/19737083
How much harm has been done? The leaks touch on past issues, not assessments and future actions. It is not as big a deal as governments citing security concerns would like to have ordinary citizens believe in.
So was WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is guilty of "a reckless action which jeopardizes lives." Long have we been championing to protect the anonymity, rights and immunity of whistleblowers. But not in this case because the stakes are too high and embarrassing for key figures in the American powerhouse.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704584804575644510268871730.html
What next? Damage control of course is mean feat. The fallout will inevitably affect those in power who have to work out how not to jeopardise war and peace efforts.
The value of truthfulness and honesty has limits or even negative effects. This may be a lesson that absolute "freedom" of information could cause indiscretion, unhappiness and more trouble. To many who unconditionally worshipped the goddess of liberty, it was a dream dashed. Americans' allies include dictators, despots, autocrats and even terrorists! It should also come as no surprise that Australia is a faithful follower of the USA and will back its patron, longtime friend and cultural partner all the way.
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/world/view/20101129-305997/Australia-vows-to-back-any-US-legal-action-against-WikiLeaks
Someone or some people must be make to look like the fall guys and scapegoats to take the blame away from stakeholders. Not the rich and powerful even if they had done wrongs. Guess who?
Where is the hero/villian?
An international arrest warrant was issued in mid-November against Assange, a 39-year-old Australian, on suspicion of rape and sexual molestation of two women in Sweden.
Attorney-General Robert McClelland said yesterday that Wikileaks will be investigated to determine whether or not its whistle-blowing actions violated Australian law.
http://www.zdnet.com.au/wikileaks-assange-offered-ecuador-home-339307631.htm?feed=rss
Monday, November 15, 2010
Burma - movement by all parties
Burma is facing a new dawn despite scepticism of the election facade largely directed by the military junta to ensure its continued hold on to power.
Significantly, everyone's attention is on the release The Lady and her willingness to compromise and bring about real change for her people. Western countries who had cut off ties with Burma are keen to jump on Aung San Suu Kyi's call for dismantling of economic sanctions.
Quote :
After spending 15 of the last 20 years in confinement Mrs Suu Kyi, the Nobel peace laureate and democracy advocate, acknowledged that her release marked a potential moment of great change in the stand-off between Burma/Myanmar and the West. The freeze in relations has seen the former British colony grow increasing reliant on China.
Kevin Rudd, the Australian foreign minister and former prime minister, has told Mrs Suu Kyi that "reliable" friends were ready to be flexible on sanctions if she could make headway on domestic reform with the generals that run the country.
Mrs Suu Kyi used her second full day of freedom to indicate that her position on Burma's international isolation had undergone changes from the view that the military regime could only be overthrown by sanctions and isolation. "I don't want to see the military falling. I want to see the military rising to dignified heights of professionalism and true patriotism," she told the BBC. "I think it's quite obvious what the people want: the people just want better lives based on security and on freedom."
International sanctions mostly target regime figures – banning travel, financial transactions and business dealing – and many Western countries have imposed an arms embargo on the regime.
As recently as last Thursday, the EU added judges responsible for sentencing Mrs Suu Kyi to the visa ban list and President Barack Obama of the US renewed sanctions in May.
However Senator Jim Webb, a prominent supporter of President Obama, has warned that sanctions and Western business boycotts had rendered Burma as little more than a "province" of China. And the sanctions were already deeply unpopular within Asia, including among intellectual opinion. Jose Ramos Horta, the president of East Timor and a fellow winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, hit out at the isolation of Burma as not "morally good". "I'm very happy with the release of Aung San Suu Kyi from house arrest after more than 15 years without reason," he said. "I see it as something good and I congratulate the military regime in Myanmar for handling this," he said.
"I'm also waiting and hoping for two blocs, namely America and Europe, which have been applying harsh sanctions against Myanmar, to lift them."
