28 February 2007
Cultural imperialism out, cultural dialectic in.
And on the general topic THIS excellent piece in Foreign Affairs castes some interesting light on the US's embrace of rising India and China. It's the topic of our times - how to change the global architecture to accomodate these emerging giants. Institutions created in the 1940s ossify the world view of WW2's victors (particularly its western ones). Unreformed, they just won't cut it in future. These are very interesting issues - particularly for the US. How will it cope with sharing the limelight (and giving up a degree of autonomy)? And how will it manage the relative demographic and economic decline of Europe? Worth a read.
I'm thinking of introducing a rating system for articles - given that not everyone I know has my quota of reading hours each day. I'd give the first article 3.5 stars (a worthwhile caveat to a tired debate), and the second 4.5 stars (the most accessible synthesis of the India/China challenge I've read).
27 February 2007
South Africa: Complex evermore
A NY Times article - HERE - catches a glimpse of South Africa's social complexity. It looks at how Afrikaaners are dealing with their dual history of victimhood and victimisation, and the reaction of other ethnic groups to their expression of cultural pride. People need identity, and history - and its bloody hard to be weighed down by histories mistakes. I met plenty of young Afrikaaners who were so proud of their new nation, proud of their heritage and language, but well aware of how history and the world stereotypes them. I also met a fair few unreconstructed isolationists (like the Orania types in this article). Alistair Sparks (I think) noted that the ANC are fonder of the Afrikaaners than they are of British South Africans - In their view the white english-speaking liberals were all talk and no action during apartheid, and dual-passport holders. The Afrikaaners at least were committed to the land, perhaps a little too ruthlessly. That the ANC and the National Party have since merged is testament to this - strange bedfellows in a strange bed. Anyway, have a read before it disappears into the NY times vault.
Hi, I'm from Oceania
26 February 2007
Thesis titles: colons; attention seeking; in-jokes; and pictures
Hoorah for Max
23 February 2007
Pragmatic idealists unite
If I ever find myself in a lift with Peter Garrett I'll tell him "Sir, you are one of the main reasons I became passionate about politics. Viva the oils." 'Diesel and Dust' did so much to get indigenous issues on our national agenda - to bring the desert into our lounge rooms. I'll never forget an oils concert at the Tennis Centre in which they sang 'beds are burning.' In the middle of the song, as the mulleted many sang 'the time has come, a facts a fact, it belongs to them, lets give it back' Peter Garrett stopped the music, turned the lights on the crowd and yelled "say it like you mean it!" Suddenly a punchy song's familiar lyrics rang out as a profound political statement. It was a stunning use of rock music as a political medium - few there would forget it. There's no contradiction between holding strong views and being involved in politics. In fact, leaving the Peter Garretts out of politics would be a waste of passion and a diminution of the legitimacy of power. So roll on idealists one and all. Pragmatism is ok so long as the flame of idealism burns on.
22 February 2007
"The elephant in our rooms"
His article on the future of capitalism is worth a read - if just for his line about 'manufacturing desire'. Link to it HERE
"Marx thought capitalism would have a problem finding consumers for the goods that improving techniques of production enabled it to churn out. Instead, it has become expert in a new branch of manufacturing: the manufacture of desires. The genius of contemporary capitalism is not simply that it gives consumers what they want but that it makes them want what it has to give. It's that core logic of ever-expanding desires that is unsustainable on a global scale. But are we prepared to abandon it? ."
21 February 2007
They train 'em young
"Darling... so naice of you to cawll..... rearlly brilliant.... darling...... darling, families can be so tiresome..... weddings hey..... DID HE?....... oh darling......yes....yes.....yes, you're right darling.....no darling, lets make a decision on that next week....know what i mean?....yes darling, no point rushing it...... so I'll see you next weekend then?..... I suspect we'll jet down on friday darling.... yes, so tiresome.... yes, drama drama....mmmm blah blah blah..... (giggle) ....yes darling....ya....ya....ya ya....ha!.... Fantastic news darling, rearlly fantastic.... kisses darling....ta ra."
20 February 2007
Do we fit in yet?