Derek Tonkin, a former British ambassador in Bangkok, said: "Suu Kyi's reappearance is something that will be utilised at a time when the US and EU are looking for some kind of engagement. There are areas where she can play a considerable role. Suu Kyi could hold consultations with diplomats, even if the regime isn't prepared to talk to them at this stage. There are things she can do with the West that they can't do with the regime."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/burmamyanmar/8134988/Western-states-hint-at-support-for-easing-Burma-sanctions.html
It was easy for outsiders living in the free world to rally to liberal academicians' agitation for sanctions, not realising that blockades hurt the Burmese people more than the military regime. Similar experience in South Africa showed that sanctions against apartheid did not work.
Idealists who denounce that the military junta absolutely gives up all their power are harbouring unrealistic expectations. The military must have a continued and key role in nation building as it has the machinery to keep the country from falling apart. As history has shown, removal of autocrats and tyrants forcibly would most likely leave a power vacuum for militants, religious fundamentalists, or other tyrants to fill its place.
The generals would have more to gain to include ASSK into its fold. Together they could achieve more and deliver economic growth to the impoverished nation. Too many opportunities for unity have slipped away and it is high time that the Burmese people deserve what they are entitled to.
The world can look forward to helping the Burmese people through engagement rather than cold shoulder.
- copyright of c.g.
Significantly, everyone's attention is on the release The Lady and her willingness to compromise and bring about real change for her people. Western countries who had cut off ties with Burma are keen to jump on Aung San Suu Kyi's call for dismantling of economic sanctions.
Quote :
After spending 15 of the last 20 years in confinement Mrs Suu Kyi, the Nobel peace laureate and democracy advocate, acknowledged that her release marked a potential moment of great change in the stand-off between Burma/Myanmar and the West. The freeze in relations has seen the former British colony grow increasing reliant on China.
Kevin Rudd, the Australian foreign minister and former prime minister, has told Mrs Suu Kyi that "reliable" friends were ready to be flexible on sanctions if she could make headway on domestic reform with the generals that run the country.
Mrs Suu Kyi used her second full day of freedom to indicate that her position on Burma's international isolation had undergone changes from the view that the military regime could only be overthrown by sanctions and isolation. "I don't want to see the military falling. I want to see the military rising to dignified heights of professionalism and true patriotism," she told the BBC. "I think it's quite obvious what the people want: the people just want better lives based on security and on freedom."
International sanctions mostly target regime figures – banning travel, financial transactions and business dealing – and many Western countries have imposed an arms embargo on the regime.
As recently as last Thursday, the EU added judges responsible for sentencing Mrs Suu Kyi to the visa ban list and President Barack Obama of the US renewed sanctions in May.
However Senator Jim Webb, a prominent supporter of President Obama, has warned that sanctions and Western business boycotts had rendered Burma as little more than a "province" of China. And the sanctions were already deeply unpopular within Asia, including among intellectual opinion. Jose Ramos Horta, the president of East Timor and a fellow winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, hit out at the isolation of Burma as not "morally good". "I'm very happy with the release of Aung San Suu Kyi from house arrest after more than 15 years without reason," he said. "I see it as something good and I congratulate the military regime in Myanmar for handling this," he said.
"I'm also waiting and hoping for two blocs, namely America and Europe, which have been applying harsh sanctions against Myanmar, to lift them."
Derek Tonkin, a former British ambassador in Bangkok, said: "Suu Kyi's reappearance is something that will be utilised at a time when the US and EU are looking for some kind of engagement. There are areas where she can play a considerable role. Suu Kyi could hold consultations with diplomats, even if the regime isn't prepared to talk to them at this stage. There are things she can do with the West that they can't do with the regime."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/burmamyanmar/8134988/Western-states-hint-at-support-for-easing-Burma-sanctions.html
It was easy for outsiders living in the free world to rally to liberal academicians' agitation for sanctions, not realising that blockades hurt the Burmese people more than the military regime. Similar experience in South Africa showed that sanctions against apartheid did not work.
Idealists who denounce that the military junta absolutely gives up all their power are harbouring unrealistic expectations. The military must have a continued and key role in nation building as it has the machinery to keep the country from falling apart. As history has shown, removal of autocrats and tyrants forcibly would most likely leave a power vacuum for militants, religious fundamentalists, or other tyrants to fill its place.
The generals would have more to gain to include ASSK into its fold. Together they could achieve more and deliver economic growth to the impoverished nation. Too many opportunities for unity have slipped away and it is high time that the Burmese people deserve what they are entitled to.
The world can look forward to helping the Burmese people through engagement rather than cold shoulder.
- copyright of c.g.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Gains and governance overshadow politicised "national Interests" in a globalised economy : proposed Singapore-Australian Stock Exchange merger
Most articles on the issue of the proposed Singapore-Australian stock exchanges merger have been replete with emotional outbursts on national interest and the impact on investors' profits.
Here are some objective analysis by economic, industry, legal and regulatory experts that should be considered seriously than politicising an economic issues.
The main players are keen but each side is worried that they have the short end of the deal. Most Australians' concerns focus on compromises on regulations of companies' listing, complaince such as disclosure requirements and independence. Singaporean analysts, on the other hand, are uncomfortable that the venture is overpriced and laden with obstacles on approval as well as potential management and competition issues from Chi-X.
It is a perennial challenge to achieve an optimal balance between regulation and economic vibrance.
QUOTE :
[Lawyers Michael Wilton and Jill Gauntlett say : ... shareholders should be comforted by the long historical links in regulation between Australia and Singapore. When Singapore fashioned its corporations law almost 50 years ago, it modelled it on the uniform Companies Act passed by all Australian states in 1961. Revised uniform listing rules took effect in Australia at the same time.]
[Singapore has different financial track record requirements and does not have an equivalent of Australia's assets test that allows mining exploration companies to list before they turn a profit.]
[Jennifer Hill, Professor of Law in University of Sydney says :
Australia and Singapore allow their exchanges to grant waivers case by case. This ''may potentially constitute a form of selective regulation'' ... the corporate governance consultancy ISS released a report in 2007 that concluded that the Australian waiver scheme lacked transparency, especially compared with New Zealand, but was substantially more transparent than London or New York .... such disparities could be a concern as global competition among exchanges increases.]
[''During the 1990s, it was often assumed that the trend towards cross-listing of foreign firms in the United States was itself a new form of regulatory competition, under which foreign companies from jurisdictions with poor corporate governance would cross-list to gain regulatory credibility,'' she says.
But this assumption was questioned after the Sarbanes-Oxley Act was passed in 2002, when many high-profile Asian companies bypassed the New York Stock Exchange in favour of other international exchanges.
''This suggested that overly stringent governance may repel, rather than attract, cross-listing,'' Hill says. ''This remains a danger for securities exchanges, particularly given increased competition for listing and trading revenues.'' ]
http://www.theage.com.au/business/asx-merger-plan-raises-questions-of-governance-20101028-175s7.html
Here are some objective analysis by economic, industry, legal and regulatory experts that should be considered seriously than politicising an economic issues.
The main players are keen but each side is worried that they have the short end of the deal. Most Australians' concerns focus on compromises on regulations of companies' listing, complaince such as disclosure requirements and independence. Singaporean analysts, on the other hand, are uncomfortable that the venture is overpriced and laden with obstacles on approval as well as potential management and competition issues from Chi-X.
It is a perennial challenge to achieve an optimal balance between regulation and economic vibrance.
QUOTE :
[Lawyers Michael Wilton and Jill Gauntlett say : ... shareholders should be comforted by the long historical links in regulation between Australia and Singapore. When Singapore fashioned its corporations law almost 50 years ago, it modelled it on the uniform Companies Act passed by all Australian states in 1961. Revised uniform listing rules took effect in Australia at the same time.]
[Singapore has different financial track record requirements and does not have an equivalent of Australia's assets test that allows mining exploration companies to list before they turn a profit.]