"Australia’s problem is self-evident. ‘Think of a Canada that had been towed away from where it is, and moored off Africa, and the problems of Australia’s physical location become clear’. But looking for Australia two decades later, salvage crews exploring mooring places off the coast of Africa are likely to come up empty-handed. Responding to dynamic economic growth in Asia, then Opposition Leader John Howard appealed to physical and economic geography when he stated that ‘there is no doubt that we are incredibly fortunate that our geography has cast us next to the fastest growing region in the world’. Geography-as-destiny.... ‘Without actually becoming Asian’, Gavan McCormack writes, ‘Australia is struggling to articulate a regional universalism and to become simultaneously post-European and post-Asian, transcending both its own European racial and cultural heritage and any racially or culturally specific Asia’."
Katzenstein (2000)
Thinkwanks
19 February 2007
Bureaucratic activism - Dr Elbaradei (IAEA)
- The current security system is not sustainable because it is not equitable. States have legitimate security concerns that need to be met. For example Iran feels threatened by 140,000 US troops in Iraq, quasi-nuclear Israel, nuclear Russia, nuclear Pakistan and a history of regional conflict - these perceived vulnerabilities need to be offset somehow.
- Need an international security system that does not rely on nuclear weapons. So long as one state has them, proliferation will happen. Proliferation is not a technological issue, but a threat perception issue. Proliferants tend to be in unstable regions - the instability is a root cause of proliferation and must be addressed.
- Current peace and security architecture ignores the plight of those less strategically relevant (DRC, Rwanda, Sudan, etc). A new system needs to be based on human security. The individual right to security is entwined with the right to peace, dignity and freedom.
- There is a contradiction between nuclear weapons states modernising their arsenals (eg: UK Trident) while at the same time preaching to nuclear aspirants that nuclear weapons are not the path to their security. What possible use do nuclear weapons states have for 27,000 warheads "short of an alien invasion." Despite the legal obligations under the NPT, the issue needs political resolution.
- The unilateral approach to security is easier ("instant gratification"), but delivers less long-term benefits. Multilateralism is harder but the only way.
- On Iran, engagement is necessary. Sanctions are only one tool and need to be supplemented by direct engagement. "Isolation strengthens the hardliners, engagement empowers the moderates." Need also to deal with the longstanding bilateral grievances between the US and Iran.
- Elbaradei was particularly taken by Bill Clinton's view - Powerful states needs to build a world they would want to live in should they ever cease to be the big guys on the block.
Dogs that ride
18 February 2007
News from a firehose
17 February 2007
The webification of talking heads
Here for example is a link to a dialogue with Francis Fukuyama on the way forward in Iraq
16 February 2007
Funk was born again in Nigeria
14 February 2007
On the Obama-Osama-Ohmamamia saga.....
13 February 2007
Climate change projections
9 February 2007
Without direct attribution....
Firstly, British policy in the Middle East is viewed within the region in the context of its prior imperial activities. Coloniser Britain acted on a civilising mission, driven by British ideals and values. Contemporary efforts are likewise driven by values-based foreign policy (democracy, human rights, etc). The latter bears more than a passing resemblance to the former. Western states need to move away from the presumption that they can 'decide what to do about the middle east'. The contemporary region is less and less amenable to the imposition of external priorities. The old 'hub and spoke' world view is outdated and delusional.
Second, there exists a perception in the Middle East that 'values' of Britain and the US are infused with Christianity - and that western countries lack self-awareness of this. Even if not embodied in the structures of state, Islam is culturally important to middle-eastern countries. The rationalisation of western foreign policy in terms of 'values' can be interpreted as a threat to the place of Islam in society. Democracy is not viewed as a universal value but western, and a trojan horse for westernisation. Further, conservative (not radical) societies support some values (human rights) but not necessarily others (democracy). This value structure is deeply embedded and must be respected.
Finally, policy makers should focus their energies on embedding human rights norms in the middle east (an attainable goal) rather than seeking to impose democracy. Iraq demonstrates that elections and parliaments are not sufficient foundations for stable societies. Further, democracy can serve to legitimise and mainstream radical fringe groups.
Interesting thoughts, appearing here in slimmed down form.