[Jennifer Hill, Professor of Law in University of Sydney says :
Australia and Singapore allow their exchanges to grant waivers case by case. This ''may potentially constitute a form of selective regulation'' ... the corporate governance consultancy ISS released a report in 2007 that concluded that the Australian waiver scheme lacked transparency, especially compared with New Zealand, but was substantially more transparent than London or New York .... such disparities could be a concern as global competition among exchanges increases.]
[''During the 1990s, it was often assumed that the trend towards cross-listing of foreign firms in the United States was itself a new form of regulatory competition, under which foreign companies from jurisdictions with poor corporate governance would cross-list to gain regulatory credibility,'' she says.
But this assumption was questioned after the Sarbanes-Oxley Act was passed in 2002, when many high-profile Asian companies bypassed the New York Stock Exchange in favour of other international exchanges.
''This suggested that overly stringent governance may repel, rather than attract, cross-listing,'' Hill says. ''This remains a danger for securities exchanges, particularly given increased competition for listing and trading revenues.'' ]
http://www.theage.com.au/business/asx-merger-plan-raises-questions-of-governance-20101028-175s7.html
Monday, September 27, 2010
Cheap imports - the beauty of free world trade
Good quality products may not always be bought at a high price. Gone were the days when a box of 12 coloured pencils cost $5 - $10. Open international trade and diversity of suppliers have benefitted Australians. These days, school children (and their parents) are spoilt for choices when making purchases.
No longer do we have to wait for overseas trips to stock up on certain types of essential stationery. Clear plastic letter files that open on 2 sides and document wallets with button are available in Big W (only some items are available at Woolies). This is the best buy in town - a couple of dollars for a pack.
Not all paper are the same including some that claim to be "premium quality". At the minium, you should get the 800 gsm white paper so as not to jam your printer. Good quality paper are not usually sold at chain stores that cater to the mass market and may not have QC checks. It may be worthwhile checking out printers and office suppliers close to commercial-industrial estates. They are only a little dearer but well worth it for the quality.
The lowest rate for photocopying is at Officeworks, much cheaper than private setups, universities and public libraries. Even though you may have chosen to use the self service machines, helpful staff are always close by to offer advice if you encounter any technical difficulties. They also cater to customers who require more sophisticated printing.
- c g
No longer do we have to wait for overseas trips to stock up on certain types of essential stationery. Clear plastic letter files that open on 2 sides and document wallets with button are available in Big W (only some items are available at Woolies). This is the best buy in town - a couple of dollars for a pack.
Not all paper are the same including some that claim to be "premium quality". At the minium, you should get the 800 gsm white paper so as not to jam your printer. Good quality paper are not usually sold at chain stores that cater to the mass market and may not have QC checks. It may be worthwhile checking out printers and office suppliers close to commercial-industrial estates. They are only a little dearer but well worth it for the quality.
The lowest rate for photocopying is at Officeworks, much cheaper than private setups, universities and public libraries. Even though you may have chosen to use the self service machines, helpful staff are always close by to offer advice if you encounter any technical difficulties. They also cater to customers who require more sophisticated printing.
- c g
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Burqa / Niquab - a Middle Eastern cultural heritage
To "infidels" there is often some difficulty in grasping why the burqa, an Arab cultural heritage suited to desert conditions during ancient war times, should be relevant in Australia.
Undoubteldly, a great religion and a compassionate God, Almighty Allah, would accommodate different cultures, not just those from a certain regions. Australians need a lot more convincing rationale to be moved.
There are many reasons behind strong resistance against the ban on the burqa in Australia.
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/its-unaustralian--rally-condemns-push-to-ban-burqa-20100919-15hy0.html
At first sight, communities would agree that the brainwashing of women followers has been very successful. A strong belief may not necessarily be an indication virtuousness. What is certain is the achievement of propaganda to protect the powers of being sometimes at the expense of deluding the supportive majority.