8 February 2007
The problem with Chatham House is...
7 February 2007
A Democrat vision of US foreign policy 2008
1. US should act as a 'fulcrum, not a foil', of multilateralism. Need to rebuild trust between the UN and US. The United Nations must focus 'less on multilateralism's desirability and more on its doability' - ie: outcomes will increase esteem for its work. US should expand engagement with regional organisations and non-state actors (global governance considerations increasingly important).
2. The US needs a strategic outlook that is inclusive of other major powers not defensive against them. Should increase the stakes of other powers in global peace - this would be a more reliable base than US hegemony alone. Special focus required on relationship with China, Europe, Russia. Good signs with cooperation on Iran and North Korea. Common approach to non-core strategic issues like Darfur required.
3. US should be a security enhancer, not detractor. Increased focus on diplomacy required - 'Diplomacy is not a dirty word' and resort to it is "something real men can do." In disputes, US needs to emphasise 'policy change not regime change.' This worked in the case of Libya where proliferation policy, not political differences, drove effective diplomacy. Force must be used more judiciously. Security priorities should be 1) Terrorism - not monolithic and needs a nuanced response. Impact of terrorism is 'more Shakespeare than statistics' - ie: be realistic about the threat. Current engagement on terrorism one-way - allies such as Egypt, Indonesia may question value of cooperation. 2) Arab-Israeli dispute - Bush White House the first in four decades not to prioritise resolution of the conflict. 3) Iran - need a broad approach to the Iran-US relationship and recognition that it is a regional power. Must give sanctions time to work (see Jentleson's recent paper on Iran here). 4) Darfur - genocide unacceptable (Bush policy on Darfur not bad).
4. Development efforts should prioritise 'human security' beyond simply 'democracy promotion'. No democracy can be stable unless it delivers development dividends. 'Good governance' would be a better focus that 'democracy'. Need to build structures that recognise countries' different stages of economic and political development. Fukuyama was wrong when he suggested political/economic evolution would end with liberal market democracy. Poverty and inequality were missing dimensions of his analysis - and are key drivers of current global dissonance.
5. US should be a leader on global environment issues, not a laggard. US public debate is well behind that of Europe/UK. With leadership, US science could deploy its significant capabilities. Technology is an important part of the solution.
6. Must renew the domestic foundations of US foreign policy. Need to have house in order to act as a example to the world of how countries should be run. Katrina reflected badly on US priorities. Domestic debate needs to be freed up. 'Dissent is not disloyalty.'
He would not be drawn on which presidential candidate had enlisted his services (he advised the Kerry-Edwards campaign in '04), but suggested that candidates need to focus on ideas - what they would DO if elected as opposed to what they oppose. Further, '08 would be about US job security as much as it would be about Iraq.
5 February 2007
Top ten ripping guitar solos ever...
The bottling of 'Aussie values'.
However, I think this is an interesting question - to what degree do we allow firms to sell us an idealised version of ourselves for profit. Qantas says very little about the mechanics of flying in its advertisements. You'd think 'Qantas' was a touring children's choir, a beach holiday broker, or a government department devoted to building national self-love. They do very well out of us too. So long as our superannuation investments are the primary beneficiaries, Qantas' profit is not a bad thing. But in the hands of private equity the profit will be split by the few. The jobs are important, but should we still love Qantas?
Does anyone else find such a rip-off objectionable? Perhaps the fact that Proctor&Gamble has an office in Australia excuses this. Is it any different to Qantas? It's not like they're saying bad things about us, or our 'values'. I just find it slightly creepy that our character as a nation can literally be bottled for profit - with zero benefit to our country. Who do you tell? The WTO? Ban Ki-Moon?
The retro-rationale of the neo-cons
"......... We have made a lot of mistakes in Iraq. But when Arabs kill Arabs and shiites kill Shiites and Sunnis kill all in a spasm of violence that is blind and furious and has roots in hatreds born long before America was even a republic, to place the blame on the one player, the one country, the one military that has done more than any other to try to separate the combatants and bring conciliation is simply perverse. It infantilizes Arabs. It demonizes Americans. It willfully overlooks the plainest of facts: Iraq is their country. We midwifed their freedom. They chose civil war."
There are no easy answers to the Iraq quagmire, but here we have the emerging neo-con defence of their Iraq policy - It was a valiant attempt, with soaringly worthy goals, but pesky extraneous factors beyond our control got in the way, and so ...... hands washed, self-perception intact. Read the story here.
Fun in the big city
En route home we passed through a moonlit Trafalgar Square (the jetstream of a passing plane was lit up like a comet. A choreographer had collaborated with some IT/lighting supremos to create an interactive version of Swan Lake. As we danced across the square, spotlights followed us, and lights shimmered to create a ripples-on-water effect. It reacted to our every step - truly amazing. I rode home past the raucus Leicester Square spillover, the clamour of Camden and the quiet chilly streets of Gospel Oak.
As I bike past nightlit monuments (Westminster, Downing St, Buckingham Palace, Nelson's Column) I can't help but feel like they've all been minaturised and floodlit just for my benefit. They're all so small next to their reputations. And so unnoticed at night by the passing traffic. Who would suspect that the lonely late night cyclist was enthralled beyond his boots.
Pictures of other weekend sightings below. Life is good.
Open day at London Council - flash!
2 February 2007
FTAs in Asia - The Indonesian perspective
Points of interest follow:
- Distinct contrast between her views of FTAs as an academic (the product of "bureaucratic entrepreneurs") and as a practitioner (a necessary step in the absence of multilateral movement). RTAs are here to stay and will continue to proliferate. Indonesia late to the game but negotiating bilateally and with ASEAN with China, Korea, Japan, India, Aust/NZ, Europe. No likelihood of EFTA negotiations except as a "practice FTA" - resources too stretched already.
- But concerned at the 'spagetti bowl' effect of proliferating trade agreements in Asia (trade diverting and distorting). Keen to focus ASEAN on common negotiations and harmonisation of tariffs across FTAs.
- Need to focus on FTAs that facilitate market forces not increase business cost. Prefer FTAs that include multiple members - sliding scale of usefulness from multilateral through regional/ plurilateral to bilateral.
- Keen on APEC guidelines on FTA best practise - perhaps the WTO should accept FTA reality an focus energies on ensuring they are not trade damaging.
- Prospect of an APEC FTA limited. US keen, Australia "largely supportive", Asia less interested. Too many different economies to easily harmonise. Prospect of an APEC FTA not likely to be effective as a tool to encourage EU to give more in the Doha round (apparently the threat of APEC pushed the EU to the line in the Uruguay round....)
- Strongly pushing ASEAN's 2015 Blueprint for liberalisation in flows of trade, capital, investment, services and labour.
- ASEAN insisting on capacity building clauses in all new FTAs (Indonesia particularly seeking assistance on SPS issues - EU rule changes on shrimps challenging). Negotiating capacity of DCs stretched by concurrent FTAs. Also in some agreements seeking undertakings on increased investment as well as lower tariffs (Japan).
- Rules of origin have been an issue in some FTA negotiations (India) but not others (China).
- On the shape of regional integration, likely to begin with ASEAN, and ASEAN + 1 as a priority, then ASEAN + 3 and ASEAN + 6.
- No sensible talk of common regional currency - would require macro-coordination. Need to follow sequence of trade>macro-economic>monetary integration. In the meantime financial market coordination is important.
- On Indonesia specifically, noted the presence of reformist and non-reformist strands in parliament and public. Decentralisation of power a challenge to the implementation of common fees etc - direct election of governors will help. Anti-corruption drive making some gains but needs to filter down from islands of best practise - people need to 'own the issue'. Investment Law was more contested within parliament than public (contrary to expectations). Biggest challenge in reform is selling the message to the public - need subsidies to ease pain of adjustment. Some sectors must be protected (rice).
- On movement in the Doha Round she said she's moved from "suspended pessimism to cautious optimism" after Davos.
- Initiatives on south-south trade unlikely to extend beyond Asia, although Africa a prospect after discussions with South Africa - will not be PTAs - they don't work.
- Keen for academic research into design of 'good' FTAs.