Even if some Muslim women may want to disenfranchise from these constraints, they are too afraid to defy and disrupt the patriachal order, fear of being ostracised, intimidated, or even threatened with physical harm and shame they will bring upon themselves or their families. Unless they are prepared to totally severe ties and disown their families and community, which is difficult given their minorities status in Australia.
To wait for progressive changes from within Islam as some moderate voices have suggested, will take a very long time. Most cultures simply do not have the tenacity to balance the regimental and unquestioning doctrines. The Christian reformation took centuries to moderate itself with the proactive push by educated leadership, supported by state institutions. Many of these factors are either absent or too weak to bring fundamentalists more relevant to modern times. Positive change can only come about through building bridges and compromises on the part of various stakeholders, not consistently giving in to the steadfast.
Migrants who have come to Australia are accepted on the understanding that we will try to adjust and live without conflicts with the rest of society. Obeying the laws in the secular system is an obligation which confer rights in return. It is an unwritten social contract. Those who have benefitted from the free and fair system should not turn around and bite the hand that feeds them. It should be queried whether ardently holding on to traditions would pose problems for security issues and harmonious living with the rest of society.
Every individual has a personality and facial expressions are an essential part of communications. Fiascos in marriages and robberies could be avoided if everyone were to show most of their face if they wish to dress modestly and conservative.
Let's end on a light note to defuse emotional tensions.
There are many reasons behind strong resistance against the ban on the burqa in Australia.
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/its-unaustralian--rally-condemns-push-to-ban-burqa-20100919-15hy0.html
At first sight, communities would agree that the brainwashing of women followers has been very successful. A strong belief may not necessarily be an indication virtuousness. What is certain is the achievement of propaganda to protect the powers of being sometimes at the expense of deluding the supportive majority.
Even if some Muslim women may want to disenfranchise from these constraints, they are too afraid to defy and disrupt the patriachal order, fear of being ostracised, intimidated, or even threatened with physical harm and shame they will bring upon themselves or their families. Unless they are prepared to totally severe ties and disown their families and community, which is difficult given their minorities status in Australia.
To wait for progressive changes from within Islam as some moderate voices have suggested, will take a very long time. Most cultures simply do not have the tenacity to balance the regimental and unquestioning doctrines. The Christian reformation took centuries to moderate itself with the proactive push by educated leadership, supported by state institutions. Many of these factors are either absent or too weak to bring fundamentalists more relevant to modern times. Positive change can only come about through building bridges and compromises on the part of various stakeholders, not consistently giving in to the steadfast.
Migrants who have come to Australia are accepted on the understanding that we will try to adjust and live without conflicts with the rest of society. Obeying the laws in the secular system is an obligation which confer rights in return. It is an unwritten social contract. Those who have benefitted from the free and fair system should not turn around and bite the hand that feeds them. It should be queried whether ardently holding on to traditions would pose problems for security issues and harmonious living with the rest of society.
Every individual has a personality and facial expressions are an essential part of communications. Fiascos in marriages and robberies could be avoided if everyone were to show most of their face if they wish to dress modestly and conservative.
Let's end on a light note to defuse emotional tensions.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Wilkie : whistleblower of Iraq invasion gets apology and acknowledgement
The private apology by a Coalition leader to independent MP Andrew Wilkie who criticised the Howard government's invasion of Iraq based on fabrication of intelligence is long overdue.
Recalling some time ago, we showered accolades on many brave truthseekers who wanted to correct moral hazards by exposing powerful wrongdoers. http://ausletters.blogspot.com/2010/02/australian-whistleblowing-cases-more.html
It may take many years, a decade, or even a generation for the truth to be known but it must come forth. The psychological sufferings Wilkie underwent of being vilified as "unbalanced" are impossible to compensate materially or verbally in the light of now widely known foreign policy mistakes.
Some may even ask if Abbott really felt sorry and had approached Wilkie if he did not need to rope in independents to form a government.
Heroes like Wilkie are owed not just a government's apology but deserve to be commended publicly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)